4-Jul-12 Should criminals be pardoned?

This coming Wednesday, we will be discussing whether convicted criminals should be pardoned after serving their sentence.
 

This is a link to the Policy manual of the Parole Board of Canada, citing the conditions for pardoning someone who served their sentence.

http://pbc-clcc.gc.ca/infocntr/policym/polman-eng.shtml#annex_a1

In looking at the eligibility table for pardon applications, it lists the time period after which applications for pardon can be submitted.  This includes serious personal injury offenses that required imprisonment of 2 years or more which requires a 10 year waiting period.

Does this mean that even serious criminals can apply for a pardon after a 10 year wait?

What are the chances that their pardon will be granted ?

It would be great if those of you out there that may be more familiar with the parole and pardon system can shed more light on this, or better still, come join us at the discussion!

Quite apart from the particular details of the Canadian system of granting pardons,  it is interesting to discuss how we should deal with those among us that have broken the rules we set up for our society.

On the one side, we have portions of the society that feel that criminal records should be permanent.  After all, what is the use of a criminal record that can be erased or concealed when criminal record checks are used to prevent these previous transgressors from taking up positions that involve trust with children, significant assets, or other forms of public trust?

We also have people that would rather have "criminals" be thrown behind bars forever and would even favor capital punishment as a way of getting rid of the problem.

On the other side, we have the argument that we should be reforming rather than punishing, that we should be aiming at reintroducing these "criminals" to become productive member of society.
http://www.pardons.org/about_us.html

But what of the safety risk to the rest of society in attempting these reforms and do reform always work?

Are there "hard-core" criminals that are not reformable?  What do we do with them and how do we decide who they are?

From the general public's everyday life perspective,  is criminal record a good indication of a person's character and reliability?

Is the absence or presence of a criminal record too much of a black and white test that put too much petty crimes in the black category?

If so, how do we introduce a better criteria?

It is often said that forgiveness is the victim's power to take charge and release itself of its victimized status.  Without forgiveness, the wound cannot heal and the victim remains a victim.

When and under what circumstances should we forgive and forget without being naive about it?



Come Wednesday and join our discussion!

27-Jun-12 The morality of choosing a child's genetic characteristics

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe,  we are going to discuss whether we should participate in the choosing of our children's genetic characteristics.

There is evidence that there is a statistical bias for birth rate of male babies, especially after the first born, and especially among immigrant families from cultures that favor males.

 

For women looking to artificial insemination, there are commercial sperm banks offering choices of sperms from famous university graduates, good looks, and other desirable characteristics.

 

 http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=52e43aa6-b15c-423f-a845-13a845143e70&k=9062

In the case of using ultra sound scans to determine the gender of the fetus, then going through with an abortion if the parents were looking for a different gender, there is the argument of wasting a potential life to gender selection.

However, in the case of the choice of sperm from the sperm bank for artificial insemination, the question is purely should we choose at all when the natural reproduction process involve no such choices.

 

Not that there is no choice at all in the conventional process of mate selection.

Healthy, intelligent people with good family background or abundant resources are already prized candidates for mate selection so choice is subtly built in to the selection of our children.

So, should we choose at the sperm bank?

If so, should we take a more radical step and choose a surrogate female for the quality of her egg?

Or should we let randomness and mutation take its course to give us pleasant as well as nasty surprises?

Who should be deciding on what sperm and egg should get together?

If we look at the animal and horticultural side,  breeders routinely improve on their breed to get the characteristics most desired by their customers.

 

Who is the "customer" for the human race?

Is the lack of this "customer" and ultimate decision maker the reason why we should leave the choice to randomness?

To go the other direction,  is it unethical to select life mates on the basis of them being better parents or genetic characteristics?

Are we currently going halfway in making this choice, but uncomfortable in going further with new technology just because we are creatures of habit ? 

Why stop at genetic characteristics,  is it unethical to choose someone to be a partner because this person is a "good provider" for the family?  Maybe we should let the challenges of life mold the next generation.

Finally,  there is unconscious choice.  We may be choosing our mates based on smells indicating the difference of their genes from ours

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/real/l_016_08.html

And we think we know what we are doing?

Let's hear your ideas this coming Wednesday!

13-Jun-12 Is advertising brainwashing or informing us?

This coming Wednesday, we will be discussing the role of advertising in our lives at the Ideas Cafe.

Does advertising add colour and interest in our lives or are these subtle and not so subtle attempts to make us buy something?

There are those who think we are subliminally manipulated.  http://www.subliminal-message.info/  (are real life ads this suggestive???)

There are messages of sex and other forbidden desires encoded in how ice cubes, drink cans, logos, etc are arranged in drink commercials.  http://www.11points.com/Food-Drink/11_Hidden_Messages_In_Food_Ads_and_Logos

Are these warnings of subliminal manipulations overblown conspiracy theories or are we really moved by these suggestions?

Are the companies sponsoring these ads not concerned about the backlash from being exposed of manipulating?  Do they know what is going on or is it just the advertising agency's way of getting an effective ad without telling the sponsoring companies?

