« December 2006 |
Main
| February 2007 »
Good Grief. Just when I was starting to feel like maybe the New Conservative Government of Canada WOULD lose the next election and the Liberals would self destruct in some sort of massive orgy of backstabbing and Jack Layton would ride into government on his bicycle (noticeably NOT built for two... Olivia..) and we could all start feeling hip and happen'n' again like how we remember ourselves back in the Trudeau era (gawd, that old deathbed Jesuit sure had US fooled - eh?) - along comes Herouxville.
(I don't know how to do zee French accents in moveable type so don't sue Sooey, Frenchie, 'kay?)
I mean, c'mon. It's like Herouxville has a Declaration of Stupid on its welcome sign. And now - thanks to the wonders of modern technology and the world wide web - EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT!!!! Already this made-in-Canada latest angry white Christians movement - "Stupid R Us" - has spread to the next village.
Why, oh why does stupid travel faster'n smart?
But this all reminds me of way back when Sault Ste. Marie (hence "Sooey", Dear Reader) declared itself unilingual English because it's a typically bigoted ONTARIO town (although "typically" may be a bit harsh as there was only a minor spread of bigotry to other Northern Ontario towns where pretty much everybody was English speaking, too) and Premier David Peterson had just passed Bill 8 or somesuch saying that French language services needed to be made available in Ontario "where numbers warranted". "Where numbers warranted" was apparently the part lost on towns like Sault Ste. Marie, etc.
Now, I wouldn't mention this except it strikes me that where there's smoke there's fire and not only did Sault Ste. Marie's Mayor Joe Fratezi and his spineless City Council (as you will see momentarily) declare the Sault unilingual English, he also declared himself, in short order, the City's Chief Administrative Officer - WHILE MAYOR - and then left the Mayoring job to take the better paying one.
Yup. Chief Administrative Officer paid better, Dear Reader. And it was an easy job to get - if you were the Mayor appointing yourself to it.
There was a hullabaloo, naturally, except none of it was made by the City Council, who apparently lived in terror of incurring the wrath of Mayor Joe and were loathe to criticize him even on the most minor of questionable decisions -SUCH AS APPOINTING YOURSELF TO THE HIGHEST PAYING JOB IN THE CITY WHILE YOU ARE A SITTING MAYOR!
Eventually, two citizens took on the Mayor with the help of the only lawyer in town seemingly preoccupied enough with matters of justice to take the case. Long - very-embarrassing-for-non-bigots-and-people-who-keep-their-bigotry-in-closets-where-it-belongs - story short, a judge in Sudbury eventually ruled that City Council would have to quash a by-law in order for Mayor Joe to be in any wrongdoing - something, naturally, the lilly-livered City Council refused to do.
It's all in "The Best Man for the Job" by Harvey Simms, one of the two upstanding citizens who got the whole legal ball rolling. The lawyer who took the case is now a Provincial Court Judge. So, in a way, the case did have a happy ending. Although Joe Fratezi still stalks the earth, no doubt looking for spineless specimens of humanity to torture.
Anyway, Herouxville put me in mind of Sault Ste. Marie because it is clearly another case of bigotry gone berserk. I mean, there is a quiet small town genteel Canadian bigotry, and then there is the big neon flashing arrow "BIGOTS R US!!!" bigotry. And I would offer, that - like Sault Ste. Marie - the Village of Herouxville probably has a politician or two who is... how shall we say... slightly less than legitimate?
Otherwise - what kind of politician does that?! I mean... he's either an egomaniac, or an idiot. And, if he's both, I'm telling ya - a sniff of the books will turn up somethin'. That's fo' sho'.
But I'm just guessing. Based on history and human nature. Still, you heard it here first at SooeySays, Dear Reader -any Councillor who is stupid enough to point a big neon flashing arrow at his probably pretty looseyay gooseyay on the old financialay accountingay village-ay, absolutely screaming: "BIGOTS R US!!!" probably has been up to some other stuff, and while he may have a book written about him one day, it won't exactly be the kind his mother would have wanted to read aloud fo her fellow taxpayers at her Sunday afternoon KKK rally.
In any case, there is lots of ballyhoo on the internet about the Village of Herouxville regarding its Declaration of Stupid which reads as follows in Judeoscope (heheh - whose first reaction to the news of the Declaration was as follows: "HOLEY MOTHER OF CRAP!!!! The Islamic Menace has penetrated through to Herouxville?!" but when informed that no Muslims actually lived in Herouxville, cooler heads prevailed and it translated thusly from La Presse into Judeoscope - a great read if you're Xtreme-Israel - otherwise, just go back to B'nai Brith press releases - there's one every fifteen minutes or so):
Oy Vey
For the record, and in case anyone is worried (or hopeful) that it is legal to throw acid in the face of a woman as long as she is wearing a veil (the wearing of which is banned in Herouxville - implying that it is fine to throw acid in the face of a woman wearing one... or something...) - it isn't. It is quite illegal, in fact. Veil or no veil. Also, with regards to the apparent epidemic of female circumcisions in Herouxville, I satisfied myself with this bit of fact checking:
Whoa! Maybe Take It to the Other 36 States, Though, Herouxville!
That is all. Now unbury Uncle Fred and Aunt Ethel up to their necks and put down those stones because that's not legal in Canada, either. Even in Herouxville.
I had planned to do an entry today about car alarms because I've noticed they exist and I have to ask - WHY? But then Warren Kinsella did his Top Ten Bloggers annual list on his Blog:
Where Are All The Bitches, Man?
So I'm doing car alarms, which are annoying to me - AND - Warren Kinsella's blog entry, which is like "Annoying to Me, Part 2".
Okay. I'll do the car alarms bit quickly. Why is it okay, in this country of equality and fairness that we hear about ad nauseum from our various Liberal and Conservative governments, for some people - rich people - to buy cars equipped with alarms that can and do disturb the lives of other people - not rich people? Because I find it very odd that some rich asshole's car is considered more important than this poor clerk's sleep. And what, exactly, is it that we - the poor clerks of the world whose sleep is ruined by said rich asshole's car alarm - are supposed to do when it goes off at 3:00 a.m.?
Save the rich asshole's car's life?!
Because, really - I am NOT going to do anything other than lay in bed praying that the owner will show up and then the car will explode and he'll be found dead three miles away with a steering wheel imbedded in his forehead.
But more to the point - why are car alarms even legal? If I went around at night blowing a horn outside Mr. Rich Guy's mansion - he'd call the police and have ME arrested. So why can't I have Mr. Rich Guy arrested for owning a car with an alarm? It WILL go off, at some point. So, It seems to me, that I should be able to do that - OR - at the very least, take a baseball bat and, quite legally, smash the living crap out of his car when his car's alarm goes off - as it inevitably will - at 3:00 a.m.
Cars are not people. I'm not going to rush outside and save a car in the middle of the night. What I DO think is going to happen one day, however, is that some poor hothead who is suffering from sleep deprivation is going to go out and wait - with a baseball bat - for the owner of the car to show up and turn off his alarm. Sure, it's wrong to beat someone to death with a baseball bat. Usually. But if I were the judge - I'd let him off. With a warning. Next time - beat the car to death, too. For good measure.
Besides, it's not like he stole the car or anything important like that - he just beat to death with a baseball bat another dumbassed rich fucker who doesn't give a shit about other people.
Now over to Warren Kinsella and why he doesn't think there are any women worthy of making his annual Top Ten Bloggers list. Except for one woman. One measly little woman. One bloggirl who is clearly "teacher's pet".
Traitorous Suckup. Running Bitch Capitalist Sow. MAN PLEASER!!
Grr.
So here's what I think The Sisterhood should do - All the other bitches an' ho's who DIDN'T make Warren Kinsella's Top Ten Bloggers list (and that's everybody EXCEPT precious little aingie ainge butt face Warren Kinsella toe jam lover) should diss her on their blogs - ALL DAY!! Call her fat and ugly and stuff like that until she cries.
Gawd.
Her name is "Ainge", too - except she writes it "ainge" - as if she's ee cummings' or something. "Ainge"? Isn't that like "Angel"? Barf. I guess "Mary, Mother of Jesus", was taken. I bet she's a real girlie-girl, too. Yup. That's why he likes her, I bet. Because he's all Irish and Catholic and she's called "ainge" and he's all like to his wife, "You should be more like ainge. She's the only smart girl blogger in Canada, you know. And pretty, too. Smart AND pretty." But his wife's just like, "Shut your big festering gob, you pasty-arsed bucket o' shite! I'm goin' out with me bye's fer a few pints!" And it just confirms it all for Warren Kinsella that women aren't like men. Not at all. You can give them a whole blogoshpere but instead of rising to the occasion, they're all just harridans and old cows.
Except for ainge. Ainge is all that is holy. A good blogger girl.
Barf.
Again.
