« September 2007 |
| November 2007 »
I've been thinking a lot about the nature versus nurture debate and I've come to the conclusion that it is neither.
That is all.
Oh wait. No it isn't. There's this:
Eloi and Morlocks
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Yeah. Yeah. And then the tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative females would get drunk and mate with the dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like males and we'd be back to now.
Gee, Dr. Curry - get out to the pubs of London much? And I'd take a good look at the upper class of Britain before I go spouting off about who's gonna be which mutant species of the future, if you know what I mean.
Okay. So what do you get when you combine Naomi Klein's "Disaster Capitalism" with Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"?
Why, RBC's "Blue Water Project", of course.
There. No need for a REAL investigative reporter now. Sooey has solved the problem of RBC's sudden interest in charity. Because, believe me, Dear Reader - when banks say charity is a good thing - Sooey knows it ain't.
The company said the 10-year grant program, called the RBC Blue Water Project, represents the largest charitable commitment in its history.
Heheh - yeah. The only one, too.
RBC chief operating officer Barbara Stymiest said the company focused on water because of its significance to Canada as a natural resource.
"You could say it represents Canada," she said. "The less informed might associate water shortages with developing nations, but with developed nations it's a key issue as well."
Australia, parts of the United States, and even areas of Canada are feeling the impact of water scarcity, she added. "We think it could become and is becoming a material economic issue."
It's not just an issue of securing clean drinking water. Many industries, including Alberta's oil sands, require access to fresh water to operate.
Companies such as General Electric, which has been aggressively expanding its water technology business, have predicted major wars will be fought over water shortages as nations struggle to compete.
Why, why - that doesn't sound like charity at all...
Geez Louise. Say - are there any INVESTIGATIVE reporters out there in medialand?
Oh. Wait. Hey! What kind of SuperEnvoy is this guy?
Nato has "lost in Afghanistan" and its failure to bring stability there could provoke a regional sectarian war "on a grand scale", according to Lord Ashdown.
Luckily, the role of SuperEnvoy isn't sewn up for Lord Here is the list of candidates to play the Caped Crusader (Hey - Crusader! Just like George W. Bush!)
Apart from Lord Ashdown, candidates under consideration for the new enhanced role include Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, the serving French foreign minister, and Jaroslav Kaczynski, the former Polish prime minister who lost Sunday's general election.
Ooh. An election loser, eh... Oh well, as long as everybody understands this is a sovereign country we're invading here:
A senior diplomat who declined to be named said: "The overall leadership here is that of President Karzai.
"So whoever takes on this role needs to be able to co-ordinate the international community but also serve the interests and structures of a sovereign state."
Check. Okay. All systems are go.
Say, remember this? Operation Enduring Freedom? I'd forgotten all about that cornball name for this subsidiary of the War on Terror:
It is understood that the super envoy would have the existing duties of the UN representative but also greater powers to co-ordinate the rebuilding of the country after decades of war. Progress in reconstruction and development - especially in the violent south - has been sporadic and considered largely unsatisfactory by the international community.
However, there remains widespread discussion over the precise remit that the new figure would have, particularly in relation to any oversight they might have of Nato operations and Operation Enduring Freedom, the US's separate mission.
I don't know why Lord Ashdown (Heheh - I wonder how long before the troops nickname him "Lord Downer") is so negative. Afterall, it's not like Afghanistan can get any worse.
Lord Ashdown added: "I believe losing in Afghanistan is worse than losing in Iraq. It will mean that Pakistan will fall and it will have serious implications internally for the security of our own countries and will instigate a wider Shiite [Shia], Sunni regional war on a grand scale.
"Some people refer to the First and Second World Wars as European civil wars and I think a similar regional civil war could be initiated by this [failure] to match this magnitude."
This article by Mark Steyn intrigues me somewhat:
In particular, this comment at the very end (I skim - shamelessly) caught my eye:
"As for the climate, you could take every dollar spent on "global warming" and blow it on internet porn, and the Earth's climate in 2050 will be pretty much what it would be anyway."
So yeah. The reason why it caught my eye is because I happen to agree with it. The way the system has been set up, without China and India signed on to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, too, it's pretty moot, all this Kyototude.
In the meantime, I'm slightly suspicious of the Right for not pointing out more forcefully (or at all, really), the clear and present fact that the rich are about to get richer brokering deals in the new high flying financial field of carbon credit trading (the rich who are, coincidentally or not, the same rich who got rich producing greenhouse gas emissions).
I mean, we already know all this stuff about Al Gore - the energy consumption at his castle in Tennessee, the global Big Foot print he leaves every time he takes off in his private jet to deliver a lecture on Global Warming to people dumb enough to pay to hear him drone on and on for hours and hours about his movie when you can rent it for just a few bucks and then fast forward to the end "Yup - I've seen it - An Inconvenient Movie - It went by very quickly", the failure to do a single Gawddamned thing about the environment when he was Vice-President of the United States, and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc.
Why, you'd have to be either a complete idiot or a fellow traveller to think Al Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize instead of a great big kick in the pants.
So yeah. We get it about Al Gore, yaddayaddablahblah, but such is the way of the world. In the meantime, what I don't get, is why nobody is talking about who's going to pay for our greenhouse gas emissions when we don't meet these seemingly random targets everybody's talking about us not being able to meet now that we've got a New Conservative government in the Palace on the Hill even though we were signed on to the damn Kyoto thing some time ago by a Liberal government.
Call me a Canadian citizen who didn't vote for either government, but... where is this money we're going to be coughing up to pay for all this pollution we're not reducing going to go? Or rather, to be more pointed - to whom is it going to go?
Because this is what I don't understand, and what I think a lot of people don't understand, about all this gung ho talk 24/7 about how drastically we suddenly need to get moving on not meeting our targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
I realize we're a developed country and all, and, as such, must take much of the responsibility for the level of greenhouse gas emissions thus far, but some of us are more developed than the rest of us, if you know what I mean and I really don't think it's fair that we're all being treated equally now that the shit has hit the fan.
Furthermore, since we're the ones who are going to be taxed to pay for all this damage to the environment that was mostly caused by rich people, I think the tax rate should be reflective of that indisputable fact. Afterall, some people are more responsible than others for this mess and I would suggest that those same people also have a lot more money than people like say... me.
Finally, if all our efforts are for naught because China and India are going to spew ten times the greenhouse gas emissions we've already spewed into the atmosphere, and, since it's not like paying out millions of dollars to whomever we're going to be paying out millions of dollars will REMOVE our already spewed greenhouse gas emissions, anyway,- why are we doing it?
And why isn't the Right asking THAT question? For that matter, why isn't the Left? Where is everybody? Hello? Anybody home?
Politcs + Religion = Hypocrisy
I often argue with my co-worker (let's just call him OU81ASWELL) about gender politics, which he enjoys but which gets me really worked up and angry.
Gawd. I'm such a %$*#$&! girl!
Anyway, he phones me in the evening for an argument and since I have nothing better to do than answer the phone - NOT! - I often go to bed ranting and raving to myself.
Well, last night, I had just watched The Agenda when he called. The program had been about the fact (notice I said "fact") that female teachers in Canada, the U.S., and Britain essentially outnumber male teachers two-thirds to one-third. Now, I would have thought that wasn't a particularly good thing, but there was a woman on the panel who pretty much vetoed the entire premise of the show (if I had been Steve Paikin I'd have hooked her during a commercial break - alas for Steve Paikin, there ARE no commercial breaks on TVO) by saying, "So?"
