The "Yes Man" experiment conclusions

On a lighter tone than the Israeli-Palestinian debate, my "Yes Man" experience was prolonged a little, but the experiment finally came to an end.

What did I do that I would not have done otherwise? Well, I went running with a friend at...8.45 am in the morning on Sunday, May the 16th (I did not wake up before 10am for a very long time before this!!). Quite surprisingly, I enjoyed the experience. A day starting that early feels way better than staying in bed until noon (in terms of moods, attitude towards tasks etc.). Moreover, on Thursday May 3rd, I went out with friends to the Tokyo club, on Saint Laurent, although I hate clubs. This time, I did not maintain the experience, since I got too bored simply queuing to enter the club. Finally, I accepted to play a geeky strategic video game (Age of Empires) on Friday, May 4th, although I initially had different plans.

What should I learn from the experiment? First, it looks like I am not that negative: I accepted just 3 propositions I would not naturally do. Second, a movie is a movie, and what happens to Jim Carrey in Yes Man did not happen to me. I wanted to check if I was missing crazy things in my life, but it does not look like it!

However, it was interesting to notify what I am naturally up to doing (watching movies), and what I more reluctant to do (going clubbing for instance). Digging on this, perhaps there are many good occasions I miss because I have preconceptions. Going running at 8.45am in the morning was a very good experience I am ready to
replicate (but not right now!!).

The conclusions are not plentiful for the moment, but I will try to keep the Yes-attitude until the end of the semester, and post the eventual surprises.

What happened to the Zionist inspiration?

Following the fall of Judea (the land of Jews around 70AC) during the Jewish-Roman wars, as described in my precedent post, the Jews were scattered around Europe, Roman provinces, the Middle East, and North Africa. After the fall of their land, some Jews were sold as slaved, or transported as captives. However, some Jews stayed in the former land of Judea. Those Jews in the Diaspora experienced restrictive conditions to practice their religion. During the Middle Ages, Jews divided into distinct regional groups, the Ashkenazi of Northern and Eastern Europe, and Sephardic Jews of Iberia, North Africa, and the Middle East. Judaism was never welcomed in the European countries (France enacted an interdiction of Judaism in 1308, and Spain expulsed the Jews in 1492, among other persecution episodes in European history). The Jewish Diaspora continued towards Eastern Europe, where their condition would not be better, as they would be gathered in ghettos, isolated from the population, and persecuted in pogroms (for instance, anti-Jewish pogroms of 1881-1884 in the Russian Empire). The idea for a new Jewish country would rise in this climate of European anti-Semitism. Hovevei Zion is considered as the forerunner movement of the Zionist movement. As early as 1880, the movement would facilitate the immigration of Jewish citizen, and the implementation of agricultural settlements, to the land of Palestine, part of the Ottoman Empire at this time. However, the idea for Zionism would become influent among the Jewish intellectuals of the time, with Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist. In fact, the man considered the previous attempts as being "wrongly conceived". He wrote Der Jundenstaat in 1896 (The Jews' state), as a political program for the creation of a Jewish State, and a first Zionist congress would be organized in Basel, Switzerland, the following year. I read The Jews' state in order to gain a proper understanding of the initial ideas that lead to the creation of the State of Israel.


Theodor Herzl

Foremost, what surprised me is Herzl's conception that the only solution to the issue of anti-Semitism, is the creation of a sovereign states for the Jews. His vision emerges from an overall context of various "Nationalist claims resulting from globalization, and the strengthening of the communication links among the scattered peoples. He believes that his political program would be adopted by Jewish, and anti-Semites, and that everybody would be better off with a State for the Jews: "The governments of those countries affected by anti-Semitism have a lively interest in providing us with this sovereignty". He conceives that: "The peoples with whom Jews live are all anti-Semites, without exception, discreetly or brazenly", but that "anti-Semitism will cease immediately everywhere" as soon as the Jewish state would announce its independence.

Herzl designs a plan to build a Jewish state around two organizations that would serve as the main engines: The Society of Jews (intellectual organism), and the Jewish Company (responsible for liquidating the assets of immigrants, among other technical tasks...).

The plan is consciously detailed, and straightforward, for it has to charm the Jewish potential builders of the country: "First the poorest Jews will go and make the land arable. (...) they will build the streets, bridges and railways. (...) Their work will lead to business."

