Duck-ness and torture-ness May 29, 2009
When is a duck not a duck? if you saw a mallard (or a drake yuk yuk) without a beak or webbed feet would it still be a duck? If you saw a pig with a ducks beak, webbed feet and duck feathers would it be more of a duck than the other?
*
*
*
I really don’t seek sage replies to the question of ‘duck-ness’ but I’ve been watching a lot of CNN lately (Strike 1) and it has led me to ask two questions: 1) when is a duck not a duck? 2) At what point is a duck considered a duck, and by whom?
*
*
*
Ok, ok. Enough about ducks. I have a huge aversion to foul.
*
*
*
A few weeks ago I watched a press conference that Condoleezza Rice held at Stanford University giving aspiring journalists a taste of what I like to call ‘la SLAM!’ At one point a bold frosh (I assume) started questioning the torture tactics going on in Gitmo under her administration
“How are we supposed to continue promoting America as this guiding light of democracy and how are we supposed to win hearts and minds in the world as long as we continue with these actions?
The match was going well, at first. He talked about torture, she talked about the 3K people who died in 9/11, he mentioned that more people have died in Iraq.
*
*
*
Thats when the ‘Condi fire’ started to blaze. She pulled out the finger , got in the young man’s face and seethed through her teeth
Condi: Did you know that the Organization — just answer me — did you know that the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe said Guantanamo was a model medium security prison?
No, but I feel that changes nothing…
Condi: No — Did you know that?
I did not know that, but that changes absolutely nothing.
Condi: Alright, no — if you didn’t know that, maybe before you make allegations about Guantanamo you should read.
The young man backed off after this. I was quite upset. Despite the fact that I’m all bark and no bite (I mean, come on. I BLOG), I blurted out at the screen “WHAT MAKES A PRISON MEDIUM SECURITY!?” Medium compared to WHAT? Are we to believe that some ad hoc European committee went on a global prison tour stopping in Canada (this prison is too low security) China (this prison is too high security) then went to Guantanamo and decided that this prison (recently confirmed to have used water-boarding as a form of ‘information gathering’ ) is a MODEL MEDIUM security prison and therefore, everything that goes on inside is the porridge of mama bear? Does that justify the torture? Condoleeza goes on to justify the actions by falling back on this gem:
*
*
*
” (Waterboarding) did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture.”
Pardon me, Ms. Speaker. Maybe those are grossly OUTDATED AND AMBIGUOUS CONVENTIONS.
*
*
*
Laws and conventions are interpretive; abiding within them does not always justify our actions. But because Water-boarding some how slipped through the cracks of the conventions then it is a PERFECTLY reasonable way to get (false) information from a terrorist (not tried in a court of law).
When is torture “not torture”? Is there a torture continuum?
This whole torture debate brings me back to 1994. When 800,000- 1 million people were killed in Rawanda. Time was wasted over the debate: Is it a genocide or a civil war? how many people have to be killed in the civil war before it is considered a genocide? No UN convention had defined when a conflict becomes a genocide.
*
*
*
Laws and conventions are put in place for a reason. the Conventions Against Torture serves a purpose. Namely, to ensure that human beings are not treated any less than a human being. These conventions and laws are not put in place to find loopholes and penumbral areas to take advantage of, which I believe the U.S has been doing. 
Happy B-day, Vicky. May 6, 2009
There are some traditions that are very nice; they remind us of our roots. And there are some we just do because its always been done and we really don’t know why.
Then there are some that fall into that penumbral area of both.
Take for instance: Victoria Day.
Victoria day is the day we celebrate the late queen of England’s birthday with fireworks, door crashing sales and a statuatory day off of work.
Alexandrina Victoria Hanover was the longest reigning monarch in England. And seeing that Canada is still a Commonwealth country I understand that we need to give a nod to symbolically affirm the place Britain has in our country’s history. We are like the child that actually hangs out with the grandmother that no one else in the family likes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
But, I see the birth of Queen Victoria no more important than other ‘holidays’ that we acknowledge with far less sleep in time and fireworks. These are two holidays that, I believe, should replace Victoria Day as a stat holiday.
