Evangelicals gay bashing on campus (written April 22, 2013)

On By Swarn GillIn Commentary, Philosophy1 Comment

So these two brothers who apparently go around to various campuses to tell gay people they are going to hell were back today.  The crowd was much smaller this time, for obvious reasons as few people would have any reason to pay attention to what they are saying.  So I decided to engage one of the brothers for awhile.  He is loud and doesn’t let you interrupt him.  But as I was discussing with a good friend recently I think it’s important to engage people with different points of view to try and understand why they believe what they do.

The first observation I made was that he knew very little bit about science, scientific knowledge, or how the scientific method works. He was using some fairly old arguments to support his claims against evolution.  One is questioning carbon dating, when carbon dating is only useful for dating things on the order of 10’s of thousands of year.  Also he claimed the missing link was never found.  Which is actually untrue as well.

Oddly enough we did find common ground in regards to us believing there are absolute truths.  Of course he felt that he is found that in the bible, I say that humans strive towards it, but we never really know whether we have reached it. We entered into this conversation however on the grounds of the topic of logic.  Both us also believe that logic holds certain truths that cannot be broken, however I argue that our understanding and ability to apply logic correctly may be flawed so we can’t know for sure whether a logical contradiction itself has occurred.  Our understanding of what is logical also evolves.  He claimed that logic has a standard and therefore must have a standard giver.  I asked him how he reached that conclusion.  Why does a standard have to have a standard giver?  He has no answer other than belief.  He says logic cannot be changed by man.  I said there are many things that can’t be changed by man, or can’t be changed yet, so why does that imply God’s existence?  Again no answer other than a response that is full of beliefs.

I think the most interesting part of the exchanged happened when one of my Christian students came in to defend me and accused him of judging me and that I’m as God made me and that it’s not up to him to decide. The student said “I pray to God, I do not pray to you”.  I thought it was a wonderful argument myself but his response was more telling “I think it’s perfectly okay to judge.  Who said it’s wrong to judge?  I judge what shows are good or not good for my children to watch.”  I thought this was extremely telling.  He believes that he understands God, so much so that he has the right to judge others on his behalf.  His comparing us to his children, to me, indicates that he thinks he is much wiser than any of us.  Even when other students who claim to be Christians and believe in God.  What happened to being humble before God?

So on the drive back home I was thinking of all the things I should have said, but ultimately I knew I wasn’t going to change his mind.  I simply want to understand how people can believe in anything so fervently knowing how unlikely they would be believing that if they happened to be born in a different country, and in a different community.

He gave met he standard “If I’m wrong then nothing will happen, I’ll just die.  But if you’re wrong you’ll spend eternity in ever-burning flame”.

So I responded “That’s true.  But if you’re wrong and I’m right than you’ve made a lot of people in this world feel bad about themselves and caused them fear about something that’s not even real.  You’ve made this world a worse place in the only existence that we can really know about.”

He responded “So what’s worse, offending a few people, or the fires of hell”.  I agreed that if hell were somehow provable as being real then hell would be worse and that I understand wanting to save people from that eventuality but that he was using a tactless way of convincing people to his point of view.

And here’s the one thing I regret not saying to him, “The problem is, maybe it’s not you, but people like you not only offend people when you speak your hateful words.  In many cases you make homosexual people feel so bad about themselves that they take their own life.  Or you inspire so much hate in others that they attack people who are different than they are with violence.  So if I’m right than you’ve more than just offended people, you’ve helped end the only existence they had; their only chance to experience joy and happiness.”

I would say in terms of crimes his becomes way worse. Because there are other ways I can come to know God if there is one than being told I’m an abomination, but there is no coming back if this is our only existence.

Enlightenment, inequality and bias (written on Feb. 19th, 2013)

On By Swarn GillIn Commentary, Philosophy8 Comments

I think one of the most important traits we can have is humility.  It is a good thing to be humble.  It’s sometimes easy to forget as I grow older, smarter, and hopefully wiser.   Things that seem to help me remain humble are to keep learning and to not be afraid to step outside my comfort zone.

A number of years ago I went to hear a talk by the Guerilla Girls (http://www.guerrillagirls.com/).  They talk about the gender inequality in art and film.  I remember being a little dubious about this before the talk.  Because through school and growing up it was always the girls who were more encouraged to creative things like art and drama.  Being into those things as a boy often meant a lot of typical jeers from other males about the fact that you might be too effeminate.  Sure enough though there is not only gender inequality, but massive gender inequality in art and film.  It took only a mention about Kathryn Bigelow being the first female director to win best director, and all of a sudden all these things that I thought I knew suddenly appeared in a different light.  I couldn’t recall any females getting up on stage to collect director, writer, screenplay type awards.  I already knew that female actresses often didn’t get to play very strong or dynamic roles, but now all of sudden the reason why was perhaps clear.  Few of those roles were written by women, and women are extremely scarce in most creative aspects of popular films.  Art museums turn out to be much the same way in the percentage of female artists that they display.

On Valentine’s day my wife and I went to the Darwin Day talk at Duquesne university.  The speaker was Marlene Zuk who is a biologist (I believe entomology is her specialty) and feminist.  Her talk was illuminating in much the same way as the Guerilla Girls.  The talk was about the bias that exists in biology that is male and human oriented.  Males are considered the norm when studying animals.  This is revealed in how biological research has historically been done (for instance the fact that male lab animals are chosen preferentially over female ones for experiments), it is revealed in illustrations and photos of animals (the male is most commonly depicted, and even in pop culture.  For instance think of how many animal movies you can think of (animated ones too) where a female is the main character and protagonist.  Dr. Zuk was particularly annoyed by the animated movies featuring insect leads, because the males actually don’t do any work at all in bee and ant species and yet they are being featured in popular animated movies.  She brought out examples of what people would draw if they were asked to draw a scientist (always male), she showed us examples of studies where people were asked to describe a healthy human, a healthy male, and a healthy female.  The description of a healthy human always was close to the description of a healthy male.  A healthy female description seems to not match a healthy human at all.  I sat there and once again realized that all these things in my brain were still there but had a new light cast upon them.  And I wondered how much my thinking had been modified by these biases without my knowledge.  It’s not one of those things I think you can know in an instant, but at least now I can pause a little bit and think more when a situation comes up that might be impacted by this societal bias.  Just as I did after seeing the Guerrilla Girls talk.  A couple months after their talk I went to the Alberta art gallery in Edmonton on a trip back home, and in fact counted the number of female vs. male artists and made a comment to an employee there afterwards (it was at about 15% female, 85% male).

