The current US political climate is outright destroying that country, a country that was an example of progress after the war. But since the 1970s it has been slowly eroding. Political ideologies are one of the driving forces on why this has occurred. Unfortunately this is creeping into Canada. I'll use two current movements in USA to explain myself.
On one side you have people who adhere to the Tea Party mantra that it's the fault of government.
On the other side you have the Occupy Wall Street people who claim it is the corporations fault.
Both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are right.
We have corporations who are spending huge amounts of money to have access to politicians. If the money spent was directly given to each politician the average is in the millions per politician (Canada included). So you can easily fault the corporations for trying to influence in their favor and not the favor of the country as a whole, citizens included.
You can also fault the politicians for only listening to the corporations. They actually enact laws with the HELP of these corporations, that should never be the case. They should be made with the best interest of the citizen in mind and that's the politicians job, obviously they are not doing their job.
Then we have the political parties, in USA it has totally degenerated to the point that it's "NO!" to anything the other side says. Each side is more concerned with defeating their opponent than doing what's right for the people. Canada is starting to see some of this with the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada.
In Canada it started with a bang with the all in heavy negative advertising from the Conservative Party, even when it was not an election period they were doing negative advertising versus their opponents. During the campaign it was atrocious and the other side followed suite. Yes it has always existed but now that's all it is. I guess they don't have good solutions to our problems so bashing the other one is the only option.
Instead of working together what do both sides do? In USA they both mock each other with the help of propaganda channels like FOX News and MSNBC who claim to be news channels and yet they spend their time having shows that continually attack the other side, they bring nothing constructive to the table. They spin (meaning LIE) everything into negative, negative and more negative as if the other side are a bunch of losers and can never be right.
In Canada we now have a heavily slanted propaganda channel with SUN, you can debate about other channels being slanted to one side (CBC on the left) or the other but the fact remains that SUN was created with a specific propaganda political intent for one side and they hired people who just love to attack opposing ideologies as if they are mentally disturbed. Then SUN goes around claiming it is a news channel. News is about facts, not opinions and NOT ideologies.
Political ideologues are just as dangerous as religious ideologues, it's a "my way or the highway" attitude, no matter if their idea is clearly shown to be a bad one by using reason & science. You cannot even debate with them, the minute you mention an idea that is opposite to theirs they now brand you as being 100% for the other side.
We don't need this kind of crap in Canada, it only creates an atmosphere of anger and superiority. You end up with people who once they have power are closed minded to anything outside their ideology, which means governing by using reason & science goes out the window, then you are sure to attain disaster. -Sounds like religion or dictatorship...
It also helps if you have true proportional representation, this creates more parties and multiparty governments, they HAVE to work together, then they just have to remember to work for the people, not the corporate lobby...
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
Steve Jobs and me...
I've never met Steve Jobs but I've been in the presence of his vision on
a daily basis ever since I bought my first computer a little over 12
years ago and it changed my life.
I had no idea he had such a defining impact on my life at the time and I was nowhere close to being an Apple product user, my first Apple product was only purchased in Nov 2007.
How can I say he's had such a defining impact on my life if my first Apple product was purchased 4 years ago? Steve Jobs had the vision to make already existing products accessible to everyone or make people around him build products that everyone could use.
Today every personal computer, mp3 player, smart phone and tablet PC on the market is MAC, iPod, iPhone or iPad inspired. And the internet was born using a NeXT computer, a computer and operating system built with Steve's vision.
So even though I've never owned an Apple product until 4 years ago... I've owned a Steve Jobs influenced product ever since I bought my first PC... And a week after I bought it I knew working in the computer industry was where I wanted to be.
Merci beaucoup Steve.
I had no idea he had such a defining impact on my life at the time and I was nowhere close to being an Apple product user, my first Apple product was only purchased in Nov 2007.
How can I say he's had such a defining impact on my life if my first Apple product was purchased 4 years ago? Steve Jobs had the vision to make already existing products accessible to everyone or make people around him build products that everyone could use.
Today every personal computer, mp3 player, smart phone and tablet PC on the market is MAC, iPod, iPhone or iPad inspired. And the internet was born using a NeXT computer, a computer and operating system built with Steve's vision.
So even though I've never owned an Apple product until 4 years ago... I've owned a Steve Jobs influenced product ever since I bought my first PC... And a week after I bought it I knew working in the computer industry was where I wanted to be.
Merci beaucoup Steve.
Monday, September 19, 2011
"I know what I believe", but beware of it's dangers
In talks I have with individuals regarding superstitions (ex: religions, ghosts) and pseudoscience (ex: homeopathy, reiki) they often state "I know what I believe". It is their right to have such belief(s), but they should be aware it is a very dangerous position to take, this position is one of "no matter if evidence, science and reason point to the contrary, I know what I believe!".
