Edmonton EX-PO 2017

We lost the expo bid. Edmonton went up against some pretty high-class European cities and we didn't fail against them, we failed because our government gave up before we started to fight.
Now, I don't care one way or the other. There was only a snowball's chance in hell I was going to spend my hard earned (sitting on my butt) money on something like an Expo, but maybe it would have brought in some more publicity, who knows? Grey cup has sure packed our city to damn-near the brim with people; I hear all our hotels are booked solid, which might also be due to the fact that there was a recent high-rise fire, forcing the tenants to move temporarily to hotel and motel lodgings. But the whole point is neither here nor there.

The thing that concerns me, that raises my eyebrows, was why we were denied. Budget, of course, was cited. Edmonton had planned on putting up several million dollars, but would have required the federal government to add around $700 million to complete the picture. The idea had been criticized by the Canadian taxpayer's association, but a survey taken of Albertans revealed around 80% supported the idea.

After a year of planning and organizing, Edmonton put forth the bid proposal to the federal government, who administered a quick double-tap to the back of the idea's head, while the majority of Edmontonians stood around, speechless. Except for Stephen Mandel, who proceeded to blow his Mayoral top all over MLA Rona Ambrose, saying that he felt she was responsible for the failed proposal. Bless him for being a politician who isn't afraid to speak his mind, which is mercifully not preoccupied with cookies.

The reason given is that it was too much money on too risky a proposal, given our chaotic financial times, especially focusing on the variable security costs, but in the canned speech we were spoon-fed, the fact that we have the oil-sands was brought up multiple times. I can see one of two reasons for this; feeling the economic pinch over in Ontario, the Federals are pissed because we're just doing better over here thanks to the oil-sand's revenue, so they aren't going to give us any money (especially when I hear rumors that the amount we have waived in royalties to keep the oil companies here is about equal to the money we requested for the Expo bid, not that we could hamstring ourselves permanently just to support a one-time party. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying) or two, the security risk could be increased by the recent bad-karma and negative publicity that's been thrown around regarding the oil-sands, and with more radicals moving into Canada, like the Parliament-scaling Greenpeace, it's possible they don't have enough of a handle on the situation to know whether we should be bringing pepper-spray, guns, or tanks, which doesn't really look very positive from a security standpoint ("Hey, guys, should we be nervous?") Don't we have some form of  Canadian Rumsfeld? Somewhere?

Anyway, doesn't matter. We can have a super party and then not invite them.

Front Page Glitter

Canadians, we reap what we sow.

Low voter turnout, largely apathetic public, and a citizenry that seems more concerned about who is staying on "dancing with the stars" than genuine politicians have lead us to the end where politicians and other public figures are becoming clowns just to catch our attention and keep us involved in the process. I think the next step is jingling keys in our faces while making kissy faces.

A key health care board-member who earns $700,000 shoos off the reporters buzzing around him like flies saying he doesn't want to answer questions because he's eating a cookie.

A Crown prosecutor who is viewing a case in which a mother is accused of beating her toddler to death, is accused of distracting the jury by making weird faces, putting the case at risk of being declared a "mistrial".

An elected MLA is removed from his party's caucus because he wrote an angry email about the state of the health care system in Alberta.

A girl is charged with four counts of fraud after she bilked caring people out of their money by claiming she had cancer and even plucking her eyelashes so she could pretend she was going through chemotherapy.

A local newspaper prints comments from YouTube as serious public reactions to a political controversy.

We had a municipal election in Edmonton where the majority of candidates won less than 5000 votes.

Correctional Services for Canada has handled documents for four inmates who are requesting sex-change operation funding when most non-criminal citizens can not get funding approved.

Our fair city spent hundreds of thousands preparing for our Expo 2017 bid, when the federal government pulls the rug out from under us, insisting they can't afford to help fund us.

Our Country was denied a position on the United Nation's security council, and now the position is up for grabs by a country that can't even stamp out internal dowry killings.

Randy Milholland does not believe in eating peanut butter with your fingers. 

Europe is dismayed that our federal government made changes to our national census, and says we had always been held up as the benchmark for impartial statistics keeping. First our peacekeeper status, then our dignity, and now our scientific sovereignty.

The better business bureau in B.C (say that three times fast) is accused of biased numbers, even though they are where Canadians turn to when treated unfairly by businesses, and sometimes seems like the last refuge against unbridled capitalism.

Is there no sacred cow we won't slaughter?

Look, Kids, a Genuine Government Straw-man!

The government of Canada and British Columbia have finally decided to move against the polygamist Mormon sect in Bountiful B.C with a court case aimed at deciding whether a law against polygamy would violate Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
How could anyone object to that?

The problem arises when they ask the question "is all polygamy illegal, or just unions involving minors or exploitation?" To answer this question they have put the Mormon sect on trial. A sect that is not only polygamist, but also involved in the exploitation of minors and women. The court cannot seriously expect to find a fair and balanced answer when it only puts one form of Polygamy forth to be evaluated. If you are running experiments to see if being male leads to being a murderer, and then only investigate murderers, of course you are going to find that being male causes murderous rages; proper scientific procedure requires the evaluation of all angles.


In the interest of full disclosure, I'll state that polygamist sects creep me out. It seems when polygamy is tied to a religious belief, it produces some uncomfortable feelings that not even the show Big Love could thoroughly disavow me of, and does seem to correlate with the sexualization of minors. On the other hand, however, I have seen some polygamist relationships, and read "The Ethical Slut" (which should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to have any kind of relationship, Mono-, bi-, poly-, self-, etc. and is not just about being a slut, but also abstinence.) and when they are entered into with an open and loving mind, by healthy adults, then they certainly seem to work well for people.


I do believe we should decriminalize polygamy. However, we should continue to prosecute child molestation and prosecute even worse forcing children to enter into matrimony. In Canada, it is always legal to marry if you are over 18, but in most cases it is also legal to marry while underage with parental consent. I don't believe that children are ready, at that critical stage in their lives, to make the giant leap to formally include someone in the rest of their life, so help them God til death do them part, and I think it's ridiculous that parents would encourage that behavior. I also suspect that the sect is capitalizing on this law since in B.C, children 16-18 can get married with parental consent, and under 16 can get married with the consent of the supreme court or a county court.


Mr. Craig Jones has gone on record saying that the crimes in Bountiful are the "inevitable consequences of a polygamist society", but I disagree. They are the logical result of a set of beliefs that think women are good only for breeding and that there is no higher purpose than procreation. These beliefs combine with the fact that females are physically capable of reproducing as soon as they experience menses which is occurring earlier and earlier in each generation and results in the logical consequence; start having babies as soon as possible and keep going until you can't anymore. The women don't know they can aspire to more because they aren't formally taught and if there is no higher purpose than procreation, why bother waiting for things like emotional and mental maturity?


So let's first take care of things like making sure everyone has access to good education, prosecute child abuse, and then maybe we can create a society where consenting adults can enter into healthy polygamist relationships together.


Also, had to spend a few hours in an emergency room due to some cramps that were so bad I had Victor worried, but turned out to be nothing. Anyway, happy to report I was in and out in under four hours with excellent treatment, even though just coming in and claiming to be in pain usually gets a note on your chart about "drug-seeking behavior" and some stern questions. Now I'm totally willing to believe in Alberta's health care system! Also, I have the advice of a health-care professional that broccoli, red meat, and dark chocolate is good for cramps, so I have the green light to eat like a douche, fart like a man, and eat slabs of cow. Good days, good days.

C is for Contention

When problems arise in close relationships, they usually look like something moronic. Every couple a story about their first fight, and chances are, it's something ridiculous. "He doesn't put the forks in the dishwasher right." "She doesn't change the toilet paper roll." "He/she was driving too [whatever]." The important thing in these arguments is seeing what they really are, underneath. It's not really about forks, it's about an equal division of labor in the house; it's not the toilet paper roll, it's selfishness or lack of concern for your partner; it's not your driving, it's where you are going. (Individual results may vary, proceed with caution) Woe be the partner who doesn't understand that when you trivialize the issue, saying it's just a fork, you are trivializing the bigger problem that your partner can't vocalize.

Cute advice, but I thought this was a political blog?
Right you are, Dear Reader, so here's the surprise: It's the same in the workplace. Your employees aren't really upset because there's no coffee in the break-room, they're feeling underpaid; They aren't really complaining about one more stop, they're complaining because they're feeling put upon, and overworked. It's not professional, but it's a reality. It's how people find ways to express their internal frustrations. Although it would be both unprofessional and a "career-limiting" move for health care workers to weigh in with their opinions about Mr. Duckett (who I hear was imported from Australia) I think it might be a pretty accurate gauge of how people feel.