Nevertheless, Herzl opens the discussion in the Conclusion to a honest objection of his plan: "One of the big objections is that the Jews' situation is not the only perilous one in the world". The question remains relevant: could every historical nation claim its independence, and be given a piece of land? Although, the upcoming Holocaust certainly would had strengthen the legitimacy of a Jewish state.
Herzl ideas made their way through history, and the idea for the state of Israel would get the support of the British in 1917 -they had a mandate in Palestine at this time- (Balfour declaration), and would get the UN approval in 1948 (although the episode of the Holocaust might had helped the moral evidence for the need of a Jewish country). As evidence not envisioned by Herzl, throughout the history of the Jewish country, and form its very first day, the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country" (part of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate). The declaration of the independence of Israel (14th May 1948) would trigger are fierce conflict between the Arabs and Jews known as the War of Independence. The focus of this paper is not to erect a historical summary of the sixty years of conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish state, but rather to stress out a problem in the root ideology: How should Arabs be treated in the "Jewish State"? Among other influent intellectuals for the fight of Zionism, are the works of Jabotinsky (Russian journalist). The man believed that: "Each one of the ethnic communities will be recognized as autonomous and equal in the eyes of the law." Herzl would go along this idea: "It would be immoral if we would exclude anyone, whatever his origin, his descent, or his religion, from participating in our achievements. For we stand on the shoulders of other civilized peoples."

Among defenders of the Jewish State is the common argument that Arabs ever fought against Israel and never wanted to live with Israeli. These people forget that it seemed clear to Ben Gurion (founder of the state), that the Arabs would never accept Israel; in fact, why would they accept to be stolen their land!
Nowadays, the dilemma is very complex, and I will strive with Christeen, and Anthon, to better understand the diverse attempts of orthodox Jews, non-religious Jews, Catholic Arabs, Muslim Arabs etc. Although we will certainly not find a solution to the conflict, it is a first step to thoroughly understand what lead us to a terrible situation, both for the Israeli, and the Arab populations. In the following posts, I will try to better understand how the political life in Israel is designed, and what the eventual solutions to the conflict are.

A history of the Jews in Israel

I decided to write a consistent history of the Jewish presence in Israel as an entry for my blog. This is one of many entries I will write in order to grasp a thorough understanding of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The coming entries will relate on the history of Diaspora (Jewish scattered around the world), and the emergence of the idea of Zionism. I will also speak about the political life in Israel. The information available on the internet do not relate specifically to the precise question of the “political organization” of the Jewish community over time, and is either too precise or too vague. I had to go through the painful process of gathering many different source of information to write this historical summary:


The Promised Land

The Promise Land is a term used to describe the land promised by God, according to the Hebrew Bible, to the Israelites (the descendants of the Biblical patriarch Jacob). The Promised Land was given to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it describes a territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river. However, the Israelites become a local political power with the emergence of a United Monarchy.


United Monarchy (autonomous)

Thanks to King Saul, from 1020 BC, the decentralised Israelite tribal confederacies were gathered into a local political power. The increasing pressure from the Philistines, and other neighbouring tribes, forced the Israelites to unite as a more singular state. This unification is known as the first united Kingdom of Israel.
However, David, in 1006 BC, is accounted as being responsible for the strong unification of the young Israelite monarchy. He established Jerusalem, its national capital, and set up a monarchical government. Under his reign, the United Kingdom of Israel achieved prosperity and superiority over its neighbours. A period of peace and prosperity would follow under David’s successor (Salomon). However, under king Rehoboam, in 930 BC, the country split into two kingdoms: Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. The split is a result of political rebellion against Rehoboam who refused to lighten the taxation and services imposed on his subjects.


The Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom) and the Kingdom of Judah (Southern Kingdom)
(autonomous)

The Kingdom of Israel existed as an independent state until around 720 BC, when it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire. The Kingdom of Judah existed as an independent state until 586 BC when it was conquered by the Babylonian Empire. Nebuchadnezzza II (Babylonian Emperor) invaded the Kingdom of Judah. After an 18 month siege Jerusalem was captured in 586 BC, 4,600 Jews were deported to Babylon and Solomon's Temple was razed to the ground. At this time, many Jews fled to surrounding Moab, Ammon, Edom and other countries to seek refuge. This event puts an end to the independent Kingdom of Judah. The information on the deportation and spread of the population is particularly relevant to the upcoming discussing on the current debate.