The movement towards gender equality is working.  Things are changing.  Some places more slowly than others, but it is a wonderful thing.  I think in our society we have made enough progress that we are starting to notice the more subtle and deeper seeds of gender discrimination.  And I think we should take some pride in this.  I think when inequality is so surface based, it’s the thing that is easily noticed and the most immediate thing that action should be taken on before we can even find other seeds of inequality.  Talks like the ones I describe above are good reminders of how far we still have to go.  And the more subtle things run deep in society and are in some ways more dangerous because we don’t notice them as easily, they seem more ingrained, and perhaps are even harder to change.  These ingrained biases affect both men and women alike.

Although this is a little off topic of gender equality I wanted to write about the other interesting part of Marlene Zuk’s talk, which was the bias towards human supremacy in biology.  Dr. Zuk is a big proponent of detaching ourselves from human conceit when we study other species.  We often rate other animals on their similarity to us; giving more sympathy to life that shares more of our genetics, physiology, and behavior.  We have built evolutionary ladders from the time of Aristotle that place man at the top and everything else below.  As I was listening to her I was reminded of a statement from Jared Diamond’s book Guns, Germs, and Steel where he was talking about microbes and said “The microbe has just as much right to life as we do.”  It was a humbling statement to read and Dr. Zuk’s talk was an important reminder that not only was evolution not trying to produce us, but that all life survives in its own way, in its own environment and that there are many things that animals can do that we can’t.  Of what value is all our intelligence if we do things like destroy the planet, rape, murder, sexually abuse children?  It may be natural that life consumes life to survive, but all life should be respected.  After the talk, one woman asked her if she felt that we should be doing more to protect more intelligent animals and I really liked Dr. Zuk’s response: “Evidence of suffering is part of our bias to favor animals more like us.”  She gave the example that new evidence shows lobsters may also experience pain.  Why should they be any more or less favored over chimpanzees (the woman who asked the question used a chimpanzee as an example of cruelty to animals)?  The woman seemed quite upset that anybody would consider a lobster equal to a chimpanzee.  I completely understand why we would have more sympathy to animals more similar to us.  Our natural empathy to others suffering is clear.  But when you turn off your empathy chip for a moment and look at life, it’s all marvelous and it all has value.

The lesson here to me is that, no matter how enlightened you think you are, there is always some more enlightening still left to go!  Keep learning everyone.

Religion and Models

On By Swarn GillIn Philosophy, ScienceLeave a comment

I was thinking today about models.  No, not supermodels, as a nerd I was thinking about computer models.  Computer models such as those that try to forecast the weather or forecast climate change take our understanding of how the world works and try to look at what is happening now and test that understanding by trying to predict what will happen later.  Then I thought about religion and how it is also a model.  I truly think that religions, at least at their inception, have the same intent as the models we use in science.  That is to look at what is happening now, to try and understand the world, and come up with an algorithm for how to live better lives.  To take way the unpredictability of life, which often causes great stress and fear, and replace it with a set of principles which, if followed, can help one feel more peaceful about the future.  That feeling alone can give great comfort and lead to even great success.

What is also similar is the fact that there are often numerous models that try to do the same thing.  If we look at general circulation models that try to forecast climate change we can see that there are several in use today.  They have many similarities as there is much we universally understand about the climate, but then there are different assumptions that different groups of scientists might make that lead to differences in the outcome of the model.  This is not too different from religion since religions all have many similarities, yet enough differences that each one does not necessarily produce the same results.  The main difference here is that in science when we look at the results and they do not seem to do a good job of representing a true understanding of the world we make adjustments.  We reevaluate our understanding and we make changes.  With religion however changes are general not made.  Instead brand new religions crop up, or denominations split off from one religion to produce a similar religion but with slight changes.  This may not be completely unlike computer models either to represent natural processes either, however if a model was made to the point where it was completely accurate, everyone would use it.  And overtime computer models do get more and more accurate as understanding increases and constant testing allows us to make appropriate adjustments.  Another important difference is that a computer model can only be a useful tool if it produces meaningful results.  Religious models can be used as a tool regardless of whether they are good or bad models, sometimes to terrifying consequences.

As I child I had a Christian mother, and a non-practicing Sikh father.  But much of his family and friends practiced, and what was clear to me is that there were good people on both sides, who grew up with completely different faiths.  Either both sides were right, or both sides were wrong; meaning that either two different stories were true, or that neither story was the whole story.  It seems to me that the latter must be the case.  If we look at religion as a model and test its validity based on its intent, which is often to rise up against repression and gain freedom in the way of life you choose, to give purpose, to give peacefulness, to act generously and compassionately to those around you, religion might do pretty well.  We all know religious people that are good people and if you pay attention you will see good people of many faiths.  Faith has been proven scientifically to be a good thing and we should all recognize the benefit for it in our life. It seems to me that if God is an explanation to the universe at all and it is the correct model for our existence and purpose then the model should converge.  However after 10,000 years of civilization convergence does not seem any closer.  Perhaps there are fewer religions in some way, but human history shows that religions have been more often forced on to others as nations have been conquered rather than people flocking to it because it looks like a better way to live and that it looks like a better explanation for our existence.  And in some ways even if there are fewer religions they are replaced by denominations and different groups of people pick and choose parts of the larger dogma that make more sense for their particular circumstance in their part of the world.  And we must also recognize that there are plenty of secular humanists, atheists, agnostics who are also good people, who don’t prescribe to any religion and yet manage to have compassion, kindness, and generosity, thus demonstrating that peacefulness and happiness are not contingent on using a religious model.

It is proven, time and time again, that cooperation is what makes us better and more successful.  Therefore, we should be focusing on things that unify us as people and as a species.  Let’s not cling to what makes us different, but concentrate on what things make us similar.  Maybe we fear the loss of our individuality, but I submit that it will always be there.  Because successful cooperation might require some redundancy but it also works best when it is made up of a mosaic of people with different strengths and ways of thinking.   We can thus appreciate the differences that make us individuals, but take comfort and be peaceful in the things that bind us together.  I don’t believe this thought to be utopian in any way.  I don’t know what the future will look like or should look like.  I am no model.  I only recommend a direction or path; something new to try.  Who knows where It will lead, but it’s a pretty good direction to head in don’t you think?

