Quips, Quirks, and Questions.

The President of the US; Crucial Leader? Or Crucial Smokescreen?

2008-03-22T09:27:00.000-07:00

I'm actually sort of glad no one ever reads these, because I know that this article would get me a lot of hate mail from patriots, probably all with computer viruses attached. But I must bring up the following theory, which will sound like a mix of a conspiracy theory, sheer stupidity, and more than a touch of insanity.

The theory is this; the President of the United States isn't really as important these days as we're led to believe.

I can imagine what you're all going to start saying. 'Asshole.' 'Moron.' 'Canadian.' Just hear me out here...

While the President of the United States was, no doubt, crucial in the decision making during the United States of old, would it not be possible that his role in the decision-making is in fact even smaller than anyone (even the President himself,) believes?

Take the War in Iraq, for example. While some people are convinced that Bush was a slimy, evil, manipulative monster that manipulated the American people to get what he wanted, I actually disagree; I think he honestly believed that Iraq had WMDs, that the occupation would be met with cheers by the Iraqi people as a whole, and that the war would be tidily wrapped up by the end of the month.

You have to consider that a leader is only as effective as the information that he is provided by his subordinates, especially in a country as large as the United States, and especially when dealing with the affairs of the world. 'Garbage In, Garbage Out,' would be an appropriate saying; you feed incorrect information into a system, you will receive incorrect information in return... or, in this case, incorrect judgments. When it turned out that, no, Iraq had no WMDs and, no, the Iraqis were offering a much stiffer resistance than anticipated, I believe that Bush was just as surprised as the rest of us... he might have been a flawed leader, but I don't think he was purposively malignant.

Which leads to the theoretical portion of my hypothesis; if you wanted to lead a country, but you didn't want something negative to happen, such as, I dunno, assassination, what would be your strategy? Would you...

1) Stick yourself in probably the most intense limelight in the world, have an entire branch of a country's security force dedicated to protect you, thus making yourself an even more important target, and then cheerfully stand on podiums, all but in the open, when skilled snipers have been known to take shots from well over a kilometer away?

Or would you...

2) Find someone else, say he was the leader, dedicate an entire branch of the country's security force to protect him, thus making him a more important target, and then simply sit back and either make the decisions outright, or manipulate the information that reaches this figurehead to all but lead him to the decisions you want? Then, if your pawn happens to get shot and killed, join the country in mourning it for a few days, and then find a newer model!

Sometimes if you want to transport something without it being stolen, doing the transporting in secret can be a more effective means of protecting it than surrounding it in a security force, therefore making it a much more tempting target. That way, the brunt of the truly dangerous aggressors, people who genuinely know how to pull off an effective operation or campaign, will find themselves focusing their time, energy and ammunition on a target that, in the long run, won't really weaken America if it is destroyed.

I now open the floor to comments and, possibly, letter bombs.

-Zanten

Free Will? Or Inevitability?

2008-03-21T13:41:00.000-07:00

It's safe to say that a large portion of society believes that human beings possess free will, i.e. the ability to make choices for ourselves. Essentially, if we're presented with a problem or a possibility with multiple outcomes, it is in no way certain which option we will select until we actually make our choice.

So, for the sake of being a Devil's Advocate, here's an alternate idea; everything is certain, everything is inevitable. Free choice is, in a way, an illusion, because there is only one way you would have chosen.

Before I launch into what will probably be a confusing explanation (as you've no doubt noticed, clarity is not my strong suit,) please bear in mind that this theory is entirely based upon the hypothesis that we have no separate entity, or 'soul' if you will, that is above the pull of the laws of physics, and the laws of interaction between matter and energy. Since the existence of a soul, like God, is nothing we can conclusively prove or disprove (since both rely upon concepts that are, by their very nature, far beyond our five senses,) then what you are about to read is only a theory. This means you are more than welcome to post intelligent, structured counter-arguments, but flaming me will just be a waste of your time, and mine.

Right! Let's begin.

'Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction.' This little phrase essentially defines our existence; if there's a book on your desk, that book is not going to just randomly leap off the table. If force is applied to the object, or if the surface it is resting on becomes unstable or tilted at an angle, then the book would then move due to either kinetic energy or the influence of gravity.

