food for thought on racism, anti-semitism, and anti-Muslim sentiment

I'm in a more pensive mood lately. Maybe it's in the air... maybe it's astrology, maybe it's converging Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish holidays. I don't know, but I'm a thinking a lot lately...

And this post is right up my alley today. I couldn't agree more with how scary the rise of anti-Islam/Muslim sentiment is becoming in the world. And while I never made the link myself to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, and the scary places that leads to, I believe she's right in drawing the link and that's a very very terrifying thought.

cancelling prom because of same sex dates

I can’t help but find it shocking that a high school went so far as to actually cancel prom because 2 girls decided to attend together. Whether they were openly a couple or not, the fact that 2 girls were such a threat to the hetero hegemony leaves me speechless.

In this day and age it never ceases to amaze me that this continues to exist. And as I was thinking about it, I realized, holy crap… I went to prom with another girl and it never even occurred to me at the time it would be an issue.

Me and my lovely prom date, who was one of my closest friends at the time.

Perhaps it was because we weren’t a lesbian couple (or at least not an openly lesbian couple… cause for all anyone knew, we could have been), but no one ever batted an eye over the fact that I was going to prom with another woman. In fact, I wasn’t alone in taking another girl to prom with me.

I guess the thing that continually gets me is this: I don’t expect everyone to share the same opinions and beliefs, and I don’t expect everyone to agree on what is right and wrong… but I do expect people to respect other’s rights to choose for themselves. Cause I mean really… we live in a global world full of different values and ideas, ways of living and standards of behaviour, and to insist that we all walk down the same narrow line is preposterous.

So if some girl wants to take her girlfriend to prom with her, let her. You don’t have to agree with it. Hell you don’t even have to like it. But you have to like the fact that you live in a country that allows her the choice to do so and respect that the same laws that give you the right to live your life the way you want, dictate her choices too. And living in North America, we are luckier than most because we have liberties that are unimaginable in other countries. So embrace them and let the damn girl take her girlfriend to prom already!

my country, my country… what is wrong with you?

Offense 1:
So the Olympic furor has finally died down… yet Harper continues to ride the post Olympiad wave by announcing that he’s going to double the $11 million dollar budget to a whopping $22 million. This, in a time when arts, education, and health care are all being cut.

Ok, so you don’t care about the arts. Fine. But health and education… those are fundamentals issues for the nation and yet instead of investing there, the Conservative government has decided to give that money over to athletes because corporate sponsors might fail to fill in the funding gap.

No offense to any athletes out there…. but your mad skills do not justify such a decision. Yay for you and the Olympics. Kudos to all that you’ve accomplished. But if I had to choose between health or sports… I think my choice is obvious.

Offense 2:
Quebec and the niqab. (link to Mtl Gazette article) I have a lot to say on this issue but suffice to say that I don’t agree with the ruling that expels a college student from a French Second Language course because she refused to remove her niqab during class.

Sure, teaching a student with a niqab is difficult. But to argue that one needs to see a student’s mouth in order to teach language properly is BS. The student is aware of the limitations, the teacher can visually demonstrate the skill, and the student can practice at home or in private with the teacher or accept the limitations/consequences of not benefitting from this ADDITIONAL level of instruction. The key being that it is an additional level of instruction.

Besides, why can’t a student do an oral presentation in niqab? If anything, as long as her voice was clear, the niqab might actually allow students to listen to what the content is instead of being distracted by more visual stimulation related to facial expression. In fact, one could argue that the niqab might actually allow for a student to benefit because listeners read more into tone and inflection than facial cues.

Trust me, I’m not doing justice to my thoughts on this matter… I am planning a big long post on the issue after I sort through my opinions and the counter-arguments.

But suffice to say, for a country that only feels patriotic during events like the Olympics, I have to admit that the wake of the Vancouver 2010 hoopla has left me cold. I am vehemently opposed to our current political party and the various events that are unfolding around me at the moment.

proroguing parliament and armchair activism

 

If you’re like me and didn’t know what proroguing meant until recently:

prorogue: to discontinue the meetings of (a legislative body) without dissolving it

Lately I haven’t been writing about politics. I’ve been more focused on crafting and the holidays than reading the news and commenting on it. But recent events brought to us by the Harper government have this blogger up in arms, once again. (‘Cause nothing gets my blood raging like the Harper government!)

