Apparently, thanks to the efforts of a handful of bloggers, (including UnrepentantOldHippie, a Sooey's fave) Canadians who frequent what in Bloggish are known as "Progressive Blogs", now know that the campaign to impeach Chief Justice McLachlin is being led by none other than Dr-by-mail Charles McVety, BFF of PM Stephen Harper, and a half dozen kooks and hangers-on connected to his little Evangelical whirld of cross-eyed civil and human rights deniers and purse-lipped censors.
]]>Sigh. The Old Monster. Never a totalitarian regime too totalitarian for business...
]]>And who are these families you insist junkies don't belong around, anyway? What's with this tired cliche New Conservatives insist upon that only certain families are deserving of government services, while other families must move aside allowing the largesse to pass over them and on to those deemed worthy? Junkies have families, too, asshole. And it's really not part of the Canadian government's mandate to pronounce on who it deems worthy of life and who it doesn't, last time I checked. But, of course, you Fascists have pretty much reinvented the country to resemble an American Evangelical Bible Camp, haven't you.
By the way, Tony Clement? Death is inevitable for all of us. Your job is to improve healthcare services - for ALL Canadians, not to decide who should die first.
Resign. You actually stand out as a disgrace in this truly awful government.
]]>Anyway, how about some yuksters with musical talent out there in Smartassland start up a totally squaresville country & western band to appeal to New Conservatives sensibilities called... say... "Family Values - Unplugged" - and then, once they've nailed a grant, change their name to "Government Funded" and go all gangsta rap on the government's big white ass.
By the way, I have a great one here - gratis - for the up-and-coming band that really wants to stick it to the man with a naughty name: "Irregardless and the Grammarians". I know, I know - Sooey, WHY are you giving it away?
]]>But speaking of cults: RunningForCultLeader Let us pray they're lying...
]]>But then I realized, nope, that's asking women to deny a whack load of evolutionary reality telling us to put our security concerns first - all of which are regarding men and the fear that a giant plastic hand - i.e. "Gawd" - will descend from the sky and swat us dead if we don't. I mean, even in nature where life is supposed to make sense, where species are supposed to want to survive through their young, the mother polar bear takes off with the youngun's to live their lives on the run from the father polar bear, who, now that he knows there are tender and easy pickin's out on the frozen tundra, well, can't be trusted not to snack on the chillin's 'til they're all gone.
(I don't know a single human mother who hasn't, at one time or another, had to hide the next day's meal behind other food in the fridge from a marauding partner, either, but that's not really my point today.)
So, it struck me that I've got it backwards and that it's MEN who should "stop giving a rat's ass what society thinks and start doing whatever the hell they want". Then, when women see that a giant plastic hand doesn't (unless it does...) descend from the sky to swat them dead, women will feel safe copying men. (Unless what men want is for a giant plastic hand to descend from the sky to swat women dead, but that's not really my point today, either.)
And why should women take ALL the progressive risks for none of the credit, anyway? Let's face it - men aren't happy. Especially the ones who play by society's rules - get married, buy a house in the suburbs, have kids, buy an SUV, all the while working in office jobs they don't like much either and counting the years until retirement. They're miserable. What's worse is, they blame women for their misery. Especially Feminists. Because while women may feel they have more choices nowadays (yay!) - men just feel like they have to do more work than ever before. Because it's not enough to bring home the bacon, anymore - they have to cook it on Mother's Day now, too. Besides, the old ball & chain can buy her own bacon. Meanwhile, women spend all their time trying to get men to at least PRETEND this is the life they want because, of course, marriage is women's work. Society dictates very clearly that it is up to women to make marriage work, and if you can't, well, don't blame society for your marriage failing, you who put everything but hubby's happiness who doesn't want to be in this shared life any more than you do - first.
