New TV series, if I may have ANY interest whatsoever with the show I will record the pilot and judge whether it is worthy of taking up space on my PVR. Several nights ago I finally had the chance to sit down and watch it while doing my nails. Now when I originally watch it, I was intrigued and interested. In fact I initially gave the show my approval. The whole concept of dealing with a modern day Monarchy with real governing powers is very intriguing. However, sleep and time changes everything. Since they needed to create a fictional country with a fictional governing system with fiction wars, they needed to spend a significant amount of time on "setting" the stage so to speak. But that time was wasted on shallow political intrigue and maneuverings. The King orders an assassination of one of his advisers of 15 years because he stood before the King at the end of a meeting. They launch an offensive in their war to scare the other side into peace. They get the peace, celebrate in the streets, then their king launches another offensive to appease his financial backers.
While it is still interesting, they have gone too far. Maybe it is just because there is no western modern day monarchy to compare it to. Maybe it is because the whole premise of a monarchy is so far removed from my reality, that I cannot accept even an alternate reality where there is a monarchy. Whatever the reason, it remains, I cannot watch a TV show where the "alternate reality" isn't believable. I mean I love X-Files, Stargate and other sci-fi shows that bend the laws of reality in some pretty messed up ways, but the key is they bend those laws in accordance to the laws within the reality they have created. Imagine Stargate where one of the worlds was a cartoon world ala Roger Rabbit. It just doesn't work.
Shows that deal with a signfigant departure from our accepted reality need to put a tremdeous amount of effort into keeping it believing within their context, while also flushing out the culture and enviroment within which the show exists. Shows like Star Trek are successful because there is very little cultural crossover. Kings will ultimately die a quick death because culturally, it appears to be set in a typical, American type, present day culture. It is too close to what we have now, and a Monarchy is too far away that we struggle with merging the 2 in our mind. In order for this show to be successful, it would have to be set in the future 20 years or so. The Kingdom could then be formed out of the ashes left after an North American War that began with this economic crisis as the flash point. This allows present technology and ways of life to be preserved, while setting the stage for a Modern Monarchy that is embrolied in the intrigue involved with nation building, wars, and everything else that surrounds that.
In anycase, they have left room open to allow this enviroment to be created, if they can do that in the next couple of episodes (if they even have them) then I may continue to watch. Having said that I am fairly confident that Kings will never be a permanent fixture of my PVR.
In the mean time I will be staying tuned to this masterful series which is nothign short of captivating.....
Extreme Sheep LED
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Short Selling
On March 16th, The Daily Show with John Stewart aired a piece on short selling. Now up until this point I thought "Short Selling" was the practice of intentionally lowering the price of a stock through what I consider to be the "stampede effect." By creating movement in the price of a stock, casual traders see that downward movement get scared, stampede like cattle, sell off everything driving the price down to an undervalued low. The "Short Seller" would then snap up these stock that were undervalued, using the liquidity that was gained through created the stampede, essentially multiplying the number of stocks they hold. As normalcy returns, they now have stocks that are worth the same as they were last week, but they have more of them by capitalizing on the stampede. I did not have any particular opinion on this matter as in order to succeed, the stock ultimately had to recover from it's demise. However this piece showed me that either my knowledge was wrong, or was simply talking about another practice, so I decided to get some education on what 'Short Selling' was.
So thanks to the all knowing and powerful entity only referred to as "Wiki," I now have some of the basics about short selling within my understanding. Basically, "Short Sellers" are borrowing a stock, selling that stock (which they do not own) then when the stock goes down, they buy the stock back to return to the original holder of the stock. I'm no financial genius, I certainly have never even taken a business course, in fact spending 30 minutes reading the Wiki on Short Selling, has expanded my knowledge of financial markets by an order of magnitude. But this seems fundamentally flawed.
People knowledgeable about the markets claim that short selling is a vital part of the process. When the downward march began in September 2008, bans on short selling were enacted by many of the G20 countries. Those bans have been lifted in many cases with the financial gurus claiming the ban was a mistake. I fail to see how it could possibly be a mistake. Right now there are some very scared, very stupid, people out there increasing the downward trend that current conditions have created. Every day that passes without a end in sight, that stampede only attracts more investors. Seemingly this would create an environment where short sellers are then gods capitalizing on every scared citizen out there who just wants to be able to retire. Now add to that the fact that the Daily Show has also pointed out the major financial news network, CNBC, has in many ways been completely and total abdicated their responsibility to confirm facts, independent of the lies being told to them by CEO's. What moron would assume that a CEO, whose primary responsibility is to protect the shareholder's value, would go on CNBC and say "Well we are in bad shape, I honestly don't know if we will be bankrupt in one month or two." It is their JOB their entire meaning of existence to create positive expectation for their company. CNBC did nothing. In fact their failure to report the truth, could easily be taken as hiding the truth from the average person and thus allowing them personally to make their moves to capitalize on the inevitable downswing.
These financial reporters and investigators are not idiots, they are aware of how short selling works. They find out that a company is going to tank, like Bear Sterns, they fail to report that while they set up their short sell, the higher the price of the stock when they begin the short sell transaction, the more they profit. So they go on TV and report only what they have been explicitly told by the CEO's and fail to mention the dirty little "unconfirmed" secret they uncovered. This generates false promise in the stock, they then just sit back and wait for the inevitable and cackle gleefully all the way to the bank when Bear Sterns drops from $65ish to $2 in 5 days. Every $1000 worth of "borrowed stock" would result in a profit of $970 minus the cost of borrow the stock, which even if I used an extremely high number of 7%, still results in $900 profit for every $1000 borrowed. For someone to be able to profit like that from simply not going live with information that would devalue the company, is wrong in every sense of the worse. Warren Buffet, you may be a financial god, but I must believe your insistence on the "good" of short selling, is backed more by your desire to profit from this bear market, then your desire to protect the average person approaching retirement.