So if Mr. Stephen Duckett thinks he's going to be canned for a cookie I think he's experiencing some misapprehensions, and should probably be cut off from watching scrubs, because that's not accurate, sir. If anything in this situation is going to be the nail in his career's coffin, it's going to be the people under him not supporting him. Rumor has it that health care workers are as frustrated as citizens are with the system; and who's surprised? It's a tough situation. No-one honestly believes that health-care workers are sitting around, gleeful that the emergency room is overstocked again. We know they're working their collective asses off, and it's just a heartbreak that the system can't do their efforts justice. Hopeful some of the new measure being up in place will do some good. Like Dr. Cox has said, it used to be the life being a doctor, but not anymore.

But the issue is Mr. Duckett's insensitivity. He has  gone on record saying that he was not intended to be the one talking to the media, that honor was given to a "senior physician", so it was not really his responsibility to be the bearer of the news, but perhaps he could have found a more tactful way to covey the message. We seem to expect all people who find themselves in higher ranking positions to be immediately aware of how to deal with the media and constant scrutiny, but there doesn't seem to be any reason why we expect this. Knowing how to romance the journal doesn't really imply a better ability to oversee the health care program. In fact, just assuming that because someone is charming means they have all the answers has gotten many people into trouble over the course of human history ("Thug say tree good for eating!Him has shiny hair! Me eat!"), so much so that frankness seems to be the exception and can occasionally be considered endearing to many. This does usually require that the person has supporters already, however.

Claiming, as some have, that Mr. Duckett is just a scapegoat, and that he didn't make the system, but simply worked within it, so he should not be punished for it's failure is much like saying since sociological forces create poverty, criminals shouldn't be punished for committing crimes; perhaps being able to not punish them for working within a faulty system would be the ideal, but we're so many light-years from the ideal that we can't even see it with a telescope.

By now, it's kind of a moot point, since Mr. Zwozdesky has warmed up his vocal cords, pulled the right strings, and issued the statement that:

 “I told him I thought those were inappropriate comments, I’m sure you regret you uttered them, and he said, ‘Yes.’ ”

but did he say it while your lips were moving? On the subject of giving him the old 'heave-ho' he asserted that,

“He’s in the role that he’s in right now, and I have to have a level of comfort and confidence in him that he can and will deliver. So we’re going to give him and everyone in the system a chance to do that.”

In other words, we'll be watching Mr. Duckett's career with bated breath, but you know if the new system fails, they've got their fall-boy already packed up.

I put the Lime in the Coconut?

This new survey has discovered that Canadians tend to use emergency rooms during the night to deal with things that could have been dealt with at a clinic if the services were available and this is putting stress on our emergency rooms with non-critical things. Frankly, the big shocker now is how people could have believed that illness stops just because the sun went down.

I've always felt that night workers and people who don't keep normal schedules are poorly serviced by the "day folk" in the form of terrible hours of operation and such things. Late night eating? Don't get me started. Banking? Hah. Even Grocery shopping to an extent is an affair that must be scheduled and executed with rigid precision. Perhaps it's exacerbated by the fact that I have become forced to schedule in bathroom times, and that I consider multitasking an art-form, so spontaneous excursions to pick up milk or what-have-you are "frowned upon" shall we say.

The report goes on to say we also suck at "landing a doctor's appointment the next day"; well, let me rock your socks with some anecdotal evidence! My sister went to the doctor quite recently, with her toddler and infant sons, and was told to make an appointment to come back, but when she spoke with the receptionist on her way out, was told they "didn't do appointments" which I think is just abysmal customer service. I think she should have held up the baby and said,  "This guy made an appointment to be born, I'm sure you can pencil in a note". Upon her return to the medical clinic they waited an excessively long amount of time (With a toddler and a baby, ANY time waiting should be too long, but they waited what would be a long time for a geriatric on Valium) and upon their entrance to the doctor he stated (taking his life loosely unless he's a certified self-surgeon) that they should have made an appointment. My sister, bless her patience, pointed out that they had tried, and the response they got. The doctor then told her the magic words were "Fast track appointment" instead of "appointment" which is so many levels of asinine stupidity that it could really demean all of us to list them (also cause my mommy to bake me a Sodium hydroxide cake when I get home for Christmas [The cake is a lye]) so now that she knows the secret code, hopefully this experience won't be repeated, but the point rings true, if they're going to be such dicks about allowing us to make doctor's appointments, of course we're going to be lousy at getting them.

I don't even have a doctor, to be honest, since my last one belted out about how I was suffering from Irritable bowel syndrome, and the stool was building up in my lower intestine (Is this also why he believes I have a stomach ulcer?) just because I mentioned some abdominal pain (Worst date ever. I wish I was kidding.), I have sort of drifted from doctor to doctor. Besides, my current town does not have any available doctors. I did try, when I graduated, to find a steady doctor, I really did. I went to the physician's website, looked for all general doctors that were taking new patients,  started by screening for geographic location, but eventually, just anything. Almost every single one, to a doctor, upon phoning (keep in mind I only phoned doctors that the site indicated were looking for patients) said that they were not, in fact, looking, were full booked, what was I thinking of, or were highly specialized (the website included an area for doctors to indicate that they specialized in whatever) and didn't take me at my word when I insisted that I really was a highly sentient sheep, what's that, oh yes, with licky end, so of course I fit his specialization.

Anyway, back to the point, we should start looking at making ourselves a 24 hour city, province or nation. I hear tell that over in the Center of the Universe they have many 24 hour amenities, but in Edmonton we might as well be practicing for air-raids, for all I can see at night. I have seriously been forced to do grocery shopping at a 24 hour London Drugs. If we began to incorporate some Non-Doctor doctor-ish options, perhaps we could ease the burden. True, it would require some pretty hefty regulations to ensure complete quality and would probably also take a while for people to adjust to considering other forms of care just as valid as doctors, but honestly, if he/she is gonna make me feel better, I don't really care if they call themselves Doctor, Nurse practitioner, or Lord-Llama of the Divine Ya-ya doctor-hood.

The last notion that we could possibly incorporate is a fine for misuse of the emergency room. "But wait! Remember when Vic was crippled by stomach pain and barfing? What if it had been a stomach bug instead of appendicitis?" Well, Dear Reader, we'd accept the possible risk of fine, but weighed it properly against the possibility that it could have been mundane (Not damn likely; Vic's way too sensitive about wasting food to give it back.) We don't want to encourage people to not come to the hospital, we just really want people to be sure it's important.

It's so old hat to whine about emergency wait-times that I'm sure there's going to be a Norman Rockwell painting about it offered for sale on a wine tray any day, but with the recent glut of stories designed to tug at people's heartstrings, we're re-paying attention to it, which just underscores how obnoxious the public consciousness is. We don't focus on numbers and statistics, we focus on the human, compelling tragic stories, which may not actually represent salient, real, or fixable problems. The major news medias are aware of this and boy do they ever capitalize on that. We don't want to hear about how more people die  from motor vehicle accidents, we want to hear about plane crashes. Spectacular ones. With puppies on board.

Feelin' like a Natural Woman

There's a hidden connection between two stories available on CBC's main website today, even though it may not look like it.

One covers how Canada has fallen in its standings with respect to equal treatment of women, ranking 20th in world in terms of women advancement, pay equality, and maternity benefits (Scrapping for example a $5 billion child-care initiative). There is even some allegation that senior officials have ties to anti-feminist organizations.

The other deals with a review of the Canadian agency that oversees artificial reproduction. It appears to be headed by a board of 6 directors, with one President, who is the contentious link in the chain. It's fantastic that women are leading this agency, even if I think it smells a little of anti-male sentiments, thus buying into the old sexist notions that "babies are womenfolk's work". However, what are we doing with it? We're proving the "haters" right by squabbling amongst ourselves.

There are two parts to the review; the first is a much needed financial review. Absolutely in any government agency when there is a suspicion of fiscal dishonesty, such as the allegations that the president was taking personal vacations on the agency's dime, have at it with the Auditors of Righteous Fury. No one pays me to take a vacation, I am certainly not paying taxes to send someone else on one.

