One Word ... History?

First things first, I think it just speaks to the kind of person that would be in a hockey riot that the local Chapters was broken into, but no one bothered to steal anything. I can't say that I would not be in possession of a few new hardcovers had I been in the area, but I digress.

Vancouverites have been thoroughly embarrassed about the incident in their city and attempts to cover the shame include claiming it was a small group of individuals (busy people), that it was all out-of towners, and desperately trying to identify the persons responsible in photos. Irony forces me to point out that the town bearing the brunt of Vancouver's "idiot hick" jokes - Surrey - remained so orderly and behaved that the Mayor loaned some of officers over to Vancouver; how's that for class? The cleanup party that has followed the destruction is getting much less airtime, sadly since it is harder to motivate people to clean up and behave altruistically that it is to get people already excited about a hockey game to riot.

The truth about riots is that they are almost like a sickness; the same energy that causes people to leap out of their seats and scream for goals is the one that makes them smash windows. Not to say all sports people are rioters - far from it. Anyone can become a rioter, all it takes is to relax, and give in to the social pressures. One or two people start lighting a car on fire, and suddenly, that is the situational 'norm', and we all know how good people are at adapting to the societal norm.

I do agree that more should have been done to prevent it, which is possible, and you think they would have learned after 1994 but apparently not. I also can't help but agree with the assessment of one blogger, The Dollar Vigilante, that noticed if people had been 'drunk' on pot instead of alcohol, " a number of them would go to the park to hold hands and sing some hymns about love - and then eat some potato chips." Finally, however, I can't agree that the government caused the riots or the anarchists - sometimes a riot is just a riot.

The only thing I can't stand is Europe looking down on us - "You call that a riot?"

A Rotten Post

It's been a little while since I have been able to sit down, research, and post anything other than, "So, prostitution, eh?" but I am a little rusty so I figured I'd pick an easy one to knock out.

The Canada post strike.
A lot of people are annoyed, there's a lot of literature flying around about whether they are selfish or not, how this affects businesses, and what should be done about it. The main problem, as reported by the striking workers, is that the company is turning a profit, but is extracting the cost of recent upgrades from worker's pensions, which is not only stupid, but should be illegal. However, considering the nature of CP's pensions, the likelihood that the pension shortfall will need to be supported by the taxpayer is very high - the sheer size restricts risky investment, and so it is reduced to lower-paying safer alternatives.

The other major argument concerns safety. Some of the new procedures that are being enacted, tested in Winnipeg, have reportedly shown to increase injuries by 50%. The physical demands from the job, far from the sardonic allegations of "walking injuries", can including slips, falls, strains, breaks, and just general wear from time and  work. New hazards are being presented by the company's expectation that the workers will walk and read, to save time, and the workers themselves are, of course, hurrying to finish early. which adds more hazard.

The chief complaints against Canada post revolve around the speed issue - people compare mail and e-mail unfavorably, and grip that delivery takes too long. Despite claims, overall mail delivery is not dropping, only letter mail, while deliveries are increasing, as well as the number of addresses being shipped to, placing more speed restraints on the workers.

Considered as a whole world problem I think the best solution is obvious: either charge more for or eliminate fliers and junk mail. Tying in the environmental concerns, the preponderance of wasted paper, the time, effort and aggravation that come from this odious plague, if we eliminated this scourge the Canada Post would be free to shift it's focus to the 'higher priority' addressed mail, speed up delivery times, possibly even working on the weekends (hey, if armored cars do it, so can they) and reduce injuries through weight issues. This would put Canada post on par with the more streamlined private services, and raise them to a more competitive position. If they really feel they cannot eliminate that source of revenue, they can either raise the prices high enough that only a few companies want to wholesale advertise anymore, or simply 'sublet' the whole business to a lower-skill, lower-wage paper-boy sort of company. Pensions would be less important and it would be another avenue for people just entering the workforce.

Canada post is not going away any time soon, but with some tweaks it could become genuinely competititve.

The title is a quote from Nicholas Culpeper "For God's sake build not your faith upon Tradition, 'tis as rotten as a rotten Post."

Wildcard Weekend: Honorifics and Other Mistakes

I am the Worst Vegan in the World.

I have been trying, I honestly have, since the previous wildcard weekend, where I said I would give a try at veganism; Bought the cookbook Vegan Planet, googled the Wiki article (Every title I give myself now has come from a Wiki article), and bought things like nutritional yeast, even though when I sprinkled it on my mashed potatoes it looked so strikingly similar to fish food that I had the urge to stare at the same point on the wall for several hours or as I like to call it - work.

But my efforts have been undermined at damn near every turn. One morning, determined to eschew coffee for health reasons (I promised my doctor I would stop. Also, when you break a promise to a doctor you can actually hear it break.) I made myself a mug of tea in a fashion I was accustomed to by long habit - instead of milk and sugar I just added condensed milk. Doye. If you read that again very carefully you'll see where I slipped up. Of course this realization didn't occur until late that afternoon because that's how fast I am. (At least I was just fast enough to avoid wandering into a vegan restaurant with my beloved leather jacket on - I still wear it (8 years old!) but again, WVE.)