Ostensibly called in order to able to celebrate the Olympics, Harper has successfully called for the 2nd prorogation of parliament in the span of a year. I may not have been all that aware of politics in the past, but I would venture a guess that this is a rare, if unheard of, event in our political history. And that we’re calling them for the Olympics? Seriously? Every other country keeps parliament running, why should we be any different? Especially given that Harper has a track record of not even attending the major public events that he’s expected to be present for (or waits until the last minute to show up, not that that is anything new in Cdn politics!).

Here’s the thing, everyone knows that he’s proroguing parliament to avoid political accountability. See the Globe and Mail, x2, Elizabeth May, The National Post counterargument, and a more neutral, yet still sceptical CBC.

So for us Canadians that think that this is a BS political manoeuvre, what can we do? The web is awash with Armchair Activism, aka Cyberactivism but does it really work? From Facebook groups (see this article) to websites telling us to write letters to local media and post flyers around town, little real progress actually seems to be made.

Gone are the days when rallies and petitions seemed to make a difference. Our currently state of cyberactivism is belied by our political apathy. Clicking buttons and sending emails only works if we’re committed to fighting for the cause until the end. Sending off an email to parliament may or may not have effect:

[…] the effectiveness of email when it comes to influencing abusive governments is still open to question [18]. Firstly, the response of authorities to electronic messages is varied and the impact is not as predictable as in the case of conventional mail and faxes, although they cost less to send. Whereas letters must be sorted, documented and filed in most government offices, it is easy to simply read the subject line of an email and then delete it, or to shut down the accounts if there are floods of incoming appeals. […]

Indeed, the generation of identical notifications to the authorities for each person that “signed” the online petition was one of the key drawbacks of the Stoptorture.org website. Amnesty has always believed that the more diverse a letter-writing campaign is, the better its chances for getting the attention and respect of government officials. This applies to online as well as offline activism, so the organisation has now moved from the use of the auto-generated messages to one where activists are encouraged to send emails with distinct subject lines, by customising pre-existing text on their websites.

See here for further information.

The question that I’m trying to get at is whether or not it’s really worthwhile to join that Facebook group or sign that petition. I tend to sign up for online petitions via Avaaz.org, but is it effective? Certainly, as McLeans Magazine notes, those members are enough to garner media attention. But do they accomplish anything? Pardon me if I remain a bit cynical. For all that I want to be able to bring about change through the Internet, I have to admit that clicking and joining has little merit if it’s not done on a personal level, with a certain amount a commitment to a cause. Because although numbers count, this is a place where the individual voice matters more than the masses.

One person can make a difference. But only if they work conscientiously towards a cause. Armchair activism is unlikely to get you any where, even if your group is thousands strong.

As John Moore, from the National Post notes:

This emphatic anti-prorogation Facebook group shares intellectual and cyberspace with “Feed the Olsen Twins” and “Save Bandit the Pitbull!” (who in theory could be fed to the Olsens if efforts to save him fail). Almost all of the activist groups are put to shame by the membership of a dancing lobster fan club which boasts 141,000 enthusiasts. True, all of these pages jostle for attention amongst many earnest and worthy causes. But few things say “I care” with the empty ferocity of a Facebook page. 

Birth control, abortion, and freedom of speech

Abortion: whether you’re for or against it is up to you. However, I strongly believe that regardless of your particular stance, legally individuals do not have the right to dictate to others they can or cannot do and this is what makes our society great. You may not agree with abortion but if you believe that you should have the right to renounce abortion as a viable choice then you should also believe that another has the right to promote abortion as a choice that every individual has the right to make.


I know there is an entire debate about the foetus’ right to life but for now, I’m going to save it for another day and another post. Whether you believe that abortion is right or wrong isn’t what concerns me most in the debate. What concerns me is whether or not you believe in freedom of speech and the rights of the individual because for me this is what the abortion debate boils down to at its core. I live in a society that is founded upon the idea of collectively agreeing to allow the person next to us, who we may not even like or agree with, to voice her/his opinion and to live according to their own moral conscience (within the confines of what we as a society agree to). Of course there are days when this collective agreement chaffs (hello, j-walking ticket for crossing on a green light with no traffic, yeah, I’m talking about you) but for the most part the rules are relatively benign and tolerable, and even for the greater good.

