You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
Israel faces a tough reality with enemies on nearly every side who openly call for its destruction, making secure borders an absolute necessity. Countries like Iran and groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas have not only talked about wiping Israel out but have acted on it with rocket attacks, border raids, and coordinated assaults like the one on October 7, 2023, which killed over 1,200 people. Some argue that walls and checkpoints hurt Palestinians by restricting their movement, and that’s a real concern. But these measures have proven effective, cutting down on terrorist attacks since the Second Intifada. Israel has to balance keeping its people safe with minimizing harm to others, and while it’s not perfect, strong borders with high-tech surveillance and intelligence are the best way to protect a nation under constant threat.
Taking out Hamas’s ability to wage war is crucial, not just for Israel’s safety but for any hope of a better future for Palestinians. Hamas has run Gaza since 2007, and its founding documents reject Israel’s existence entirely. They’ve fired thousands of rockets, over 12,000 since 2005, and built tunnels for attacks, often hiding among civilians. Critics say targeting Hamas risks innocent lives and could push more people toward extremism, which is a serious issue. But letting Hamas keep its weapons and control means more violence, less chance for peace, and Gaza staying stuck as a war zone instead of a place where people can build better lives. A focused effort to dismantle their military setup, alongside global help to rebuild Gaza with leaders who prioritize peace, is the tough but necessary path forward.
Keeping a strong security presence in Gaza is vital to stop new terrorist groups from taking root and to protect Israel’s way of life as a free, democratic nation in a region full of authoritarian regimes. Israel stands out with its open elections, independent courts, and free press, unlike many of its neighbors where power is tightly controlled. Some worry that staying involved in Gaza could make Israel look less democratic or anger Palestinians further, and that’s a valid point. But a smart security strategy, focused on gathering intelligence and stopping threats without overstepping, keeps Gaza from becoming a launchpad for attacks again, like it was under Hamas. Pairing this with efforts to support Palestinian self-rule and economic growth shows Israel’s commitment to both its values and stability, even when surrounded by those who want it gone.
“This song makes me feel like I could 1v1 the Sun” – An apt quote on the how potent music can be.
“The Only Thing They Fear Is You” is a track composed by Mick Gordon for the soundtrack of the video game *DOOM Eternal* (2020). It is one of the most iconic pieces from the game, known for its intense, aggressive, and adrenaline-pumping sound that perfectly complements the fast-paced, demon-slaying action of the *DOOM* franchise. Below is a summary of the song’s key aspects:
Overview
– **Composer**: Mick Gordon
– **Album**: *DOOM Eternal (Original Game Soundtrack)*
– **Release Date**: March 20, 2020
– **Genre**: Industrial metal, electronic, video game soundtrack
– **Length**: Approximately 6:52 (full version)
– **Context**: The track is featured during high-intensity combat sequences in *DOOM Eternal*, enhancing the player’s experience as the Doom Slayer battles demonic forces.
Musical Characteristics
– **Style and Tone**: The song is characterized by its heavy, aggressive sound, blending industrial metal with electronic elements. It features pounding drums, distorted guitar riffs, and pulsating synths, creating a relentless and chaotic atmosphere that mirrors the game’s brutal combat.
– **Structure**: The track builds dynamically, starting with ominous, low-frequency drones and gradually escalating into a high-energy, riff-driven onslaught. It incorporates breakdowns, tempo shifts, and layered instrumentation to maintain intensity and momentum.
– **Signature Elements**: The song uses distorted, low-tuned guitar chugs, rapid-fire drum patterns, and glitchy electronic effects, creating a sense of urgency and power. The absence of vocals keeps the focus on the instrumental ferocity, aligning with the Doom Slayer’s silent, unstoppable persona.
Thematic Connection
– The title, “The Only Thing They Fear Is You,” is a direct reference to the Doom Slayer, the game’s protagonist, who is a near-mythical figure feared by the demons of Hell. The track embodies his relentless, destructive force, serving as an auditory representation of his dominance over his enemies.
– The music amplifies the game’s themes of power, vengeance, and survival, immersing players in the mindset of an unstoppable warrior.
Technical Notes
– Mick Gordon’s production techniques, such as using chainsaw sounds and unconventional recording methods, add a gritty, visceral texture to the track, enhancing its raw energy.
