Blog

January 15, 2007 15:38 +0000  |  Society & Culture 1

On January 3, 2006, 18-year-old Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi was sentenced to death for murder by court in Iran after she stabbed one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece in a park in Karaj (a suburb of Tehran) in March 2005. She was seventeen at the time. Iran is signatory to international treaties which forbid them to execute any one under the age of 18; however they continue to do so.

On June 1st 2006, the Head of Judiciary Ayatollah Shahroudi announced a stay of execution and the call for a complete new retrial. Nazanin Fatehi’s retrial will take place January 10th, 2007 (20th of Dey 1385 in the Iranian calendar).

This is not a pointless pettition that no one will read. Nazanin is in an Iranian court fighting for her life and she needs our help. More to the point, her court fees are expensive. If you have some cash to spare, put yourself in her shoes and consider what you think is an appropriate donation.

Update 2007-01-16 11:00:00

According to Etemaad Newspaper in Iran, which also reported Nazanin's original death sentence in January 2006, three out of the five judges in Nazanin's retrial have ordered that dieh "blood money" be paid to the family of the man who was killed, although the other two had recommended Nazanin's unconditional freedom.

Nazanin's lawyers intend to appeal the payment of blood money, but since this appeal may take several months, they have also requested bail so that Nazanin may be released from prison immediately. The court has set bail at 400,000,000 rials (over US$40,000).

Because Nazanin's family is very poor and unable to make payment of the bail or blood money, immediate financial assistance is required to secure Nazanin's release from prison.

Details at helpnazanin.com and Wikipedia.

Donate here.

January 10, 2007 03:07 +0000  |  Society & Culture 8

Jesus Camp, the frightening movie about the new Christian militarism growing out of Middle America is finally coming to Toronto. A documentary that goes into the homes and churches of the same people who think the Great Flood carved out the Grand Canyon or that Adam and Eve co-existed with the dinosaurs Jesus Camp has little or no narration at all, it simply shows you what life is like in the most powerful nation on earth and it's absolutely chilling.

The movie starts at 9:10pm tonight at the Bloor Cinema (Google Map). Come on out if you've got the time, everyone should see this movie.

For those who haven't seen it already, the trailer is here.

December 18, 2006 22:58 +0000  |  Society & Culture 0

At 6:30 a.m. on Nov. 3 -- four days before an election caused a seismic shift in Washington politics -- Ritscher, a frequent anti-war protester, stood by an off-ramp in downtown Chicago near a statue of a giant flame, set up a video camera, doused himself with gasoline and lit himself on fire.

Aglow for the crush of morning commuters, his flaming body was supposed to be a call to the nation, a symbol of his rage and discontent with the U.S. war in Iraq.

"Here is the statement I want to make: if I am required to pay for your barbaric war, I choose not to live in your world. I refuse to finance the mass murder of innocent civilians, who did nothing to threaten our country," he wrote in his suicide note. "... If one death can atone for anything, in any small way, to say to the world: I apologize for what we have done to you, I am ashamed for the mayhem and turmoil caused by my country."

December 14, 2006 19:49 +0000  |  Society & Culture Why I'm Here 3

From the Toronto Star:

In response to local concerns about crime on the shopping and tourism strip north of the Eaton Centre, the Toronto police announced today they will install three closed-circuit television cameras along the busy street.

The CCTV cameras - which will be placed at the intersections of Yonge and Dundas Sts., Yonge and Gould Sts. and Yonge and Gerrard Sts. - will go up Monday and will remain on the roads until Jan. 7.

Their purpose, police say, is to help deter would-be criminals, and also to provide visual evidence of any crimes are committed in the area.

"The cameras are there to protect public safety," said acting Chief Kim Derry in a press release Thursday. "The have two clear purposes: deter those who may be considering committing crime, and provide evidence to identify, arrest and charge those who choose to commit crime."

Does anyone honestly believe that they'll be removed on the 7th? I love how they routinely throw around lines like "The cameras are there to protect public safety" when there is absolutely no evidence that they do anything of the sort. Criminals simply victimise people down the street where there aren't any cameras... yet.

If anyone has any background or research on this issue, please send me what you have, sources included.

December 14, 2006 15:26 +0000  |  Nifty Links Society & Culture 1

Robin will love this one...

I got this link the other day from one of the geek lists I'm on. The Post-Rapture Post is exactly what it looks like: a service that promises to deliver your mail to those left behind after the rapture:

Just write your letter and it will be hand-delivered immediately following the exodus of the pure from the Earth. But you must be thinking to yourself, "How can the letters be delivered after the Rapture?" The answer is simple. The creators of this site are Atheists. That's right, we don't believe in God. How else would we be able to deliver your correspondence after the Rapture?

Absolutely brilliant.

December 12, 2006 19:50 +0000  |  Society & Culture 4

Colin just sent me a link to a distressing New Scientist article pointing to livestock as a leading cause of global warming... above transport (ie. cars).

The numbers worked out this way by including the emissions created in all sectors servicing our meat consumption. Not only are we counting "cow farts" but the exhaust from the trucks transporting the livestock and their food, the deforestation for use in their grazing etc.

The article does stress however that it's not so much the meat that's the problem, so much as the resources we use in cultivating it... and a vegetarian diet is not much better (though it doesn't go into detail... I'd like to see a scientific breakdown of the options myself).

It's enough to make me reconsider my own impact on the environment wrt my own dietary habits. I won't be going vegan anytime soon (I still don't think it's as healthy as its proponents claim) but it seems only reasonable to ration my meat consumption. David Suzuki's Nature Challenge includes a suggestion to go "meat free" one day a week... I'll start there. I encourage anyone reading this to do the same.

