Religion?

Why is religion a protected right? Who decides what a legitimate religious belief is? Why are choices protected by the Constitution Act, 1984? What does religion really do except for grant people an excuse to conduct themselves badly in the name of some ghost in the sky? Though I usually target Islam, I do so because it is such an extraordinarily easy target when attempting to explain all that is wrong with pious beliefs that are permitted to run amok. However, Christianity is a close second, and everything else third. I’ll need to read up on this, and I suggest you (whoever you are) do as well.
My to-read list includes the following books: Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion; Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation; and Michel Onfray's In Defense of Atheism. I have very obviously plagiarized this list from Maclean’s article, “Is God poison?”

U of T photo-document

After looking at what I must conclude to be poor photography of the University of Toronto at its Wikipedia article, and seeing as how this will likely (as I am not really expecting to be accepted into the Innis Institute’s cinema studies graduate program) be my last semester here, I would like to engage in a little photo documentary of this university.
        While I was wasting time at Wikipedia by browsing various Canadian Universities (and not doing my homework), I realized just how uninvolved I have been with my campus (St. George), and how sad it really is. I’ve never joined a club, I’ve never joined a sports team (I’ve once used the Hart House gym with Greg—and I didn’t enjoy it much!), and I did end up joining the Hart House Film Board—and I wanted to make films! I honestly have no idea what this type of project involves, but it will likely be time-consuming: I cannot finish the job in one day, though by no means do I wish to capture the university during all seasons (it’s cold right now, too cold to do any serious photography outside). The evenings, and by evenings I mean sunsets, are far too short during this time of year, and the most lovely examples of photography, especially of landscapes or architecture (in my opinion) are taken around the time the sun is low. In an effort to stimulate myself, I’ll start bringing my camera with me even more often, hoping for chance opportunities that I sometimes see yet am unable to capture. I’ll hope for the worst and prepare for the best, because as I frequently discover, my photographic skills don’t always pan out well in terms of architecture or “street scenes”. I’ll need a good tripod for this assignment, so I’ll have to make a purchase within the coming couple of months, or as a pat on the back when I’m done my final exam on the 25th of April. Gosh, I wish I had a tilt and shift lens, but they’re 1,500 dollars a piece, if not more with tax.

Here is a link to a photograph of the Munk Centre: http://mischivo.zenfolio.com/img/p928183732-5.jpg

bad snow pic

some architectural thing

1/2 leafy

zero-g

Umm. I'm still alive.

I don't know if anyone has ever actually read this drivel of mine, however, if you have and you were wondering where I was, I wasn't gone. I'm still here. This blogging business bores me--I'm in photography now, so come visit my photo-site @ http://mischivo.zenfolio.com

The virtues of vegetarianism.

One of the great virtues of vegetarianism is this: by not eating me, you are indirectly contributing to the betterment of our environment and to the preservation of more sources of food for the starving. How?

Simple! Think back to high-school biology class and the food-chain. Every time an animal consumes another animal, it only gains about 10% of the energy that went into raising the animal that is eaten. So when you consume a steak, you are only getting 10% of the original food energy that went into creation of that steak. How is this bad? 90% of the bio-energy that went into that steak was used and consumed by the cattle to grow and maintain itself; 90% of potential food is wasted! And believe me, cattle farming, and all sorts of other farming, including fowl, lamb, fish, whatever, is an expensive and costly enterprise when you consider how much grain and other food sources these animals consume. The entire world gave up a meat, there would be an incredible surplus of grains and other cereal foods for human consumption in poorer states. This would not only solve the dilemma of 3rd world starvation, it would also help alleviate the problems that starvation causes. Poorer families in some developing states have many kids because (and this is only one reason--there are obviously others) those children are used to help with labour. if food becomes abundant (meaning, it is not wasted on farm animals), many people will have a lesser need to have many children, and this will contribute to lowering the population explosion. Another benefit to ending our meat diets is that animal farming, especially cattle farming, is an environmental risk: not only do cattle pollute through flatulence (they do!), but waste run-off pollutes ground water.

Do any enterprising vegetarians have anything more to add? I know there’s more, I simply can’t think of it or I am too lazy :)

How much are YOU worth?

There was a transit strike on Monday; it was not terribly good for me; I missed a day of work (about 90$--boo hoo).

But what is a strike? and what is a legitimate reason to strike?; should transit workers be striking? should we support them or boo them? I was thinking about these things on my sleepy ride home on the subway today.

