"My Mic Sounds Nice"

As someone who grew up listening to a whole lotta music and who was always searching for a female artist to relate to, I am lovin' this BET documentary on female MCs in hip hop.

The whole thing is available online and I totally recommend it.

Female Ski Jumpers vs. The IOC

So I've already hashed out on here my opinions regarding the Olympics. But I will say again that I want to believe in the Olympics because having been an athlete most of my life and coming from an athletic family, I really do believe that sport has the ability to bring people together.

As a feminist, I've also seen the way girls/womyn getting into sport helps them build self-esteem, often (but not always) improve their self-image and learn life skills like how to be a team player, sharing and the importance of losing as much as winning. Important stuff.

And so even though I have mixed emotions about the Olympics, I've got very strong feelings about the International Olympic Committee shutting out female ski jumpers. Apparently, so does the BC Court who have actually stated that the IOC's decision to not allow female ski jumpers is discrimination however it is not within the jurisdiction of the BC Courts to change the IOC's position.

So Canada will be hosting Olympics that they know full well and have admitted go against its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and yet, the show must go on. Keeping in mind of course that the Olympics are being held on stolen Native land, but that's another story completely (according to the Press).

I call bullshit on the whole thing. The female ski jumpers have shot down all "reasonable arguments" for their exclusion and they're still not allowed to compete. Oh and I also call bullshit on the language being used in so many of the articles on this. Just as I think ski jumper Lindsay Van was out of line for comparing the International Olympic Committee to the "Taliban of the Olympics", I'm also sick and tired of people referring to adult womyn as "girls" and "ladies".

News Roll

In surprising news, a reserve in British Columbia is hoping to become “delisted” and remove its Indian Status.

In mildly surprising news, talk show host and Media empire Goddess Oprah Winfrey might be switching her show to her own new television station. This means leaving Chicago and no longer being accessible to the general public (since her station is not offered with standard cable).

In not-even-remotely-surprising news, the Catholic Church is not changing its stance on priests and celibacy.

Snot Rags and Stereotypes

Let's play a little game, shall we? It's called "Guess What's Wrong with This Picture!"

The offender? The Kleenex "Get Mommed" Marketing Campaign (Warning, besides being incredibly offensive, it also takes a long time to load. Dial-up readers, be warned).

A) It's sexist. It perpetuates stereotypes of womyn as mothers and fails to recognize that fathers can "mother" i.e PARENT as well.

B) It's racist. The finger waving black womyn, the affectionate latina mother, the overbearing Eastern European mother. It's all there.

C) It actually fails at marketing the product. What the hell does this have to do with tissue?

D) All of the above.

You be the judge!

Tobacco... again.

Tobacco companies knew cigarettes were bad for you long before the information was made public.

Shocking? No

Shitty? Absolutely.

Smoking Out Big Tobacco

The Province of Ontario is joining British Columbia and New Brunswick in suing the big tobacco companies in order to recover money they've spent on tobacco related illnesses/deaths.

Now before I go on, let me establish a few things.

1- I am incredibly anti-smoking.
2- I have never smoked a day in my life.
3- I know and love people who smoke.
4- I know and love people who have suffered serious side effects (including death) as a result of tobacco.

And yet I'm left scratching my head about this lawsuit.

The Province is suing for 50 billion dollars; an amount they say they've spent on treating tobacco related illnesses since 1955. I actually think that amount is too low. I also think that people have known about the adverse effects of tobacco since 1975... So there's a 20 year window where personal accountability doesn't really come into play because people were just rolling with what the scientific data at the time was saying, which was that it wasn't that bad. Hell, even doctors were advertising the stuff!

So for that 20 or so year window, the tobacco companies knew it was bad but people didn't and so I understand that there's a serious accountability issue there.

But where's the personal accountability after that? What about between the 70s and now?

In our Health Care system, being the public system that is, we don't formally discriminate against illnesses. By that I mean that if you're suffering serious emphysema and you've been a- pack-a day smoker, the Health Care system can't say "Oh well, that was stupid, now deal with it on your own"; they've got to do their best to help you. So I understand that the Health Care system is stuck between Big Tobacco and Consumers. And I also understand that the Health Care System is you and me and everyone else living and paying taxes in Ontario. So it's my money that's being spent on big tobacco's side effects.