You may be a conservative supporter of the Harper government, which yes, makes me grind my teeth in frustration, but I respect your right to that choice. I may debate it with you or fail to ever fully understand it, hell I may even lose a bit of respect for you if we’re being honest, but I believe whole-heartedly that it is your right to hold that opinion and I would go to bat for you in order to support your right to express a view different than my own. (Yeah yeah, I’m a liberal leftie, big shocker there). You might love the Transformers movie, rap, not recycle, and think the arts are a waste of time: all of which I would argue with you about but ultimately accept. You might even believe in capital punishment and while I’m not entirely convinced of this path, I will respect your belief in the system and strive to understand the logic behind your belief. You might stand up on a podium and denounce everything I believe in and hold dear, and yet I would fight to defend your right to do so without fear of legal or personal consequences.

So why then is the same tolerance not given in regards to abortion? If you don’t believe in abortion then so be it. In fact, I’m not completely insensitive to some of the better arguments given in defence of the right to life movement. However, I become infuriated when someone actually believes they have the right, nay the moral superiority, to change the laws and impose their position on someone else, thereby forcing them to adhere to their belief system. If you believe in freedom of speech, religion, and lifestyle, then why is it ok to throw those things out the window when someone chooses a path that differs from your own?

News flash:

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to speak as long as you say what I want to hear.

So what has prompted this little tirade you ask?

This article from Pandagon which discusses a particular group’s efforts to ban birth control, morning after pills and abortions. Not only is having 12 children (which is a very likely consequence of not using birth control, given that most people have a hard enough time taking their pills and using condoms) ecological irresponsible, attempting to remove an individual’s right to select birth control in order to make an informed reproductive decision is morally reprehensive and a violation of the female’s and couple’s right to autonomy. As much as I want a child of my own one day, I do not believe that it is the only viable role out there for people.

People, I don’t get it! People from around the world struggle to come to Canada and the USA in order to have freedom of speech, religion, and lifestyle and yet some Canadians and Americans are actively attempting to destroy that freedom. So you don’t share my beliefs, they’re not harming you. You don’t have to teach them to your children. You don’t have to live your life according to my moral strictures. But what you do have to do, what you agree to every day as a Canadian or American, is that I have the right to speak my mind and live my life free of persecution. And that is what you should be teaching your children. A little tolerance goes really long way…

Why are there crosses in graveyards?

Every morning I pass this graveyard on my way in to work and am struck by the very large wooden cross that is at it's entrance. I know that the cross is there to bless and sanctify, and watch over the dead, yadda, yadda, yadda.

But why?

I mean, if god created the earth, then shouldn't it follow that all of the earth is essentially good and sacred? Why do we feel the need to sanctify spaces? For example, why can't Catholics get married outside? The Catholic church says that it's not a sacred space but what could be more sacred?

And this cross also makes me wonder: Where the hell do all the dead non-Christians go? (pun intended). Seriously? Where am I supposed to go? I know that there are Jewish cemetaries in town but are there Islamic? Buddhist, or Atheist cemetaries? What if you're a Unitarian and don't want to be burried in a Christian cemetary? What if you're Hindu? Where do your ashes go after cremation?

Sometimes the car ride into work is very thought provoking...

cosmetic surgery in India

According to this CBC article, cosmetic surgery and skin bleaching are on the rise in India.

From the article:

 But, some say this desire to look European is deeply rooted in India's history and psyche because of the centuries of British colonialism and subjugation.

"We ape the West," says Susie. "We were ruled for 200 years by white people so it shows that a certain amount of power came with being white. White is beautiful. And beauty is power, right?"

 

While this may be true to some extent (I don't disagree that colonisation encouraged and reinforced such thinking - in fact the entire Aryan/Dravidian historical explanation for caste seems to be a creation of western orientalism), I think it may be a fallacy to lay all the blame for such attitudes at the feet of colonial rule. The fact is, texts like the Mahabhrata do reinforce some of the colonial interpretations associated with colour division in castes (although they did go and create a 2 race mythos to justify higher castes) as such, the infatuation with lighter skin does seem to predate European invasion/rule.

 

I'm still trying to work through my thoughts on the issue and will definitely have to do some research on the issue of skin colour bias and whether it really predates the British in India, and if it does, did the Portuguese have anything to do with it (as they arrived earlier). And I wonder how much of the light/dark caste division in the vedas and other texts is actually pronounced or based on cultural bias in interpretation.