Are we informed by the offering from the merchants? or are we unconsciously biased by these loaded messages while other valid, valuable ideas are left undiscovered because there is no commercial interest behind it?

In a way, advertising is no different than what lobbyist do with politicians and the general public in trying to shape the future of policies.

Are the publicity tactics of groups like Green Peace a form of advertising?

Advertisers and lobbyist are special interest groups with their own reasons for promoting the message they present to others.

How would we have adopted the microwave oven, cell phones, environmental awareness, and many other changes in recent years without advertising?

We have accepted many forms of "freebies" in our daily lives as a way to benefit both the advertiser and the consumer.  Kind of a synergy to use a well used word.

We enjoy "free" television and radio while putting up with their advertising content as paid satellite radio and government supported radio are struggling.  We use "free" insurance agent and investment advisers that are paid by insurance company and financial investments that we buy.

Is this a pact with the devil or the way to kill two birds with one stone?

Now let's look at the other side.

If you have a great idea that will benefit mankind,  how are you going to communicate this to the rest of the world most efficiently?  By words of mouth? waiting for the world to beat a path to your door?

Is advertising and lobbying not just an attempt at accelerating how we communicate to others?  There is no compulsory adoption being applied.

http://www.adcracker.com/techniques/Advertising_Techniques.htm

As to manipulation of the messages,  is this not a part of the characteristic of a free world where we try to minimise censorship so that many voices can be heard?

Is it not up to us to separate the valuable message from the noise out there?

For each of us to decide what is a good idea and what is not?  That one person's good idea is another person's awful idea?

It seems an awful price to have to pay to be ever vigilant on our own against the cheats, computer virus, misleading information, and aggressive advertising out there just so that we can have a "free" society where everyone is allowed to express their opinion.

Or would we rather have some central authority censor and forbid information and advertising it deem not for the public good?

As an aid towards arming ourselves against advertisers and special interest group messages,  you may be interested in this.  http://www.slideshare.net/kjhatzi/common-advertising-strategies  (just ignore the advertising that sponsor this!)

6-Jun-12 Can there be purpose without desire?

Last week at the Ideas Cafe, we discussed detachment versus engagement.  Whether we can have both or know when to do one or the other.

The discussion led to the concept of System 1 and System 2 proposed by Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow".  System 1 is like intuition and the emotional take on things; fast and sometimes faulty judgements are formed from some unknown experiences in the past.  System 2 is the rational and analytical side, takes time and effort but provide consistent judgements from similar inputs.

Mano's take is that instead of choosing between detachment and engagement, we should have system 2, the rational side of us, constantly watching system 1, the emotional side.  We can be engaged through system 1 but system 2 should always be alert and on the lookout for those fast, confident, but wrong judgements made by system 1.

This week,  let's look at purpose and desire.

Purpose is what gives our life direction, a reason to do something, motivation to get out of bed and to endure temporary hardship and inconveniences, just so that we can reach a goal that we desire.

Some would even say that purpose is what give meaning to life.

So purpose is a good thing.  We should not be drifting through life but have a sense of purpose in what we do.

Desire, on the other hand, is the longing for something that we want.  While often used in hedonistic terms for food, drink, and sex, it is nevertheless aimed at satisfaction of what we wanted.

How is that different than the drive to reach towards a particular goal or purpose in life?

Is it the targets that differentiate purpose in the high brow heaven while casting desire in the low brow devilish territory?

Or is it the single-mindedness that characterize desire versus the measured steps taken towards reaching our purpose?

In the spirit of last week's discussion,  should we have system 2 pick the purpose for us through rational analysis but have system 1 motivate us as we see progress towards our goal?

Should system 2 pick the goal and let system 1 provide the passion?

Do we get to tell what system 1 should do if it seems to decide quickly and have a mind of its own?

Let's hear your ideas on Wednesday.

30-May-12 Detachment versus enthusiasm, can we have both?

This coming Wednesday, we are discussing detachment from our emotions and passions as a strategy to handle suffering and pain that we experience in life.

Buddha is said to have been surprised as a young prince of the sickness and death he saw outside his palace and later on concluded that suffering is an inescapable part of life.  His advice is to be detached from our  emotional reaction to suffering and pain to handle this inevitable part of our life.

The Greek stoics also counsels that we should follow reason and strive to be free of "the passions", so that we will not be affected by the negative things that happen in life out of our control.

So now that we are detached and free of the passions, what motivates us? Do we just sit back and watch the world go by?

While both approaches seems to be aimed at handling the negative things we face in life, one can't help but feel that these two approaches are also at the expense of cutting back on one's ability to be fully engaged with all that is available in life and be enthusiastic in whatever one undertakes.

So, the questions is: Can we be detached and engaged?  If not, can we be selectively detached for the bad times and fully engaged in the good times?

How do we know when to be detached and when to be fully engaged?

Maybe it is a risk taking venture,  we need to risk disappointment and suffering in order to have life sustaining feeling of achievement and pleasure? Kind of a gamble or lottery?

