Monthly Archives: March 2010

Two more Peak excerpts

Creationism, Elections, Evolution, Media, SFU, The Peak

A great double-feature in The Peak this week. First almost two-thirds of a page was dedicated to letters defending evolution and rebutting Isaac Seo’s poor arguments for creationism. Give it a full read.

The following TXT MSGS were also submitted in response to my article last week:

Poor Ignorant Ian Bushfield

I’m a committed atheist and even I found the skeptic’s banner offensive and tacky.

I’m not totally sure if this one was pointed at me, but either way:

Go study world religions bro, christianity ain’t the only worldview with ideas about sin.

Next, I submitted the following piece defending The Peak against the upcoming GSS referendum to cut student funding to the paper. I enjoy that they listed me as an “Associate Staff Contributor” in the issue, but I’m not sure if that’s a typo or if the job requirements are merely having x number of articles published. Either way, I’ll take it.

Grads need The Peak
By Ian Bushfield

I like being published as much as the next person. Most people enjoy seeing their words in ink. Perhaps the only thing better than having your own words published is having someone else quote you or report news about your mundane life. And yet, these are the exact privileges that graduate students at SFU are now in the position to give up.

The relatively new Graduate Student Society is holding a referendum with their upcoming elections that asks their constituents if they would like to remove their per-semester funding for The Peak, and thereby lose, not only their voice at the campus level, but also any chance to promote their views to their community.

There are several reasons that some graduate students feel they should no longer support The Peak. The first is that it currently does not represent their views. Very rarely in the past year has the GSS been mentioned in the news, although this may have more to do with the lack of controversy or scandal surrounding the organization. Also, little press has been given to all the various forms of research that is being done on campus. Few graduate students publish comics or editorials, and even fewer write specifically on topics relating to graduates.

Naturally, much of the blame for this graduate neglect rests on the shoulders of graduate students themselves. It is not difficult to get an article published in The Peak. Much like those who find it to be too “right-wing” or poorly written, the best way to change the paper is to fire up your computer and send in an article. The big challenge that is facing every graduate student’s involvement in The Peak is very simple: time.

Almost every graduate student is strapped for time. Between work ing their thesis, TA-ships, courses, and other work they are committed to, finding the time to write an editorial, let alone research and write a full article, is almost inconceivable. In undergrad, it is possible to extend one’s degree from one to an infinite number of years, so as to spend a bit more time writing for a student newspaper; whereas in graduate school the pressure is on to finish one’s degree and get on with your life.

With so little time on their hands, it is somewhat ironic that some have suggested that graduate students could instead publish their own newsletter in place of funding The Peak. It makes little sense that if students are unable to commit the time to write for The Peak that they would instead write for a newsletter with a much smaller audience. Every paper needs a minimal readership to stay interesting and viable; The Peak has those numbers, and I highly doubt that graduate students would be able to achieve anything similar.

Many graduate students, regardless of the upcoming referendum, will continue to read The Peak week after week. Rather than essentially stealing the paper, the honourable thing for graduate students to do is to vote to continue supporting the independent voice on campus, so that we can continue to have our issues discussed and represented.

The Peak may not be the greatest newspaper ever written, but it remains a strong link between all the constituents of the greater Simon Fraser community. We should vote to keep it that way.

I’m still trying to decide if I want to submit a piece on humanist ethics, homeopathy and anti-vaxxers or something else for next week. Any preferences?

Update:

I almost forgot that SFU Skeptic member Chris Lonergan got a photo of our banner published in the Community Photos section, with the title “Conflicting perspectives.”

conflicting_perspectives

Update-2:

I just noticed that The Peak also reposted the above article on their “Since 1965” blog. This blog has lots of links challenging the GSS referendum.

Getting the run-around

Elections, School, SFU, The Peak

In my continual efforts to air my grievance about the upcoming SFU graduate student referendum over funding to the student newspaper, The Peak, I have a few more pieces of (mis?)information.

I left off having asked the president of the GSS why the question is phrased in the negative (“Do you agree that the Society discontinue collecting…”) to which he replied:

Hi Ian,
It was decided that we would use the same referendum question as the 2007 referendum that asked the same question.  This question is identical to that one.
I hope that clears it up.
Josh

However, such questions tend to be documented and the GSS, being a relatively open organization, has all of its minutes on its website for the perusal. A quick search finds two references to this 2007 referendum. The first, in September 2007 [pdf] states:

11. New business

a. Referendum endorsement

MOVED that council endorse “yes” votes for referendum questions on membership fees and levies for the Society’s general membership fee, capital levy, health & benefit plan levy, UPass levy, Peak fee, SFPIRG fee, CJSF fee, Student Refugee Program fee, and First Nations Student Association fee.