Well, guess what, everybody? Marriage doesn't work because men don't really want to be married. They feel railroaded, that none of the decisions being made in their lives are their own. Indeed, not only do they not want to be married, they don't want to be living in well-appointed houses iin the suburbs with two kids and a mortgage and housework after office work and, oh yeah, a wife who isn't all that happy, either - and therefore doesn't have sex with Mr. Miserable at the top of her to do list for the evening.
And yet, men keep tying the knot.
Well, I say it's time for men to stop giving a rat's ass what society thinks and start doing whatever the hell they want. Which would not only free up women from taking all the blame for men being miserable, not to mention free up a lot of time wasted trying to make men NOT miserable, but which would totally give women the go ahead to do what THEY want, too. And that may well be living in the suburbs, etc, etc, much as they are now - except without wasting their lives trying to make men want their lives, too.
]]>Except that reality also tells us, Robert Fulford, defender of something that has never existed, if we're paying attention and not just parrotting rightwing ideological claptrap about Capitalism and Free Markets in Paradise, is that a strong central Canadian government that regulates the market protects Canadian citizens from the totalitarianism of American corporate monoliths - which is what we're really talking about here - not that Utopian alternate universe rightwing nuts like you, Robert Fulford, imagine we'd be living in if we allowed American corporate monoliths to run the world instead of governments - which is what Conservative governments in the pockets of those same American corporate monoliths are allowing to happen - with the help of their in-house organ, the MSM.
By the way, the Research Board of the FCPP that seeks to broaden our understanding, blahblahblah? All white, all male save for one lone former government lady from New Zealand - with a substantial private sector practice in corporate governance. Gawd. When is it ever not going to be like shooting fish in a barrel with you rightwing pundits, Robert Fulford, is my "reality" question of the day?
And Robert Fulford? This is reality, too - when the Americans need our water? They WILL come and steal it. Except our dumbassed Conservative government will have previously signed a deal ALLOWING them to steal it first - so it won't even be stealing. So yeah, drink up while its legally ours, Mr. Reality.
]]>Around the same time, I saw a photograph of a young woman who had just turned 18. She was posing topless in what publishers like to call a "family newspaper" (you know, like Hooters is a family restaurant where the wait staff just "love children" on account of their big breasts that families TOTALLY get off on because it reminds us all of a simpler time when we were breastfeeding instead of eating out in pedestrian restaurants that cost just as much as good ones) and if it had been anywhere else, somewhere nudie pics appropriate, I'd have thought, "Wow, spectacular - and REAL!"
Still, her breasts were real so maybe that's more important than most of the news, that there's a Western woman aspiring to be a nudie pics worker who hasn't had breast butchery, thereby endangering her health and well-being, to give her breasts that huge unnatural look that men who deep down hate women enjoy so much.
And beach volleyballers look amazing, their bodies all buff WITH curves - a tricky feat for any female athlete because working out burns fat and that's what breasts are, afterall, lovely bits of fat. Now, when I was younger, I would have taken the view that the organizers behind the beach volleyball bikini uniforms for women were just being sexist - and maybe some of them are - but with age comes a renewed appreciation for the human body and I realized that if I was a beach volleyballer and I looked like those women do - I'd want to show off my physique.
Because athletes are their bodies and women have that extra appeal in that we're just more fun to look at. And I don't think the sexism of the ages should be allowed to intrude on the fact that both sexes, from a spectator point of view, appreciate the female form - naturally - in a way we don't so much want to see men in speedoes no matter how spectacular their pecs and abs.
So, I'm reclaiming female form appreciation from the misogynists-at-large who have made a grotesque mockery of it to say there's nothing sexist in beach volleyballers playing in itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikinis when viewed from the perspective that - hey, we've just got it so why not flaunt. It's spectator sports we're talking about here, afterall.
To be more precise - BEACH VOLLEYBALL!! - ferchrissakes!!!!!
]]>An election is coming and the New Conservatives are speaking to you, rightwing nut Canadians. Please pay attention, sane Canadians. Because this is all just for public consumption, privately the New Conservatives are dismantling the country.
]]>