The other issue is that the president is bullying people on the board. Bullying can be a serious allegation; remember what's-his-name chucking books at legislative aides? Hilarious on T.V maybe, but not something you want to see really happening. But when men are accused of bullying they are screaming, ranting, borderline-rabid maniacs. I don't think we should become like that, but don't waste my time saying she "flapped her hands at me" and that made you feel marginalized. If you felt like she dismissed your idea, either put up or shut up. If you don't have enough faith in your ideas to push them, why should the board have more faith?  Three people are reporting feeling bullied, two people are not. I notice it's hardly relevant now, since she has retired, and I also notice how that reinforces the stereotype that women will not confront people to their faces, but instead will wait until it's a passive aggressive move. (Could also be in consideration of not creating a hostile work environment)

The only place I'm torn is on the allegation that while struggling to remember the acronym LGBTQ (for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gendered, Queer network) she referred to the network as BLT (which is a tasty sandwich) but she has insisted that it does not reflect her feelings towards the network or the people. I must confess, the acronym does not exactly roll off the tongue, and I myself have started to just kind of trail into random letters, but I know people that identify with this network, and in this climate, following a string of heartbreaking suicides by bullied LGBTQ individuals, we should be more sensitive to perceived slights against the organization.

He Took his Vorpal Cell in Hand...

Oh Frabjous day; the new activist battle cry is here!
To join the ranks of such esteemed members as "Votes for Women", "Black Power" and "Make Love not War" is the line for our times:
"Don't touch my junk"

I'm not going to post the man's name here because he is obviously just another scum sucking twit looking for his fifteen minutes (Fifteen minutes that should rightly be mine) and it won't do to feed the enthusiasm, which  apparently now includes trendy apparel baring the slogan. I believe he is an attention-seeking mome because he recorded himself refusing, which means that he obviously prepared in advance. He was pulled aside for a random full-body scan, after he began recording of course, but it makes me wonder if it was really random, or if they picked up on his goofy expression as he thought "Boy, I'm really gonna pull a fast one on them!".

Consider: reading people's emotions may be the only safe-guard we have left. As Mr. Plambeck has pointed out, "There is a ridiculously common explosive that is ENTIRELY undetectable by every method currently used in airport security" so our best chance to stop this form of terrorism (every time I use that word I sigh) is to notice that dude is sure sweating a hell of a lot... Not that this method is particularly good, but it really hasn't been developed as much as it could be (then again I might be overly sympathetic to the method, given my psychology background).

When the man pitched a fit and refused a full body search he was given a refund on his ticket, but as he went to leave he was stopped by another airline officer who told him that he would run the risk of a $10,000 ticket and a lawsuit if he did not return to pass through security screening. A lot of people think this is overstepping their jurisdiction, but look at it this way; this guy would rather cancel his entire trip, inconveniencing his travel partners and suffering a partial refund just so he didn't have to let a security officer too close to his wee-wee area. You are damn right I'd be suspicious. That officer probably thought he was catching another terrorist (which I won't even bother to dissect the whole "terrorist plots everywhere" since I lack sufficient evidence to believe or disbelieve any news casts about such things [Isn't that funny, just a year ago I took news at it's word and now I can't believe a thing]) and I'm willing to put money on the fact that he was probably concerned, at least in the back of his mind, that the man he was confronting was going to knife him and detonate the 'port.

The cynic in me wonders if he simple balked because he didn't really want to go on a hunting trip with his father-in-law. He refused to go through a body scanner, and requested a whole body search instead, which is his right, but when the agent informed him that the agent would need to touch his groin area, the man shouted "Don't touch my junk!" See, he believes that since HE knows he isn't a criminal, we should just all SENSE it as well and let him pass unhindered to whatever destination he chooses. Perhaps he feels we should have psychics screening people at the gates now, "Hmm. Your aura is dark; I sense much fear in you. Please step this way, you are under arrest."

I hope everyone remembers the signs they put up in most establishments about how they reserve the right to refuse service; I feel these are relevant in this case. Dip-stick MaGee here does not have the damn right to fly on an airline. Flying is a privilege, and if you aren't going to party nice with the security people they aren't going to let you play in their sandbox. He was given a refund on his ticket price and as far as I'm concerned I don't care if he never flies again. No sweat off my ass. He can pitch a fit and stomp his feet all he wants, but if the airline wants to say they're only giving flights to people who can recite the entire pledge of allegiance backwards, What the hell are we going to do about it?

Some people say it's too much to have the security agent touch one's groin area, one person even likened the action to fondling, which in my personal opinion means he gets his jollies by imaging security people in much more sexual circumstances then they really occur in. I can not wait for the day when someone goes to the doctor and insists that the doctor diagnose him without touching him. "I'm really concerned about prostate cancer, Doc, but I'm not taking my pants off." Well, there's the door, sunny, don't let it hit your ass on the way out because it really costs too much to hire a defense lawyer for a door.

I notice, however, that none of the security guards are kicking up a fuss about how he recorded them, including sound, for public viewing on the Internet, without giving them the dignity of asking if they minded. Apparently since they work for "the man" they don't deserve rights. I can't record my own university lectures, and my workplace is not allowed to record sound, but this guy can do as he likes. He is even heard at one point to say he will submit to one kind of screening, but not the other. If only we all could define things the way we liked.
"Yes, I'll pay the parking ticket, but not the speeding ticket."

Easing the Youth's Burden of Proof

I'm going to start including a "trigger" warning for stories that I feel will really hit an uncomfortable or contentious note for people, since there are some topics that can really inflame people (sexual assault, sad stories involving kids, graphic murders, etc.) and it's worse when you aren't expecting it. Needless to say, this is one.
The leading line in the Canadian Press for a story you can read here about the age-of-consent laws runs thus:
"An increase in Canada's age of consent law from 14 to 16 was supposed to protect teens from sexual exploitation, but a new study suggests the legislation may not be helping kids who are most at risk."

To which the majority of sane Canadians reply: "No? Really?!" The last thing kids are thinking about when they're having sex is laws. Pounding hormones are a far cry from the heavy beating of judge's gavel. Of course, that's not really the cases they're talking about. They are talking about cases where children 13 years old and younger (brace yourself) are having sex  with adults twenty years old and more, which apparently happens more frequently than kids 14 to 15 years old. The statement that infuriates me the most in the article is that the law was designed to protect younger kids from making poor decisions regarding their sexual activities. As if these children are making the choice- intelligently, healthily- to become involved with someone that much older.

There is something desperately wrong with our society when kids cannot have a relationship without sex in it, worse when they think they can have a relationship with someone that much older while they are still that young, evolving and growing. I am sure many young people would insist that they are mature enough at that age to form intelligent decisions and choose their own partners, but it leaves the question that if they are that "right" together, why are they not "right" when they've had time to grow and solidify their personality without someone warping it? The likelihood that someone that much older is doing it because they feel genuine love and concern for the child, is almost non-existent. The majority of times it is about sexual exploitation.

Apparently most sexual education classes don't cover the issue of sexual exploitation, according to the article, which should be a crime. Especially when we consider the accessibility of the Internet and the increasing sexualization of younger and younger kids (Is Beiber seriously 15? Miley Cyrus 16? Taylor Lautner is 17? Take these babies off the catwalk and put them back into their homes.) we need to be realistic and stop hiding our faces when it comes to sexual predators. Even the recent acceptance of "Twi-moms" screaming for Taylor Lautner, who is underage, reflects a double standard that I think may come to have grave consequences in later years. Some people underestimate how much young boys need to be protected but in this increasingly equalized world, we need to make adjustments now. Failing to teach our children how to recognize a predator and how to deal with them is like not teaching people self-defense because we don't want them to be attacked. If they don't have to use it (Thank God) then they are in a position to offer assistance to any friends that might be unfortunate enough to fall into a bad situation, or at the very least recognize when a young kid thinks they are "in love" with someone identifiable as a predator.
 
The point I'm not really getting to is about a case recently posted in the news about a confirmed sexual predator who was charged not guilty with the sexual assault of an eleven year old girl. True, he says she was in his home for no reason and he was convicted of sexually assaulting another girl around the same time, but he didn't touch her, he insists. The case was dismissed because there were "inconsistencies" in the story told by the eleven year old. The eleven year old that had allegedly gone through a traumatic experience over two years ago. Funny that she didn't remember everything perfectly.  Needless to say, this issue is disgusting. I don't even believe children under the age of 15 should be allowed to give testimony in court cases, let alone as the pivotal witness in their own sexual assault case, but that's a result of my psychology background and is neither here nor there. The change I am proposing is that we should change sexual assault cases involving minors to reflect a more civil infraction guideline. You see, in Canada's criminal court, one must be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, you must only prove that it is more likely the case than not the case. I feel that if we changed assault cases involving minors to reflect this sort of dynamic, we would see less cases after a period of adjustment.

It would require a lot of changes, I'm not even sure we could adapt to make the changes, but it would require some things that I largely consider common-sense and some people who have had unfortunate experiences with untrustworthy people have already adapted. Don't put yourself in a compromising position. For example, don't have an eleven year old over at your house, unsupervised, when you are assaulting other young girls in your spare time! That wasn't so hard, really. In the case of babysitters, I feel they should have to go through the same screening that child care workers do; a minimal police background check. This is going to clog up the pipes for a while and make babysitters an even more scarce resource but perhaps after you trust the person, you can give them a pass of your own.