Wish I had left the hairpiece at home too

I still crave bacon and steak, still have to remind myself that no, gelatin is not vegan, so the gummy soothers are off limits, but I doubt that will ever change. The best I can hope is that it will get easier. 

It has become a little easier since my fiance moved off for his summer job (finally a perk to opening all my own jars) - being the only one at home I can fill the fridge with vegan stuff, then troll my shelves to my heart's content, but I have had mixed success in cooking, which composes a large amount of vegan eating. My first attempt at making fake meat - called seitan or "wheat meat" was an unmitigated disaster. First, I combined wheat flour and water, managing to knead it into a reasonable dough, a feat I can not usually master, so it was with renewed vigor and a sense of accomplishment that I approached the next step - rinsing the starch out of the dough. I had to submerge it in water, then knead it.

"Hang on." thought my mistrusting brain, "How is this going to work? Didn't I just add water to make it doughy? What happens if I add more?"

But my tummy overruled the brain, and so with a hearty cheer, I pressed on, delicately submerging the loaf and kneading it until the water ran milky, rinsing, replacing, kneading, rinsing, repla - what the...?
My dough had, predictably, began to take on water faster than a Shallotian vessel, and was reduced to a paste that any second grade paper-mache student would be proud of. Nevertheless, I desperately kneaded the slop for a good few minutes like a committed masseuse attempting to revive a piece of boneless chicken. (Am I allowed to make non-vegan analogies?) sure that I just needed to have faith. The monstrous mess is covered by a towel in my fridge, just in case I come home craving whole wheat bouillabaisse. For my second attempt I have debated buying starch-free wheat flour, thus eliminating the rinsing step, which is sort of like buying cheese sauce to make kraft dinner - can you still say you're cooking anything? - but would result in me having the finished product. My other recipes have had better success.

Vegan Butter Chicken
1 can chickpeas
1 small onion
1 tbsp vegan margarine
1/2 c. tomato sauce
1 c. coconut milk

Fry the onions in the 'butter', add the tomato sauce, milk, chickpeas and cook for twenty minutes. Throw the remainder of the coconut milk in with the rice, then cook. Combine and consume. Fantastic. I don't think it is hyperbole to say I am the best cook ever, but definitely the Worst Vegan Ever.

Putting the "Competition" in Canadian Telecommunications

But there's no "competition" in Canadian Telecommunications?
Exactly.

Anyone old enough to fold open a newspaper (or those of us with a vested interest) has been inundated with the trials and tribulations of WIND mobile, a foreign company that fought to conduct business in Canada, and won, lost, won, maybe lost, sort of won back, and finally won. Having followed the process it seemed odd that it was getting so much press time, but after the CRTC's latest ruling, I can understand why. They were just playing at competition.

The large telecom providers in Canada have enjoyed an oligopoly in recent times, and this has been reflected in their push to instate usage based billing (UBB). They were stopped, at least temporarily, by the CRTC, and for a while it seemed like the CRTC was on our side. But it is clear we were just being strung along until after the election.

Since the only companies with the financial backing to build infrastructure are the telecom giants, new start-ups have to 'borrow' tower space for their subscribers. In a really dick move Rogers negotiated a deal with WIND, allowing their subscribers to use Roger's towers, but then giving their own users preferential treatment to the point that any WIND customer unlucky enough to stray into that zone is automatically dropped and must redial.

That's just the 'price of admission', the cost of start-up. They should stop whining.
Not enough dick for you? Rogers went ahead and advertised that their new Chatr service has "fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.” That's cold.

WIND did what any sensible company feeling unduly trod on would do - they went to the CRTC, who promptly ruled they didn't have enough evidence of preferential treatment, and dropped WIND on their heiney. Not because the behavior existed, they noted it did, but because the subsequent ad campaign did not cause enough of an imbalance in the consumer's view, and the contract did not specify that there needed to be seamless transitioning.

Further to that, the CRTC decided it wasn't going to dirty its hands with the issue of seamless roaming anymore, but companies are free to negotiate it amongst themselves. A powerful draw like seamless call transition is too valuable to give up for a small price, however, especially at the possible cost of their own customer's convenience, so it is likely new companies will be forced to contend without it, especially WIND, since the CRTC noted it would not allow WIND to renegotiate its contract with Rogers.

I wish I could advocate a system of impartial, federally owned towers, but the notion that the government has control of my cellphone is just too scary to accept, especially considering Bills B-52 and B-51.  

I suspect, considering roaming charges and the 'newsworthy' aspect of people outraged by huge bills, that this development will help WIND for a while, since people are notified immediately when they begin to incur roaming fees, but the question is whether people will appreciate it in time or simply find it a hindrance.