If that's how some individuals wish to act then they will have to accept others who profess the same lingo "I know what I believe" are just as right. Here's one; "I know what I believe is that I must be able to protect myself at all times and carrying a loaded gun that everyone can see will increase my safety". The list of irrational ideas of "I know what I believe" could go on indefinitely. Each religion has thousands of "I know what I believe" stuffed in each one (slavery, subjugation of women, beating of children, etc...).
Imagine if we accepted all of these, what would ensue? The most horrid times in history are based on this alone:
After the fall of the Roman Empire faith took over and for about 1000 years we went back in morale behavior and stories of witches, ghosts, spirits, demons, women subjugating to men, killing of others who were not the same religion, they were all based on the hierarchy stating "We know what we believed", no explanation required, certainly not evidence, reason or science, let alone reality.
WW2 was another "I know what I believe" moment. Germany's destiny was assured by the superiority of their race which was based on zero reason, science or evidence, just "Knowing what I believe" was enough to kills millions.
Other dangers are believing people who say they can treat illnesses (reiki / homeopathy) at the risk of the illness only getting worse, and flushing money down the toilet. Or being swindled out of hard earned money listening to the likes of John Edwards using parlor tricks to make someone believe he is actually talking to a dead person. ALL based on mountains of evidence that have clearly shown no one can talk to the dead and they use people reading skills, as well as a good understanding of human psychology, especially how we apply confirmation bias.
If the human species is to prosper indefinitely we have to take to task anyone who makes such a statement, demand they explain in a rational manner and be able to show evidence of what it is he/she "knows what he/she believes". And if he cannot his stance should be relegated to nothing more than daydreaming thoughts with zero respect and application in reality.
"I know what I believe" falls into the same category of pseudoscience (reiki, homeopathy, astrology) and supernatural (ghosts, religion, talking to the dead). All of which are a bane on building a better world.
-
-
-
If that's how some individuals wish to act then they will have to accept others who profess the same lingo "I know what I believe" are just as right. Here's one; "I know what I believe is that I must be able to protect myself at all times and carrying a loaded gun that everyone can see will increase my safety". The list of irrational ideas of "I know what I believe" could go on indefinitely. Each religion has thousands of "I know what I believe" stuffed in each one (slavery, subjugation of women, beating of children, etc...).
Imagine if we accepted all of these, what would ensue? The most horrid times in history are based on this alone:
After the fall of the Roman Empire faith took over and for about 1000 years we went back in morale behavior and stories of witches, ghosts, spirits, demons, women subjugating to men, killing of others who were not the same religion, they were all based on the hierarchy stating "We know what we believed", no explanation required, certainly not evidence, reason or science, let alone reality.
WW2 was another "I know what I believe" moment. Germany's destiny was assured by the superiority of their race which was based on zero reason, science or evidence, just "Knowing what I believe" was enough to kills millions.
Other dangers are believing people who say they can treat illnesses (reiki / homeopathy) at the risk of the illness only getting worse, and flushing money down the toilet. Or being swindled out of hard earned money listening to the likes of John Edwards using parlor tricks to make someone believe he is actually talking to a dead person. ALL based on mountains of evidence that have clearly shown no one can talk to the dead and they use people reading skills, as well as a good understanding of human psychology, especially how we apply confirmation bias.
If the human species is to prosper indefinitely we have to take to task anyone who makes such a statement, demand they explain in a rational manner and be able to show evidence of what it is he/she "knows what he/she believes". And if he cannot his stance should be relegated to nothing more than daydreaming thoughts with zero respect and application in reality.
"I know what I believe" falls into the same category of pseudoscience (reiki, homeopathy, astrology) and supernatural (ghosts, religion, talking to the dead). All of which are a bane on building a better world.
-
-
-
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Le don d'organes à la mort devrait être obligatoire.
Les organes peuvent être utilisé pour sauver une vie ou améliorer la qualité de vie d'une autre personne. Il n'y a aucune raison valable pour que le don d'organe automatique ne soit pas déjà en place depuis longtemps.
Il ne devrait pas y avoir le choix de s'objecter pour des raisons personnelles qui sont plus souvent qu'autrement des raisons religieuses. C'est pas à la société de s’accommoder au croyances de certains, si ces personnes ont des croyances qui leurs causent des ennuis envers la société c'est leurs choix et en aucun temps ils ne devraient être accommodés si ces raisons sont sous le parapluie des superstitions et du surnaturel (ce qui inclus les religions).
L'objection que cela est oppressifs est absurde, est-ce que nous accepterions que les chrétiens et les musulmans commencent à tuer tout les apostats? Non, cela serait un meurtre, pourtant c'est clair dans chacune de ces religions que tuer les apostats est un devoir. Il y a une multitude de "lois" (esclavage, femme soumise à l'homme, etc...) dans ces livres qui ne sont plus acceptés de nos jours, même par la majorité des croyants, heureusement la raison et le bon sens de ces gens a supplanté le surnaturel.