Yehud Province (under Babylonian, then Persian, then Greek-kingdoms rule)

After the destruction of Judah, Babylon created Yehud Province (Jewish autonomy within the Babylonian Empire), for the remnant of the Jewish population in a part of the former kingdom. At this time, Jews that had taken refuge in surrounding countries would return to Yehud Province. However, the population that was left in the land, and those that had returned fled to Egypt fearing a Babylonian reprisal. The refugees would settle in Migdol, Tahpanhes, Noph, and Pathros. The numbers that were deported to Babylon and those who made their way to Egypt and the remnant that remained in the land and in surrounding countries is subject to academic debate.
The Persian Empire took over the Babylon Empire, while Yehud province was already in existence. In 538 BC (first year as emperor), Cyrus the Great enacted a decree in which he allowed the Jewish deportees to return to Yehud province, and rebuild the Temple. The Persian kings after Cyrus tended to treat the Jews kindly, and the Jews were given a permission to build the Second Temple. This period is known as “The Return to Zion” period. About 50,000 Jews returned from Babylon to Yehud, following Cyrus the Great’s decree.

Yehud province remained a peaceful part of the Persian Empire until the empire fell to Alexander the Great (Macedonian Empire) in 332 BC. Upon Alexander's death in 323 BCE, Yehud province changed hands regularly between two Greek successor-kingdoms, the Seleucids of Syria and the Ptolemies of Egypt. There arose in the Jewish nation pro-Seleucid and pro-Ptolemaic parties; and the schism exercised great influence upon the Judaism of the time.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria (174-163 BC), when he gained control of Yehud, attempted complete Hellenization of the Jews. His desecration of the Temple sparked the Maccabee rebellion in the 2nd century BC, which ended in victory for the Jews with the expulsion of the Syrians and the re-consecration of the Temple, and the establishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel (140–37 BC) which replaced Yehud.



Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel (autonomous)

Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled from 164 BCE to 63 BCE, reasserted the Jewish religion, expanded the boundaries of Israel and reduced the influence of Hellenism.


Herodian Kingdom of Israel (Roman Client state known as Iudaea Province by the Roman Empire)

Hasmonean rule lasted until the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem and subjected Israel to Roman rule, while the Hasmonean dynasty itself ended in 37 BCE when the Idumean Herod the Great became king of Israel and king of the Jews. He would erect the second temple. Herodian Kingdom was established as a Roman client kingdom (Roman rule began in 63 BC).

Three Jewish-Roman wars would end up making Iudaea Province part of the Roman Empire. In 66 AC, period known as the Great Revolt, Jewish rebellions would trigger conflicts between the Roman Empire and its client state (Iudaea Province). Hadrian then changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina in an attempt to erase the historical ties of the Jewish people to the region. The defeat of the Jewish revolt altered the Jewish diaspora, as many of the Jewish rebels were scattered or sold into slavery. Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, 97,000 were captured and enslaved and many others fled to areas around the Mediterranean. After this event, Judea formed a separate Roman province governed by a legate. Nevertheless, forty years later the Jews put forth efforts to recover their former freedom. These efforts, resolute but unwise, were suppressed by Trajan (115-117), and under Hadrian the same fate befell the attempt of the Jews of Israel to regain their independence (133-135). 43 Jewish communities in Israel remained in the sixth century. Jews remained scattered for close to two millennia; their numbers in the region fluctuated with time.

A political science understanding

In order to complete my business education, I decided to take a concentration in International Relations. I thought that International Relations would help me to better understand how the international economy works. I was really interested by the theorems studied in the introductory class Poli243. However, these theories are always about broad concepts. I would like to clear the bridge between these macro concepts of the world, with more concrete "micro-meaning". One of the striking theory learned in this class is Wallerstein World-Class Theory based on the rejection of the notion of a "Third World". Instead, he claims that there is only one world connected by a complex network of economic exchange relationships, a "world-system" in which the "dichotomy of capital and labor" and the endless "accumulation of capital" by competing agents account for frictions. This approach is known as the World Systems Theory. The described frictions go along Elgin's idea in Voluntary Simplicity that "we cannot expect to live in a peaceful world with such enormous disparities between the rich and poor." Wallerstein reckons that the origin of the "modern world-system" is due to the 16th century slight advance in capital accumation in Western Europe and the Americas. This accumulation itself is due to specific political circumstances at the end of the period of feudalism. As a result, only one global network or system of economic exchange exists, and by the 19th century, every area on earth was incorporated into the capitalist world-economy. However, this "world-society" is not homogeneous in economic terms; it is instead characterized by fundamental differences in social development, accumulation of political power and capital. An inherent feature of the world-system is a lasting division of the world in a core (developed countries with political clout), semi-periphery (developing countries) and periphery (undeveloped countries) organization. There is a fundamental and institutionally stabilized "division of labor" between the core and periphery: while the core benefits from a high level of technological development, the periphery supplies raw materials, agricultural products, and provides cheap labor for the expanding core. As a the core exploits the semi-periphery and periphery, while the semi-periphery exploits the periphery. Economic exchange between core and periphery takes place on unequal terms: the bargaining power of the core will higher over time, and the terms of trade will deteriorate for the periphery, as the core will ask more and more primary products-imports from the periphery against less and less complex products-exports. This state stabilizes itself do to quasi-deterministic constraints, and natural resources, land, and labor are gradually being stripped of their "intrinsic" value.