 

Food for thought...

Michael Moore's Capitalism

According to Michael Moore, it's both a love story (an abusive one) and a comedy:



For all of Moore's flaws and heavy handed polemics (which, I admit, I tend to agree with for the most part - with clauses) I am looking forward to seeing his most recent attempt to stick it to the man! I expect it to be a response or sequel of sorts to The Corporation, of lesser quality but larger blockbuster appeal, thus more punching power.

ode to home

I loved Marjane Satrapi's graphic novels Persepolis (I & II), they touched me a in a profound way, educated me about the situation in Iran (which I admit to knowing very little about) and inspired a new found interest in the graphic novel genre.

In a recent Op-Ed piece for the New York Times she wrote:

Six years ago, I went to listen to a man, whom I will not name, in a café in Paris.
He said it had been 24 years since he had been back to Iran, that he had to leave right after the revolution of 1979 for political reasons.
He talked of many things, and he ended by saying: “Once you leave your homeland, you can live anywhere, but I refuse to die anywhere other than Iran — or else my life will have had no meaning.”
His statement touched me very deeply. I’ve thought about what he said, not just understanding him intellectually but feeling his meaning with all my heart. I, too, was convinced that I must die nowhere other than in my country, Iran, or else my life will also be meaningless.
At the time I heard this man speak, it had already been four years since I had been home.
Yes, I call Iran home because no matter how long I live in France, and despite the fact that I feel also French after all these years, to me the word “home” has only one meaning: Iran.
I suppose it’s that way for everyone: Home is the place where one is born and raised.
No matter how much I am in love with Paris and its indescribable beauty, Tehran with all its ugliness will in my eyes forever be the “bride” of all cities around the world.

Although the location of our "homes" are different, she couldn't have put it better. No matter how long I live in Montreal, the west coast will always be "home." And while we are expats for very different reasons, I still identify with the sentiments she expresses. Although it's still the same country, it's a different culture and the ocean, mountains, trees, even the rain, are all home to me. I can find a million beautiful things in this city, or in another, and yet home will always be, ironically, Nanaimo, BC. Loathe it though I may for many reasons, the river, the lagoon, the ocean, the BC Ferries, Arbutus trees are all things that I associate with home. Even in our debates about moving out of the city, I find that many of criteria I claim to need in terms of creating a space/location called home, echo back to these things. Montreal, with all of the things I love so much, will never offer me the fresh bodies of water that I crave swimming in, nor oceans that I can sail on, or mountains I can hike and climb. And I guess, even after 9 years, home remains the place I grew up in.

Of course the rest of her article goes on to talk about the current Iranian political situation and is well worth a read...

Death, torture and prison are part of daily life for the youth of Iran. They are not like us, my friends and I at their age; they are not scared. They are not what we were.

They hold hands and scream: “Don’t be afraid! Don’t be afraid! We are together!”
They understand that no one will give them their rights; they must go get them.
They understand that unlike the generation before them — my generation, for whom the dream was to leave Iran — the real dream is not to leave Iran but to fight for it, to free it, to love it and to reconstruct it.

Given that I just wrote a couple of days ago about feeling ashamed of my country, for all of its little and big hypocrisies, her words "shame" me. They make me realize that we, who have so much, bitch about so little and never bother to fight for the things that matter most to us. The fact that 85% of the Iranian population came out to vote when less than 60% of the Canadian population could be bothered... particularly my generation. I know that our options weren't attractive and that many of the issues seem contrived to screw us over, but how do we expect politicians to ever listen to us if we don't stand up to make our voices heard? How do we expect to get detailed, accurate, and reliable media coverage of the issues that are pertinent to us if we don't even pay attention in the first place. Our apathy, in the face of all the things we have and take for granted, is disconcerting (and dare I say it: disgusting) when we look at the challenges that other nations and groups face.

american vs canadian nationalism

If we put American nationalism and Canadian nationalism into a boxing ring to duke it out, American nationalism would win, hands down. Even online, in the blogging world, the sheer number of blog posts devoted to July 4th vs July 1st is (in my point of view) alarming. The need to publicly commemorate the day a bunch of old white guys got together and signed a piece of paper with a bunch of guiding principles for a group of people by posting about it on a blog never ceases to surprise me. Maybe this is because I am Canadian and we Canadians tend to be more humble about our national pride, which is mainly defined by our NOT being American (an irony that can be discusssed at another time) and by sewing red and white flags onto our backpacks to announce to the world as we travel that we are Canadian tourists (you know, the good kind). (Another irony for a later date...)



Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the celebrations, I just question the need to endorse a nationalist identity with such fervour. I live in a neighbourhood where Quebec flags hang in sovereign pride and I'm only blocks away from where Montrealers gather to celebrate June 24th, the Quebec national holiday (another irony: a national holiday within a nation, but that is an irony I won't explore at a later date!).



What unites Americans as a nation? What do Californians have in common with New Yorkers? Really? Other than a shared collection of stories that define the nation. Make no mistake, I am in awe of America's ability to create such an all embodying and consuming mythic identity. Driving through the Catskills a few years ago, I was struck by the the powerful force of the collective American identity. Canada has failed to create such an all consuming identity, which is both good and bad. There are no stories that tie us together as a nation, not really. I mean, Americans learn to wholeheartedly embrace their history, their stories, their legends, and their manifest destiny as children. Canadians don't. Oh sure, we learn about the exploitation of the Chinese worker to build the railroad and the French/English fight for the nation, but our history (as rich as it is) is rarely taught with fervour and excitement, and most students are completely indifferent to it. Friends who were forced to take Canadian history courses in university groaned over having to memorize the names of our Prime Ministers. And yet, I know that Obama is the 44th American President (or something like that) while having no clue how many Prime Ministers Canada has had. No one cares about our concentration camps (if they know about them) and the Oka crisis. Or the little known fact that Canadians burned down the White House while having a drunken Prime Minister at the helm. Even though we have a rich literary heritage don't have our own Rip Van Winkle folklore or mythic national authors like Steinbeck, Hawthorne, and Hemingway telling the tale of our nation's development and carving out a shared mythical, national identity. Don't get me wrong, we have great novelists, we just don't celebrate our own canon, nor does our canon celebrate us a nation the way the American canon does.

We are a nation who apologizes for ourselves and while it makes for some great literature, it doesn't make for a great sense of national pride.

At the core of my discomfort over the buoyant national pride that defines American life is my unease with the concept of nationalism in the first place (American, Canadian, Quebecois or other). Fireworks, free outdoor concerts, and picnics aside, what is nationalism really?

Benedict Anderson defined nationalism as: "an imagined political community - and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign."

For me the key to what bothers me about nationalism is at the core othe above quote: imagined. To me nationalism is really a false concept of boundaries and shared identity that unite a nation. What does it mean to be Canadian, other than NOT being American? Social welfare and healthcare? Being seen as being peace keepers instead of soldiers? That the world sees us as being "nice" instead of a bully? A flag? Having a liberal and progressive government? Supporting gay marriage? Vast and diverse landscapes? If these are the things that unite us as a nation, then I think we have cause for concern. Our healthcare is under attack, we have a conservative leader that is trying to drag us into the military fray and is ruining our peace keeper identity (not that he is the only one who did so), we're not signing Kyoto or making any progressive movement towards environment care or sustainability, and while we've legalised gay marriage (yay) there is still a large faction of our population who is vehemently opposed to it.

At the end of the day, all of the things that I felt defined my Canadian identity were rudely removed and erased by the election of S. Harper. In so doing, the fact is, is that my fellow Canadians (the majority of those who went out and voted) spat in my face and essentially told me that the values I thought were part of a shared Canadian identity aren't as shared as I thought they were. (I imagine many Americans felt this way about Bush and conversely, Obama). So what does it mean to be a liberal, tolerant Canadian, who supports multiculturalism and social democracy when your country no longer endorses such an identity? At the end of the day it means nothing because what defines me as Canadian is not a shared political will, or common goals for the larger community, but a set of artificially drawn borders that divide one nation from another. And to me, that is not something that is worth having pride in.

Perhaps when I feel proud of my nation again, I will feel differently on the issue and will be like my friend who recently returned from years of living abroad and attend Canada day celebrations with pride. Who knows, maybe one day I will actually blog about the national holidays (June 24th and July 1st).

montreal

Photo Credit: Tourisme Montreal

As Paul and I talk more and more about the idea of buying a house (or rather, I talk about whether I want to move off the island or not, and he listens oh so patiently - I love my boy... he's so very zen-like in his patience for my indecisive angst)... anyways... as we/I talk about the merits of leaving the island in search for a house vs a condo, I find myself contemplating the wonder that is Montreal. Because for all that I complain about the weather or bad drivers and traffic or the metro commute or whatever else I find to complain about, I love this city.