*
*
*
1) Ash Wednesday- No one is productive after a day of eating pancakes. I was surprised to learn during a class that fell on ‘Pancake Tuesday’ that very few people know of ‘Pancake Tuesday’ AKA Mardi Gras, Carnivale, Fat Tuesday etc. Since very few people actually LIKE February and very many people LOVE pancakes I fervently tow the Pancake Tuesday line. Eat them for breakfast, eat them at school or work with comrades, then eat them for dinner, go to sleep and don’t wake up until The Price is Right comes on.
*
*
*
2) Halloween: Dear kids, you’ve been duped. Part of the fun of Halloween is creating something completely out of the ordinary and having your mom to sew/staple/ tape it all together. Imagination and the ability to create is what separates us from the animals (in part, due to our thumbs). Making halloween a stat holiday would ensure people had the whole day to prepare an awesome costume, decorate, and collect candy. Its no fun dressing up for only a couple hours. Make it a WHOLE DAY celebration.
*
*
*
Lets face it. The Victoria day weekend sucks. The weather is always cold and horrible and your friends either insist on going camping or wait to the last minute to make plans which, more often than not, involve watching fireworks that are cancelled due to inclement weather. It won’t be a HUGE loss.
* (more…)
When pigs fly and swine flu. April 30, 2009
Meet Edgar
Edgar is four years old. Edgar lives in Mexico. Edgar had swine flu. Tragic isn’t it? Well, not really. Because Edgar is still alive and now swine flu free. Completely recovered.
*
*
*
The influenza virus referred to by people smarter than me as influenza A virus subtype H1N1, has caused a panic that has spread globally at a rate faster than the disease itself.
*
*
*
Airport security is no longer just scanning for weapons and hijacking materials, but also for temperatures over 99 degrees using thermal scanners
*
*
And as expected, Arnold declares a “STATE OF EMERGENCY!”
*
*
But what is the deal?
According to the World Health Organization, tens of millions of people catch the flu world wide at this time of year with hundreds of thousands dying anually. Thats your regular stomach flu.
*
*
*
To date, swine flu has been the apparent cause of death for 160 people but of these deaths only 7 have been CONFIRMED cases of the strand (most medical authorities agree that its hard to decipher whether someone died of the flu or died with flu-like symptoms). Even though a death is significant, and 7 is tragic, all but one of these deaths have been cases from Mexico City, which has a population of over 10 million people. That is a pretty low percentile.
*
*
*
I don’t want to diminish the severity of this, but I must admit the panic and alarm that has taken over is a bit much. Its as if swine flu is going to pass over your house at night and take your first born. And it begs the question:
*
So ….what do we do?
*
what do we do when faced with a pandemic? with the WHO raising the pandemic level from a 3 to 4? what does that even MEAN? what do we do to avoid the embarrassment of dying from something called ‘SWINE FLU’?
*
*
*
We wash our hands. Thoroughly and frequently.
‘Common Sense’ Revolution and Revolutionizing ‘Common Sense’ March 17, 2009
I hate my job. I am treated poorly at my job and I am denied basic rights that are actually printed and posted in our ‘break room’ (in quotations because I actually don’t get any breaks during my 10 hour shifts). Despite this I am constantly told “At least you HAVE a job”
At work, I am told by people cashing $200 cheques for a weeks work that “the cheque isn’t a lot but at least I HAVE a job, its a rough market out there”
I would nod in agreement until I actually digested this morsel of ‘common sense’. This is so backward.
I come from the school of thought that selling your labour so that others can profit from it is not our life’s purpose (cue: Marxists nodding in agreement), although perhaps necessary to keep the wheels of our society turning (cue: Marxists ripping out their hair- your time to shine is now).
