Portrait of the Woman as a Young Artist

Team Olbermann

2008-03-13T15:12:00.006-04:00

I don't watch MSNBC, so this is my first real encounter with Keith Olbermann's commentary:

Hot damn! I totally see why people love this guy. And I've gotta say, I agree with most, if not all, of what he says.

The way Hillary Clinton's campaign has handled Geraldine Ferraro has been disgusting. This failure to condemn what is racist hate-mongering? Way to prove Samantha Power right. And I'm not going to say anything about the double-standard illustrated in the contrast between Power's resignation and Ferraro's--I think Olbermann says it all.

Like Erik, I'm really starting to tire of all this crap.

On pseudonymity and anonymity.

2008-03-07T18:48:00.008-05:00

Historically, it has not been uncommon for writers to publish under noms de plume. At times, pseudonyms have offered protection from political persecution and--in the cases of women like Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell, George Sand, and George Eliot--have lent legitimacy to to those whose work would otherwise have been dismissed on account of gender, et cetera.

The use of pseudonyms has not been, as one reading Margaret Cannon's review of Inger Ash Wolfe's The Calling might begin to think, pure gimmickry. (Related: I'll be delving into my advance-reading copy of The Calling as soon as I finish Stet--even though by that time the bookstore-employee perk of the "advance" will be a little superfluous.)

The Star's Vit Wagner gets this and, I think, ultimately strikes closer to the truth of pseudonymity:

Sometimes, as in the case of Charles Dodgson writing as Lewis Carroll, the desire to evade publicity was genuine. And then there were the many cases rooted in satire and mischief. When Henry Fielding wrote Shamela, his parody of Samuel Richardson's Pamela, it amounted to one anonymous writer sending up another.

Today, genuine and lasting pseudonymity is rare. Most know that Ruth Rendell is also Barbara Vine, that Anne Rice is sometimes Anne Rampling and A.N. Roquelaure or that Booker Prize winner John Banville has written crime novels as Benjamin Black.

Wolfe, by contrast, professes the purest, most guileless motivations, at least based on an email interview with the author (see sidebar). Who can say? Anonymity author Mullan offers some insights based on the available evidence and his own expertise.

"It sounds like a combination of two fairly traditional things," Mullan says. "When a literary author writes crime fiction, they often use a nom de plume as a mark that they are in a different role. But this is usually advertised, not disguised. [My emphasis.]

"To advertise the disguise is a publicity thing, surely. There are a lot of crime novels published. But this crime novel will, at least initially, get a degree of attention that others won't. If it's actually successful, critically or popularly, then the speculation about its authorship might begin to snowball."

"Actually trying to remain permanently concealed is very rarely the motive. In the majority of cases, writers either expect or hope that people will try to guess because that, in a way, is a sign of their success or éclat."

Pseudonymity is freeing. Well-established authors are, to a certain degree, released from the expectations of their usual audience. Back in January, Maclean's speculated that Inger Ash Wolfe was actually Jane Urquhart (Urquhart, according to Wagner's article, has since denied this.) From Urquhart, readers have come to expect a certain style, a particular interweaving of past and present, time and space (see Away, Changing Heaven, The Stonecutters, and--arguably her best--The Underpainter.) How would those who fell in love with this kind of writing receive an attempt at genre fiction? (Funnily enough, and maybe Michael would agree with me on this, the Urquhart leitmotivs could arguably constitute a a sub-genre of their own!) How could Urquhart ensure that a new, radically different text be judged on its own merits? By separating the text from the Urquhart brand, of course. Pseudonymity can re-invest first-time author status in the established author and can give him or her the latitude to explore outside the comfort zone.

Pseudonymity--and anonymity, for that matter--also allows one the latitude to speak or write without the fear of reprisal, and so in that way, too, pseudonymity is a good thing.

Yet that same freedom, as I recently discovered, can also be a violent, dangerous thing, if people use it to evade consequences. (Think of this in the context of anonymous hate-speech and Holocaust denial.) Trite as it may sound, freedom really does come with responsibility.

When it comes right down to it, though, I think that while pseudonymity and anonymity are appealing artistically, it ultimately takes more cojones to let your own name stand by what you write. That's what I've tried to do here for the past five-and-a-half years.

So, yes, while I do still feel strangely, a-little-guiltily authoritarian for implementing comment moderation here, I feel I'm at least being fair. I attach my name to what I write here; it's only right that would-be commenters should have to do so, too--even if that name be a pseudonym.

On the state of the best-sellers (non-fiction) list.

2008-02-29T21:25:00.004-05:00

What she said.

And while we're on the subject, no more metaphysics-lite books, please.

I hate to have to do this, but...

2008-02-24T19:50:00.005-05:00

Due to a very vile, very personal attack made by an anonymous commenter (whose identity I suspect--gotta love the stats counter), I have had to enable comment moderation.