All of which meant that when OU8 called, I actually had a specific topic at hand with the argument winner handy. (I live this way, I really do. It's okay. I'm used to it.) Being a total #$@$$*&! girl in these gender discussions, I introduced the topic and argument winner together, of course - NOT that it stopped OU8 from stating a lot of senseless opinion on the matter.
That's fine. Because what that panelist had done for me was to finally shine a light on why I get so mad in these discussions, which is basically that we're even HAVING the discussion.
Two-thirds of teachers are women and one-third are men? So? Why is that assumed to be a problem that needs addressing? Is anybody stopping men from becoming teachers? No. So, what's the problem? I mean, women were prevented, actually prevented from doing all kinds of work - by men. We actually had to gain the right to work. No one is doing anything of the kind to men with regards to the teaching profession.
And a quick glance at the administration level is very revealing as to who is STILL and very CLEARLY being discriminated against.
So, the fact that there's no actual discrimination against male teachers going on makes me wonder why this is an issue at all. I'm not sure what we say to the fact that female teachers outnumber male teachers (ahem, although, the higher the salaries, the more men you'll find earning them, dontcha know) other than "So?"
But back to my argument with OU8, who believes very strongly that Feminism is ruining the Western World. And he's in dandy company with the likes of every single gawddamned rightwing pundit and politician in Canada, the U.S., and Britain - the three countries where female teachers outnumber male teachers two-thirds to one-third. As the argument regressed and we dug down further into our trenches, I suddenly saw the future.
"Look", I said. "Girls have ALWAYS done better in school than boys - until a certain age when it starts to fall apart for them a bit." (And I believe that to be maturity - girls figure out everything ISN'T possible and their confidence deflates like a popped Hollywood boob. Boys, on the other hand, reach old age before they realize they probably won't be an NHL superstar.) "What's going to happen is that girls will eventually take over in EVERY field of endeavour. Now that we're in - we're only going to try harder and there's only one other sex to try harder than and that's boys. Women, ultimately, will be running everything."
To which he replied, "That would be awful".
"Why?" I asked (and, at this point, my mind was racing with the implications of THE REVOLUTION wherein the hardest workers actually reach the top on merit, no artificial barriers put up by men to keep them from achieving their potential in the workforce).
"Because there'd be no more babies and our population would die out".
So there you have it, Dear Reader. Women aren't SUPPOSED to succeed economically because, for some reason known only to rightwing pundits and OU81ASWELL, they'd cease to reproduce. Hm. Interesting logic, eh? In any case, I countered with, "OU8, it only takes a few hours to have a baby. I've had three and the combined total time in which I wasn't working in order to have them was probably... max... 24 hours."
"But then you're a mother. You want to be with your babies. You want to feed them and nurture them. It's the most important job in the world."
"Oh really? Then why is the pay so bad?"
"We can't afford to pay for it. But that doesn't mean it's not the most important job there is."
"Sorry. None of what you're saying is supported in fact. If mothering was the most important work in society, mothers would be the highest paid members of the workforce. In fact, mothering is the lowest paid work in society. Therefore, it is the least valued."
I'm right, actually. I was a stay-at-home mother so I know not only that I didn't make any money, but I also know that my work wasn't valued by society. Sure, there's a lot of talk about how necessary and important it is that women stay at home with their children (all of it by rightwing pundits and politicians) but clearly it isn't or society would pay mothers well to do it.
Anyway, to bring my argument with OU8 back around to The Agenda question last night, "Do We Need More Male Teachers?" (unless it was the more leading "How Do We Get More Male Teachers?"...), I would suggest that the reason we don't have as many male teachers in primary school as we have female teachers in primary school is that men are less likely than women to want to work with young children because they know that in actual fact, it is not work that is highly valued by society.
Sure - rightwing pundits and policians SAY it is, but it clearly isn't. Men go where the money is and increasingly, as workplace barriers come down - so will women. And because girls do better in school than boys and have for a very long time, it is only a matter of an increasingly level playing field before women will out perform men in every profession.
And what's wrong with that? Afterall, it only takes a few hours to have a baby and with all the extra money women will be making, they can hire men to look after the children (with the added bonus that the male role modelling can begin in infancy) while they go out to run the world. Eventually, as working with (for) children becomes something less associated with women and more associated with men, the male teacher shortage will grow to be a surplus and there will be no more hand wringing about the problem (as some see it) of female teachers outnumbering male teachers in the classrooms of the nation by two-thirds to one-third.
You'll have come a long way, Baby, when that percentage is reversed.
I'm a fan of RedJenny's blog because I'm just an armchair blogger and she seems to be one of those activist bloggers. I get a vicarious thrill, I guess. (Link to RedJenny article at the end of this trip down memory lane, for you Sooey non-fans who would like to skip SooeySays and go straight to RedJenny.)
Anyway, as I've posted here before, I have a bias with regards to the Middle East and have since I was kid, really. Like lots of North Americans, I've always thought of Israel as the struggling underdog surrounded by enemies - and I cheered as it won wars and gained terrority because I believed all of that made Israel more secure. And a secure Israel was a good thing because Israel, as far as I knew, was like a Western democracy - and therefore, like I said, a good thing. And really, the Arab countries surrounding it just seemed ridiculously unaccommodating and unaccountably hostile.
I mean... c'mon - move over. It's just a little strip of land with no oil under it. What do you care, ya big dumb lugs.
So yeah, I didn't really know much about the Arab countries surrounding Israel and I didn't really care about them (still don't actually - particularly with regards to their animosity towards Israel, for which I can't really see that they have any legitimate grounds) - but I knew even less about the plight of the Palestinians because, let's face it, they just didn't make the cut against what had happened to the population of European Jews during WWII.
So, whoever they were, I pretty much felt it was incumbent upon them to move over and make room for their new neighbours - even if their new neighbours were moving in as landlords. Although, I wouldn't have seen that as being the case at the time.
Indeed, as a kid, I always figured that Israel was the least the world could have done to start making amends to those who had survived the Holocaust. It seemed to me like one of those great ideas - it was a wonder the world didn't have more of them more often. Of course, like many people today, I wish that one great idea had been to create a Jewish homeland somewhere in the New World - like say... New Mexico or Saskatchewan, but, there you go - Israel is in the Middle East and that's the way it is.
So add to this general feeling of goodwill towards Israel, the Munich Massace. And, for me, the Munich Massacre was a double whammy - because my second favourite thing to do next to reading about the military triumphs of Moshe Dayan, was to watch the Olympics - obsessively. In fact, I was constantly in training from the age of 6 onwards to get there one day (although my dream was to compete in gymnastics while my skill was in running the 75 yard dash) and the Munich Olympics were especially cool for me because Olga Korbut was competing that year and I'd read all about her in Seventeen magazine (the whole Russian gymnastics team had makeovers - it was like a dream come true, I'm sure) and I'd figured out if I mastered five feats per year in a floor routine, I'd be at my peak for the Games in 1980.
Anyway, it was pretty brutal for a fan of both Israel AND the Olympics waking up to the news that Palestinian terrorists had inexplicably murdered the Israeli wrestling team. And, let's face it, aside from the shock of something like that happening at the Olympics, was the inescapable and widely recognized fact that it had happened to Jews, again, in Germany.
So, I think it's fair to say that for most people, the act went beyond unacceptable violence to something else, something very alien to the mind of a kid living in the New World, anyway.
I would even venture to say that the seeming randomness of that specific act of targetted violence probably did as much to turn North American opinion against the Palestinian people as the Diary of Anne Frank had done to turn North American opinion in favour of the people of Israel.
