“My Home is a Suitcase” is a play by Rzgar Hama about individuals who sought new lives as immigrants. It is based out of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. These are real stories. The next few interviews will be from some of the individual readers of their stories of beginning new lives in Canadian society. Hama is known for several plays, including “Soldierland” with some professional commentary by Dr. Marvin Westwood and Dr. George Belliveau of The University of British Columbia in “Dr. Marvin Westwood & Dr. George Belliveau on SOLDIERLAND a play Written and Directed by Rzgar Hama.” Here I speak with Himanshi Upadhyay on “My Home is a Suitcase.”

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’ll keep this focused on an initiative by Sky Theatre Group under Rzgar, “My Home is a Suitcase.” How did you find the Sky Theatre Group?

Himanshi Upadhyay: I saw an advertisement on Facebook.

Jacobsen: How did you become involved with “My Home is a Suitcase”?

Upadhyay: When I first contacted Rzgar, frankly speaking, I didn’t know what it was going to be. I attended the meeting with other participants. Everything he said was so interesting for me because I always wanted to be a part of something creative and meaningful. So, at first, we started to write something about our lives and shared with each other. Then we wrote some of the key moments of our lives. After that, whole stories like when, why, and how we migrated to Canada and how our lives were before that decision to immigrate, etc. During all those meetings Rzgar, Hila, and Lenora also taught us some acting exercises and some writing skills. Overall, it was a long journey that we all did together and developed a bond with each other and the project “My Home is a Suitcase.”

Jacobsen: What was the experience of telling the story – without telling your story – to some of the public and peers who made a new life for themselves?

Upadhyay: At first, it was scary :). Everybody was a complete stranger to me. I didn’t want those unknown people to judge me. But then, I realized that everybody has something to say here. I saw that no one is judging anyone. Everyone had their own set of problems or struggles in their lives, but there was a mutual respect for each other. So with time, I became comfortable sharing the story, in sharing my life, with all the participants.

But again, the moment came when I was in front of the public to share my story with no control about how they were going to judge me or think about me, I got goosebumps. Then I just imagined that the whole room is filled with my friends and they are curious about my life and after that, it was an amazing experience. People were so good. After the reading, two of the ladies came to me said, “We can totally relate to your story. We are so proud that you made a decision for yourself.”

Jacobsen: What was working with a seasoned, veteran playwright and director like for you?

Upadhyay: It is really a learning experience. I am using “is” because the project is still going on. I have learnt so many things so far about theatre and public reading. Rzgar gave some acting classes before Covid-19 hit and that time I thought, “Wow, acting is not so easy. It’s exhausting,” but, yet, you have to show what you are doing is effortless. One more thing I liked about Rzgar. He imagines the whole play so well that you are just left amazed by his creativity.

Jacobsen: What are you hoping some of the audience takes home with them when the final production comes out?

Upadhyay: Respect for their lives. Because that’s what happened to me. I just realized after listening to others’ stories that we should respect what God is giving us because many people are seeing us as the lucky ones. Also, they will see that “immigrant” is not just a word. It has a whole story of a living soul behind it.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Himanshi.

Upadhyay: Thank you so much, Scott, I am glad we are taking “My Home is a Suitcase” to the next level.

Photo by Emanuela Picone on Unsplash

Image Credit: Soran Mardookhi, and Rzgar Hama/Sky Theatre Group.

Dying With Dignity Canada (DWDC), with its 40th anniversary celebrated, has been on a successful streak in its fundraising efforts with the question arising about the need to make calls for more funding.

On the one hand, many secular organizations need finances more because of the tighter purses with the coronavirus pandemic ongoing. On the other hand, it becomes an issue having to ask for more money as an organization.

The issue with secular organizations is that they do not necessarily have the formalized infrastructure of zakat or tithing, which makes donations, grants, etc., important for closing the secular and religious organizational financial gap.

With such gaps, many of the secular organizations are forced into precarious situations of requesting funding while having to double down on said requests in times of organizational or cultural crisis. C-19 is one such time.

Nonetheless, many organizations have happily, been pulling through for improved functionality in regard to the fundraising. With DWDC, it is one of those organizations.