…

CARRIED (Schroeder opposed)

And the results are reported in the February 2009 AGM [pdf] (see page 15/16):

October 2007: Referendum to set all initial membership fees of the Gss, including… Peak fee… Council endorsed a “yes” vote for all of these fees. Polling occurred online on October 29th and 30th. Between 584 and 591 votes were cast for each referendum question and all referendum questions passed.

Both of these quotes imply to me that the referendum of 2007 was not worded the same as this current one at all. I’ve sent these notes and the questions they raise back to Joshua Newman, in dwindling hopes of discovering much more from him.

Meanwhile, my council rep reported to me that most of the council discussion revolved around whether to have a referendum, and 40% of council was against any Peak referendum. Also, one of my friends on Facebook has taken to this issue too and reports from her rep a similar vote but “quite a bit of discussion regarding the wording” occurred.

While I’m pessimistic that this question will be changed, I think some noise needs to be heard so we can demand better from our council and that people realize that they need to read the questions before instinctively voting yes (especially if they read “Do you agree… the Peak funding”).

On the positive, I will have another article in the Peak on Monday that deals explicitly with this referendum, however I didn’t indulge the phrasing issue so my conclusion was to endorse voting to continue funding the Peak.

Conservaspam returns!

Conservaspam, Conservatives, Liberals

It has been so long that I almost forget the odd joy I get from opening my mailbox to find a Conservaspam leaflet from an MP on the other side of the country telling me how evil those Liberals are.

While today’s version is a repeat of the Just Visiting campaign, it does reference the “Coalition with the Ottawa NDP [sic] and the Bloc Quebecois.” Also, not that there is no longer any comment space on the return slip, I guess they never read the comments anyway.

With the recent progress made against these 10%ers, this may be one of the last ones I ever get.

harperAd018

harperAd019

Pharmasave against contraception?

Anti-choice, BC, Religion

I received the following email via the Humanist Canada mailing list:

I was horrified to discover yesterday, that the Jubilee Pharmasave at 1775 Fort St., Victoria BC, V8R 1J3 (250-595-1471) does not carry Plan B (the morning after pill) for "ethical" reasons! They called it an abortifacient!

I thought pharmacists would hold the health and safety of the public as their first consideration in their professional practice and that the public would include women who hope to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. Apparently not at the Jubilee Pharmasave.

They also claim that they do not expect any financial consequences from this decision. I think they are mistaken.

Please pass this on to all of your pro-choice friends and contacts.

Pharmasave is a mid-sized pharmacy chain in Canada and has “over 400 independently owned pharmacies.” It’s not clear whether this Victoria Pharmasave is unique in its apparent unwillingness to stock legal contraceptives, or if it is a chain-wide phenomena.

Changing questions

Elections, Media, SFU, The Peak

Not too long after I sent my grievance to the GSS elections committee, I got a reply letting me know that the referendum is under sole control of the President and GSS council, so my letter was forwarded to Joshua Newman. Here’s his reply, which also came very quickly:

Hi Ian,
The referendum question regarding The Peak was developed by the GSS Council, an elected body of 35 grad students representing every department at SFU.  Council determined that this was the most fair way to ask this question.
Thanks for your concern.
Joshua Newman
President
Graduate Student Society at SFU

To which I just replied,

Thanks for the quick reply Joshua,

I noticed that the agenda for the 6 March council meeting [pdf, see page 15] indicate that the proposed question was:

"Do you want to continue paying $4.90 per student per semester to support The Peak?"

May I ask, since the minutes aren’t available online yet (I assume they won’t be until after they are approved at the next council meeting at the end of April, well after the election), what discussion took place around changing the wording?

Ian Bushfield
MSc. Physics Student at SFU

I continue to urge all concerned graduate students to email Joshua Newman at [email protected] and also contact their caucus reps to find out why the question was changed.

Vote NO to discontinuing funding from the Peak!

Live Blog: Jesus 2 Perspectives

Religion, SFU, Uncategorized

Click through if you’re viewing from somewhere off my website, please click through to see the applet below.

The following is a play-by-play of the Jesus: Two Perspectives that occurred at SFU today.

Is the GSS trying to kill The Peak?

Elections, Media, SFU, The Peak

Obviously, I’m biased in the upcoming SFU Graduate Student Society elections regarding the referendum question that asks whether grad students want to continue funding the Peak, but I think anyone has to consider the following referendum phrasing to be misleading and biased against continued support:

Do you agree that the Society discontinue collecting the special membership fee for the Peak Publication Society, effective Fall 2010, resulting in a reduction of $4.90 per full-time student and $2.45 per part-time student per term in the Graduate Student Society Activity fee?

Notice the negative phrasing, i.e. to support the Peak you have to vote “No,” and the unnecessary inclusion of the cost per term in the question.

