For those of you who hadn't seen it, here is the first half of "Submission", the film that got Theo van Gogh killed and Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the run for her life. It is pretty gripping.

This week's reading on the commercial influences in scientific research.

I'd actually heard of serious cryonics before - and of Alcor, which seems to be the biggest name in the business. I've even come across discussions online with people who've elected to have their heads removed and frozen for future 'revival'.

       Needless to say: this is not a topic that comes up a lot in every day conversation.

       The linked Guardian piece on a 'not quite up to par' British cryonics team is good for a laugh and sheds a little bit on insight on to how some cryonics enthusiasts think.

       My favourite bit: 'How would they like the world to have changed when they return? "It would be nice to come back and have a proper democracy," Mark says'

       I really don't know what to think about this.

I just realized the National Post has a religion blog called Holy Post (AMAZING)that I'm going to be web-stalking here on in. This article is by Barbara Kay on religious symbols in public schools. While I'm not for displays of religious authority in public schools (cross above chalkboard, etc.), I think it's damaging to limit the religious expression of students. We can't forget that often religious expression is synonymous with cultural expression, and Kay's statement, "group bonding at school is best accelerated and reinforced by as much external sameness as possible," screams a kind of forced assimilation based on identity loss. External sameness?? Group bonding? This isn't a defense of secular society, this is a propagation of total visual uniformity and socialized group think. I definitely don't want to be in Kay's described scenario- the beauty of a (potential) secular society is that everyone could march to their own beat. Thoughts?

” Liberalism ‘desocializes’ the individual, in other words, drawing a veil over his inherently social qualities and treating them as purely individual possessions instead. A consequence is that it becomes much more difficult to see why people should have any responsibility for each other’s welfare, and thus to engage in collective action within the group. If people do not depend on each other for their identities then each is ‘his own man’ and by implication owed nothing to his fellows except perhaps to leave them alone. Self-interest is thereby constituted as the appropriate relationship of Self to Other, which in effect creates the collective action problem, but to do so it must forget the Self’s dependence on the Other’s recognition of his rights and identities. Thus, since that dependence could be threatened by being self-interested all the way down, liberalism arguably contains a deep tension between its legitimation of self-interest and the fact that individuals have an objective interest in the group which makes their individuality possible. This tension may underlie some of the worry today in the West about the erosion of community values in favour of individual self-interest. “

       From Social Theory of International Politics.

       Thoughts?

A beautiful video describing the rewards and acclamations that await the Muslim martyr, in the words of Muslim clerics. It's hard to watch this video through and not be moved by the beautiful imagery they describe; which makes their implications all the more horrific.

       Watch it all the way through, and ask yourself, where do these images come from? Why these specific ones (virgin embraces, salt water becoming fresh, missiles from planes turning into kisses from angels, etc)? It is not hard to imagine any leader from any nation/religion using such imagery to inspire their army, to get them to die for the cause.

       Ultimately, we may laugh at their 'black eyed virgins' image, but have you noticed that Christian angels are almost always depicted as attractive young women? If I had to guess, I'd say it's the same reason Labatt's uses that image: hot young women sell (sorry feminists).

This week's article is quite different from our usual fare. It's an essay on a replacement for GDP as the central economic indicator. It brings up many issues related to evaluating quality of life. The question it provokes from me is without religious doctrine informing us of what the "good life is" how do we think we should evaluate quality of life?

       Also, I'm hoping to hears critiques of the state of the discipline of economics, which needless to say, has attracted some scorn in the wake of the current financial meltdowns.

So, after reading Yervant's post on a couple days ago, we ended up getting into a discussion about national ideologies. Though I'd never sensed the "lack of ambition" Canadian ideology that Yervant goes into(which I suppose makes sense, because if it is a present ideology, I would have taken it entirely for granted and never acknowledged its influence over my behavior), I thought Zizek, using the lovely examples of toilets and defecation, points to a similar point- our most minor behavior is reflective of ideology central to national identity.

I dare you to watch this clip and not get emotional. Carl Sagan had a way with language and the ability to both explain science and make it accessible, and also to reveal it's beauty and the underlying passion that drives scientists in a way that is both breathtakingly epic and intimately personal. May he rest in piece - one day you'll be back with the stars Carl.

Do Canadians have no spine? Why do we laugh at American shows when they mock us? Why do we talk about American politics as though they were our own?

       There is something wrong with our country and everyone knows it. But everyone in Canada is, for some reason, afraid to talk about it.

       Unlike Americans, Canadians shy away from broadcasting their displeasure about our nation. They don’t want to rock the boat. They believe that if they draw attention to this country’s shortcomings, they might upset some delicate balance. What are we afraid of? If we see something that is wrong, shouldn’t we inform people about it? Or will we sit around forever while Canada remains a loser country?

       Canadians have a cultural distrust of ambition. We fear it, and fear that those who foster it risk pushing our country down the slippery slope to American-style greed and corporate culture. We have cowered behind this excuse for long enough. We can’t be forever molding our culture around the fear that we will ‘become too American’.

       A Canadian almost prides himself on being better than an American: more intelligent, more ethical, more globally aware, more environmentally conscientious. Is this boastful pride warranted? Or is it merely compensation for the inferiority we feel to the US? Unable to equal them, do we comfort ourselves with that label, ‘moral’?

       And is it true that we are helpless to compete against America? We have seen the vast majority of successful internet sites, such as Google, Yahoo, and Facebook, arise from America. But Americans don’t have any natural advantage over Canadians in the digital world. The technology is the same in both nations. It is our timidity that denies us victory.

       We need a shift in mindset. First, as a nation we need to admit that greed can sometimes be good. Greed is the true mother of invention. And we need to stop being so god-damn Canadian. So put down your vegan burgers, your fair-trade coffees, and grow a pair. Victory belongs to the bold. Ultimately, you will have no-one to blame but yourself.

If you have an ounce of critical thinking, listening to this woman will make your head explode... seriously.

       "The goal of the *elite* is to diminish the population of the world by 2/3rds". This woman is at the vangaurd of the anti-vax movement. Movements such as these have hurt thousands of lives throughout the years.

Here is the new reading. It's about blasphemy laws, and how they are making a resurgence in the modern world. The UN has been debating a resolution that would encourage censorship of anti-religious sentiment, or simply any statement that would offend the religious.

       So what do you think? Is blasphemy censorship understandable in some cases? What about any censorship at all?

This is a review in New Scientist magazine of Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth". It's a lukewarm critical review though the critique seems limited to Dawkins' rhetorical form and popular perception rather than his book per se.

I thought this was beautiful, and on-topic enough to add. Make sure you watch it in HD and on full screen. Makes anyone into an instant environmentalist.