« April 2009 |
Main
| June 2009 »
I guess the debate regarding the Governor General's recent plunge into Inuit culture via a seal's heart has boiled down to an either/or scenario:
1. Bloodthirsty maniac
2. Culture vulture
That it has pretty much reveals how we (whitey) feel and what we know about the Inuit diet, but has anybody considered the possibility that the Governor General was simply bored and thought, "maybe if I plunge my hands into this seal and rip off a piece of its heart and eat it in front of everybody, it will relieve the unrelenting mind-numbing boredom of being this country's GG for five blessed minutes".
Seriously, stand down, net nannies. It's okay for Pierre Poilievre to use the expression "tar baby" since, technically, he himself is a tar baby. Just ask Stephen Harper.
I went to a mandatory diversity training workshop the other day. I really enjoyed it, but I'm a female in administration so I don't get to do these sorts of things very often. The male managers in attendance, not so much.
Because, ironically, and even though the trainer had plenty of statistics on hand to prove that things are very different in the workplace today than they were even in the 70s and 80s (and they are), this classroom of G-persons happened to break down into two categories: male managers and female administration assistants.
Now, I have no hesitation is saying that I was the most enthusiastic participant in the workshop. The material covered concerned the Canadian Human Rights Act and, although I've read plenty about Section 13 of that Act on the Internet (it covers hate speech), I really didn't know much about the rest of it - and it's the kind of stuff I love learning about. So, there I was keener-at-large, loving every minute of it, when the trainer broke us up into three groups to tackle two case studies per group.
There were 8 people in each group. As it happened, evenly split between men and women, with, as I said, the men all being managers (ahem, all white, I might add) and the females all being administration assistants (mostly white, but not as white as the men, if you catch my drift, and with a couple of women of colour tossed in for good administrative measure). The instructions were to discuss the case studies as a group, then appoint a spokesperson to explain the group's decision (whether the complainant in the study had a case to make under the Act - or not) to the rest of the class before it joined in with its opinions on the case study.
Well, I'm not shy anymore at these sorts of things and I spoke up - quite intelligently, I thought - and eventually our group reached somewhat of a consensus on each case. Then, when the trainer came around to ask if we had appointed a spokesperson for our group, the four managers sort of shrugged and looked at each other and eventually settled on one of themselves. The four female administration assistants, myself included, accepted this with barely audible sighs, and, in my case, the sizeable chip on my shoulder weighing heavier than usual, and then we all went back to our respective places around the table.
And guess what? The spokespersons for the other two groups - and remember, this was a diversity training workshop for G-people - were also male managers. So, so. Well, well. Anyway, we broke for lunch - a whole hour as opposed to the 1/2 hour I would normally be allowed - and when we came back after lunch, we did the same routine all over again - a lecture about the Act followed by breaking into our groups and examining case studies.
This time, however, when it came time to appoint a spokesperson for our group, the male managers looked at each other and then turned as one to appoint me as the group's spokesperson - a scenario which would seem to have played out in the other two groups as well because their spokespersons were also female administration assistants.
Now, I'm not sure what that means sociologically, but when I mentioned it to the trainer, he said it ALWAYS happens, particularly with G-people, that male managers are the initial spokespersons for all the groups. It's just the way it is, he said. And it can switch over the second go'round, but not because women step forward to be the spokespersons, but rather because the men decide to delegate that "responsibility" to them.
It could be my chip talking, too, but I could swear the second set of case studies was harder to explain...
In my opinion, Canadians will have two voting choices in the next federal election: The corrupt yet competent Liberal Party of Canada that understands what government should be, or the corrupt and incompetent New Conservative Party of Canada that doesn't.
Okay. Admit it. Did you have any idea that Aboriginal kids involved in modern ceremonial dancing activities had to grow their hair long?