There is a scene in Seinfeld when Elaine is at a job interview and the interviewer is talking about Jackie O and she says, "Jackie had grace" and Elaine says, "I like to think I have a little grace" and the interviewer says, "Oh, but you can't have a little grace. You either have grace. Or you don't."
I'm like that about torture, capital punishment, academic freedom, abortion rights - and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc.
You can't have a little torture. You either have torture. Or you don't.
What about bad guys? Can you torture bad guys?
No. That's because, you either have bad guys, or you don't.
You see, if you allow a little torture of a few bad guys, all a government needs to do (and I'm talking about government sanctioned torture here - something many people seem to believe is a good thing in this post 9/11 back-to-the-middle-ages New World Order XXXVII we live in these days) to turn "a little torture of a few bad guys" into "murdering anybody it wants dead" is expand the definition of torture and bad guys.
And we've seen how much and how easily even a lightweight like Bush the Junior can and will successfully expand very entrenched government powers to suit his desires. I mean, the only cry one hears south of the border more than Reverend Lovejoy's wife's cry of: "But what about the children?!" is "But what about the Fore Fathers?!"
You can apply the same logic to all the other "hot button" issues (as they are called during elections). Interestingly, almost every other issue matters more than tax cuts - and yet - as Kim Campbell so famously said, "An election campaign is no time to debate issues." To which most of us said, "Quite right." But thought, "HUNH?"
Which leads me to a question asked of me by my daughter yesterday. We were talking about politics and I was equivocating in my allegiances but did allow that I was on the left. I guess she really just wanted to know how I vote but I wasn't giving her a clear enough answer so eventually she asked: "Well, what don't you agree with about the NDP"?
Brilliant. What don't I agree with about the NDP. Not: "What DO I agree with about the NDP"? But: "What DON'T I agree with about the NDP?"
And, you know, Dear Reader - for a pretty wobbly NDPer, I realized: "Not much." I had always thought I had a big bugaboo with the whole Labour allegiance thing, nationalizing banks, weird-looking-caucuses - but no longer, I guess. And I really thought about it. I tossed in the other Parties' platforms - I've always thought of myself as a kneejerk Liberal, who secretly likes it when Tories slash and burn so a more competent government can come along later and redo everything better - BUT - there are so many things about BOTH Parties I DON'T agree with that it was really quite striking.
There just isn't anything I can put my finger on re the NDP that I DON'T agree with - at least in principle. Practice? Well, if an NDP government stuck to its principles - I'd be one satisfied voter, I guess.
Kids do ask the darndest things. I am going to suggest she be a professional pollster when she grows up. Because wouldn't that be a great poll for the NDP to conduct? It has a very well-defined Party platform. Decisions are made democratically at conventions. But most people really only know the NDP by what the other two Parties and the mainstream media say it is. I was shocked to realize there isn't much I don't like about the NDP. I had always thought I was rebelling against myself by voting for it.
Oh. Crap. Okay. I was tagged by Sheena of SheenaVision to list 6 things about myself and then tag six other bloggers to do the same thing. It's a blogger chain letter, I guess. I don't want to break the chain (although if this were a paper chain letter, I'd toss it - no problem), so, here it is:
1. I rebel against myself.
2. I defy all standards of beauty by being asymmetrical and yet, if I do say so myself, I'm hot stuff.
3. Once I notice a pattern (I've used the word "myself" in #1 and #2 already) I have to continue the pattern.
4. I am constantly trying to re-invent myself but I always revert to type. For instance, I tried not to use the word "myself" in this entry to prove #1 and put the lie to #3 but I couldn't do it.
5. I have "all or nothing" beliefs and behaviours. See the above entry. About myself.
6. I feel tremendous pressure not to let people down - but I often do. SO, even though I don't know six bloggers, myself, I have such faith in people, that I know someone - many someones, perhaps - will come along and help me out.
I was going to do an entry EARLY this morning about Danielle Crittenden and her views on womanhood but I was sidetracked into moderating comments on yet another of my Middle East entries. Or rather, an entry about academic freedom that (d)evolved into a Middle East entry in the comments section.
Sorry, eh. I hold myself responsible. But I won't delete myself, either. It's my blog, afterall.
So, Danielle Crittenden. She's the author of a book blaming mothers for being feminists instead of REAL women. Or something. I haven't read it because I don't like to waste my time. Time is precious. LIke babies. Unless they're bad babies.
Gasp! Did I say that out loud? Because here's the thing - last night I went to my monthly bookclub meeting (it's just like menstruation) and we sat in the hot tub (it's a suburban bookclub) discussing "The Awakening" by Kate Chopin.
Spoiler Alert!!
So there we were, boiling away in 20 below weather (cripes, and I'll be damned if I haven't done as many Environment entries as Middle East entries - I guess I don't really care about the Environment, either) discussing "The Awakening" when I said, "Hey - how come none of us seemed to like the main character very much? Or any of the other characters? And yet... we really seemed to like the book."
That's when it hit me. The main character is an early feminist. She's described as handsome rather than pretty (the lesbian overtones, we realized, the 8 of us in the hot tub, and we're a good-looking bookclub, were deafening) possessing a singularity of nature such as women were not really supposed to have in those days. Or now. To the point where, I realized later in bed (WITH MY BEAU!!!) that she wanted to live like a man.
And that, dear reader, is why - I think - we didn't like her. She was honest. She told the truth. She loved her children but didn't really want to look after them. She wanted someone else to do it. Her husband wasn't anything negative, really - in fact, he was quite accommodating when the marital crunch was on - but she insisted on not wanting to be with him. She wanted to be with men who seemed... well... "poncy" was the word that came to mind for me. That she was infatuated with by turns. Eventually, she even moves out of the marital home. So her husband is left to pretend they are having renovations done. To save face in that "what will people think" way that is usually - women's worry work.
I like that - "women's worry work".
In any case, our collective reaction to her shocked us a bit. We are all feminists - sort of. But, with the exception of myself until very recently, we have all lived very traditional lives as women. The bookclub started, originally, with a group of us being stay-at-home mothers with younger working mothers gradually coming in to top us up from five members to eight.
I was the one, having defied convention recently, to realize that we were uncomfortable with this character because she was a woman living as she wanted. Being honest. Telling the truth. She was essentially a woman wanting to live like a man. (My fellow bookclubbers, by the way, have (d)evolved from feeling sorry for me regarding my situation to being increasingly jealous. That's just a bit of a side note. I'll leave it there.)
Scary, eh? Because women really don't do that very often. Honest. I know you don't want to believe that, Dear Reader, but it's true. Women care what other people think to the point where they live lives that are completely dishonest. They are fine, upstanding, womanly lives. They just aren't even remotely truthful.
And this brings me to Danielle Crittenden. Although, really, it brings me to Barbara Amiel. (I'll never get around to talking about Danielle Crittenden, so if you're reading this piece for that reason, give it up. Why would I waste my time talking about Danielle Crittenden? Get a grip, Dear Reader!)
Barbara Amiel has made a career, risen to the top of the macho pundit heap, telling women to be good. Don't have an abortion (she's in the money and power telling you that hers was a big mistake, doncha know), stay home and raise your babies (she would if she wasn't childless and busy making bags of money and pursuing rich men having just the best life of luxury, doncha know), don't get into the workforce (leave it to her, doncha know).
Barbara Amiel has lived her life like a man.
BUT - here's where we realized why we had this reaction to the main character in "The Awakening" - a reaction that took us somewhat aback. Feminists that we all think we are:
What would happen if ALL women lived their lives like men and did what they wanted to do? Without caring what people think of them - as women? I mean, I can talk a good game because I've actually followed all the rules. Me. I am a good woman. Very much so. Until very recently, anyway. And the day I do what I want is the day... I don't know... the world will come to an end? (It didn't, but I still haven't accepted that it won't.)
WHY WON'T WOMEN BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT THEY REALLY WANT? Because we CAN be. It's just that I, and many other women, I suspect, equate doing what we want with being Bad Women. It'd be okay if it was just "Bad". But "Bad Women"?
Ew.
"Bad Mothers"?
Double ew.
Be honest. I have a friend who once said to me: "I hate my daughter. I don't like her. I don't want her." I. Was. Shocked. And. Appalled. But not surprised that she thought that. Her daughter was quite awful. I was surprised that she would SAY it. Out loud. I played along, a bit, then recommended she talk to a professional. A REAL professional. Someone who would understand her feelings better than I could. That's because I was really thinking the whole time she talked - honestly - and I pretended to play along - honestly: "Wow. Poor kid. You are one Bad Mother."
Now, I realize that doesn't say much about me as a friend. But I'm trying to be honest, here. And truth be told - she WAS a bad mother. But she was a good friend. For a while. The friendship hit the rocks over something - seemingly - unrelated.
But honestly? It could be that I've tucked that conversation away and everything else she has done since, has been coloured by it.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say here, really, is this: While the truth may set you free, if you're a woman, you'd best prepare yourself to spend a lot of that freedom - alone.
