Radio Freethinker

Vancouver's Number 1 Skeptical Podcast and Radio Show

  • Welcome to Radio Freethinker!

    Radio Freethinker is a radio show/podcast that promotes skepticism, critical thinking, and secular issues.
  • Follow Us!

  • Categories

  • Archives

Author Archive

Myths about the Black Death

Posted by Ethan Clow on October 2, 2012

Last week on the show we talked a bit about the myths surrounding the Black Death. For those that haven’t heard of the black death, here’s a quick recap. The black death, or bubonic plague, was a pandemic that ravaged across Europe between 1348 and 1350, it is estimated to have killed between 30–60 percent of Europe’s population, reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in the 14th century and it took Europe about 150 years for its population to return to pre-plague levels.

We’re going to discuss some of the on-going mysteries about the black death. First, where did it come from?

There are several different theories about where the bubonic (aka black death) plague came from. The most common explanation is that the disease was spread by Yersinia pestis bacterium. (and when I say most common – I mean scientifically proven) However the method of spreading the bacteria is subject to some debate. The generally accepted idea is that fleas spread the bacteria. The fleas would feed on an infected host,  which would cause the fleas’ mid guts to become obstructed by replicating Y. pestis. This blockage results in starvation and aggressive feeding behaviour by fleas that repeatedly attempt to clear their blockage by regurgitation, resulting in thousands of plague bacteria being flushed into the feeding site, infecting a new host.

An additional source of infection would also be the infected carcass – all the dead bodies laying around, which would also increase the chance of being infected.

At the time of the plague, the black death was believed to be caused by rats, specifically black rats which were introduced to Europe from Asia, what we can say with some certainty now is that it was the fleas on the rats which where the real culprits.

But what motivating factors made the plague enter Europe? We don’t know for sure but some of the theories are that: overpopulation of marmots in Asia (which spread the plague to fleas and to rats and to humans) and/or the movement of the Mongols (war is particularly good at spreading disease) or earthquakes that forced rodents out of their burrows (sending carrier rats into Europe)

The unconfirmed point of entry was when Italian soldiers defending the city of Caffa were infected and when they fled from the Muslim armies into Messina in Sicily and then Genoa, they brought the plague to Italy.

Once in Europe, the plague spread through Italy in 1347, by January 1348, it reached southern France, by June and August it traveled to Paris, and in early 1349 it crossed the channel to England. Scandinavia was devastated in 1350 and it reached the northern shores of Russia in 1352.

However, something interesting happened. While the plague spread through Europe like a hot knife through butter; it left some areas completely untouched.

Why would that be?

The areas spared by the plague included the city of Milan in northern Italy, Poland, between Cracow and Warsaw, and the city of Prague.

One rumor is that a statue of the baby Jesus in Prague kept the plague from the city.

But more likely, the answers are less magical. In the case of Milan, the government came up with a rather effective, if not gruesome method. At the first sign of infection, the rulers of Milan would have the house of the infected, along with the three houses next to it, completely walled up. With the people still inside it.

But what about Poland? Well, the truth is hard to come by. There are several theories however. One is that Poland closed its borders to Europe during the plague. Another is that Poland was so under populated and settlements spread apart that the plague couldn’t go through the country. Another idea is that many Jews, who were often blamed for the plague, fled to Poland, since Jews were often isolated from the rest of the populations, they had a much lower percentage of infected people.

Those might all seem plausible but a few of those theories don’t hold water. The idea that Poland closed its borders is unlikely. Nations in the medieval era didn’t really have the ability to “close borders” They didn’t have a wall around the whole country and couldn’t run along the border like they do in Texas. However, cities were able to wall themselves up and could enforce strict rules about who was allowed in and who wasn’t.

Poland also wasn’t that sparsely populated compared to other areas in Europe that were devastated by the black death. So it’s unlikely that theory is true either.

In reality the truth may never be found, records from that period are illusive and since there was no real idea of how the disease spread, finding the right information is very difficult to come by.

So what does the nursery rhyme “Ring around the Rosie” have to do with the black death? Let’s review, here is the rhyme we’re most familiar with:

Ring-a-ring-a-roses,
A pocket full of posies;
Ashes! Ashes!
We all fall down.

The myth is that this creepy sounding nursery rhyme is a reference to the black death. It began around 1347. The “ring around the rosie” refers to the round red rash that is the first symptom of the disease. The practice of carrying flowers and placing them around the infected person for protection is described in the phrase “a pocket full of posies” and the words “ashes” is a corruption or imitation of the sneezing sound made by the infected person. And “we all fall down” is referring to the infected person dying.