House of Commons 43: Pay-per-view

People like to believe that historically the House of Commons has been civil and accommodating to all views; this ties in to our beliefs about the nostalgia of 'olden days' which we picture with glassy-eyed reverence, imagining a 'simpler time' when people were so mannered and polite, as if we didn't have more motivation to be by virtue of the police's reduced ability to solve murders. They like to think that problems were solved by hearty, respectful debate, and that now the HoC is no better than a kindergarten classroom.

We are, apparently, not. The latest survey being flogged by the rags discusses the civility ratings of various MP's, based on a subjective scoring of their mannerisms during question period. The speaker rated highest at 80 out of 100, which personally I think means the scoring should only be done out of 80, considering the speaker is intended to be the most fair, impartial, and balanced out of everyone. Edmonton's nemesis Rona Ambrose rated next highest, but I will refrain from comment on why that might be. It was notable that the Ignatieff and Layton both scored quite low on the survey, especially considering their desire to "bring back civility" which prompted subdued titters from the newspaper as they pointed out the hypocrisy in bringing back something that one is unable to maintain in one's self. (This is called "The Timberlake")

I will likely draw flak for defending Layton here, but I cannot help wondering, "who the hell cares about civility?!" Many parliaments are known for their violence and disorder; the British, whom we draw our Westminster style from, are forced to keep two red lines on the floor, which MP's are not allowed to cross, simply to maintain a vague semblance of order. Their debates are, nevertheless, quite rowdy, including laughing at raunchy jokes, and occasionally hollering so loudly that all debate is stymied. Perhaps they are too established to change their ways, but the lack of decorum rarely seems to slow them down, for example one minister simply slowed parliament to insist a councillor withdraw his insult of "miserable pipsqueak" before pressing on to more important matters (interestingly, he only insisted that "pipsqueak" be withdrawn.)

As for our 'history' of civility, our very own father of the country, John A McDonald, once charged an MP.
Charged him with what?
Oh, no, literally charged him: Like a bull. Are we suggesting we should be better than the man who was our first great leader? Another member, Arther Bunster, was famous for his fist fight in parliament back in 1878. Even just watching the live broadcast of the house reveals a plethora of snide comments, witty asides, and sharp digs that rarely make the news anymore but help, I think, to make the whole dry process a little more interesting. We vilify our representatives if they are caught wasting time on distractions - why not let them make it a little more interesting, especially if it bolsters interest in the process by the average citizen?

Can't get enough of political brawls? You're welcome.

Payment Accomplished!

"Good Morning, Ms. Pun'd it! This is #name redacted# calling from your local Chrysler dealership, how are you today?"

"I'm quite good. What is this call in regards to?"

"Well, Mrs. Pun'd it, our records show that you purchased a new Chrysler vehicle last year on financing, is that correct?"

"Yeah, it's pretty good. Nice to be mobile again. You know, have options."

"That's great, ma'am, but we noticed you haven't made this months payment; we were wondering if there was a more convenient payment plan you might prefer."

"No, no, nothing like that. I paid last month's a week early, hey?"

"We noticed, but we don't put much bearing into that, so I'm not sure why that would matter."

"Well, I just figured since I had paid earlier than you expected, I just wouldn't pay anymore."

"I...I'm sorry?"

"Yeah, I'm done. I think I've paid enough. We're good."

"Uh, no you still owe a sizable amount on your total."

"Look, I'm sure we can both agree it's better for both of us if I keep the car - it is free advertising for you guys, hey? - and I can't work without my car, so I just won't pay anymore."

"You can't do that, you have to pay what you owe."

"How about you can come over to my house whenever you want, how about that?"

"No that's not going to work at all. Why don't I forward you through to a manager?"

My next plan, if this falls through, is just to get really fat and claim I'm "too big to fail".
(Incidentally I did get a new car this month but it was a Prius and I am doing fine on my payments.)
Have no idea what I'm talking about? Click here!

The Supreme Court Goes Kinky

More from the Department of "No Shit?" rulings: the supreme court argued that one cannot obtain consent from an unconscious person.

A man and a woman regularly practiced pretty risky sex - he would choke her until she was unconscious, then have sex with her. When she awoke one day to discover he had violated her butt with a dildo, she charged him with sexual assault. If one considers the definition of sexual assault to be "unwanted sexual contact" this case is gold-plated. 

Just the fact that this case went all the way to the supreme court shows the prevalence of backward thinking that I liked to believe was on the way out the door in Canada. One commenter on CBC said it was ridiculous that it made it to court - "the woman gave her consent to kinky sex when she agreed to be choked into unconsciousness". My brain chuuga-chugged to a halt at this line. Surely, I reasoned, people understood that being unconscious, even willingly, was not a free pass to go nuts an a person's body?  But the comment had the highest approval rating (110 at time of writing including the down vote I, and others, gave it), meaning there are people who agreed with this man. 


This mentality, that people should be punished for enjoying sex, is the same mindset that believes it is impossible to rape a 'slut', or that a woman wearing skimpy clothes is 'asking for it'. Occasionally it is even the mindset that believes a person who has passed out from drinking is 'fair game'. 


