Positive Thinking

[onefixedstar]

I was reading through my last few entries and realized that the only thing I've done for the past couple of months is complain about school. I apologize for that--I'll see if I can't be a little more lighthearted for a while. Or at least whine in a more amusing way. ;)

I had someone ask me today what my Myers-Briggs/Keirsey temperament category was. (INTJ for those who are interested, a group that seems to be disproportionately represented online, and which makes me green in the True Colors system.) Curiously, this was the third time in the last couple of months that I'd been asked about that question. The first person to ask me did so in part to gauge my level of geekiness, which led me to wonder if temperament tests are in some way associated with geek culture, or maybe with a mindset common to many geeks. Do certain types of people drawn to categorizing other people in this fashion? Or is it common to everyone, including the non-geeks? At the original conversation, there were four of us present. The three self-identified geeks had all heard of the temperament sorter; the fourth person, a non-geek, had not. (The fourth originally claimed geek status on the assumption that all academics are geeks, but withdrew the assertion after we explained the concept of "executive Ph.D." to her--a category she clearly fits into.) Anecdotal evidence, of course, and therefore non-generalizable, which makes it just about right for discussing temperament scores. So how many of you know your scores?



In true blog tradition:

I found this article interesting in light of the number of requests for information on immigrate to Canada that I've seen in various communities. It claims there's an ongoing flight of Americans--particularly well-educated Americans--in response to the culture war and the growing feeling of many that they no longer have a place in the U.S. I don't know the source well, so I don't know how accurate the reporting is, but much of it is consistent with reports I've read elsewhere.

This is good news for all academics, especially students, although it's becoming slightly less important as electronic journals become more widespread. (I wonder if there are any electronic versions of law journals?)

This is just scary. I wonder how many people realize that Roe v. Wade was this close to being overturned? And how many non-Christian right wing Bush supporters realize that there's a good chance that if Bush is elected again, he'll be appointing Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement, which will almost certainly result in Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Do you know what's interesting? I have absolutely no idea how or when abortion was decriminalized in Canada. I have a vague recollection that it had something to do with a Supreme Court decision following the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and therefore presumably sometime in the 1980s), and I seem to recall hearing that abortion actually exists in a legal limbo, neither explicitly legal nor illegal, but I'm very foggy on the details. I should probably look that up sometime. I tend to focus on the States both because that's where the news coverage is and because I believe that the greatest threat to the rights of Canadian women is the status of abortion in the States. If it's outlawed there, the pro-life activists will almost certainly look to the north. Okay, so that's not so upbeat. I'll try harder.

Finally, my newest time waster: Logan's Mystery of Time and Space Adventure. I'm still resisting starting Chromatron. Or reading the books MacGuy has been loaning me.

Comments

[a-just-society.livejournal.com]

For the love of god, don't start Chromatron until your thesis is submitted - I lost a week of my life to that game. But I only have three levels left to complete!

Abortion laws in Canada were struck down by the Morgentaler decision, when Justice Bertha Wilson asserted that the Charter gave a woman the right to "security of the person", which included control over her womb (I paraphrase). The majority decision, however, stuck to procedural grounds - there was unequal access to abortions because of regulations about how many doctors had to give approval, which made it prohibitive for women who didn't live in urban centres. There was an effort in the late-80s to re-legislate on it, but the legislation never went anywhere, and so there is no legislation dealing with abortion right now.

[onefixedstar.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that seems like a bit of a stretch to me, though not one I'll object to. Do you know if that's consistent with how the phrase "security of person" is usually interpreted by the courts?

I was reading through the Charter recently; it's rather disturbing to see what sections are subject to section 33 (freedom from cruel and unusual punishment?). I wonder how much of a political backlash would occur from invoking that section? I suppose it would depend on the reason and the law...

[a-just-society.livejournal.com]

It is a bit of a stretch, and most jurisprudence believes that the section was never intended that way. If memory serves, Wilson stood alone in interpreting it that way. It was the procedural issues that were the main reasons for the decision, but legislation that would pass a procedural equality test never manifested itself afterwards.