– The song is designed to sync with the game’s combat mechanics, with musical cues aligning with enemy waves and player actions, creating a seamless integration of sound and gameplay.
In summary, “The Only Thing They Fear Is You” is a masterfully crafted piece of music that encapsulates the raw power and intensity of *DOOM Eternal*. Its aggressive instrumentation, dynamic structure, and thematic alignment with the game’s narrative make it a standout track in both gaming and music culture.
A more detailed anaylsis:
Canada’s strength as a nation has historically rested on its ability to foster unity through shared values and a collective identity that embraces diversity. In recent years, however, identity-based movements, such as Pride celebrations, have increasingly emphasized group-specific grievances, sometimes at the expense of broader societal cohesion. While Pride has roots in advocating for equality, its shift toward queer activism—evident in events like the 2023 Toronto Pride parade, where political messaging dominated festivities—has led some to perceive it as divisive, challenging traditional norms. This essay argues that Canada should prioritize supererogatory values, such as compassion, civic duty, and national pride, to promote unity and counter the fragmenting effects of identity politics, while acknowledging the positive intentions of movements like Pride.
Pride celebrations, originally focused on inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community, have increasingly incorporated activist agendas that can alienate segments of the population. For example, the inclusion of controversial slogans and demands for systemic change during Pride events has sparked debates about whether these celebrations prioritize unity or ideological conformity. While supporters argue that Pride fosters inclusivity by amplifying marginalized voices, critics contend that its focus on specific identities can overshadow shared Canadian values, creating a perception of competing victimhoods. This dynamic risks fragmenting society, as public discourse shifts from collective goals to debates over who faces greater oppression, potentially undermining the moral and social cohesion that Canada has long championed.
In contrast, supererogatory values—those that inspire actions beyond basic moral obligations, such as volunteering, mutual respect, and national pride—offer a framework for uniting Canadians. Initiatives like the 2017 Canada 150 celebrations, which emphasized shared history and community service, demonstrate how focusing on collective identity can bridge divides across cultural and ideological lines. By promoting virtues like selflessness and civic responsibility, Canada can encourage citizens to prioritize the common good. For instance, community-driven programs, such as Calgary’s Neighbour Day, foster local engagement and reinforce a sense of belonging, countering the divisiveness of identity-based narratives with tangible acts of unity.
To address the risks of identity politics, Canada must balance the recognition of individual identities with a renewed emphasis on shared values. Identity politics, when unchecked, can foster resentment by framing societal issues as a zero-sum struggle, as seen in debates over funding for identity-specific programs versus universal public services. Acknowledging the positive contributions of Pride, such as its role in advancing legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community, does not negate the need to refocus on unifying principles. Policies that incentivize collective action—such as national volunteer campaigns or inclusive cultural festivals—can redirect public discourse toward shared goals, reducing the fractiousness of competing identity claims while respecting diverse perspectives.
In conclusion, Canada must navigate the tension between celebrating individual identities and fostering national unity by prioritizing supererogatory values. While Pride and similar movements have played a vital role in promoting inclusivity, their activist turn can inadvertently deepen societal divides. By investing in initiatives that emphasize compassion, civic duty, and a shared Canadian identity, such as community service programs or inclusive national celebrations, Canada can rebuild a cohesive social fabric. This approach does not dismiss the importance of individual identities but integrates them into a broader narrative of unity, ensuring that all Canadians feel connected to a common purpose and a stronger national community.
The Alberta government’s recent initiative to establish provincewide standards for school library materials, announced on May 26, 2025, underscores the critical role of parental input in ensuring that educational resources align with community values and developmental needs. The online survey, open until June 6, 2025, seeks feedback from Albertans to create consistent guidelines for selecting age-appropriate materials, particularly addressing concerns about sexually explicit content in K-12 school libraries. Parental involvement is essential because parents, as primary caregivers, have a vested interest in their children’s moral and intellectual development. They possess unique insights into their children’s emotional and psychological readiness, which standardized systems may overlook. By involving parents, the government ensures that library materials reflect the values and expectations of the families they serve, fostering trust and transparency in the education system. As Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides emphasized, the goal is to create “guardrails” to protect students from accessing inappropriate content, such as graphic novels containing explicit depictions of sexual acts, molestation, or self-harm, which were found in some Edmonton and Calgary school libraries.