This issue is reflected most clearly in a case occurring in my own town of Morinville that almost ruined a young teacher's career, not to mention his life. A student claimed he had touched her inappropriately but the judge ruled that her story was so confused as to be untrustworthy, and she is widely considered to have lied. This increased emphasis on believing the alleged victim  is ripe for exploitation by malicious youths with an axe to grind but I have already made the claim that people who falsely claim assault (and it can be proven they did so with malice aforethought) should be given the sentence that would have been given their victim had they succeeded.


All this really requires is that people take more care, and evaluate the positions they put themselves in so when criminal investigations arise, there are less ambiguities. It is sad that this won't eliminate the most common form of child sexual assault (that is, by a family member), but one step at a time.

Sometimes you Just Hang Your Head

Another news story has the press that causes me to involuntarily convulse. A 22 year old man has been found not criminally responsible for killing his mother back in 2008. She died because he stabbed her in the neck.

Let's get one thing straight; Mental disorders are unfair. They are sick, cruel, brutal problems that affect people indiscriminately and without remorse or reason. But I can just hear the chorus now, "He's getting off easy! He just pleaded insanity!". The very first commenter on the story quipped if being not criminally responsible  is "the buzz word and free pass for 2010/2011?". The general public does not really understand the horror of mental disorders, and this whole story is not going to help, even considering the fact that both the defense and the prosecutor pushed to have the man declared not criminally responsible.


First of all, he has schizophrenia AND he decided to take steps, whatever he believed they would achieve, that resulted in the death of his mother. These facts should remains separate. People too often associate mental disorders with being dangerous and it is true that if a mentally disabled person does become violent it is more difficult to reason with them since they are under impressions that are not under their or anyone's control, but since our definition of mental disorder includes "unable to be reasoned with" this leads us back to the same situation where I have to lock my doors fastidiously every night because I'm still thinking about the Russell Williams murders and he most certainly does not have a mental disorder (a few paraphilias, perhaps, but certainly no chemical disorders like schizophrenia).

The reason why he is not held criminally responsible, however, is because he believed, through whatever chain of reasoning he was privy to, that putting the glass in his mother's neck was like acupuncture and it would cure her of the desire, he believed she possessed, to kill him. He was acting under a faulty belief, much in the same way that children, animals, or people with fanatical religious devotion do. The difference being that these people can be taught what the consequences of their actions are, and so it is right to punish them, but in this young man's case there is a goblin in his head that is stealing that comprehension and so until we can fix that, punishment will serve no purpose. If we want our justice system to operate properly, we must be aware of the steps to take in order to ensure a full understanding of the violation and the discipline. I hate to make a crude comparison, but when training animals, you cannot just punish them without allowing them to know what they have done wrong or else it just embitters the animal.


The biggest lesson we can take from this is to ensure that people with previously identified mental disorders, he was known to be schizophrenic prior to the incident, get the help that they require, and that they continue to utilize the methods to maintain normalcy. Many people after being on their medications for a while believe they are cured, and so decide to stop taking them. But it is just as hard to identify the onset of mental disorders as it is hard to identify a relapse, especially if the individual is more scared of the diagnosis the second time around. I am willing to guarantee the grief this young man will feel once he becomes capable of understanding what has occurred at his hands will equal the grief of anyone who has lost a loved one to a violent crime.


The biggest obstacle we face to the successful enactment of these measures is that the man is now known to be a violent offender, yet he needs to be afforded proper medical treatment and care, putting our medical staff at risk and putting a strain on our already burdened mental health facilities, perhaps indefinitely. Also we need to start considering a better system to deal with repeat domestic violence calls; the police knew the domicile well because they had been there several times before to deal with domestic violence calls. There should be a point where the police are able to say "No more calls", and further measures are put in place. I hate to burden our social welfare system further, but perhaps counseling could have prevented this tragedy.   

International Politics

I've tried to keep the focus of this blog on Canadian matters, but I want to make a slight diversion to include this article, since I feel the issue is one that affects us, and that we must be more cognizant of before it becomes our downfall; Canada may be considered a pathetic character by the rest of the world, but in our fight for greater relevancy we must guard against become a tragic figure. We shall not be Icarus.

To set the back-story; it is a huge industry to send Westerners overseas to teach English, since speaking English is considered a valuable asset in many countries. Just this fact alone should make us aware of the opportunity for exploitation. Many Americans consider people who do not speak English to be less intelligent, which is a failing on their part, fosters the notion that it is "right" that people should speak English, and if they do not then it is "their problem". From this precarious imbalance comes the following situation; a young girl in the Ukraine was attending an English language class taught by an American lawyer. From early transcripts of their discussions, she appeared to have a rough friendship with her teacher, reminiscent of the usual sort of teacher-student relationships that are common everywhere. During these he made statements (language warning) about his students and the Ukraine such as:


"This place is so monumentally fucked up it deserves whatever bad things ever happens to it"
“why are all you ukrainians so fucking stupid. and what was the bullshit about not taking the test, i give a fuck if your dumb ukrainian ass takes my test, i don't give a fuck about all of you (…) in fact, fuck you.” 
“one more thing you dumb bitch, you and her, are out of my class on thursday, you do not set foot in my company again or i will personally call the cops for you trespassing.”

She complained about his behavior, but graduated and, like survivors should, moved on.  However, he was her neighbor, so she could not simply evict him from her life. At the beginning of October, on the 9th, just before noon, she was returning home with groceries when he was returning home from his jog and he beganto berate her for being Ukrainian, then began to hit her, threw her to the ground, and spit on her. An elderly lady nearby yelled at him to stop but he told her to "shut up stupid cunt", and tried to drag her inside his home, repeating "ugly things of sexual kind".  At this point it becomes a bit confused, her English is not perfect, but he left her outside and she went to report to the police, who asked her why "he only pushed you, why did you call police"? and various other admonishments. They told her that the man would sue her since she was leading him on to get American citizenship. After three days she signed a paper saying she "refuse from claims" and left to rebuild her dignity.

She wonders on her website "Why do we tolerate foreigners, who insult our land, our nation, our history, our gains?" and "why do we keep bowing to everything western?". That we could allow this travesty to continue is unforgivable. 

In a handout by Compass magazine in March 2009,  the teacher states that he likes working in Kyiv because "the girls are beautiful" . In that same handout there is this joke: 

A wise schoolteacher sends this
note to all parents on the first day of
school: "If you promise not to believe
everything your child says that
happens at school, I'll promise not to
believe everything he says that
happens at home." 

What kind of an environment are we encouraging here?

I have no proof. I have no police reports. I have no information other than what has been provided by the student. Why? Because there appears to have been no investigation, no due process, no international outrage that an American could abuse his position as teacher so grossly as to threaten her with a lawsuit if she reports a crime that over in western society, we would be disgusted by.  Why is this being buried? Because he is expensive. It would cost too much to train and bring another one over. Her dignity and safety is worth less  than the cost of another English teacher. 


Can you recognize the pattern of his behavior? He was angry and ill-mannered online, then apologized; he attacked her and tried to drag her inside his house, then phoned her and apologized. This, for anyone not familiar, is the cycle of abuse. Abuse, then what's called a honeymoon phase, when everything seems better. But the abuse will escalate and if we do not address this issue now, the next news report will be more severe. Abusers almost never stop on their own. 

What if she's lying?
There's always that possibility. We should not allow ourselves to believe the victim in every circumstance since it will be eagerly exploited, such as the case in my own town of Morinville where a teacher was accused of sexually touching some students, who was cleared of all charges, and it is widely believed they made up the stories. I feel these incidents should carry heavy sentences for the liars. But we will not know if she is lying or not until an official investigation can be held, and it looks as though there will not be one, which does not look good.  However, she also does not divulge her name, which does not look good either.
One thing is for sure;  this needs to be looked into. And given that a month has passed already, this needs to be looked into as soon as possible, as the evidence disappears day by day.

Biting the Hand That Beats us

Amazon, it was recently discovered, was offering for sale a book on (Brace yourself) loving children by a pedophile. Apparently it was online for sale for two weeks before people began to notice and descended with sharpened free speech amendment sickles. Amazon briefly defended itself, saying it does not support censorship and relies on the intelligence of the purchaser, then the next day pulled the book off its non-corporeal shelves. Now people are up in arms, because once the hate-beast smells blood, it cannot be deterred, trolling through Amazon to find books on naturalists and such, holding them up as child pornography as one hoists one's petard. The Squawk-boxes are in full bellow, denouncing the evils of Amazon, and 'how could they betray us like this after being held up as a family-friendly, feel-good site'?