My thoughts on guns (written July 20th, 2012)

On By Swarn GillIn Commentary, ScienceLeave a comment

So, the shooting in Colorado makes me angry and sad, as I am sure it does a lot of people.   It leaves us with many questions.  I think more so because we are in general a fairly orderly society and peaceful despite differences in ideologies, few of us would ever do something so heinous.  If this was South America where gun deaths happen so often we might still be angry and sad, but it still wouldn’t be too surprising.  I think after the many shootings that have taken place though now, even I have become less shocked by this.  As I read comments on articles, it also makes me angry because the argument erupts in to gun control.  I don’t know if this is the right answer, but what I do know is that faulty logic largely drives the debate; on both sides.  So I thought I would deal with some of the common errors in logic.

1.       Banning guns would end these types of incidences.

This of course is not true completely.  Guns can be obtained illegally.  Crazy people still exist, and often clever ones who can find different ways of ending a lot of lives if they so choose.  There is no denying this.  The correct solution to understanding these issues is not the knee jerk reaction but to understand why people like this exist.  What can be done to help them?  What are the warning signs?  Do they exist in other societies?  And in those societies does access to weapons of deadly force make them more likely to cause harm?  To my knowledge when these incidences have happened in the U.S. the media never really brings up these questions.  It always goes to gun control.  I can understand the knee jerk reaction though.  We all do it.  Let’s say you’re a parent and you can now start feeding your kid the food you eat and not just mashed up peas and carrots all the time.  So let’s say you give your child a soft taco with chicken, cheese, lettuce, onions, and tomato.  The kid likes it, but feels sick right after eating it.  The immediate reaction is to have your kid not eat anymore.  But this doesn’t mean he can never have a soft taco.  You’d start to say…hmm…do I feel sick…since you have a higher mass it might take longer for you to feel the effects and maybe the chicken was bad, not cooked enough.  Then you might take him/her to the doctor later to see whether they might be allergic to one of the ingredients because there were 5 foods in the taco that they had never had before.  So once again it comes to asking the right questions in the end, but knee-jerk reactions are natural.

2.        Banning guns is unconstitutional  because of the Second Amendment.

This line of reasoning is faulty on many levels.  For one, unless someone can provide me with more definitive resources there is debate as to the intention of the second amendment and this debate has yet to be resolved.  Pro-gun people will say it was so that we could defend ourselves against a tyrannical government and anti-gun say it was for development of militia.  If one imagines what life was like in the early days of the U.S. it makes sense that guns would be made a right, because population densities were very small, and law enforcement would have been extremely difficult.  And it clearly was on the American frontier.  Yet it is also quite handy when you have a tyrannical government, which I don’t think we’ve had in over 200 years as a nation.

What is often left out of this argument as well is that the 2nd Amendment says “Well regulated militia…”, because are a bunch of homeowners in the suburbs with guns a well regulated militia?

The flawed logic though is holding to a 200 year old amendment like it was flawless.  Just like the bible which has things that pertain to the time it was written, so does the constitution.  Did the forefathers really think the constitution was perfect and timeless?  Undoubtedly no.  That’s what an amendment is.  The way society and technology has changed since then is immense.  It makes no sense why we should be held to a document that old.  We should in fact constantly be modifying it to help solve problems faced by our society.  When it was written the population was less than 1/100th of what it is today and the most dangerous weapon you could have was a musket, that took a few minutes to load, you got one shot, and it wasn’t overly accurate.  Would the founding fathers have made the second amendment if there were laser guided sights and semi-automatic weapons?  I don’t know, but I ask this question merely to point out that the logic one uses may depend on the times for which the decision was made.  Too many people in this country tend to hold to the constitution like it’s a bible and should be unchanging.  As a person who has become active in my faculty union on campus I see both the benefits and negatives of being bound to a document which is nearly as hard to change as the constitution.  It can be very binding in a way that doesn’t help solve problems that are different or new from when the contract was written.

The other faulty line of reasoning here is that the founding fathers were geniuses or something.  They were human, they made mistakes, and maybe some of them were brighter than others, but they fought, and came to compromises.  Now when a compromise is made it could be that both sides of an issue have merit, it could be that the other person was just plain wrong, but compromise was needed in order to just finish the thing and get an overall product that everyone would agree with.  The value we should take from the constitution is not so much its substance (although there is still a lot of great stuff in it) but the work ethic that was involved in putting it together; cooperation, idea exchange, and coming together to solve problems of the day.

3.       Gun deaths are higher in countries where guns are banned.

Nobody ever quotes some actual figures.  A very worthwhile site to go which has data collected by an international collaborative group, but based out of Australia is http://www.gunpolicy.org/

When you look at countries that have a lot of deaths by firearms and have restrictive policies, these are always third world countries with poor economies.  There is a huge educational gap, and a huge income gap.  United States has the highest murder rate and firearm death rate of any industrialized nation with a similar standard of living.  As a comparison between the UK and the US, there are about 4-5 times more homicides per capita in the U.S. than in the UK, and firearm homicides are 100 times more likely.  Now anti-gun people might excited by this statistic, but if firearms were the only thing to blame, we would expect the homicide rate per capita to also be about 100 times greater, but it’s only 4-5 times more likely.  So we cannot say that banning guns would make the homicide rate go down significantly in the U.S. Nevertheless if restricting firearms even reduce homicides by as little as 10% which is supported by figures from other countries similar in standard of living to the U.S., isn’t 10% a good thing?

4.        Banning guns only makes people look for them illegally because that’s what happens with drugs.

Comparing drugs and guns is difficult.  On one hand I do think that if guns are legal, all drugs should be too.    If it really does all come down to personal choice, then the same argument can be made for drugs.  Some drugs however are habit-forming.  Guns are not (well of course anything can be habit forming to a certain extent, but I’m talking about a physiological addiction).  However making drugs legal would save a ton of money that could be put into education.  The need for meth labs would probably disappear, because you could just buy a hit of something at the grocery store.  You’d probably have cleaner drugs that don’t poison your body quite as much also.  What the UK v. US comparison does show is that high gun restriction does not lead to a high amount of unregistered firearms.  There are only 6.7 per 100 people with guns in the UK, with 100 times less firearm homicides.  While there are still a high amount of homicides in the UK, it is clear that those wanting to murder aren’t going, “Bah I can’t get a gun legally, I’m going to get one illegally!”.  Comparing guns with drugs, or say that illegally obtained guns will rise in equal compensation in simply untrue.