Ensuring age-appropriate materials in school libraries is paramount to safeguarding children’s well-being and supporting their developmental stages. Young students, particularly in elementary and junior high schools, are at formative stages where exposure to graphic content—such as nudity, explicit sexual acts, or themes of molestation—can be confusing or harmful. The Alberta government’s survey highlights specific concerns about four graphic novels, including Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe and Fun Home by Alison Bechdel, which contain explicit content deemed inappropriate for K-9 students. Age-appropriate materials should align with cognitive and emotional maturity, providing resources that educate without overwhelming or exposing children to mature themes prematurely. School libraries must balance fostering a love for reading with ensuring content is suitable for the intended age group, as outlined in the government’s call for developmentally appropriate resources to meet diverse student needs. This approach not only protects students but also supports teachers and librarians in curating collections that enhance learning while respecting parental expectations.
Critics often argue that restricting access to certain materials constitutes censorship or a “book ban,” potentially limiting students’ exposure to diverse perspectives, especially on topics like 2SLGBTQ+ identities. This perspective, voiced by the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) and others, suggests that such standards could disproportionately target marginalized communities and stifle students’ ability to see themselves represented in literature. While diversity in literature is important, this argument overlooks the distinction between censorship and age-appropriate curation. The Alberta government explicitly states that the initiative is not about banning books but about establishing consistent standards to ensure materials are suitable for specific age groups. For instance, Nicolaides clarified that content related to 2SLGBTQ+ themes is not the target; the focus is on graphic sexual content, regardless of subject matter. A book on astrophysics with explicit imagery would face the same scrutiny, demonstrating that the policy aims to protect, not exclude. Moreover, existing school board processes, like those in Edmonton and Calgary, already include mechanisms for reviewing content, suggesting that standardized guidelines would enhance, not replace, professional judgment.
Another common counterargument is that restricting access to certain materials could hinder students’ ability to access information about sensitive topics, such as sexual abuse, which may be critical for their safety. Some, including voices on social media, argue that libraries provide a safe space for students to explore topics that parents might not address at home, citing cases where books helped children identify and report abuse. While this concern is valid, it does not negate the need for age-appropriate standards. Libraries can still provide educational resources on sensitive topics, such as body safety or abuse prevention, without including graphic depictions unsuitable for young readers. The government’s survey asks who should determine appropriateness—options include teachers, librarians, parents, or students—indicating a collaborative approach that values professional expertise alongside parental input. By setting clear standards, schools can ensure that resources on critical topics are accessible in a manner that respects developmental readiness, thus maintaining a balance between safety and education.
In conclusion, the Alberta government’s survey on school library materials reflects a commitment to balancing parental input with the need for age-appropriate resources, ensuring that school libraries remain safe and supportive environments for students. By involving parents, the government acknowledges their role in shaping educational content that aligns with community values and protects children from inappropriate material. While critics raise concerns about censorship or restricted access to vital information, these arguments fail to account for the nuanced approach of setting consistent, transparent standards rather than outright bans. The initiative, set to inform policies for the 2025-26 school year, aims to create a framework where professional judgment, parental concerns, and student needs converge. Albertans’ participation in the survey will be crucial in shaping a system that prioritizes both educational freedom and the well-being of young learners.
Read the paper here.
Introduction
The 2016 paper “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research” by Mark Carey, M. Jackson, Alessandro Antonello, and Jaclyn Rushing, published in Progress in Human Geography (Glaciers, gender, and science), introduces a feminist glaciology framework that examines how gender dynamics influence the study of glaciers. The authors propose four components: knowledge producers, gendered science, systems of scientific domination, and alternative representations of glaciers. They argue that glaciers are not just physical entities but are embedded in social, cultural, and political contexts, challenging the notion that “ice is just ice.” While this interdisciplinary approach has sparked interest for its inclusivity, it has also faced significant criticism for claims perceived as unscientific or overly ideological, such as attributing sentience to glaciers or equating artistic representations with scientific knowledge. These claims, often labeled as controversial, have been debated in academic and public spheres, with critics arguing they dilute scientific rigor (National Post). This essay critically examines these claims and refutes them using scientific principles, emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence in glaciological research.