In this case, honestly, I think both parties should have known better: If he wanted something unusual, he should have talked to her about it beforehand or even obtained a written notice of consent*, just to cover her butt - excuse me - his butt, and I hate to say it but she should have known not to practise a risky sex act with someone she couldn't/didn't trust 100%, but without being in the relationship it is pretty hard to know how trustworthy he seemed, and people have been duped before. 


All in all, it is another testimonial for the Yes means Yes principle: if you are not actively saying Yes (or have not written "Yes") then you are saying No. 


On another note: the body of Mcpl Curnow was found, and I was interested in the details, but to watch the video I had to sit through a car advertisement. I am not sure why we allow this, it is so disrespectful to the bereaved. 

UPDATE:
Having more fully explored the ramifications of this ruling it is evident that the court is prohibiting even prior agreements of sexual activity. Since one is incapable of removing consent while unconscious, it cannot be consensual. Not that people will stop, just that it adds an extra layer of caution to activities. A commenter on another story pointed out that this would disqualify sex while gagged, to which I must reply that it does not, any more than a mute person can no longer give consent to sex; the typical procedure is to have the gagged person hold a cloth in a free hand, should the cloth be dropped, consent is withdrawn.

British Columbia Out to "Get Theirs"

I would like to beg a favor, Dear Readers; in light of the fact that the rapture does not appear to have panned out, I would like this day (May 21, May 23, close enough) to be remembered for a different, yet no less noble reason. Today shall be remembered as the day I argued for the erosion of personal responsibility in favor of greater corporate responsibility. I hope the late Queen Victoria won't mind sharing her honorary day.

It seems that B.C is fed up: fed up with paying health care costs for when negligent boobs imperil other people's lives just to have "one more for the road". So they are aiming to Recover Costs, a phrase which, I must confess, sends chills down my spine as a herd of hallucinations involving bureaucrats with calipers slither past my vision. There might be pliers involved, and there is no place for businesses deemed Negligent to hide, except, of course, behind the best lawyers allotted expenses can provide.

Before my sense of the dramatic gets me carried away, I should confess this is nothing new; the province launched a lawsuit against major tobacco companies to recover the costs associated with treating the diseases of smoking years ago and seems to have gained a considerable amount. The difference brought about by this new development is that smoking is something one does to oneself (I hate that word) and so the injured and the injurious (I like that word) are the same person that cost recovery is likely to focus on. Sick people, however, are notably rather broke from treatment (no matter how well supplemented) and so the focus shifted to the greater culpability in the form of the tobacco companies that coerced people to smoke, often with duplicitous methods.

The link of culpability is not as strong with the connection of bars to drinkers. The hazards of smoking were hidden in the past, no one these days is confused about the possible consequences of drinking and driving. It requires an active amount of effort an the part of the bar (police people's liquor intake) rather than a passive effort on the part of the tobacconists  (stop advertising your products in such fashions). the point of this move is simply to open up a new lucrative avenue of cost collection. There is only so much money that can be squeezed from the bloodless stone that is a drunk driver, and after a point, the process tends to provoke a sort of learned helplessness in the person, which tends to exacerbate the exact problem they are dealing with: irresponsible behavior.

Now, fear not: I am still arguing for this move to greater culpability. I believe certain companies should be hounded for their 'contribution', however minor, to tragedies mostly because they are so damn good at policing their customers. Once it becomes clear that they are liable, and the bills start to pour in, you can bet drunk driving will fall dramatically. Sure, we aren't promoting an independent, responsible citizenry, but that does not seem to have worked very well anyway and this will ensure the innocent victims suffer no fall in service because the government is continually wringing blood from booze-soaked stones. 

Wildcard Weekend: Bacon of Happiness

Since I am happy (I got a phonecall from my fiance who is currently away working through summer. He got to arrest someone the other day - Exciting!) I thought, "What better way to push my happiness on other people than with a beloved childhood character?"


For those who grew up with Calvin and Hobbes, here is a revisitation of the characters now that they are their parents' age, done by the talented brothers (Not "mai bruthas", but actual siblings) Dan & Tom Heyerman over at Pants Are Overrated. Be cautious about wandering the rest of their site; the comic is somewhat hebephrenic and, on occasion, extremely off-putting.  The art style is coherent and engaging; I hope they find their plot thread strength soon. If anyone would like to hire me as a professional webcomic critic, please contact me at your earliest convenience. (also, it is called Hobbes and bacon because the daughter is named after Francis Bacon) Sorry about the poor spacing, it is the only way to keep it legible.

Wildcard Weekend: Love's Gender

This weekend's offering is a story today from Toronto about a couple who have decided to keep the sex of their new baby a secret. Instead, raising the baby, "Storm", according to whatever gender suits the child. The only people who know the baby's sex are the couple's older boys, a close family friend, and the midwife that was present at the birth. The family encourages gender exploration in their children; the older boys frequently have long hair and wear pink dresses, although this makes me wonder if the parents are not unfairly reinforcing interest in the non-traditional gender behavior, since it doesn't seem like gender exploration if a little boy plays with a truck.