As a business student, I could try to dig in this theorem by looking at particular business activities involving the core and periphery. We know that business corporations nowadays benefit from global value chains, and outsource their activities in specific areas of the world. As the companies implement their manufacturing plants in Asia, or Africa, they benefit from cheap labor. But, when we say that these corporations "exploit" the cheap labor, what really matters is that core-citizen would still buy the clothes, and indirectly benefit from cheaper prices, than what they should pay for. Therefore, I am partly responsible for Wallerstein description of unbalanced economic relationships between the core and periphery since I wear those clothes made in Asia etc. At the bottom line, the question raised here is the alternatives to buying those unfair products.

Fair Trade is a rising movement. "Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair Trade Organizations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade."
However, this movement has its limits. According to Adam Smith Institute estimates, only 10% of the increase in price over a similar non fair trade product ends up in the hands of producers. This paradox shows how today's trade, ruled by liberal institutions such as WTO, is deeply rooted in exploitation schemes. If even the Fair Trade institute struggles to reward the producers for their work, what else could be done?

Moreover, one could think of the many weaknesses of this initiative. The real problem, as described by Wallerstein, is the incapacity by the periphery countries to transition from a stage of primary product producer to a more technologically advanced stage. With such an initiative as Fair Trade, periphery countries are still being locked in by the core in the position of exporting primary products to the core countries, and their revenues for primary goods would depend on the willingness of core citizen to pay a premium.

To be continued...

The Science of Sleep

I decided on Monday class to conduct a study on sleep deprivation along with other students.
We decided that we would all research elements on sleep, and share our findings. My research is based on the chemicals associated with sleep, and the brain mechanisms. My results were mostly found in Psychological Science, Second Canadian Edition by Gazzaniga, Heatherton, Heine and McIntyre (chapter 4). Following are my findings:

The circadian rhythm theory of sleep states that sleep has evolved to keep animals quiet and inactive during times of the day when there is greatest danger (foremost dark time for humans since lack of light puts us in possible danger). Therefore, some physiological (body temperature, hormone levels) and brain processes are regulated around these circadian rhythms. According to this theory, animals need a specific amount of time to accomplish the tasks associated with survival, the remaining time is spent being inactive (hidden away). Therefore, sleep duration is a function of the time required for the animal to seek food, how easily it can hide, and how vulnerable it is to attack.

I included a "roadmap" to better identify the different areas involved in the discussion.



As previously stated, multiple neural mechanisms are involved in maintaining these circadian rhythms. The biological clock is located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus. Light-sensitive photoreceptors in the eye send signals to the SCN. Individual neurons in the SCN work as our biological clock. The SCN also signals the pineal gland to secrete melatonin: a hormone that travels through the bloodstream and affects various receptors in the body and the brain. Darkness triggers melatonin releases, and bright light suppresses its production.



Sleep involves alterations in brain mechanisms associated with the production of aroused states. In 1949, Moruzzi and Magoun identified the reticular formation in the brainstem as being responsible for the cerebral cortex arousal. Low levels of activity in the reticular formation produce sleep, and high levels awakening. More recent research concluded that multiple regions within the reticular formation take action in the control of these sleep-wake cycles. In particular, one specific region sends the neurotransmitter norepinephrine which increases the cortical arousal.



Non-REM sleep (non dreaming phases) is triggered by a small area of the forebrain. REM sleep (dreaming phases) is triggered by acetylcholine neurons in the pons (brainstem region - see the first chart). In the minute before REM episodes, these neurons become increasingly active. Signals from this region are transmitted to the thalamus and the occipital lobes. Brain-imaging studies show activation of limbic structures (amygdale), and certain regions of prefrontal cortex (middle region behind the eyes). Areas involved in rational thought and decisions making (other prefrontal cortex) have their activity lessened. Visual association areas are activated (triggering the vivid imagery in dreaming). The phase is associated by the activation of various neural processes: some lead to paralysis of motor systems, others lead to the activation of mental circuits related to motivational states. Neurons in the pons send signals to the spinal cord that block movement during REM sleep. Hence, surgical lesioning of the pons causes animals to become very active while in REM sleep! Dreaming associated with REM is a result of the activation of brain structures involved in motivation, emotion, and reward, along with the visual associations areas.

