The Scourge of Online Anonymity

I have spent the better part of my life, it seems, writing letters to the editor and occasionally newspaper articles. Never once, during all those years did I ever think twice about the publications' policies requiring the use of the writer's real name. My reasoning is, if I have something worthwhile to say, I will stand behind it with my identity disclosed.

On the Internet, however, these requirements do no seem to apply, as newspapers and other publications with readers' forums allow for the use of pseudonyms, an identity-concealing facility I have never availed myself of.

Judging by any perusal of such sites, however, it is readily apparent that anonymity frequently lowers the level of discourse to mere sniping and hate-mongering. With rare exceptions I have stopped, for example, reading the comments following Globe articles, as the first few may be insightful, but what invariably ensues are attacks on the constructive commentator's politics or intelligence. The term used to describe such attackers is trolls.

Alternet, one of my favorite alternative news and commentary sites, has an interesting article entitled Why Online Comments Are So Toxic. Written by Lisa Selin Davis, it is well-worth reading.

Media Quietude Over Climate Change

A few months ago, when we were seeing mid-summer temperatures during early spring, I remember Tom Brown, the CTV weatherman, looking grim and saying words to the effect that "This is something we all need to be concerned about." It was, I assume, a brave but oblique allusion to climate change.

Why brave? Since it was an observation never again repeated, I assume old Tom knew he was treading dangerously close to something that the corporate ownership of CTV does not want discussed, lest it offend sponsors or potential sponsors whose ultimate message is to consume like there is no tomorrow (rather prescient in some ways, aren't they?)

I had occasion to think about that reference last evening as I was watching my local news, and there was a report on the extreme weather we have been experiencing this summer (extreme humidity, drought, and sudden destructive storms), yet not a word was said about the broader implications of this weather.

Earlier this month, The Guardian ran a story by Amy Goodman, who is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 1,000 public television and radio stations worldwide. In it, she observed that in U.S. reporting,

The phrase "extreme weather" flashes across television screens from coast to coast, but its connection to climate change is consistently ignored, if not outright mocked.

In her column today in The Toronto Star, Linda McQuaig, makes similar observations about the cone of silence that permeates weather news in Canada:

CBC TV’s The National announced a report on this summer’s “wicked weather.”

...But the report focused on “storm chasers” — people who follow tornadoes for a hobby. And it raised the question of whether the wild weather could affect our insurance rates. Not a word about whether the unusual heat, drought and storms could be a symptom of what we’re doing to the planet.

McQuaig goes on to suggest:

...the issue seems to have lost its cachet with media managers, who apparently consider it too negative or tedious for audiences they feel obliged to entertain. Media commentators tend to ignore it or dismiss it, apparently afraid of looking too earnest or Earth-hugging, and therefore out of sync with our money-driven corporate culture.

I guess it is a truism to say that we are a very short-sighted species that prefers to ignore things until they can no longer be ignored. We seem to have reached that point, but one has to wonder how long it will be before the mainstream media acknowledge that fact.

Chris Hedges On The Perversion Of Scholarship

One of my favorite writers, Chris hedges, continues to do via alternative news what is so rare today in the mainstream media: challenge the status quo.

His latest salvo is against the tyranny of conformity endemic in post-secondary institutions which, he posits, are no longer places where one goes to learn how to think, but rather where one goes to be told what to think.

Hedges suggests that the veneration of athletes and their coaches, admittedly greater in the United States than in Canada, is symptomatic of the pervasive influence of the corporate agenda on places of higher learning.

Hedges reserves his greatest contempt for the Big Ten Conference colleges where, he suggests:

The student is implicitly told his or her self-worth and fulfillment are found in crowds, in mass emotions, rather than individual transcendence. Those who do not pay deference to the celebration of force, wealth and power become freaks. It is a war on knowledge in the name of knowledge.

He says much more in the column, which I hope you will get the opportunity to check out on Truthdig.

Sayed Shah Sharifi Arrives In Canada

Thanks to the doggedness of The Toronto Star, for whom social justice and journalistic integrity are more than mere words, the long tale of Sayed Shah Sharifi, the Afghan interpreter, is finally over.

In a world where victories are often few and far between for the 'good guys,' today is a day we all should celebrate the fact that despite all of the efforts by Immigration Jason Kenney to prevent his immigration to Canada, likely out of spite for making a public fuss over delays, Sharifi is now safely in Canada.

You can read the full story here.

The Cost of Profound Ignorance

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I have to admit that the profoundly ignorant deeply distress me, especially those who revel in that ignorance, wear it as a faux badge of independent critical thinking, and refuse to entertain the possibility of error.

Take, for example, climate-change deniers. Despite the overwhelming evidence that it is taking place, indeed, accelerating at unanticipated rates (see, as an illustration, Kev's graphic at Trapped in a Whirlpool) and has almost universal agreement amongst scientists that it is mainly human-caused, they blithely dismiss such data as mere 'opinion.'