EDIT: Just to clarify: I have begun moderating comments not because my support of free speech has wavered. Indeed it has not. Anyone has the right to disagree with me and to make that disagreement known to me. However, I do not believe that anyone has the right to make abusive, libelous or harassing comments here--especially not under the guise of anonymity!

Worker Bee.

2008-02-21T19:45:00.003-05:00

I've been busier than usual lately.

After months of rejection, it seems that I have all the work I can handle right now. I've gotten some more freelance assignments--and these ones are actually paid jobs! First, I'm writing a couple advertorial-type pieces for the local daily newspaper's ad department (and if the ad department can sell more of this kind of ad, I should have more work there, too.) Second, I'm writing a feature on cottages for a locally-published lifestyle magazine. And while it's not paid in the strictest sense of the word, I'm writing a book review for my editorial association branch's newsletter, for which my remuneration is the book in question.

But that's not all.

About a month ago I started working at my favourite independent book store--the very book store in which I would spend hours on end, first as a child and then as a teenager, dreaming amongst the stacks, lulled by the intoxicating smell of new paper and possibility. If reading for some is a sacrament, this store had indeed been my chapel.

Growing up, I had applied to work here no fewer than two or three times. I always thought that if I had to work in retail, a job in this store would be perfectly suited to me. In addition to playing to some of my strengths--namely, my knowledge and love of books--work there would, I always thought, be a pleasure as it would allow me to indulge in my youthful fantasy and to commune with people who shared my reverence for the written word.

And I have not been proven wrong.

The downside to all this work, though, is that it's become difficult not to feel overwhelmed. I feel that I hardly have enough time to read (in addition to reading for pleasure, my boss at the book store has stipulated that I follow some book sections/columns and trade publications--gotta keep up with the product knowledge!) and to edit (I'm still working on Michael's manuscript) let alone blog (here as well as at this new team blog over here) or work on my stories (I've been trying to prep a piece or two for short story contests and/or journal submission.) I feel instinctively that all the demands on my time will force me to make some hard choices about some of my commitments. Thing is, there isn't anything that I really want to give up. Is that crazy? If only some of these opportunities could have come my way months ago when I was whining about not having any work!

Still, I know that there are worse things to be than overrun with work you enjoy. I really shouldn't be complaining.

R.I.P. Mr. Ledger.

2008-01-23T14:31:00.000-05:00

All the rest of you, please go read the always-wonderful Dana Stevens' "10 Things I Loved About Heath Ledger: What Made Him Irreplaceable.

EDIT: An even more fitting tribute: this anecdote of Chelsea's. [Though I've read her blog before because of Twenty Something Bloggers (and yes, "Twenty Something" really needs a hyphen), this post was brought to my attention by Pajiba.]

Stars and Stripes-Gazing

2008-01-23T13:06:00.000-05:00

I've been following the primaries--with particular interest in the Democratic ones--in the U.S. fairly closely lately. Although I'm a Canadian and therefore can't vote, I nonetheless consider it important to know what's going on politically with our largest trading partner.

As I mentioned, the Democratic primaries are garnering most of my attention. I know it's too early to make predictions (and that the pundits have so far been thwarted at every turn), but--given that there are even Republicans who are unhappy with the state of affairs in the U.S.--there seems to be a sea-change brewing, and it seems that the Democrats, if (and ONLY if!) they can stop the divisive squabbling, may be able to tap into that and use it to real advantage.

Now, I'm not sure who'd I'd rather have leading the Democrats in the next election. While I'm leaning towards Barack Obama at the moment, I have gone back and forth on this matter and I have lots more time to do the same. I do know that if the U.S. is to elect another Republican president, I'd prefer John McCain, who is both intelligent and moderate, to the evangelical Mike Huckabee (need I point out what's happened to the church and state divide since the current evangelical commander-in-chief assumed office in 2000?) or to Mitt Romney, who--perhaps irrationally on my part--just doesn't sit well with me. But I digress...

Watching the Democratic debate on Monday night got me thinking seriously about who the eventual Democratic nominee would pick as a running mate--a choice that is arguably just as important as that which Democrats are making in the primaries.

Seeing how the candidates interact with one another, I'm beginning to suspect that should Clinton receive the nomination, she'll pick Obama as her running mate; however, I think that if Obama gets the nomination, John Edwards will be his VP candidate. Despite their differences, the rapport between Obama and Edwards seems collegial and generally respectful. Not so with that between Clinton and Obama.

I still think, though, that despite the hostilities, Hillary Clinton will need Barack Obama if she wants to succeed beyond the Democratic convention. From what I've been reading, a lot of people--whether they be Democrats, independents, or Republicans--still don't like her. She is a polarizing figure; much has been made, on the other hand, of Obama's unifying, bipartisan appeal.