The fact that someone can make insane profit from the absolute destruction of a stocks value, is a very troubling notion that should raise the ire of anyone who has any common sense. It is well known that it is easier to drag someone down, then to lift yourself up. By allowing a system where savagely destroying a stocks value can result in massive profits, you are rewarding people for creating fear and giving them incentive to destroy the lives of people holding that stock, and the employees of that company. While I know any money earned is ultimately taken from other people, this seems like a malicious perversion of that theory. This financial crisis speaks to the extreme weakness of the free market economy and ultimately the solution likely requires a diversion from the debt based economy we now have.
So thanks to the all knowing and powerful entity only referred to as "Wiki," I now have some of the basics about short selling within my understanding. Basically, "Short Sellers" are borrowing a stock, selling that stock (which they do not own) then when the stock goes down, they buy the stock back to return to the original holder of the stock. I'm no financial genius, I certainly have never even taken a business course, in fact spending 30 minutes reading the Wiki on Short Selling, has expanded my knowledge of financial markets by an order of magnitude. But this seems fundamentally flawed.
People knowledgeable about the markets claim that short selling is a vital part of the process. When the downward march began in September 2008, bans on short selling were enacted by many of the G20 countries. Those bans have been lifted in many cases with the financial gurus claiming the ban was a mistake. I fail to see how it could possibly be a mistake. Right now there are some very scared, very stupid, people out there increasing the downward trend that current conditions have created. Every day that passes without a end in sight, that stampede only attracts more investors. Seemingly this would create an environment where short sellers are then gods capitalizing on every scared citizen out there who just wants to be able to retire. Now add to that the fact that the Daily Show has also pointed out the major financial news network, CNBC, has in many ways been completely and total abdicated their responsibility to confirm facts, independent of the lies being told to them by CEO's. What moron would assume that a CEO, whose primary responsibility is to protect the shareholder's value, would go on CNBC and say "Well we are in bad shape, I honestly don't know if we will be bankrupt in one month or two." It is their JOB their entire meaning of existence to create positive expectation for their company. CNBC did nothing. In fact their failure to report the truth, could easily be taken as hiding the truth from the average person and thus allowing them personally to make their moves to capitalize on the inevitable downswing.
These financial reporters and investigators are not idiots, they are aware of how short selling works. They find out that a company is going to tank, like Bear Sterns, they fail to report that while they set up their short sell, the higher the price of the stock when they begin the short sell transaction, the more they profit. So they go on TV and report only what they have been explicitly told by the CEO's and fail to mention the dirty little "unconfirmed" secret they uncovered. This generates false promise in the stock, they then just sit back and wait for the inevitable and cackle gleefully all the way to the bank when Bear Sterns drops from $65ish to $2 in 5 days. Every $1000 worth of "borrowed stock" would result in a profit of $970 minus the cost of borrow the stock, which even if I used an extremely high number of 7%, still results in $900 profit for every $1000 borrowed. For someone to be able to profit like that from simply not going live with information that would devalue the company, is wrong in every sense of the worse. Warren Buffet, you may be a financial god, but I must believe your insistence on the "good" of short selling, is backed more by your desire to profit from this bear market, then your desire to protect the average person approaching retirement.
The fact that someone can make insane profit from the absolute destruction of a stocks value, is a very troubling notion that should raise the ire of anyone who has any common sense. It is well known that it is easier to drag someone down, then to lift yourself up. By allowing a system where savagely destroying a stocks value can result in massive profits, you are rewarding people for creating fear and giving them incentive to destroy the lives of people holding that stock, and the employees of that company. While I know any money earned is ultimately taken from other people, this seems like a malicious perversion of that theory. This financial crisis speaks to the extreme weakness of the free market economy and ultimately the solution likely requires a diversion from the debt based economy we now have.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Liberal MLA's...WTF is wrong with you?
Reading my daily dose of news is always a guaranteed way to get my ire up and give me something to discuss. Today the news has not failed me, always some idiot spouting off random crap that they heard from someone who saw it posted on this blog written by some self-righteous wanna-be pundit .... mmm ... wait, that's a little close to home. In any case without further adu, the Alberta government recently passed a non-binding motion calling for an end to mandatory testing in grade three students. You can read about this via CBC. I assume that since CBC is the only place I can readily find actually reporting this news, I usually can safely assume that there is really nothing here to report or at least nothing worthy of my interest. However I was pleasantly surprised at the end of the article by a statement that evoked a WTF!!??!!
The fact that they Tories passed a motion to do away with standardized testing in grade three students is commendable. Students should be eased into having information crammed down their throats and standardized testing turns grade three into nothing more then a knowledge cram fest. So what exactly should the Liberal Education Critic say in response? Instead of poking at Diploma exams, with a "Multi-guess ... hehe ... hehe ... he said guess" in a Beavis and Butthead manner, perhaps there is a way that would reach further and faster then this. Does the Liberal Critic have a point? Yes absolutely, having Diploma exams that consist of entirely multiple choice questions does not appropriately test knowledge. Every person is different and as such testing them requires different approaches. Personally I loved multiple choice questions as I could almost always deduce the correct answer from sheer logic and remembering brief phrases that were mentioned in class. The results of those test showed me "smarter" then I was, and likely penalized others because their method of thinking was less logically based and more abstract. There is a vital need to promote abstract thought processes and develop a system that ensures these people can succeed. Having the majority of abstract thinkers delve into the arts because the current acdemia testing standards label them as "below average" hurts our ability to promote change and ultimately hurts our progress as a society. I am not trying devaluing the arts, just pointing out that abstract thinkers that may test poorly have amazing contributions to make.