There was one component of the article that I found rather disturbing though:

Ultimately, the authors argue, environmental services such as sustainably managed land and clean water, need to be given a price.

"Most frequently, natural resources are free or underpriced, which leads to overexploitation and pollution," write the authors, concluding that "a top priority is to achieve prices and fees that reflect the full economic and environmental costs".

While I can understand the logic, no one will ever be able to convince me that the best way out of this capitalist mess is to add more capitalism:

One of the things I find very interesting in our current debates is this concept of who creates wealth -- that wealth is only created when it's owned privately. What would you call clean water, fresh air, a safe environment? Are they not a form of wealth? And why does it only become wealth when some entity puts a fence around it and declares it private property? Well, you know, that's not wealth creation, that's wealth usurption.

Harvard Professor Elaine Barnard

December 05, 2006 14:32 +0000  |  Nifty Links Society & Culture 0

A bunch of folks over at Harvard are doing a neat little project linking the blogs of the world. If you're interested in learning more, hop over to The Blog Conversation Project.

In somewhat related news, I've been MIA for a few days due in part to a new add-on I'm coding for this site. It's a cool idea I've wanted to do for years now and now that I have the tools, I'm finally seeing it through. I'll tell all in a couple days.

November 29, 2006 13:04 +0000  |  Society & Culture 1

If there's anyone who's opinion I routinely turn to in matters of Canadian national unity, it's the CBC's Rex Murphy. Regardless of the topic, if it's politics, he's got something to say and it's always absolutely brilliant. The following is a snippet of his closing remarks on The National last night:

What is the Parliament of Canada doing declaring the Québécois a nation? Has that not been the principal aim of the Parti qubécois and the Bloc, the separatists, since their formation? The idea behind this motion has been a mischief since the train was put on the track by Michael Ignatieff in his leadership bid, and as it gained momentum with the Bloc's embrace and Stephen Harper's too-clever response last week, it has become more divisive by the day, igniting the call now by the premier of British Columbia to go one more step and incorporate all aboriginal peoples in another group nation.

...

The House of Commons, the House of Commons of Canada, should be underlining only one nation, Canada. We are all its citizens regardless of height, colour, province, language, history, religion or politics. Canada is the nation, and the biggest quarrel I have with this motion tonight is that our parliamentarians seem to have the courage to declare a bit, a slice, a portion of the country a nation when they are timid about asserting and constantly asserting and proudly asserting that Canada is the nation, and all Canadians now are already and deeply a part of it.

You can read the entire transcript on CBC's The National

November 28, 2006 06:10 +0000  |  Society & Culture 4

I was having trouble articulating this earlier, but I think that I understand why now. Canada is an emotional topic for me, especially when it comes to its founding peoples. We're more than a country, we're a nation with a rich history -- and it includes Quebec.

More than just the province that tries to separate every few years, Quebec is a founding pillar of Canada. No, this isn't a technical term and no, it's not something that can be really quantified, but consider he following:

This is Our Canada, the Good and the Bad, and it's all from the same place. Their history is our history. They've given us a world-renowned military tradition, amazing food, and an attitude that helped to shape this country for what it is: one of tolerance and humility. The fact that a majority of every party in the house would support an obvious step toward removing Quebec from this family cuts me very deep and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive them.

November 28, 2006 05:02 +0000  |  Society & Culture 2

Sadly, this is no surprise at all. Recently in the Washington Post, Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" published a letter regarding Exxon Mobil's terrible track record with, wait for it: The National Science Teachers Association:

"Science a la Joe Camel"

by: Laurie David 26 November 2006

At hundreds of screenings this year of "An Inconvenient Truth," the first thing many viewers said after the lights came up was that every student in every school in the United States needed to see this movie.

The producers of former vice president Al Gore's film about global warming, myself included, certainly agreed. So the company that made the documentary decided to offer 50,000 free DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) for educators to use in their classrooms. It seemed like a no-brainer.

The teachers had a different idea: Thanks but no thanks, they said.

In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film; and they saw "little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs.

Gore, however, is not running for office, and the film's theatrical run is long since over. As for classroom benefits, the movie has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading climate scientists worldwide, and is required viewing for all students in Norway and Sweden.

Still, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.

That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.

It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.

And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996, mostly for the association's "Building a Presence for Science" program, an electronic networking initiative intended to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" into schools, according to the NSTA Web site. Exxon Mobil has a representative on the group's corporate advisory board. And in 2003, NSTA gave the company an award for its commitment to science education.

So much for special interests and implicit endorsements.

In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school.

And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.

NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called "Running on Oil" and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel," a shameless pitch for oil dependence.

The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.

Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.

"The materials from the American Petroleum Institute and the other corporate interests are the worst form of a lie: omission," Borowski says. "The oil and coal guys won't address global warming, and the timber industry papers over clear-cuts."

An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future."

So, how is any of this different from showing Gore's movie in the classroom? The answer is that neither Gore nor Participant Productions, which made the movie, stands to profit a nickel from giving away DVDs, and we aren't facing millions of dollars in lost business from limits on global-warming pollution and a shift to cleaner, renewable energy.

It's hard to say whether NSTA is a bad guy here or just a sorry victim of tight education budgets. And we don't pretend that a two-hour movie is a substitute for a rigorous science curriculum. Students should expect, and parents should demand, that educators present an honest and unbiased look at the true state of knowledge about the challenges of the day.

As for Exxon Mobil -- which just began a fuzzy advertising campaign that trumpets clean energy and low emissions -- this story shows that slapping green stripes on a corporate tiger doesn't change the beast within. The company is still playing the same cynical game it has for years.

While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they're teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids' science homework.