Understand, too, I'm remembering (I think) how it felt to me at that time and at that age.
However, and this is also very true, the Munich Massacre ultimately made very widely known something I hadn't really been aware of (and, like I say, I was the original Lisa Simpson and way ahead of myself in my reading of current affairs) - that there was a whole other side to the Israel coin and it was pretty alien to how I had always thought about Israel - by shining a media spotlight on the Palestinians.
Now, I don't mean to be dramatic, but I'd say the Munich Massacre loomed pretty large for me, then. As large as did the Montreal Massacre years later, I would say - if that puts it in context. So it was no small thing, although over the years, and as the plight of the Palestinians has become worse and the aggression of the Israeli government and army more blatant - the romantic notion of Israel as the struggling underdog has been replaced with a clear-eyed view of Israel as an oppressor of the Palestinians. (I'm sure there's a less inflamatory way of putting that, but, what the hell - I'm livin' dangerously today.)
Interestingly, and if it helps put into perspective my more realistic view of Israel, my opinion of the Arab states surrounding Israel (and the Palestinians) hasn't changed at all.
Anyway, here's RedJenny's piece on terrorism. It's very interesting, I think. Tomorrow I'll blog about my brief correspondence with Abba Eban. I know, I know - I was such a pain in the ass as a kid, you wouldn't believe it.
This is interesting to me - not because of what Evan Sayet is saying here in this video:
But because of this reaction to his tired boring predictable how many times must we hear from the former Democrat turned Republican because of 9/11 explanation as to why I'm an eedjit moron American now instead of just a regular old eedjit American:
Oh wait, I keep forgetting about the common "eedjit moron" denominator factor. Gawd. I gotta quit being surprised by eedjit morons or else stop reading rightwing site comments.
Anyway, in case you are wondering why Evan Sayet is delivering his explanefecation in front of a backdrop of what looks to be a conference room papered with Heritage Foundation wallpaper, wonder no more:
Call me... a concerned citizen... but I think "getting tasered" is fast becoming the new "died while in police custody".
So, where do tasers come from?
Arizona-based Taser International makes virtually all of the "stun guns" being used today. In fact, Taser is the brand name and the technical term for a stun gun, a conductive energy device, or CED.
Meanwhile, a quick google even by an amateur like Little Ol' Sooey brings up this:
In reaching this conclusion in its report to Canadian police chiefs, the Institute was apparently not overly troubled by the enormous number of deaths that have occurred in cases where a Taser has been used. The specific finding by the Coroner of Cook County, Illinois, that a Taser was, in fact, the cause of death of a man arrested in Chicago also appears to have been ignored in the report as the type of definitive evidence it was seeking to support the claim that the devices can cause death. This report comes at the same time that police officers in five states have filed lawsuits against Taser International claiming they suffered serious injuries after being shocked with the device during training classes.
Taser me red.
This is an interesting bit of bafflegab (I don't know the French word for bafflegab... Tabernac? Poutine? Sacrebleu?)
I lurve this quote best, though (it's really all you need read in the article):
Marois said yesterday the PQ knows the presence of immigrants is desirable and they contribute greatly to Quebec's development, but that does not mean "we must erase our own history" to accommodate them.
Well... bien sur, Madame Smoke&Mirrors. But aren't you actually re-inventing it to exclude them?!
Aw hell. There's just no arguing with the French, is there. Because dammit if they don't have a different word for everything.
How come the Right thinks it's Anti-American to criticize Bush Inc, but it wasn't Anti-American to criticize Clinton Ltd?
Ooh. The Globe & Mail is really steamed now!
"Sovereignty through the back door - that is the purpose of creating Quebec citizenship. With the exceptions noted above, only those with proficiency in French would be entitled to full rights. Everyone else would be sent to the back of the bus. This is a very low road to the political high ground."
Yeah, yeah. You should come to Ottawa and try to get a job in the Federal Civil Service if you can't speak French, dudes. Not that you actually need to speak it to do your job. Ever. Still, if you do manage to get in as a unilingual Anglo, the Government will spend thousands training you to learn French. anyway. Thousands. Thousands and thousands and thousands.
Especially if you're one of those higher-ups who already makes really good coin. Receptionists, etc, come in bilingual, of course, or they don't get hired.
Or try getting hired by a Catholic school board in Ontario if you aren't Catholic - even though you've got a valid teaching certificate and you're... a good girl... and everything.
Let's see.... Oh yeah - ever notice that all our Prime Ministers are men? (Except for the one who ruined everything - Kim Campbell. And I've heard she was half man, anyway.)
And look at the three Holy Roller Premier contestants in the latest provincial election here in Ontario. One of them was so spectacularly incompetent, he didn't even win his own seat.
But he WAS a middle-aged Christian white man, at least. And it's not like he'd need an abortion any time soon, which is a good thing because in the Premier's own riding of Ottawa, there's a six-week wait involved that pretty much means the difference between abortion rights and... well... it's too late for abortion rights, honey.
Say, remember all three parties going nutsofacto about Muslim Women!! voting veiled and how the New Conservative Government of Canada engaged in a witchhunt against that Elections Canada guy to distract the media from its political advertising scandal and then everybody forgot about it and went back to saying how Stephane Dion blows chunks as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada?
Even though he didn't, really. At least not until he decided to prop up that Gawddamned Awful New Conservative Government of Canada? (Dion accent and the real reason why he won't ever get elected Prime Minister mockery alert!) "Da T'rone Speech be h'okay for da Canadien until h'I 'ave da better chance da win da Leadership of Da Liberals, er, da bigger picture election."
I dunno. Is the PQ really that bad? Or is it just, you know, louder and dumber than the rest of politics in this country.
Except out in Alberta, of course. Politics can't get louder and dumber'n that, I don't think. Except in the U.S. And who's the biggest fan of Republican American politics up here in Canada? Why, Stephen Harper and his New Conservative Government of Canada.
Which... I dunno... almost makes plan old regular Canadians who voted for him worse than the P.Q. - I think.
Why - here she is!
Liberals? Take note:
"Liberals love nothing more than these constant self-righteous-athons -- as if they would ever have the courage to stand up for any cause not universally supported by everyone around them."
We have an ongoing discussion on my forum re Afghanistan and I noticed that WWII is often invoked as the reason why we should intervene militarily - i.e. "Whatever would have happened had we not intervened in WWII?!" - by proponents of the War in Afghanistan.
So, whatever happened to "Never Again"?
Anyway, we'll never know now but I wonder what the world would look like today had the U.S. Administration taken a step back from 9/11 and done nothing, just coasted on all those condolences sent from abroad, maybe even used the momentum to re-sell Americans on the idea of a Peace Corp.
One thing is for sure, the next time someone invokes WWII (which we won, of course) in that "Whatever would have happened had we not intervened in WWII?!" vein, I'm going to respond, "I dunno. What if we had intervened and instead of winning - we'd lost?"
Because really, we only make the assumption that our intervention is valid based on the notion that we'll win in the end. And reaching back into history to WWII to draw parallels to Afghanistan is pretty silly anyway, because there are plenty of parallels to be drawn from Afghanistan itself - with no need to go back very far in history, at all.
And is it me? Or is our chronic assumption that WE'RE the good guys and THEY'RE the bad guys... well... a little dated? I mean, I guess we've updated it to, "It's for their own good." "We're liberators, not invaders." "Polls say some Afghans want us to stay there until the job is finished." (Sure, especially the ones on our payroll, I imagine.) And yaddayaddablahblah and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc.