The organization has reported several positive and encouraging messages in spite of the pandemic. They have been met with “best wishes and congratulations” for the 40 years of service as an organization.

There were some in reference to specific great successes of the organizations including the Carter v. Canada Supreme Court of Canada decision influencing the right to die movement in Canadian society.

The supporters who were giving the aforementioned best wishes and congratulations were providing some personal stories based on the decision of the highest court in Canadian jurisprudence.

“Throughout the last two weeks, these communications have fueled me and my team — and so clearly confirmed that we have an incredibly generous community who is willing to go the extra mile when asked,” Helen Long, CEO of DWDC stated, “But before I say anything else, I must say: thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to engage with our blog posts, petitions, social media posts, webinars — and, yes, donation requests.”

In particular, she was greatful for members and others utilizing the resources, educational and otherwise, online, as well as the Advance Care Planning Kits of DWDC. As Long reported to the community, they reached the total fundraising goal of $40,000 with an anonymous donor matching the funds for a total $80,000 in additional finances for them.

For the rest of the Summer and the Fall, DWDC, based on the new funding, will be working on the following projects, as reported by Long:

• Coordinate with federal legislators to make sure Bill C-7 is passed into law;
• Engage Canadians across the country as part of Canada’s five-year legislative review process for our medical assistance in death law;
• Connect patients, independent witnesses and clinicians to improve access to assisted dying, particularly in more remote regions;
• Promote our Advance Care Planning Kits and other educational resources to new supporters across the country; and
• Hold a range of webinars and other virtual engagement opportunities to share stories, experiences and actions that further our growing movement.

This fundraising and the projects ongoing for 2020 in the midst of the pandemic remain a win for the secular movements on the right to die movement.

Photo by Loren Cutler on Unsplash

California State is known as one of the more science-friendly and technologically savvy states in the union. ​One bill, Assembly Bill 1922, passed away in its slumber on June 19 of 2010, according to Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). This was the last day possible for Assembly Bill 1922 to pass within the legislative session.

With acceptance or approval of the bill, Californa would have adopted its coursework from grades 1 through 12 for an addition on the “causes and effects of climate change.” Unfortunately, since it was not ‘accepted,’ but, rather, rejected, this defeated the possibility of this bill becoming a reality. 

​Glenn Branch, deputy director of the NCSE, reported, “Additionally, at least one of the two courses required for graduation from high school would have had to include such material.​”​

There were 18 active bills in ten state legislations in 2020 seeking to promote a change in the educational curricula of the states for the inclusion of climate change from kindergarten through to grade 12. None have been passed.

​”…​ two bills in New Jersey (Assembly Bill 2767 and Senate Bill 1970) and five bills in New York (Assembly Bills 9831 and 9886 and Senate Bills 6837, 6877, and 7341) are apparently still active, while the remainder have died​,” Branch concluded.​