What the hell did everyone expect? Did the general public honestly believe Amazon would just turn down profit and traffic to hold up some higher moral code? There is a name for corporations like that; Liquidated (or not-for-profits, shut up). We have carefully crafted and built companies into machines designed only for churning out profit with no other thoughts in mind and then we shy away and furrow our brow when we discover our spit-strewn teeth-festooned maniac gives us a nip on the hand to see what we taste like. The recent trend towards charity and other such heart-warming philanthropy has been proven to be such a cash-cow for corporations and other such profit-aligned groups that I have even seen a "Breast Cancer Garden kit" where the set of tools, a trowel, gloves, and knee mat, were all painted pink in that fight breast cancer color that is recognizable from a hundred yards away in a snowstorm. People think it's wonderful, think they genuinely care, but they don't. The same amount of money could be directly donated to the society and would provide so much more good, but it's just so much more convenient to do it this way. Companies capitalize on this; when people start feeling empathy or other such "soppy" emotions, they tend to rationalize and think less, resulting in more impulse buying. Linking their own product or brand name to a highly recognized, emotionally charged one is publicity you just can't buy.

But we can't blame them. We really can't. This is the nature of the business, and we've put ourselves in a position by adopting a capitalist market system and government that upholds it. I am not defending their actions because they are trying to turn a profit, I'm just saying we shouldn't be surprised. It's not for me to say that we shouldn't, or can't, have a capitalist society but it is my place just to quietly point out that if we want to dance the YMCA, we have to put our arms up and let that cute boy next to us smell our pits.

The free speech aspect is, of course, the only interesting part of the debate, and the only one up for real negotiation. The question we should be examining is whether this man should be allowed to publish this book, and offer it for sale, not whether Amazon should be selling it, and that's a damn good question. We've seen a lot of the dark side of free speech in the past couple months, (Westboro Baptist Church's "Thank God for dead soldiers" and Rev. Jones' proposed KBQ leap to mind) and we've had to pile that heaping crap on our plate, and shovel it in with a smile. Yet, this whole issue is a slippery slope. Outlaw this one, and maybe the next one is Mein Kampf, or Catcher in the Rye (I still have no idea why that book is scandalous). This is a tad alarmist (Hide your Socrates, hide your Plato, and hide your de Sade, cause they're banning everybody up in here!) but if we buckle and allow the government to step in and block our eyes from this horror, it makes the plate of crap we had to eat earlier worth less. It means we have to begin to split hairs and wonder why we were more horrified by a pedophiles guide than the incredible breach of good taste required to celebrate a  soldier's death.  Any breach of freedom of speech devalues all freedoms.

Personally I come down on the side of punishing actions, and since there's no way to punish someone for publishing a book (It was even self-published which should make this case extra-simple for the censorship pundits because we don't have to nitpick between censoring the publishers and the writer - they're the same dude) without being forced to write up a laundry list of offensive materials, or worse, devolving to an argument about whose fault it was (publisher, store, or writer?) or even worse, trying to find a way to ban someone from writing, which anyone who is familiar with the Marquee's story (he wrote in his own blood on the walls of his cell) should know is a damn futile gesture, we should not be allowed to make books illegal.

Two final pieces of food for thought; the first, the author apparently does not identify as a pedophile, although given the firestorm that could result from admitting it I'm not surprised, I just wonder who he thinks he's fooling, and two, that the summary says it aims to help juveniles who "find themselves involved in [pedosexual relationships]" and one can not help but wonder why the author believes kids would be "finding themselves" in such situations unless they were led or coerced into them, thus giving lie to a common pedophile belief that the children are willing and tipping the aim of the book away from the ridiculous pretense of "making it safe" into helping child molesters "get away with it".

It's all Relative to the Size of Your Steeple

Society, as a whole, has hit a whole new low. Kids who have severe acne are a higher risk for suicide.
Some precision is needed here; it's unclear whether it is the actual condition of acne that is causing the suicide risk or a particular medicine that has been used to treat acne since the 1980's, but considering the majority of suicides (both attempts and completed) occur within six months of the cessation of the treatment, it may either be an unanticipated result of the sudden drop in chemicals in the body, or a psychological reaction to the fact that one's social life is only moderately based on one's physical attractiveness (or "worse, once a loser, always  a loser" in the minds of heartless high school hyenas), and so a sudden increase in attractiveness doesn't necessarily make a perfect life. It should be wondered at, however, when we have evolved to a point where we would allow our children the risk of being depressed (clinically, by the way, not just sad, which is healthy and builds character) or suicidal, just to eliminate some facial problems.

But that's what we tell kids. That's the message they're hearing, through the media and Hollywood. Unattractive people deserve misfortune. They don't look like us, they don't deserve respect, or good fortune; they don't have dreams, hopes, or moments of great happiness. They don't have stories. Oh, they have a part to play, but in the synopsis of life, we've relegated them to "Ugly Man on Street #2". There's the distressing tendency to view them as a tool, or a method to achieve an end, or just plain evil. Let's look at some historical or Hollywood examples:

Nanny McPhee
 A lovely, feel-good story, which is well-done by all accounts, about a Nanny who comes to teach her young rebellious charges lessons about life and good manners. She appears at the beginning like a witch (snaggle-tooth, gray hair, etc.) but as the children learn their lessons, her disfigurements gradually disappear, leaving her young and beautiful. My first objection is that gray hair equals age or unattractiveness, which is just not true but I digress, the personal choice is an opinion. The question that we must consider is what are we teaching our children when a person's worth increases with their physical beauty? It has been suggested that it was a convenient way for the media to indicate that the children's perceptions of Nanny are increased as they learn to value her, but the linking of physical beauty to mental or spiritual beauty is precisely the link that produces the problems we're discussing.


Hercules
The old cartoon, not the new live-action series. When kids watch the show they are immediately aware of who the bad guys are by their attractiveness; the bad guys were always dark haired and dark eyed. When we allow this ease of association (bad equals dark), it reinforces the connection in people's minds that ugliness equals badness, or that all the bad guys are dark (fortunately this stereotype is dying out, or we'd have a bigger problem with racism than the insidious City of Edmonton).

Tatterhood
This beloved children's book was one of my favorites throughout my formative years, and I am forever grateful that I didn't return it to the library because it has popped up periodically in my life when I'm cleaning or milling through my books. The story is simple (it is a kid's book, folks). A mother wishes for babies so badly she meets a witch who gives her magic flowers that grow under her bed while she sleeps. When she wakes she eats the beautiful flower, but it tastes so good she eats the ugly one as well (The "women have no restraint" rant will air later) and nine months later births a hellion girl who torments the entire world, but nevertheless reassures her mother that soon one will come who will "delight her heart". Anyway, long story short, it turns out later after many heroic feats that Tatterhood is really beautiful beneath it all, so she gets a handsome prince, who was impressed by her feats before but would only consider her a love-interest once she was hot. The strange thing about the process of becoming beautiful in this book however, is when the prince says "I see you choose to ride a donkey" she acts surprised by his view as he watches it turns into a magnificent charger, and so on until she is conventionally beautiful, with the phrase, "As you see me, so I am". As a child, I recall being happy she was beautiful (I always thought she looked like how I'd look when I grew up) but sad that she had to give up her butt-kicking weapons (they turned into lame crystal wands - how much ass can one kick with that?)

UPDATE 19/02/11
I have found an alternate version of the story, with some subtle differences. When she meets the young prince, her future husband, he is mostly interested in her story and when he begins to notice the changes he voices that he feels she "chose" the less attractive options because they do not change who she really is. The final change, her features, is also altered in that the book specifies we have no idea if she was beautiful or not because it did not matter to the prince. I did not think I could love that story more, but I guess I can.
Hat tip to my sister for finding it! 

Matilda
Another childhood favorite that broke my heart. Ms. Honey is beautiful and good, whereas Matilda's real parents are quite unattractive, but also desperately try to make themselves up into attractive people. I do want to point out that being conventionally unattractive never bothered her father, who considered himself gorgeous, and did not hinder her mother from stealing the show with what I've always felt is the most poignant moment (I shall weep as I write this); Matilda asks her mother to allow Ms. Honey to adopt her, and Matilda's mother looks at her and says "You're the only daughter I ever had, Matilda. And I never understood you, not one little bit...." and she scrutinizes her daughter's face for a few moments, as everyone waits expectantly, as if she could find the understanding there, then asks for a pen. I could do a whole Matilda dissemination.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame 
First of all, we're talking the Disney version, because there is so much weird and bad-feeling in the original literature that it could be a whole blog on its own, but I digress. At the end, the hunchback gives up Esmeralda to the captain (whatever the hell his name is) even though he was more devoted and even saved her life repeatedly because, let's be honest, no one wants to see the ugly dude end up with a hot girl. So hot goes with hot, and ugly apparently goes with blind in the crappy sequel.