I [heart] Montreal for oh so many reasons. For its ethnic and cultural diversity, its ability to constantly confound me, the beautiful architecture, the strange predominance of wartime bungaloes outside the downtown core, its amazingly intricate history, new neighbourhoods and surprise discoveries, la joie de vivre, the amazing myriad of restaurants, the fact that really I have no excuse to ever be bored in this city, and oh so many more countless reasons.

Every time I discover a new corner of the city, I am surprised and intrigued. Will my love affair with Montreal never end? As much as I miss the great outdoors, the ocean, home (the west coast), Montreal is the only other place in Canada that could ever be home to me. I love learning all of her secrets and a recent website discovery has been feeding my obsessive curiousity:

http://spacingmontreal.ca/

From this site I've learned that Chinatown used to be a Jewish quartier until 1920, that the Expo dome covering burnt down, that the old St Henri area that I lived in is called la village des tanneries (a past I had no knowledge of when I lived there), and various other interesting tidbits about the city. Yup, it is fodder for my curiousity. And after almost 9 years in this city (Oct 2009 = 9years), it's gratifying to learn more about the place I've chosen to live.

abstinence education

From the Nation:

There was the Virginia Beach teacher who told her ninth graders they could be arrested for having premarital sex. And the abstinence teacher who explained to the young women in his class that women are like wrapped lollipops, and that after having sex they're nothing more than "poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled suckers."

Not only is this just disturbing for the sake that it is disturbing, the last comment upsets me because it teaches boys that once women have sex they are used goods and it continues to glorify and fetishize the "virgin myth." Society is far too fixated on the purity of women and too many men are way too enamoured with virgins, or at least the idea of female virginity.

Sure, maybe teens are sometimes too young for sex (hell they probably all are), but the fact of the matter is, is that they're doing it so telling them shit like you can be arrested is just the most ridiculous way ever to teach safe sex. Seriously. The sheer stupidity of people sometimes just overwhelms me. Whatever happened to making informed choices?

Read more of this uber scary news!

Wedding musings and LGBTQ rights: the why behind "the big day"

The boy and I are about to meet with the priest tonight to discuss our wedding plans and I find myself contemplating what the consequences of my choice to agree to marry in a Catholic church really are. You know, aside from the fact that I’m not Catholic and am pretty much as anti-Catholic as it gets.

Two events are directly influencing this inner debate:

1. Having just finished reading Rebecca Mead’s One Perfect Day, which leaves readers with the question: “What is a marriage for?”
2. The recent media attention that the house of Obama has been getting in regards to its position on gay marriage rights in America.

Now I know that I don’t live in the U.S. and that LGBTQ rights are somewhat more progressive here across the border (in that same sex couples can marry through civil union) but ultimately marriage rights still have a long way to go, what with Harper continually trying to re-open the debate and all.

So what does all this have to do with me and my big fat Catholic wedding? Just that I’m wondering just how thrilled I am to get married in a church/institution that fails to acknowledge the basic human rights that I hold so dear. I mean, what does it say about me if I’m willing to compromise my dearly held beliefs in order to appease others? While I believe that my marriage should be outside the political purview, how can it truly be when so many others are still fighting for their basic rights? Am I just another hetero-normative individual who takes my right to marry for granted? What are the consequences of perpetuating such a discriminatory system? Does it validate and valorize belief systems that I am fundamentally opposed to?

In the battle between my public self and views, and my private family negotiations, I find myself torn. Do I get up on my soapbox and preach to those who will never be converted in order to sleep with a clear conscience (note the irony: the angst cause by such an action would actually probably prevent sleep) or do I keep quiet, tread water, and maintain the peace in order to smooth over family relations? Are all battles worth fighting when winning them means losing something else? I’ve been raised with the notion that you catch more flies with honey, but when do you say fuck the honey and go straight for the bitter pill of reality?

Mead’s book asked interviewed couples and readers: What is a marriage for, particularly in light of the fact that the western marriage tradition is becoming so inundated with consumerism and lack of spiritual meaning? The divorce statistics are staggering and yet we invest so much time and money on one single day. Our one special, perfect day that is supposed to define who we are, which is particularly ironic when we consider that most people consider a marriage a celebration/party and no longer a spiritual union.