Despite this explanation making the rhyme even more creepy and kind of cool, it’s not true. While the references are valid, the rash, sneezing and death were all attributed to the black death, the first recorded use of the rhyme is dated to 1881. For the plague origin to be true, we’d need to assume that children have been reciting this continuously for over five centuries. (meanwhile no one found the time to write down this incredible popular rhyme)

In addition, there are several more versions of this rhyme that appeared around 1881, including the version:

Ring a ring a Rosie,
A bottle full of posie,
All the girls in our town
Ring for little Josie.

Even if we assumed that the myth was true, how could we honestly say that the “plague” version is the real version and that the other variations are corruptions of that one and not the other way around?

Additionally, not only were children reciting this plague inspired nursery rhyme, but it took over six hundred years for someone to figure it out, because it wasn’t until 1961 in a book called Plague and Fire that a connection to the black death was even proposed. The myth has been repeated again and again. It’s one of those enduring stories that gets told and retold and no one along the way questions the veracity of the claims. After all, just some basic research, as I’ve done here, clearly shows the whole concept the plague origin of the rhyme is basically impossible.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Neil Armstrong, Humanist Explorer?

Posted by Ethan Clow on October 1, 2012

When Neil Armstrong died, I began to wonder about his legacy.

For obvious reasons, he has an assured legacy that will no doubt be remembered for a long, long, time. Being the first human on another world is sort of a big deal. The interesting things about Armstrong were some of the lesser known items in his career. For example, the team at NASA that put together the leadership of Apollo 11 was very careful about picking a man who was humble and cool headed. What they did not want was an egotistical, “typical fighter pilot” type guy.

This level handedness of Armstrong could be seen in his nonchalant attitude to everything. When he, along with the rest of the crew of Apollo 11, found out that they would be the team to go to the moon, he reportedly didn’t react at all but just responded with an “okay, let’s get on with it.”

This humble guy image stuck with him throughout his whole life. He was soft spoken and didn’t get involved in politics. Of course, because of his fame, he was constantly approached to endorse political parties and such. His disinterest could even be seen as a recognition of not buying into his own hype. Also, he was deists.

One time he was involved in an accident where his wedding ring got stuck in the wheel of a grain truck and tore off the end of his finger. He picked up the severed finger and packed it in ice and (most likely) calmly walked into the hospital like nothing happened and had it reattached.

His death comes so soon after Curiosity’s successful landing on Mars that we can’t help but wonder about the future of space exploration by humans. Neil deGrasse Tyson tweeted that the first human piloted craft to Mars should be called the Armstrong.

When we consider all of his accomplishments and his amazing legacy and the fact that he remained such a humble man his whole life, I don’t think I’m wrong in suggesting, Neil was in a class in his own as an explorer. What I mean by that is when you think of the other explorers in human history, Columbus, Cortez, Magellan, I mean, these are the people who really only come to close to Armstrong’s accomplishments, but you look at those men and what they stood for and arguably, the horrible things they did as explorers… Armstrong represented such a departure from that mold.

He was in many ways what I think we as skeptics and humanists would like in an explorer. Not there to conquer but truly to explore and advance the frontiers of humanity.

The Apollo missions were for the most part a race to the moon with the Soviets, an attempt to be the first to plant their flag and do a victory lap while the loser seethed quiet indignities. Armstrong, despite being the man at the front of the parade, seemed totally disinterested in the pageantry. At least based on what we know of the guy, Armstrong didn’t see the moon landing as a solely American accomplishment. It wasn’t about extending the reach of a nation into space or claiming territory, but an attempt to go somewhere humanity hadn’t been.

And unlike his predecessors like Columbus, he wasn’t there to conquer. I think it was a turning point in our history of exploration.

When removing Armstrong from the context of the Cold War and space race, what we are left with is a humble man who accomplished something that the whole world could share.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

We Feel Your Pain

Posted by Ethan Clow on August 24, 2012

Just a quick update regarding some of the recent podcast problems. Turns out there was a server crash over at CiTR which whipped out all the podcasts going back to June. Yeah, I know. That’s annoying. Fortunately we have back up copies of all the episodes and you can access them here. As for the most recent episode, we’ll have to re-upload it to CiTR’s servers. This may take a bit of time but don’t worry all that great skeptical content isn’t lost to the aether.

Our apologies (even though this isn’t our fault ;)

In the meantime this pretty much sums it up.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Let’s see…I’m a skeptic, humanist, atheist…

Posted by Ethan Clow on August 23, 2012

There’s been a lot of discussion lately regarding the new Atheism + group/ideology proposed by Jen McCreight, which I think is great. I wanted to throw in my two cents regarding this, Don has already started discussing the topic as well so you can see what he has to say about it. But to start with, let’s consider what’s on the table here. Jen’s new wave of atheism would expand the circle of previous atheist advocacy to include discussion of social justice issues like racism, homophobia, feminism, political issues and more.

