An Open Letter to Online Commentators Everywhere

Dear Readers of Online News Articles,

Shut the fuck up. No, seriously.

Now in case this takes you by surprise, please, let me explain.

Online commentators used to be a rare breed; oh how I long for those days. Recently, online news portals have decided that they are going to “bring it to the people” and allow any asshole and their neighbour to comment on such things as an earthquake in Haiti, a white collar crime case or the Montreal Massacre.

In theory, this could be a great way to give people a voice. Let’s be honest; whether people comment or not, they typically have some sort of opinion on the matter. So why not share w/ the world, open up discussion and…. That’s where it falls apart.

Dimwits, like yourself Mr. “Canuck-for-a-buck” or “NeoConfromPEI” make ridiculously sexist, racist, xenophobic, classist, etc etc etc remarks under the anonymous guise of the internet identity. You’re not interested in having a discussion. Nope, you’re interested in flaming the shit out of the situation and/or offloading your years of intolerance on the World Wide Web.

Instead of being an intelligent human being who thinks things through, you shoot from the hip, like the Maverick that you are and give us gems like “The Liberals are behind this, AS USUAL” or “I say lock ‘em up and throw away the key” or my favourite “Deport their asses!” Ahh, from the mouths of babes.

Take December 6th, for example. It’s the National Day of Action and Remembrance for Violence against Womyn. Pretty significant day. This past year marked the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre and as usual, right-wing asshole “journalists” laid down editorial after editorial blasting “feminists” for exploiting “one day into a tirade against all men”. Because apparently, Marc Lepine is one insane asshole and every other misogynist is a stand-up guy.

This year, you online commentators took it to another level and brought 21st century Islamaphobia into the picture. How delightful! Now, I obviously blame the journalists in question who fail to put 2 and 2 together and actually understand the gravity of violence against womyn, but that’s another story. Today, my friend, is about you. You and your incessant douchebaggery.

Apparently Marc Lepine was not a product of an environment and culture that condoned violence against womyn. Even though he left a note explaining in detail how he hated feminists and how he was conducting the massacre in order to seek revenge on the womyn who had apparently “stolen his position” at the school, this isn’t good enough for the online commentators of the world. Nope, apparently Marc Lepine did was he did because he was a Muslim.

News to me.

Oh and I would link to your fabulous comments but truthfully, I don’t want to draw more attention to them and hey, you don’t need evidence to make your points so I guess I don’t either.

To conclude, online hate mongers, please consider one of two things. First, enroll in some sort of educational program, whether formal or informal and educate yourselves about the ways of the world. Find out about the history of the conflict in the Middle East, systemic discrimination in Canada (Yes, in Canada), find out how the political system works, read some Canadian history. Hell, just read a fucking book. (Non-fiction, please).

Or two, get off the news sites and get back to World of Warcraft. Your hobbits surely miss you.

Sincerely,

- Feminist Catalyst

Mmmmm.... Controversy, Part II

So back in May, the Governor General created an international raucous when she ate raw seal meat at an Inuit ceremony in the North. Canadians, including myself, applauded her while anti-seal hunt folks were up in arms.

Well, let’s put one more point towards the seal hunt camp because Parliament’s fancy, mucky-muck restaurant has added seal meat to the menu. This new item will join already existing meats like beef, pork and bison.

It’s a seemingly small gesture but it’s very impressive when you consider how controversial the whole issue is.

Once again, Michaël Jean for the win!

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.

All the Single Ladies, Put Your Hands Up

I'll admit to being one of the first people to cry bullshit about the H1N1 hysteria. I think pandemic fears are largely overblown and I am highly, highly sceptical of the new H1N1 vaccine. I also think that there’s been nothing but mass confusion about all this flu stuff in regards to what causes it, how it’s transmitted, what it will do to you and hell, even what the symptoms are. People are getting conflicting information left, right and centre.

As cynical as I might be, I am intrigued by the latest study that shows that of those admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for H1N1, 67.3% were female. The average age of ICU patients with H1N1 was 32.

This flies in the face of previous ideas that only the very young and very old were dying or being seriously afflicted with the virus.

They haven’t been able to pinpoint why womyn in particular are so affected. Unfortunately, it is no surprise to me that aboriginal womyn have the highest rates of H1N1. This is no shock when you consider the dismal quality of life that aboriginal womyn have in this country when it comes to a whole list of things.

But why females as a whole are so affected by H1N1 remains to be seen.

I’m a pandemic sceptic (and hope that I’m not proven wrong) but I’m very intrigued and disturbed by this latest data.

Update - Quebec is Suing Mad, too

Looks like Quebec has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

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?

Fight for your Right to Party

Canadians might be apathetic, but as I've said before, they love their booze.

We don't vote and are generally lazy bastards, but don't take away our booze!

But in all seriousness, I think this doesn't just have to do with booze; I think it's generational, too. Pensioners, especially ex-union members, are tough as nails and don't get pushed around easily. They fight for their rights. Which is commendable these days, even if it's regarding beer.