This is a great opportunity to address the deficiency in our testing practices that the Liberals have missed out on. Lets make year end testing, especially diploma exams and university level exams, a combination of testing methods. Every final exam should have a take home component, a written "essay" type component (even Math classes can and should do this), multiple choice, long answer, and whatever other form of questioning is common practice. To allow students to not suffer because of their individual weaknesses, make it a standard practice to weigh each component of the testing equally and drop the lowest mark component. This would give a solid representation of each students knowledge and ability to learn while not focusing on weaknesses.
Ahh but herein lies the problem. This kind of expensive testing is expensive to implement, expensive to administer, and expensive to grade. As it stands now in 2008 we spent 15% of our total revenue on basic education. Compare that to just over 10% allocated to surplus. I think we can make room for spending on the education of our successors. We have all contributed to the mess we are forcing them to inherit, I think we should all contribute to giving them every possible tool to deal with those problems.
"Liberal education critic and Calgary-Varsity MLA Harry Chase said standardized tests are a poor way to measure achievement.This is the exact reason why Liberals are a dead party in this province. This is why the Tory's have had majority after majority for the last 38 years. The Liberal Education critic is denouncing multiple choice as means to test knowledge and has reduced them to nothing more then a guessing game. While, like every method of testing, multiple choice has some weak points, it still remains a vital part of an appropriate testing regime. Liberals, if your listening (and I hope you are) you need to follow the advice I give to my son with ADHD every single day..."It's absolutely repulsive, particularly at the Grade 12 level, where two hours of multiple-guess [questions] is the equivalent of an entire year of a Grade 12 student's academic performance," he said.
"Standardized achievement tests … serve a purpose for the government, but they're testing guessing as opposed to testing learning and achievement."
"Stop speaking just for the sake of making noise. It will get people to look at you yes, but they will look at you like you are retarded. Think about what you want to say, then using intelligence and logic, state your opinion."The real problem with politics everywhere in Canada is that no one has any original ideas. Opposition parties oppose everything regardless of what it is. The problem is no one will ever listen to a group of people who simply say "Your doing that wrong" over and over again. Formulate your own ideas independent of whether those ideas support, or erode the governing parties platform. Get elected based on your own platform rather then going to work once every blue moon and simply spouting sound bites that say "The Tories are Bad"
The fact that they Tories passed a motion to do away with standardized testing in grade three students is commendable. Students should be eased into having information crammed down their throats and standardized testing turns grade three into nothing more then a knowledge cram fest. So what exactly should the Liberal Education Critic say in response? Instead of poking at Diploma exams, with a "Multi-guess ... hehe ... hehe ... he said guess" in a Beavis and Butthead manner, perhaps there is a way that would reach further and faster then this. Does the Liberal Critic have a point? Yes absolutely, having Diploma exams that consist of entirely multiple choice questions does not appropriately test knowledge. Every person is different and as such testing them requires different approaches. Personally I loved multiple choice questions as I could almost always deduce the correct answer from sheer logic and remembering brief phrases that were mentioned in class. The results of those test showed me "smarter" then I was, and likely penalized others because their method of thinking was less logically based and more abstract. There is a vital need to promote abstract thought processes and develop a system that ensures these people can succeed. Having the majority of abstract thinkers delve into the arts because the current acdemia testing standards label them as "below average" hurts our ability to promote change and ultimately hurts our progress as a society. I am not trying devaluing the arts, just pointing out that abstract thinkers that may test poorly have amazing contributions to make.
This is a great opportunity to address the deficiency in our testing practices that the Liberals have missed out on. Lets make year end testing, especially diploma exams and university level exams, a combination of testing methods. Every final exam should have a take home component, a written "essay" type component (even Math classes can and should do this), multiple choice, long answer, and whatever other form of questioning is common practice. To allow students to not suffer because of their individual weaknesses, make it a standard practice to weigh each component of the testing equally and drop the lowest mark component. This would give a solid representation of each students knowledge and ability to learn while not focusing on weaknesses.
Ahh but herein lies the problem. This kind of expensive testing is expensive to implement, expensive to administer, and expensive to grade. As it stands now in 2008 we spent 15% of our total revenue on basic education. Compare that to just over 10% allocated to surplus. I think we can make room for spending on the education of our successors. We have all contributed to the mess we are forcing them to inherit, I think we should all contribute to giving them every possible tool to deal with those problems.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Holy Brier Batman!!
Think of curling whatever you will, but for anyone who has ever tried to throw a rock down a sheet of ice and actually have it do anything close to what you intended it to do, you know that curling is a sport of incredible skill.
Alberta's Team Martin has now won 26 straight Brier games and 2 consecutive Brier titles. Truly an amazing feat that they should be proud of. As Albertans and Canadians should also share in that pride. Unfortunately, I have a hard time being proud of the support that is given to these amazing athletes. Which brings me to my topic. The really sad part that I want to discuss is the fact that this victory means a whopping 72 thousand dollars in support from Sports Canada for the next year. What kind of pathetic crap is that?