To quote her:

“This new wave of atheism isn’t about declaring “We’ve already achieved something better” or “We’re not like those assholes.” You don’t just get your shiny membership pin and get to say you’re done. This is about saying “We want to work TOWARDS something better.” We need to recognize that there’s still room for self-improvement and to address the root of why we’ve been having these problems in atheism and skepticism. We need to focus on actual change instead of prematurely crowning ourselves victorious.”

I think this will be a great project and I really hope this expanded “big tent” wave of atheism activism takes hold of people and really energizes the movement. Of course I suspect there will be some who will dig in their heels and refuse to acknowledge that atheists can have a position on such “wishy washy” topics like politics or social justice.  Or point out the fatal flaw that you can’t take social justice under the microscope like you can with homeopathy.

That of course comes with a bit of irony since there are plenty of skeptics out there that feel the same about atheism in general. You can’t put God under the microscope.

I pretty much left that way of thinking behind years ago. In fact I’m still routinely face palming every time I see some skeptic/atheist/humanist wag their finger at someone because they are attempting to apply some avenue of free thought to a topic that said finger wagging -ist doesn’t think falls under the limited scope of their preferred -ism.

This debate, the question of what we should be skeptical of/what should we focus our resources on, has been going on since there was an organized free thought movement.

When I first joined in I took a look around to see what the pulse of the various groups and organizations was like. I was surveying the room so to speak. Trying to figure out which conversation I would have the most to say in, and coincidently, which conversation I wanted the most to be a part of.

I happen to love the term “skeptic.” I felt then and now, it most accurately describes what I am. Even though I also identify as an atheist, a humanist, a free thinker, a feminist, a progressive, a liberal and so forth.

See, my background, I was an atheist first, more in the teenage rebellion aspect, but I also had a huge love of critical thinking spurred on by reading books by Carl Sagan. This was all before I even knew there was a free thought movement. When I encountered the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast I had this great moment of realization “holy crap there are people who think like I do!”  That was my first clue that there was an organized effort out there to promote the values I saw as important; skepticism, science, atheism, critical thinking…

Perhaps that’s why I really like the term “skeptic” it was the first way of describing my thought process that I heard. Even though the SGU podcast rarely talked about religion or atheism, or dived into political or social justice issues, I felt that with a mandate like skepticism – vigorous rational inquiry into the world, how could you not being on the side of social justice?

Of course not everyone agrees with me. There are some skeptics who just as vigorously deny any connection between skepticism and atheism. Likewise with humanism. Meh. Fuck them I guess. Okay, that was harsh. No, in all seriousness, I wish them well with their chosen goals. Finger wagging aside, I have long said we need every voice possible promoting this rational movement. Those who do wag fingers… yes they can go fuck off because they are in fact hurting our movement. They push away allies and demoralize the rest of us.

I really have no problem with groups like the JREF not engaging in social justice issues because, well, they would suck at that. Who are the JREF’s experts? Magicians and scientists. These aren’t the kind of people who I want weighing in on social justice. Does that mean that when the JREF puts on a big skeptical conference they should avoid having speakers who are historians, sociologists, harm reduction drug activists, criminologists or whomever? No, because in that case those speakers would be experts on those topics and they there’s nothing anti-skeptical about those topics for a bunch of evidence loving folks to digest and debate.

Of course I do have a problem with groups make statements about the limits of our inquiry (it’s free inquiry for a reason, yes?) Obviously we need these groups to be aware of the effect of making events and conferences safe places and welcoming to people who don’t love to hear homeopathy debunked for the umpteenth time. That’s a given and I’m flabbergasted anyone anywhere actually doubts that.

What I like about this Atheism+ thing is that Jen and her other supporters seem keen on brining in the social justice experts, including them in the conversation, and that’s a great way to expand our diversity of topics. Making a point of talking about social justice is great. Having something intelligent to say on it is better.

Here on Radio Freethinker, we have unequivocally supported the “big tent” mentality. By our twentieth episode we had covered such “big tent” ideas like morality, religion, politics, racism and history. And we were just getting started. We’ve discussed everything from ‘how to debate ghost believers’ to harm reduction drug policy and corporal punishment. (Also for the record, we admit to not being experts on anything. We do research and invite people to disagree with us. Sometimes we’re wrong but we’re doing our best to apply our skepticism.)

I joked on Facebook that I was skeptical everything before being skeptical of everything was cool.

So will I identify as an Atheist+? Sure I guess so. I’ll add it to my list. Let me see if I can get this right, bear with me.

I’m a skeptic, I navigate the world around me with a skeptical method of inquiry, I gain my sense of morality and ethics from humanism and when possible, they are informed by science. I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in gods and this is informed by my scientific understanding of how the universe works. Plus(!) I extend my skepticism to my views of social justice; freedom, equality, and kindness. In that, I not only skeptically investigate what social justice policies work, but that I encourage those social justice policies in my skeptical activism.