So, I submitted the following grievance to the GSS election committee, except their provided email address [email protected] is a dead link and instead I had to type in the proper email [email protected]. I advise you to do the same if you’re an SFU graduate student and care about honest and fair elections. Feel free to copy my letter verbatim or modify it as you see fit:

Graduate Student Society Election Committee,

I would like to submit a grievance with the wording of referendum question 3:

"3.Do you agree that the Society discontinue collecting the special membership fee for the Peak Publication Society, effective Fall 2010, resulting in a reduction of $4.90 per full-time student and $2.45 per part-time student per term in the Graduate Student Society Activity fee?"

I feel it is dishonest and unfair to phrase the question in the negative and biases the referendum against continued support of the Peak. I further feel that the discussion of the cost per term is unnecessary and further meant to bias respondents against the Peak. Can the election committee explain the rationale behind this phrasing? Further, will the committee rephrase the question in a more neutral stance such as:

"Do you support the continuation of the Society collecting the special membership fee from every graduate student for the Peak Publication Society beyond Fall 2010?"

Ian Bushfield

Treasurer, Physics Graduate Caucus
MSc. Physics Student at SFU

Update:

I got a reply from the GSS Election Committee, and the wording of referenda fall under the control of the GSS President and Council. Email you concerns to Josh Newman at [email protected], also email your councillor.

Fraser Institute vs Stephen Harper

Canada, Conservatives, Drugs, Economics, Media, Politics

I’m not completely sure what to make of two new studies in the Vancouver Sun and The Province today, one authored by the Fraser Institute, the other peer-reviewed by them, but both condemning the current Harper government.

The first study was done at UBC, and found that Canada’s recent mini-War on Drugs has caused increase gun violence and “has done nothing to stop the supply of street drugs.” The Fraser Institute, for some reason, peer-reviewed this study for the real researchers at the Urban Health Research Initiative. And of course The Province has to interview the apparently most ignorant cop in Vancouver, RCMP Staff Sgt. Dave Goddard who gave this money quote:

"These intellectuals who come up with these ideas are great at pointing out the problem, but what’s their solution?" demands Goddard.

Just read the comments Mr. Goddard, most people suggest legalize and tax, alternatively we have successes like the safe-injection site, InSite, which is helping to deal with the actual problems of addiction rather than just continually punishing it.

The other study is directly from the Fraser Institute, which the Vancouver Sun decides to inform us is “one of the country’s leading think-tanks,” and tells us first that the Economic Action Plan had very little to do with the start of the economic recovery, and second that private investment and exports did it all.

While I love slamming the HarperCons and the Economic InAction Plan, I’m hesitant to endorse this study. Where is the peer-review process within this bastion of neo-conservative libertarianism? And Vancouver Sun, if Canwest will print an anti-intellectual cop along with a story about a drug study, where is the government or anyone else arguing against The Fraser Institute?

My view, which ought to have as much weight as any random institute since neither are being reviewed by real economists, is that our “recovery” has failed to restore the number of jobs the country had prior to the crash, and that very little of that stimulus money actually made it to projects.

But I will grant the Economic Action Plan one thing, it gave sign makers and ad agencies a lot to do to continually tell us how much of our money was being thrown back at us.

The Peak explodes

Atheism, Media, Personal, Religion, Secularism, SFU, The Peak

Lots of controversy in this week’s issue of the SFU weekly newspaper, The Peak.

After my column last week attacking creationism, I sparked two text responses:

Hey Bushfield: know before you speak.

Well said Ian Bushfield!!!

Opinion editor Graham Templeton attempted to defend his editorial record over the past couple terms, trying to emphasize that he had published more left than right wing articles, but he included this nifty quote that will likely incite some responses.

Not everything can be published, of course, and I have certainly received well-written articles that I’ve refused to publish due to the utter inanity of their thesis. This is called editorial discretion, and its inherently arbitrary nature is what leads to these sorts of controversies. I have turned away some creationist articles which are simply full of falsehoods, while I have published others (see: this week’s opinions section,) with which I simply disagree strongly, but which do not contain outright lies. [emphasis added]

Speaking of creationist articles, here’s Isaac Seo’s, international piano-e-competition champion, rant responding to my last article. I won’t respond to it in print (paper’s rarely publish a back and forth between two authors), and his arguments are repetitive and lame so I won’t respond here unless there’s demand in the comments.

There’s also an article by Dan McPeake (yes that’s his real name) about secularism and the burqa in France. I have to grant his thesis to him, although he glazes over the fact that many Islamic women are not making a choice and that it is rather being made for them, but it’s a fine line between secularism and defending an egalitarian society.

Finally, my latest piece is in regards to recent minor vandalism of the SFU Skeptics’ “There’s probably no God…” banner.