Their extended family was hesitantly supportive, but the majority of the population seems to regard the decision as a kind of child abuse or experimentation, and has attracted a lot of negative comments and criticism. I'd be lying if I said I had not thought about this during anthropology and psychology courses, and it would likely not be as emotionally damaging as people are assuming, but it's still to risky to use a child in a social experiment, no matter how well-intentioned.

Rock on, crazy world.
Article:http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/article/995112--parents-keep-child-s-gender-secret

More Than Meets the Eye: Lawsuits in Diguise

Sometimes the smallest news stories have the most interesting back stories.
CBC news recently wrote about Jesse Willms, an entrepreneur from Alberta who was confirmed as being under investigation by the RCMP and the Competition Bureau of Canada and apparently being sued by the U.S Federal Trade Commission for some online dealings that may be worth up to $450 million. The details were pretty sparse, speaking only about inflated charges on people's credit cards for products like tooth whitening and weight loss, so I Googled around a bit.

What is not talked about in the article is an investigation last year by CTV's W5 staff that is the subject of contention. The CTV article talks about fraudulent business practices and lawsuits by celebrities whose images were used without permission, such as Dr. Mehmet Oz, of "The Doctor Oz show" and Oprah Winfrey, which is pretty ballsy if it's true, since Winfrey is a household name with a veritable army of followers. So far nothing had been proved in court, however.

In response the businessman posted this on his website, saying that he was pursuing legal action against CTV and PennyAuctionWatch because the claims were erroneous and harmful to his reputation, which is created by a pretty impressive list of charity affiliations including Santa's Anonymous,World Vision's Children's Charity, and the Edmonton Mustard Seed. Elsewhere on his blog he writes about business ethics and the importance of reading the fine print before agreeing inadvertently to unintended consequences.

Although it is typically my knee-jerk reaction to vilify people suspected of fraudulent business practices, it seems hard to believe a company could operate for many years, amassing it's owner a multi-million dollar fortune, while engaging in some of the practices the company is accused of, but then again, the Internet is a whole new world and people are often willing to trust someone they have never met simply because they appear legitimate. The earlier Apple/iPhone tracking story that broke should illustrate how scarcely people read the fine print. 

It should prove interesting to follow this story, wherever it goes.

I See a Red Chamber, I want to Paint it Black

If there is one thing I genuinely enjoy, right next to raindrops on kittens and warm paper packages, it is taking the steam out of half-baked political outrage. You see, I want a monopoly on that. That's my turf. I briefly debated styling myself The Half-Baked Queen, but it did not go as I envisioned.

Needless to say I was pretty excited to read the latest articles on the Senate appointments. I could go on about the cabinet for a while (Hey there, Bev!) but it would be like taking a 9 iron to a putt-putt golf course; sure you can hit it out of the park, but everyone will be too disgusted with you to pay attention.

So the Senate nominations: People are apparantly bothered by the fact that the three appointments were not elected in their respective ridings. I am not entirely sure - not many articles specify - that people are aware that senators are not elected here in Canda, they are just appointed.

Shouldn't it matter that the Canadian people don't approve of the candidates?

Not really. It cannot really be proven that they dislike the candidate, only that they preferred another candidate more, but since their preferred candidate was elected, and one person cannot hold a HoC and senate seat, obviously they have to appoint a different person. More importantly, the candidates had already been Senators, positions they resigned so they could run for office, but were reinstated once they lost: CBC called them "revolving door politicans".

Not to imply our feelings about the issue mattered at all; Senate seats seem to be awarded arbitrarily, and we often just smile and suck it up, the institution that had previously constituted a 'sober second thought' now transmuted to a form of veto for the "better educated". The only meaningful resistance to this issue is to call for the complete reform or even abolishion of the Senate.

A lot of people are excited that the Liberal party has been largely removed from the house of commons but the last time I checked the Senate held 45 seats, almost equal to the Conservative's 55, a significant political force they can still wield (they can't be usurped after decades of political control by one bad election).

To make a ridiculous little prediction; I'm keeping an eye on Helena Guergis, the ex-conservative turned independant, who voted "No" on the motion to hold the Conservative parliament in contempt but has been trailed by intrigue and a hint of scandal. She might be too hot to handle now, but I'm just waiting.

Lady's Hips in Men's Pants

The fires decimating Slave Lake and area are filling the airwaves so I respectfully submit this piece I wrote a little while ago reflecting on working in a mostly male industry.

I've been working in a men's industry for a few years now and I like to think I've achieved a pretty solid handle on what it takes to become comfortable in a world that was classically considered 'a man's world'. This advice is mostly geared towards the 'softer', more introverted woman mostly because that is more likely the type of woman who will seek out advice (their more boisterous counterparts have figured everything out and find advice unnecessary) but also that is where my experience lies, being fairly quiet in unknown circumstances myself. It is also not directed towards the higher corporate levels, since I have little experience in that world (so far). Regardless, here are some guidelines I have hit upon (or wish someone had told me).