But don't take my word for it. I'm far less knowledgeable about U.S. politics than all the talking heads that have been proven wrong by primary voters; my predictions should be taken with an even smaller grain of salt (if that's possible.) Still, I'll continue to watch and to think about all this regardless.

Blog for Choice 2008

2008-01-22T14:58:00.000-05:00

Today, Blog for Choice Day 2008, is the thirty-fifth anniversary of Roe versus Wade. (Canada's own decision on abortion rights--which, to this day, has actually left Canada without any abortion laws on the books--was written much later.) In the wake of the thirty-fourth anniversary, I posted a link to Frontline's 1983 documentary Abortion Clinic. While Abortion Clinic still warrants, as I put it last year, "watching (and rewatching, if you've already seen it), regardless of your opinion about abortion," I wanted to share a more personal reflection this year.

I am pro-choice. I have never had an abortion, nor have I ever been in the position to have to make the decision whether or not to have one. I don't think one has to have been in that position, though, to know that every woman has the right to make that decision herself--without the intervention of government, religious leaders, or the pro-life lobby.

Nevertheless, sensing that there are many who might call me a hypocrite, I've often wondered how well my pro-choice stance aligns with the principles of non-violence and stewardship that I work to incorporate into my life. I've tried to laugh off the accusation of hypocrisy--which, truth be told, comes more from me than anyone else--by stating how my support for a woman's right to choose at least accords with my ovo-lacto vegetarianism: "I eat eggs and I'm pro-choice, so there you go."

But today it finally occurs to me that to impel, coerce or otherwise force a woman--if you'll pardon the crudeness of this next verb--to grow something inside of her for nine months is in fact a kind of violence; it breaches her right to security of person. It is, in fact, for this reason that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that barring abortion amounted to telling Canadian women that section seven of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms excludes them on account of their uteri!

Part of me feels a little embarrassed to have come to this realization only now. But thankfully, my relief in reconciling, at least provisionally, my apparently contradictory beliefs is greater than any wounds to my pride!

Anyway, here are a few more posts and articles (most much better written than my own) befitting this anniversary:

- Erica Jong, writing over at The Huffington Post, asserts that "If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament" [via Jezebel.com];

- Salon.com's Eryn Loeb interviews Dr. Susan Wicklund, doctor, abortion services provider, and author of This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor;

- Jill et al give us lots to read with all the "Blog for Choice"-tagged entries over at Feministe;

- Jessica rounds up a lot of the Roe versus Wade anniversary/current American abortion rights coverage over at Jezebel.com; and

- given that Roe v. Wade was an American decision, there isn't a lot of current coverage of abortion rights here in Canada (sadly, not just today, but most days! This is particularly distressing given that there are still a number of issues surrounding access.) Still, there is information out there, if you know where to look. So allow me to direct you to these articles, as well as this page "On the Issues", at the website for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Very busy.

2008-01-15T15:10:00.001-05:00

To tie you over, feast on this morsel from Slate.com: Hillary's "Experience" Lie. Some excellent points here. I'm glad someone finally pointed that out.

Christmas, um, "gifts"...

2007-12-26T15:45:00.000-05:00

So I got my white Christmas after all; we got about two or three centimetres of snow on Sunday night. Unfortunately, that night I also got what I suspect is not the flu, but a mild case of food poisoning.

Drinking vegetable broth and ginger ale while nibbling on dry toast and soda crackers is not my idea of a vegetarian Christmas feast.

While I am feeling a bit better now, I'm still far too weak to do much. And, at the moment, my holiday run-down post falls under "much."

A globally-warmed Christmas

2007-12-23T02:50:00.001-05:00

The twenty-five to thirty inches of snow we got last weekend are almost gone and I can't help feeling sad about it. I can hear the rain pounding on the rooftop and on the pavement not far beyond my bedroom window as it travels along its direct course from heavens to ground--it is the sound of my child-like hope for a white Christmas disappearing. Flurries on the 24th just won't satisfy.

What happens to a post deferred?

2007-12-11T23:10:00.000-05:00

I know, I know: my promised update is long-overdue.

Perhaps you'll forgive me some when I say that I've been busy doing some freelance writing. And perhaps you'll forgive me a little more when I say that when I haven't been writing, I've been busy securing more freelance work and trying to get some full-time editing/proofreading work. And perhaps all feelings of annoyance will dissipate when I say that since the freelance work hasn't been enough for me to support myself while I look for said editing/proofreading work and since the now-five-month-long search for an editing gig has significantly depleted my savings, I've had to look for a part-time job on top of everything else.

Forgive my long absence and tardy return. I'm hoping that this post is the beginning of this blog's rebirth.

Thanks so much for all your patience.