Yet, I can't help but wonder if we'll still be using WWII 100 years from now as the parallel to the next invasion, "Whatever would have happened had we not intervened in WWII?!"
Okay. I lied. I don't really wonder.
I notice CanWest/Global has started its campaign for a majority New Conservative Government of Canada:
"But before voters flee the unsettling concept of the middle-right Conservatives in control for a fixed term, keep in mind that Stephen Harper is not interested in a one-off government. He aims to transform the Conservatives into a natural governing party for the ages and reduce the Liberals to the status of political rump. If he sacrifices mainstream appeal on the altar of his hard-right heritage during any majority mandate, he'll be a one-term wonder. Even if it's only once every four years, the voters must be appeased with policies they accept."
Wow. I hope the New Conservative Party is paying for this advertisement.
You know, 'cause otherwise - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
The National Post is currently doing a series whereby National Post writers answer a simple question: "If you could change a single thing about Canada, what would it be?"
Now, I know I should ignore the National Post, you know, just pretend it isn't there like most other Canadians do, but I can't help myself when someone posts something on my forum like this:
I feel compelled to respond. Not because I want to so much as I have to. Because as soon as I see that a Catholic Priest has popped his head up in a national newspaper as if he is some kind of expert on anything other than shilling for the Pope, I get that Regan in The Exorcist feeling and before I know it, my head is spinning around and I'm projectile vomiting pea soup and eventually I'm masturbating with a Cross.
Now, the fact that the first article in the NatPost series is by a Catholic Priest on the Institution of Marriage shouldn't really surprise me, and yet - it does. I mean, c'mon. Can we at least advance to step two after step one (which is The Person's Case, BNA, 1929) at some point and leave all this Patriarchal Gawdshit behind?
Anyway, it should take just a minute to debunk Ol' Single Celibate Souz who says, quite as if it was true and not just something pulled out of his holy ass for authoritarian effect:
At the very least, for marriages with children some provisions of fault and penalty should be restored in the case of divorce. The best social policy for children is an intact family, and the no-fault regime undermines family stability.
Okay, Souz - Who says the best social policy for children is an intact family? Because I say it isn't. And I've been married. You haven't. For all you know, for all anybody knows, divorced lesbian pagan parents are the best social policy for children.
And why, "at the very least", as you put it, "for marriages with children" should "some provisions of fault and penalty be restored in the case of divorce"? Because you like blame? Because blame is good? Because you're so worried there won't be enough Gawd blame meted (met?) out on Judgement Day that you need to get as much blaming in here on Earth as you can while the blaming is still good?
What, in Gawd's name, could possibly be the point of adding MORE blame to the mix, of institutionalizing blame alongside marriage? Especially since it will only lead to more hurt, more anger, and most importantly for the children AND their parents - MORE LITIGATION!!
Ah, except for the fact maybe that it was social progress that ensured blame be REMOVED from the mix - right, Father? Well, I see your Catholic devil and raise you one Catholic saint. Ah... Pierre Elliot Trudeau, you old dead Jesuit you - Gawd lurve ya but you were good for Canadians in spite of your Church.
Because, yes, Father de Souza, the no-fault "regime", as you so bizarrely put it, is one of those single things in Canada most of us wouldn't exchange for all of eternity in the next life. In one of those rare moments of clarity, our politicians got it right and we've all learned to accept that while life may not always be fair, there's no point in blaming anyone for it, either.
Except Gawd, maybe. What the hell. Why don't we just get along and agree to blame Gawd for it all instead of each other, Father?
Aw crap. You stopped reading after "The National Post" didn't you...
How on earth do people protect themselves from suicide bombers?
Especially when you don't know if they're being sent on their mission by your Church or your Government?
Anyway, expect the usual howls of outrage from the Right, whose fundamentalism is as UnChristian as the above is UnIslamic. Ironic, too, that they'll be howling on behalf of a Woman's Right to Lead. And to lead Muslims.
Before howling to kill more of them for the sake of... something...
I imagine we should expect an escalation/augmentation in the call to arms against Pakistan as a diversion to what can only be called the President of the United States' "CrazyArsedRhetoric" with regards to starting/staving off World War III with Iran.
What a swirly whirld we must contend with when the Right to Live comes up against Religion.
Thank Gawd for Homeland Security, eh? Making the world a safer place one less frustrated traveller at a time.
What kind of Nut with a Capital "N" is the President of the United States?
Why is he talking about World War III?
I mean, look at the context. Regardless of whether or not you think Iran should be allowed to acquire the knowledge to develop nuclear technology, the same guy who is currently losing a War on Terror abroad but winning it at home, who has nuclear weapons lined up and ready to go, finger on the button, who is treading the muck of his discredited and corrupt regime - is talking about someone starting World War III as if the rest of us aren't shitting bricks that it's going to be him - for whatever trumped up pre-emptive strike "reason"?!
What more do we need to know about Bush Inc. before we're allowed to protect ourselves from it?
And would we have had this column at all had the dead soldier been some poor southern white trash redneck fresh out of prison for crack possession who'd enlisted to kick some Iraqi butt so inspired was he by Christopher Hitchens' call to arms?
Not that Vanity Fair's readership includes any poor southern white trash redneck ex-con crackheads, I'm sure. But it could happen. Like maybe he could be in a "Guns, Likker, Ammo" store and he's leafing through "Jiant Jugs" and he looks down to check his zipper and there's a Vanity Fair featuring an article by Christopher Hitchens calling out to him to join the War on Terror.
I picked up the latest Vanity Fair because 1) it didn't have a semi-naked in soft-porn-pose airbrushed-beyond-humanity actress on the cover; and 2) it did have a picture of Jacki-O and JFK in their all their legendary Camelot glory on the cover.
Well, shiver me timbers, too, if there wasn't a piece by Christopher Hitchens in it covering the death of a young American soldier in Iraq.
I won't name the soldier because after having read the piece, I think maybe the almost-too-good-to-be-true young man would have said in life that he didn't think soldiers should be singled out as individuals - whether it's for an award or whether it's for a eulogy. I dunno. Or maybe he wouldn't've. In any case, it's what I believe - that soldiers are a unit and as such should be given equal credit for their tour of duty regardless of the outcome.
Christopher Hitchens, however, clearly feels otherwise and in fact wrote the piece because he sincerely believes that the dead soldier, who comes from a movie perfect family (indeed, there is a picture of the young man - several accompany the article - smoking a cigar, and I'll be damned if he isn't a dead ringer for a young Tom Cruise), and who had lots of friends, a wife, and fellow soldiers who thought highly of him - enlisted because of an article Christopher Hitchens wrote as to why it was a moral imperative that young men do just that.
Yes, Dear Reader, Christopher Hitchens has finally succeeded in making the War on Terror - all about him.
But that's just it, isn't it. To write such loingirding bombast is one thing, but to pretend that you actually have an effect on the world in writing it, well, O! My! Gawd! I mean, I have no great and special insight into this young man who apparently wrote that, yes, Christopher Hitchens had inspired him to join up, but I can practically guarantee Hitch that - no, he didn't really. More likely is it that he decided to join up, and, having taken that step, decided to put a little promotional spin on his actions by attempting a correspondence with the "inspiration" for his decision - the famously bombastic and loingirding pundit - Christopher Hitchens.
Of course, the attempt failed because Hitchens, so he claims, never received the e-mail. Instead, poor Hitch found out only after the young man's death that this indeed had been the case.
I dunno. Personally? Had it been me? I think at that point I would have quietly retired to gaze upon my reflection in the backyard pond, for my public never again to read my deathless prose.