1. If you want to sleep around people are going to react to that. The industry has a higher proportion of people with an old-fashioned sensibility and this tends to manifest in the fashion of the "prude/whore" belief. The ramifications of this is that if you originally connect with your coworkers on the sexual level, it is incredibly unlikely you will overcome this without a large deal of time and prudishness.

2.  This can occasionally happen even if you are just perceived as being promiscuous. Men tend to have a broad gossip ring just like the stereotypical women's ring, and one favored topic of speculation is attractive women. Denying it has little to no effect; it's best just to ride it out and let the truth surface.

3. Make sure your gear fits, whether it is a uniform or safety gear.  You'll want a fitting uniform because it will make you feel like you belong, like you can do the job. Sometimes when people are watching to make sure you do it right, you concentrate on doing it right so much you screw it up. Fitting safety gear is crucial because a lot of the time it is designed and sized for males, and if you just shrug and ignore it you are putting yourself at risk; at least of annoyance and discomfort at most of injury or death.

4. The vast majority of men will connect with you on two levels (mostly because of the dichotomy mentioned in number one) that can be simplified as a niece or a night. The older males tend to treat any woman younger than them like a niece, and even some men that are the same age act a little protective. The other half tend to view you as a more-sexualized counterpart. Not to say all those men want to just sleep with you; some want a genuine relationship and some are content just to acknowledge the sexual energy. This is a simplification, and you will find subtle differences, but I found this mind frame useful.

5. Learn to figure out the difference between offering advice because you don't know what to do and offering advice because, as a woman, they believe you can't know what to do. Hell, for the first two week I would advice against drawing any conclusions at all, since some people automatically baby new folk; you'll learn to tell the difference soon so unless it is really egregious - breathe. A good rule of thumb is file it for further reference (to check for patterns) unless you want to go to human resources.

6. Learn to do the job. Maybe you won't be fantastic at it, but learn to do it and try to do it well. Few things are more destructive to your self-esteem or career than being lousy and constantly asking for help.

7. That being said, don't convince yourself that you shouldn't ask for help, whether it's because you don't know what/how to do something, or because you physically can't. Sure it might be annoying to be considered 'a delicate lady', especially if you are working towards being stronger, but ruining your body through injury ensures that you won't ever get the respect, or the physique, you want.

8. Furthering that point, when you do start making gains and 'showing off' (Don't act like you aren't going to want to) tone things down about 10%. Failing really sucks and undermines your position. Also don't be surprised if guys show off in response, or 'preen'; a lot of guys still don't like what they perceive as " being beaten by a chick". Take heart, this attitude typically fades and is replaced by acknowledgement of abilities.

9. It is okay to reassure people you won't run to file a complaint at the sound of the first raunchy joke, but don't tell yourself that it means you can't ever go. Sometimes things get serious and you have to assess what would be a bigger damage to your mental happiness, things being awkward with coworkers or feeling like you waived your dignity for comfort.

10. It is so cliche, but don't forget to enjoy yourself. You chose this job for a reason so try to have a good time. If you find you genuinely can't, there is no shame in moving on. It happens and once you find the right job, you won't care what you waded through to find it.

Wildcard Weekend: U.S. Politics

I realize there were many submissions clamouring for the position, but I am afraid I have made my choice for Best Ad Campaign. I just lament that we don't have these kind of politicians in our country.

What does he stand for? What is his platform?

Platform? Oh, I have no clue, but, honestly, if your ad features a Korean lady hollering at you, Screw platforms. (Second one NSFW)

Now on a personal front, I am sad to say two of my best friends are moving away. They've been there for me (No, really. As in "comical sitcom montage" there for me.) and I will always be the better for having them in my life. For example, they would remind me they are only going for two years and will return but, see, without them here I don't have that perspective. So to Kkrk and Jo, have fun and come back soon. I guess there's only one thing left to say.

"Common sense" of the "Common people"

Oh, Canada. After the excitement of the election and the searing debate about whether Quebec would use the NDP to break up with the rest of Canada, we didn't notice that our backs were turned to the west and some weird stuff was happening. B.C's Conservative party has a leadership race ongoing, but there is only one candidate - the same man who is currently acting leader, John Cummins, a man whose furrowed, overhanging brows and stern gaze bring to mind a certain NRA spokes-Moses.

Determined to hit the gays - erm, excuse me - ground running, he has gone on record saying he does not believe homosexuality should be included on the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Human Rights Act because he believes it is a choice, so, you know, not like religion or marital status then... Well, to be fair, he says he is "pro-traditional marriage", so it is possible he means pro-arranged marriage, in which case one's marital status would not be a personal choice; it would be a parental choice.

But enough cheap shots; I shouldn't be allowed to scrutinize his "personal issues, private issues" I mean, it's not like he's attempting to force his personal private issues on the general public by running for political office, right? The more dedicated readers will point out that I have previously defended Mr. Harper when the media was examining his religious affiliations, but the difference here is that the beliefs are the issue, where they came from should not be.