The Beautiful all Along trope
Seen in many movies, the "ugly" girl is given a makeover which renders her beautiful, thus delivering the message that "looks aren't everything" (or so they wish it delivered), but also saves the hero from having to go out with an ugly girl which can't happen, as everyone knows, since ugly people don't deserve happiness, and we must all date within our "league".

The Wizard of Oz
The good witch, Glenda, is beautiful, and the bad witches are ugly ("Only bad witches are ugly").

Babies
No, that's not a movie title. I mean literally babies. Those little prejudiced suckers tend to look at faces previously deemed "attractive" by adults up to 80% longer than "unattractive" faces. This was also tested with controls for race, and similarity to the baby's mother (which would likely produce more interest since mommy = food) but it may be the case that it is explainable by the preference for symmetry, which has been strongly correlated with attractiveness.   

Bucking the trend
Shallow Hal
One movie that I've always really appreciated is Shallow Hal (it's a Jack Black film with a moral). He perceives people's attractiveness by their internal beauty, so people that are nicer are more physically attractive. He falls in love with an incredibly attractive Gwyneth Paltrow, but when the spell is broken, she appears to him as she appears to everyone else i.e. obese and "unattractive". In the end he meets her again and loves her with her true physical stature because of his love for her personality; it is one of the few that did not stoop to displaying her as a fox so we can all love her because she's beautiful inside. Truth be told it is a tough sell and it's a stretch to believe, which just shows how deeply ingrained the notion is. Regardless, I always hold it in my head as the counter-example to the shallow Hollywood stigma. 

Shrek
Another movie that thumbs its nose at tradition is Shrek; Fiona is a classically beautiful princess who, upon true Love's kiss, takes true Love's form as a giant green ogress. It is wonderful that this movie deigns not to stoop to making them both classically beautiful so they can be beautiful together and happy ever after, but instead embraces their true nature and revels in it for subsequent movies, almost to the point of overusing fart jokes (almost).

Precious
Lord love her Precious Jones is a big girl but the majority of her visions (at least in the movie) she is famous as herself, big, but loved because of it. Until she gets really depressed, when she pictures herself as a thin white girl, illustrating the point, whereby kids think their lives would be better if they were more attractive.

The final, almost coup de grace to this argument is the Discworld, which I  have suggested in other articles should be mandatory reading for anyone and everyone over the age of twelve. Heroes are attractive (Captain Carrot) and heroes are ugly (Samuel Vimes); Villains are attractive (The elves) and villains are ugly (Edward D'eth) and there are whole ranges of each in between. It's a completely balanced view of the world, with evil usually being the result of some horrible reason, but goodness also having its own struggle with internal torment and evil. Terry Pratchett even addresses this whole idea in several books, the most salient of which is Maskerade where the main character solves all the mysteries but at the end is ignored in favor of the attractive girl, who has no talent but looks nice in a dress.

Anyway, regardless of where the idea has come from, it is obvious that we are dealing with the repercussions in the form of child depression, body dimorphic disorder, and suicide. It is nice that recently we have become aware of the issue and are working to combat the problem, but we must be vigilant. I hope it is not too melodramatic to point out that Ted Bundy is believed to have gotten away with his crimes for as long as he did because he was attractive and charming, thereby leading people to believe he wouldn't do anything wrong.

"If you are a woman, if you’re a person of color, if you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, if you are a person of size, if you are a person of intelligence, if you are a person of integrity, then you are considered a minority in this world….
When you don’t have self-esteem you will hesitate before you do anything in your life … You will hesitate to defend yourself when you are discriminated against because of your race, your sexuality, your size, your gender. You will hesitate to vote, you will hesitate to dream.
For us to have self-esteem is truly an act of revolution and our revolution is long overdue."-Margaret Cho

Bullshit is the same color everywhere

One of Edmonton's websites has been raising hell lately among people with a frontal cortex in the form of a racist anti-racism message. The page in question addresses the audience, saying that "You" (and you know which 'you' they're talking to, you white person, you) need to "Acknowledge your white privilege" in order to combat racism. In case that didn't chap your bleached ass enough, the article continues on to say that white people "likely harmed non-white people with [their] own whiteness". Are we talking sun blindness here? Because I'm working on tanning. The whole junk was apparently cribbed from an old manifesto circa 1989 (Oh good grief, is that old now? Are the nineties far enough away to call them an obsolete culture? Groan) by a professor who was addressing white, male privilege, and I don't doubt that it was necessary and well-done at the time. But when I'm writing about cake making, I tend to assume Dear Reader has an oven rather than a hole in the backyard filled with fire. "Hang on guys; White folks enjoyed a privileged position? They trampled on other races? News at 11!"


What they are primarily wrong in stating, however, is not the notion that white people have enjoyed a privileged status, but the notion that they are the only race capable of counteracting racism. Back when "the White Man's Burden" was a scathing ironic criticism of white man's imperialistic and patronizing nature, I am pretty sure there were, and possibly even are, people who took it seriously; but these people should not be making municipally funded websites, since they obviously have their heads up a place where perspective is less than stellar. This sort of paternalistic attitude is, I hesitate to suggest, perhaps the result of a dependence on Affirmative Action programs. These programs were essential, I will be the first to admit, and provided an invaluable service to society in the years they were introduced and implemented, but with genuine racism being a sign of a backwards outcast I am not sure they are the best process to be using in this current time because of the fact that they did exactly what they were intended to do: give assistance. I think perhaps effective legislation to deal with individual situations of racism (which still occur) might be a better notion and would help erode this idea that we have to "help out" the "noble savage" to become like "us", rather than continue this belief that they cannot help themselves. Ironically the website asks whether we have committed racism because we: "Oppressed others of your own racial group because you believed in the negative racial stereotypes and prejudices presented by others?" which sounds a lot like what they were purporting to do, by assuming only whites were racist. Furthermore, "RACISM is often used to advantage people of European descent over people of African, Asian or Aboriginal descent." - I don't feel this detail was really necessary.

Perusing the site reveals a number of other idiocies that belie a lack of actual thought in the web site's direction. A helpful little box at the bottom of the site indicates that it is racist to ask someone where they are really from because they may be a fifth generation Canadian. True, it is stupid to ask someone where they're REALLY from, as if you could crack their secret code and be let in on their life story, but unless asking someone about their heritage is racist, it's not racist. It is an ignorant way to get the same answer (Unless you continue to believe that they are lying to you about where they originated from - that's racist). Also, the whole thing carries the suggestion that a fifth generation Canadian is "more" Canadian than someone who was recently granted citizenship (Canadianism tends to build up like DDTs). A little sticker informs us that "children don't see skin color", which is only sort of true. Children tend to pick up on tiny subtle cues that we may be giving off, and extrapolate on them to a point where they begin to display racist tendencies. They're like little magnifying sponges. So if they encounter the notion, somehow, that only white people are racist, that non-whites need babysitting, or that X people are Y, they tend to internalize it and act according to this manner. It also states that Edmonton needs to "Raise awareness of the positive contributions made by immigrants and Aboriginal people to the economy of the region", as if a) there are no immigrants or aboriginal peoples that don't provide a positive contribution or b) that is somehow justifies their presence, as if they need to "earn the right" to be here. Creating an idealized notion of non-whites simply means that if a person comes up against an example that does not fit their romanticized vision of people, they will simply abandon the notion that such people can provide a positive influence. They also suggest that to combat racism we should "Adapt your speaking style and vocabulary for the intended audience", which just opens a giant can of worms as to what is the appropriate speaking style and vocabulary for which intended audience...


Why, exactly, the website would include such an inflammatory and controversial position is a fact for some heavy debate, especially when the website openly contradicts itself by including such sentences as: Racism...is "Negating the unique experiences of people with different racial characteristics e.g. “I don’t see people as having a colour – I see and treat everyone as the same.”" but I suspect the motivation for such has more to do with generating publicity than a genuine mistake (or even internal malice). After all, we are talking about it now. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Airplane, Airplane, Sorry I'm late...

A St. Albert couple just recently were coming back from a Las Vegas vacation with their baby, and arrived at the gate between 2 minutes (as the airline reports) or 20 minutes (as the couple reports) time to check in, and were refused their flight! Ooh, How mean!

A Chinese man snuck on-board a flight wearing a face mask that made him look like an old white man,which apparently no-one noticed and now is claiming refugee status over here! Ooh, How unsafe!