There. A bit long for a button or logo but that’s what I think.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Saturday Stub: Maybe Humans and Neanderthals Didn’t…you know…

Posted by Ethan Clow on August 18, 2012

So I’m doing Saturday Stub’s again. For a refresher, this is where I take a small item and write a bit about, not too much since it’s Saturday, but enough to get you thinking.

A while back there was an interesting news story that hinted that perhaps, long ago, our human ancestors interbreed with Neanderthals.

It was not something completely out of the question. Early humans were living areas where there were lots of Neanderthals. The question of course is how much interbreeding and what was the outcome? Not just in biological terms either. What did this mean when it came to human-Neanderthal diplomacy (if I can use that word) Because early humans were sharing space with these folk, it’s likely they were also competing for resources, shelter, and everything else. Did humans and Neanderthals try setting aside their tribalism and interbreeding was the result? Or was this the result of widespread contact that was not always consenting?

But here’s a news story suggesting that the initial idea might not even be true. Quote from The Guardian:

“When scientists discovered a few years ago that modern humans shared swaths of DNA with long-extinct Neanderthals, their best explanation was that at some point the two species must have interbred.

Now a study by scientists at the University of Cambridge has questioned this conclusion, hypothesising instead that the DNA overlap is a remnant of a common ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans.”

Basically it comes down to 4% of our genetic link to Neanderthals. One explanation for this connection that most people who lived outside of Africa had, was that their ancestors who left Africa in the past, interbreed with Neanderthals and the native African population, descended from people who didn’t leave the continent never interbreed and thus don’t that that shared 4% of DNA.

Scientists Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson are suggesting that the so-called 4% is an over-estimation. Further, they suggest that it can be explained as an indicator of a common ancestor that humans and Neanderthals shared about 500,000 years ago.

So what about the fact that Africans don’t share the 4 (or less) percentage of DNA? Manica and Eriksson say that we need to take into account “substructuring” which is the variation of genetics among populations that are not homogeneous or well mixed, as Manica and Eriksson claim African populations were like during the time period in question.

A link to the actual study can be found here.

The folks championing the interbreeding hypothesis, aren’t taking this laying down either (no pun intended) Professor Svante Pääbo, who sequenced the Neanderthal genome, is quoted as saying that Manica and Eriksson’s hypothesis was viewed as “a less parsimonious explanation.”

Pääbo has a paper awaiting peer review that he believes will further support his conclusions.

I eagerly await more human-Neanderthal intrigue.

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BC Humanists to Christy Clark: The Bible is not a source of Wisdom

Posted by Ethan Clow on August 2, 2012

Earlier today the BC Humanist Association issued the following press release in response to BC Premiere and leader of the BC Liberals, Christy Clark who said that she finds the courage and inspiration to make tough decisions from the Bible.

BIBLE NO BASIS FOR PUBLIC POLICY, DECLARE BC HUMANISTS

Premier Clark’s Recent Comments Alarm Secularists

1 August 2012

Comments by BC Premier Christy Clark have members of the BC Humanist Association concerned that the separation of church and state may be eroded in Canada’s least religious province.

On a recent episode of 100 Huntley Street, an evangelical Christian talk show, Clark – a “devout Anglican” – stated that she bases some of her decisions on what she learns in the Bible.

The BC Humanists, a non-partisan charity, fear that by basing policy decisions on the Bible, the premier may exclude the views of roughly half of the province that does not identify as Christian, and may follow policies based on faith rather than pragmatic reality.

“Policies should be formed in the best interests of all the people of the province and based on the best available evidence,” says Ian Bushfield, Executive Director of the BC Humanists. “The Bible is of great literary value, but lacks the critical analysis necessary to deal with today’s exceptional challenges.”

Since 1984, the BC Humanist Association has represented atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists across the province. Its vision is a secular society based on the universal values of reason and compassion.


The number of people who identify as Christian in British Columbia was estimated from the 2001 Census.

If you would like more information about this topic or to schedule an interview with Ian Bushfield, please call 778-848-0656 or email exdir@bchumanist.ca

The statements made by Clark, including:

“So I think that’s the hard part, because many times as with many decisions that we face, and we learn this in the Bible, it’s much easier to make a short-term decision that will make everybody happy or that will make your life a little bit easier, than it is to make a long-term decision that’s good for the future but may be tough in the short run…”

and she was also quoted as saying how she was a “devote Anglican” and that it was important to raise children to be “moral.” Clark made these statements on the Christian right-wing TV show 100 Huntley Street.

So what? It’s not like Clark stated that she makes all her decisions based on Biblical scripture. And it’s not like drawing inspiration and faith from the bible is out of the ordinary or in of itself a threat to secularism, right?  Ian Bushfield, Executive Director of the BC Humanists published this letter in response to such thoughts.