BUT it's also the Government, both Federally and Provincially, that monitors and governs the rules around Big Tobacco in this country. And so it seems incredibly short-sighted to be benefiting from the taxes and sales of tobacco, and then at the end of the line, suing them to recuperate the amount you've spent on the side effects in between.

The Government of Canada, in general, has such a backwards way of looking at the tobacco industry, much like alcohol and gambling. They benefit up front and then bitch about the after effects; after effects which were clearly foreseeable.

And suing Big Industry to recuperate what is essentially our money just doesn't seem like the right way to do it. Sure it looks incredibly aggressive and anti-corporate and therefore has a nice Erin Brockovich, David and Goliath vibe to it. But upon closer look, it just comes off as greedy and corporate as Big Tobacco itself.

And now for some made-up news!

Canadian readers will be familiar with a case in Kingston right now where a father, mother and son murdered three members of their family plus the father's first wife.

Newsworthy? Absolutely.

I'm holding off on commenting more specifically on this case because the details have yet to emerge and I'm sick of the xenophobia around it. Let more credible information come forward and then I will discuss it.

Do you hear that CBC.ca? I know you desperately want to improve the traffic to your site/TV show/radio shows but when you start making stories out of nothing just to keep things flowing, and you're losing credibility.

Headline reads: Canal-death charges stun Montreal neighbours.

Really? You think? This would only be news worth if the neighbours weren't surprised. There would be a story in that case. If they weren't surprised then maybe there would have been signs, more people coming forward and the whole thing could have been prevented.

This story, much like the kidnapping/murder of Victoria Stafford, is being dragged in the media with "journalists" interviewing neighbours and the like for no other reason than to add sensationalism to the story.

If you are the neighbour of someone who was murdered and you are not surprised that said person was murdered or that your neighbour had a part in it, then please come forward to be interviewed. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Journalist David Cullen refers to it as the "Columbine Effect". The massacre at Columbine High School was the first big moment when anybody who knew somebody, who knew somebody else at Columbine was considered a "witness" or someone worthy of talking to. He blames new technologies and the increase in media coverage. Basically, every student that came running out of that school, whether they saw anything or not, were interviewed and instantly broadcast around the world.

The result?

1- Misinformation spreads like wildfire. There were several shooters, there was one shooter, there were hundreds murdered, there were a few, etc. No consistency here because people who were clearly in shock blurted out a few lines and suddenly, it was fact.

2- Increased sensationalism. Victims, witnesses or even random passersby would provide a few lines or a lengthy discussion on the issue and one line of it would be broadcast as this earth shattering revelation of sorts. Often it was never a big deal in the first place or it wasn't even true. Think: the worst game of telephone ever played.

Although this might not seem to directly relate to the coverage of the latest murders in Canada or even the murder of Tori Stafford, I believe it does. I believe they are all part of the same new "journalism" where actual facts may or may not be important and the relevance of something is rarely measured.

The saddest part of all is that people are buying it, literally and figuratively. So it's up to us all to stop wanting to be a part of the show and to stop buying into sensationalist media. Although we live in a society doused in instant gratification, the world doesn't operate that way. Give it time and the truth will eventually come out. But it probably won't come from you.

And now, for some good news!

Good news is so few and far between in the world lately. Or in general really, when you're the type to be concerned about social justice.

But it appears that David is slowly slaying Goliath in at least one department.

Some Canadian consumers have learned the valuable lesson of each purchase being a vote. Combining that with a new resurgence of environmentalism and smart eco-thinking, consumers have made a big enough push for local products that grocery stores in Southwestern Ontario have de-listed themselves as "Sobey's" chains and joined a co-operative.

Reason being? Sobey's existing policies discourage and outright deny owners the ability to buy local products. Since consumers were asking and the demand was clearly there, they said screw The Man.

They are now seeing success in sales AND helping Mother Nature.