Suffering may be unavoidable,  but perhaps joy is also achievable if we engage and keep trying?

Optimism may be the other perspective.  Why do we see suffering and pain as the final defeat of an endeavor rather than a temporary setback on the road to a higher achievement and reward?

Just like how mutual funds can always make their fund performance look good by picking the beginning and end of the measuring period for the performance of their funds,  our assessment of our life situation depends on when we do the assessment.

Do it at the depth of despair and life is truly miserable.  Review life after a significant achievement and things cannot be better.

Maybe the so call inevitable suffering is a learning opportunity for one to improve on one's tactics, skills and approaches.  After all, no one scores a success at the first try with any worthwhile challenge,  it generally follows after a few smaller failures that let us hone our skills.

What doesn't kill us makes us strong.  Is it not all in how we look at it?

If it does kill us, then we are not around to care!

Detachment or enthusiasm,  let's hear your choice at the coming Wednesday discussion!

Discussion on Peace, Order, and Good Government

We had our discussion at the Ideas Cafe yesterday about the constitutional ideals of Peace, Order, and Good Government for Canada, and Liberty, Freedom, and the Pursuit of Happiness for the United States.

It is interesting that these mottoes actually seem to reflect the different character of the two countries. 

Shula pointed out that relatively speaking, the federal government in the US did not have much power until foreign issues such as the Spanish American war and the two world wars rallied the need for a stronger central government while the Canadian federal government have always had more central power.

Historically, the fact that the US started from a revolution against British taxes perhaps made them a bit more prone to idealism in their aspirations. The Canadian federation was formed later, evolved under British rule, and had already had a lot of loyalist that came to Canada from the US as they did not want to be part of the US revolution. 

The Canadian tone therefore is naturally more accommodating to the then British rulers, the loyalists, as well as the founding British and French groups.

Mano pointed out that there was an effort to sell the benefits of good government as part of the reason to join the Canadian confederation.  Whether it is the postal service, the RCMP, the railroad that link the country,  it was pointed out that these are services that individual provinces would not have without joining the confederation.

In fact, part of the enticement for British Columbia to join the Canadian confederation was the promise of building the railroad across the Rockies to link up with the rest of Canada.  This was to fight off thoughts of BC joining the north west US states and draw the US-Canada border at a more northern latitude.

Dan wonders if the dominant influence of the Hudson's Bay Company in Canada's development may have also been the push for peace, order, and good government.  After all, these are the conditions that traders and merchants flourish; in a stable, lawful environment.

It is indeed ironic that peace, order, and good government are the very infrastructure that allows the citizens to have liberty, freedom, and pursuit happiness.  Even if it sounds a bit boring, and somewhat confining, it seems to be the more productive of the two.  Kind of like the means to the end. 

Sounding off about the end is perhaps not as productive as concentrating on providing the means.

Of course, afterwards, looking up in Wikipedia showed that Peace, Order, and Good Government is not only used in Canada but also mentioned in Australia and New Zealand at one time or another.  It certainly has a hint of the British civil service promoting itself to the colonies. 

We may have bought it and called it our own. 

23-May-12 Peace, order, and good government versus freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing the national character of Canada versus the United States.

The rest of the world sees these two countries as rather similar with Canadians perhaps a bit more reserved compared to the typical American.  However, to those of us living in these two countries,  there is a world of difference, starting with our national motto set out in our constitution.

While we seldom look at the goals that our respective countries aspires to be on an everyday basis,  it is interesting to look at the example of Canada's and the US.

The Canadian aim of Peace, order, and good government and the US aim for freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness seems to capture the difference of the two countries almost to a T.

Is this a case of channeled thinking, that we are led by history and upbringing to have the values we have? something in our drinking water? or generations of immigrants truly choosing the country whose value appeal to them the most?

Peace, order, and good government seems so little to ask compared to the lofty goals of the US.  Is Canada aiming for contentment by getting the basics right versus being an over achiever in pursuing the impossible ultimate goal of the US?

Some say that goals should be set high so that we are pushed to excellence, that we embark on a journey that will not end too soon.  After all, it is the journey, not the destination, that matters.

But with lofty goals comes a continual sense of striving, of never seemingly having enough, of not appreciating everyday things that we have, thereby neglecting them.  The constant drive to improve also lead to wanting to help improve others, resulting in interference however unintentional it may be.

Maybe the two aspirations are rooted historically that Canada is from loyalist to Britain while the US started from a revolution against the same British government.  Should we continue to live our lives a few hundred years later under this influence?

Peace, order, and good government is not actually that easy to achieve in today's turbulent world. In a twisted kind of way,  it is actually the foundation for a vibrant free market economy that the US is so keen to have.  In calling for less and less government, the US runs the danger of having less and less oversight to prevent free riders that profit at the expense of everyone else by taking advantage of flawed rules in the market.

Is this a case of striving for lofty goals while neglecting the basics?

As usual, all comments and ideas are welcomed and I look forward to your ideas at the Wednesday meeting coming up!