Oh yeah - Danielle Crittenden. She thinks women should have fewer choices because choosing is hard. Or something. There. Happy?
I know - who cares what Danielle Crittenden thinks?
Right?
Who is John Ibbitson and why does he call himself a journalist?
Because he was on The Agenda last night speaking out against academic freedom.
It's true. A real live journalist, going by the name, John Ibbitson, was on The Agenda last night speaking out against academic freedom.
The show was in two parts, Part 1 was about a Professor Dossa or somesuch who went to a Holocaust Deniers' Conference in Iran. Part 2 was about an attempt by a couple of teachers to put forward a motion to their union to have Israel vs. the Palestinians added to the public school curriculum.
Now, by way of full disclosure, I have to admit that I had an opinion regarding both instances prior to the show. And my opinion on each was reversed by the end.
That's because of one Professor Stan Fish. He was right. I was wrong. In fact, I realized, I didn't even agree with myself at the time I held the opinions that I did. Sure, if I had Professor Fish living in my head - I would have known this. But I don't. So it took listening to his opinions to change mine.
It took listening to John Ibbitson's opinions to NOT change my opinion that rightwingers are stupid and should not be allowed out in public.
Now, I didn't pay much attention to the Holocaust Deniers' Conference in Iran. I mean, I wasn't surprised that Iran would hold an HDC (that's short for "Holocaust Deniers' Conference", dear reader - "HoloDeCon"). Afterall, Iran's President once wrote an 18-page letter to America's most illiterate President ever, George W. Bush. Plus, he's crazy. A real whackjob. Nutso facto. The President of Iran, I mean. Not George W. Bush. He's just stupid.
And I wasn't surprised that a couple of Orthodox Jews would have everybody's tongues wagging because they attended the Conference, either. All the other Orthodox Jews I haven't met seem pretty "out there", too. That's why I haven't met them, I guess. How would I meet one? I'm unclean for two weeks of every month and a radical leftwing feminist for the other two.
Nor, dear reader, was I surprised that a Professor or two attended the Conference. Professor Dossa, even, to give a paper. That's not because I know thing one about Professor Dossa, because I don't - I'm just not surprised that the odd Professor, and odd Professors, might want to attend such an event. Even give a paper at one.
But whereas I would have thought it within the rights of his University to fire him for attending such an event (thereby lending it credence and impugning the reputation of his employer, the University), Professor Fish convinced me that academic freedom took precedence and that firing someone for such a thing is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
He's right, of course. Because if academics have to fear losing their jobs in pursuit of whatever Professor Dossa was pursuing, then there really is no thing as academic freedom and it's all just a bunch of talk not backed up by action. Democracy, I mean. Freedom. And we may as well be living in whatever fascist regime John Ibbitson would seemingly prefer.
As a journalist, at least. I don't know what he'd prefer as a human being. He appears to reek of privilege, so I assume - order. And lots of it. Applied to the lower classes.
Meanwhile, with regards to Part 2, I had thought, "Well, why not? What are we so afraid of that we can't discuss Israel in the context of Palestinians, that we must keep this important discussion out of the classroom?"
Professor Fish, whatever he said (it's terrible - but I can only ever remember the outcome, never how I got there), convinced me that the classroom was, indeed, the very place to keep such discussions out of - in order to protect academic freedom. That to include such a topic in the curriculum would be a violation of academia as it would introduce political bias into the classroom - where political bias absolutely should not be.
I like that. And it's pretty clear that the very attempt to introduce the motion to the union was political and the content so politically biased that there is no way even the best teacher could impart the subject matter - academically. And while I realize that part of the reason for this whole exercise (which was picketed by B'nai Brith, by the way - the union meeting - along with a telephone campaign aimed at teachers with a view to having the motion defeated, and some teachers in tears, reportedly) was an attempt to balance the equation due to the perception by many (of us) that Israel is treated deferentially in the news and in politics - attempts at balance should not be done in the classroom.
Naturally, John Ibbitson liked that one. Probably not for the same reasons as I did. More likely because he believes Israel to be good, like truffles. The Palestinians, not so good, like grits. Although, I may be giving him too much simile credit.
So, there you go. I changed two opinions because, as I realize, much to my surprise, my belief in academic freedom trumps my political leanings. It's a religious thing, I guess, for me now. Freedom is Gawd. Or something like that.
Meanwhile, as I was watching the show, my mind wandered a bit as it is prone to doing (I mean - c'mon - the topic was "Academic Freedom") and no sooner had I put a name to my new religion than I thought, "Now, am I just being contrary with all this "Freedom is Gawd" nonsense?"
Because it IS possible that my opinions have nothing to do with "Freedom is Gawd" and everything to do with the fact that I just can't stand the stupidness of rightwing arguments. Is it me? Or are they all just based on race? Particularly this whole Middle East thing - which was really the bottom line of both Parts 1 and 2 of the academic freedom segment on The Agenda last night. I mean, I figure rightwingers support Israel, not just because it has the same sort of rightwing government as does the United States and now Canada - which they like - but because all the Jews they know are white. And let's face it - all the Muslims they don't know, aren't white.
Same goes for me. All the Jews I know are white. And all the Muslims I don't know are brown. Arabs, to be exact.
Arab taxi drivers, terrorists and terrorist suspects.
So am I just "counter-balancing" to deny my tribal instincts? Just as the two teachers were attempting to "counter-balance" their perception (and mine) that our news and politics is unfairly biased in favour of Israel? Or have I - as a feminist - successfully trumped my tribal instincts with intelligence to come to the genuine realization that "Freedom is Gawd"?
I mean, I find almost all rightwing opinions appallingly racist and tribal and their rightwing opinion holders quite willing to deny themselves and others academic freedom - heck - freedom of any kind. Although, I don't read them very carefully. Still, I really don't want to be like that, so it IS possible my opinions are just "counter-balanced" to not be stupid. Like John Ibbitson's.
Whatever. Tomorrow's entry is already in my head so before I forget how I got there - I'm writing here and now - it involves Danielle Crittendon (den?) and her stupid rightwing opinions.
I noticed on the news the other night that a guy who was mad about something decided to load a gun and go over to another guy's place and shoot him. Dead.
He was convicted of 2nd degree murder but his lawyer plans to appeal.
Fair enough.
But I have to ask - how is it that everyone can't see that the verdict was just? I mean, this guy killed somebody, pretty much in cold blood. Do his reasons matter? Because I'd say this case was pretty cut and dried in terms of it being a pre-meditated murder.
I kind of think he's lucky he didn't get charged... more. And harder.
Clearly, the fact that his sixteen year old daughter was living with the victim, doing drugs, no doubt having sex, would not have endeared him to her Dad. But since when is it even remotely justifiable to take a gun (was it registered, I wonder?) and shoot somebody because we don't like how they are affecting our lives or the lives of those nearest and dearest to us.
I mean - isn't that the challenge of all parents? To accept that freedom of association is pretty much a, er, used to be a right? (I haven't read The Patriot Act or whatever it's called, but I guess Mahar Arar knows more about the changes with regard to a person's right to "freedom of association" than I do.)
Gee... Well, now I wonder why the accused's lawyer didn't just go with the Terrorist Defence. You know, that the Dad thought his daughter's boyfriend was part of a Terrorist Cell and that he was afraid she was being trained to be a suicide bomber. Or somesuch. Come to think of it - maybe he should have gone to the police with that accusation at the beginning. Had the boyfriend deported to Iran or someplace.
Meanwhile... it was pretty hard for me, when listening to the reactions of some rightwing pundits on the case ("poor caring Dad, justified, scum junkie anyway, hot daughter but too young"), to not think of Robert Latimer, about whom those same rightwing pundits went frothingly berserk a few years back, even though he didn't even shoot the doctors who had operated on his daughter to the point where, well, he was driven to kill her to spare her any more pain.
Of course, he didn't use a gun. And lord knows, rightwingers like guns. Well, unless they're black, er, gang guns.
But it's interesting what some people are willing to justify in the name of their political allegiances. It's justifiable homicide to shoot someone if you're a Dad and that someone you shoot is supplying your sixteen year old daughter with drugs. It's not justifiable homicide if you're a Dad who can't bear to watch his daughter live on in pain, facing a lifetime of invasive operations to prevent her from dying.
I'm on the left and I don't think either homicide is justifiable. But nor do I think they are comparable. That's because I think a guy who keeps a loaded gun handy to shoot people he doesn't like is a much greater danger to society than a guy who euthanized his suffering daughter.
In any case, justice must be seen to be done and so it was/is. There is only so much room for subtlety, I guess. Robert Latimer got 10 years. This other Dad is going to get 10 years.
Which brings me to the Picton trial. Well, let's see. There's a confession, witnesses, and DNA evidence all over a farm.
I think Robert Picton did it.
What I want to know now is - did the Mayor of Vancouver at the time friends and families of the missing women were begging, imploring the police to at least try and connect some dots to locate their missing daughters, ever get that guy who was breaking into all those rich people's homes in that posh neighbourhood of Vancouver? I know there was $100,000 at stake.