Now doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Muckraking in the Name of Ovaries

I'm a frequent user of my local fitness club. I like my gym but as anyone who has used a gym before knows, it has very little to do with health and a lot to do with physical appearance. Gyms are all about making money and in order to do that, they bombard you with images of so-and-so after they hired a trainer, or TRY THIS MUSCLE MILK AND YOU'LL BE GIGANTIC, while blasting 46 different televisions playing Cosmopolitan TV and various sports channels. It combines "You Can Do It" with "Because you're a fatty!".

The other day, while attempting to use the washroom, I sat down to face an advertisement. Now ads in washrooms are not unique to gyms, obviously. They are a nuisance in most public washrooms nowadays. But the ones at the gym are almost always related to appearance or "health". This particular ad, which I'm presuming is only in the womyn's washroom, has a giant picture of an empty ice cream container that says "Want to have fewer periods?" followed by the "FIND OUT HOW AT Periodslessoften.ca"

Oh Goddess...

So I went home and checked out Periodslessoften.ca (I encourage you to do the same) and went back to my journalism roots to do some digging.

Turns out *surprise surprise* PeriodsLessOften.ca is hosted by an unnamed "Research Based Pharmaceutical Company" and the way to get less periods is through hormonal birth control. The Pill.

Now anyone who has been on the Pill, which in North America includes most hetereosexual womyn, knows or has heard the Old Tales about how you just take one pack of pills right after the other to skip your period. Nothing all that new here.

But this website is particularly interesting because it uses and re-uses imagery of food (.i.e.: PMS cravings) and makes the focus less on the usual anti-period stuff of crankyness, physical pain, lack of swimming/sex options and turns it into "Have Fewer Periods So You Have Fewer Midnight Triple Chocolate Oreo Cookie Cravings".

Which is something that the website cannot back up because it is false. Although taking hormonal birth control to date your periods and/or taking pack after pack will time and/or delay your period, it will not change your body's desire to jonse for cookies. It has been proven to possibly diminish in some people but it's not an instant cure.

There is a strong school of thought who believe that skipping any period at all is bad for your body. Unfortunately the reality is that as long as you are on the Pill, you will never have a "period" in the truest sense of the word. To be blunt, you can't drop an egg when you're on the Pill so you're having a "Pill Period" as they say and not an actual one. However, that doesn't mean that your body reverts back to being 10. You're still going to have hormone fluctuations because that's what keeps your bones good and strong, thickens your hair, etc.

So the first thing against this whole "TAKE THE PILL AND DROP THE COOKIES" approach is that it's not entirely accurate.

Another thing that is problematic it is that hormonal birth control is being marketed as this pseudo health option and dare I say, weight loss option. The latter of course is a bit of a stretch and kinda hilarious considering that most hormonal birth control pills make people gain weight.

But with the ads juxtaposition of the empty ice cream pale with the Pill, it makes it seem as though one can be cured by the other. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a picture of said ad online, but the website is full of food imagery, including a smiling Gingerbread.

And finally, the website and campaign is also problematic in its so-called attempt to be "neutral" regarding other forms of birth control.

See the website does not mention what pharmaceutical company it works for and so it is attempting to be an "information site" that is neutral and not about marketing a certain product. For this reason, they include this one section "Is the Pill Right For You" which has the legally required information regarding risks of taking the Pill and a sub-section entitled "Non-Hormonal Options". This section's intro:

"Non-hormonal birth control options will not change how often you have your period, meaning that they cannot be used to lengthen the time between your periods. Though most of them have been proven to be less effective than hormonal birth control, non-hormonal options may be right for you. Except for the non-reversible methods and the IUD, these methods must be used every time you have sex. The male condom and female condom can be used with hormonal birth control to help protect against sexual transmitted infections (STIs)." (Source)

Yes, these forms of Birth Control are less effective than hormonal based birth control but most don't cause blood clots, can be used by people over 35 safely and will not put your life at serious risk if you're a smoker. Oh and hey, most will make sure you don't get HIV! Which is, you know, pretty freakin' important, too.

Oh and it's also interesting to note that the tiny words in the disclaimer (for which you need to click onto a seperate site to find) explain that all the "claims" made throughout the website only apply to the United States. Which is pretty interesting considering it's Periodslessoften.CA

But it's obvious that the folks behind "Periodslessoften" are not concerned about sexual health as a whole or a womyn's health in particular. What they are for is the promotion of menstruation as an evil, an evil that will make you want cookies! Which will make you fat! And then, undesirable! And if you're undesirable, then you won't get laid! And then if you don't get laid, you won't need birth control! Ah! The tyranny!