Such is the state of American celebrity, though, that I guess it is now de rigeur for pundits to fall victim to believing their own press and thusly cast themselves out of their private torture and upon a waiting public - or in the case of this one dead soldier, his privately grieving family - and if not admit to any possible negligence on your behalf for any damage done, at least to appear to do penance should anyone of note be watching.
But really, back to the world of the practical, what DO you do when Christopher Hitchens calls, distraught, that he was the inspiration for your son's decision to enlist, that now he is dead and that he feels... what, exactly? Surely not... guilt. Why? The War on Terror is absolutely right and just and what young man wouldn't be proud to die in it.
Well, Dear Reader, I guess you graciously shepherd him around as you go about dealing with the tragic and untimely and heroic (because of this young man's actions, another young man is still alive) death of your son/brother/husband/friend, and assure him that, while your very much alive son may have been inspired by Christopher Hitchens' call to arms, your now dead son had really and truly and please believe us and go home now enlisted because he had wanted to, because there was a war on that he wanted to be a part of, because he believed he could make a difference in its outcome.
(And personally, I felt that the pictures accompanying the article told a story probably typical to many young men who enlist. There's a certain glamour still/again in going off to war, a certain sense of adventure in being there that may transcend the reality of it, and as much as we know that war isn't supposed to be any of that, I'm not altogether sure that to lots of young men it's anything else. To be honest, the first thought that came to mind was that someone will see those photographs and get the idea to make a movie of this young man's tour and death in Iraq and it will be a great hit on the big screen starring Ryan Phillippe.)
(My next thought was, "Oh dear... Of course... That's exactly what will happen." You heard it here first on SooeySays, Dear Reader.)
I don't know what it is that makes me so cynical that had I been there to witness Christopher Hitchens blubbering at this young man's funeral amongst his friends and family I would have said, "There, there. Save a little for the talk show circuit."
I know, I know. Now you think I'm awful and Christopher Hitchens was right to think women can't be funny and George W. Bush is smart and the War on Terror is right and just and that if it weren't for him, that young man with so much potential for good in this world wouldn't have been blown to bits by a roadside bomb or whatever half a world away from where his life should have been taking place.
Really, Christopher Hitchens, everything is not about you. Maybe, in fact, nothing is.
...I asked in my previous entry.
Well, Dear Reader:
That's right - the Liberals could prop up a government this stupid.
Seriously, who could prop up a Government this stupid? I mean, c'mon. At a certain point, you've got to call its bluff or you may as well be part of the New Conservative Goon Squad yourself. If Canadians are so stupid they give these thugs a majority government - then whaddarya gonna do? You can't wait forever and it's not like Canadians won't just get dumber if you do anyway.
Stupid likes stupid.
Go to the polls. At the very least, it'll be a good way to ferret out the Liberals who are really New Conservatives. The legions of Liberals who are really New Conservatives. On the other hand, you'll snag lots of those Progressive Conservatives who aren't really New Conservatives. And there are lots of those guys hangin' around.
Meanwhile, let's hope Canadians get smart and vote NDP. In droves.
If the worst that can happen happens, and we get a majority New Conservative Government of Canada, well, we deserve it.
I think I'd like to let my entries stand without comments for a while. Commenters are welcome to register at Sooey'sForum
So, first we had Christian rightwinger Ann Coulter on Muslims:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
And now we have Christian rightwinger Ann Coulter on Jews:
In response to a question from Deutsch asking Coulter if "it would be better if we were all Christian," the controversial columnist responded: "Yes."
"We should all be Christian?" Deutsch repeated.
"Yes," Coulter responded, asking Deutsch, who is Jewish, if he would like to "come to church with me."
Deutsch, pressing Coulter further, asked, "We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians?" She responded: "Yeah."
Coulter deflected Deutsch's assertion that her comments were anti-Semitic, matter-of-factly telling the show's obviously upset host, "That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews."
Oh. So NOW she's a bad girl.
Look, here's the thing, if you didn't have a problem with anything and everything Ann Coulter has said up until "That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews." - then why would you have a problem with her now?
See, that's what I like about the Right's bad girl - she hoists her fellow travellers on their own petards ON THEIR OWN RADIO SHOWS!
According to a Globe & Mail article, apparently Stephen Harper and his New Conservative Government compiled a list of who's Jewish in Canada in order to send out Rosh Hashanah greetings last month.
The federal Privacy Commissioner has launched a "preliminary inquiry" after several complaints that Prime Minister Stephen Harper compiled a mailing list of Jewish Canadians.
The investigation follows reports that a number of households received unsolicited Rosh Hashanah greetings from Mr. Harper last month.
Some of the recipients complained to news media that they had no idea how they came to be on a mailing list based on their religious affiliation.
I guess he was thinking... what... exactly?
I mean, yikes!!!, Dude.
First of all, this whole practice of political parties sending out "Season's Greetings" to their supporters is such an egregious waste of time, money and effort that the sensible thing to do is to dispense with it altogether by mutual accord: Let none of us do it and therefore we all come out even with our supporters and non - both.
Secondly, since "Season's Greetings" (i.e. "Christmas Cards") traditionally go only to supposed Christian SUPPORTERS of the party and not ALL supposed Christian Canadians - WHAT THE HELL WAS HE THINKING?!
Finally, good luck explaining why you would assume that Jewish Canadians are a voting block of New Conservative Party of Canada supporters who care that you care that they celebrate Rosh Hashanah - or not. Because, you know, basing those sorts of things on... well... names? Synagogue attendance?? LOOKS??? - is pretty NOT DONE these days, Mr. New Conservative Prime Minister.
I've been accused of being Anti-American by a few commenters on my blog and I'd not really paid it much mind until last night when I realized that I don't like the Democrats any more than I like the Republicans - which I guess kind of DOES make me Anti-American.
I mean, this whole healthcare issue down south and the recent partisan attacks on the messenger (in this case the Frosst family and their 12 year old son) has made me wonder why the hell Americans don't have publicly funded universally accessible healthcare just like we do here in Canada. Afterall, it's not as if the Democrats haven't ever been in power to bring in some kind of sensible system, either.
I dunno. There's something so cowardly about politics down south where everybody is so terrified to not appear patriotic enough or faithful enough that it really kind of makes me sick. It's like being next door to a big stupid powerful country of hypocritical idiots. If Obama caves and wears that gawddamned American flag lapel pin to shut up those idiots on their retarded nooze shows, I swear - I'm going put myself on a no-fly list just so I can never visit their numbskull country and witness firsthand their drooling moronism.
And maybe it's my imagination and maybe it's not but I'm pretty sure having Stephen Harper and his New Conservative Government running Canada has made me Anti-Canadian as well. I mean, sure he's doing by stealth and not overtly (ala Bush Inc.) what any clever Christian Evangelical (I know, I know - that's an oxymoron) would do if Thomas Flanagan, rightwing socially conservative politico and author, can be believed. He's pretending to not be a Christian Evangelical while slowly but surely putting into place all those things Christian Evangelicals love - which is all things Christian Evangelical and faith-based and religious rightish and really gawdforsakenly stupid and awful for civilized humanists like me.
Think back to the recent Provincial Election in Ontario, too. I mean, faith-based education funding was THE issue of the 2007 campaign?! And look at all that negative advertising it engendered - as if we had descended to the level of Americans on account of it's all about religion with us now, too - or, at least, with our dumbassed altar boy goody twoshoes politicians.
But that's just it, isn't it. Look at our politicians. Stephen Harper's political grassroots are shared by those frothing lunatics out in Alberta once led further into the wilderness by Preston Manning and Stockwell Day with the added hideousness of rightwing think tanks and dead-eyed accountancy on top.