THAT'S the story I wish the media would pursue.
"I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq." - George Bush, 1/12/07
I just found this quote on Robert McClelland's blog. He is asking readers what they make of it. I know what I make of it. The Americans are laying the groundwork for the blame game. It's an exit strategy of sorts, I suppose. Along the lines of, "What more can we do? It's got to be up to the Iraqi people now. We've done our job."
It's America's Batman to Iraq's Gotham City.
Except Batman is washing his hands of Gotham City. And what the President of the most powerful country in the world is really saying, isn't: "They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq." It's: "Fuck 'em. My approval rating is at 27%. That is NOT how it's supposed to go for a War President."
We all know this. And I guess there's nothing for it now but to nod along. Because those Damned Yankees re-elected Bush the Junior, pretty much knowing everything we know now. It's not like Bush the Junior suddenly became a corrupt lying bastard capable of commiting terrible acts of unconscionable evil.
He was born that way.
Or was he? Because I don't believe in monsters. Saddam Hussein is often described as a Monster. Ostensibly because he was responsible for the murder of lots of people. But I think it had more to do with the desire by lots of people to have themselves a "no backsplash" execution. De-humanizing the inevitably-to-be-executed is good for post-dramatic public relations. Not that anybody was about to say, "Well, he wasn't THAT bad", anyway. Because he was.
But it's not like Bush the Junior hasn't been responsible for the deaths of lots of people, too. And I'm not calling HIM a Monster. Of course, I'm not calling for his execution, either.
That's because I don't believe in capital punishment. That's right. Just as I believe in a woman's unassailable right to abortion services paid for by our public healthcare system, I don't believe in state murder. It hit me that succinctly today thanks to the Ottawa Citizen's own David Warren, pundit-by-the-pound:
I'mReadyForMyClose-up,Mummy
This line from the piece, in particular, fair leapt off the page at me:
"The more fanatic opponents of capital punishment cannot be moved by arguments of mercy, let alone justice."
"Fanatic opponents of capital punishment"? Gee, like who, David Warren? The Pope? But yeah, I feel like that about opponents of abortion rights - that they "cannot be moved by arguments of mercy, let alone justice".
And the only time I'd use the term "fanatic" in the context of people opposed to abortion rights would be when discussing those people (notice I don't use the term "monster") who shoot people in order to save the unborn. Something, I suspect, David Warren would admire. Even applaud.
But that's me. I believe morality is practical. And practicable. And since I don't believe in monsters, I don't believe we can execute them. That we can execute human beings - yes. We can. Bush the Junior has done it many times over.
Should we? No. We shouldn't. Does it matter that the victim is Saddam Hussein? Yes. Just as much as it matters when the victim is a borderline retarded person sentenced to death row on insufficient evidence.
Because capital punishment is just the old west lynch mob - dressed-up. Is there justice? Of course there is. It's remaining civilized, it's "Doing Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You" - even when you're the guy with the power. ESPECIALLY when you're the guy with the power. So, clearly, Americans are not the ones to bring justice to the world. They are, as yet, uncivilized. The United States is an uncivilized country. It has no business claiming a moral superiority - over anyone. Its President is a Thug. A democratically-elected Thug.
Quite frankly.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but... the quote that begins this piece would have me to believe he's become quite a whiny Thug at that.
Justice? American-style? I don't think so.
I walk to work because I like the exercise but lately I've been wondering if all I'm doing is raising my blood pressure. That's because I think while I walk instead of sticking things in my ears and listening to music like normal people do. Today my mind cast itself back to a particularly egregious occurance. Something that happened to me and my husband when we lived in Belleville.
Or Hellville, as we called it.
We had stopped in at the McDonald's on the way to the Mall for a quick lunch. In the back of our Toyota was the wall of carseats. One, two, three. Occupied. By two toddlers and a baby. Ours. Anyway, we went to the Drive Thru (spelt "thru", I guess, to go with the fast food theme), then parked in the lot and ate. A joyless meal, to be sure, but even at 11:00 a.m. we were beyond any attempt at aesthetics.
As soon as we were done eating, my husband started the engine and we headed out of the parking lot.
There he was. Officer Doright of the O.P.P. He even turned on his siren for a second. I froze. Coppers. My husband turned off the car.
"Excuse me, Sir. I notice you're not wearing your seatbelt. I'll have to give you a ticket." I looked at my husband. Sure enough, he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. Probably for the first time ever in the entire course of his driving life - he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. We figured later, it was because we ate in the parking lot. He'd undone his seatbelt and forgot to do it up again. Me? I would have eaten with my seatbelt on. Because I'm a woman.
It was awkward for the poor fellow. He could clearly see the three kids in the back. The car was an '84 Toyota Tercel and it was 1995. And the ticket was $120.00.
Anyway, I was thinking about that as I walked to work because, not only did we get the ticket, but we had to endure a lecture on the merits of seatbelts and wearing them at all times. My husband, to his credit, didn't take the cars keys and gouge his own ears out. To my credit, I didn't yell, "Fuck you, you mother fucking cocksucker asswipe fascist diklikker POOPOOHEAD!"
Because then the kids would have been callling each other Poopooheads for the next... ten years?
Still, even though he was sitting strategically across from the McDonald's parking lot, waiting for someone to forget to do up his seatbelt before he started the car, so he could make the monthly ticket quota without too much effort, it wasn't like he put us on a list or anything. We just got a ticket for a finite amount of money and that was that.
So, I don't understand, for the life of me, people who support the idea of more law and order, government watchdogs, private watchdogs - any of that, "You'd better mind your p's and q's Mr. Smart Alecky Upstart or we'll be all over you like dung beetles on a cowpie" stuff.
Because, here's the thing. I have a blog. You're reading it. I have a comments section. Perhaps you've read through it, too. If you've read through it late at night or early in the morning, you'll have noticed that I have the odd commenter(s) who would seem to be sifting through all of my entries looking for indications that perhaps I am not Pro-Israel enough to pass muster. Whose muster, I have no idea. When I am not Pro-Israel enough combined with not Pro-Bush enough, the commenter(s) become more insistent that I am not passing muster. But when I am not Pro-Israel enough combined with not being Pro-Harper enough, the commenter(s)' Mustermetre goes Red Alert, "BLOGGER NOT MEETING MUSTER!!!!"
Luckily, it's only the internet and there isn't really a list somewhere tallying up all the bloggers who have sent the Mustermetre to Red Alert. But a story in efrank last week makes one wonder about what IS going on in the blogosphere and if, indeed, there are campaigns afloat, systematic campaigns, to shut down - first a blogger's comments section - and then the blogger. Because having a comments section is a big draw to a blog. Feedback and interaction between bloggers and their readers is, for some, the cool part of the whole exercise. And yet, it would appear that Antonia Zerbisias of The Toronto Star, who had what I would call a fairly Liberal blog that reported fairly strongly on Israel's diplomacy (and lack thereof) in the Middle East, may have been targetted for shutdown because of her opinions.
That may or not be the case. No one is certainly taking credit/discredit for the demise of the blog. But it got me to thinking - Are there really watchdogs out there reporting findings to groups unknown? I mean, I suppose there could be and it doesn't matter because they're all a bunch of kooks.
But what if they're not necessarily kooks? What if they're people seeking to make a "ticket quota"? And you're a blogger who does the cyber politics legal equivalent of forgetting to do up your seatbelt? Like say... you condemn Israel for threatening to nuke Iran - BUT - you don't condemn Iran for threatening to wipe Israel off the map?
And let's face it - humour does NOT translate well on the internet. One person's, "How many Israelis does it take to screw in a lightbulb? - As many as it takes to crowd out the Palestinians" - is another person's Red Alert.
Anyway, we paid the ticket. I delete the comments. And go on to my next entry.
Just in case anyone's watching.
And hopefully, because more people are reading.
Better buckle up. As Betty Davis would say, "It's going to be a bumpy ride".
I remember a few years ago, reading in the Ottawa Citizen, an article about a study concerning the domestic cat brain. The study claimed the domestic cat's brain was shrinking due to years of soft living. That, because the domestic cat had no need to do anything much by way of thinking in order to survive, its brain, over time, had actually shrunk. Shrunked? Shrunken? Shrinked? ( I don't know how to use the spell check in moveable type - you'll have to take your pick, Dear Reader.)
That's funny, I remember thinking, the Ottawa Citizen's brain, after being purchased by Conrad Black and then sold to the Aspers, would seem to have shrunk over time, too.
In fact, sitting here today, I would have to say that the brains of ALL rightwing pundits would seem to have shrunk over time. I know, I know, Dear Reader, you're thinking: "But Sooey, is that even possible? For the brain of the rightwing pundit to shrink? When it starts out so small?"