As Canadians we pay hundreds of dollars to attend Hockey games where fighting is a part of the game. We pay players millions of dollars a year, for what? Sports should be a celebration of fitness, and skill, but what it has turned into is a marketing competition that generates revenue from over sensationalizing the sport. Ultimately, however, Hockey dominates the Canadian sports scene. Why is that? Is it because of the physical prowess, or skill requirements of the game? Not likely. My wife grew up with a hockey player who played in the NHL his only skill was being able to remain standing while fighting. He could not shoot, pass, or do anything else except fight, yet he was a hockey player. He earned more for "breaking the rules" of a sport, in a controlled, accepted, way in just 3 games with not much more then 6 or 7 minutes ice time total, then all of Alberta's Curling team has earned for 26 games of flawless performance. They displayed sportsmanship, skill, dedication, and perseverance, and in return we gave them a standing ovation (I only assume as much) a trophy and a pittance that only cover a portion of the expense they have personally incurred.
We value entertainment and reward breaking the rules in sports. We pay to watch these sensational acts. We condemn the very acts we pay to see when they result in permanent injury (Bertuzzi) but then we turn the other cheek and don't address the true issue. That incident happened because as fans WE paid to see Bertuzzi fight. As fans WE leap to our feet when a fight breaks out. As fans WE cheer when blood is spilled. As fans WE make our desire for this bastardization of a sport known to the owners, and marketing genius' responsible, by paying ever increasing ticket prices and selling out game after game and keeping the waiting list for seasons tickets years long.
It is time, as a society that supposedly condems violence, that we stop supporting this with our money, and start putting money into a sport where fighting is likely the last thing on anyones mind. Don't get me wrong, there is place for fighting in sports; however those sports are ones in which fighting is the point of the sport, rather then an accepted form of breaking the rules. Boxing, MMA, and all their variants are amazing to watch and I fully support thier promotion. Whether your following the rules should make all the difference in the world.......Now where was I? Oh yes, GO TEAM MARTIN!!!!!!
Sometimes, how I get off topic confuses even me.
Alberta's Team Martin has now won 26 straight Brier games and 2 consecutive Brier titles. Truly an amazing feat that they should be proud of. As Albertans and Canadians should also share in that pride. Unfortunately, I have a hard time being proud of the support that is given to these amazing athletes. Which brings me to my topic. The really sad part that I want to discuss is the fact that this victory means a whopping 72 thousand dollars in support from Sports Canada for the next year. What kind of pathetic crap is that?
As Canadians we pay hundreds of dollars to attend Hockey games where fighting is a part of the game. We pay players millions of dollars a year, for what? Sports should be a celebration of fitness, and skill, but what it has turned into is a marketing competition that generates revenue from over sensationalizing the sport. Ultimately, however, Hockey dominates the Canadian sports scene. Why is that? Is it because of the physical prowess, or skill requirements of the game? Not likely. My wife grew up with a hockey player who played in the NHL his only skill was being able to remain standing while fighting. He could not shoot, pass, or do anything else except fight, yet he was a hockey player. He earned more for "breaking the rules" of a sport, in a controlled, accepted, way in just 3 games with not much more then 6 or 7 minutes ice time total, then all of Alberta's Curling team has earned for 26 games of flawless performance. They displayed sportsmanship, skill, dedication, and perseverance, and in return we gave them a standing ovation (I only assume as much) a trophy and a pittance that only cover a portion of the expense they have personally incurred.
We value entertainment and reward breaking the rules in sports. We pay to watch these sensational acts. We condemn the very acts we pay to see when they result in permanent injury (Bertuzzi) but then we turn the other cheek and don't address the true issue. That incident happened because as fans WE paid to see Bertuzzi fight. As fans WE leap to our feet when a fight breaks out. As fans WE cheer when blood is spilled. As fans WE make our desire for this bastardization of a sport known to the owners, and marketing genius' responsible, by paying ever increasing ticket prices and selling out game after game and keeping the waiting list for seasons tickets years long.
It is time, as a society that supposedly condems violence, that we stop supporting this with our money, and start putting money into a sport where fighting is likely the last thing on anyones mind. Don't get me wrong, there is place for fighting in sports; however those sports are ones in which fighting is the point of the sport, rather then an accepted form of breaking the rules. Boxing, MMA, and all their variants are amazing to watch and I fully support thier promotion. Whether your following the rules should make all the difference in the world.......Now where was I? Oh yes, GO TEAM MARTIN!!!!!!
Sometimes, how I get off topic confuses even me.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
My faith in Humanity has been restored...
Well at least in a small way. I still think we are doomed to die a slow horrible death at our own hand due to our own ignorance, but that post is for another day. Today we are discussing hope and the capacity for sound logical discussion to actually influence people's opinions.
So you may be wondering what prompts this odd perspective of enlightenment? Well three things actually. First one is rather simple. I have been in self imposed exile within my home for the last week. Today I was forced to leave the house to drive my older brother to school so I could have the car to get my mother to the airport this afternoon. So I ended up driving my brother to school, and my wife to work and will be taking my mom to the airport this afternoon Even though it may sound obvious, just the act of getting out of the house improved my mood drastically.