Boastful.

2007-11-17T03:40:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Cristy at two peas, no pod for the link.

To those of you who still may be interested in this blog: I hope to resume posting at some point this coming week. I still don't feel quite like myself, but I'm starting to feel up to doing the things I love. And that's got to be the first step towards feeling like oneself again, right?

2007-10-26T10:43:00.000-04:00

Not going to be posting for a while. My grandfather, to whom I felt very close, has died.

New Additions

2007-10-23T13:53:00.000-04:00

Some of you may have noticed a few changes to my blogroll. Since the beginning of this month, I have added exactly twelve blogs.

- PopPolitics, which features posts on popular culture and politics (hence the blog's name), can be found under News and Views. This is a homecoming of sorts for this link, as I used to read PopPolitics regularly, but stopped--and consequently removed the link--when I got busy with grad school. I'm glad to be able to read it once again!;
- Lisa's Kitchen, a local vegetarian food blog, has been added to my list of Compassionate/Conscientious Living blogs;
- Under Friends and Favourites, you can find Truth & Beauty, Right this Moment, unrepentant old hippie, Thimble, the little knittin' kittin, and Agent Bedhead, the latter which I found via my beloved Pajiba, and the five former--with the exception of Thimble, which I found via BUST magazine--I found through Blogger interest searches. Most recently, I joined the blogging community Twenty Something Bloggers, through which I found Six Exits, GenPink, temporary madness, and memoirs of a 'gee--all which can also be found under Friends and Favourites.

Please check them all out!

And while you do that, I'm off to look over some freelance stuff and call my editor...

Bits and Bites

2007-10-22T16:06:00.000-04:00

- I've got some freelance work. It's unpaid, but I'm looking at it as an opportunity for me to build a portfolio of my published writing. Also, since it's for a magazine that's just getting off the ground, I'm hopeful that once it starts to build a base of subscribers, my unpaid work will lead to paid work;

- It's no secret that I love the comic strip "Non Sequitur." I find this strip, which ran last week, especially good;

- I am very disappointed in the Cleveland Indians;

- I am FINALLY more than half-way through the baby blanket I'm knitting! I'm really hoping it will be ready for shower I have to attend in a week and a half. If not, I can always take a picture of the work-in-progress and slip it in the card; and

- I saw Elizabeth: The Golden Age on Friday night. While the acting was almost uniformly fantastic (there was the odd scenery-chewing exception), I've got to say that I was disappointed in the heavy-handedness of the direction towards the end: excusably obvious symbolism (i.e. the floor-size map of Western Europe in Elizabeth's war room--Elizabeth sits on England, protecting it from models of the Spanish and Spanish-allied forces) gives way to the inexcusable (i.e. Elizabeth in angelic white, arms outstretched; crosses from Spanish ships tumbling through the turbulent sea; Spanish clergy literally turning their backs on Philip; etc.,) What's more, the script feels a little unfocused. I can't help feeling that in Elizabeth: The Golden Age, the human drama that was at the heart of all the political intrigue in Elizabeth seems watered down; there would have been better ways of showing the alienating effects of leadership than fabricating a rather unbelievable Elizabeth-Raleigh-Bess love triangle. Don't get me wrong: Cate Blanchett is as wonderful as always. But is it too much to ask that the human drama arise from the actual history?! And couldn't we at least have had more of Samantha Morton's Mary Stuart? Maybe it's just that I've been so looking forward to this film for the past nine years that I was bound to be disappointed?

EDIT: Brian D. Johnson, who reviews Elizabeth: The Golden Age for Maclean's, would appear to agree with me:

Fictionalizing history is a noble literary crime that goes back to Shakespeare and Homer. The real issue arises when it makes the drama feel inauthentic. And some of The Golden Age's more opulent excesses -- from its torrid score to its painterly vistas of a digital armada -- have a counterfeit ring.

But the cast keeps it real. [...].

Blanchett, meanwhile, is magnificent. There's an emotional translucence in her pale chameleon features. The intelligence is visible. You can see moods play across her face like wind on water: fear, whimsy, flirtation, suspicion, calculation, rage -- and iron resolve. [...].

Read the whole review here.

R.I.P. Joey Bishop

2007-10-19T01:02:00.000-04:00

The most underrated--and last surviving--member of The Rat Pack has died.

Missed it!

2007-10-18T22:21:00.000-04:00

Even though I bookmarked the site, I missed Blog Action Day, which was--as many of you know--this past Monday. I blame it, at least in part, on my post-interview exhaustion.

I had originally wanted to write a new post to mark the day, but since it is now Thursday and since I have convocation tomorrow and knitting and reading to do tonight, I've decided to highlight a couple earlier entries that take as their theme environmental sustainability:

- On January 28, 2007, I wrote about why I became a vegetarian in a post entitled "What I mean when I say 'environmental sustainability';" and

- On June 30, 2007, I continued in the environmental-sustainability-vegetarianism vein with help from an AlterNet article by Tyghe Trimble.