Borat is 21st century Candide

In 1759, French enlightened philosopher Voltaire publishes Candide, ou l'Optimisme. In France, this novel is considered as a reference of French literature and is well studied by high school students. Voltaire manages to deliver a sharp critic of society of this time. The author gets around the fierce censorship of the time, by making believe that the book was originally written in German by "Mr. le Docteur Ralph". Moreover, Voltaire uses a very cynical, indirectly criticizing tone that would not be censored. The novel tells the story of Candide (French synonym for naive), who travels the world to reunite his love, Lady Cunegund. This travel will lead the hero, along with his tutor Dr. Pangloss whose philosophy is that "we live in the best of all possible worlds", in fantastic misfortune aiming at outlying the absurdity of this believed "best of all possible worlds".

Less than three centuries later, Sacha Baron Cohen turns on his camera and delivers a controversy movie, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan which I just saw, and made me want to write an entry about it. Fictive Kazakh journalist travels through the United States to discover the American culture. As he goes through his travel, the fictive Kazakh journalist encounters real Americans, who do not learn the target of Cohen's movie. The Kazakh journalist is lost in the American way of life, and the spectator can make fun of his savage behaviour. Therefore, the movie is soon criticized by many associations who see in it a way of making fun of the under-developed countries. Nevertheless, even though the director never explicitly stated the movie thesis after its release, it could easily be understood that it is the American society which is targeted.

Borat is 21st century Candide. As Kazakh journalist discovers the USA "best of all possible countries", his "naive" approach to the American world stresses him out as an under-developed world stupid man, but soon the spectator would understand how a complete stranger would look at this believed optimal society and its marvellous values (a cowboy states that we should hung homosexuals, students state that power should never be given to women).

Being a "Yes Man" for a week.

I just finished watching the movie Yes Man, featuring Jim Carrey, which was really entertaining. The story is about a man who takes on a pact to answer "Yes" everyt he is being proposed something. I decided to do the same for a week starting from now until the end of next week.
During this week, I will accept all the propositions that I am made, and I will blog the unexpected outcomes that arise from this decision.

What is my input in our society's shape?

This article was abandoned and the idea was reused in "A Political Science understanding". However, I leave the initial draft since I started with a different perspective.

Lets get started this blog with what I guess is a traditional exercise for students attending this class.

Although I like to criticize how much "people" are selfish regarding what they consume, I never proceeded to the simple evaluation of my own consumption impact on society.
I guess that among my fellow citizen, no one is really more or less responsible than I am for what the trade aspect of society looks like. Well all have money in our wallets, and we all have many alternatives on how to spend this money. Whenever a single individual makes the choice to consume a particular product, he is shaping how trade is organized. The aggregate of these individual choices make up the whole trade system.

Therefore, I will look at the consequences of the things I consume. I should also strive to find some alternatives, if, for instance, I realize that I am responsible for making Chinese kids work in factories for the textile I am wearing.



Yesterday I went to l'Epicerie on St. Laurent and Duluth. This is a place where food is much less expensive than at Provigo, where I would usually go before discovering this place. At l'Epicerie, there is less place per article than in usual grocery shops. The place is very crowded, customers fight to find their way through the alleys. As a student, I am willing to fight the crowd for high discounts.

But arise a first question: is it the only strategy used by the company in order to deliver these products at such interesting prices?

I should look for these elements:
-How much the cashier pay and working conditions differ from other groceries?
-How squeezed are the suppliers? Are they being exploited or respected for their work by the company?
-Where does all these cheap products come from?

Having the bill in my hand, I can start this work, I will contrast cheap products bought at l'Epicerie with relatively, more expensive products from Provigo.

-"Beaubien Bagel" is the first article appearing on the bill. I paid $1.69 for six of these lovely bagels.
I picked up the address on google:
"Bagel du Monde - Bagel Beaubien
828 Rue Beaubien Est"
I should contrast Beaubien Bagel with Gadoua Baggels I usually consume at Provigo ($3.19).

-The second product I will study is "Lafleur saussages", I paid $2.52 for a dozen of sausages at l'Epicerie.
I should contrast Lafleur saussages with "sans nom" sausages from Provigo ($1.59).

-I should also pay attention to the fruits and vegetables delivered from Provigo and l'Epicerie.