I do hate that I agree with him when asked if attacks against homosexuals should be considered a hate crime, he responded that "If there's a crime against anybody, that crime should be dealt with to the full extent of the law". I do think they should be considered hate crimes, but I can appreciate the pragmatism here. He goes on to ruin the honeymoon by saying he dislikes judging motives in crimes, just like they do in manslaughter vs. murder trials, etc., but we had a special moment for a second.

Anyway, there is no need to saddle up the Panic Pants yet, the party is only a tiny fringe party, gaining two percent of the vote (in contrast, the green got eight) but this man used to be a federal MP, and it is possible he could gain supporters. Typically the right support the B.C. Liberal party, but we should all just be aware that we can't just dismiss B.C as a bunch of tree-hugging, Starbucks-swilling, Seattle wannabes (is that offensive?) They've taken a look in our crazy backyard, and they like what they see.

Accounta(Bill)ity

Now that we are all waking up from the alcohol fueled coma we have been sotted in since the election (for better or for worse) Bill C-51, a happy bundle of interesting developments to our criminal code, has been noticed. It makes me sad to admit it, since I relish taking the steam out of other people's alarmist ventures, but the bill is exactly as bad as we've been dreading.

It functionally makes anonymity illegal in every way that matters. Just recently I had heard a story on the radio about a politician whose reputation was smeared because an anonymous story had been published on the Internet and its scandalous nature boosted it to the first results when the man's name was googled. He alleged the story was untrue, and for a moment I pitied him and thought, "Isn't there anything we can do about this?" The answer is, "Yes, but not without eroding free speech." The bill states that everyone commits an offense who uses a false name to convey information that they know is false with intent to injure and alarm. Consider the reading of injure here to include libel, and the bill includes a pretty big tool for people who have been slagged on the interwebs. I am split on this notion that we should not be allowed to knowingly pass false information, but this may unfairly place the onus on every conveyor of information to ascertain truth or falsity, under pain of legislation. Furthermore, the ribbing and untruthful attacks on power is a form of keeping the playing field level, of allowing disgruntled citizens to feel they are getting their 'shots in', the falsity of most allegations come forth in time, should this really be a criminal offense?

On this development, however, there is some discussion about what really constitutes 'Anonymous'; for example, is an Anonymous handle merely sufficient, or does it refer to a deliberate obfuscation of one's ISP? Further, since it is also an offense to misrepresent one's identity, will a misleading handle (i.e StephenHarper) be illegal,or will a misrepresentation of the owner of an ISP be necessary? The language seems to suggest a handle is sufficient, but it would be foolish to eliminate their other form of prosecution.

The bill also makes no differentiation between people sharing a link to hate speech because they think it's cool and people that pass it for the purpose of information. This means a group working to stop the origin of the hate speech is just as culpable as the creators of such, if they link to their intended target. I have always disagreed with disconnecting the spirit of an offense from the fact of an offense, and this bill neatly aims to do just that in one of the most controversial areas of the law.

Finally, in conjunction with that old bill C-52, where I alleged that people would have to either turn off their phones or leave them at home, we now no longer have the option. This new bill would give police the right to remotely turn on a phone or other GPS tracking advice, such as those found in cars, similar to the way emergency services do. True, the warrant is currently limited to 60 days, unless it is linked  to a terrorism offense or organized crime. I guess they really didn't appreciate those G-20 cell videos. Looks like we're back to the days of carrying camcorders.

Excitement in the River Valley

Those of us in Edmonton have noticed the excitement of project KARE's arrival in the river valley this morning. Several tents, command centers, and cord ones have been set-up, and search dogs have been brought in. But the organization, created to investigate local deaths but expanded to include missing persons, is not saying what they are there for, except to dispel rumors that connect the search to Master Corporal Richard Curnow who went missing Thursday, May 5th while on a training run.

It's pretty exciting stuff, considering how rare the use of tracking dogs is, but if they are not searching for Mcpl Curnow, the only person missing recently enough to leave a scent trail that the dogs could follow, there are only a few reasons to bring in search and rescue dogs, and none of them are good.

From the pictures of the search the dog is one of two common SAR breeds: German Shepard or Belgian Malinois. If the dogs are Malinois, there is only one realistic purpose for bringing them out: to uncover IEDs. Considering the pipe bomb that was found and detonated on the Groat Road Bridge, and the unlikeliness that a bomber who would go to the trouble of making a bomb would get distracted after one failure and 'move on', the notion that RCMP received a bomb tip and are now frantically combing the area is not as far-fetched as those of us who like to consider Edmonton a 'sheltered city' would like to believe.

If the dogs are German Shepards, however, their mandate is much wider including ground or air-based tracking, drug sniffing, or locating human remains. The timeline of the investigation, they began to plan this search three weeks ago, suggests that it is most likely a cadaver search, if it is not bomb disposal. I have jogged through the river valley so let me be the first to say its a little creepy to imagine bodies lurking nearby. Not as creepy, however, as the idea of some attention starved moron planting home-made bombs around.