For other eco-thoughts inspired by Blog Action Day or otherwise, see Veggie Chic, WorldCentric, and TreeHugger.

Notes on an October Saturday

2007-10-13T23:44:00.001-04:00

I feel very accomplished today.

I baked my weekly loaf of spelt bread, and I read the newspaper and a bit from Frankenstein while taking a leisurely brunch. And that was just the A.M.!

This afternoon, I did a bit of writing here and houseware-related dreaming over here (when I have more money, I am buying this sheet set in merlot--it will pick up the dark, reddish pinks in my quilt quite nicely, I think); washed dishes; researched area-based vegetarian blogs and organizations (I had some luck in the blogs department, but not much else); and made curried butternut squash soup for dinner.

Finally, this evening found me reading a little more Frankenstein and preparing for Monday morning's job interview.

I think I shall sleep well tonight!

October

2007-10-13T13:38:00.000-04:00

I love this time of year. I always have.

As a child, October meant that the air was finally cool enough for me to wear the smart sweaters and woolen skirts, the back-to-school clothes my mother had bought me back in August when I was dreaming of clean notebooks, freshly sharpened pencil crayons, and a reprieve from the summer humidity. October meant my mom's baked goods, new wooly mittens and a hearty soup luncheon bought at our church's bazaar, and piles of coloured leaves primed for leaping into.

As a teenager, October meant high school football. It meant the homecoming dance at which I could model a new dress while dancing until dizzy with my girlfriends. It meant lazily curling up in a late-afternoon sunbeam to read or to try to tackle whatever homework had been assigned that night.

As an adult, October means leaving the windows open until the temperature in the house drops below seventy-two degrees Fahrenheit and then curling up in the wing-chair or in my cocoon of a bed to read until all hours of the night. It means Christmas knitting projects in full-swing, baking of my own, and long walks through wooded areas alive with harvest and early migration.

Above all, for my adult self October means change--of temperature, of leaves, of diet--but also constancy, for October, more than any other month, is ripe with all the meanings and associations it has ever held for me.

I want, I want, I want!

2007-10-13T00:44:00.000-04:00

This would be perfect for carrying my knitting around! Right now, I don't have a knitting bag. I was going to make myself one (I even bought the fabric!), but--alas!--I have neither a sewing maching, nor money to buy one. And all that hand-stitching would be a bit of a pain... Pity, pity, pity me.

And speaking of knitting accessories I'm wanting right now, I also really like this and this.

I am totally loving the awesomeness that is Thimble.ca--the lady (from the e-mail address on her "About" page, I believe her name is Laural) is both talented and inspiring. At the same time, though, I am unamused by the fact that the wonderful shop there has so many things I like but can't afford right now.

EDIT: When I do have money, one of the first things I plan to buy is the Singer Inspiration 4210, which is supposed to be a breeze to use--perfect for the girl who, when trying to teach herself how to use her mother's old Kenmore machine, got so frustrated and confused that she gave up before she had finished threading and has yet to return to the enterprise...

Anyway, I'm off to curl up with the perfect bedtime pair for a chilly Friday night in October: a mug of hot water and my copy of Frankenstein!

Ontario Votes 2007: Thoughts after the election

2007-10-13T00:19:00.001-04:00

1.) This Liberal platform point, which will be effective immediately (i.e. they plan to pass the bill as soon as the legislature convenes), is stupid. Well, not the holiday part, but the fact that it's supposed to celebrate "family." Aren't there already enough holidays that celebrate families? I mean, there's Mother's Day, Father's Day, Grandparents' Day. According to Dear Dalton:

"There is nothing more valuable to families than time together. And yet it seems tougher than ever to find, with so many of us living such busy lives," McGuinty said.

"That's why, on the third Monday of this coming February — and every February from now on — Ontarians deserve a new statutory holiday — Family Day."

Isn't the entire Christmas season family-oriented?! And Thanksgiving? Where the hell is Single Persons' Day? What about a day celebrating our life choices?! Must we wait until we marry ourselves à la Carrie Bradshaw?

Of course, I'm not serious about a Single Persons' Day. However, what I am serious about is my distaste for designating a statutory holiday "Family Day." It's discriminatory and, quite frankly, superfluous. There are more than enough occasions to celebrate family. Just make the day a stat. Or, better yet, scrap the proposed February holiday and move it to November. Why, after all these years, is Remembrance Day in Ontario not marked by the cessation of work?! While I am a pacifist, I think that if anything merits celebration in this province, it's the sacrifice of our servicemen and women!