Am I bitter about the big fat Wedding Industry? Yes, absolutely. Do I look at my wedding price tag and want to cry, especially when I think about my student loan and people in need? Without a doubt! And yet here I am, just 3.5 months out, facing the last stretch of a ceremony and tradition that are becoming more and more problematic and controversial to me. Don’t get me wrong: I grew up with a wedding fantasy. I’m all about wedding porn. I wanted the big day and I wanted to be married. For all my artsy, bohemian ways, being married was and still is a very important rite of passage to me.

But given the politics and consumerism surrounding weddings, I no longer know if I can identify the reasons why.

Reena Virk and Kelly Ellard: social reintegration and forgiveness

I've had a lot of down time lately because of sick days and pulled wisdom teeth, which has lead to a lot of media consumption on my part (for example: I've watched all of Angel, season 3 in 3 days). In this time I've also caught up a bit on the news. The recent continuation of the Reena Virk case in particular caught my attention.



This particular case was big news way back when I was living in Victoria, BC. I remember being asked to sign a petition about trying Kelly Ellard and Warren Glowatski as adults. At the time, given the horrific nature of the crime, I wasn't against the idea. I was 21 and closer to the ages of the individuals who participated in the act. In my mind at the time, there was no grey area: these individuals were, at the ages 15-17, old enough to know better and their actions were nothing short of criminal.



Ironically, I think time may have mellowed my opinion on the issue. While I still believe that they should have known better, I am also more aware of how stupid teenagers really are and how various pressures, personal crises, etc, can influence our actions at that age. This does not mean that I condone the act in any way, shape, or form, just that over 10 years later I'm not entirely sure if the girl who is still in jail still deserves the punishment she's received. Is she murderer or an accomplice, I don't know, but in either case, her life has been ruined. No, that doesn't make up for the loss of Reena Virk's life. However, when do we draw the line between punishment and social re-integration. The act was malicious and heinous, but who was Kelly Ellard at the time that it was committed and who is she now?



And more importantly: what could she be now if we actually gave her a chance?

Ken Saro-Wiwa, Shell, and their so-called Reconciliation

Do you have to be famous before someone notices your death? Are martyrs for the cause only worthwhile if they have some acclaim or notoriety?

The recent spin on this BBC article makes me think that the answer to these questions is yes.

After 13 years of litigation, Shell has just agreed pay compensation to individuals in Nigeria, 1 week before they were supposed to go on trial in the US for their abuses in the region.

This move and the article about it strike me as problematic for several reasons. Here are 2 of them:

• By doing it before going to court, the company is avoiding the potentially larger repercussions it could face if it went to court.



• The article spends more time talking about Ken Saro Wiwa and doesn't mention the other individuals who were hung by name. Some of the others: John Kpuinen, Saturday Doobee, Felix Nuate, Daniel Gbokoo and Dr. Barinem Kiobel . (Still working on the other 3.

I realize that fame is a media beast and that newspapers/journalists are vying for attention and popularity (high school never really ends does it?). But to imply that Saro Wiwa's family was compensated negates the suffering of the other families and reduces the significance of the act. It wasn't just 1 individual amongst the nameless crowds. There were many who raised their voices against the human rights violations taking place.

In an age when charities vye for their moment in the spotlight by bringing celebrities into their fold, you sort of have to start wondering, when did our levels of apathy get so large that we needed to be rallied to the cause by a famous face? I know that we are bombarded with information to the point of feeling hopeless and helpless, but maybe if the media took the time to tell the full story, we wouldn't be able to turn our backs and shrug off the ratings game of tabloid media culture.

a whole new definition of cougar

Too funny!

why is abortion still a dirty word?

Given the recent assassination of an outspoken abortion rights and late term abortion provider Dr George Tiller, I thought it would be a propos to post a few thoughts on abortion today.

Before I begin: I am adamantly pro-choice. Nothing, no-one, never, will ever convince me otherwise. I feel that it is a personal choice, for each individual to make, and I don't pretend to have an answer for someone else. I respect the right to feel differently but not the right to impose personal views on another, regardless of disagreement.

Ironically however, it would seem that although most North Americans are pro-choice, many actually believe that it is a selfish choice and the media routinely avoids discussing it as an option because it is perceived as selfish.