” …Among [the] other goals [of the BCHA] is to advocate for secular values in the public sphere. One of these values is a commitment to secularism. [...]  Ms. Clark may have intended her statement to be more about the generic courage to take controversial decisions, it can also be seen as using the Bible to defend traditional morality. For example, for the second year as premier, Ms. Clark will not be attending the Vancouver Pride Parade (while it will be the third year that the BCHA will be in attendance). Similarly, while she has pledged to work to fight bullying in schools, her plan is noticeably silent on LGBTQ-bullying – a leading cause of suicides among LGBTQ teenagers. Finally, her commitment to the Bible as a tool for decision making and her emphasis on raising “moral” children will undoubtedly leave her supporting BC’s discriminatory independent school system, where Catholic schools that have fired lesbian teachers receive 50% per-student funding from the government.

The fear that I, and many of our members, have is that if Ms. Clark bases some of her decisions on the Bible (the ability to undertake long term policy despite short term controversy), she may base other decisions on the Bible too. My point with the statement is that there are much better principles to derive public policy from than a book that many consider to be inerrant.

Regardless of the above arguments, it is further questionable for the premier of a province as diverse as BC to appear on a Christian talk show in the first place, unless she makes a habit of appearing on all faith and cultural talk shows.

My goal with the release was not to demonize Christianity or her right to read the Bible, but to draw attention to the dangers of an elected official basing their decisions on religion and ideology.

Finally, the BCHA is a democratically governed organization, and all members are entitled to their opinions, including dissenting ones. I believe that this statement falls within the majority view within our organization (as I have received a number of supportive emails since the release) but I am open to changes in the group. You are welcome to make your case among our members – either through the email list-serv (chatter@bchumanist.ca), a post on our blog (http://blog.bchumanist.ca/ …”

Well said, Ian.

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who Killed the Avro Arrow?

Posted by Ethan Clow on July 4, 2012

Have you heard of the Avro Arrow?

The Avro Arrow was a fighter jet created by Avro Aircraft for the use of the Canadian air force. However it was a plan that never took off. Get it? Planes? Take off? Baw ha ha. Anyway.

More accurately called the CF-105 Arrow, and also more accurately referred to as an interceptor aircraft, designed specifically to prevent missions of enemy aircraft. However this role is largely obsolete these days as modern jets are already fast enough and other weaponry like surface-to-air missiles provide better defence.

But the big question is the fate of the Arrow. Not long after the 1958 start of its flight test program, the development of the Arrow (including its Orenda Iroquois jet engines) was abruptly and controversially halted before the project review had taken place, sparking a long and bitter political debate and many conspiracy theories.

We should provide some context as to why this particular jet was so important in the first place. The Arrow was one of the fastest jets ever built. During the 1950′s the Arrow was achieving speeds of mach 2, which for the time, made the Arrow one of the fastest jets ever.

Aviation experts were pretty amazed by the Arrow, and rightly so, it was sleek, fast, and a technological marvel. Obviously with all the excitement going around about the Arrow, Canadians were feeling a lot of pride at this new creation.

Why did Canada need such fast weapons? Well, keep in mind this was during the cold war and the USSR was right across the North Pole from Canada. Also in 1954 the USSR unveiled their long range Tupolev bombers, which worried a lot of Canadians. Back in those days the big concern was nuclear war. And part of the arms race was not just about building new and more powerful nuclear bombs but also developing a delivery system for those bombs.

Consider how far apart Russia and the US were. Launching missiles back and forth over the oceans and continents wasn’t exactly pragmatic. So of course they would need jets and boats and everything in between to get those bombs to their targets. Building jets that had the ability to fly higher and faster and farther meant that a nation had a much greater ability to deliver its nuclear weapons. And when the USSR developed long range bombers, something needed to be done.

The Royal Canadian Air Force believed they needed 600 fast jets to defend the north from the Soviets. Thus, the Arrow was built.

The Arrow also had some pretty cutting edge design, notably the delta-wings which allowed for more room for fuel and weapons while at the same time providing the same quality of speed and altitude.

The downside was that the Arrow was enormously expensive. The initial cost which was green lit by the St. Laurent Liberals was 190 million for 29 Arrows. Of course as Avro started to improve the design the cost went up, by the time Diefenbaker and the Conservatives took office, the Arrow was looking to cost about $12 million each. So if the government was going to purchase 600 Arrows, as the air force requested, the total price tag would have been around 7 billion and change.

Whereas purchasing an American jet that was comparable to the Arrow would have cost about 1/6th as much.

On February 20th 1959, the Arrow was canceled. The reasons being there was a recession and the cost of building the Arrow couldn’t be justified without foreign interest, so controversially, the program was scrapped. Nearly 30,000 employees of Avro were put out of work by the decision and the plans and blue prints were destroyed.

And that was the end of the story.

Or was it?

Enter the conspiracies.