Yes, Dear Reader - apparently it is. Because apparently, the only real problem with Bush the Junior's revised plan for Iraq (which seems less revised to me as a revised plan than it is the same plan as the original plan, if there actually WAS an original plan, and there's no real proof that there was) is that he is sending more troops over to Iraq to fight for peace for the Iraqi people - instead of even MORE troops.
Indeed. But these are the same minds who think they would do well in a libertarian society. You know, the libertarian society where the population trades clean water and nutritious food and safe shelter for rightwing punditry.
I mean, I'm no slouch in the "providing an easier life for others" department. I'm a mother, afterall. And I am of limited means, so I can make really nutritious meals by trading very little currency, leaving me lots left over for other things. Like vote purchasing or craft supplies. I dunno. I'm not sure what you'd use leftover currency for in a libertarian society. But something tells me, unless they were to resort to shooting slow moving stray babies, rightwing pundits would be too hungry to put up much resistance when the rabble came to steal their books for fuel. And then cut out their tongues so they wouldn't have to listen to them opine about it. And then smash their keyboards so they wouldn't have to read them opining about THAT.
And THEN what would they have to trade for toy soldiers and broadway recordings?
Because, like the domestic cat's, their brains have been shrinking over time and are now at the point where they really can't rely on them for actual survival. And whose fault is it that their brains have shrunk? Well, who do they complain about all the time?
Why, Feminists, of course.
It is the fault of Feminists that the rightwing pundit's brain has shrunk. That's because Feminists have made life better for all of us without some of us having to lift a finger. It's true. What has the rightwing pundit done to make modern society the kind of place where any leftwing Joe Six Pack or Sally Housecoat could probably survive quite well in a libertarian society but the rightwing pundit could not?
That's right. Nothing. And while his brain was shrinking, leftwinger brains were growing. That's because we had to fight harder to get all the same advantages of the rightwinger - AND - because we are leftwingers, fight even HARDER to expand them to everybody. INCLUDING the rightwingers who became stupid over time and weren't just born that way on account of having rich parents.
Meanwhile, we Feminists on the left have to stay even sharper because we know that all our rights and freedoms can be stripped away by the next rightwing (i.e. stupid) government. BUT - the rightwing pundit knows that, no matter what government is in power, he will always have his rights and freedoms.
That's because Feminists and leftwingers will always stay sharp fighting for them.
So, as disheartening as it may seem to keep coming up against stupid rightwingers and their even stupider (more stupid?) governments, just remember: brain power.
Keep on growing. We're gonna need all the brain power we can grow if we're gonna stop the Right from shitting in our nest so much it falls right out of the tree.
Gee, how many stories am I going to have to watch/read about a new product before I get to watch/read about the next new product?
Because it seems like all this past week, the news - and I'm talking just about CBC and the Globe & Mail, here, real news outlets, the best we have in this country - has featured as the lead story and on the front page, a new product. And it's not even a new product that will cure cancer, reduce the new production of greenhouse gases, or find hidden weapons of mass destruction.
It's a new technology product for technophiles.
Now, I admit to being a bit of a technotard, so it could be that I'm just sounding off sour grapes here and that a new technology product on the market is 2007's equivalent of 1962's Cuban Missile Crisis, or 1979's Three Mile Island, or 2003's Invasion of Iraq.
Or it could be that journalism is dead in Canada.
And we were worried about irony there for a second.
I don't know if it's the not-so-rampant consumer in me or not, either, but I find myself wondering, "How much is Apple paying for all of this terrific coverage of its new product? Because it must be costing it a lot of money to get a picture of its new launch on the front page of the Globe & Mail. And since CBC is publicly funded, I guess I'm okay with it getting huge whacks of dough from Apple to feature the product first up in its news line-up."
That's what I find myself wondering. (I put my wonderings in quotation marks, by the way. Usually because I can't remember if I wondered out loud and then someone else heard and that someone will later call me up short on not using quotation marks.)
Yes indeed. At least Apple is paying through the nose for this... okay... who am I trying to kid. You know and I know and everybody else knows - Apple didn't have to pay a dime for all this news coverage. All it had to do was launch a new product, call a couple of people, and voila! The new all-in-on radio/phone/tv/computer is the biggest thing since the inventions of the radio, phone, tv and computer.
But is it bigger than the Government of Canada keeping secret a report which may or may not exist, of a floor crossing MP, who sounds suspiciously like a Spy (and looks like he's trying to sweep a lot of dirt under the rug, if you catch my drift), talking to Heads of State without us knowing anything about it while the Government was busily escalating the action in Afghanistan and calling anybody who didn't support this exciting and new foreign policy - anti-Israel? I mean, even if just the expense account of the floor crossing Kahn were to be made public, I'd feel like I'd had a bit of a news fix.
A new product? No. No, I'm afraid not. It's just not doing it for me. Call me a stickler for detail, but I don't think that's news. I don't even think that's much in the way of a new product, to be honest. Combining existing products into a smaller single product doesn't really make it a new product, to my mind.
And what does a story like this, leading in the news for a couple of nights and days, do to the market, anyway? I mean, if I was a shareholder in a company that produced one of the ridiculously clunky and incomplete products on the market currently, that will make users feel like they may as well be living in the old Soviet Union for all the cool factor they have now, well, I'd be tempted to cancel my subscription to the Globe & Mail. Maybe even start up CBC Non-News Watch.
Maybe even - sue.
Because, as a taxpayer, I have to say - unless you're getting gobs of money from Apple, CBC, money that is going directly into funding camel rides to advertise Little Mosque on the Prairie - that's not even paid advertising tarted up as news. I mean, you and I and everybody else knows it was never "real news" - let's not pretend we don't know what we're talking about here - but if it's not even paid advertising, well then...
...SOMEBODY is not getting their money's worth!
And that somebody is me!
And if I was a Canadian taxpayer in possession of one of those now-obsolete products NOT in on the same CBC at Six advertising campaign, I'd be even madder'n I am knowing that I'm paying for news but just getting advertising - that Apple is getting for free.
And I haven't even bought my first cell phone yet.
So here's the thing. And it's a free bit advice from a non-professional, a lay person, if you will, a watcher/reader of the news: If it doesn't seem even remotely like news? It isn't.
I had a great idea for a blog entry last night. I'd just returned to my apartment from a Birthday dinner at The Keg. My mind was flush with protein (albeit of the fowl kind) and my Beau and I were sitting on the couch. He'd had way more protein - of the cow kind - so it was safe to sit together without that primitive brain instinct of mine getting in the way.
You know, the one that tells the smaller person to keep a safe distance from the bigger person if the smaller person thinks the bigger person might be feeling a bit peckish.
Anyway, we're sitting there discussing something and he says, "___, _ _____ ____ _____________ ___ __________ _______ ____ ____ ____ __ __________ ___ ______ __ ___." To which I distinctly remember saying, "I love that! Do you mind if I steal it and blog about it tomorrow?" Naturally, being of a giving nature, he said, "Of course not!" So, then I said (knowing myself by now), "Okay. But remind me tomorrow that I said I wanted to blog about this."
That's what I remember saying. I also remember thinking, "Now, I will file this away in my memory so it won't be like every other time he's said something that I want to use in a blog entry and then can't remember the next day." What I want to know is: How come I never say, "Now, I will write this down so it won't be like every other time he's said something that I want to use in a blog entry and then can't remember the next day."
Because I never do. Even though I should know by now that I won't remember what he said even ten minutes later, let alone after a night of wild and crazy dreams because, even though the Chicken Creole didn't seem very spicy at the time of eating, digesting while sleeping quadruples the spice effect on the human brain.
Anyway, my memory is so fleeting now that I didn't even realize this morning that I'd forgotten the brilliant utterance I was going to blog about today (which is why I'm blogging about this and not that), and I was saying to my Beau that, even though we were at The Keg - where the steak is danged good - I still didn't have a hankering for red meat. I even found the chicken a bit heavy - protein-wise. Then I opined that, maybe as women get older, they crave less red meat because in earlier times - they didn't get any. Which led to that joke, "How many British/Italian/Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" "Oh, don't mind me, dear - I'll just sit here in the dark."
Because it's true. The older we get, women in particular, the less space we take up. I mean, women even lose bone mass. So, I started wondering if my decreasing desire for red meat (and it's really decreased, pretty much down to zero) is just my primitive brain instincts kicking in and telling me that I need to learn to survive on stuff that's easy to catch - like berries. Which fits because I've been craving a homemade raspberry pie like nobody's business. If it were possible to recall my Gram from The Great Beyond for just one homemade raspberry pie, it would almost be worth it.
And tied to my lack of desire for red meat, is this insistent little voice in my head reminding me to, "Broil a steak for the Beau." Because, feminist that I am, I also have very strong primitive brain instincts that have - so far - kept me from being killed and eaten by the nearest hungry man.