Claim 1: Glaciers as Sentient or Culturally Active
One of the paper’s most striking assertions is the inclusion of indigenous “folk glaciologies,” which suggest glaciers possess agency or sentience, such as narratives from Canada’s Yukon Territory where glaciers are believed to “listen” or be offended by actions like cooking with grease (Cruikshank, 2005). The authors present these beliefs as valid forms of knowledge, challenging the dominance of Western scientific perspectives. While indigenous narratives are valuable for understanding cultural relationships with the environment, they do not align with scientific definitions of sentience. Sentience, in biological terms, refers to the capacity to perceive or feel, typically requiring a nervous system or cognitive structures found in living organisms. Glaciers, composed of compressed snow and ice, are inanimate physical systems governed by physical processes like accumulation and ablation. No empirical evidence supports the idea that glaciers can perceive or respond to human actions in a sentient manner. Conflating cultural beliefs with scientific knowledge risks undermining the objectivity required for studying glacier dynamics, which is critical for addressing climate change. While respecting cultural diversity, science must prioritize testable, reproducible data over spiritual or anecdotal interpretations.
Claim 2: Masculinist Domination in Glaciology
The paper argues that glaciology has been shaped by “masculinist ideologies,” with scientific credibility historically tied to attributes like heroism, risk-taking, and conquest, often associated with masculinity. It cites examples like 19th-century glaciologist John Tyndall, whose mountaineering feats bolstered his scientific reputation, and notes that women comprised less than 20% of authors in major glaciology journals in 2009 (Carey et al., 2016). The authors suggest that these gendered dynamics marginalize alternative knowledge forms. While it is true that science, including glaciology, has historically been male-dominated, the validity of scientific research should be judged by its methodology, data, and conclusions, not the gender of its producers. Modern science strives for objectivity and inclusivity, with significant progress in diversifying STEM fields. For instance, the National Science Foundation’s 2021 report, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (NSF 2021 Report), indicates that women now earn more bachelor’s and master’s degrees than men across all fields, and their representation in science and engineering has increased, with women earning 27% of doctoral degrees in these fields in 2018. Initiatives like the NSF’s ADVANCE program further promote gender equity in STEM. While acknowledging historical imbalances, the focus should remain on the quality of scientific output, which transcends gender.
Claim 3: Art and Literature as Valid Scientific Knowledge
The paper advocates for incorporating art and literature, such as Katie Paterson’s glacier sound projects or literary works reimagining gender in polar exploration, as legitimate ways of understanding glaciers. These “alternative representations” are presented as enriching glaciological knowledge by emphasizing emotional and cultural dimensions. While art and literature can provide valuable insights into human perceptions of glaciers, they do not meet the standards of scientific inquiry, which relies on systematic observation, experimentation, and reproducibility. For example, scientific studies of glaciers involve measuring ice core data or modeling glacial retreat, which provide quantifiable insights into climate change. Artistic works, while evocative, lack the rigor and verifiability required for scientific conclusions. Critics of the paper, as noted in a 2016 National Post article (Feminist Glaciology Backlash), have called such claims “gibberish” for blurring the lines between science and subjective expression. While art can complement scientific understanding by raising awareness or inspiring action, it should not be equated with the empirical methods needed to address environmental challenges.
Claim 4: Western Science as Colonial and Patriarchal
The authors assert that glaciology is complicit in colonial, imperial, and patriarchal systems, citing examples like Cold War ice core drilling for military purposes. They argue that these systems marginalize non-Western and indigenous knowledge, such as folk glaciologies. While science has historically been influenced by societal power structures, the scientific method itself is a universal tool designed to produce objective, reproducible results. Ice core data, for instance, has provided critical insights into past climates, benefiting global climate research regardless of its historical context. The critique of Western science as inherently colonial overlooks the fact that science is practiced globally, with contributions from diverse cultures. The NSF’s 2021 report highlights increasing diversity in STEM, including efforts to include underrepresented groups, suggesting that science is evolving to be more inclusive. While historical critiques are valid, they should not overshadow the scientific method’s ability to generate reliable knowledge when applied rigorously.
Claim 5: Rejection of “Ice is Just Ice”
The paper challenges the notion that glaciers are neutral, apolitical objects, framing them as “cryoscapes” with social, cultural, and gendered significance. While glaciers indeed hold cultural importance—evident in indigenous stories or artistic depictions—their scientific study focuses on physical properties like mass balance and melting rates, which are critical for understanding climate change. The assertion that glaciers are inherently gendered or political risks overcomplicating their study without contributing to actionable scientific outcomes. For example, glacier retreat models rely on physical data, not cultural narratives, to predict sea-level rise. While interdisciplinary perspectives can enrich public engagement with science, the core of glaciological research must remain grounded in empirical evidence to address pressing environmental issues effectively.