Second, there is no such thing as true chance, true luck; if you roll a dice, then the outcome would appear random to the untrained eye, since you wouldn't be able to say with any certainty what number you would get. But if you able to calculate the exact force with which the dice is thrown, the angle of rotation, what position the dice was in the moment you threw it, the angle of impact with the surface, even the composition of that surface, it is likely that a mathematical calculation could ascertain what you would get. Of course, it's virtually impossible for a human being to measure all these factors unassisted, let alone calculate the results of the roll in the three or four seconds it would take for the dice to stop moving, so as far as we're concerned it's random.

(Don't worry, I actually have a point here...)

Now, the first point I mentioned would explain why our lives may be an inevitable dance with only a single outcome; our bodies, our brains, every part of us is composed of... well, a lot of subatomic particles, which work together to produce everything from our hearts, our blood, bone, etc, and all activities that those parts of our body engage in. Now, if the particles that make up the gray matter of our brains follow the same laws that the rest of the universe does, then it would suggest that the processes of the brain is one long string of reactions; reacting to stimuli from the senses, even reacting to its own previous neural firings.

When we make a decision, even a hunch, even a random guess, it is the culmination of electrical impulses in our brains forming a conscious thought, which we then act upon; these electrical impulses are sparked in reaction to whatever situation required us to make the decision in the first place, but what causes them to form in that particular method? If asked to choose a number between one and ten, why do we select five, instead of three? This is probably the greatest support for the idea of genuine free will, the ability to decide whatever you want.

Which, of course, brings me to why I mentioned the dice; the outcome of a dice throw might seem, to an extent, random, but there is in fact a series of specific, unbreakable rules that led to the result. The same principle could apply to our seemingly spontaneous thought processes, only the variables that led to the outcome would be thousands, if not millions, of times more numerous in this case, with some variables that may not even be within our conscious mind's ability to perceive.

Of course, as stated above, this theory would come crashing down if we did have the existence of a soul, something that led our actions without being a part of our physical universe, and therefore could potential act with true spontaneity.

Don't judge this just yet; take some time and think about it before you make your comments.

-Zanten

Should Abortion be Aborted?

2008-03-20T12:16:00.001-07:00

Well, I told myself that I would not be afraid to delve into the issues that were a bit more, er, inflammatory than others, despite the potential hate mail/death threats/ condemnations to an eternity in Hell I may receive as a result. What do I think about abortion? Well, I'm a manly man of the male gender, so I may not be the most, er, experienced individual to make such a judgement.

Still, I'll give it a shot.

Ever since abortion became widely accessible by women, factions (many of them religious) have steadfastly protested its very existence, fighting for the rights of the unborn fetus that would be terminated. The central issue that has been addressed by both sides of the debate is whether or not terminating a fetus at a certain stage of development is in fact murder or, more specifically, whether the terminated fetus has yet become a separate entity, rather than an extension of the mother.

My belief on this matter is that I have absolutely no clue whatsoever, and I don't have neither the spiritual or scientific background to make even an educated guess. What I do know, however, is that the chances of either side of the debate conclusively proving that its belief/hypothesis is the right one is... well, there is no real chance. Much like the question of whether or not there is a God, both sides can say their point of view, with no real evidence to prove or disprove either claim.

So, instead, let's turn our attention to the following; if abortion were terminated, what on Earth would we do with all the babies?

Claiming that if we remove abortion people will stop having unwanted pregnancies is similar to saying that removing a fair trial from our system of law will stop criminal activity; people might be more careful, sure, but these unwanted pregnancies are not exactly planned out. So banning abortion will result in a surge of babies; this is assuming, of course, that it isn't just a surge of desperate women trying to perform their own abortions with coat hangers...

Disturbing thought, eh?

Here are a couple of potential options as to what would likely be done with the babies...

1) Law requiring that the birth parents care for the child: The problem with this solution is clear; in many cases, the birth mother would be unable to financially support a child, or may even have mental or emotional issues that would render them unfit parents. Even those who do have the financial and mental stability to care for a child, yet who simply do not want to, would ensure the offspring a potentially wretched childhood; imagine if, for your entire life, your parents just considered you another unwelcome mouth to feed?