Now I do not wish to diminish the very painful reality of many, many womyn who have excruciating menstrual pain, endure debilitating side effects or who are in dire need of menstruation regulation. However, if you are one of these many womyn, the reality is that Periodslessoften.ca doesn't really care about you anyway. They care about the bottom line and sorry honey, but you ain't it.

Now I'm not knocking takers of the Pill because everyone has their own reasons and the reality is that hormone based birth control is the most effective form of birth control (except for abstinence but who are we kidding?) What I am knocking is pharmaceutical companies who market things inaccurately under the guise of "neutrality".

Let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?

Is there an Echo in the Building?

And the "C" word strikes again!

Keeping in mind that the source isn’t exactly impartial but, a Toronto lawyer has publicly come out in support of the increasing numbers of womyn who are being laid off while on Maternity Leave.

The excuse given? The economy.

Technically, it’s illegal to lay someone off when they are on Mat Leave. That’s the whole point; that you help society reproduce while we hold down the fort until you come back. BUT! If the company is “doing multiple lay offs” then its okay. And what is happening is that while womyn are away, the new person they hired in the interim is cheaper because they’ve just started and so the company would rather keep someone with less seniority than pay the rates of the womyn who left.

Wow.

I guess the only solution is for babies to make and raise themselves. Well, we could socialize people to be equal partners in the child raising department and create child friendly work environments but the first solution is probably more likely.

Because You Don't Win Friends With Salad

A new study has found that when eating out and presented with a variety of side options (Fries, baked potato, salad) people opted for the fries more often than the salad.

The study was based on 100 college students who were presented with two different menus. When presented with the option of choosing the salad, they took fries instead.

This is a pretty big deal in terms of research because it flies in the face of the years of previous commentary from people that healthier choices are what's needed on menus. Hell, even McDonald’s has yogurt parfaits and apple slices now! Clearly the complaining has worked to get healthier options on the menu. But what these researchers are showing is that it doesn’t matter; people still choose crap.

There is a lot that can be chalked up for this. North America is a glutton society that loves its shit food. We should eat healthier but we don’t because we’re lazy, unmotivated, etc. Some people think that “healthy food doesn’t taste as good as nuggets and fries” hence their choices. And truthfully, if the words “healthy” always result in salad, then you can’t really blame people. It’s not really a choice. It’s either PICK ONE OF TEN AMAZING THINGS or SALAD. Maybe a variety of healthy food choices that don’t involve simply adding different types of salad is an option?

But I also think that it’s much simpler than that. In my opinion, when people go somewhere that sells “fries, chicken nuggets and baked potatoes” they’re not eating out to be healthy. They’re eating out for a “treat”; nobody goes to Wendy’s (which is a prime example of this type of menu) for salad. I say this as someone who loves the Wendy’s chicken salad and is terrified of their burgers. But I know that I’m not most people and I get that.

The people in this study were just presented menus and said “What would you prefer to eat?” When people choose to hit up Wendy’s or McDonald’s, it’s usually because they’re jonesing for a Bacon Mushroom Melt or a Big Mac, not chicken salad. If you wanted decent chicken salad, you’d go somewhere that specializes in chicken salad. Wendy’s is not this place.

Now if you have no choice in the matter, like you’re on a road trip for instance then you might be grossed out with so much take-out and choose the salad and apple juice choice. But the people in the study possibly hadn’t had take-out in a while and were thinking “Mmm… that’d be a nice treat”.

See what I’m getting at?

If you’re hitting up fast food, then you’re craving some fast food, something that you either wouldn’t or couldn’t make at home. The problem that I see, is if people always choose the shittier option, everyday. The key to fast food is not to demonize the stuff but to view it in moderation.

I went to McDonald’s as a kid and turned out okay. Why? Because it was a “treat”. We got a Happy Meal, we played in the ballroom; it was swell. If my parents had brought my ass there three times a week, different story.