Photo by Micah Tindell on Unsplash

Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla flavour.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s focus a tad on some of the most exclusive high-IQ groups known: The Giga Society, the Mega Society, the OLYMPIQ Society, etc. The Giga Society known membership of Thomas R. A. Wolf, Matthew Scillitani, Andreas Gunnarsson, Scott Ben Durgin, Dany Provost, Rolf Mifflin, Paul Johns, Evangelos G. Katsioulis, and Rick Rosner. The Mega Society membership listing semi-known. The OLYMPIQ Society membership to date: Dr. Evangelos G. Katsioulis, MD, MSc, PhD, Bart Miles, Laura N. Kochen, D.X.J., Christophe Dodos, Steve Schuessler, George Ch. Petasis, A.F., Jonas Högberg, Mari Takishita, J. W., Thomas B., Jan Willem Versluis, Alexander Prata Maluf, Dr. Christopher Philip Harding, Oliver Q., Wayne Zhang, Martin Tobias Lithner, Miguel Angel Soto-Miranda, M.D., Hever Horacio Arreola Gutierrez, Wang Peng, Takahiro Kitagawa, Andreas Andersson, Lee HanKyung, M.D., Julio Machado, Misaki Ota, Erik Hæreid, Santanu Sengupta, Qiao Hansheng, Dr. Benoit Desjardins, MD, PhD, Wen-Chin Sui, Yaron Mirelman, JMoriarty, Fan Yiwen, Zhibin Zhang (张智彬), Chen Anping, Dr. Yasunobu Egawa, Ph.D., Raymond Walbrecq, Junlong Li（李俊龙, Prof. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, Nth Bar-Fields, Susumu Ota, Li Shimin, Marios Prodromou, Rickard Sagirbay, Dan Liu (刘丹), YoungHoon Bryan Kim (김영훈), W. C., Jo Christopher Montalban Resquites, and Entemake Aman. Some were simply listed as anonymous, but these come from straight from the website for OLYMPIQ. Pars Society of Baran Yönter looks defunct. PolymathIQ Society seems defunct. Sigma V seems functional while old in its setup with 12 open members, including Hindemburg Melão Jr., Petri Widsten, Alexandre Prata Maluf, Rauno Lindström, Peter David Bentley, Bart Lindekens, Joachim Lahav, Marc Heremans, Staffan Svensson, Will Fletcher, Guilherme Marques dos Santos Silva, and Lloyd King. Sigma V seems functional while old in its setup with 12 open members, including Hindemburg Melon Jr., Petri Widsten, Alexandre Prata Maluf (Prospective member), and Peter David Bentley (Prospective member). The Unicorn Society seems like or merged with the Sigma Society (one of them), and largely paralyzed if not defunct. Ultima Society seems functional while mainly based on the personality, tests, and opinions of Ivan Ivec. Ivec lists Steve Fell’s artwork, World Famous IQ scores, etc. Nano Society seems defunct. One in Five Society of Huck Nembelton appears defunct. PolymathIQ Society of Ron Altmann looks defunct. Universal Genius Society of Brennan Martin seems defunct. Omega seems to have some members with Adam Kisby, Angell O. de la Sierra, Brian M. Schwartz, Brian Wiksell, Dany Provost, David Michael Fabian, David Smith, John Fahy, Kemin Tsung, Patrick J. Maitland, Richard May, a.k.a. May-Tzu, Robert S. Munday, and Ken Shea. Grail Society of Paul Cooijmans appears functional, but open to applicants so to speak. GenerIQ of Mislav Predavec appears functional. Pi Society of Nikos Lygeros appears open and active. Maybe, in another article, I can provide comprehensive research on the various societies for those with an interest, but I see this as tedious even with this minor presentation of the research. How accurate are measurements at the 1 in a 1,000,000 level or more?

Christian Sorensen: In my opinion it is possible to achieve accurate, reliable and valid measurements, up to a certain limit, below as well as above this rarity. The latest, as long as the utilized tests are applied by professionals, since they are the only ones, that besides being normalized, and standardized, actually have a solid scientific support. Under this perspective, at least the Wechsler Scale of Intelligence for Adults, in its R form, and because it integrates a concept denominated deterioration coefficient, regarding the age range of 75 years or more, is able to measures an IQ score up to 179 with 15 standard deviations, which would be equivalent to a rarity of 1 in 14,000,000.

Jacobsen: Also, there are test creators: Mislav Predavec, Robert Lato, Ivan Ivec, Pablo Fernández González, Ladislav Dubravský, Christoffer Collin, Jérôme-Olivier Billet, Bill Bultas, ‘Rottus,’ Nik Lygeros, Peter Schmies, Tommy Smith, Nicolas-Elena, Michael Dickheiser, Laurent Dubois, Dillon, Jason Betts, Kevin Langdon, Jeff Leonard, LiangTian, Ronald Hoeflin, Ivan Ivec, Paul Cooijmans, Iakovos Koukas, Xavier Jouve, Jonathan Wai, Zoran Bijac, Theodosis Prousalis, Gianluigi Lombardi, Brennan Martin, Miroslav Radojević, Andre Gangvik, Dawid Skyrzos, Gabriel Garofalo, Nitish Joshi, Gaetano Morelli, Beatrice Rescazzi, Jim Lorrimore, T. Hobstrom, Naoki Kouda, Christopher Harding, Leela Pappadioti, Anthony Lawson, Christian Backlund, James Dorsey, Tonny Sellen, Julien Arpen, Nikolaos U. Soulious, Paul Laurent, Andre Gangvik, Jonathan Wai, Yukun Wang, Benjamin Noh, Guillermo Alejandro Escarcega Pliego, Marc-Andre Nydegger, Randy Myers, Tor Arne Jorgenson, John Culkin, Valeria Lanari, Alexi Edin, Lunardini, Prettini, Sjoberg, Logan Smith, Gordon, Lunardini, Prettini, and many others. Any test creators who stand out here?