Update

So my blog post yesterday still stands and I thank this article for re-affirming what I said.

Yes, Michäelle Jean, you are a whole lotta badass.

Mmmm.... Controversy.

There are few things that I love more than food and controversy. Today, we get a meal of both!

So I have rather mixed feelings about the position of Governor General but I have very good feelings about this particular GG. I've met her on two different occasions and was really impressed with how knowledgeable she really is in the areas in which she throws herself into. She's incredibly warm and although not 100% genuine (By that I mean that you can tell that she's "on") she's pretty great.

But apparently, by eating a piece of raw seal meat while visiting the North, she's 10 levels of awful.

Seriously? Give me a break.

Never mind the animal rights activists who've been touting the "CLUB SODA, NOT SEALS" crap for years, critics across the Pond are saying that what she did was a political act and that the GG is supposed to do ceremonial acts only.

Let's break that down.

Political Part: It's only been deemed political because mostly overseas critics (I'm looking at you, McCartney) have viewed the seal hunt as political. Hunting animals as a whole is not inherently political. It's been going on forever and if I'm correct, the Queen herself is a big fan. Hence why she's got dogs!

Furthermore, people use the "Ceremonial Symbol Only" balogna all the time but the Monarchy is pretty freakin' political in itself and much more controversial than eating meat, I would argue.

So GG -1, Critics - 0

Controversial Part: Regardless of how it became that way, yes the seal hunt in Canada is controversial. Personally, I'm a huge supporter of the seal hunt but that is not the point here. Attending the Inuit ceremony/event was not deemed controversial but only when she ate some of the meat was it deemed that way. Okay... well what if she hadn't eaten the meat? What if she had been offered and then refused? What kind of controversial message would that send? It would certainly be a giant slap in the face of Inuit people and seal hunters, too.

Once again, GG -2, Critics - 0

As far as I'm concerned, seal hunting is an indigenous way of life and a huge economic boost to people living in the North and on the Canadian Coast. And until anti-hunting asshats can come up with a more environmentally friendly and sustainable means of making money, then they can shut the hell up. And leave Madame Jean out of it, too! If for no other reason than the fact that she has fabulous shoes and used to host one of my favourite shows.

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.

In Defense of Barbara

I was planning on writing a post about Barbie's 50th Anniversary this year and how I call myself a feminist and a major Barbie lover, but it seems that everyone has done this. Which makes me really happy, actually.

I could be sour grapes that other feminist bloggers have stolen my thunder, but the truth is, I'm happy to see that people are engaging in a critical analysis of Barbie.

In a nutshell? I understand that Barbie promotes unrealistic body ideals and that as a skinny, blonde, white girl growing up, I took that for granted. Barbie kinda looked like me, after all. But the truth is that Barbie was and still is in many ways, one of the few toys that didn't require you to mother it. She's not a doll in the typical sense of the word. You didn't feed Barbie, clothe Barbie or change Barbie like she was your child. You acted like you were her. And Barbie had some pretty bitchin' jobs, too. (For proof of how multi-tasking Barbie is, check out the amazing Sarah Haskins' video.)

Barbie was a "grown up" who was mature and not fetishized. She's a healthy way for young girls to see themselves as "older" without being... a Bratz doll. Hell, even the amazing Dora the Explorer got a makeover to look older and more attractive! Not cool. What was wrong with the other Dora?

So to me, the real magic of Barbie is that yes, she was an adult, but she wasn't telling girls to grow up and be an adult too quickly. Bratz et al on the other hand are telling girls that they can be adults now. All they need is to hike that skirt, lower that shirt and load up on the makeup. Barbie on the other hand, let you imagine you really were a Vet who was checking up on Skipper's dog or that you were cruising along the beach with your fancy car and all your lady friends. You were imagining it, after all.

So I say kudos, Barbie. You and your man have created impossible beauty ideals and promoted heterosexism above all else, but your plastic ways have also shown young girls (and boys!) that pretty girls aren't just pretty girls, they can be doctors, pilots, vets and singers, too.

Here's to 50 more years of synthetic tresses and disproportionate torsos!

Cities Contemplate Banning Bottle Water

... and I say, "It's about damn time!".

The Canadian Federation of Municipalities is toying with the idea of banning the sale of bottled water on municipal properties.

Setting aside the very real fact that there's a water war brewing in this world and that water privatization is scary as hell, the existence of bottled water is killing our environment. Our landfills are filled with the stuff and even if every bottled was recycled, the environmental cost of making those bad boys is outrageous.

And then you throw in the various studies showing that most bottled water is no better than what you get from the tap and personally, I'm left scratching my head.

To me, bottled water is one of the biggest scams in existence. I see it in the same category as "Botox" where our children and their children will look at us and say "WTF were you think?" "You mean, you used to BUY water from a BOTTLE when you could get it from the tap?" And then they'll burst into laughter. Especially if the water wars continue and our children's children will be forced to buy water from a bottle because we'll have sold it all to a handful of corporations.