And who knows? We’re dealing with 100 college kids here. They were probably recovering from 4/20 and were thinking FRENCH FRIES before the study had even started. It’s not impossible.

**A nice unhealthy donut to whomever can reference the blog title

"Water Not Recognized As Human Right"

... a headline that breaks my heart.

A headline which clearly breaks CBC's heart too, based on their very obviously slanted article that follows it. But I'm not complaining. I'm sad, too.

FC Takes On The Budget

So this is it, folks. The moment you've all been waiting for. (Or not). But still; the Conservatives have unleashed their 2009 budget.

First things first, on a little digression, thank Goddess that Jim Flaherty is not a lecturer. Dear Moses, that man is monotonous! His voice alone practically put me to sleep.

And before I start ripping into politicians for all their lack of sensibility and pizazz, I would like to acknowledge that I was quite pleased with the lack of buffoonery. There was some cheering but very little of the booing and "SHAME!" fist pounding as usual. Which means, they have the capability! They can do it! So why don't they always do it? Seriously, people.

Canada's real 2009 mission should be to bring some civility back to Parliament Hill. But I've been flogging that dead horse for a while now, so I guess I'm just old school.

Anywhoo, as I'm sure you've heard by now, the economy is in the toilet and so the Conservatives have said that we need to go into a deficit. But fear not, wee children! They're apparently going to pull us out of this deficit in 5 years. Which if they can pull it off, well I might even vote Conservative sometime. Alright, who am I kidding? But seriously. If they can pull it off, I'll be mighty impressed.

Some of the highlights of the budget, for me, was the inclusion of broadband internet access under the infrastructure package. This is a new one and its quite interesting. Canada has long treated internet access as a type of infrastructure necessity but this is the first time they've really made it clear. And I think this is great.

If you're going to make internet access a necessity then make it accessible. Seems obvious to me.

The big part of the budget that was made to cater to lefties is the so-called 1-2 billion for social housing. One to two billion for social housing! Wow! This is a lefty's dream... except that it's not. Because "social housing" includes elderly people, single mothers, students and aboriginal reserves.

Quite frankly, in government terms, one billion isn't that much to begin with. And then when you include so many demographics under that one project, it starts to look pretty shabby. It was clearly a way of trying to appease the "Coalition of the Left" and yet the fine print points out that there isn't much there.

Like most things in politics, it sounds nice but is pretty shit in practice. Better than nothing, I know, but not enough to get excited about.

Same with the apparent shitload of money for infrastructure and employment. Municipalities desperately need money for infrastructure and have been saying so for years. The new budget does indeed give money in these areas, but it requires 1/3 Fed money, 1/3 Prov money and 1/3 municipal money. So once again, looks fancy but in practice, how better off are they really?

My take? This is an impressive Conservative budget. With a capital C. For a bunch of right-wing nuts, I'm impressed with their acknowledgment that "Hey, people need places to live in order to spend money!" and "Jobs matter!"

But I'm definitely not impressed with their lack of Green initiatives (which hey, create jobs, too!) and they're denial, once again, about the importance of pay equity. Job creation = Great! Doing the same job for lesser pay = Not so great!

Conservatives still haven't figured out that equation yet.

Morally, I would vote this budget down if I had a say. But practically, I'd vote for it. Canadians need something fast and right now, this shitpile is better than nothing. What I'm really hoping for is that Ignatieff's demand for an amendment to the budget passes. The amendment would require the Conservatives to report on the projects they've proposed and how the money is spent. Basically, an economic update a few times a year to show that the money is going (or not going) where it was intended to go. Once again, smooth move Ignatieff.

Only time will tell if the budget will pass and make a difference to Canada and its economy. Personally, I'm crossing my fingers but not holding my breath.

If You Weren't Already Convinced...

... that the economy is going to shit, this headline pretty much seals the deal.

"Ten Cheap Ways To Be Happy".

That little sentence sums up the entire problem. The economy is going to shit and will continue to stay there until the idea that being happy doesn't require money is commonsense and not a headline.

We Don't Like Voting But We Do Like Boozin'!