Sure, you laugh. But on whose real authority do we have it that cannibalism has always been a sacred taboo in human societies? Scientists'? Don't make me laugh. Scientists believe in all kinds of wacky things. Evolution, climate change, space. The list goes on and on. And I find it very hard to believe that starving cavemen didn't start licking their lips when they realized that Grandma couldn't run very fast and even if she could wouldn't get very far before the woolly mammoth monster would get her and choke her down right quick. And why should the woolly mammoth monster get all the easy prey?
So, just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I said out loud that, although I'm not much for eating meat, myself, these days - I'd be sure to broil a steak for him. Then I thought maybe that wasn't quite enough insurance so I added, "Every couple of weeks".
I dunno. I probably should have said, "Once a week" - but I didn't want to raise expectations, only to have them dashed, and build up a slow burn and hunger for revenge.
Gawd. It's such a fine balance. Respecting and observing Feminist beliefs and practices while paying heed to primitive brain instincts.
Well, I'm off in search of a hearty salad for lunch.
Say, have you noticed that a bunch of asparagas costs more than a nicely marbled 8 ounce steak?
It's a fact. A Canadian fact.
I watched The Agenda on TVO tonight. I like watching that show because I am really quite appallingly ignorant for someone who writes a fairly political blog - BUT - Janice Stein was once my Professor of... something... at the University of Toronto and I remember... I think... getting a fairly good mark in whatever course it was she taught. Something political... And she always kicks ass on the show. Which by extension makes me feel pretty smart.
Smarter'n that dumbass David Frum, at any rate. And last I looked, he makes about 10 zillion times more'n me wherever he's clerking.
Because yes, on tonight's show he actually shouted at the smarter, female half of the show, something like, "What would you do, then?! What would YOUR plan be?!" in regards to Iraq and in defence of Bush the Junior's decision to invade it, liberate it, and zip off back home to the good ol' U.S. of A before nightfall.
I mean, he was a speechwriter for Bush the Junior, ferchrissakes. No wonder he was fired. If the best you can do by way of defending a decision by the President of the United States to invade a sovereign country with no idea what to next is to implore of a couple of university professors on public television, "What would you have done?!" - you pretty much suck at defending the President of the United States when it comes to his decision-making capabilities.
And lest we forget - the President calls himself "The Decider". Which is why he needs his supporters to come up with better defence arguments for his decisions than, "What would you have done, then?!"
To be honest, both Professor Stein and the other academic, an Associate Professor at... York(?) with an East Indian name I can't recall, looked a little embarassed for him. I know *I* had to watch the segment from the under the bed. Especially when the camera panned back to the Associate Professor while David Frum was in full flight about the Islamic menace (in a frantic attempt to haul the argument back over to more familiar territory, I guess) and she was sitting back in her chair, arms crossed, and smiling. Not tightly, either. Merrily.
At one point I actually opined to my viewing companion, "My goodness, does he realize how racist he sounds?" Because he did. He was saying, essentially, that Arabs don't want democracy, which is pretty appalling in itself, but he seemed to go that big bad step further and say that they didn't want democracy BECAUSE they are Arabs.
My viewing companion, by the way, thought not. That he didn't realize how racist he sounded.
I'm not kidding. And I don't think I'm misunderestimating what he said, either. Because Professor Stein, in the final moment of the show, put the lie to his argument (which tells me she heard the same thing what I heard) by pointing out the historical reality that the Arab states, in the 20s and 30s and 40s, were well on their way to democracy - implying that the detour probably had more to do with extraneous influences than anything else. (And I'm taking her word for it that it's a historical reality and not just a big fat lie she made up on the spot to make David Frum look like a bigger idiot than Bush the Junior, even.) This followed on the heels of her pointing out that, in talking to people from all over the world, she'd never met anyone who didn't want democracy in their country. (And I guess David Frum didn't notice that she didn't say "Arabs and people", just "people" or he would have had a fit and punched himself in the head, or something.)
Oh - and at a juncture earlier in the show, the Associate Professor pointed out that Imperialism didn't result in democracy, that democracy pretty much had to evolve from within a country. It was the counter argument to David Frum's argument that Iraq wasn't working out as planned because it was all messed up on account of the UN and sanctions and there weren't enough... uh... democracy receptors? in place to hold the freedom the United States was trying to fit into the country. He seemed to even say, at one point in his tirade, that the United States, and ONLY the United States - was "The Great Democratizer".
Ooh. Oh dear. Wrong title. Bush the Junior calls himself The Decider - NOT - The Democratizer. Not that he mightn't have meant to say, "The Democratizer". Still, he didn't. He said, "The Decider". "I am The Decider."
And let's face it. Invading a sovereign country rich in oil reserves with the noble intention of liberating it - is quite a decision to take. It's also a really hard sell. Especially to people of reason. People of reason are going to think, however politically incorrect it may seem, that you are behaving more like an Imperial power intent on... well... you do the math - than just a run-of-the-mill "Decider".
Anyway, the whole segment was a wake-up call for me. I'd been stumped by those rightwing whackjobs all over the internet these days, posting wildly, "Well, EINSTEIN - what would you have done?!" as if it was the fault of all of us non-Bush-lovers that the President had proved himself to be a really bad "Decider". I mean, if you try to answer, "Well, for starters, I wouldn't have invaded Iraq" - they just post louder, "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE KURDS?!"
And there's almost no point in arguing, "Well, I wouldn't have gassed the Kurds, either" because they have no sense of irony. None. I mean, David Frum actually threw up his hands at the point made by the Associate Professor that Bush the Junior invaded Iraq with no real intelligence (and I wrote that sentence that way - deliberately - double entendre intended) to say pretty much, "that's WHY he invaded Iraq. Because he DIDN'T have any intelligence."
"Duh."
Unfortunately, one drawback to having to female academics on the show was to curtail the debate somewhat because they both seemed a bit taken aback by David Frum's punditry and gesturonics. They were, I think, confused. I would have just shouted at him, "Shut up, Stupid!" but I'm kind of... well... not fully informed, either. And, of course, then he would have just shouted back at me, "You shut up, Stupid!"
Until Steve Paikin shouted, "You both shut up, Stupids!" or something.
There was another person on the show, some guy who wrote a book called, "Electing to Fight". It was the result of a couple of decades of research into emerging versus non-emerging democracies. Professor Stein and the Associate Professor took issue with it, from an academic viewpoint, but I wasn't really following by that point. Then David Frum flung poo at him, or something. I dunno. It went on a bit too long, I guess. Either he, or I, was tired and not really paying attention.
Oh - one last bit. I remember David Frum accusing the Associate Professor of not arguing right. Of being too precise in her language, or somesuch. But my viewing companion said it was the opposite. That he accused her of not being precise enough.
Weird, eh? How two people can be watching the same program and hear the opposite sounds? We both agreed, then, that defending Deciders is hard.
Luckily, it was time for Family Guy, anyway.
I've been reading a bit of media hype about CBC's new sitcom, "Little Mosque on the Prairie" - most of it leading stuff about how it had to be vetted by Muslim Community Representatives (MCRs, for short). This facktoid, comes from CNN:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure it doesn't cause unforeseen offense with "Little Mosque on the Prairie," the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) has hired an independent Muslim-Canadian consultant to comb through the sitcom's creative elements and suggest possible alterations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really like the "government-owned" part. It's never "taxpayer-owned" - is it? Funny that. Cripes, those American privately-owned by rich guys broadcasters sound more and more like Canwest/Global every day. Eh?
Meanwhile, according to its creator, Zarqa Nawaz - it isn't true that CBC hired an independent Muslim-Canadian consultant to vet the series:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no official outside consultant, she says with a laugh. I think that's part of what has sparked so much interest in the show, the thought that it might anger Muslims, how would they react, et cetera. But there is really nothing in the show that could offend Muslims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hm. Well, then. SOMEBODY'S lying.
Now, I haven't watched any of the clips and I only read a couple of blurbs about the show. Two to be exact. And I've quoted both blurbs above. The second one comes from the Globe & Mail. But if "Little Mosque on the Prairie" doesn't offend anybody, my guess is it's not something I'd bother watching. While I don't like being offended, myself - I do enjoy it when others are offended. So I'll probably give the show a pass.
Unless a group of Russian Jews show up to the town of Mercy to demand that the rural folks' homes be bulldozed. Then I'll watch. Because, so far, the only truly offended reaction to the show that I've read on the internet comes from the usual wh/right suspects who've HAD IT UP TO HERE with wh/right (in this case, rural) folk being the butt of the joke while Muslims are about to be portrayed as, well, stereotypical television sitcom vizmins - instead of as terrorists, as it should be.
Think "The Jeffersons" on "All In The Family".
Except... gentler. Because... we haven't come a long way. Baby. TV Muslims on the Prairie in 2007? Gawd, say goodbye to George Jefferson and hello to Sidney Portier - in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner". Yup. It's true. Vizmin stereotypes Vs White stereotypes never get old. Not in the movies and not on television. They just skip a generation to be reborn in a more politically correct outfit.