There once was a man named Gramsci who noted that upper echelons of labour (head office, corporate etc) create a ‘common consensus’ that convinces the regular working people that their interests and corporate interests are not only the same, but obvious and common sense. We then SYMPATHIZE and align our opinions to that of corporate, as if they are natural and the norm for all of society to adhere too; as if it serves to our interests as well.
Example:
Ashley’s manager gloats that head office sent her an email congratulating her for cutting costs by cutting her staff’s working hours. “It’s good for the company” she notes “we’re saving money and being proactive against the recession rather than REACTIVE”.
Ashley looks at the 8 hours that has been cut weekly. She can react in a few different ways. Here are two
1) Well, it sucks but at least I have job and at least I’ll be bringing home SOME money. There is a recession, I should be glad with what I get. Its good that they are being proactive by cutting hours so that I don’t get laid off.
2) I don’t get a living wage, I work my ass off with no breaks. This company’s existence RELIES on the people in my position and PROFITS from it. Despite the recession this company’s profits are GROWING but they are being “proactive” by cutting hours, being stingy on raises, increasing work loads and eliminating bonuses for those at the bottom. This is wrong.
If no one worked production would stop, consumption would stop and society would end. The less people work, the less production, the less consumption.
It seems to me that working, therefore, is not a privilege granted to us, it is necessary, and the owners of production need us to work just as much as we need them for pay cheques. Yet we take the horrible pay, increased work loads and the cut hours because “its good for the company” and our employment relies on it.
When a group of people (eg. union) recognizes this and demands to be treated proportionately to their labour (eg. striking) it is common for people to blame the group and tag them as ungrateful, greedy, whiney, perhaps manipulative and probably communist. In other words, they sympathize with the interests of corporate. It is not common, however, for people to think “you know what, this company makes serious profit, this profit is redistributed to the managers and CEOs but not to the people that actually produce the profit, ya they have a cause”.
I know there currently is a recession, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that this occurence has changed the nature of corporate interest, which is to accrue as much profit and cut as much excess cost as possible- recession or not.
Our labour is valuable, and needed. Our anger and frustration at our wages, hours and over all treatment is valid and needs a voice.
Don’t cut your self short. Know your value.
(cue: Marxist’s singing ‘the internationale’)
Merry C#!%&*m@$!! November 24, 2008
Its holiday season! as if you couldn’t already tell by the aisles and aisles of crimson and clover (the colours…not the song) or linen and sapphire, for my friends at Glencairn and Bathurst.
For the last four years I would walk the halls of York U in December not knowing it was Christmas time, save for the candy cane lattes served at Second Cup. A forty-five minute drive up highway 400 however brought you to Barrie: Who-ville, where retailers would EMPHASIZE their salutation of “Merry CHRISTMAS!” when non traditional consumers would bid a neutral “Happy Holidays!” after having their fondue pot gift-wrapped.
I’ve seen both sides. I’ve disagreed with both sides. But I’m taking a stand for Christmas, this time. Not in the anti-immigrant- old people – “those were the days” way, mind you. (consider that the disclaimer).
Friday night I had the pleasure of sitting in a living room/art gallery with a small group of people whom I had never met. They were the type of people who talk about listening to obscure CBC short stories programs without actually talking about the programs themselves, only that they listen to them (in other words, the type of people who sit in living room/art galleries on a Friday night). When one girl wearing a red, green and gold jumper entered the room someone chimed “your dress looks so Christmas like!”. It did. But before I could second that thought the room began to scoff. “My work put up a Christmas tree and I was like, okay! you’ve made your point… its so offensive”.
Not being one to let remarks like that slide without explanation (or have any social grace when meeting new people) I began to prod the flippant remark. I just can’t seem to understand how a) wishing someone a warm salutation is OFFENSIVE and b) how a completely secularized holiday that actually has no biblical foundation from the start is exclusionary to people who don’t subscribe to western christian values. I mean, I might understand why if there weren’t highly noticable fractures in these people’s conviction.