5.       Studies show that homicides through other means increase when you ban guns, so nothing changes.

This is true, but only in part.  Of course if you take away a gun, and you really want to murder someone you can find a way.  So knife deaths increase, piano wire, the list goes on.  But there is a big difference killing someone with a gun as opposed to other methods.  You cannot just throw a knife into a crowd and expect to kill anyone.  It is also a lot easier to avoid being killed by a knife wound.  In general the person has to get close, it takes longer, and it’s brutal.  You have to listen to the person suffer, the blood will certainly spill on to your hands, perhaps more depending on whether you cut an artery.  If it wasn’t a fatal wound you may have to grapple with the victim.  Thus the size and strength of the victim compared to you is important.  With a gun you can stand at distance.  You can be behind them.  Size isn’t as important.  The psychology of the two acts is different.  It’s hard to rob a bank with a knife.

6.       Guns are necessary to protect us from people who come in to our homes/person with the intent to cause harm.

How often does this actually happen?  According to www.fbi.gov the number of violent crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) in the U.S. for 2010 totaled 1.2 million.  If we assume that all these crimes were committed by a different person (which is likely not true) but it’s a reasonable assumption to make, given that we must take into account violent crime that may not have been reported, that means about 0.35% of the population of the U.S. are those who would commit violent crimes.  Not a high percentage, but let’s say any percentage is too high.  And remember that compared to other countries with a similar economy and standard of living the U.S. is the highest, then the 88.7 guns owned/100 people don’t seem to be making much of a difference.  The high number of firearms is not a deterrent at all to violent crime, and yet we are told that we are safer with one.  And of course the percentage is not uniform across the states…it is highly regional, so the idea that we are always in danger if someone assaulting us, robbing us, raping us, etc with the threat of force is pure fear mongering when you look at it statistically.

7.        Guns are necessary to protect us against our government.

This is the worst bit of fear mongering.  Once again we look at www.gunpolicy.org and see that there are many countries (again comparing only to ones with strong economies and a comparable standard of living and education) that have restrictive gun laws and the government has yet to start massacring their people.  The UK government hasn’t.  In 2001 Belarus passed legislation to increase restrictions on firearms.  Guns there are only for military or law enforcement.  Citizens cannot own handguns or revolvers, and to get a gun you need to show you need it for hunting.  Homicides went down by 50% since 2000 and firearm homicides by 80%.   The Belarus government has yet to show any signs of enslaving its people.  Yes this is not a comprehensive list of examples and my point here is that there are plenty of counter examples to the claims pro-gun people say, and so their logic does not even follow in general and then few rarely do their own research in order to come to any conclusions.   Think what you will of Michael Moore, but his thesis in Bowling for Columbine that we live in a “culture of fear” seems to be spot on.

8.   Automobiles cause more deaths every year so we should make automobiles illegal too.

There are many other anologies of this sort including the use of spoons, because people get fat and die of heart attacks, soda, etc.  For better or for worse it took me awhile to spot the flaw in this type of analogy even though I know it was a false analogy.  The reason has to do with the intention of the object.  Automobiles and spoons were not created as objects to commit crime, acts of violence, or to kill.  An extreme analogy might be to say that life is the chief cause of death, so we should not make babies.  The gun was invented to kill.  To kill from a distance, to kill quickly.  It struck me as ironic that pro gun arguments would use this logic and ignore intention.  Since much of their arguments involve the intention of the writer’s of the 2nd Amendment.  Showing that intention is pretty important to them.  Laws have intentions, as do objects.  Why create an object if it has no use?  Automobiles, spoons, guns all have uses and their inventor had an intention for those objects.  Only one out of 3 of those has the intention of deadly force.

9. Criminals don’t obey laws so what’s the point in making a gun law.  If criminals always break laws, then what is the point of having laws?  Nobody who is pro-gun has been able to answer this for me yet. If we always adopted the attitude that laws do not deter criminal behaviour, then all laws have no value.

Well if you’ve read this far, perhaps you are willing to read a bit further.  Yes, I’m a liberal atheist and I know facebook friends who are going to argue with me, but I know many who own guns and am not scared for my life at all.  But because I refuse to give in to fear is also the reason I don’t own a gun.  I am much more interested in the psychology.  I also know myself and I know that shooting a man dead who just wanted to steal my computer so he could afford his next cocaine fix is not something I could easily live with if I did that.  I try to be a good man, and yes even good men die too, but I don’t feel like a gun significantly helps increase my chances of protecting myself against the low probability of being effected by a violent crime.  And yes I do lean towards stronger legislation.  I don’t think anybody who passes a background check should be able to get an AK-47.  Stronger restrictions to firearms might not prevent all of these senseless deaths, but if it stops even one crazy person gunning down 12 people a year.  I feel it’s worth it.  But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep trying to stop them all together, and that is going to take investigation and understanding beyond banning guns.  They are in our world and they are not leaving, so we do have to understand ourselves better so that we don’t need to use them.  Firearm homicides in general are decreasing in the U.S. and in general the world is less violent than it has been in the past.  May we continue on this trend.  Peace out all.

Check your morality (written March 25th, 2013)

On By Swarn GillIn Commentary, PhilosophyLeave a comment

I went to sleep last night somewhat disturbed by a now former Facebook friend’s comments on story he posted.  And I should point out that to use the word friend here somewhat cheapens the word as this was simply a former student who friend requested me on Facebook.  And while there are many students current and former I consider friends, I truly hope I never cross paths with this person again.