Now, I've read and seen the little bit that's actually been made public about Haircutgate and I just have to ask, "Is everybody off their meds?" I mean, did my eyes deceive me or did I see Phil Fontaine on CBC somehow managing to tie in the story of some clued out teacher's aide (whatever that is) cutting an Aboriginal child's hair because she seemed to think she was solving a vision problem - with insulting an entire culture? What if the kid had just been growing his hair because he wanted to have long hair? Would her actions have been any less/more in error? I don't see how, personally. But, uh, I'm Scottish Presbyterian - so, of course, I would say that, wouldn't I.
Geez Louise, and what's with the "hang 'er high" crowd of racism spotters, anyway. It is not racist to be clued out, people, and without any indication that this woman intended to do harm, it's pretty lynch-mob-reactionary to be calling for charges to be laid, don't you think? Sure, fire her - assuming teacher's aide is a paying position. Her judgement is terrible. Although, I hope if she's fired it's on more than the word of a seven year old kid.
The Internet: reaction feeding on reaction.
Official Disclaimer: The Indian Act is an abomination, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is an abomination, the government's official right hand apology to Residential School victims was completely negated by government official left hand apologist to the Reform Grassroots of the New Conservative Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, and Aboriginal people in Canada continue to suffer injustice as a direct result of the Canadian government's failure to honour legal land claim agreements.
Addendum: And what's with the media protecting the identity of the mom who has obtained legal representation by Julian Falconer (what? we don't have any Aboriginal lawyers in this country?) to take this incident to the wall, meanwhile tarring the accused with the allegation of having racist intent in her actions - as if this is a pre-meditated hate crime of some sort?
If you're not a lapsed Catholic, what the hell are you clinging to, anyway?
WhenFaithIsTheOneTrueSin
There are things we can do something about and things that just seem too overwhelming for us to imagine ever having an effect on at all. But I'm starting to realize, if we don't take on whatever (usually) corporate-created-calamity from which our governments are failing to protect us (us meaning citizens, as opposed to consumers - whom both corporations and governments love, as opposed to citizens, whom they don't) - we'll have allowed the terrorists to win.
Yes, I've taken back the word terrorist to mean whatever I want it to mean, now.
So, here's Red Jenny on terminator seeds about which I know very little but, let me tell you - my spidey sense is sure tingling:
RedJennyOnTerminatorSeeds
It simply isn't possible to be both human and a good mother in our society, so my advice to all the new moms out there is to tell society to go fuck itself. Right now. Just go to the window, open it up, and yell out to society, "Go fuck yourself!" There. Trust me - it's for the best.
Meanwhile, please take a moment, everyone else, to give thanks tonight to the absolutely above reproach in every way humanly possible parents of Kristen French, whose daughter was murdered by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. Because if there was one thing Canadians should have learned from that tragedy, it is this: the only people who should ever be blamed for child murders, are child murderers.
If you blame someone who isn't a child murderer for child murder, you are unconscionable. Because no one deserves to have her child murdered and only an unconscionable person would be twisted and nasty and evil enough to think that someone did.
StageleftAsksA/TheQuestion
Don't try to answer, Catholics. I'm pretty sure it's a rhetorical question.
I think the New Conservative advertising machine should try to pin Mulroney on the Liberals somehow. I mean, why waste money showing Canadians what a prat Michael Ignatieff is when Michael Ignatieff can do that himself. No. Go for broke and show a montage of a laughing crazily Paul Martin shaking hands with a smirking Brian Mulroney. Cue ominous music: "Why is this man laughing crazily? Why is this man smirking?"
Who knows? Maybe there's a good shot of Chretien handing something to Mulroney. Cue ominous music: "Why did this Liberal former Prime Minister give Brian Mulroney $2 million?"
Really, I'm wasted in filing.
What does it say to you about our Parliamentarians that Jason Kenney was voted by them as Parliamentarian of the Year?
I don't mean to prejudice the Inquiry, but, does anybody actually think Brian Mulroney isn't guilty? I mean, how sleazy do you have to be in this country before we don't need an inquiry to prove it? Because, seriously, I really don't think we need an inquiry...