And I'll be damned if I didn't hear an entirely believable rumour the other day that McGuinty's wife is a member of Opus Dei - THE most whacked out group of freakin' nutbars on the friggin' planet.
My only hope that the rumour is false is that I can't imagine they allow women in Opus Dei - do they?
Anyway, my point is that no one stood up during the campaign and said, "Fuck religion - this is politics!" did they? And yet it would have been the right thing to do. Religion has no place in education and it certainly has no place in politics and yet down south - that's all politics is - it's religion and gawd forbid you should campaign to take all that kooky Kreationism out of the Kurriculum or risk getting lynched by a wild-eyed mob of moral majority thugs.
In any case, the fact that Americans don't have publicly funded healthcare is their own fault. Their politics is so craven and cowardly that no one dares go there for whatever reason and I can't see that they have anyone to blame but themselves. It's really a kind of collective insanity, I think. So yeah, I'm Anti-American, not proud of it, really - just clear-eyed about it. I mean, what's to be Pro-American about? That what they most revere, patriotism and faith, are based on fear and more fear? That they engage in wars on terror anywhere but at home? That they can't get it together to look after each other when they're sick? That their politicians have to have gay sex in public washrooms? That they think it's fair game to attack the messenger of their fucked up stupid political system - even if he's a 12 year old accident victim?
Anyway, I would think all is lost, but here's something a little cheering with regards to the Frossts (because where the lord giveth in globs of ignorance to most Americans he taketh a little away so a few balance out to decent):
And I suppose there's always hope that Obama WON'T wear the American flag lapel pin and closer to home we will realize that, in spite of himself, Thomas Flanagan is telling us who Stephen Harper really is and why we should be very afraid. The book is called, "Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power" and although it's not intended as such, it's quite the horror story. Don't buy it, please. I'm Anti-Right to the max and boycotting any and all products and people that have anything to do with it.
I just saw a promo for a new television program featuring black women working in a hair salon.
At least, I HOPE they're working in a hair salon.
Anyway, it's almost as if this program has evolved out of existing black women stereotypes on television.
Or maybe that should be "devolved" out of existing black women stereotypes on television.
Luckily, I know those black women on television are stereotypes because the other night TVO had a black woman on its panel lamenting the latest campaign in Ontario. She didn't roll her eyes or do that hand sweep or say "Whachu talkin' 'bout, girl?" to Steve Paikin once. Not once. AND the campaign she was lamenting was John Tory's, too.
Of course, she was Canadian, so maybe that's why she wasn't acting... black...
Hey - Condi Rice is black and she doesn't do that eye roll or hand sweep, either - and she's American.
What gives, Dear Reader?
Seriously, there must be another TV black woman stereotype television could hype beyond the eye rolling hand sweeping "Whatchu talkin' 'bout, girl?" TV black woman stereotype that television has already hyped a hundred times since... well... slavery ended, I guess.
Oops. I mean, segregation. Since segregation ended. Er, in real life, I mean. Not on TV. Segregation is still going strong on TV.
I know you've all been waiting, so here it is:
Dalton McGuinty is the mirror-image of every suburban husband/father/professional I have ever known whether he calls himself a New Democract (hahahahahaha), a Liberal (few admit to it but let's face it - SOMEBODY is voting Liberal), or a Conservative (tax breaks, tax breaks, tax breaks, oh - and poor houses).
I have coined a new acronym for such fellows: M.A.S.P.s - Middle-Aged Suburban Professionals.
In any case, unless you are a particularly radical politico (and who in Ontario is, was, or ever will be?) I can't imagine why a M.A.S.P. wouldn't vote for Dalton McGuinty.
So there, that's my analysis of the election. Personally, I've decided to reserve my vote in future for humanists only. No more freebies to any politician who professes to have any faith whatsoever in anything other than humanity. Go blow it out your asses, religiosos. No more votes from ol' Sooey regardless of your politics.
Hey, how come when Dalton McGuinty listed all people who make up Ontario, like teachers and firefighters and meter maids, he didn't mention crackheads and hookers and lobbyists? How come it's always about the teachers and firefighters and meter maids? Aren't crackheads and hookers and lobbyists Ontarians, too?
Gawd. Way to represent the people, dude - selectively.
Say, how many Bloody Papist Premiers and Prime Ministers do we have to elect in Ontario and Canada before Catholics are considered just as good as Protestants and don't need to be hidden away in their separate schools and hospitals?
You know what would be really funny? If John Tory's concession speech opened with, "I don't understand it. How could this have happened?"
And I think he should just take it from there to wander around the streets of Toronto asking passers-by, "What do you think I did wrong? Miss? Oh, Miss? I'm just trying to piece together the Ontario Election of 2007 and I need to know - what did I do that was so bad?"
I don't get it. What kind of society believes people should have to suffer immeasurably and go broke in order to justify getting help from their own government?
"Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices," Mark Steyn wrote on the National Review Online. "But, if this is the face of the 'needy' in America, then no-one is not needy."
I mean, what kind of idiot thinks that way? Because, quite frankly, from where I sit no middle class family in the United States ISN'T just one tragedy away from needy. It would be like that here, too, if we didn't have universal publicly funded healthcare. It USED to be like that, in fact. But we civilized our savages and finally won for ourselves what every citizen who isn't poor and stupid and proud of it should want - for themselves and for everybody else.
Good gawd in heaven. What a fucked up mess of a freak show the United States really and truly is.
Haha! The Democrats used a Spokeskiddie as a human shield and the Republicans shot at him! Haha!
So, I was reading the Globe & Mail this evening when my companion turned on The Agenda.
Well, either/or, I thought - and kept one eye on the newspaper and one ear on the TV.
As I was reading about Ezra Levant's Western Standard going tits up because apparently nobody realized you can't run a business on ideological whimsy, I became aware of a rather intense exchange that was going on between a couple of panel members on The Agenda. The topic was Multiculturalism and, while the three white guys all seemed to think we were in pretty good shape in terms of integration versus diversity, global village versus ethnic enclaves, vague identity versus distinct societies - there were a couple of Muslim women who seemed to differ.
With each other. Big time. Which pretty much proves the point the three white guys were making, in a way. Afterall, what do they know about the struggle by some women within the Muslim community to ensure that their rights as Canadian women aren't at risk of being subverted by others within the Muslim community? They're three white guys, well established, right of center (to my socialist female mind, anyway), all doing well - multiculturalism or no multiculturalism.
What's the problem?
So, enough about them (gawd, to be a man - how free and easy it must be) - what the what was up with these two women? Well, in a nutshell, one - the President of the Canadian Muslim Association (a woman - who knew?), and the other... not the President of the Canadian Muslim Association - seemed to have a difference of opinion as to how Canadian versus how Muslim some segments of the Muslim population here in Canada are and what effect this is having on the more Muslim Canadian Canadian Muslim women in Canada.
Interesting. And awkward. Man, poor Steve Paikin, caught in the middle of a Muslim cat fight - on TVO! He managed to keep the President of the CMA from jumping up out of her seat and ripping off the other woman's hijab to reveal a bomb - but barely. Not that I blame her. I'd feel a bit (a lot?) like that being on a TVO panel with a nun, too. Especially if she was being all reasonable and articulate and pretending not to want to grab all my rights away and give them to the Pope to add to his vault of women's denied rights. It's a normal, however visceral, reaction to women who insist on living their lives within patriarchal constructs. I get it - totally. But I also feel it's their right to go ahead and live that life if they want to - just don't start angling for legislation demanding that I do, too.