2) The children being shipped off to foster homes and orphanages: This would probably be the best solution, but it's hardly without its faults; to support the surge of children, orphanages would require additional funding, and many more foster parents would need to be found... would the organizations that locate such foster families be forced to lower their standards to meet the 'quota?'

To sum it up, my belief is this; if we are to remove abortion, we must first make absolutely certain we can deal with the flood of new life that comes as a result. Simply forbidding abortion and walking away in self satisfaction as the children we have 'saved' swiftly become forgotten is simply not an option.

Rather than just fighting for the right of a fetus to exist, we must fight for the right of the child to live.

-Zanten

Election Day Motto; Pick the Lesser of Multiple Evils!

2008-03-20T11:20:00.000-07:00

Aaaah, the joys of our democracy; through a single crucial choice made during this important period of time, we citizens gets to elect which party we hate the least. Well, for some of you it may be which you like the most, but I can assure you that in my particular case election day is all about finding out which government is likely to do the least amount of damage during their term in office.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but do you never feel that maybe the current system of election could do with a bit of... well, tweaking? This is, after all, about the freedom each and every one of us, as a resident of a democratic country, gets to make to determine the direction our nation will take over the next few years. But you know who I would, given the option, choose? My best friend; he's trustworthy, dependable, honorable, and it is essentially guaranteed that he wouldn't try to screw the country over. Granted, he might not get elected, since there are ten million or so other voters who wouldn't vote for him, but I would nonetheless like to be able to nominate the man for Prime Minister.

Of course, I can't, because he isn't part of a registered party. And, even if I was able to browbeat him into trying to register for a party, he wouldn't be able to. Why? Do you know how much it costs to get run for government?

The 2003 Prime Minister elections, won by Paul Martin, had an entrance fee of $75,000 with a spending limit of four million. Now, I know that many of you will immediately remind me of campaign contributions made by loyal party supporters, and I'm certain that a fair chunk of the budget did come from that but, let's face it; if you're going to make it into politics, you're either going to need to have a lot of money, or make some deals with other people who have a lot of money. This would lead to deals, bargains, and various other back alley arrangements that would put a corporation above you, the common taxpayer.

Then there's the problem of choosing the party. An excellent example came from a previous election in my home town; the candidates running for Mayor consisted of a developer, and a developer's lawyer. For environmentalists and conservationists, this would be tantamount to deciding whether they'd rather get shot in the leg or the arm.

Evidentially they like their legs, because the lawyer was elected, and during his campaign (surprise!) there was a massive surge of development, to the point of which our water supply was having trouble keeping up. Where is the choice in an issue like this? Shouldn't there be a 'neither' option with which, if it gets the majority votes, they toss out those candidates and start over again?

The Federal elections aren't much better; we get to choose between the Conservatives, who have had this nasty habit of using trickery in their dealings (such as attaching a requirement to bills that they want passed stating that the bill being turned down would result in another election; lacking the funds to deal with another campaign, the parties would have to allow this motion to pass.) We have the Liberals whom, thanks to the Sponsorship Scandal, seem to be about as trustworthy as a pyromaniac with a flamethrower. We have the Bloc Quebecois, who are pretty much guaranteed to only look out for the good of Quebec (good for Quebec, bad for all the other provinces.) Ironically the only party I haven't been able to find much wrong with is the Green party, although one can't help but wonder if that would remain the same if they did attain power...

What should we do when we slip into those booths next Election Day? Actually, I'd recommend setting them aflame; it could save us a great deal of trouble in the long run...

-Zanten

School = Meh?

2008-03-20T11:17:00.001-07:00

You've heard it all before; from your parents, from the television (which, naturally, couldn't lie to you,) and especially from your smarmy kid sibling who lectures you cheerfully, even if they don't much understand the subject themselves. The message? Schooling, especially university, is vitally important, and if you don't take it you'll end up in a dead end job, and live in a cardboard box, and your fingers and toes will turn black and fall off, and you'll die a horrible death. Unfortunately, this does border on the truth; the highest paying jobs, the jobs where you can truly make a comfortable living, require a university diploma if you're even to be considered for the position in question. The question, however, is this; exactly how much does a university diploma determine an individual's skill?