So we're back to the age-old (stale as a day-old croissant) question; Security or liberty? Yes, yes, we deserve neither for even thinking the question, but Ben Franklin never had to deal with a man who was willing to pack his anus full of explosive just to bring down a Boeing, so perhaps he's not the best judge in this circumstance.

The fact of the matter is good security takes time; time to double-check, time to rethink, and time to pay attention. We will increasingly run into these types of situations where people are denied service because they are coming too close to "haphazard" service if we want to keep increasing security measures.

Personally, I was once on-board a flight that left three hours early, just in time to miss my connecting flight, and the time, stress, and panic it caused me makes me a little bit insensitive to people who's circumstances may cause them to delay the plane. Dear Reader may wonder what I expect people to do in circumstances like the St. Albert couple, and the truth is this; I don't care. I don't care what they do. Events fall into one of two categories: 1) Plan-able 2) unplan-able. If someone is late because of number 1, then forget them, they can take their consequences like an adult. If they're late because of number 2 (Har. Har. The couple was allegedly late because of a diaper explosion) then, well, emergencies happen, and sometimes we have to just throw our hands up and say, "Well, shit".

Further to this new story breaking comes the revelation that I may have to eschew the Edmonton Journal as a source of publication in addition to the Edmonton Sun. Their coverage of the story was heavily oriented towards portraying the business as "at fault" and the couple was blameless. It details that they were twenty minutes early for the flight (before the mishap), when Alaska Airlines clearly requires passengers to be available 40 minutes before boarding. The tone they use, especially in this paragraph,


 " Blais ran to the bathroom and yelled for his wife to hurry. Inside, Roberge scrambled to get Levi's diaper changed and clothes back on. But when she came out, it was too late. The agent had given away her seat."

clearly  implies we are to feel for the couple who was so heartlessly abandoned by the big, bad, airliner. I don't want my newspaper to editorialize unless I'm on the opinion page, which I don't read, because that's my job, shameless side-taking. Anyway, I feel for the couple, I do, but when they showed up late even before they had a "crisis", it shows lack of planning and forethought, not malice on the airliner's part. 

Their reaction to the incident, as well, is childish at best. They started a blog titled "Alaskan Airlines Hates Families", which is inaccurate. Alaskan Airlines hates late people, and treats families with the same guidelines it treats everyone else. Imagine the public response I would get if I was 40 minutes late, arriving at the gate right at the departure time because I had to fix my make-up. If I then proceeded to make a blog stating that the airline hated women, I'd be laughed off the Internet, which is a herculean feat given the garbage floating around in here. 

It seems, however, in the light of today's consumer outrage society, that raising a big argument about something is enough to be fully compensated. Alaskan Airlines has reimbursed them for $1000, which is more than I feel they deserve. I guess the squeaky wheel really does get the grease.

On the other hand, but in the same vein, we have the situation of the young Chinese man who slipped through security with a stolen passport and a bad Halloween mask. Many people are wondering why no one noticed, but the truth is; someone did but in our society of "non-accountability" she did what most people would likely do- she told the stewardess. She became upset because she told them three times and they didn't do anything. If she genuinely had suspicion that "he was going to blow the plane up" then she should have been raising a huge fuss. Decorum be damned, in my opinion. Obviously if she was wrong it would be embarrassing, but it would be more embarrassing is it to have to explain to your plane-mates at the pearly gates why you didn't want to be a nuisance. I'm not saying tackle the guy, just  make sure your concerns are being addressed. That is not too much to ask.

I  hate to sound like a broken record but where has our personal accountability gone?

You married a 7-11?

I remember a few years back, a friend of mine had traveled to Kenya for whatever reason, but while there fell in love with a young woman. He returned to Canada, intent on moving on, but was so smitten that he was unable to forget her despite limited contact for a full year. He attempted to bring her back here as his wife, but was constantly dogged at every turn by immigration. Finally he flew to Kenya, married her, and brought her back through a circuitous route.
Now imagine that he hadn't fallen madly in love; pretend that he barely knew her, but still flew to Kenya, married her and brought her back, just to help her gain citizenship.
Back in 2007, Immigration officials began to notice a problem with the system of immigration marriages, with people complaining that they had married people who left as soon as they were in Canada (sometimes apparently, even leaving from the airport which, after having spent time in the airport, I'm not sure I can fault them...) and Immigration Canada decided they needed to do something about this. They began cracking down, focusing on consistency in officer training and official regulations, and even "reaching out" to communities which practiced arranged marriages.
It seems the measures could be considered ineffective, however, since the problem is still running around, and now Immigration has turned to the unwashed masses for ideas. In September they posted a survey asking Canadians for information "on the magnitude of the problem as well as opinions and ideas on how best to address it." http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2010/2010-09-27.asp
and, as we all know, asking the denizens for advice is a sure sign that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.Or you really want people to support your new arena (Whoops!). As well, anecdotal evidence, especially when culled from the Internet hate-machine, is notoriously unreliable. But let us bite our tongues, here for a moment and peruse the hundreds of heart-wrenching stories of people who met online, became hopelessly in love, and decided to take the leap of faith that constitutes marriage and importing a spouse. Allow the spine to become malleable when these people assert that they were just used for their nationality with no regard for their feelings, etc. Consider the financial burden because they are obligated to support their wayward spouse for three years upon landing and the sadness if a divorce appears inevitable.
All right. Feel lousy?
Onward to solutions.
You see we're going to...well...uh...the immigration department should...uhm. Huh. Boy, I guess there is little to nothing the immigration department CAN do. Consider, we cannot even prevent people from entering into lousy marriages on our own home turf with people who have met face to face and presumably even had to see each others' dirty laundry. Brittany, poster-girl for bad decisions, was married for 55 hours, and we could do nothing but perhaps suggest that a white leather veil is both impractical and disgusting, despite being on sale at Wal-mart. I cannot support the immigration department policing people's motivations to get married, however. Marriage is one of those things  we still don't fully understand. It means different things to different people. Many people believe it should mean only one thing, but even within that one meaning there are so many different flavors that when we attempt to dissect them to show which is "right" or "wrong" we end up arbitrarily drawing a line that could exclude some people unjustly, especially considering how hard it is to quantify love, to predict who will genuinely "make it", or even to know what "making it" means (if people divorce after 40, 50, even 60 years together, is there ever a time we can say "yes, you've made it"?).
Even with the idea of prosecution after the fact we cannot neglect the notion that some people overseas may fall in love as well, only to become hopelessly disillusioned once they arrive. It is a decidedly ethnocentric notion that we as a society produce such superior beings that any person who arrives here must instantly be grateful and in love with the person they intended to marry. We can, however, insist that these people return to their own countries if the marriage does not proceed so, if  they fail to, then we may pursue and prosecute them, but this is the same nature of violation immigration deals with all the time.
Thus we are left with only a few choices, the best of which I know people hate: personal accountability. True, it's hard to uncover really talented con-people, but if they are clever enough to dupe someone into marriage, then they'd likely gain access to Canada anyway. But we must begin to consider marriage in a more serious light given that it is a serious deal, with financial, legal, personal implications. It seems many people do not realize that. It would take more work to promote a "grassroots" initiative (grassroots is the new buzzword, and I was just dying to try it out. I feel filthy.) surrounding marriage but it seems like the best choice, unless you could imagine yourself standing in front of a judge telling him why her smile makes you happy in the morning and how that means you will never leave her.

UPDATE  14/11/10
Holy smokes! I want to make it perfectly clear that the title is a joke about being a "marriage of convenience" (7-11 being a convenience store) NOT a crass joke about marrying someone of middle eastern descent (who are often stereotyped as running convenience stores)!

Please Hold

During a time of already tumultuous upheaval in the Edmonton Police service (The chief of police is due to retire in December, one of the three deputy chiefs is leaving a few weeks before, so far no replacements have been named) the government is trying to impose new legislation that changes the way the justice system deals with police complaints, specifically, complaints must only be made by people directly involved with the incident in question. Currently the system allows the Criminal Trial Lawyer's association (CTLA) to lodge complaints on behalf of the victim. The change in emphasis mirrors what occurred with the justice system decades ago when we moved from being charged with assault against individual persons, to being charged by the crown, on behalf of the victim. It helped it cases such as abuse where the victim may be too scared or unable to press charges, since it ensures the guilty party is brought to justice and taken off the streets.
The rationale for this new legislation is that it will "streamline" complaints, lighten the load, and help ensure complaint volume is kept down; the hidden message is such: there are not going to be less incidents which result in complaints, there are going to be less complaints. Looking at the numbers reported for 2009, however, there were 17 complaints of criminal misconduct lodged against members of the Edmonton Police service. In the year 2009, 1,129 complaints were resolved from previous years (749 of these were requests for information), and 1,054 were opened (740 of which were requests for information). There is no mention on how many complaints may lie festering in the "pending" pile, but considering the Police commission must request special dispensation to extend the duration of a complaint's investigation past six months, it's unlikely to be very many.
Let us say, for the sake of argument (I love arguments) that they still want to cut down on the complaints; considering that it is "unlawful" to make a false complaint against an officer, I am not sure what the nature of the eliminated complaints will be. If they wanted to cut down on frivolous complaints, stiffer penalties for fake complaints should be enacted. It could also be broadcast that it is illegal to make a false complaint, provide a deterrent to aspiring pranksters. But the same report reveals only 5 complaints (2 for criminal conduct, 3 for poor service) were dismissed as "frivolous", and while another 5 (4 criminal, 1 service) were withdrawn later by the complainant, this is not setting the kind of precedent for restricting the complaint process that people really want to see; rather it seems to indicate that the kind of complaints that are coming in, are genuine and do address a real concern. It is likely then that any restrictions, any "net" placed on the program, is going to result in less legitimate complaints getting through. In a city that has such high aspirations as ours, a solid avenue of communication between citizens and law enforcement is invaluable.