You know, the way REAL Women does. Do? And I didn't get the sense that this other Muslim woman was up to anything of the sort - which says a lot about the Muslim community we're all so fearful of, if you ask me. In fact, if that other woman had soft pedalled whatever she was selling any softer, you'd hardly have noticed she was wearing a hijab.
Anyway, I absolutely empathize with the President of the CMA because it's incredibly annoying to me when women resist freedom from patriarchy, reproductive choice, pay equity - all those good things feminists have fought and won for Canadian women. But this woman really didn't seem to be doing that in any way that would affect the rights of me and other women who believe in the same things I do. I'm not even sure she was resisting them for herself...
Again - not like REAL Women does. Do? By constantly lobbying their new best friend, Stephen Harper and his New Conservative Government of Canada, for legislative changes restricting human rights and freedoms here in Canada.
Which, of course, affects ALL of us, but especially women. As usual, white guys really don't have to worry THAT much about, well, anything.
And I hate to sound like a broken record, but the President of the CMA really needs to know - for her own peace of mind, or not - that, well, enough about her and her fellow Canadian Muslims. Ontario funds an entire religious institution to provide education and healthcare that, well, believes women have a certain role in society - a role defined by The Vatican - and which has enormous legislative and social power and that I, as a citizen, have no choice but to pay for - even though it discriminates against me as a person.
It was quite heartening, really, to know that women from the multicultural side of Canadian diversity (and believe me - if those pie charts they were showing on The Agenda are any indication - Canada's not exactly a melting pot outside of Toronto and it's as white as snow in Quebec) - are having an easier slog through the same old same old - with each other - than we in the fourth generation WASP community are having with our more traditional gals. Really. I mean it. I'm envious.
Take our REAL Women.
Best line of the night went to Avvy Go when asked if she was married and had children and whether she'd care if they inter-married or not: "I don't believe in marriage" - followed by laughter and a plug for more attention to the basics of equality - like gay marriage. And so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc. Gawd. Socialists, eh? What would TV panels be without them?
Well, Dear Reader, I finally figured out what happened to Pollution. The rich passed it down to the poor when Global Warming came along.
Here's how I figured it out:
1. I took a peek into the future
2. I checked out the financial markets
Global warming is for rich people.
Pollution is for the rest of us.
Personally, I think it is high time voters rebelled against government wars on drugs. Stephen Harper and his New Conservative government are using tax dollars, our money, to waste on a corrupt and hypocritical anti-drug policy that will do nothing but cause Canadian citizens and their children hardship and distress, both financial and professional.
Speaking of hardship and distress, unless we are planning to not leave Afghanistan until the women there have unlimited access to safe abortion services, we are simply deceiving ourselves that we have done anything at all to free the women of Afghanistan - since there is no freedom for women without the basic human right reproductive choice and control over our own bodies.
That's what you may think we have, but that's not what we have at all.
Not in Ottawa, anyway. In the City of Ottawa, it's a six week wait to get an abortion - six weeks that can mean the difference between whether you can have an abortion and whether you can't.
Now, why oh why is that not an election issue?
Not that I don't know why. Let's face it - we've got three God boys running for Premier of Ontario who are so wrapped up in religion and the shit it causes for the sane among us, that they just don't have it left over to care about a woman's right to choose.
Not that any of the three necessarily support it anyway. But how would we know? It wasn't even brought up this go 'round - just as if it isn't an issue.
WELL - IT IS AN ISSUE, DUMBASSES!
I guess if you're born a male, you're happy being one, but I'm glad I was born a female. Because I really don't know what I'd do with all my spare time, otherwise.
I mean, let's face it, if there's a way for a woman to be busy, she'll find it. Whether it's having another baby, volunteering in the classroom, or scrubbing the floor - she's on it. Full time job or not - a woman's work is never done.
Men? Not so much. For men it's pretty much all about the money. I get paid, therefore I work. When I'm not getting paid, I don't work. Unless the work is doing something I like to do, anyways - like swish the toilet brush around in the toilet or carry the garbage to the curb after the magic fairies have sealed it all up and put it just outside the door.
It's pretty basic. And I'm not sure what it is about this very simple concept that women find so hard to grasp. Whose problem is it - really - that men don't do their share of unpaid work?
Why, it's the woman's problem - that's whose problem it is. Men don't care that they're not doing their share of unpaid work. So is it really fair for women, who are already willing to work the same hours as men for less money, to expect men to share their seemingly endless burden of unpaid work, too? I mean - c'mon - be reasonable, ladies.
Maybe instead of expecting the unlikely to happen, that men will suddenly develop a desire to work for free, women should just stop wasting their time and energy on trying to convince them of the merits of working for free and just either do the work themselves or let it not get done at all.
Men don't work for free. That's what makes them men.
Women DO work for free. That's what makes us women.
Which came first, do you think?
Warnings about lead in plain old pretty much free tap water?
Or bottled water sold by outfits like Dasani, etc?
This means that Nestle will be adding another plant in the US - Nestle already bottles tap water in Tennessee - that sources its water from municipal taps. While Pepsi (Aquafina) and Coke (Dasani) are the biggest users of municipal tap water as their primary source for bottling operations, Nestle, which has until now sourced its water from wells or springs, has signaled a move to take water directly from municipal systems.
Gawd. Sometimes I think capitalism is as creepy as religion.
My favourite holiday of the year has rolled around once again - Thanksgiving. I mean, really, you've got the best of October's veggies for the big feast, nice brisk or just nice walking weather, lots of greenery AND leaves changing into those lovely autumn colours, stylish people in fall's latest wool fashions - and, most importantly, no religion.
Thanksgiving, a holiday for enjoying the good things in life courtesy of Mother Nature.
Say... maybe if Dion doesn't make a very good leader of the sleazeball Liberal Party of Canada, it follows that he'd make a good leader of the country!
Naturally, Jack Layton would be better, but failing that - I'll take Dion.
I posted this on my forum this morning, but nobody cared so I'm reposting it here. The title of my post was:
"That's Funny - He SEEMS Like a Leader"
And then I went on to say:
Why, look - he's getting rid of you shit talking malcontents just by doing nothing:
I mean, you've just got to love this guy's reasoning for why Dion should go:
"Something has to be done, it's not working with Mr. Dion," said Mr. Bellerose, who was among those who supported rival Michael Ignatieff in last year's Liberal leadership race.
He doesn't have the leadership necessary, he doesn't have the aptitude to be a good leader. Yes, he was a good Cabinet minister. Yes, he is a person of incredible intellectual rigour. But as a leader, he's not the man we need."
Mr. Bellerose said other members of the party's Quebec wing are also in reflection and contemplating quitting as well.
Good Idea. But don't just reflect and contemplate quitting, please. ACTUALLY quit.
Oh - and by the way: What exactly does "confidential" mean to senior Liberal party officials?
"I believe the events of the past week can only add up to a public and unjustified besmirching of my name and reputation, and, unless further steps are taken, the constructive dismissal of me," Jamie Carroll wrote in a confidential letter addressed to senior party executives.
I mean, really. I hope none of you dudes (of course) are priests or psychiatrists in real life.
Gee, apparently Alberta has an Auditor General and believe it or not he (of course) has brought to light the fact that the Alberta Tories have been in bed with Big Oil at the expense of Alberta taxpayers for quite some time.
Dunn said that as far back as three years ago, researchers in Alberta's Energy Department stated that the province's share of royalties from its giant petroleum industry had fallen below its target range. They also said the government could easily collect an additional $1 billion or more per year without stifling industry profitability.