Okay, so does anybody else think Larry O'Brien bribed Terry Kilrea to throw the trial?
Ever since the right to divorce made marriage pretty much obsolete as a social construct, it's annoyed me how much lip service continues to be paid to it. Anyway, today I decided that, as a condition of marriage, couples should only be allowed one vote - combined. I mean, single people have to shoulder the economic burden of life all on their own, while married couples have two to share the load - plus they have every Tom, Dick and Hairy politician catering to their tea-for-two world of holy matrimony. Therefore, it only makes sense that they should have to vote as a unit and not get a vote each. That way, too, if you couldn't even make up your mind how you were going to vote as a couple, you'd know there was no point in staying together and everyone would be saved years of aggravation as you tried to make your marriage work, for some reason known only to marriage counsellors and people who think God gave his only begotten Son so that assholes like Dick Cheney could have life everlasting.
Since there's actually no such thing as "honour killings" (such murders being just the usual run-of-the-mill psychotic acts of femicide by misogynists), I find it interesting that the defence is going for such a plea in the hope of reducing the sentence for Hasibullah Sadiqi in what looks pretty much like the first degree murders of his sister and brother-in-law. I mean, if you're going to make the "honour" argument for murder, isn't it a gross contradiction to be making it in hopes of getting a reduced sentence? Surely there's more honour in doing 25 years in prison without any chance of parole, than weasling your way down to manslaughter - as if you hadn't INTENDED to murder two people.
I dunno, but if there were any laws prohibiting hate speech against women, it would be worth filing a human rights complaint against the lawyers arguing that such a thing as "honour killings" even exists - because if granting such an expression legal standing in a Canadian court of law isn't an incitement for women-hating religious maniacs to commit further violence against women, I'm not sure what is.
Tsk, tsk - I'm not a REAL lawyer, but, given its prefential treatment in Canada, I would have gone for the freedom of religion defence.
It's fun to watch but I'm worried about how much dumber American rightwingers can get before they just melt into a giant puddle of stupid that gets traipsed through buildings and across lawns causing a plague of some sort and we have to come up with a vaccine pronto lest we all end up with just two brain cells left to rub together that can only produce random, racist thoughts about the black President of the United States.
Is anybody else getting the feeling that if there isn't a pandemic soon, our public health officials are going to cause one?
NOW, GET SICK PEOPLE!!!!
While I wish I could report we're making progress on the science vs religion front with our Cabinet Ministers, I can't because I'm not sure whether we are or not. Here's what I thought I heard on CBC earlier this evening: Stockwell Day was being interviewed by the soon-to-be decea... er... retired Don Newman and in response to a question concerning the EU seal products ban he said something about the European Parliament not understanding the science of the seal hunt. Then he said a similar thing about China's ban of Canadian pork products, that the Chinese government didn't understand the science involved with this issue.
See what I'm talking about? I mean, apparently, we are taking a position on both issues that would seem to involve the World Trade Organization and its guidelines concerning product bans, but, correct me if I'm wrong here, but does it not strike you that the good Minister may have the word "science" mixed up with the word "policy"?
It would explain a lot, wouldn't it, if he did.
So, it turns out pageant organizers paid for breast implants to give Miss California a lift in her bid for the Miss America crown.
Heheh - I bet they wish they'd done an IQ test first.
I mean, the fact that beauty contests are the gayest man-made invention since marriage suddenly seems entirely lost on everyone who should know better, but now that Miss California has gone and opened her big dumb yap about how "traditional marriage" (which I call Neo-Marriage - yes, with capitals) should be between one man and one woman, I have to ask, speaking of women - why the implants, Miss California?
I mean, seriously, I think we need to see her vagina now - just to make sure there's not a penis lurking around down there. Afterall, if she had to get implants to look like a REAL woman...
|