Sorensen: Actually no, because beyond the names mentioned within this list, and though there may be professional psychometrists such as Xavier Jouve, mathematicians like Ivan Ivec and Marco Ripa, or members of the high-IQ community, who try to work seriously as James Dorsey and Jason Betts indeed do… It may be sustained, that all the aforementioned qualifications, even if they’re taken together, they are not enough, since for a psychometric instrument, to really measure what it intends to measure, and not something else, or in other words, for being consistent and accurate with their measurements, when these must be repeated over time, inevitably a scientific refutation and empirical-experimental criticism is going to be contingently demanded. The latest, implies among other factors, a prolonged process of permanent revisions, as has occurred for example with Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales, who have had more than 70 years of periodic updates. Therefore, in my opinion, and based on this context, none of those who are or is not here enlisted, seems to actually stand out, due to the fact, that I believe according to the parameters before indicated, that they lack the most fundamental methodological and experimental means, in order to be capable to hold demonstratively any of their jobs.

Jacobsen: What are some of the important considerations in reflection of the highest levels of ability?

Sorensen: I think that when speaking of IQ scores, which ultimately what they purport, is to be objective indicators of intelligence, what is essential, under any point of view, is that they manage to measure validly and reliably, its three main areas, that is to say the numeric, verbal and spatial ones, and in turn that IQ scores could be differential representatives, depending if whether they partially refer to one or another, or to the sum of these, in order to ultimately objectify a partial or general intelligence index. Likewise, as the infinitesimal percentage extreme of the general population is reached, along the highest capacity measurements, and therefore the probability of error increases, it is plausible to conclude since the probability of error is less, that if quantitative ranges of IQs with qualitative distinctions, instead of scores associated with discrete characteristics, are accurately defined, that then exceptionally high IQ measurements can be alluded and inferable with a reasonably acceptable level of reliability.

Jacobsen: What high scorers really impress you?

Sorensen: Mine.

Jacobsen: What are the various aspects of the WAIS deserving serious scrutiny and replication in alternative intelligence tests in the future to make them more robust?

Sorensen: On the one hand, to sustain a strict empirical methodology, that follows their developments and reviews, in order to give them enough predictive capacity. The fact that they should be reliably covering, the main areas of general intelligence, by being able to provide not only general IQ scores, but also partial calculations regarding each type of intelligence. And ultimately, to successfully and consistently approve the empirical refutations, through which science will surely confront them extensively over time.

Jacobsen: What subtest of the WAIS is the most predictive as a singular metric of general intelligence?

Sorensen: I think that the cubes subtest, since it is not interfered by cultural conditionings, and measures abstraction, analysis and synthesis capacities, which in my opinion, are the more reliable indicators, and therefore the best predictors of general intelligence.

Jacobsen: Mr. Sorensen, thank you for the chance to delve further into this topic much more, your experience and intelligence are much appreciated.

Sorensen: Thank you for this opportunity, and I hope that my citronic criticism, will serve to develop other professional tests, that can be more than mere games to hypertrophy the egos.

Image Credit: Christian Sorensen.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released a report on regulations of religion and an anti-cult movement ongoing. The Soviet Union era lives with us. Its impact, more precisely, lives on within the lives and communities of today’s Russians because of the impacts on the freedom of religion

As has been reported before, there is a dual-issue implicated here. There is internal repression of the Jehovah’s Witness membership by the Watchtower. While, at the same time, the freedom of religion would stipulate a freedom to practice religion, which the Russian and other governments violate via not respecting this, because of the various forms of legislative restrictions and governmental authorities’ crackdowns on these various groups.

The report from the USCIRF proposes some means by which to combat the violations to the rights of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to practice religion freely. One was recommending that the United States government state “Russia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as ‘countries of particular concern’ for their ongoing, systematic, and egregious religious freedom violations, and include Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan on its Special Watch List.”

Photo by Alexander Smagin on Unsplash