My main question remains, why are they so quick to distance themselves from the search for Mcpl Curnow? Project KARE typically only involves itself with high-risk missing persons (prostitutes or persons in the drug trade) but it sends a poor message when the search for a solider who went overseas twice in the service of our country is called off after only a weekend, with no conclusive leads and no explanation of likely scenarios.

The Baby and The Bathwater

I don't have a penis. Although it has rarely been an important factor in my life, it seems that it disqualifies me from having an opinion about procedures which involve them. (Apparently a vestigial tail is not "close enough") But ever since learning about the practice, its history and statistics, I have been a staunch supporter of non-circumcision.

If I have a failing, however, it is that I tend to assume that any view I hold is automatically held by others of sound mind, and so I was surprised to learn that almost half the male babies in Alberta are put through the procedure. It is unlikely to be a cultural practice (which I won't comment on here - the benefits of the religious affinity cannot and should not be measured against the pros or cons of the procedure, it is for the religion itself to debate) since the national average is far below Alberta's rate, but rather something people are having done simply out of habit or misinformation.

A common reason is that fathers don't want their sons to look different from themselves, an argument that would be laughed out of any other medical procedure debate but is apparently tolerated in this special bubble. The fact that it is, actually, a medical procedure that carries inherent risk, is put on the back shelf to the consideration that the father might one day have to explain to his child that some penises look different and that's okay.

In defense of the procedure, however, a common argument against is that the child's human rights are being violated since they obviously cannot consent to the procedure, a point that often causes parents to collapse on the ground, helpless with laughter. "The child can't consent" they chortle, "better stop taking them to the dentist/ making them eat new foods/ wear 'itchy' sweaters!" The fact is that parents are parents, and they have the right to make decisions about their child's medical considerations.

A compelling argument for circumcision is that studies have shown it can protect against various sexually transmitted diseases, for example lowering transmission of HPV (especially when used in concert with the HPV vaccination). As someone who does not support the procedure, however, I am always baffled by the notion that people would support this option over the superior option of encouraging condom use (or cleaning in the case of the urinary tract infection argument). The perennial response to this is that condoms are sometimes not widely available, which is relevant for third world countries but in Alberta, this really is not a valid objection. As for a child's ability to clean, despite the risk of cavities, we don't take away their teeth (or toenails as another debater pointed out).

The downside to the non-cutting side is that activists tend to refer to it as barbaric, unnecessary, and talk of the lasting damage, while men with circumcisions shake their heads from the sidelines. The point is that it rarely eliminates sensation, and only occasional experiences complications, so fatalist arguments tend to repel curious parents who check out the circumcised camp, expecting blood-thirsty maniacs, to find a dearth of "haunted, mutilated, men" and reason that it isn't all that bad, ignoring the more reasonable, compelling arguments against circumcision.

Frustratingly, both sides claim the high ground on the "sexual sensation" debate, due to the fact that since no long-term, rigorous, tests have been or can be done, all evidence is anecdotal, and extremely capricious. 

What all these contrary arguments boil down to is that it is, of course, for the parents to decide. It would be better, however, if the reasons for circumcision were more thoroughly thought out, since I suspect we would see a drop in the procedure (not an elimination - it is still medically necessary occasionally) if people investigated more.

Canadian Election Results 2011

This post is written with some mild non-Conservative flavor and is not really relevant for Tory voters.

The Conservatives have won their majority government, the NDP forms the official opposition, the Liberals have no place in Parliament for the first time ever in Canadian history and the leader of the Green party won the party's only (and first) seat in parliament. Two of the party leaders were not elected in their respective ridings and the landscape of the country is vastly different. However, courtesy of our voting system the majority of people (60%) will have voted for a party candidate that did not win the election. Rather than tucking into the ice cream and sobbing (or perhaps after) focus on the things that can be done now.

Talk to your candidate. The most important consideration of democracy is that you have a voice in parliament; as long as your MP accurately represents your concerns, beliefs, and priorities, then it does not really matter what party they belong to. (Except for the probability of whip votes).

Talk to other people. Create a dialogue about what is going on in parliament so that when another election rolls around the ground-work is already laid for accurate representation of previous actions, rather than the political mud-slinging that tends to choke the airwaves around election time, obscuring the real issues.

Talk to yourself. I don't mean pretend you have a Bluetooth so you can wander around muttering to yourself, I mean take heart. It likely won't be so bad. Consider the bright side: we live in a first world country - in all seriousness things are never going to get too bad. This just means we must all be more attentive to political occurrences than we have been, and that has never been easier than in this day and age. 

Wildcard Weekend: Animal Shorts

On the day before election, what better than a couple of adorable animated animal clips to brighten your sunday? Expertly animated and totally chuckle-worthy, I hand-picked these just for my Dear Reader.








And one a little spooky to round it all out!