There seems to be about 3 main conspiracies out there:

  1. Diefenbaker was in cahoots with the American Military complex and cancelled the Arrow because the jet threatened American dominance of jets or something.
  2. American politicians put pressure on Diefenbaker to cancel the Arrow and he caved to their pressure.
  3. Diefenbaker had a personal vendetta against the Arrow and those who made it and canceled it out of spite.

You’ll notice something similar about the conspiracies:

They all seem to focus on Diefenbaker – notice how he’s either a schemer, a push over, or petty. We should keep this in mind as we know that Diefenbaker was a rather unpopular Prime Minister, and he had just defeated the Liberals in an election and was under the microscope from a skeptical public.

But moving on, could any of these theories be true? They could, it’s not like they involve aliens or bigfoot or something. But are any of these likely? Well, not really. Let’s take a close look at the conspiracies.

1) Diefenbaker was in cahoots with the American military – part of this theory comes from the idea that after canceling the Arrow, Dief allowed the Americans to build Bomarc and SAGE (Semi-Automatic-Ground-Environment) installations in Canada. And this also led to Canada getting (more permanent) Nuclear weapons. And of course NORAD.

The idea of Dief in cahoots with Americans is rather silly. He was known as being somewhat anti-American. He wanted to shift trade from America to Britain, which was one of his more contentious political ambitions. And while he did have a friendly relationship with American President Dwight Eisenhower, a deal of that was probably motivated by their similar farm boy upbringing. But there was very little to suggest that Dief would be a friend to American industry and business.

This theory also places all the blame on Dief and ignores some serious facts of the world. During this time, the superpowers were racing to develop ICBM’s (Inter-Continental-Ballistic-Missiles) which would make bombers obsolete. As well as interceptors since the missiles were too small and fast for jets to catch them. Thus, NORAD and such military alliances were mostly reasonable things for Dief to consider.

2)  American politicians put pressure on Diefenbaker to cancel the Arrow? The Americans were also developing interceptors like the Arrow. The idea being that the Arrow was a threat to the American built jets and if developed would put pressure on the American control of the industry.

This ignores the fact that the Americans considered purchasing the Arrow but a simple cost-benefit analysis showed that they could build their own jets for less money. And this wasn’t unique to America. Britain and France both came to this conclusion independently. Combined with the change of technology mentioned earlier, the Americans probably realized that Interceptors weren’t worth the time and resources.

This also seems to imply that the Americans wanted Canada to be less militarily developed. However the Americans gained very little from such a scenario. With NORAD they would basically be defending two countries instead of one, how does that benefit America?

It also seems to place a lot guilt on the military industrial complex, which at this point in history was actually just beginning. There really wasn’t a complex in place yet for American politicians to protect.

3) Diefenbaker had a personal vendetta against the Arrow? Dief was known to be a rather grumpy person and difficult to get along with. There are reports of him having heated meetings with Crawford Gordon, the head of Avro. Could this be true?

It’s certainly possible that Dief didn’t like Avro. But to suggest that the reason he canceled the Arrow was because of this also ignores some important facts. First, it was actually the Liberals who first considered canceling the Arrow, however before they could there was an election which they lost. Also the cancelation wasn’t a surprise. The Conservatives sent several warnings to Avro that the program would be scrapped.

When the Arrow was canceled, Avro fired its workers the same day. Avro blamed Diefenbaker for the firings and then re-hired about 2500 employees to finish other projects.

It was Avro who fired employees, not the government, putting the blame on Dief isn’t really accurate, especially when the Arrow as already considered a cost over-run by the previous government and had been issued warnings before cancelation. It’s also fair game to put more the blame on Avro as well. Prior to gaining the military contract to build the Arrows, Avro had been heavily involved in civilian and commercial industry, but they switched all their focus to military and when they lost the Arrow they had nothing as a company to fall back on.

There are some bonus conspiracies to go along with ones I mentioned: After the Arrow as cancelled, all the plans and blue prints were destroyed. This has led some to infer that the conspiracies about Dief were true, why destroy the plans unless there was some conspiracy with America to snuff the Arrow?

The most reasonable conclusion was that they were worried about Soviet espionage. This may seem rather “extraordinary” to us now, but given the historic context, the cold war and fear of spies, it made a lot of sense.

Were all the Arrows destroyed? One theory suggests that one of the Arrows was kept hidden.  The rumours that an Arrow got away started the day of the cancellation. Some people reported hearing the Arrow with its Iroquois engine taking off. Others said that one night Avro was cordoned off and several covered flatbed trucks were seen leaving the plant. One source of the rumors has to do with the photos of the destruction. In one overhead shots of the Avro building, one can see five Arrows with one partially disassembled. In the side view, you see the same partially disassembled Arrow in the foreground but one Arrow is missing from the photo. Did it escape or was it simply in the hangar?

In Dec of 2011 an ejection seat was discovered in the UK and confirmed to have belonged to an Arrow. How did it get there? There is speculation that Air Marshal W.A. Curtis spirited away in an Arrow before it could be destroyed. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. He did imply in an interview with the Toronto Star in 1968 that if he had stolen one, he wouldn’t admit to it, stating when asked “I don’t want to talk about that.”

