Posts Tagged ‘Political’
Posted February 26, 2010on:
I’d normally have posted yesterday, but yesterday I really didn’t have anything to bitch about. My life is pretty good. The thing I’m going to bitch about offends me deeply, on a fundamental level.
That thing happens to be Jacques Rogge. And the IOC in general.
Last night, the Canadian Women’s Hockey Team beat their US counterparts in the Olympic Gold Medal game. And I say beat rather than “won against” because the Canadian ladies blanked the US ladies 2-0. It was awesome and I am so incredibly proud of our women for dominating the game from the outset.
After the game, they got their beer on and went out onto the ice after all the spectators had left and climbed on the zamboni. And the IOC is all offended by this, and Hockey Canada, being Canadian has apologized.
NEWSFLASH: Hockey players like to drink beer after the game! Also, the sky is blue!
THEN, and OMG my blood pressure (for real this time), Jacques Rogge says something about how women’s hockey will have to become more international and widespread and not so dominated by two countries if it is to stay in the Olympics.
Really, Jacques? Really? Never mind that it took half a century for men’s hockey to become internationally competitive.
And how dare you, you arrogant prick – you couldn’t even wait until after the Olympics were said and done and let the women have their moment?
Fuck you, Jacques Rogge. You owe an apology to all female hockey players, especially the Canadian and American women, who, through no fault of their own, grew up playing with the boys and men. This is how they train. How about the IOC put money where their mouth is to encourage women in other countries to train with the men, and allow girls into boys’ leagues like they do here?
You also owe an apology to the Finnish women who are spectacular in their own right, and all the women all over the world who have fought against cultural stances that may prevent women from participating in traditionally male-dominated sports.
And you owe an apology to Canada and the US – for being so disrespectful that you can’t even let us have our moment.
Fuck you, Jacques Rogge.
Canadians, what would you do, pray tell, if I asked if you wanted to vote for your national government, again?
Because there’s a damn good chance we’ll be heading for a January election. Minister Flaherty released a fall fiscal update, and Nation, its not good (but you knew that). One of the issues involves a fiscal matter which is automatically a confidence vote: scrapping public subsidies for political parties; this would financially cripple every party (except the Tories, of course):
“The onus now is really on Prime Minister Harper to consider his options, to consider his situation,” said Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale. “He’s put a so-called plan before Canadians this afternoon. It’s not a plan to bolster the economy. It is a plan to hide a deficit. It’s not acceptable and he should reconsider his position.”
But the opposition is particularly vexed at the one tiny spending cut Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Thursday: A proposal to eliminate a taxpayer subsidy paid to each political party. Parties can receive a subsidy of $1.95 per year for each vote they receive in a general election.
Though the Conservatives receive the biggest subsidy – about $10 million a year – because they won the most votes, that subsidy only accounts for about one-third of the party’s annual revenue. For the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois, the subsidy amounts to about two-thirds of their annual revenues. The subsidy makes up about half of the NDP and Green party’s annual revenue.
I’m not going to discuss it here, but suffice it to say this is dangerous ground.
There’s going to be a confidence vote on Monday. By Monday afternoon we may have no government, or if the opposition parties can suck it up, a coalition government. Or, worst-case scenario, the second-place Liberals will be given a chance to govern.
Jean Chretien is being called in to broker a deal to get rid of Stephane Dion before the May leadership convention. In order to get rid of him before then he has to resign or pass away. Really.
Jack Layton cancelled plans to come here to talk to the other oppositon parties about forming a coalition.
The longest a coalition government will last is about a month. Tops.
So, Canadians, are you ready to choose again in January?
- In: Political
- Comments Off on Come together, right now
I took a break from cutting down a rather large box, to watch part of the Democratic Nomination process. I knew what was going to happen: at some point, someone would move to suspend the rules of the convention and nominate Barack Obama by acclamation.
Then California passed. I was madly twittering about this, trying to figure it out when Julie over at the MOMocrats posted the reason: because they didn’t want to skew the votes so that everyone would have the opportunity to have their votes count – a largely symbolic thing, but symbols matter. They often matter more than people realize. But that’s a subject for another post.
I went back to my box cutting. And Illinois passed. I madly twittered about this to no response.
And then a funny thing happened. When they got to New Mexico, Obama had just over 1500 votes. And New Mexico yielded the floor to Illinois. And the cameras panned to Hillary Clinton coming in. I dropped the knife I was using and came over to the TV. And I started welling up.
Illinois yielded to New York. And when New York had its moment, Senator Clinton made the motion of her life:
“With eyes firmly fixed on the future in the spirit of unity, with the goal of victory, with faith in our party and country, let’s declare together in one voice, right here and right now, that Barack Obama is our candidate and he will be our president,” Mrs. Clinton said.