But lets examine the facts.
Christmas: On December 25th in the year 0 Jesus, the Messiah, was born under a Christmas tree in a manger. He was visited by a wasseling drummer boy who brought a mug of whipped egg yolk and a 40 pound brick of fruit cake peppered with mistle toe. Other visitors included his obese yet generous Turkish neighbor named Santa Clause, three kings who brought luxury goods such as Gold, Frankincense and Myrh (along with socks, underwear and a bounty of unneeded impulse buys), his parents, a donkey, and his entire extended family. When his entire Extended family (after drinking too much of the whipped egg yolk) began hounding the tiny baby about what he is doing with his life and how his cousin is almost finished med school, a majestic turkey flew from the heavens and pecked out the family’s eyes. Startled by the turkey’s ugliness and obtuse movements the Christmas donkey kicked the turkey, accidently killing him. “Oh no!” exclaimed the donkey. I have killed this noble bird! what shall we do? what shall we do to honour the valour of this turkey”. Mary, mother of Jesus replied: we will cook him. And we will eat him.
So, I hope you know this isn’t the actual story (READ: Luke 2). I also hope you know that Christmas was created in the 4th century by the Roman Catholic church; piggy backing an already established festive, yet pagan celebration. Jesus was not born in December, there is no mention of celebrating his birth in the Bible and there is certainly no connection with candy canes, lights, the coniferous or awkward family conversations over dry foul.
I could elaborate on why I think modern day Christmas is perverse. How it is the quintessential celebration of our entitlement to abundance. But I do think holidays are important. Even for secularists or others that don’t buy into the idea of Jesus. I sincerely think it is important that people stop, look around, love, rest and celebrate. Whether that be the birth of a saviour or the end of another year. Encouraging people to have a Merry Christmas to me is a lovely thing. Its reinforcing that we NEED the things that Christmas/Rosh Hoshana/Kwanza/Diwali etc. are supposed to bring: family, reflection, good will, maybe some new stuff that beings smiles and celebration of all the good things in life (we spend every other day thinking about the stuff we don’t have, the things or people that were taken away and how much life generally sucks). To me, that doesn’t seem exclusionary although I am extremely aware that I am writing from the discourse of my culture and heritage.
I want to come back to the idea that modern day Christmas in a public setting is OFFENSIVE. I would totally throw my Hanson Christmas C.D in the hearth and accept this idea if there weren’t sharp inconsistencies in how we as Canadians approach other holidays. How can a secularized, consumer holiday in which people exchange gifts and eat dinner with family be any more offensive than…
Thanksgiving: A holiday to celebrate the time that our oppressed fore fathers, escaping the evils of their homelands discovered a NEW land! not only new land, which was flowing with cornucopias of harvested goods, but also NEW FRIENDS! The new friends welcomed the pilgrims with open arms and greeted them hospitably with an abundant feast. There was one awkward problem; God had told the pilgrims that they needed to take over and claim the land, for the sake of civility, and force their new friends to live in the unwanted corners of their land. Some times the pilgrims just massacred their friends- it was easier that way. Although sometimes, when they were feeling gracious, they forced their friends to sign treaties that would make the expropriation of their land “legal”. Their new friends happily obliged and every year they got together to eat a harvest meal as a way of saying “hey, we’re still friends, right? great! lets give thanks”
If I haven’t made it clear: I find it highly contentious that we openly and unashamedly celebrate Thanksgiving as a part of our Canadian/North American heritage, with little to no insight of its truly offensive historical context AND present day realities of oppression and imperialism. THAT is offensive to me. The fact that we publicly celebrate the oppression, ghettoization and expropriation of a group of people while they continue to live this history, and we continue to ignore them, or perpetuate stereotypes. Then, nine weeks later cast SHAME on (or at the very least, neutralize and privatize) a holiday that has already been secularized and commodified to the point of little significance. It seems a little perplexing. And perhaps offensive, too.