2.) Caroline Di Cocco, the only Liberal cabinet minister to lose his or her seat, is blaming the mayor of her riding for her defeat. No, not because he undertook a devious, counter-Caroline campaign, but because he pushed for the disclosure of the cost of the new hospital. Di Cocco was quoted in the local paper as saying how one doesn't discuss costs when one's trying to get contracts signed. Whatever. A memo from the health minister was sent to the hospital board on August 14th, quoting the cost as more than double the initially projected cost. This memo was carbon-copied to Di Cocco; she claims she didn't see it until October 1st--the reason for this being, according to today's London Free Press, that she was busy with her re-election campaign.

And I say that, ballooning hospital costs aside (N.B.: the $314 million price tag doesn't include costs associated with decommissioning the old hospital, architects fees, etc.,), these are reasons enough to lose a seat! First, as a member of provincial parliament, your first responsibility is to be accountable to your constituents, not to get yourself re-elected. If your constituents want to know how much money for which they'll be "on the hook," it is your responsibility to inform them to the best of your ability, regardless of the state of contract negotiations. Such is the principle of transparency that should be at work in all contracts that are signed with the private sector on behalf of the public.

Second, if, as Di Cocco maintains, she did not see the memo, she was also in remiss of her duties. While I understand that the volume of correspondence must seem daunting at times, it was her responsibility to ensure that she was kept abreast of all developments associated with the hospital contract. If she hadn't heard anything, why wasn't she making inquiries?!

Caroline Di Cocco has no one to blame for this loss but herself. While I am disappointed that her riding instead went to a Conservative, she didn't earn herself another mandate.

3.) To illustrate to the misinformed/non-believers/whatever you want to call all those who voted against proportional representation why we need proportional representation, I calculated the percentage of the 107 Ontario legislature seats won by each of the political parties and compared it to their share of the popular vote, which was reported in the local newspaper here. The results are as follows:

Liberals: 66.4% of seats/42.1% of popular vote
Conservatives: 24.3% of seats/31.6% of popular vote
New Democrats: 9.3% of seats/16.9% of popular vote
Greens: 0.0% of seats/8.1% of popular vote
Other: 0.0% of seats/1.4% of popular vote

How can you not be disgusted by the fact that garnering almost 17% of the votes cast (excluding spoiled ballots, of course) will get you under 10% of the seats in legislature?! Or that 8% of the votes won't you anywhere?! Hell, even if you're further to the right of the political spectrum than I am, how can you not be annoyed by the fact that your party's support isn't accurately reflected by the make-up of the legislature?!

Ontario Votes 2007: Thoughts on the referendum

2007-10-11T00:59:00.000-04:00

Though the result wasn't unexpected, I can't express how profoundly disappointed I am by this result nonetheless. Why people would choose to maintain the undemocratic status quo of a first-past-the-post electoral system is beyond me. Yes, there were some flaws in the proposed mixed-member-proportional (MMP) system; however, as a system, it is much more effective in registering the "will of the people"!

"They" are saying that voters didn't know what was going on as far as the referendum. To my clueless fellow voters I say, "If you don't understand the question, DON'T CAST A BALLOT EITHER WAY!" With the right to vote comes the responsibility to educate yourself about your choices. If you can't be bothered with the responsibility, then you don't deserve the right. It's like operating a car: when you don't drive responsibly, you risk harming everyone who may share the road with you. Ditto voting.

But I cannot fault my fellow voters alone.

To Elections Ontario, the body tasked with running a referendum education campaign, I say, "Shame on you!" While I can speak of only my own riding, if it is at all exemplary of the those across the province, the referendum info sessions were poorly promoted. Consider this in concert with the failure of newspaper ads and flyers to clarify the benefits of each choice of electoral system, and it's easy to see why MMP failed!

And so while I am frustrated right now, I am by no means defeated--I remain an ardent supporter of proportional representation--and neither, really, is the idea of proportional representation. This referendum failed to be a catalyst for change not because voters don't want proportional representation, but because they don't understand it. This failure is Elections Ontario's and not democracy's.

Retrospective.

2007-09-27T04:36:00.000-04:00

As of the 20th of August, this blog had been up for five years, Five!

As I was getting ready for bed Monday night, I started wondering how I got to blogging in the first place.

August 2002 was a period of change for me. I was just twenty-one. Only a month out of what was my first--and, even to this date, most--serious relationship, I was starting to re-evaluate the person who I was and the person who I wanted to become. I had been in love; we had talked about getting married once we were finished our degrees. But we just weren't that compatible. Different interests are one thing, but different emotional languages are quite another. He didn't communicate the way I needed him to, and I felt that I couldn't communicate who I was or what I felt to him in the way that I wanted to. So much of myself was I afraid of revealing to him lest he suddenly decide he didn't like what he saw. I wasn't always so afraid, but I learned to be. He had a bad habit of getting scared of his feelings for me and then abruptly breaking up with me--only to want to reconcile a short time later. And I had the equally bad habit of taking him back. I learned to be self-denying and non-confrontational; I learned to try not to be so damn scary.