I had reason to reflect upon this sad fact the other day when I ran into a neighbourhood woman walking her dog. As is the norm when talking to people we don't know well, we discussed the weather, specifically the incessant heat, humidity, and drought that has plagued my part of the country this summer.

While I realize that the volatility and harshness of any one season cannot be attributed to climate change, I opined that perhaps we are paying for our environmental 'sins.' Immediately she snorted and pointed out that there had been a dustbowl in the thirties. I responded by saying that the problem now, unlike the thirties, is that a pattern has clearly emerged in which the frequency and extent of meteorological volatility stands in marked contrast with previous periods.

She informed me that she doesn't 'believe' in climate change, and that the aberrations we are now experiencing are simply part of 'natural cycles.' Her logic eluded me, and I had to wonder when belief in scientific data became optional and simply a matter of opinion.

It does not bode well for our survival as a species, does it?

Well, time to go out for a bike ride. This morning is one of the few days this summer without a humidex.

UPDATE: The Guardian reports the following:

In a survey of more than 1,000 readers of websites related to climate change, people who agreed with free market economic principles and endorsed conspiracy theories were more likely to dispute that human-caused climate change was a reality.

As well, you might find this of interest: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

A Remarkable Revelation!

I am a person who believes in a transcendent reality. I mention this only to provide a context for the book I am currently reading entitled Paranormal: My Life in Pursuit of the Afterlife, written by Raymond Moody, the psychiatrist who for the past four decades has done pioneering work in the near-death experience.

While reading the memoir, I have come to the point where Moody is talking about his psychiatric residency, during which he interacted with an array of the mentally diseased, including those in the maximum-security wing for the criminally insane.

On page 123, he talks about one night finding three cards with the seal of the Secret Service on his desk with the following message (all ensuing italics are mine):

If this individual escapes from your institution, do not fail to contact the United States Secret Service!

Moody then found that he had three new patients, and "all of them had been rounded up by the Secret Service and dropped at our institution for safekeeping. President Ronald Reagan was in town, and the people assigned to protect him came in advance and institutionalized those who were thought to pose a threat during his visit."

Moody goes on to say the men were very angry about being detained until Reagan left town.

And that's all he has to say about the episode.

While I realize to the seasoned student of human nature, this is an entirely credible story about U.S. constitutional violation of its citizen's rights, I wonder if anyone can shed light on American past practices of labelling people as mentally ill in order to neutralize threats or opposition voices.

Reminiscent as it is of the Russian tendency to relegate political opponents to the gulag, I eagerly await information about this patent abuse of power.

The Harper Attack On Canadian Values

As I have written elsewhere in this blog, for various reasons I have never believed that democratically elected governments are necessarily a reflection of the values or the will of the electorate. I have also written of my strong belief that governments do, however, have a potentially huge impact on the national ethos. By their policies, rhetoric and treatment of opposing ideas, governments can and I suspect do frequently deform the souls of nations.

The eloquent lead letter in today's print edition of The Star reminds us all of how far Harper Inc. has taken us down a road that darkly deviates from the things that our country has traditionally held dear:

Supposedly, our federal government acts in the best interests of citizens. Ample evidence proves otherwise. On matters of immigration, human rights and justice, they not only break faith, but act with an unbelievable lack of humanity and compassion.

When the Supreme Court decreed that Omar Khadr’s rights had been violated, that young man still agreed to plead guilty and face a longer sentence in order to return to Canada. The United States expected Canada to act immediately; the government has still stalled.

Only after extreme pressure from citizens has the government lived up to its obligation to give shelter to Afghan interpreter Sayed Shah Sharifi, even though his aid to Canadians was verified by the military and foreign correspondents. He has been told that he has a seat reserved on a flight to Canada on July 28. Again, the government moved with extreme reluctance.

In an unbelievably petty and cruel bureaucratic ruling, a Canadian woman who has lived here since the age of 4 and has taught generations of Canadian schoolchildren, is being denied Old Age Security because she could not supply landing papers showing the date that she arrived here from England. What absolute nonsense.

At one time, Canada had visitors from abroad to learn about our increasingly progressive prison system under Commissioner Ole Ingstrup. Sadly, we have regressed and are now considered below UN standards.

When Public Safety Minister Vic Toews passes on to the next world, I fervently pray that he is placed in a “perfectly appropriate” double-bunk situation for a minimum of one year. It will be too late to help current prisoners, but it is a sentence that I feel the minister deserves.

I resent intensely this government that to me represents ever more frequently a betrayal of Canadian values and that persists in diminishing the Canada that I love. When the next election rolls around, my vote will be ABC.

Shirley Bush, Toronto