Conclusion
The feminist glaciology framework offers a thought-provoking perspective on how gender and culture intersect with environmental science, highlighting the need for inclusivity in knowledge production. However, claims such as attributing sentience to glaciers, equating art with science, or framing science as inherently colonial stretch beyond the boundaries of empirical inquiry. These assertions, while aiming to broaden perspectives, risk diluting the scientific rigor needed to study glaciers and address climate change. A balanced approach that respects cultural and artistic contributions while prioritizing evidence-based methods is essential for advancing our understanding of glaciers and their role in a changing world. By focusing on data-driven research and fostering inclusivity, science can remain both equitable and effective.
The sentencing of Lucy Connolly, a 41-year-old childminder from Northampton, to 31 months in prison for an offensive X post represents a disturbing shift toward authoritarian governance in the United Kingdom. On July 29, 2024, Connolly posted a message urging “mass deportation now” and to “set fire” to hotels housing asylum seekers, in the context of the Southport attacks. As reported by the BBC, “The post was viewed 310,000 times before she deleted it within four hours.” Despite her guilty plea and expressions of remorse, the severe sentence, upheld on appeal in May 2025, prioritizes punishment over proportionality, signaling a state overreach that stifles free speech. This case exemplifies how legal mechanisms can be weaponized to suppress dissent, a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
The legal basis for Connolly’s conviction, Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, allows broad discretion in criminalizing speech deemed to incite racial hatred. The Crown Prosecution Service noted, “Connolly admitted publishing material which was threatening, abusive or insulting and intended to stir up racial hatred.” However, the post’s rapid deletion and Connolly’s lack of prior convictions suggest a lighter penalty, such as a fine, could have sufficed. Instead, the court imposed a near-maximum sentence, with the appeal judges stating, “There is no arguable basis for saying the sentence was disproportionate,” as per The Independent. This rigid application of vague laws to punish speech mirrors authoritarian tactics, where the state uses legal ambiguity to silence controversial voices and deter open discourse.
The societal impact of Connolly’s sentence creates a chilling effect on free expression, a cornerstone of democracy. The Free Speech Union criticized the sentence as “plainly disproportionate,” warning of its broader implications for free speech. Public reaction, including a fundraiser exceeding £50,000, reflects widespread concern that the punishment outweighs the crime. When a single post, however offensive, leads to over two years in prison for a first-time offender, it signals that the state values ideological control over individual liberty. This echoes authoritarian governance, where dissent is swiftly penalized to enforce conformity, pushing citizens toward self-censorship out of fear of legal consequences.
Comparisons to other cases highlight the disproportionate nature of Connolly’s punishment, reinforcing perceptions of authoritarian overreach. For instance, Philip Prescott received 28 months for violent disorder, while Haris Ghaffar got 20 months, despite their actions involving physical harm rather than words. The Independent reported, “Tyler Kay was jailed for 38 months for sharing Ms. Connolly’s post,” showing how the state extends punishment to amplifying speech, widening the net of censorship. This prioritization of controlling narrative over addressing tangible harm is a tactic seen in authoritarian regimes, where speech is deemed a greater threat than physical acts, undermining democratic principles.
In conclusion, Lucy Connolly’s 31-month sentence for an offensive X post marks a dangerous slide toward authoritarian governance in the UK. By leveraging vague legal provisions to impose harsh penalties on rapidly retracted speech, the state demonstrates a preference for control over individual rights. The chilling effect on free expression, disproportionate sentencing compared to violent crimes, and public backlash all point to a system prioritizing ideological conformity. As the Free Speech Union’s critique suggests, such precedents risk normalizing state overreach, eroding democratic freedoms and paving the way for further authoritarian measures under the guise of public order.
References:
1. BBC News. “Lucy Connolly jailed for race hate post on X loses appeal.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v5926yeqro
2. The Independent. “Why was Lucy Connolly jailed for a tweet and why was her appeal dismissed?” https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/lucy-connolly-court-jail-appeal-b2754556.html
3. Crown Prosecution Service. “Updated sentence: Childminder admits inciting racial hatred over social media post.” https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-childminder-admits-inciting-racial-hatred-over-social-media-post
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…