August 2002 found me trying to shed those lessons. It found me, in the language of Monday night's season premiere of "How I Met Your Mother," trying to "win the break-up."

I had my long hair--which he had loved and lauded, and which I had maintained even though I had really wanted a change--lopped off into a bob. I wish I could say that the new style was a conscious decision on account of its 1920s-era symbolism, but I can't. The appropriateness of my bob occurs to me only now: cutting my hair was, literally and symbolically, an act of defiance. It was a way for me, at least superficially, to re-discover, to free the person I was from his expectations, under which I had long-allowed myself to be smothered. I can't tell you how much pleasure--and yet still annoyance--I derived from the disapproval he voiced when we had met up for a one-month-post-break-up cup of coffee.

August 2002 found me admitting to myself that yes, indeed, I was a feminist. What's more, it found me increasingly more willing and able to admit it to others. I couldn't, wouldn't, do that during my relationship with my ex; he had made his opinion of feminism well-known to me.

August 2002 found both my passion to write and what would later be expressed as my determination to make a career of writing renewed. I was wondering who this new me was going to be, and I was sure she was going to be a writer! And it is with that in mind that I conceived and dedicated this blog:

Well, this is it. I thought I'd finally be brave and delve into the world of on-line journalling. It's strangely comforting--knowing that there's an audience for my private thoughts. Perhaps there is a closet exihibitionist in me after all! Maybe it's just the writer in me. I dunno. As it rolls off my tongue, that phrase seems to have all the grace of a dancing elephant. I still have misgivings about calling myself a writer. Despite what Professor Garber told me. I don't know if the name "writer" will ever feel natural to me. It's like how Sylvia Plath said that for every success she appeared to have, she had "acres of doubt and misgiving." "Writer." Perhaps its one of those things that you have to grow into. Or maybe I'll wake up one morning and it will have been "thrust upon" me. Maybe I'll feel differently if either Lichen or A Room of One's Own decides to publish one of my stories? Who knows? Until that growth spurt, I'll continue yammering on here and on my computer. At the very least it'll give me the time to really listen to myself.

To blogging I turned less out of a desire to "win the break-up" than to allow myself time and space to write. It is for that reason, I think, that I've more-or-less stuck with it for so long.

But my blogging seems less about my writing nowadays. I suppose this development was foreshadowed even in that first year, what with the myriad of quizzes and memes I posted. Nowadays, when I do update, I post YouTube videos I like, or links to articles that I've enjoyed or been annoyed about; there seems to be less of my own voice coming through here, and no, that's due only in part to self-censorship (since August 2002, I've learned just how little control a writer has over her e-audience.) The other part? I'm not sure.

Of what I am now sure is a growing desire to renew the dedication of this blog: not only do I want this space to allow me to maintain the friendships blogging helped me to form during that first year (with Jae at come back to what you know, and Becky--the Diana Barry to my Anne Shirley, whom I wish lived close enough to get together for lunch or tea, or for me to drop by with a homemade pie or to offer to watch Emma so that she and Jerry could have some alone time--at grrrl meets world.), but I want it to help me to rediscover that creative voice of mine, about which I was so sure back in August 2002, which has been so silent these past two and a half years.

Not dead.

2007-09-25T01:37:00.000-04:00

And no, I haven't lost interest in blogging either. It's just that lately I've been more interested in living.

From the last time I posted until the beginning of August, I was holed-up to finish my thesis and to prepare for my thesis defense. After the thesis was approved--and approved unanimously, I might add--I moved back to my hometown for a while, and for the almost-two-months since then, I've been using my parents' home as a base from which I can look for work all over the province. As a lot of the postings for which I've applied are finally closing, I'm starting to get interviews.

But it hasn't been all work and no play.

I've also been doing a lot of reading and knitting, going on a lot of walks, and spending time with my family. I've found myself, job-searching aside, spending less and less time at the computer. And I've loved it.

That being said, I do miss the blogosphere, with the information it allowed me to glean regularly, the different perspectives it helped me to discover, and the friendships it allowed me to form and/or to maintain.

So I'm back. And I'm hoping to post something at least once or twice a week.

Rather than extend the previous post and, more importantly, because it deserves a post of its own...

2007-07-02T01:11:00.000-04:00

Dare I say that--with the exception of turntablists like DJ Spooky, and artists/groups like Mos Def, Talib Kweli and (usually) OutKast and The Roots--Canadian hip-hop is generally more interesting than anything currently being produced south of our border? There. I said it.