“I move that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.”
(Quote published in The New York Times)
And then my tears really started streaming. Hope and joy…and a bit of disappointment. And I finally understood Joanne over at PunditMom, who’s been having a hard time with Senator Clinton not winning. To be blunt, I finally get that for a lot of people, the choice between two men is often the choice of the lesser of two evils.
I think it was sometime around the age of 8 or 9, I asked my Mom, “Why are all the Presidents men?” I don’t remember what she said, but I remember not being satisfied – thinking there was something fundamentally WRONG with the fact that no woman had ever been leader of the United States (or Canada) for that matter. That formed some sort of basis in me: that women have good ideas, are equal, and deserve political, economic and social equality and equity.
And although I like Senator Obama – I like him a lot – on some fundamental level, I was really looking forward to having a woman in the most powerful post in the world.
Not. This. Time. And Senator Clinton’s motion for acclamation made it real. It was the best thing she could do for the sake of the party: a call for all Democrats to come together, right now, over Barack Obama.
Then the “ayes” came – one unified voice behind the Democratic Candidate for President. And the power of that
Democracy, at its base, is the will of the many. Although I cannot vote in the US elections, I would encourage my neighbours to the south to think about the good of the many before they vote – whatever your personal status, look at your neighbours, your towns. Then think about it.
Then vote. And even if voting for the good of the many means for voting for the lesser of the two evils for you personally, consider it. Come together.
Just a bit, mind you. And I blame Bill Maher.
I put my oatmeal in the pot with some water and set it on the stove over medium heat. It was a small pot with not a whole lot of water in it (because I only eat about 3/4 c of oatmeal at a time).
And then I hopped online and started reading. I somehow stumbled across a blog that made reference to an issue that had crossed my radar a couple of days ago.
So I went back to the original site post to refresh my memory.
And then I remembered the oatmeal. I got to in time that it wasn’t so burned. I put it in a bowl, with some milk and peaches. Yum. Dairy, fibre, fruit, iron and grains. Wholesome.
And then I went back to Izzymom. Go read her post.
Then I did a Google blog search by date for anything to do with Bill Maher. And I came to this conclusion: Bill Maher can suck it. If he chooses to view breasts as solely sexual objects, that’s his problem. Its a free country – he doesn’t have to be in the same vicinity as a woman who is breastfeeding and its much easier for him to leave rather than her. And he caused me to burn my breakfast. So suck it.
Enough has been said on the breastfeeding issue and I won’t go into it any more than that.
What really bugs me is Facebook and what Izzy has to say about it. Since I haven’t contacted her and don’t have permission to quote her directly, here’s a summary of what she says:
- Social networking utilities (such as MySpace and Facebook) have certain rules regarding the types of photos you can put up.
- This is all well and good, for the most part; it stops things like child exploitation, pornography, etc. etc.
- Both of the above-mentioned utilities have removed pictures and even banned a member because a picture of her breastfeeding her child violated obscenity rules because there was a fully exposed breast. (And really, if you can find where it falls under that really long terms document, you are a better legalese interpreter than I).
- Facebook is host for over 350 pro-anorexia groups.
350 plus pro-anorexia groups, yet, this “social networking utility” is upset over a member posting a picture of breastfeeding?
Which brings me to the point of this post: body image.
David Wescott over at Its Not a Lecture has some really good points. You can read all of his correspondence with Facebook over this issue here (and prepare to be appalled at the form answers he gets from Facebook). His statement that these two issues represent a profoundly disturbing disconnect hits the nail on the head.
All I’m going to do here is ask a question: what would be so terrible about showing girls and young women that the female form, whatever its shape, is a profoundly beautiful and life-giving thing, and fought social media that gives the view that in order to be beautiful you have to be thin?
And since I’m opinionated, I’m going to answer that question: we might actually have some well-adjusted girls and young women that are comfortable in their own skins and bodies, and have the self-esteem necessary to make good decisions for themselves.
You saw my breakfast above. What about this breakfast:
Yum. Vitamins and immunity.
(cartoon gif used because I didn’t want to steal anyone’s pictures. If someone would like to donate a photo, that would be greatly appreciated.)
My point is, one is good for adults. The other is good for infants.
And what this boils down to is that my message for Facebook is the same as for Bill Maher: suck it.
Which is why, on Sunday night, I won’t be on Facebook any more. I cannot condone supporting an organization that openly talks out of both sides of its mouth, virtual or otherwise. Particularly when that organization condones a life-threatening illness on the one hand, and continues to stigmatize something that may actually do something to help body image and self-esteem.
A short update:
Can you imagine what would happen if everyone who felt enraged by this deleted their account? It gives a whole new answer to the age-old questions: What if you threw a party, and nobody came?
Or in this case, what if you built a social networking utility, and everybody left?