The story was a fake actually, but this did not seem to deter him.  I suppose it was a pro-gun story, and while I am sure many of you know my views regarding this issue, and I have had many fruitful debates with friends about the issue, because there are meaningful arguments to be made on both sides, this was not a debate.  This was not even really about gun control actually, but I was exposed to a disturbing sense of morality.  The most unfortunate part is that this persons shadow is cast by many others in this country as well.  Often when one is disturbed by something deeply, it can take some time to put it into words, but I wanted to do so before I forget.  The story itself was about a woman who upon having her purse stolen shot the thief 6 times while trying to make his getaway.  The woman was arrested, and then acquitted.  In the story she asked on the stand why she shot 6 times, and her answer was that after 6 times, the gun would only click.  As I said the story is a fake.  This person posted the story with the word “ ‘Murica!” posted along with it.  Not telling for sure whether he was being perhaps sarcastic I simply posted the Snopes link.  There was no response to that.  Another of his Facebook friends posted that “this was nothing to celebrate”, indicating that she believe he was being serious and thought that this was a good thing.  He responded by saying that if he could “he’d give that chick a merit badge”.  So I responded with the obvious, well the story is a fake and besides no one deserves to die just for taking a purse.  His arguments devolved from there, also in conjunction with his other friend’s comments.  This other friend by the way is pro-gun as well, but also a morally reasonable human being.  Basically he believes that guns are a form of empowerment and that anybody who tries to take a material possession from another, that person has the right to gun them down.  I have seen comments from others in the gun debate that reveals that this attitude is not unique.

The initially disturbing part was how much this person celebrated that the person was shot 6 times, and that the person would have been shot more had there been more bullets in the gun.  If it was somehow morally okay to do such a thing, the fact that anybody would then have so much hate and anger to shoot 6 times or more for such an offense makes that person a much greater danger to society than a purse thief.  That being said of course I find it morally reprehensible to shoot anyone for theft of material items.

And even though it’s a fake story, both the person who posted and many others in this country, and perhaps this world, think that this is okay.  It left me wondering where the compassion and empathy has gone.  Where is forgiveness and understanding?  There are many possible back stories to a purse snatcher.  Perhaps hungry, perhaps has an addiction.  And we don’t even know what circumstances led to his behavior.  Child abuse, poverty, drug addicted parents, etc.  The idea that all of us as individuals can play jury, judge, and executioner for any crime no matter how minor simply because a personal possession has been taken is appalling.  It’s worse than supporting even the death penalty.  At least that person gets a trial.  Whether society is safer with guns or not is a different debate than the attitude displayed here.  Without empathy and compassion society is definitely not safer despite the assertions made by the person who posted this story.   I was finally able to reason why as I thought about a video I watched on the Qualiasoup YouTube channel that talks about how we develop morality in a society.  They talk about the fact that in a society the punishment for crimes must be tiered.  He uses the example of rape and admits while this is a horrendous crime if the punishment for rape was death, then the rapist loses nothing by killing his victim if the punishment is going to be the same (although sadly in our society rape is hardly punished at all).  Anyway, so even if it isn’t officially a law, that those who commit theft are put to death, in a society where this is seen as a morally justified is problematic.  To simply kill because of burglary, this would actually act to promote violence.  If you are likely to be killed by someone you assail, you are better off committing a greater act of violence against them in order to get what you need.  You might kill them or at least follow them until they are in a more secluded area and rob them with a gun.  You might make a wrong move and get shot, you might try to reach for your gun now and get shot, or shoot them.  In this society people die for invalid reasons.  In a society where gunning down someone for a petty crime is not seen as morally justified.  No one dies.  There is the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.  Who knows the purse snatcher may later feel guilty about what he has done and return the purse.  I find this to be a better and more moral society.

If you find yourself agreeing with the person who posted this story than I implore you to please remove me from your Facebook friend list.  I have ZERO place for you in my life.  I would sit down with the purse snatcher any day over you.  It chills my heart to even know you exist.  Where does such hate come from?  Perhaps I’ll never know.

Thanksgiving Workers (written Nov. 21st, 2012)

On By Swarn GillIn CommentaryLeave a comment

I don’t really understand this hostility to people having to work on Thanksgiving for numerous reasons.  First we have very few holidays in this country compared to many other countries.  Businesses on average give less holiday time to their workers.  Studies show that this does not make us more productive.  A rested, lower stressed employee is one that actually works more efficiently.

More importantly though there seems to be some sort of implication that people who don’t want to work on Thanksgiving are lazy .  Isn’t it possible they don’t want to work on Thanksgiving because they would like one day where they can be with their family, to celebrate with a warm home cooked meal and be thankful for the blessings they have in life.  Doesn’t Thanksgiving have value as a holiday?  And what does it say about our society when we devalue a holiday?  Is it okay to tell those who work in the retail industry that our right to consume is more important than your right to have family values?  We’ve already over-commercialized Christmas, so should we say goodbye to Thanksgiving too?  There are other ways stores could compete for business than opening earlier and earlier every year.  Many workers may have believed when they took the job that they would get at least certain days off, it’s not realistic to expect them to just go get another job.  Shouldn’t corporations have a responsibility to respect the people’s values about tradition and family?  Should we let their desire for profit dictate what our values should be?

Let’s face it.  It’s not like retail is essential services.  Things could not be open on Thanksgiving and we’d get by quite easily.  The meme I’ve seen put up that tries to deride Wal-Mart workers for complaining simply because the military have to work through holidays to me is the most troubling.  It represents reasoning by false analogy.  First, I don’t want our military to work during holidays either, and I’m sure they don’t either.  They wish they could be with their families, just as I am sure their families wish they were there for the holidays.  If they truly are fighting for our freedoms should we as a society say that Thanksgiving doesn’t really matter so that when they do return home, the very values they served to protect are washed away by consumerism?  Perhaps more importantly if you wish to tell retail employees to stop complaining and work because the military do (as well as other emergency services, like police, nurses, firefighters, doctors, etc) do you plan on honoring those people in the same way.  As you claw your way through crowds to buy items you don’t really need were you planning on thanking that Wal-Mart employee for working on a holiday so you can get the items you want and save a little money?  I doubt anybody thanks them for their service.    Are retail employees for corporations some sort of low paid underclass who are only there to serve our needs as consumers?  It feels very much like that is the case.  The corporation is already disrespecting their values and so it hurts to see so many others disrespecting their values also.  And at what point can we start supporting them?  When stores open Thanksgiving at 6 pm?  4 pm?

There are more important things in this world than money and material goods.  And we have many days in the year to make money and spend it, so what’s wrong with keeping the spirit of a few days a year alive to celebrate friends, family, and have rest?