Second factor contributing to my enlightened opinion today. I got accepted into the program I wanted at the University. Which in over itself is not a huge deal, but my program has one of the most competitive entrance requirements at this University with a minimum GPA of 3.4 for transfer students. In any case getting accepted required them using the best 10 classes instead of the last 10 classes. This left some uncertainty into whether I would get in or not, and as luck would have it, they used the best 10 classes. It is nice to see an institution be able to look past a obviously messed up semester and see my true brilliance for what it is (yes I know I'm laying it on thick, but I feel smart today so oh well)
Third, and most important factor. The ongoing feud my family has had with my wife's parents over the upcoming family reunion ended last night. We received an e-mail with a sincere apology, and a personal invitation to attend the reunion. Honestly this surprised me as much as the insistence that I not show up. What this shows though is a remarkable ability in my in-laws to humble themselves and admit they were wrong.
Most people hide behind their religion to justify their intolerant ways. In my dispute with them I used their religions doctrine to argue my point. While they initially refused to acknowledge the fact that I was not perverting their doctrine to suit myself, they have since realized that they were in the wrong. It is an amazing trait to be able to admit wrong doing, and while I still am very wary of them and their intentions, I fully intend to give them a fresh start.
Life on Earth would be a near Utopian existence, and Humanity itself would be generations ahead of where we now are if we could all learn how to openly admit our faults and mistakes. Only by acknowledging fault, or incorrectness, can we ever hope to improve ourselves. Today a small step in that direction was made, and I give credit where credit is due.
So you may be wondering what prompts this odd perspective of enlightenment? Well three things actually. First one is rather simple. I have been in self imposed exile within my home for the last week. Today I was forced to leave the house to drive my older brother to school so I could have the car to get my mother to the airport this afternoon. So I ended up driving my brother to school, and my wife to work and will be taking my mom to the airport this afternoon Even though it may sound obvious, just the act of getting out of the house improved my mood drastically.
Second factor contributing to my enlightened opinion today. I got accepted into the program I wanted at the University. Which in over itself is not a huge deal, but my program has one of the most competitive entrance requirements at this University with a minimum GPA of 3.4 for transfer students. In any case getting accepted required them using the best 10 classes instead of the last 10 classes. This left some uncertainty into whether I would get in or not, and as luck would have it, they used the best 10 classes. It is nice to see an institution be able to look past a obviously messed up semester and see my true brilliance for what it is (yes I know I'm laying it on thick, but I feel smart today so oh well)
Third, and most important factor. The ongoing feud my family has had with my wife's parents over the upcoming family reunion ended last night. We received an e-mail with a sincere apology, and a personal invitation to attend the reunion. Honestly this surprised me as much as the insistence that I not show up. What this shows though is a remarkable ability in my in-laws to humble themselves and admit they were wrong.
Most people hide behind their religion to justify their intolerant ways. In my dispute with them I used their religions doctrine to argue my point. While they initially refused to acknowledge the fact that I was not perverting their doctrine to suit myself, they have since realized that they were in the wrong. It is an amazing trait to be able to admit wrong doing, and while I still am very wary of them and their intentions, I fully intend to give them a fresh start.
Life on Earth would be a near Utopian existence, and Humanity itself would be generations ahead of where we now are if we could all learn how to openly admit our faults and mistakes. Only by acknowledging fault, or incorrectness, can we ever hope to improve ourselves. Today a small step in that direction was made, and I give credit where credit is due.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Some Things Make No Sense
I am sure you are all aware of Josef Fritzl and his murder/slavery/incest/rape trial. If by some chance you don't, there are some news articles that give the back story here, here and here.
So since you are now all fully enraged by what this man has done to his daughter, let's discuss his punishment. If he is convicted of everything except the murder charge, under Austrian law he faces a maximum 20 years imprisonment. I assume that gets further reduced by standard methods common to Canada and the US. This means he will end up spending at most 7 or 8 years behind bars. Considering the punishment is for imprisoning his daughter for 24 years, how does that make any sense at all? He will get to see daylight each and every day. His daughter was denied daylight for 24 years. He will likely spend only 1 day behind bars for every 3 he kept his daughter locked up for. I mean that doesn't even consider the fact that if convicted of all charges except murder, he did a hell of a lot more then just confine his daughter. I am assuming that the same sentencing restrictions are present whether he confined her for 1 month, or 24 years.
Now this is a result of two massive flaws with the Austrian justice system, and while Austria may be a fair distance away, similar problems exist within our own system. In Austria when convicted of multiple offenses all time is served concurrently. Which means you pay the price for the worst crime you committed, and get a free pass on every other crime. So I guess the lesson is, if your going to get caught for a crime in Austria, might as well get some freebies in there as well. In Canada and the States, this same ability to get a free pass exists, although it is up to the Judges to implement it. Serving time concurrently is the single largest flaw in Crime and Punishment. I understand there are instances where serving concurrent time is in the best interests of Justice, but having it be common practice, or worst yet, the law (in Austria) is insane.
Now generally I am of the opinion that stiffer sentences do not equate to deterrence or have any real effect on reducing crime. The justice system is generally trying to achieve three goals. One, punish the offender by removing freedom. Two, restitution to the victim where possible. Three, rehabilitation. Canada has a good balance between these three directives. Using murder rates as a comparison (since that is really the only reliable way of comparing crime rates between jurisdictions with differing classifications) in 2000 the Murder rate in the United States was three times the murder rate in Canada. But while increasing the punishment for individual crimes is clearly not the answer, I don't see how this translates in giving perpetrators of crime sprees a free pass for all but their worst.