Usually, I support the TTC workers, because not all of them are the rude bus drivers that give a bad face--some of them are actually nice; it is simply that the rude ones are much more impressionable upon you. So the TTC went on strike and Toronto was forced onto its knees; on no better day could’ve the workers striked than the cities first smog day, and not to mention the year’s hottest day up to that point (34C, and feeling around 40 with humidity). People drove to work, causing unusually long and unusually slow gridlock; people took bicycles to work; people pestered neighbours for rides; and many people walked (many of whom appeared as if they had not walked in ages). Wow. But was it legitimate? Were there demands fair?
Perhaps they could have been, but in this case, they were not. The strike was a complete surprise! There were no warnings, no drawn out news reports about “impending transit doom”, no this, no that, no other. I found out just before I was to get my ride to the bus stop, but a phone call stopped to warn me (thanks Nandini!). The union claimed that workers were treated unfairly, bus drivers required more protection against assault, and some other demands, which likely involve wage increases (as they almost always do). But what makes this illegitimate is the fact that it scored a major negative blow to the union and its members in the court of public opinion. I used to care for the drivers (and I still do, but I’ve lost much respect), and I’m sure I am not a distinct example; the union pulled a fast one and betrayed the public, the 800,000 individuals that take the TTC to and from work, school, shopping, dining, leisure, whatever, and it will take a long time before faith is restore. The restoration will not be immediate, for there is already word of another impending strike. The main reason for the strike, as cited by many news organizations, is that there were about 106 maintenance workers who’s shifts were being permanently switched from day to night, for cost-cutting purposes (it’s cheaper because night crews work more efficiently when there are no passengers and commuters getting in the way, and trains passing by). So a union of some 8000 members went on strike because of the complaints of 106, and caused major inconvenience for another 800,000 commuters, many of who are not nearly as well paid or compensated as the TTC staff themselves. They want us to understand the plight of the cleaning and repair crews, because now they have to work nights--no; the union did not consider the the situation they were putting many other night workers into, those workers who were relying on the TTC to return home in the morning after a night of work at a different part of town earning ends meet. No one thought of these men and women. They didn’t think twice about who’s lives they were affecting, but they want the public to understand their causes and their hardships. I think not.
Personally, I would have liked to see a hard line response: the firing of everyone who originally picketed. However, such is a hardline is impossible: Toronto is a hostage to the TTC, whether it likes it or not. Face it, if you fire the strikers, you will simply fuel their anger, and they will continue to strike, and then we will see Monday, but every day of the working week, and it isn’t a pretty sight. But such an example also serves to underline the issue of the importance of the TTC employee and the compensations they are asking for.
Let’s consider work versus pay. What determines pay? There are numerous factors: education determines how much one makes, but so does the importance of the job, and so does the demand for the job versus the supply of the provider. Why do doctors earn much green? They spend a great deal of time and effort being educated; this effort is both physical and psychological, and quite intense. Doctors are also in demand and play important roles in our lives. But why are CEOs paid more? I don’t know, I personally struggle with this question. But let me now consider the TTC worker. Education is not required, so that never plays a role. But it is easy to argue that the importance of the TTC workers depends on a cities dependence on public transit, and 800,000 people in the GTA depend on it. We saw what happens when the service is abruptly cut: chaos! So this serves to emphasize just how important the TTC is: very. And thus because of this reason, because it is an essential public service (though not technically classified as such), and because it plays a role in the daily lives of so many people (and 800,000 is simply the rider-ship average, let’s not forget that those who regularly drive would also be touched by a strike, as they were all stuck in 2 hour-long traffic jams to and from work because of the extra flow of cars on Toronto’s already crowded streets), and because it is plays this vital role daily (remember, precious few people need doctors daily), and because its influence tends to trickle out, especially a negative one (such as lost commercial sector money due to workers and customers not arriving), I feel that there is present an extremely strong argument for the extreme importance of the TTC and its unionized members. Knowing this, shouldn’t they be compensated accordingly? I’m not saying pay them 150,000 dollars each (that’s impossible), but I do feel that their minimal requests be met, because as they provide a vital service, they should be paid accordingly for it. Let us face the true nature of the situation: Toronto is held hostage to the TTC; we can’t live without it, and an extended strike would significantly impair our economy, and not to mention the lives of the more poor amongst us. This all tends to flow slowly through the economic gears, and will always end up costing more than the meeting of the minimum requirements the union wants.
My solution: give them what they want, but also impose new restrictions regarding the ability to strike and the consequences of doing so.

I wonder how many typos I’ve made in this one?