So one of the many facets of moi is that I'm pretty much straightedge. There are a number of reasons why I don't drink. This is not to say that I haven't drank or that I don't have the occasional sip of wine and whatnot, but as a general rule, homeslice does not drink.

Well it seems that I am a rarity in the True North Strong and Free.

New statistics are coming out regarding the amount and types of alcohol that Canadians consume and presumably, enjoy.

These stats include the fact that people in Newfoundland pay the most for beer (21.27$) although they don't include the territories and they must pay the most. Other stats include the total amount that the average Canadian spent on booze in 2007: 667$.

Surprise, surprise, beer makes up 47% of Canadian alcohol sales in this country. What was actually surprising and optistimic, in my mind, is the fact that 71% of spirits sold in this country are Canadian. Apparently the economy is going to shit and jobs are being exported overseas but we still support our local boozers.

We're patriotic like that, I suppose.

What did make me sad though was that "Mothers Against Drunk Driving estimates that there are between 1,280 and 1,500 deaths as a result of impaired driving in Canada every year, or about four every day."

Ouch.

And if that statistic doesn't have you crying your beer, this should. Under "Related Stories", CBC.ca links to the lovely headline

"Many Innu children suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome".

Damn.

Olympics Bahlympics

Ahh…. the Olympics. A time when a country puts millions of dollars and common sense aside to show the world the very best they’ve got to offer. Which in Beijing’s case, isn’t much.

And although in a perfect world, the Olympics would be about the athletes and the years of hard work they’ve undergone, that’s definitely not the case. The Olympics are like a giant marketing campaign where a country covers up its worst and plays up its best. Whether their “best” is authentic or not. (Paging Beijing)

Being a former athlete (albeit not a great one) and growing up in a sports culture, I wish I could say that I am a giant supporter of the Olympics. And in theory, I am. These people train their entire lives for a moment in the sun, for a moment to be the very best. And it is so disappointing to see that moment overshadowed by bullshit politics.

So as much as I’m routing for all those athletes, here is my list of reasons why the Olympics (in my less than humble opinion) suck:

1-Mud Slinging: Regardless of which country is hosting, it always turns into a “You suck and I’m so much better” childhood fight but at the international level. Canadians are talking shit about the Chinese government but you know what? Vancouver is going to get it too. Have they not learnt that you shouldn't throw stones?

2- Television Broadcasting: Let’s face it, if you live in Canada right now, there is nothing else to watch but the Olympics. And I’m all about supporting our athletes but give me some variety here, people. Seriously.

3- News Fabrication: Because Canadians are doing less than stellar (as of today, no medals yet) and because of the heavy censuring of journalism coming out of Beijing, people are making mountains out of mole hills. Exhibit A: Fencer loses, which ya know… sucks and so she *gasp* ADMITS that it sucks and compares it to “getting kicked in the nuts” and is then forced to apologize for her "ignorant comment". The only thing ignorant about this whole thing is making an entire news story out of the fact that an athlete lost and wasn't happy about it. Can't win for losing, I guess.

4- Anything-To-Win-Attitude: Forget doping. Underage athletes is the new black.

5- Misogyny: It is well known that female athletes get the short end of the stick in sports coverage. NBA coverage versus WNBA coverage, or lack thereof, being the most cited example. So although the Olympics typically give fairer coverage to all athletes, the misogyny still persists. Perfect example being the newest rules governing beach volleyball uniforms. Male uniforms? Shorts and tank top. Female uniforms? Bikinis.

6- Athlete Bashing: Canada doesn’t give a rat’s ass about their athletes, says Silken Laumann and yours truly couldn’t agree more. We fail to give them enough money and then we throw them under the bus when they don’t perform well. Canadians are really great for touting the whole “Our Canadian Athletes” and putting mountains of pressure on them without actually giving them any kind of boost to get good in the first place. Then we kick them when we’re down. It’s the Canadian thing to do, apparently.

And finally

7- The Cost: Hosting the Olympics is so incredibly expensive that it is truly mindblowing. The creation of stadiums, arenas and event platforms, the “cleaning up” (read: sweeping under the rug) of negative imagery, the media, etc is definitely not cheap. Yeah it’s a temporary boost to the local economy but then it all comes crashing down when the Olympics are over and nobody gives a damn anymore. Couldn't the money be better spent elsewhere?