Perhaps adding insult to injury, when the Arrow was canceled, a blow was struck to the Canadian aerospace industry that it never recovered from. Many of the engineers and scientists who were fired by Avro were immediately hired by NASA. This has led many to believe that the team of Avro scientists were also anticipating a Canadian Space Program and building a ship to go to the moon. However there is no evidence for such plans and the idea can probably be attributed to a fictional movie about the Arrow produced by the CBC.

The loss of the Arrow was an unfortunate turn of events for Canadian military pride, and the media of the time ran with it all the way to the bank. The outcry was so out of proportion and especially when you consider that given the circumstances, the Arrow as destined to be canceled, it just so happened that the government who did was Diefenbaker and the Conservatives.

Sources:

http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/asktheexpert2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Diefenbaker#Foreign_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111217/avro-arrow-ejection-seat-mystery-deepens-with-uk-discovery-111218/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_arrow

Canada: From Empire to Umpire, Hillmer and Granatstein.

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

A Beauty Pageant for Holocaust Survivors?

Posted by Ethan Clow on June 29, 2012

If those words make you shiver with morbid misgivings of bad taste, congratulations, I believe that’s the correct response. Too bad it wasn’t the response from the Shimon Sabag organisation, which organized the event.

Fourteen women who survived the Holocaust, aged 74 to 97, competed for the prize of being named Israel’s first ‘Miss Holocaust Survivor.’

It was billed as a celebration of life, the contestants were selected based on their stories of survival and their impact in their communities. The judges would then decide who was the winner based on who had the most incredible story. So don’t worry, physical appearance only counted for 10% of the final score.

Hava Hershkovitz Via The Independent

And I’m sure the panel of judges were really qualified as well. There were three former beauty pageant winners and a psychiatrist who treats holocaust survivors.

So, sound like a good idea?

The winner was 79-year-old Hava Hershkovitz, who was banished from her home in Romania in 1941.

The pageant has readily been condemned by various organizations that deal with Holocaust survivors, Collete Avital, chairwoman of Israel’s Holocaust survivors’ umbrella group was quoted saying:

“It sounds totally macabre to me… I am in favour of enriching lives, but a one-time pageant masquerading [survivors] with beautiful clothes is not what is going to make their lives more meaningful,”

Despite the statements from the organizers that this was not about capitalizing on the memory of the Holocaust, most people have been left agape and believing that this was just a terrible decision. It doesn’t help the cause of the organizers when it was revealed that a cosmetics company was recruited to help the women dress for the pageant.

I think the idea of having women tell their stories of survival is great. The Holocaust is often a story without hope. Reality isn’t much like the Hollywood version, it was a dark and terrible side of humanity, not just from the point of view of the victims, but the perpetrators and bystanders each add levels of horror to the story. Having an opportunity to learn about those who survived and went on to help their communities and improve the world is a wonderful ray of light in an otherwise depressing and frightening time.

So why dress up what could be an uplifting story in the guise of a beauty pageant? The whole concept of ranking someone’s horrendous experience like it was a game just seems like a terrible gimmick. “Yes, you survived Auschwitz but… contestant 2 survived Treblinka… oh and she’s also a bit prettier…” Gah.

And seriously? The panel is made up of three beauty pageant winners and one psychiatrist? I’d like to see the results of that psychiatrists last ethics review.

I can understand that the event organizers probably wanted to create a venue to showcase how extraordinary these women are, which is great, as I said before, there can be positive and life affirming ways to remember the Holocaust. But to choose a beauty pageant as the theme? Really?

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

An Atheist Behind Bars

Posted by Ethan Clow on June 29, 2012

One thing freethinkers should be thankful for is that they don’t live in Indonesia. That’s because you can go to jail for being an atheist there.  And that’s what happened for Alexander Aan, a 30-year- old civil servant and a self-confessed atheist, who has been sentenced to two-and-half years in jail for being an atheist.

The really sad thing? He’s better off in jail where he’s safe from beatings and attacks.  Aan was convicted of hate crimes for posting on Facebook that he was an atheist and saying such horrible things like “god does not exist.” He also posted controversial pictures of Muhammad, which as we all know is totally unforgivable. In addition to his hateful unbelief, he will also have to pay $10000 in damages to society.

Once word of this spread, radical Islamist groups tracked him down and attacked him, they dragged him around and beat him, his attackers did not face legal consequences for this.
Ironically, Aan was convicted on charges of blasphemy. Instead the court ruled that he was inciting hatred. (ironically hatred he was the victim of but never mind…)

There’s an article called Is there room for atheists in Indonesia? and it seems to come to the grim conclusion that no, there isn’t. It’s a haunting thought to wonder if atheists have the right to exist in Indonesia, and more importantly, if they are considered as being outside the constitution, can they expect state protections just as all other citizens?