Chinese Buffet Economy September 17, 2008
Last week I had the pleasure (opportunity?) to go out for dinner with my family to an all you can eat buffet. Since I had spent the day fasting for such an occasion, I was excited to see rows and rows of food under the infra red lights. The chicken balls were bigger than any actual part you’d find on a chicken and I’ve never actually seen that many red jello cubes before in my life.
Unfortunately, the food tasted gross.
I have never been to China, but I just some how know- or choose to believe- that their food isn’t this rancid. The problem with these buffets is they make the food in mass quantities which compromises the quality of the food more often than not.
I fear the same is true for the economy. Focus is placed solely on growth; high GDPs, new markets etc.
But perhaps we’re backward. Maybe quality economies should be the goal.
Now, I’m not about to throw out Adam Smith with the bath water. That’s a bit bold. Obviously, economies can experience stagnation; there needs to be some growth. But when focus is placed solely on growth then communities suffer.
I have already written about Ghana (See: International Monetary Fund: Beginning of the End?). The once subsistent country that fell victim to the “growth” scheme by converting all their agricultural sector to the production of cocoa. What is the benefit of having an economy with high growth if the benefits are out of reach for most people?
Its hard to understand how volatile the free market is when talking outside your own experience, or atleast something that is far from home. So lets take the recent stock market news. Perhaps you are not feeling the closing of banks in a tangible way yet or maybe you can’t put two and two together. But this occurrence shows that the “invisible hand” is not always on our side. The world hasn’t fully recovered from the economic crisis of 1979, the early 90’s etc. We can’t just place our trust neo liberalism; let us not mistake clouds for stairs. It is easy for naivity to be confused with the “American optimism” on which the country was apparently built. It will be interesting to see if and what change will be made. A more regulated market? more monopolies? Tumble weeds tumbling down wall street? Its far from over. Hopefully we can be distracted by Sarah Palin’s PTA experience a little while longer.
And now we wait for the others.
Canadian Commie-Sutra September 3, 2008
Not to be out done by our netherally neighbors, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has saved us a whole bunch of grief/acted opportunistically and will be calling an election for this Thanksgiving season to avoid a stagnant parliamentary session.
Growing up in a politically unimaginative sub-urb the election ballot was always simple to fill out. Conservative, Liberal and NDP. Those were/are your choices. If you so choose to be politically aware you have three political parties with functioning 2.0 websites to help you learn the important details.
Moving to Canada’s largest city, voting became more of a challenge/puzzle. The ballot was flooded with options, as if everyone’s diverse values and backgrounds could not be condensed into the platforms of those three populist parties. What confused me most was that of the options, there is both a Canadian Communist Party AND a Canadian Marxist-Leninist Party.
I’m sure there’s a “Smucker’s commercial”-esque story explaining the nasty division between these two parties. But folklore aside, those who find themselves on the left side of the political continuum are put in a compromising situation when picking which party will win their vote. So, as a service to the Canadian reds I have created a short list, from the information that was available, to help you distinguish the difference between the two parties and hopefully decide which ring you will throw your Che berret in.
Communist Party of Canada:
Platform:
- To re create Canada as a socialist state.
- Fighting for jobs, democratic rights, Canadian independence, peace, socialism and working class internationalism.
- Aims to scrap NAFTA
History:
- Originally created in 1921 and aligned itself with USSR values
Fun Facts:
- The party had its lowest voter success in the last federal election (2006) winning .02% of the votes.
- The Party was originally made up of Jewish, Finnish and Ukrainian groups.
- The website looks strikingly similar to the Toronto Transit Comission’s site. Very 1998.
Marxist- Leninist Party of Canada
Platform:
- To uphold the dignity of the working class
- No party funding
- Anti war
History:
- Created in 1963 as a split from the Soviet brand of communism to the sino-maoist brand. Thus the split between the two parties
Fun Facts:
- Becoming a member of this party, you will not be addressed as Mr. or Ms but as Comrade.