So since you are now all fully enraged by what this man has done to his daughter, let's discuss his punishment. If he is convicted of everything except the murder charge, under Austrian law he faces a maximum 20 years imprisonment. I assume that gets further reduced by standard methods common to Canada and the US. This means he will end up spending at most 7 or 8 years behind bars. Considering the punishment is for imprisoning his daughter for 24 years, how does that make any sense at all? He will get to see daylight each and every day. His daughter was denied daylight for 24 years. He will likely spend only 1 day behind bars for every 3 he kept his daughter locked up for. I mean that doesn't even consider the fact that if convicted of all charges except murder, he did a hell of a lot more then just confine his daughter. I am assuming that the same sentencing restrictions are present whether he confined her for 1 month, or 24 years.
Now this is a result of two massive flaws with the Austrian justice system, and while Austria may be a fair distance away, similar problems exist within our own system. In Austria when convicted of multiple offenses all time is served concurrently. Which means you pay the price for the worst crime you committed, and get a free pass on every other crime. So I guess the lesson is, if your going to get caught for a crime in Austria, might as well get some freebies in there as well. In Canada and the States, this same ability to get a free pass exists, although it is up to the Judges to implement it. Serving time concurrently is the single largest flaw in Crime and Punishment. I understand there are instances where serving concurrent time is in the best interests of Justice, but having it be common practice, or worst yet, the law (in Austria) is insane.
Now generally I am of the opinion that stiffer sentences do not equate to deterrence or have any real effect on reducing crime. The justice system is generally trying to achieve three goals. One, punish the offender by removing freedom. Two, restitution to the victim where possible. Three, rehabilitation. Canada has a good balance between these three directives. Using murder rates as a comparison (since that is really the only reliable way of comparing crime rates between jurisdictions with differing classifications) in 2000 the Murder rate in the United States was three times the murder rate in Canada. But while increasing the punishment for individual crimes is clearly not the answer, I don't see how this translates in giving perpetrators of crime sprees a free pass for all but their worst.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Sometimes Chain E-mails Are Not All Bad
It may be paraphrased from one of those sappy, horrible, spam e-mails everyone seems to feel the need to forward to their contact list and then promptly ignore the message contained within, BUT there is a great truth in there.
"I believe that when a person, different from the accepted norms, physically or mentally, comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that person."
Maybe it can be simplified into "Practice What You Preach." As Human Beings in general, wouldn't it be nice if we could all internalize this?
"I believe that when a person, different from the accepted norms, physically or mentally, comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that person."
Maybe it can be simplified into "Practice What You Preach." As Human Beings in general, wouldn't it be nice if we could all internalize this?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Victims are Victims
Is it ever acceptable to tell someone in a wheel chair not to do certain activities because it has the possibility of making someone else uncomfortable? Regardless of who you are, I'm fairly certain you know the answer to that is, No, it is never acceptable. Similarly with rape victims being blamed for "causing" the rape. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you all get the point.
Why is it that as a society we understand this fundamental truth of basic human rights, but for some reason we choose to ignore that truth when we are confronted with the unknown?
Is it Religion? Culture? Privilege? Perceived Expectations? Likely a blend of them all with a smattering of many other factors mixed in. As a member of the human race, I find it sickening that almost every human being out there (myself included) has at one point or another been of the opinion that their discomfort is the fault of some innocent person. Why do we as a society force the person, who has no choice, into an unpleasant situation rather then make effort to change our own feelings and comfortableness with the situation?
Now with that in mind, let me tell you about my specific problem with this tendency. About 2 months ago, my wife and I drove three hours each way to pay a visit to my wife's parents and tell them in person about my transition to living full time as a female. We arrived on a Friday night and ended up going to see the opening night of Fiddler on the Roof at the community theater. I had never seen that musical, nor had any idea what it was about (hint, it has little, if nothing to do with Fiddles on Roofs). Here is the wiki if you happen to be as uncouth as I am. As luck would have it the entire premise of the musical is change, accepting change, and teaches the lesson that change is not some horrible four letter word.
The next morning, after breakfast, we were sitting around talking about various issues with the topic being steered in the direction of change. After about an hour of this, I finally got the nerve to tell them. Turns out, in their words, "they helped a transsexual not commit suicide during their transition in the 60s." Which was shocking to say the least, these are two Mormons with a long lineage of Mormon ancestry. In any case we had a pleasant discussion about how we would inform everyone, talked about my plans to mass-email people I didn't not have the means to tell in person, they gave their opinions about various people who should be given a more personalized approach, and afterward and ended up driving back home on a very good note.
About 3 weeks ago this all changed. We received an e-mail from her parents advising us to not tell anyone that didn't need to know until they absolutely needed to know. Basically they wanted us to hide and deceive everyone and not send out a mass email. This is rather hypocritical coming from Mormons to say the least. In any case, we ignored them and sent out the e-mail in the form of a wonderful prose that told everyone who I was. We then confirmed, on Facebook, our attendance at the family reunion this summer. This then began a back and forth escalating e-mail "battle" in first suggesting that my wife and kids go to the reunion without me, and began to morph into an outright war, "The reunion is on private property and if you attend we will call the police, ... but we'd still love to have your wife and kids come." Apparently I was a danger to the celebratory nature of the event because other people would be tense and worried about exposing their kids to me, and as a result many families would choose not to go if I went. Apparently 6 months is too little time to give people to digest that I am a woman, and that in addition to not telling them at all, I needed to give them more time to accept this (what brain does this make sense in?). In addition, they have said they are the spokespeople for their family and everyone else feels this way. They personally don't feel this way, it's really just their siblings. However we have got nothing but good positive, accepting responses from anyone who has decided to respond. So the real question is, how much crack cocaine are they using every day?
