(Recommended Artist: Nujabes – Reflection Eternal)

Many of those products we buy serve the “unnecessary” purpose of maintaining or modifying our persona, or public image. This might be a new watch, a cell phone with more features than necessary, a high performance car or a shirt with a little logo that’s worth far more than the shirt itself.

Is there something wrong with this? Perhaps, but I suspect that what drives people to engage in such “irrational” behaviour is inherent to human nature. Sure, the thought of spending 400$ on pants seems ridiculous to me, but this is only because a) there are other things I want to buy b) my budget may be more limited than others.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Language is a tool for us to express ourselves to others, and also to express our own thoughts to ourselves. It serves for communication, entertainment and philosophy (which includes science). Its important role in society suggests that by improving language, we could perhaps bring significant changes to the whole of society. The differences may be subtle, but if language is the frameworks of our minds, then an improvement in language will be an improvement in how we perceive ourselves, society and the natural world.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

A few days ago, I was at a friend’s house where we just had casual conversation and relaxed, doing little of significance. At one point, while she was outside, I decided to take out my wallet from my pocket — I’m more comfortable with empty pockets –, but then I paused, realizing that I might forget about it, and that if I did, she might think that I had intentionally left it there (something that would, interestingly, never cross my mind were she a man). But, I thought: “I won’t forget about it and it’s unhealthy to worry about others assigning motives to our every action”. I did forget it and the next day she called me, briefly stopped by on her way to work and gave it to me. I still don’t know if she assigned a purpose to my action (that I put the wallet on the table so as to have an excuse to meet her again), or if she assumed that I had just left it there by accident (that I put it on the table because I was more comfortable that way). Probably not, since we’ve been friends for a long time, but with new encounters this is a indeed something that can lead to misinterpretations.

This may perhaps seem insignificant, but this pattern where our actions may be fueled by distinct desires to either serve a certain social purpose or satisfy a personal pleasure, and where we worry about being misinterpreted, seems to represent a significant part of our most petty social dilemmas. There is sometimes a lack of fluidity in our actions, where we have to worry about following invisible rules and being interpreted. I suspect that, on the whole, this is something that is unwanted in the ideal society, though it may be something that is just part of our nature.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

In Montreal, it is no longer possible to smoke inside of restaurants and bars. There was resistance at first, but the anti-tobacco law is now part of the past and done and it seems to have popular support. But was it the right choice? Many will consider the answer to this question obvious, but this does not mean that we should not analyze and critique this law, for what is popular is not necessarily right. I have found that my question — “was it the right choice?” — will probably be impossible to answer with certainty, but even then, I believe the question highlights a problem for which there is an answer, a solution; there is a compromise to be made that should satisfy both those who lean both towards a liberal and collectivist interpretation of this political question.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

(Recommended Artist: Thievery Corporation – Until the Morning)

One inherent difficulty in producing article that allows readers to have an objective understanding of the material offered is the reality that the facts do not always portray the whole issue accurately. Consider, for example, this article on how Amazon.com recently removed some books that had homosexual content from their “top selling” ranking system. After fury in the blogosphere, they claimed that it was a computer glitch.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Poland has decided that to ride a bike drunk is a jailable offense. When convicted for such a terrible, oh so terrible crime, you will likely get not one night behind bars, but 11.5 months (two thousand are in jail for this). I’m not sure if I’m amused or troubled, shocked or laughing, but the law can definitely be branded with the “stupid” tag.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

There was perhaps no financial incentive for Michael Moore to take an intelligent and sensible approach to firearm laws — people like to see a black and white approach to political issues, and they like a touch of humour –, but that doesn’t change the fact that Bowling for Columbine is a shitty documentary. By that I mean that, though it is great entertainment, it’s a terrible and misleading documentary on firearm-related issues.

Now, don’t get me wrong: my issue is not with his belief that firearm ownership should be limited by the government, my issue is not with his opinion, but with his approach to the question. My own opinion is that the widespread ownership of firearms is harmful to society and that many of the arguments — such as the right to protect oneself from the government and to hunt — are not arguments in favour of the private ownership of firearms. As for actual policies concerned with firearms, I find it quite clear that there are several well-accepted and positive breeches of individual rights that are on the same level as regulating firearms, so I find arguments about how it is “none of the government’s business” to be rather simple-minded; it’s just about the line we set between the private ownership of nuclear arms and the private ownership of butter knives. However, I believe that the tools that the government can use to restrict firearms ownership — such as banning certain or all models, creating a registry, levying special taxes etc — are limited and that existing laws should be scrutinised to see how they apply in real life.

It’s not because I believe that firearm ownership should be limited that I should support any law that intends to limit the ownership of firearms. This may seem obvious to some, but I am quite convinced that it is not obvious to most; if I advocated the end or extension of the Canadian Firearms Registry to a person who knows nothing of the Registry except that it is there to limit firearm ownership, I would almost certainly get a knee-jerk reaction that paints the Registry as either good or bad based not on how well it fulfills its precise goals, but on whether or not firearms are “good” or “bad” according to that person. This is a ridiculous mistake that people make when approaching many of these popular political issues.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

Free speech is often claimed to be one of the natural rights granted to us by our very existence and it is perceived as an absolute that may never be treaded upon. To disagree, it is suggested, is to side with the ideals of authoritarianism, with the enemies of liberty.

According to this, expressing hateful ideals should not be a crime, even if the focus is on breeding division and fueling hate. Social ostracization would serve as a fair and natural censor and only pen would have the right to fight the pen. The government, however, would have no right to interfere, regardless of popular opinion.

But what should we do when people — be it as individuals or as a society — are worried that unregulated free speech is being used to cause suffering? Indeed, free speech is commonly used to cause suffering, such as to insult others, but no sane mind could claim that it should always be illegal to cause suffering.

So, how can we discriminate between simply hurting the feelings of others, such as might happen if one notes that the crime rate is highest amongst a certain group, and threatening others, as happened when James Scott Richardson and Alex Kulbashian decided to start the Tri-City Skins and Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team websites. These two individuals, and more like them, have been fined by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, showing that the government is ready to punish people who put free speech to vile ends, even if those ends are only threatening in a very indirect way and towards no individual in particular.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text