And that list is just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not a total grouch and I will admit to getting teary eyed at all the commercials featuring profiles of athletes who are giving it their all. And if we're going to have the Olympics, then the existence of the Paralympic, Special Olympic and Out games is also mucho importante.

But the only real thing I love about the Olympics is when they're over. Okay, okay, the satire is pretty good, too.

Culture For Sale

So I’m sure most of you can deduct by now that I’m a really shitty person to watch television with. I comment on everything and there is very little that doesn’t irk me in some way. Last night was no exception.

Last night was The Miss Universe 2008 competition. Obviously this is just a cesspool of misogyny, objectification, racism, capitalism, etcetera. Don’t preach to me about a “scholarship” program and all that jazz. Sure, the Miss Universe gig is prestigious and you get a lot of free swag, but you also get the same by being voted Playmate of the Year and nobody calls that a goddamn scholarship program.

They are grown womyn called “Miss” who strut around in their underwear, wanting world peace and if that wasn't enough, Donald Trump owns the franchise. And to quote David Letterman, why is it called Miss Universe? Shouldn’t it be Miss World? I haven’t seen anyone competing from Jupiter.

But I digress.

My issue last night was not with the competition per se, as I knew what I was getting into when I flipped to it, but with the “National Costume” portion of the show. This year, each contestant strutted in a “costume” that represented their “nation” and online voters decided which was best. Ironically enough, I made a guess before that part of the show even started as to what Miss Canada would be dressed as. And it turns out, yours truly was correct.

Miss Canada was dressed as... an Aboriginal.

Now, on the surface, that’s pretty damn stellar. Samantha Tajik, Miss Canada, was born in Iran and raised in Canada and was representing Canada in Aboriginal garb. Diversity as its best!

Except of course for the fact that it's example number 871267234 of Canada appropriating Aboriginal identity for its benefits and completely negating their existence as human beings (and yeah, I’m bitter that the costume was also incredibly inaccurate. But I’m a stickler for details).

At Disney exhibits demonstrating “Nations Around the World”, you go to Canada and you get totem poles. You go to tacky tourist traps in Canada, you can buy headdresses for your rearview mirror and little totem pole statues.

I’m all about the celebrating of aboriginal cultures but the commodification of cultures does not do this. It homogenizes them and keeps them somehow frozen in time, denying them the ability to actually you know… exist. There's no dialogue, no celebrating. There's this "Aww, aren't they cute?" quality to the whole thing that is gagalicious.

But what can you expect from a competition that places equal weight on your bikini strut as your ability to answer a question on the spot.

(For the record, Miss Venezuela won).

Paging NeoCons Everywhere: Get with the Times

When “Cold, wet spring threatens B.C. pot crop” is a headline on a federally funded news site, the neo-cons on the Hill should probably perk up and pay attention.

I am a strict straightedge lady and I get it, so what’s Harper’s problem?

I was in Vancouver recently and I can certainly attest to the cold, soggy weather that they are having. It’s no wonder that their crops are dying off. This is certainly a concern for an industry that CBC grossly underestimates at being worth 1 billion. Truthfully, it’s worth 5x that or more. And as the article points out, it’s not like fewer crops mean that people are just going to stop buying it. Rather, the people who are able to make it grow nonetheless or who are hydroponics will up the price.

Economics 101 says: Supply and Demand. Less supply, higher prices. More supply, lower prices. Basic, basic, basic.

So get on the train, Harper. Legalize, monitor and tax. Then everyday folks can start benefiting from the profits, police services can be diverted and we can start focusing on agriculture as a whole. This article only chooses to focus on BC pot crops because it’s so risqué to do so. But the reality is that all kinds of crops are suffering and with the rising costs of food, Canada needs to be concerned about this.

So legalize it and have it under the banner of "agriculture" and then we can manage the industry like we do every other agricultural one.

Besides, a great plus side of legalization is that we won’t need to rely on asshats like Marc Emery to serve as spokesperson to the “cause”.