It was a dream (written on Nov. 20th, 2012)

On By Swarn GillIn Prose and Poetry8 Comments

It was a dream.  It was a moment.  And in that moment I held the consciousness in my head of every human being on the planet.

I was all ages. Spanning those whose eyes opened for the first time, to those whose eyes were about to close forever.  I felt a continuum of ages, of people born at about half a second apart.  There was confusion, as infants tried to make sense of their very existence for the first time, shapes were new, and the world a symphony of strange shapes overlapping and fused together.  I laughed as child-like innocence surged through me and simple things were so joyful, like seeing an elephant for the first time.  I felt strange as my body changed, as innocence slowly melted away leaving the thoughts both vigorous and also filled with doubt and fear.  A sense that I was close to having to go forth into the world and leave all I’d known behind, not having the slightest idea how to do it, but feeling like I had to pretend that I did, not even aware of the mistakes I might make.  I felt the hope and strength of one who is beginning their journey as an individual in this world, and from looking forward I felt my head slowly turning and turning to looking back, longer, farther, and deeper.  Smiling at little things that used to seem so big, but now bouncing off of me, understanding the process of change over a length of time that young cannot conceive.  Feeling comforted by having wisdom from a life of mistakes and successes, trials and errors.

I was able to understand all cultures.  Truly understand. Recognizing what it means to be born in a completely different place, with a different history and a different outlook on the world.  Some differences were subtle, others were grand.  In that one consciousness I saw a fountain of masks pouring past.  Masks not to mark superficiality, but rather a surface that made one look different and that upon deeper reflection still had the same wants and desires as every human on the planet.  Wanting to love and be loved, wanting to be accepted, wanting to take care of our families and friends, wanting to exert its presence in a massive world with a limitless sky.  I saw the many paths for achieving these aims, and that in the end all paths led to the same destination.

I felt all emotions.  Could this happen even all in a moment? It felt like longer.  And yet emotion is very much in the moment.  I felt extremes of courage and fear.  Sometimes it was irrational, a headlong courage that defied explanation, a fear that was only shadow and neither reasonable or real. I felt rational courage too. A surety of knowledge and experience that gave one for at least that moment a feeling of triumph of overcoming adversity with absolute competence.  And there was great “rational fear” too.  The fear that comes from helplessness.  The fear that comes from experiencing great pain and knowing how easily it can come again.  The fear of a child about to beaten by a father, the fear of one about to be killed for the color of his skin, the fear of eternal punishment from a god, the fear of hunger as crops wither and die, the fear of suffering as one watches love dies.  I felt the extremes of light and dark.  It was the power of love in the light leading to generosity, compassion, and selflessness.  I felt the depth of hate in the dark leading to greed, oppression, and violence.  This too had an irrationality and rationality to it.  For some these qualities were taught, a product of growing up in an environment where only these extremes were experienced. For some there was no explanation.  Malice had simply always been with them for no reason they could discern.  For some, despite being born in the dark, they clawed their way out into the sun.  And for all those extremes there were billions of points in between; A continuum of mixtures of love and hate, courage and fear, swirling around in my mind.  They were not contradicting but competing.  At the very center of this swirl was an endless turning that was indifference.  Invisible and empty, indifference turned without ever a hope of moving or touching the world.

And I was every person.  I was an expert on many things.  The many things that I knew revealed truths, and also revealed fallacies.  Yet many times, even the two most contradictory ideas were still held to be true in that consciousness.  But I saw how it all made sense.  How perceptions of experiences taught truths and those varied by the billions of different combinations of experiences we all face every day.  This was caused by our handicaps and strengths, our pain and our elation. I was also every identity and profession: A doctor, a janitor, a teacher, a manager, an assembly line worker, a prostitute, a child laborer.  I was heterosexual, a homosexual, a transsexual, a woman and a man.  I was every race, and every religion.  I was both loved and hated for who I am.  I was a saint, I was a sinner, a hero, a rapist, a giver of life, and a taker.  I felt pride and shame, joy and regret.

The great unity of billions of voices ended and the silence shook me from unconsciousness.  And when I awoke I lay for hours trying to the fathom the possibilities that I had dreamed.  I contemplated billions of identities, feelings, histories, and truths.  Eventually my mind melted away the endless details and I realized that much suffering in the world was caused by a few, and that humanity was for the most part good.  I realized that I was truly everybody.  That there is at least one thing I share in common with all people.  That even if I hadn’t acted on darkness I occasionally had dark thoughts.  That if even if I hadn’t acted on the love, I had at least felt it.  I wander and have purpose.  I knew many things, but did not know even more.  I am alive in both time and space, and that what makes up my body has always existed and will always exist.  And that what makes every moment special in my current form is that I get to be aware of my existence as well as others. I am in a continuum of life that is not only Earthly but universal and that I will never be alone.  I was humble and at peace.  And then as I dressed I had the inescapable urge to share

What is Love? (written Nov. 12th, 2012)

On By Swarn GillIn PhilosophyLeave a comment

Humanity has been trying to define this since the first musicians and poets, perhaps even earlier.  So I figured I might as well take my shot at it.

My central thesis is that love is too narrowly defined by society and as a result we don’t experience as much love as we are capable.  I am of the opinion that no feeling of love should be discounted and that love when it happens is always a good thing.  I am normally one that approaches everything from academic standpoint, but I am going to try and keep most that out here, because my opinions are a product of both what I have read, but also from experience.  And ultimately, regardless of what we might learn academically about love, much of the views we form about love does seem to be experiential.

So perhaps to start, we should look at what we love.  I feel that love deepens in accordance with the complexity and changeability of what we love.  Which is why loving another human being is the most satisfying, but also the most difficult and sometimes rather perilous.    I feel that this is one of the reasons why people find it easier to show love towards pets, because they are relatively simplistic in comparison to humans, and are less likely to change in personality.  Provided you show love and care they will give back that love in care.  In many ways I feel this is the attraction of God as well.  However a religion defines God, God while perhaps quite complex is also unchanging and I think many people find this appealing.