Only cowards censor
By Ian Bushfield

The SFU Skeptics have had a banner hanging around campus in various locations for the past month, but on the evening of March 11, someone decided that this banner was so offensive that they had to attempt to censor the student group. The banner was found crumpled under a railing the next morning.

So what phrase was so objectionable that it needed to be suppressed? Simply, “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

This is the same slogan that Richard Dawkins plastered across buses in London,which subsequently run in cities across the world from Barcelona to Christchurch. Many other transit authorities and city councils attempted to ban the upbeat message, as though the phrase was as objectionable as “fuck Jesus.” But by trying to block the message, the censors unwittingly gave the atheists a platform to cry foul in the media.

It is almost hard to imagine this phrase as being so offensive. Having an enjoyable life should not be that offensive of an idea, so it must be the fact that there are some of us who are willing to state publicly that we do not believe in a higher power.

Yet we even admit that we may not be right by using the “probably” qualifier; you won’t get honesty like that in a Sunday morning sermon.

Perhaps people take offense to the concept that you can be moral without God. This should be an absurd notion, as countless atheists around the world, including myself, are not constantly murdering and raping. The fact that some theists believe that this is what would happen if they did not have a cosmic babysitter ought to tell you far more about their own personal morality than anything else.

Regardless of how offensive you find the banner or the justification for that offense, it does not change the fact that the banner was approved and sponsored by the Simon Fraser Student Society with a student group grant. The SFSS obviously believes in the right to free speech, and that every sanctioned group has the right to put a message across campus.

The right not to be offended does not exist in this country. The proper response to a message that you disagree with is dialogue, not censorship. This banner serves as a response to the countless religious clubs who are pervasive at this school and in society. It seeks to counter the notion that you cannot be good without God.

Alternatively, when your ideological adversaries are increasingly vulgar, sometimes the proper response is ridicule. My favourite counter-protests to Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps’s picketing of funerals are the ones with absurdist signs with phrases such as “I like donuts,” “God hates shrimp,” or “I have a sign too!”

The only other approach to take with such content is to simply ignore it. Had there been no fatwa against the Danish cartoonist for his portrayal of Mohammed, almost no one would have seen the relatively humourless depictions.

If we permit the silencing of someone’s right to free speech, we risk threatening the core of the democratic ideal. Only when ideas can compete with one another on fair footing do we have any hope of discovering which ones are closer to the truth.

Tearing down posters and crumpling banners is downright cowardly. Most of us come to university with an open-mind, ready to learn new things and hear different ideas. I guess some of us are just not ready for that intellectual challenge.

So to the miscreant who crumpled the banner I ask one thing: would Jesus vandalize?

While I keep saying that I’ll write one thing and then end up submitting another, for next week I had thought of submitting a piece about humanistic ethics to respond indirectly to Isaac’s article and general misconceptions, but instead I’ll likely be hoping to publish a piece defending The Peak from the upcoming graduate student referendum that seeks to cut all graduate funding from the Peak, which would thereby end my writing days as grad students wouldn’t get to publish if they weren’t paying for the paper.

Also, this Wednesday, as a multi-published writer I have the fortune to vote for the Peak’s editorial staff for this summer, so basically this summer I’ll have a hand in the blame if it isn’t remarkable. Leave a comment or email me if there’s any considerations I should be taking into account on this vote (since most SFU students who pay for the Peak don’t get a vote, I’m willing to take any opinions into account that have no influence).

Vancouver Skepticamp Line-up

Scepticism, Vancouver

There’s just 36 hours until the start of Vancouver’s third Skepticamp – the unconference for skepticism and critical thinking.

I’ve heard over 90 people have registered to attend already, with space for 150. The speakers list has also been announced:

Fred Bremmer – A demonstration of Charpentier’s Illusion

Ian Bushfield – 13.7 billion years in 90 seconds (or The Evidence of the Big Bang)

Dr. Steve Wiseman – No Pleasure Cruise: The Troubled Relationship between Psychiatry and the Church of Scientology

Brian Lynchehaun – Edge Contrast and You

Ginger Switzer – Secrets of the Language Code

Greg Bole – Defending Darwin

Lars Martin – Introduction to the Theory of Relativity

Shannon Rupp – Rational Journalism

Matthew Linsdell – Personal Training and Woo

Radio Freethinker – Radio Freethinker

Jaymie Matthews – Who Needs Paranormal?

James Bernath – Private programs for "going into space".

Jacob Vohs – Myths about Child Abuse

Gerry Armstrong – Scientology

Yves van Gennip – The Role of Mathematics in Science and Skepticism

Fred Bremmer – Charpentier’s Illusion

The entire conference is going to be filmed, so hopefully we’ll have YouTube feeds of everyone’s presentations. At very least I’ll try to adapt my talk for the internet at some point, which hopes to give a basis for which to defend the big bang theory in an elevator speech.