Why do they feel justified in excluding one member of their daughters family simply because my hair is longer then before, I wear clothes that was purchased out of the women section of the store and identify as a woman, rather then a man. What difference does time make. What does the incongruity between my biologic gender and my gender presentation have to do with attendance at family camp? Why are they so blind to reality that they have chosen to blame me for the "potential uncomfortableness?" I understand that it is certainly me who would be the focus of this unpleasantness. That I would be the excuse people would use in their justification of why they did not attend. However I fail to see the logic in any of that reasoning.
I cannot control what other people feel, think, or do. Why would they assign blame to me because other people are intolerant and fearful of the unknown. I don't care one bit what someone thinks of me, or my situation. Expecting me to hide in shame and fear because of other people's potential discomfort is absolute bull crap. If this wasn't the one year the event was on private property, I would just show up regardless, but I am a little concerned about driving, with four children, six hours one way, only to be thrown out by the police. Needless to say, it is a family reunion and, my family is of the opinion that if they want to specifically exclude one member of our family, then they are choosing to exclude us all.
So what is the point of this rant? I don't know, possibly I just wanted to rant. Maybe it was to illustrate the need for everyone of us to constantly work towards overcoming our fear of the unknown, to change our own perception into a more accepting and understanding approach. I would love to be able state what would appear to be obvious, that this is a direct result of them being Mormon, but I know that is not a true statement. I spent 13 years in the Mormon church before freeing myself and I know for a fact that this behavior is directly against Mormon doctrine about this specific situation. The Mormons may have no love for Transsexuals, and may actively fight against the legislation of their rights, but they also make the same fight against the legislation of rights for women. And they also specifically counsel members to love, support and be close to family members who may be homosexual, transsexual, drug addicts, or be in various other situations that are contrary to doctrine. No worthy Mormon could ever do what these people are doing. So despite my extreme dislike for their organization, it is not directly their fault. However the teachings of their church certainly create an environment of fear and intolerance which indirectly places blame on them, but doesn't remove it from the individual at all.
I am including the Serenity Prayer as a closing statement. I may not be religious, but growing up with a Alcohol Dependent father has taught me the many truths contained within it.
Why is it that as a society we understand this fundamental truth of basic human rights, but for some reason we choose to ignore that truth when we are confronted with the unknown?
Is it Religion? Culture? Privilege? Perceived Expectations? Likely a blend of them all with a smattering of many other factors mixed in. As a member of the human race, I find it sickening that almost every human being out there (myself included) has at one point or another been of the opinion that their discomfort is the fault of some innocent person. Why do we as a society force the person, who has no choice, into an unpleasant situation rather then make effort to change our own feelings and comfortableness with the situation?
Now with that in mind, let me tell you about my specific problem with this tendency. About 2 months ago, my wife and I drove three hours each way to pay a visit to my wife's parents and tell them in person about my transition to living full time as a female. We arrived on a Friday night and ended up going to see the opening night of Fiddler on the Roof at the community theater. I had never seen that musical, nor had any idea what it was about (hint, it has little, if nothing to do with Fiddles on Roofs). Here is the wiki if you happen to be as uncouth as I am. As luck would have it the entire premise of the musical is change, accepting change, and teaches the lesson that change is not some horrible four letter word.
The next morning, after breakfast, we were sitting around talking about various issues with the topic being steered in the direction of change. After about an hour of this, I finally got the nerve to tell them. Turns out, in their words, "they helped a transsexual not commit suicide during their transition in the 60s." Which was shocking to say the least, these are two Mormons with a long lineage of Mormon ancestry. In any case we had a pleasant discussion about how we would inform everyone, talked about my plans to mass-email people I didn't not have the means to tell in person, they gave their opinions about various people who should be given a more personalized approach, and afterward and ended up driving back home on a very good note.
About 3 weeks ago this all changed. We received an e-mail from her parents advising us to not tell anyone that didn't need to know until they absolutely needed to know. Basically they wanted us to hide and deceive everyone and not send out a mass email. This is rather hypocritical coming from Mormons to say the least. In any case, we ignored them and sent out the e-mail in the form of a wonderful prose that told everyone who I was. We then confirmed, on Facebook, our attendance at the family reunion this summer. This then began a back and forth escalating e-mail "battle" in first suggesting that my wife and kids go to the reunion without me, and began to morph into an outright war, "The reunion is on private property and if you attend we will call the police, ... but we'd still love to have your wife and kids come." Apparently I was a danger to the celebratory nature of the event because other people would be tense and worried about exposing their kids to me, and as a result many families would choose not to go if I went. Apparently 6 months is too little time to give people to digest that I am a woman, and that in addition to not telling them at all, I needed to give them more time to accept this (what brain does this make sense in?). In addition, they have said they are the spokespeople for their family and everyone else feels this way. They personally don't feel this way, it's really just their siblings. However we have got nothing but good positive, accepting responses from anyone who has decided to respond. So the real question is, how much crack cocaine are they using every day?
Why do they feel justified in excluding one member of their daughters family simply because my hair is longer then before, I wear clothes that was purchased out of the women section of the store and identify as a woman, rather then a man. What difference does time make. What does the incongruity between my biologic gender and my gender presentation have to do with attendance at family camp? Why are they so blind to reality that they have chosen to blame me for the "potential uncomfortableness?" I understand that it is certainly me who would be the focus of this unpleasantness. That I would be the excuse people would use in their justification of why they did not attend. However I fail to see the logic in any of that reasoning.