Not only do I believe that abortion is a personal choice, I think it is a women's right to be "selfish" when it comes to her fertility. In many cases, I would argue that not being selfish and having an unwanted baby can be just as selfish or inconsiderate as the act of not carrying a baby to term. Growing up with parents who decided to be foster parents, I have years of first hand experience of children who speak to how unethical having a child can be if you are not prepared to raise it properly. Some may argue that a life is a life and we have no right to play god, but I would counter that statement with the notion that causing a soul to suffer a life of misery is much crueler and more of an act of violence than abortion.

Given how many children out there are unwanted, unloved, and uncared for, I think that it is safe to say that sometimes a little selfishness early in the game is a valid and viable option.
As much as I believe that a fetus is life, I don't believe that a fetus' rights supersede the right of the mother. Maybe this is where the difference lies between pro-choice and pro-life. And perhaps this is where my own personal experience with unwanted children being abandoned, abused, amongst other things, makes me an advocate for pro-choice and planned pregnancy. Whether you're 20 or 40, married or single, rich or poor, if your oops is right for you, all the power to you, but if it isn't, I believe you have the right to choose NOT to re-arrange your entire life when you're not ready, and no one should make you feel guilty for that decision.

Some surprising statistics that aren't generally known about abortion:

24% of viable pregnancies end in abortion
50% of women who have abortions are over 25
60% of women who abort have already had children

We are each responsible for our own life and decisions. No one I've ever known to have an abortion has ever made the decision lightly. and no one has the right to question their decision making process or make them feel guilty about it. Moreover, something in the logic behind abortions being selfish seems linked the idea that choosing to remain childless as a couple is also selfish. Why are children automatically assumed to be our duty once married? Or even our duty at all? Why is choosing to not have children routinely viewed as selfish? How deeply ingrained is our societal sense of procreative duty that we cannot tolerant others' decision to not reproduce? Once again I find myself gobstopped and outraged by the audacity that drives the general sense with which others feel entitled to dump their morals and views onto others. Perhaps this will seem harsh to some, but after a great deal of thought on the matter, I have come to the following conclusion: we may or may not agree with someone's choice to abort their fetus, but ultimately its none of our business and we have no right to tell someone else how to dictate their life.

food for thought

Because it made me think....
From www.pandagon.net

It’s crass to mention race, unless you’re holding it against someone

One of the most fascinating things about watching the identity politics meltdown on the right after Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination is the blithe assumption that men don’t have a gender and white people don’t have a race. It’s the sort of thing people talk about a lot in abstract theoretical terms, but now you’re seeing it play out in real life.

Example #1:
“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative group. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

And example #2, from Senator Inhofe:
In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.
Of course, white men utilize undue influence, called privilege, of their race and gender all the time. But as the above comments demonstrate, people don’t see it that way, because we’re conditioned to think of white men as having neither race nor gender.

Continue to read the rest of the article here

Oh the things you'll learn...

Some days, when I sit back, I am somewhat awed by the things my job teaches me. This week alone I have learned (from student papers) about bioremediation, how chemicals impact our sense of love, water shortages in Asia and Canada, the normalization of breast feeding, human rights and globalizaton issue in the Congo and Ivory Coast, and Turkish melodies used in Mozart's Don Giovanni. It's been a busy week!

As much as students think that I am helping and teaching them, they are sometimes completely unaware of the impact they are having on me. I mean, for example, did you know that the majority of Canadian drinking water is underground? I didn't. Or that bioremediation (the introduction of micro-organisms in toxic regions) can actually heal pollution and is ofen more cost effective? Or what about the fact that Mozart used Turkish musical elements in Don Giovanni to convey a sense of chaos and instability in the main character of the opera?

I have learned interesting information ranging from cultural behaviour to Rastafarianism to environmental management to the Black Panther Party to the effects of the diamond trade on the Congo. All from my students. The things teaching teaches are really incredible.

Today I [heart] my profession.

Smaller package, same price

A recent shopping excursion brought it to my attention that companies are currently getting around the increase in costs by tricking consumers and it's happening to more items that I had previously thought. Take a look at some of your favourite brands. Do they look smaller than they used to?

It's because they are.

Apparently one way of charging us more is by making the package/goods smaller so we don't feel like the item costs more. But it does!

For more details/brands, read here...