What's hilarious, of course, is Big Oil's response to the report:
Premier Ed Stelmach has promised to respond to the report later this month, but industry officials are already warning of dire consequences.
Investment bank Tristone Capital warned Monday that boosting royalties, particularly in the natural gas sector, would lead to a "flight of capital."
Energy giant EnCana Corp. (TSX:ECA) said it would slash spending in Alberta by $1 billion if the royalty rate hike is adopted.
Now, I'm not a REAL Premier of Alberta, but my response to that bit o' blackmail would be to call their bluff. You want to leave all that oil behind? Be my guest.
Buh-bye, Big Oil.
Don't let the sour gas choke you on your way out.
This will come as no surprise to anyone who has spent any time volunteering in a public school, but it will no doubt come as a surprise to our municipal and provincial politicians: Schools, publicly funded schools, are selling crap/garbage/junk to our children while they are under adult supervision.
Gee, no wonder girls are doing better than boys in school. Girls are much more likely to be aware of "what's good for them" and poohpooh the idea of having a Coke and a Snickers bar at snacktime. If only so they don't get fat and end up working in the circus or living alone with 100 cats or worse - being the first out in dodge ball (which we used to call murder ball when I was in school - and for good reason, if I recall correctly - so I don't see how calling it dodge ball is progress, if you catch my drift).
Now, I'm a real stickler when it comes to kids and food. As in - I believe it matters just as much as kids and sleep matters. As in - a lot. (So if you're reading this and there's a kid handy - put him to bed. I don't care what time it is - he needs more sleep.) And sugar has no place in our public schools at all - unless it's coming from fruit (real fruit - not ANYTHING sold by McCains).
But it's not just the fact that schools offer pop and candy bars and chips for sale to children while teachers complain of their attention and behaviour problems, it's the fact that parents don't seem to know how to feed their kids, either. I've seen what kids bring to school for snacks and I'm here to tell you - we've got more than an obesity epidemic waiting in the wings. We've got a full on stupidity crisis right here, right now.
Kids + sugar = bad. It's a simple formula. And what we need is a ruthless campaign to get sugar out of our schools. You wouldn't think we were that stupid as a population, but apparently we are. It doesn't get much dumber than Coke in the classroom - unless it's Coke for breakfast, of course - and I've seen kids chugging back a Coke as they get off the school bus in the morning.
Sure, we all know adults who make no connection between what goes into their bodies and why they feel like crap all the time, but these are kids we're talking about here and surely we have some sort of official responsibility to protect them from bodily harm due to their diet WHILE THEY'RE AT SCHOOL. It's not like THEY'RE the ones making their snacks to bring to school, or ordering vending machines for their schools, afterall. They are the victims, here. I was the original Lisa Simpson and even I would have had trouble turning down a pop and a candy bar if my Mom had given my money to buy my own snacks at school.
And think about it. When you were young - did YOUR Mom give you money... ever? For anything?
No, no she didn't. Because she knew you'd just buy pop and a candy bar with it.
Further to all that, why the hell are kids drinking fruit juice at school? Water, water, water. You're thirsty? Go get a drink from the fountain. Nevermind the lead - it's in the fruit juice, too - along with a shitload of sugar. What is it about these new-fangled modern times that parents think their kids need fruit juice while they're at school? I had a small glass of orange juice with a big bowl of oatmeal for breakfast almost every day of my life when I was a kid and that was it for juice for the rest of the day.
Seriously, it would NEVER have occurred to me to go to the fridge and have MORE orange juice because by that time of the day - IT WAS ALL PULP! - and then I would have been out my small glass of pulp the next morning at breakfast. Honestly, what is this compulsion we all have (guilty on the endless supply of frozen orange juice for the making) to give our kids what they want instead of what we know is good for them?!
Snacks? At recess? Never heard of 'em until my kids went to school. Back in my day, it was breakfast, lunch, dinner and that was it. Snacks? Good grief. No wonder we're facing an obesity problem. We've convinced our kids they can't go an hour and a half without eating something. I mean, seriously, there should be no need for kids to have snacks at school at all, but the fact that they do and the fact that they're sugary is just pure unadulterated insanity.
That is all. Go back to your coffee break.
When rightwingers and other malcontents blame Feminists for a lower birthrate (in the West, at least, where virtually no one dies in childbirth anymore), women working outside the home (for whatever reason, but whatever it is, achieving financial independence from men), girls doing better in school than boys (while their moms make 70 cents for every dollar their dads make, paving the way for their daughters to break through that glass ceiling) - who are they talking about, exactly?
And I mean - exactly. I want names. You know, so I can give credit where credit is due.
Because that's one wily group of coyotes to accomplish all of that while Conservative and Liberal male politicians pretty much held all the legislative power throughout the country.
Say, I know - instead of Dalton McGuinty's sexist old Family Day, maybe John Tory could suggest we have Feminist Day. I mean, if Feminists are responsible for everything being so great (for girls and women, anyway - even without any legislative power), I think they deserve a Holiday named after them.
Or just replace Mother's Day or Secretary's Day with Feminist's Day.
Now that you've cleverly turned a promise to fund private schools, faith-based and otherwise (I assume...), into a free vote bound to fail (and even the most out-of-it voter understands it would - unless...) should you be elected Premier - you should promise to scrap Catholic school funding.
You could still pull this out of the dumpster and take it right into the Premier's Office.
And you've given yourself a great equity argument with which to launch your announcement. See, you tried to spread the special treatment (using public funds) granted to Catholic boards, administrators, educators and the Catholic Church, around to other faiths. But, citizens were clearly telling you that it was not the direction in which they wanted to go. You now realize that you were attempting to address inequity from the entirely wrong perspective. Now, in order to square your original intention to make fairness the model for education funding with what you've gleaned from voters, you hereby promise that, if elected Premier, you will put an end to the diversion of public funds to Catholic institutions.
Do it! Do it! Do it!
You have nothing to lose but the election.
I was just tripping down memory lane with my faithful companions (myself and I) and I remembed what it was like when computers were first oot and aboot. Men wouldn't remember/know this, but a while after they started being used for more than just copy typing (a job exclusive to women, as I recall) health warnings came about to the effect that, essentially, computers might well be dangerous - not just to women's health - but to the health of the unborn.
It's true. We were either going to get breast cancer or have mutated babies. All because of the time we were spending in front of a computer.
Meanwhile, men had no such warnings as to the impact computers were having (or not) on their health.
So, was it a vast rightwing conspiracy to get women out of the workplace once computers "arrived" and men could suddenly type?
Seriously. Because when that didn't work, the health warning stopped. I mean, when was the last time you read anything about computers and breast cancer and the unborn?
Okay, this is the thing: If sports is news, then news isn't news.
I know, I know, "Why are you giving it away for free, again, Sooey?"
Because this kind of advice can't be bought, Dear Reader. It simply MUST be given away. Here it is:
John Tory can't make it as a politician because he quite literally looks rich. Whether he's dressing down or dressing up - he just can't hide the money. Whether he's in a navy suit or tan chinos and blue oxford (and it's always one or the other, isn't it) he looks like he's popped into town for a yachting convention and while he's here he'll press the common flesh a bit.
I mean, he might as well be wearing gloves when he does his handshakes rounds, ferchrissakes.
Nope. I'm afraid he'll have to give up politics as a career option and go back to being on the Board of Directors, where he belongs - running things behind the scenes from on high with the other Boards of Directors and staying out of direct sight of the masses.