In the realm of other humans, we feel love towards family, we feel love towards friends and lovers.  As a quick academic aside there is an evolutionary reason for feeling love towards family (genetic interest), love towards friends (reciprocal  altruism) and love towards those we have sexual relationships with (both genetic interest combined with reciprocal altruism for the purposes of helping offspring survive).    But putting this aside, I believe that we categorize love we feel towards different people, but I would see the feeling of love is often indistinguishable only the way that express that love is different.  This is for obvious reasons and that is important, but in general I feel that when we over categorize love and in essence try to define it under narrow criteria we lose some of its value and joy.  For instance we accept the fact that if we have a second child that we can love that new child as much as the first.  You can love your mother just as much as your father or one cousin just as much as another.  And this would be true for friends also.  Now obviously all these people are slightly different and so how you express and show that love towards them or the reasons why you love them will be different.

What we don’t accept is that when you fall in love with someone, that you can’t fall in love with someone else and still feel the same love you felt for another person.  There is some logic to this of course.  Part of this has to do with the act of “falling in love”.  Falling in love is quite the emotional roller coaster.  The physiological changes are immense, and anybody who has had that to happen will know that they are literally not in their right mind for a good period of time. There is a reason for the expression “love is blind”.  The act of falling in love often defies reason, which makes it more wonderful because that sort of loss of control is so intense and so unique that it makes the experience very spiritual.  This is probably a good thing again from an academic standpoint because you want the experience to feel very significant since the care of offspring is a long term commitment. (And yes I know that we don’t have to create offspring, but that is the evolutionary goal of all life of which we are included).   The key is that intense feeling of being “in love” fades, which is not to say that love gets worse, but the way it feels simply changes.  You get your sanity back. J  That feeling is not supposed to last 20 years and probably not even 10 years.  The point I’m trying to make here is that nature has not prescribed how many times we are supposed to fall in love, only that we will fall in love, possibly multiple times.  This feeling cannot be control, you do not choose who you fall in love with, it just happens.  Just because you are already with someone doesn’t mean it can’t happen again.  I feel that we as a society we find it easy to condemn that person and this is wrong.  However, I think also if you are with somebody already and you fall in love with someone else, we too often tie more meaning to that than there really is.  We can turn our lives upset down, and leave the person we are with for what we think of greener pastures, only to find ourselves, after the “falling in love” feeling fades to the same problems we had before.

I truly believe that our ability to feel love is unlimited, but what we are limited by is energy and time.  This is the only limit that can be fairly placed on love.  In life we must make choices.  Perhaps not about who we love more, but who we expend more of our time and resources on in expressing that love.  The amount of love you can show one child if you only have one, as opposed to 3 children is clearly more, even if you feel the same love for all your children.  We often regret most not being able to express love in proportion to our feelings.  And this can be a sad truth in life.

Love is beautiful.  Love inspires.  Love gives strength.  Love helps you grow and learn.  Love makes us better.  Even if we have limited time and energy, we should try to never be jealous when someone we love feels more love in their heart for more in this world.  Love is a good thing, and often means the most when you love without having a good reason to.  Love also happens rarely, which makes it special when it happens to you, and it should always be cherished.

Perhaps the only thing that all love has in common is that it hurts when one is rejected: whether it is a friend, a parent, a child, a lover.  We might feel that hurt in different ways, but it all has the power to give us sleepless nights, sobbing, stress, and depression.  So maybe Haddaway had it right all along in answering the question.

What is love?

Baby don’t hurt me, no more.

 

But isn’t this also what makes love beautiful?  If love was so certain I truly feel that the joy would not be as a great.   Choose to feel the joy, and life will always feel full.  I am thankful for all those in this world who have touched my heart and soul.  I promise to keep reminding you of how thankful I am for that, and hope I can touch your heart and soul in return.

Sorry FOX News (written Nov. 8th, 2012)

On By Swarn GillIn CommentaryLeave a comment

I’ve gotten quite used to the narrative at FOX News and don’t usually have much more to say than what Jon Stewart usually already says, but the comments that were made by Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin and other pundits  after Obama’s victory was called enraged me a little more than usual.  Specifically I am referring to the comments that “50% just wants free stuff from Obama”, “This is no longer the traditional America”, “I can’t believe 50% of the country wants more debt”, “Minorities took this election away from Republicans”.  I might not have these quotes quite right, but let’s deal with them.

The idea that there is 50% of the nation who doesn’t work hard, who wants entitlements, is simply not true.  There is a percentage of people who take advantage of the system, there is no question.  Is there not a similar percentage of rich people who take advantage of the system as well? There are cheaters in every system and there is no way to prevent that.  This mythical 50% of the population (47% according to Romney) is supposed to be all voting democratic handing the election to them.  This has never been proven to be true.  The south which has the greatest poverty also tends to be extremely red. While urban welfare recipients might be voting blue, there is no question that there are plenty of rural welfare recipients who are voting red.  In general urban dwellers vote blue anyway. Perhaps because they are exposed to the diversity of human life more.  Perhaps it has nothing to do with welfare at all.  It certainly doesn’t in the South.  If you have been to impoverished areas in the south, these people are extremely conservative and so there is certainly a large proportion of people at or below the poverty voting Republican.

In terms of the comment about debt, the assertion that all of us are happy about the debt and thus voted for Obama is ridiculous.  Though FOX you would like to believe that the memories of all of us are short, perhaps more people than you want realize that while Republicans were in power, fiscal responsibility was not your hallmark.  New York City was attacked by terrorists, FEMA was a disaster during a disaster, and the economy crashed.  The rate at which people went on welfare increased more rapidly in the last year of Bush’s presidency, just as the rate in which unemployment increased was also more rapid during this same time, than when Obama has been president.  And when I say rate I am talking about calculating the change and dividing it by the time.  The actual meaningful way to compare trends.  Under Bush our deficit (the yearly debt) went from being in the black to being massively in the red.  And while Obama hasn’t reduced the deficit as much as he should have he has not increased it as much as Republicans.  So perhaps there is a reason why many don’t believe that Republicans are anymore money conscious than the democrats.