Edmonton, I hear from officers, used to be one of the best in Canada for its incredible community program, lauded for being open and inclusive. In recent years, however, we have slipped from this esteemed perch, and it seems most officers are at a loss for why this has occurred (especially since revenue from fines dropped 60% since 2008, shouldn't that make them MORE popular?). Let's hope that 2010 gives us better numbers and 2011 reveals some better opportunities for cohesion within our city.

University Stupids

Good Lord, we are a bunch of self-absorbed inconsiderate assholes, aren't we?
I'm sure I'm not even aware of the billions of times a day I'm honking someone off doing something I'm not even cognizant of, but university students really are just despicable.
I arrive at class, perhaps a little late, and what do I see? Person, space, person, space, person, space, person. Well done, you thundering clod-munchers! You've managed to maximize the space utilized, but not the convenience or population within the classroom. Especially reprehensible is the mouth-breathing dolt who has parked himself on the aisle, content in the knowledge that now that HE/SHE has arrived, the class is complete and no-one else could crave a potion of the audience area. This is still the case after two months worth of packed math classes (and I do mean packed, I have never seen such a keen 8 am class). You think people would catch on, "Man, there's a lot of people in this class everyday, maybe I should suck up my latent social-phobia and park my rear one seat closer to the other person so that there is efficient seat usage." But no. This thought remains extinct in the grand majority of students.
Do you want to know what I do? (I am aware that this may remove any vestige of sympathy Dear Reader has retained for me in this circumstance) I move my ass on into the row. Damn right I do, and if my shapely keister happens to be in your face while I'm transporting myself to an available perch SO BE IT. What, did my stinky, had-since-seventh-grade, might-be-a-disease-vector backpack cause you to recoil into your ill-gotten chair? CUPCAKE. I would write "Move further into the aisle, next time, idiot." on  my backpack at eye level if I thought it would penetrate. But it won't.

The other affront I have to negotiate on a daily basis is plug-ins. Along the main strip of my university there are a few second level lounges intended for socializing and lunch and what-have-you. Many people now (not in my time at university; the times they are a-different) have laptops, net-books, and such, that require a source of power to not dribble away to a useless lump of plastic. Some of the university supplied wall plug-ins have been BOLTED OVER, which I cannot even express how stupid that is, and so needless to say, plug-ins are a hot commodity. But some people, I'm staring at one right now, park themselves next to a plug-in, whip out their laptops, spread their shit on the table so no one can get close and bang away merrily, oblivious to the little sad face that pops up on my screen when I try to download all of "Indignant Ladies of Etiquette on Ice VII" in the lounge (it's for...um...research). I am sure I am provoking D.R's ire in saying this, but I have yet built up the guts to ask them to shove-a-bum and allow me to plug in. Perhaps one day I will.

The final obnoxious insult is conversational volume. These lounges, as I mentioned, are for socializing, so conversations are to be expected. If I wanted silence, I should attend the library, even if I cannot consume my potato salad there. But things have gotten out of hand. I wonder occasionally if, by virtue of my hermitage lifestyle, and night-shift solitude, my eardrums have become atrophied and incapable of dealing with background noise that is louder than the gentle fan I have on at work. But for crying out loud: I do not care about your latest translation of InuYasha, Lady; I do not give a flying rat's ass about how she startled you (It definitely does not need re-enacting), dude; and for the last time, yes the party on the weekend was "off-the-hook" but no one else cares and we think you have a tiny penis. The social/public nature of the area causes me to think twice about speaking up, because perhaps I am crazy, and should just post a little sign saying, "Do not approach the misanthrope", but I am going to post more personal details about people's lives if I have to hear them once more...

So, what is this indicative of? It's just like the politician who blamed his wife for failure to pay THEIR taxes; we have no accountability anymore. Lynn Truss summed the whole issue up the best in her book Talk to the Hand, she said, "Remember you are among other people; show some respect". The whole problem has gotten so far out of hand that we are surprised (SURPRISED) when a woman accused of murdering her husband pleads guilty. Of course she pled guilty, she damn-well did it! Even her grand-kids admit they had a conversation with her about how she blew off his head! When she tried to dispose of the body in an incinerator on her personal property, the repairman who attended the furnace asked why she wanted it, and she replied, "I want to burn my husband"! It is a reprehensible state of society if we must be taught humility and manners by a woman who gave her legally wedded husband an aural blow-job with a twelve gauge.
You know, I'd stand up for myself more, but I don't want to be rude.

The fight burns on

Hey everyone, go ahead and put down your protest signs! Europe has decided our oil-sands are okay so we can all go home and sleep soundly because we know we're not harming the earth! Thanks for coming out!

...wait, what?
It is true the European Union sent over a couple of high-ranking cronies to check out what was going on with the oil-sands, so we sat up nice, rolled over on cue, and spoke like neither of us were aware we had a vested interest in being the prettiest pony in the pumpkin patch. And it paid off.
Representatives are quoted as saying, "We were very impressed with the working together of the provincial government, the national government and the companies there."
 Oh goody.We can play nice in our Provincial sandbox. Where profit is involved, we can play very nicely together. Doesn't mean we're not collectively sticking it to the weird kid no-one wants to play with. But in case you didn't find that soundbite satisfying enough, here's another one:

"I think we were all satisfied that everything is being done that can be done to mitigate against any damage."

Look at that sentence. That, dirty, whorish, sentence. What it tries to imply is that no damage is being done and that the oil-sands are environmentally responsible and tra-la-la everything's good. 

What it really says is: nothing. It says that the companies involved are not being deliberately negligent ("They try to do their best"; So does the leech on my ass in the lake, doesn't mean it's not harming me). It says nothing about whether damage is being done, what is being done to negate damage, and whether there is any hope to undo or do less damage later. Personally, I think it is a pretty big oversight that they don't mention whether we should start making allowances for three-eyed fish (Or sauce recommendations. Rose or Alfredo?)

 

What you won't find any soundbites on is the actual crap they came to check up on. When they originally said they were coming over here, they were looking to reconcile some "discrepancies" they had noticed between the "official data" and statistics provided  by non-government organizations, as well as confirm or deny water quality reports (apparently it's bad). There is no mention about if they did travel to Fort Chipewyan, where cancer rates are allegedly rising as a result of toxins in the water. In fact, it appears that the visitors looked at official government paperwork regarding certain pollutants in the water which stated functionally that it was like that when we got here, which only goes to show government officials were never kids because that NEVER WORKS. It is also noticeable that Duck a la Oil-sands was not on the menu because the issue of hundreds of ducks being killed by tailing ponds(which were being operated within safety regulations!) was only raised to blame Mother Nature, as if freezing rain killed hundreds of ducks every year, so the tailing ponds are blameless. 

The final consideration is that the visitors were allotted a one hour presentation with the Pembina Institute to listen to the foremost research regarding the environmental impact of the oil-sands. One hour is pretty short, but not as short as the half-hour that the presentation was actually given, apparently because the delegates were running behind. At the very least, this represents a bad breech of taste, in neglecting a point of view that is held dearly by many people; at the most, it makes us all wonder about pay-offs and conspiracies, but gosh-darn-it, I'm running out of tinfoil. The best we can hope for is that the meeting with the First Nations people on Thursday may raise more concerns.

 

It is really hard to complain about people's conduct when our province benefits financially in a tremendous way; we really don't need any more negative publicity, and it is in everyone's best interest if legislation is formed in a non-discriminatory way (another one of the goals the group identified), but we cannot ignore the fact that there is a chance we are doing irreparable damage, and that is not good for our long-term. We need to figure this all out for ourselves.