In the Preamble to the Constitution of Indonesia, it is stated as an important principle to “Believe in the One Supreme God”.  Later in article 28 of the Constitution is a guarantee of freedom of religions, of course this does not mean there is freedom not to believe in any religion or even in the existence of God.

By government regulation, there are only six religions — Islam, Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism — that are recognized by the state. So there is freedom of religion, freedom to choose one of those six. And by “freedom to choose one of those six” we actually mean you’re free to chose Islam or radical groups will attack you and beat you in the streets.

Even local human rights organizations, which had been vocal in defending the freedom of religious minorities, have largely remained silent throughout Aan’s case.

Indonesia’s record on freedom of religion has come under international scrutiny in the past year following a series of attacks by radical Islamic groups against religious minorities. At the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva last month, Indonesia had to answer questions from other governments about the treatment of some religious minorities and the lack of protection from the state.

All this taken together paints a rather dim picture of just how “free” religion is in Indonesia.

We in the secular west often take our secular societies for granted. There are lots of cases where being a public skeptic and atheist has resulted in egregious violations of human rights.

A Kuwaiti man was sentenced to 10 years of hard labour in prison after he was convicted of endangering state security by insulting the Prophet Mohammad on Twitter.

The judge found him guilty of insulting the Prophet, the Prophet’s wife and companions, mocking Islam, provoking sectarian tensions, and misusing his mobile phone to spread the comments.

Fortunately for him a new amendment to the criminal code in Kuwait did not take effect. Earlier this year the Kuwaiti parliament overwhelmingly voted for the death penalty for blasphemy. The emir rejected the amendment but can be overruled by a two thirds majority, so check back on that one.

In Pakistan last year, Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs, was killed by gunmen in Islamabad as he was travelling to work, a few weeks after he had vowed to defy death threats over his efforts to reform Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

In India, In 2007, the police in Pune arrested four Bangalore-based software-engineers for posting on the Internet an quote obscene profile of Chhatrapati Shivaji, a sixteenth-century Maratha warrior king, clad in female underwear.

In 2007, the authorities charged ninety-one-year-old Maqbool Fida Husain with hurting religious sentiments by painting Mother India as a naked woman

And of course, Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association was charged with blasphemy for proving that a weeping statue wasn’t a miracle but a hoax on national TV.

If you are interested in helping out Alexander Aan, here are some ways to support him. Atheist Alliance International has launched an appeal for donations to help pay for Aan’s legal costs and to support the Aan family’s living expenses while he is in jail, at http://www.atheistalliance.org/support-aai/donate(Legal/Support Fund for Alex Aan).

CFI Transnational wants to make the voices of those who support Alexander loud and clear to the Indonesian government. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is organizing a letter-writing campaign on Alexander’s behalf, and CFI urges you to take part. They have created a custom letter which you can sign or add to and add your voice to those fighting for Aan’s freedom.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Catholic Church is Afraid of Girls

Posted by Ethan Clow on June 28, 2012

Here is another story that makes me wonder if the Vatican and its vicar are aware that half of the world’s population are women. Why would I wonder that? Well, the church wants members, they want to grow and expand, you’d think they would relish any opportunity to add to their ranks. But apparently they don’t. Not when it comes to women.

My confusion probably stems from the same skepticism I have when I hear about corporations putting out poisoned products or drug companies trying to kill people – “why would they harm the people who buy their products? They want to make money, right?” I guess this kind of logic doesn’t apply to the religious.

The Vatican has recently claimed ordination of women is as bad as child molestation and will be punished the same way. So does that mean they’ll just cover it up and move these women to different locations? Okay that’s not funny. Well, actually what the Vatican is suggesting is now they have new rules for what will happen to priests who molest anyone within the church, they will face excommunication (the imaginary punishment that only means anything if you’ve already drunk the koolaid) and a defrocking, which is more tangible but hardly serious enough for a crime like rape.

EVIL!! (Calgary’s only female priest Monica Kilburn Smith)

What will the punishments be for ordination of a woman? Excommunication and defrocking of course. One might consider this ludicrously insulting to treat these two situations as equal, but perhaps you don’t realize just how horrified the Catholic church is by girls. Recently the Vatican remarked that the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (a organization that represents about 80% of the nuns in America) was promoting “radical feminist themes” and was not supporting church teachings on the male-only priesthood and homosexuality.

But fear not! The Vatican has learned the error of their ways! No, they aren’t reversing their stance on women, or child rape…or homosexuality…or… well anything really. I’ve learned they need new PR people! To that end, they’ve hired a Fox News journalist to be their communications adviser.

Oh and he’s also a member of Opus Dei, a conservative wing of hardcore Catholics who like to support far right governments and oppress women.

So yes, let the face palming commence.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 248 other followers