Now, before I get a lot of irate comments announcing that I'm an idiot, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not saying that those who have diplomas don't deserve them, or are somehow getting away with pulling the wool over the eyes of the workforce. The issue I'm discussing is whether, just because you don't have a university diploma, you don't qualify in skill and knowledge to do the job just as well, or better, than someone who does have a diploma.

Let's consider the barriers that could prevent you from getting a diploma; the schooling system for junior and senior high use a numeric system to measure your grade in each course, which is then given an average value. This means that if you border on a prodigy in, say, mathematics, and yet do an abysmal job at French, your average score would drop, along with your chances of being accepted/offered scholarships at a university.

Now, I'm well aware that a balanced education is key to helping a student make an informed decision as to their choice of career, but if there is something that, for whatever reason, you're not so great at, then it could actually hinder your chances of making it far in the field you are exceptional at! By the time you're out of high school, and either facing university of pre-uni colleges, you usually have a fairly good idea of what you want to pursue.

Unfortunately, if you're a student of CEGEP and, God Help You, want to pursue a career in the less defined fields, such as Social Sciences, you'll be worse off than you would have been in high school; you'll end up taking maybe one or two courses that interest you/are required to add to the knowledge that would aid you in your career, and four or five that would ultimately have no impact whatsoever on the skills you had for your career. Yet, by the simple fact that there are more useless than useful, these courses you could live without would actually amount to a higher grade percentage than the ones you absolutely need!

Therefore, to pursue studies in becoming, say, a historian, you'll also probably need to be skilled at analyzing, and sometimes even composing art, poetry, films, short stories, small novels, and formulating research essays that will rarely, if ever, have anything whatsoever to do with history. The workload from these alternate courses will ensure that you will be unable to focus most of your attention and energy on the subjects you genuinely need to learn.

Ouch.

Now, of course, there is the second barrier, and arguably the most considerable; university costs. Yes, sir, the cost of a better job will be a debt that will likely take you a considerable amount of time to pay off... wait, no, I'm mistaken. The considerable cost you'll need to pay off will only buy you the chance to get a better job; if you find that you can't cut the academic mustard after all, or can't handle the stress of the environment, or are kidnapped and shipped off to Australia for four months, (you never know) then you're pretty much stuck with the debt.

So we have a group of people with the skills and knowledge that would enable them to perform quite well in the fields that might have interested them, yet who a) cannot afford the money to go to university, b) could possibly afford it, but aren't sure if they wish to risk spending so much money when there's a chance they could fail, and c) those who couldn't afford to take the time to attend university classes.

Meanwhile, (from some of the horror stories I've heard from contacts,) we have individuals firmly implanted in the Canadian government, armed with diplomas and absolutely nothing else, mixed in with some genuinely skilled, hard working individuals who cannot rise above a certain pay grade because they didn't sit in a University classroom for three or four years, despite the fact that they have actually shown that they have what it takes to do the job, and to make the big bucks.

In the end, university should be an institution designed to further an individual's knowledge, and to prepare him for what lies ahead. It should only be mandatory when said individual genuinely needs to be prepared; if they're capable of operating as a productive member of society from the get-go, and can demonstrate this ability, why insist that they jump through some seriously expensive hoops?

Maybe it's further proof that the education system has more than a vague resemblance to the circus...

-Zanten

Who Am I?

2008-03-20T10:30:00.000-07:00

Let's face it. You don't care, and I don't want to tell you. Call me Zanten.

What I'm going to be posting here for the foreseeable future is my thoughts, for your viewing pleasure (or, if you're heavily conservative, probably displeasure.) These questions could range from deep and philosophical, such as whether or not our lives are predestined, to whimsical, such as why it takes the razor companies up to three years to think of adding another smegging blade to their products, to downright nerdy, like why the Borg only ever seem to send one ship after Earth.

That's right, I watch Star Trek. Flee.

I will also occasionally try to write some satirical pieces, and analyze events. If you, the reader, wish to send me a news article, or ask me a question, etc, send it to quipsquirksquestions@live.com. I will do my best to read all emails I receive, and to answer simpler questions; ones involving longer answers, or those that send me on a little thought tangent, I will probably reserve for answering in a future blog posting.

Let's dismantle the world and see what makes her tick...