Although, the wh/right stereotype holds pretty true in real life. Especially when it comes to rural folk. They are wh/right. And stupid. But I would say that, wouldn't I. I'm from the city. A city-slicker, I believe they'd call me out on the Prairie if I suddenly showed up and opened a human secular feminist lesbian pornography bookstore and spa.
But back to reality and 2007 and the reaction to "Little Mosque on the Prairie". The Globe also made comparisons between "LMotP" and a popular CTV sitcom, "Corner Gas". Apparently, the comparison is made because "it's inevitable" and not because CTV and the Globe and Mail are like Kissin' Cousins and the Globe & Mail will use any excuse to mention "Corner Gas". (In the way that Global and all the Canwest newspapers are like the offspring siblings of twins, I guess, and Canwest will use any excuse to mention the Global sitcom: "Global News".) Here is a third blurb from one of the two articles I read on "LMonP":
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparisons to CTV's homespun hit Corner Gas are inevitable. Both are set in fictional Saskatchewan backwaters ( Corner Gas in Dog River, Little Mosque in Mercy), where madcap locals (including the requisite rednecks) basically have a lot of time to kill.
But whereas creator Brent Butt and his gang on Corner Gas might get outraged when the local diner hikes a cup of java to $1.50, the good townsfolk of Mercy get their shorts in a knot over entirely different things, Muslims paying rent to pray in an Anglican parish hall, or a daughter of a devout Muslim wearing a tummy-baring tank top.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooh. I dunno. I'd say "Corner Gas" creator Brent Butt, being a talented stand-up comic, pretty much made a show in the Seinfeld mold except with all the characters delivering their lines exactly like Brent Butt. Corner Gas seems a lot more like something a bunch of urban metrosexuals at CBC would be at one with - not the Conservative straight suits at CTV.
I'd say CTV just pretty much lucked out with "Corner Gas". But will CBC luck out with "Little Mosque on the Prairie"? I mean, without expanding Mercy to include a bunch of wild-eyed, gun-toting Russian Jews who want to bulldoze existing rural folk homesteads to make way for MORE Russian Jews?
Well, not with this viewer. But I'd advise "Corner Gas" to bring in a little more politics. And racism. Like maybe the Indian half of the Dog River police force could drive a drunk Oscar out into the middle of nowhere and drop him off so he freezes to dea... hey... wait a minute!
HOW COME IT'S NEVER WINTER IN DOG RIVER?!
Gawd. TV. Just when they've got you believing there might possibly be, somewhere in Canada, a police force that is 50% Indian - in an otherwise all white town.
Phff.
Okay. Here's a question: How does a government "crack down on crime"? By committing less crime? I mean, if the New Conservative Government of Canada wants to be taken seriously - why does it insist on repeatedly saying incredibly stupid things?
And since when is the Environment portfolio "crucial"? Since the polar ice started melting? I mean, c'mon. This government doesn't even believe its own scientists on the environment. Who is it trying to kid? Us? Or itself? And I'm trying to be fair, here. This is a government, afterall, that banned a book reading by one of its own scientists because the book - a novel - is about the effect of a fictional climate change on a fictional society some 50 years in the fic... er... future.
Wow. Talk about 1984 all over again. And something tells me nobody actually read the book before banning the reading, either. I could be wrong. But you know I'm right. Nobody read that book. I bought that book - at a later book reading - and even I haven't read it. I'll probably never read it. I mean, c'mon - it's a novel about the effect of climate change on society some 50 years in the future. Hello? Weathernerd? I'm trying to figure out "weather" or not to bother buying my oldest kid a winter coat for THIS year. I don't have time to worry about what she's gonna need to look/stay cool in for January 2057.
But I was thinking about political catch phrases and the like after reading yet another "quaking in his boots about the Islamic menace" (and they must be warped up to size 20 by now) piece by New Hampshire's own, Mark Steyn, and he wants "Resolution" to be the word of 2007. Well, "how soon we forget", I thought. "Resolve" was the main word of Bush the Junior's post 9/11 resurgence to Biped status. "Resolve" and "Evil". "Resolvevil". He had "resolve", the American people had "resolve". It's just that no one had an "exit strategy". "Resolution"? In your dreams, Steyn. Unless you're talking about the kind that provides a clearer picture of an execution taken by a cellphone camera. Then, maybe.
So, yeah. "Crack down on crime". There's going to be a New Conservative Government of Canada "crack down on crime". I heard about it all day today. This is NOT to be confused with the New Conservative Government of Canada's "so yesterday" promise to "get tough on crime". That, the New Conservative Government of Canada, has already done. NOT that it's anywhere near finished doing it NOW - thanks to young people. Oh, no. "Trunking" is the latest scourge scourging the land. Perhaps you saw it being re-enacted on the news about a billion times this week. If so - you'd better prepare for a dearth of "trunking" visuals. Because there's going to be a new law to get tough on it. Nevermind the existing seatbelt law. There aren't seatbelts in trunks. What I'm betting we're going to get in the New Conservative Government of Canada's "resolve" to "crack down, er, get tough on crime" before it finally gets to move on to "cracking down on it" is a "Trunking" law. And if there's a gun involved in the committing of the "Trunking" offence, an automatic "Now YOU have to prove you're not guilty of trunking" addendum to the original "Trunking" charge.
Three times and you'll be tied to two trunks. Then one will take off in one direction and one will take off in the other.
Yessirree, Bob. Remember that one? The "YOU have to prove you're not guilty" law? You know, when the New Conservative Government upended the entire Justice System to: "Get tough on crime"? for some reason comprehensible only to our former idiot Justice Minister, Vic Toews, now our idiot Some Other Portfolio Minister?
Luckily for all Canadians, I must say, though, is that the Environment portfolio is now "crucial". It was said several times today: "crucial". Not just "important". Or "strategic". Or "there". But "crucial". And not just to scientists and fiction writers - but to Stephen Harper and his children and his grandchildren.
Hey... wait a minute... Stephen Harper doesn't have grandchildren.... I smell a rat, here. No. Not John Baird, exactly. More like... yes. John Baird exactly. Because John Baird is a Mike Harris "Little Shit" (TM) resurrected from the Opposition benches where his disgusting Commonsense Revolution Party of public troughers had been kicked by the Ontario public after some eight years of looting and pillaging by a bunch of unprincipled thugs - to a mindbogglingly successful run for the New Conservative Government of Canada.
Get tough on crime? How about a collective swat to the idiot voters of Nepean or whatever the hell Ottawa riding elected John Baird? That'd be a great start. Because now he's in charge of the "crucial" Environment portfolio.
Hey - and maybe we could invoke that "Three strikes" law, too, and have them drawn and quartered on CBC at Six.
Every once in a while I catch the Michael Coren show on Vision TV. Last night's show was a regular panel discussion about current events. Carolyn Parrish is one of the panelists. She's the former Liberal MP who called the Americans "bastards" - which I thought was pretty funny, but which Paul Martin, PM at the time, didn't so much. I dunno. To be fair, Jean Chretien, PM at another time, wasn't so keen on Francie Ducros calling their President a "moron", either.
Gawd. Liberals, eh? No fucking sense of humour when the rest of the world most appreciates it.
There is another regular panelist, a consultantish thingimidoodle, but I don't know his name. And I never agree with him, anyway, so I'm not even going to google it. The other panelist is usually David Menzies, some mentalcase with a website who makes Michael Coren seem sane. And, of course, Michael Coren - who, as I say, is usually less Michael Corenish around David Menzies, but last night David Menzies wasn't there and a fellow named John Moore of CFRB was in his place, so - Michael Coren was even MORE Michael Corenish than really is reasonable, I think, and I was forced to lament the absence of David Menzies. Even though I think he is a complete mentalcase.
The first order of business was Saddam Hussein's execution. I forget what *they* said but *I* think it was pretty much the most irrelevant axis in the War on Terror - one which will prove down the road to have been the HUGEST MISTAKE EVER!!! to have been made by The Great Satan in the History of whatever World Order we are in now. XVIII? I mean, the fact that everyone who is anyone in "Executions R Us" circles is surprised that it was captured on a cellphone camera and splattered all over the internet - after every teacher having a meltdown in every gradeschool classroom everywhere has been caught on tape having it - tells us pretty much all we need to know about the efficiency of THAT operation. Cripes, I'm just waiting for the "Why did i click on that link?!" lawsuits to start pouring in. I hope Iraq's justice system is prepared for North American emotional pain and suffering and the consequent monetary demands our delicate sensibilities inevitably engender.
Next up was Canada's Best Biathaloner-at-large, Miriam Bedard. Again, I can't remember what the panel said, but *I* think she won those Olympic medals fair and square and everyone should get off her back and quit asking her to clear up all our political scandals for us. Besides, *I* have known and have been saying that VIA RAIL has been trying to kill us all for years and no one comes around banging on my door asking for proof. I still can't believe I paid for that bagel. It was completely fossilized. I have yet to digest it. And that was 5 years ago.