- The website looks like an old diner. OR a plate filled with ketchup and mustard. Not that this should matter. I just thought I’d warn you. Its pretty offensive.
So I hope this helps. I personally won’t be extending my vote to either of these parties (along with roughly 99% of Canadian voters) but I would hate for someone to feel as confused and overwhelmed as I was when searching out their options.
But options, who needs them.
Female Vice President: Breaking Walls and Shattering Ceilings? August 30, 2008
As previously mentioned, I find US politics too theatrical. It’s theatre in a way that a lot of people enjoy; Easy to speculate, filled with plot twists and scandal and vaguely, although superficially inspiring. I suppose its the “Legally Blonde” of theatre.
Usually around election time I will watch the speeches, read up on the issues, compare the candidates etc. But this time around my focus is placed upon those commentating the election.
On having either a black president or a female vice president some internet prophets READ: Perez Hilton have commented that either way “we are breaking down walls and shattering ceilings.” Some have even called McCain’s decision for a female running mate a “maverick” decision.
I’m trying not to sound negative but I can’t help but find this offensive. Maybe because at this stage of the game I find it a little pathetic that the US is having women in higher echelons of government executive only now and celebrating their progressiveness, when everywhere else in the world has been “breaking down walls” for DECADES (Thatcher, Peron, Campbel, Merkel- to name a few). The walls have been broken down before- you’re just refusing to walk across.
It just seems like the US takes their own path. Their own “American made- rise from the ashes-everything from nothing” path. Its the stuff car commercials are made out of; tried tested and true. While the rest of the liberal democratic world PROGRESSES- big word for growth and improvement- the US likes to maintain their own brand. Metric system shmetric shmystem, free health care shmee shmealth care etc. When they finally DO join the rest of the world (30 years later) they make themselves seem like they are leading the free world.
Before the US POTENTIALLY elects a female vice president these are the countries that have already elected a female leader or have appointed a female head of state
I think its necessary for women to be in executive branches of government because we make up roughly 50% of the population. But what I think also needs to be addressed is the expectation that because a women is elected she will a) represent the needs of women and b) represent the needs of ALL women.
The first and second wave of feminism in the 1960’s through the 1990’s were ground breaking in the way that they united women under the banner of female equality- equal pay, voting rights, social mobility etc. But now into the new millenium we are seeing that ‘woman’ is not a self evident term. Its not a big tent that every women can stand under by virtue of their biology. There are diversties among us; race, culture, age, class etc.
Could Sarah Palin- a rich white woman with social mobility really represent the needs of latin women, poor women, single mothers etc?
I’m becoming quite cynical about this “change” thing. Change needs to happen in the SYSTEM, not by shuffling around a few people and adding some new “wall breaking” faces.
The Deal Breaker : A comma August 25, 2008
I’m often asked if I follow US politics. And I don’t (although I usually don’t tell people that when they ask). I dislike American politics for the same reason I dislike most Will Smith movies. Take a believable setting, with a believable conflict and make it over the top theatrical. It’s theatrics. This was only validated this last weekend when I found out about Obama’s new running mate.
Biden brings a very centrist position to US politics with an extensive amount of experience in “the game” but this isn’t really being discussed. Instead what will (seemingly) define the electoral success of this duo is…
A comma.
Yes, a comma. Apparently, in January of this year he was recorded saying:
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Political analysts and linguists alike have been listening to the recording over and over and over arguing whether there is supposed to be a comma after the “African- American” which would significantly alter the meaning (and offensiveness) of the quote.
Grammar aside, I find it funny (in a concerned way) that Obama chose Biden for his “Foreign policy and national security experience”.
Yes, because domestically the US is doing AMAZING. So good, in fact, that they feel they need to focus their attention on the goings on in other countries.
sorry….change?