Les croyances qui sont basés sur la tradition, l’autorité et la révélation n'ont aucun droit d’ingérence dans une société. Nous avons évolués moralement, il est temps que cela soit mis en pratique politiquement et le don d'organes automatique fait parti de cette évolution, des vies en comptes.
Il ne devrait pas y avoir le choix de s'objecter pour des raisons personnelles qui sont plus souvent qu'autrement des raisons religieuses. C'est pas à la société de s’accommoder au croyances de certains, si ces personnes ont des croyances qui leurs causent des ennuis envers la société c'est leurs choix et en aucun temps ils ne devraient être accommodés si ces raisons sont sous le parapluie des superstitions et du surnaturel (ce qui inclus les religions).
L'objection que cela est oppressifs est absurde, est-ce que nous accepterions que les chrétiens et les musulmans commencent à tuer tout les apostats? Non, cela serait un meurtre, pourtant c'est clair dans chacune de ces religions que tuer les apostats est un devoir. Il y a une multitude de "lois" (esclavage, femme soumise à l'homme, etc...) dans ces livres qui ne sont plus acceptés de nos jours, même par la majorité des croyants, heureusement la raison et le bon sens de ces gens a supplanté le surnaturel.
Les croyances qui sont basés sur la tradition, l’autorité et la révélation n'ont aucun droit d’ingérence dans une société. Nous avons évolués moralement, il est temps que cela soit mis en pratique politiquement et le don d'organes automatique fait parti de cette évolution, des vies en comptes.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
La passion est une pulsion. L'amour est une décision.
Ceci est un résumé en mes propres mots d'un article paru dans le Journal de Montréal.
C'est la meilleure réflexion que j'ai lu sur le sujet, alors je la partage avec vous.
La passion est une pulsion:
L'attraction physique et le plaisir sexuelle sont surtout biochimique (phéromones), beaucoup plus que psychologique. Quand nous somme avec une personne désiré notre corps sécrète des hormones (dopamine, phényléthylamine, ocytocine...) qui provoquent en nous des sensations fantastiques; comme exemple, la sensations de "tomber en amour" et de "perdre le contrôle". En fait, nous ne sommes pas en amour, nous sommes "drogués" par notre propres corps, ce qui veut dire que c'est temporaire et comme tout drogues l'impulsion passionnelle diminue avec le temps. C'est pourquoi les passionnés changent continuellement de partenaire, leur moyenne est de 3 ans par relation.
L'amour est une décision:
L'amour quant à lui est un sentiment et non une sensation ou une émotion. Le sentiment d'aimer est le résultat d'une réflexion basée sur la connaissance de la personne qui a été la source de tant de sensations et d'émotions agréables. Cette connaissance ce fait seulement quand chacun se présente sous son vrai jour. L'amour se développe donc, ou non au moment où la passion commence à diminuer.
Le véritable amour est fait de sentiments et d'altruisme, et non de vouloir vivre "drogué" de passion 24/7... c'est impossible.
L'amour au quotidien avec ses moments de passions hebdomadaires, voilà une relation saine et réaliste.
Vous pouvez lire l'article ici: L'amour est une décision - Yvon Dallaire (Psychologue)
-
-
-
C'est la meilleure réflexion que j'ai lu sur le sujet, alors je la partage avec vous.
La passion est une pulsion:
L'attraction physique et le plaisir sexuelle sont surtout biochimique (phéromones), beaucoup plus que psychologique. Quand nous somme avec une personne désiré notre corps sécrète des hormones (dopamine, phényléthylamine, ocytocine...) qui provoquent en nous des sensations fantastiques; comme exemple, la sensations de "tomber en amour" et de "perdre le contrôle". En fait, nous ne sommes pas en amour, nous sommes "drogués" par notre propres corps, ce qui veut dire que c'est temporaire et comme tout drogues l'impulsion passionnelle diminue avec le temps. C'est pourquoi les passionnés changent continuellement de partenaire, leur moyenne est de 3 ans par relation.
L'amour est une décision:
L'amour quant à lui est un sentiment et non une sensation ou une émotion. Le sentiment d'aimer est le résultat d'une réflexion basée sur la connaissance de la personne qui a été la source de tant de sensations et d'émotions agréables. Cette connaissance ce fait seulement quand chacun se présente sous son vrai jour. L'amour se développe donc, ou non au moment où la passion commence à diminuer.
Le véritable amour est fait de sentiments et d'altruisme, et non de vouloir vivre "drogué" de passion 24/7... c'est impossible.
L'amour au quotidien avec ses moments de passions hebdomadaires, voilà une relation saine et réaliste.
Vous pouvez lire l'article ici: L'amour est une décision - Yvon Dallaire (Psychologue)
-
-
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)