Eventually, the show progressed to the death of James Brown and the opinion put forth by Michael Coren that Black Americans are wrong (and bad, very bad) to consider him a cultural icon. I mean, he was really put off by the whole outpouring of whatever it was that has been outpouring over the death of James Brown. NOT that he would in any way, I am sure, be less put off by the outpouring of grief over that Liberal bastard Trudeau's death. No sirree, Bob. Or that adultressy retard Lady Diana's death, for that matter. You know, the one that paralyzed Britain's Stiff Upper Lip Class to the point where you'd almost have thought it was Iran grieving another dead mean old nasty Ayatollah and not England wailing over a dead Princess who had taken to driving around with Muslim playboys.
My, my. How soon Whitey forgets his own death follies, eh - wot?
But all of this got me to thinking about who we honour in death and who we *should* honour in death. Wouldn't it be great if instead of going along with whomsoever the Establishment thinks we should honour, we honoured all the wrong dead? I mean, the panel was all-white, and while there was a certain glaring irony in this all-white panel discussing with some degree of paternalistic distaste the fact that Black Americans were deifying a dead soul singer known almost as much for his drug, gun, and assault arrests as for his musical talent - I have to admit, I really only know James Brown for his hairdo and dance moves mockworth.
That's when it hit me. What does the world need now? No. Not love, sweet love. Love is over-rated. Look at where it got Jesus. (And speaking of Jesus, is it just me? Or was anyone else reminded of the Crucifixion scene in The Passion of The Christ during the Taunting Scene at the Execution of Saddam Hussein?) What the world needs now is humour. And everytime a person of mockworth dies, a little humour goes with him/her. *I* think - to give mockworth its due - we should honour those who have provided us with the kind of parody material that James Brown did over his lifetime.
Black Americans have it right. Even if they don't know it and are honouring James Brown for all the wrong white reasons.
Hey - speaking of having it right/wrong/white - I was watching TV the other day and I noticed Henry Kissinger droning on and on as is his way (although, I thought he was dead already and Dick Cheney had taken over his soul). For some reason, I assumed he was talking about Saddam Hussein and I was tut-tutting and shaking my noggin in disapproval at the temerity of the evil bastard honouring the wrong dead as if he was Michael Coren's Black America. Then the camera panned around the audience and there was Moron Junior pretending to be listening while he recited gibberish in his head and I realized the crowd was awfully Establishment looking and there were American flags waving everywhere.
That's when I realized it was Gerald Ford's funeral. Too funny. But, of course, he was being eulogized for all the wrong reasons. No one even mentioned Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live. And see? That's what I mean. A total boycott of Establishment funerals is in order and I think we should take our cue from the way Black America insists in honouring James Brown. I know this would piss off the Establishment because the consultantish thingimidoodle on the Michael Coren show went straight off from agreeing with Michael Coren that Black America sucks at honouring the right dead to whining about some poll he claimed to have read which stated that Black Americans rank their coming funeral honouring icons, thusly: #1. Jesse Jackson. #2. Al Sharpton. #3. Michael Jackson.
Yeah, baby. Beauty, eh? I mean, that really thumbs the old nose at Whitey's Way. So yeah, I'm all Black Like Me for 2007 and I think you should be, too.
Except I'd put Don King #1 on the list because of his hair. Mike Tyson #2 because of the ear biting incident. And Whitney Houston #3 because of Bobby Brown.
It'll take me a while to figure out who the REAL white icons we should be honouring in death are on account of there are so many more of them to choose from. So I'll have to get back to you later in the year on that in hopes that nobody truly deserving kicks before then.
Is PeeWee Herman in good health?
I wasn't going to buy the January 2007 issue of Vanity Fair because I had an argument over "The Holidays" which reminded me of Vanity Fair's unforgivegetable (TM) glamour photo shoot of Bush the Junior et al in the Oval Office not long after 9/11, which I'd forgotten about - BUT - Christopher Hitchens has a piece in it entitled: "Why Women Aren't Funny". It's advertised provocatively on the cover. You can't miss it. Well, maybe YOU can. I couldn't. That's because I'm a woman. And we all know how women are about letting anything go - unremarked. Or ever.
Sadly, the article didn't raise my dander. I'd expected something funnier from a Pundit whose own bombast launched him full sail from a leafy perch on the Civil Libertarian Left all the way over and down to a rotting stump on the Authoritarian Patriotic Right. Alas, the funniest line is delivered by Fran Leibowitz: "Men obviously like gross stuff. Why? Because it's childish."
Well. *I* thought it was funny. But Frank Leibowitz could say, "Dinner's ready", in that deadpan way of hers and I'd probably be laughing so hard my pancreas would shoot out my nose. Then she'd make a retort so funny the rest of my guts would splatter all over the table.
Luckily, Fran Leibowitz eats out. On the tab of the rich. And then makes a living by making fun of people: "Being offended is a natural consequence of leaving the house".
The rest of the piece just says everything you already knew about Conservative Pundits of a certain determined Britishness - you know, that they are pretty much all latently homosexual and for some bizarre reason think that if they supply us with a generous smattering of Rudyard Kipling quotes, we'll think it's Rudy being the ridiculous prig claiming that women can't be funny because they give birth and not simply that women shouldn't be accorded human rights because they aren't human. I mean, it's not like Rudyard Kipling had any idea that in putting Motherhood versus Male Birthright to rhyme:
"So it comes that Man, the coward,
when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council,
dare not leave a place for her."
Christopher Hitchens would one day come along and slap parts of his poem into an essay called, "Why Women Aren't Funny."
Or did he?
But Kipling stanzas aside, there are other glaring flaws in the piece that - as a woman - I can't let go - unremarked. Or perhaps - ever. For instance, his claim that female comedians are hefty, dykey or Jewish, or some combo of the three (and he cleverly mentions in the previous paragraph, Fran Leibowitz, Nora Ephron and Ellen DeGeneres) would cause us all to nod along, "So true" - instead of thinking, "Yabbut, Dennis Miller isn't hefty, dykey or Jewish and he's not funny, either".
And there's the rub. Who, among men, does Christopher Hitchens think is funny? Because if it's Rudyard Kipling, then why am I writing this entry? On the other hand, if it's that hysterically funny stand-up guy from Hamilton, I think he's probably gay, which means that if he was a woman, he'd be dykey. And although he did say Sandra Bernhard was the funny one in the "King of Comedy" and not Jerry Lewis - Jerry Lewis wasn't really cast in the funny role in that movie. And he seemed to say that it was the only Jerry Lewis movie he'd seen. So, I have to wonder - what if he saw "The Nutty Professor"? Meanwhile, the funniest comedien I ever caught on late night stand-up was some chick who did a routine on taking the bus that had me on the floor laughing my ass off. And I'm pretty sure she was straight. In any case, she was good-lookin'. Not hefty. And Canadian. From up north somewhere. So probably not Jewish.
Of course, whether or not she was a mother off-stage, I don't know. She would seem to have disappeared from the circuit. Maybe she got pregnant after the show and lost her sense of humour. Or her baby. Because as Hitchens says in the piece, "...one pathetically small coffin , and the woman's universe is left in ashes and ruin. Try being funny about that, if you like. Oscar Wilde was the only person ever to make a decent joke about the death of an infant, and that infant was fictional, and Wilde was (although twice a father) a queer."
Why, "What a coincidence", I thought, after reading that paragraph - "Christopher Hitchens is twice a father, too." After thinking, of course, "So, dude - What was the joke? Cmon - it's a fictional baby, afterall. And Oscar Wilde is dead. He died because the wallpaper wasn't going anywhere."
Not to mention - way to diss Oscar Wilde. Queer AND dead-baby-jokester. Lucky for him - he's dead, too. Deader'n that fictional baby he made fun of on account of he was queer. Bastard.
Not that I don't agree with Christopher Hitchens, as opposed to Oscar Wilde, I guess, that the death of a child is a hard-sell - joke-wise. And that it'd be quite a humour handicap for a lady comedian to have to take the stage and make jokes about having kids - after just burying them all. But, like, not to be cold-hearted or anything - WHAT ARE THE ODDS?! Cripes, right up there with a guy comedian having to take the stage and make jokes about his parents always bickering during dinner after his dad just plunged his steak knife through his mom's eye over "The Holidays".
No. Wait a minute. That could actually be kind of funny in the right hands. I mean, Ellen DeGeneres could probably deliver one heck of a funny routine wrapped around that scenario. Picture her up on stage, with that stuttering, ingenuous delivery, telling the audience about the massacre that took place at her parents' home over "The Holidays". Imagine how hilarious that would be.
Aw crap, she's a lesian, isn't she.
Say... how does being hefty, dykey or Jewish discount being a woman, anyway? Or is he just saying pretty women can't be funny? Or more precisely, that pretty women he is attracted to can't be funny. Until they're old, I guess, because as his beloved assures him: "Women get funnier as they get older."
Heheh - yeah, sure they do.
Because they're widows.
|