The Skinny on Fat

I don’t need to tell you that fat is a problem in North America. Let’s face it, we’re chunky. And statistics after statistic (legitimate and otherwise) indicate that we’re tipping the scales more and more everyday. Hell, all you need to do is turn on the TV for a whopping 5 mins to get inundated with North American fat culture.

Fat is everywhere. Literally and figuratively. I know it, you know it, we all know it. First, the questions were “Who and what is to blame?” Let’s face it: North Americans eat shitty and don’t exercise. We’re sedentary fat asses for the most part.

We started off by blaming the fast food industry and beauty industries. The academics, activists and thinkers of the world are now talking about the way in which we’re now blaming the obese for well… being obese.

All the latest body image experts are chatting noisily in the latest journals about “fat shaming” and there’s a movement within feminism who call themselves “Fat Activists”. Reclaiming the so-called fat body. Add them to the list of medical experts who say that genes really do play a large part. (“Do these genes make my ass look fat?”) All these folks believe that shaming the individual fat person isn’t doing a damn thing for them or society as a whole.

These discussions came to a loud rumble recently when airlines in Canada announced that they would give an extra free seat to obese flyers. The logic? The seats are considered too small for the average person, so it’s practically impossible to stay comfy if you’re obese.

This of course raised a giant firestorm of controversy with people saying “Hey, it’s their fault for being huge, let them suffer!” My initial reaction was much the same, to be honest. Mostly I thought of my 6’7 sibling who is forced to duck and hug his knees everywhere he goes but nobody ever gave him a discount. And he was born that way!

Although I quickly changed my mind on this one when I read an editorial which pointed out that an extra seat for the obese benefits greatly the poor sap who was stuck sitting beside them in the first place. I imagine it was rather uncomfortable for them too.

So where do we go from here? We blame various industries for weight-gain woes but there’s a new set of industries cropping up to service the obese. Extra-large coffins, for example, is a big industry now. Should they be grouped in the same category as Burger King or are they simply… moving with the times? Should we supersize our coffins and MRI beds (as we are doing now)? Or is that enabling?

Are individual obese people to blame or is it the culture? Capitalism? Genes?

When pointing the chunky finger of blame, who should be the accused?

The true cost of living

I love this country. I love this country for many, many reasons. But (oh and you knew it was coming...) this country of mine has some got a whole lot of dead skeletons in the closet and far too much dirt under the rug. Example of this?

Asbestos.

What is asbestos? According to the knower of all things wordy : Merriam Webster, asbestos is:

any of several minerals (as chrysotile) that readily separate into long flexible fibers, that cause asbestosis and have been implicated as causes of certain cancers, and that have beenused especially formerly as fireproof insulating materials.

Asbestos has been found to be incredibly toxic, as Mr. Webster points out. The problem with it is that it takes many years before symptoms of asbestos exposure are felt/seen. But nonetheless, the cancer causing asbestos has been exposed in Canada for many years and has been removed from plenty of schools, with strict regulations regarding exposure and so-called “free flowing particles”. Health Canada has dedicated an entire website to the stuff.

However Canada has been sending asbestos off to “Third World” countries for years, because apparently there lives are of no importance. Now don’t get me wrong. This is horrible. Totally horrible. But it’s not just horrible at the other end of the world. How do you think we get this stuff to send to other places?

We mine it here, particularly in Quebec.

“"The findings of the air, soil and dust samples lead us to conclude that the residential environment in areas near Thetford Mines are severely contaminated by asbestos," the report concluded.”

The report concluded that the people of this community of 26,000 are at an elevated risk of developing asbestos related diseases. Diseases like you know… cancer. Shit like that. You know… the stuff that kills you.

The situation is complicated however because this is a small, resource based community. Many of the community members were actually opposed to having the levels of asbestos in their homes measured. They were opposed to speaking to the researchers. Because their situation, like mining families in Sudbury, fishery families in the Maritimes is precarious and they can’t afford to bite the hand that feeds, so to speak.

So what do we do?

Asbestos causes cancer in those who mine it, those who live around it and those who have it in their homes. But people need jobs and people need insulation and both of these groups of people have been put in situations where asbestos related diseases are the lesser of two evils.

We need to call in Erin Brockovich. She’d set this whole thing straight.