I cannot control what other people feel, think, or do. Why would they assign blame to me because other people are intolerant and fearful of the unknown. I don't care one bit what someone thinks of me, or my situation. Expecting me to hide in shame and fear because of other people's potential discomfort is absolute bull crap. If this wasn't the one year the event was on private property, I would just show up regardless, but I am a little concerned about driving, with four children, six hours one way, only to be thrown out by the police. Needless to say, it is a family reunion and, my family is of the opinion that if they want to specifically exclude one member of our family, then they are choosing to exclude us all.
So what is the point of this rant? I don't know, possibly I just wanted to rant. Maybe it was to illustrate the need for everyone of us to constantly work towards overcoming our fear of the unknown, to change our own perception into a more accepting and understanding approach. I would love to be able state what would appear to be obvious, that this is a direct result of them being Mormon, but I know that is not a true statement. I spent 13 years in the Mormon church before freeing myself and I know for a fact that this behavior is directly against Mormon doctrine about this specific situation. The Mormons may have no love for Transsexuals, and may actively fight against the legislation of their rights, but they also make the same fight against the legislation of rights for women. And they also specifically counsel members to love, support and be close to family members who may be homosexual, transsexual, drug addicts, or be in various other situations that are contrary to doctrine. No worthy Mormon could ever do what these people are doing. So despite my extreme dislike for their organization, it is not directly their fault. However the teachings of their church certainly create an environment of fear and intolerance which indirectly places blame on them, but doesn't remove it from the individual at all.
I am including the Serenity Prayer as a closing statement. I may not be religious, but growing up with a Alcohol Dependent father has taught me the many truths contained within it.
- God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
- courage to change the things I can,
- and wisdom to know the difference.
Welcome to Me!!
Welcome to the world that exists inside my head. I really don't care whether you like or agree with what I say, but I really would like what I say to cause discussion. Only through discussion, critical thinking, and personal investigation can we ever obtain the holiest of holy, the reason for life, and whatever else drives you or motives you to get out of bed every morning.....
The TRUTH.
Something I have learned in my far too many years, is that generally the "truth" is perceived based on perspective. However this is a large problem that plagues every facet of society, as The TRUTH is never changing and a simple unchanging fact of life. Everyone generally assumes that their own personal version of the truth is The TRUTH; however nothing could be more wrong.
I consider myself to be highly intelligent, and while it may seem fairly conceded to make that statement about myself, there are reasons behind that reasoning. I do not equate intelligence to knowledge. No matter how much you "know," it is rarely the TRUTH and as such knowledge is always in a constant state of flux. Intelligence, as I define it, is the ability to know that you don't know. It is the ability to talk about any issue and ask questions that increase your knowledge on the subject matter. It is the ability to critically think about other people's reasoning and "facts" and add them to your repertoire of "knowledge" or discard them as inaccurate or misleading. This process of constant discussion, debate, and investigation allows me to acquire an amazing amount of Perspective Facts that add to my knowledge base, and also help me to better understand issues from any perspective. All of this would still be for naught if I did not possess one very important ability, the ability to recognize that my Perspective Truth is wrong and adjust it accordingly. This last trait is one that I claim, but many people accuse me of the exact opposite. Do not mistake my willingness to discuss a topic ad nauseum with a superiority complex. I do not believe I am always right, in fact I know that I am rarely right. I am absolutely terrified of standing up for something that is wrong and as such I have an insatiable appetite for additional perspective truths to add to my current belief, or to prove my current belief wrong.
I am a huge X-Files fan, and while I do not hold the same level of conspiracy theory mania, that the show portrays, I do firmly believe The Truth is Out There, and that if we don't actively seek it, we will never find it.
One last note, I am a horrible writer and generally fail to articulate myself properly. I reserve the right to edit my posts at any time to clarify intended meanings. This does not mean I am trying to hide my errors, it is simply a tool to prevent further misconceptions.
The TRUTH.
Something I have learned in my far too many years, is that generally the "truth" is perceived based on perspective. However this is a large problem that plagues every facet of society, as The TRUTH is never changing and a simple unchanging fact of life. Everyone generally assumes that their own personal version of the truth is The TRUTH; however nothing could be more wrong.
I consider myself to be highly intelligent, and while it may seem fairly conceded to make that statement about myself, there are reasons behind that reasoning. I do not equate intelligence to knowledge. No matter how much you "know," it is rarely the TRUTH and as such knowledge is always in a constant state of flux. Intelligence, as I define it, is the ability to know that you don't know. It is the ability to talk about any issue and ask questions that increase your knowledge on the subject matter. It is the ability to critically think about other people's reasoning and "facts" and add them to your repertoire of "knowledge" or discard them as inaccurate or misleading. This process of constant discussion, debate, and investigation allows me to acquire an amazing amount of Perspective Facts that add to my knowledge base, and also help me to better understand issues from any perspective. All of this would still be for naught if I did not possess one very important ability, the ability to recognize that my Perspective Truth is wrong and adjust it accordingly. This last trait is one that I claim, but many people accuse me of the exact opposite. Do not mistake my willingness to discuss a topic ad nauseum with a superiority complex. I do not believe I am always right, in fact I know that I am rarely right. I am absolutely terrified of standing up for something that is wrong and as such I have an insatiable appetite for additional perspective truths to add to my current belief, or to prove my current belief wrong.
I am a huge X-Files fan, and while I do not hold the same level of conspiracy theory mania, that the show portrays, I do firmly believe The Truth is Out There, and that if we don't actively seek it, we will never find it.
One last note, I am a horrible writer and generally fail to articulate myself properly. I reserve the right to edit my posts at any time to clarify intended meanings. This does not mean I am trying to hide my errors, it is simply a tool to prevent further misconceptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