The comment about minorities is perhaps the most insulting, especially since white America are all descendent from different European nations who all came here to escape persecution or poverty for a better life.  The fact that many of us happened to have fair skin only binds us together now.  But many European groups didn’t get along at one point either.  It is also insulting since we brought all the African-Americans here to be our slaves.  And now they have the gall to complain that they have somehow ruined America by voting for the democratic party.  And when it comes to the African-American population, most of that population lives in red states.  Seven out of the top 10 states in African-American population are red states.  So even if all those African-Americans were voting democratic, it doesn’t make a difference in the electoral college numbers.  Perhaps we should look at hispanic populations which is the biggest minority in the U.S.  And while Florida and California are huge and it looks like Florida will fall to Obama again.  Texas and Arizona are no slouches to the Republican electoral college count.  But, for argument’s sake, let’s say they did win Obama the election.  Then shouldn’t the party of “personal responsibility” as they claim to be perhaps look inward and ask the question “What are we doing to alienate a large portion of the American population”.  Vast millions of people who love this country as much as anybody else.  Because right now it just sounds like you are asking them to be white, to cast aside the fact that the world is a diverse place.  In order to make society work we have to learn how to deal with diversity and not dismiss it.

Finally…”traditional America”.  I don’t know what that means.  Is that the America that had slavery?  Is that the America that didn’t allow women to vote?  Is that the America who allowed segregation?  The countries that hold on to tradition for too long are the countries that flourish with extremism.  They are the countries that house terrorists.  They are the countries who oppress their people.  When I think of countries that are mired in tradition I think of Saudia Arabia, Pakistan,  and Iran, and whole host of other countries that are in the process of changing, but all too slowly from a human rights standpoint.  FOX News the world changes.  Over time the world has become more peaceful, more humane, and more secular.  This is reality.  The less you choose to accept the, the more your party will fail.  Maybe more Americans than you realize, recognize the importance of separation of church and state and that you can still maintain your beliefs even when your government does not purport one belief system over another.  Maybe there is no war on Christmas.  People just realize that the reason that Christmas is special is because it is a time spent with family, a time of giving, a time of seeing smiles when you make gingerbread cookies for your kids.  The essence of good values of community, friendship and love remain, only the context has changed.  Maybe there are many people who recognize that while they still may be against abortion but realize that the best way to achieve less abortions is not through restictive laws or forcing your system of beliefs upon others, but to provide affordable health care for mothers, to provide women with birth control, and to give them a good education on all of these issues.  Maybe there are many Americans who realize that a functioning society is one in which the people remain as free as possible to make personal decisions especially when those decisions have no bearing on your own life or beliefs.  Perhaps people are confused as to how a party that claims they value life can be for the death penalty and support war.

So FOX News and the Republican Party (they are the same), the reasons why you lost are because of you.  I suggest that before the next election you find out what America actually is not just what you want it still to be.  I suggest you learn about history, not just your own, but world history.  Understand the process of change, progress, humanity, instead of selectively reporting the history that supports your views.  Most importantly I suggest you get on board with science.  The process of investigating things based on evidence.  So that even when you arrive at conclusions you constantly test those conclusions for their validity in an ever changing world.  You have to learn to adapt.  You have to learn how to integrate personal responsibility into a world that every day is different from yesterday.

Thoughts of music after a wonderful concert (written Sep. 19th, 2012)

On By Swarn GillIn Commentary, PhilosophyLeave a comment

I really need to get to more concerts.  I realized last night what the difference is between listening to the music on your iPod or CD player.  The quality is usually better from the studio, but what you don’t get to see is the faces of the musicians as they play their music.  Stage AE in Pittsburgh was a wonderful venue.  Even though you had to stand there were no bad spots.  There couldn’t have been more than 1000 people there and we were standing only 20 ft away from the performers.  You could see their facial expressions, you could see their hands move, their feet move.

Art comes in a number of forms but for me music and dance are different because they allow us to see the expression through the human form which I find to be ultimately more inspiring somehow.  I’m sure a lover of other art forms such a paintings, or sculpture would say that they love to see the expression captured in a stationary object that seems to come alive as a result of the artists expression.  I suppose these things come down to preference.  For me the connection between movement and music and then music to poetry stimulates my soul and intellect in a way that I cannot fully explain.

Both the opening band and the main attraction were wonderful last night, but in completely different ways.  Half Moon Run was the opening band.  From their first chord you could tell that these were musicians, serious about their music, hell bent on finding a way to express their souls through the medium of music.  By looking at them you could see how lost in their music they were.  It was as though they didn’t think of as an audience but simply a group of friends they had over to their house for intimate gathering.  One of those parties where maybe there is some sort of fire, good conversation, and some good wine, and then as the evening draws late somebody picks up a guitar, sits down at a set of drums, and then you hear the voices singing in harmony, with feeling, and with soul and you know your conversation is over and that you have to listen.  It all feels intimate and you feel closer to the person you are standing next to.  I tend to be drawn to bands with good harmonies and their harmonies, live I might add, were flawless.  Good harmony turns the voice into an additional instrument.  It tells the audience we may be 3 individuals, but at this moment in the song we are one, what we have to say or what we have to express is a collective and it is beautiful and you really have to hear it.  And you have no choice but to agree.  These guys were fantastic.  So good you hope they don’t become famous because I know I’ll have to see them again, and I’d hate to have to be so far away from them because they are beautiful to watch.

If Half Moon Run was the end of an evening, the main attraction, Metric, was like dawning of a new day.  Full of energy.  A force that propelled you to move and yet at the same time you knew it was exactly what you wanted to do.  Metric uses synths a lot, and for a lot of people this is often turns people off, but synths have come a long way since the 80’s and make no mistake the members of Metric are artists when it comes to making music.  Their set was much more of a show, a performance.  The knew the audience, they loved the audience and their music was a spectacle for all the senses.  Emily Haines is an excellent lyricist.  Her words are expressive and her voice makes her ideas soar.  Their music itself is not as strong as Half Moon Run but it’s not trying to be.  Everything about their music is genuine, the band is their music and that’s really the most important thing you can ask for from a musician.  You may not like it, but they are creating what they want to create which is why their music is not “pop” music.  And if you pay attention you can see that it is more complex than your average pop song.  Emily Haines in my age and the energy she brings to the stage heartens me that age does not matter because when there is music you can be young, or really be any age you want.

The important thing is to engage yourself in music.  If you can’t make music yourself, go see someone play.  Solo or in a band.  Get as close as you possibly can to them so that you can excite more than just your ears.  Wonderful musicians are incredible to watch.  Music is a great way to lose yourself for awhile and just immerse yourself in beauty.