Treat your water like a commodity to be bought and sold and that's exactly what will happen.

So "Kudos" to those municipalities who decide to follow through on this. There will be tons of pressure from Coke, Pepsi and the like but I'm hoping they stick to their guns.

Drinking bottled water has become a cultural symbol, right up there with drinking from a Starbucks cup. It's a class symbol. But it's also learnt behaviour. And just as society is starting to shift towards carrying around travel mugs for their coffee, the same can be done for water.

This may blow some people's minds, but there are such things as water bottles that you buy and you use over and over and over again. Yup. You buy it once and you keep using it again and again. And you fill it up with whatever you want. I know, it's crazy. But you should try it. All the cool kids do.

Story of My Life

"Women Still Feel Neglected By Car Repair Sector: Survey"

This Canadian survey, financed by Speedy (a car care company!) found that 43% of womyn felt that they received poorer customer service as compared to men.

A similar study, conducted in the US in 2008, found that 90% of womyn reported receiving different treatment in comparison to men.

I am not only a young womyn but I also drive an antique classic car and so I've had people not just short change or over charge me, but flat out charge me for a part that does not exist on my car.

This is just one more aspect of the car industry that needs an overhaul. They need to build cars that people actually want to buy, learn how to spend their money and overhaul their archaic gender stereotyping.

And a bailout won't do shit for that last part.

Screwed Over Employees Don't Take It Lying Down

... and this is news?

"Shocking" new report states that 59% of employees in an American study, took information with them when they left.

"Of those:

• 65 per cent took email lists.
• 45 per cent took non-financial business information.
• 39 per cent took customer information, including contact lists.
• 35 per cent took employee records.
• 16 per cent took financial information."

Is this really that shocking? It isn't good, don't get me wrong. As a frequent internet shopper and Debit Card addict, I don't like thinking about where my information has been and is going. But I also can't blame people, especially in a recession where job competitiveness is high and jobs in general are hard to find.

So when you get fired from your only chance at a paycheck, you're a little bitter so you take a little something with you. Or the competitor says that if you come and join them, they'll sweeten the deal if you sweeten your end with say... a list of contacts. Tit for tat, in either instance.

I can understand why people do it. But I also see how it's a vicious circle. You hate your job because your employer treats you like a child and micro-manages your every move, so you leave and take something with you for revenge, therefore reinforcing that you probably weren't very trustworthy to begin with and needed to be monitored.

See what I'm saying?

The only winners here are the researchers of this study. This is the kind of research I wish I was doing. I wish I was being paid to be Captain Obvious.

The Pavement On the Road To Hell

So the world is living in tough economic times and Barack Obama has the pleasure of taking over the US with no moola or prospects. So he puts together this ginormous stimulus and bailout package that includes a tiny, little catch. The catch is that infrastructure projects must "buy American". Sounds fine and dandy until Canada got wind and got its panties in a giant twist.

See Canada (and more precisely here, the conservatives) fear that it will start a trade war and that the loss of jobs here in Canada will be tremendous, since the US won't be relying on Canadian metal exports.

A valid point.

But an equally valid point is what Mr. Layton has just proposed, which is a "Buy Canadian" clause to how we operate. (Keeping in mind of course, that Canadian standards for "Made in Canada" products are sketchy and patchy at best. Maybe this should be the main issue?)

But "Buying Canadian" is a complicated request. If Canadians bought Canadian products, then we would give the economy a nice little boost. But unfortunately, there are little to no Canadian products left to buy, even if we wanted to.

And personally, I want to. I desperately want to. I'm one of those patriotic Canadian suckers who sheds a tear everytime a Canadian company gets bought or shipped overseas. (I'm looking at you, HBC). I mean, Tim Hortons is considered a Canadian icon and it doesn't even belong to us anymore! All we have left is Giant Tiger, Rona and a peppering of a few others.

So we couldn't simply "Buy Canadian" anyway, otherwise we'd starve. Or at the very least get scurvy and wear really ugly clothes.

But had we kept these companies here, we would have created jobs, stimulated the economy and possibly been able to avoid the giant fear of US protectionism. But that would have required not having a neo-liberal attitude and creating decent products that people actually wanted to buy. *coughFordcough*. We don't buy North American vehicles or North American clothes because the companies are cheap and consumers are cheap. And now, it's costing us.

Personally, I don't blame President Obama for wanting to include that clause. He's the President of the United States, not the world. And how can the US even be competitive traders, comrades or allies if they can't take care of their own first?

I think Canada should take this as a wake-up call to start really reading the fine-print and doing your homework on what you buy and where you buy it. And holding people accountable! I think the real lesson here is that is important that everyone do their part.

These past few years have taught us that its important to read the label, test products and use your consumer power. If we're going to be consumer whores, then let's make it productive at the very least.