And now I'll back that up:

"Trust Us" by Pocket Dwellers

"Superstarr Part Zero" by k-os

"Soobax" by K'naan

"Wicked and Weird" by Buck 65

"Sharks" by Cadence Weapon

Now, if only these artists had a bigger audience! The article is a little more than two years old, and I'm far enough removed from the hip-hop scene that I can't comment on whether or not much has changed...

Why am I not surprised?

2007-07-01T13:21:00.000-04:00

CIA spied on left-wing Canadians in '60s, '70s: documents
B.C. professor monitored in spy operation calls it 'utterly shameful'

The Central Intelligence Agency spied on Canadians critical of the Vietnam War during the late 1960s and '70s in an operation code-named "MH Chaos," CBC News has learned.

The U.S. spy agency targeted university professors, students and other Canadians who the agency believed were espousing left-wing ideas.

[Read more here.]

Know what? Given the domestic track-record of the current U.S. administration, I wouldn't be surprised if they were spying on us lefty Canadians even today. 'Cause, you know, it really is a socialist paradise up here. All policy aside, even one of our national colours is red! *Rolls eyes.*

[Image via Wikipedia.]

And on that note, happy 140th birthday to the socialist paradise I know and love, and a very happy Canada Day to all my fellow pinko Canucks!

(As an aside, I've been fortunate enough not only to see Gordon Lightfoot live--and yes, he's just as good as he is on his albums!--but to go backstage and get his autograph! Please excuse the fawning...)

EDIT: And in honour of the day, here are a few videos by Canadian artists you may not have heard of, if you live outside of Canada...

"Freedom" by The Nils

"Smile and Wave" by The Headstones

"Top of The World" by Rascalz featuring Barrington Levy and K-os

"History" by Controller.Controller

"Any Day Now" by The Watchmen (This was one of my favourite songs in high school.)

"One More Astronaut" by I Mother Earth (Another favourite song from my high school years...)

Just 'cause.

2007-06-30T16:12:00.000-04:00

Here's hoping that their recent performances at Coachella and elsewhere are an indication of a forthcoming album!

EDIT: Or, if Rage Against the Machine isn't going to record together, here's hoping that Tom Morello brings us more stuff as The Nightwatchman!

More on diet and the environment.

2007-06-30T15:15:00.000-04:00

Five Eco-Diets Get Put to the Test
By Tyghe Trimble

I am your run-of-the mill vegetarian. I started up after a college cafeteria gave me dry Salisbury steak with a side of food poisoning, kept it going for a girl, then firmed up a deepening veggie philosophy with some essential reading. I stuck with it from there because I’m healthy as hell, think there is little more appealing than fresh arugula salad, and, really, who would doubt a diet promoted by Einstein?

But these days, regular old vegetarianism -- which 10 percent of Americans claim to be, by the way -- is just one jumping point for molding a healthy dietary conscience. As meals today come complete with a carbon footprint, more of us are eating with the health of the watershed, soil and sustainable farming in mind. Everyone’s favorite (albeit omnivorous) food guru Michael Pollan said it best with his sage advice for healthy eating: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

Still, like any new dietary trend, sustainable diets are subject to extremes, as well as their own fair share of loopholes and problems (think Atkins and a bunless triple-cheeseburger with bacon). I decided to see for myself what’s on the menu for the vegan, for the 100-mile-dieter, for the raw foodist, the slow food advocate, and the strictly organic consumer, noting how these diets hold up beyond theory and in surreptitious practice (i.e. is that really organic?). To aid my assessment of each diet’s feasibility, sustainability, health and strain on the wallet, I attempted to practice each method for one week.

[Read the whole article here.]

One of the things I like about this article is Trimble's honesty; he actually recognizes that, unfortunately, even vegan diets aren't necessarily 100% eco-friendly. Sometimes there will be trade-offs:

For every hunk of beef, slice of cheese and glass of milk you replace, you are giving a nod to the veggie farmer and shying away from problems plaguing the animal products industries: run-off, overuse of antibiotics and growth hormones. Still, there are no limits on your food’s carbon footprint (grapes from Australia, anyone?).

As much as I love living in Canada, this is something that bothers me: it is very difficult to get locally-grown produce at certain times of year. I mean, I love Autumn produce, like squash and apples, but I know that it's unrealistic to think that I can subsist on squash and apples and pumpkin through the Fall and Winter months. In order to ensure variety in my diet, on occasion I've found myself having to choose between produce from California and produce from, say, Argentina. Since the produce has to travel such a ways, neither the California produce nor the Argentina produce is ideal. Of course, I choose the produce that's travelled the shortest distance, but that's cold-comfort for one who'd really rather be eating locally.

Perhaps now you better understand my enthusiasm when it comes to reading news like this. Vertical farms would allow for the consumption of local, organic produce on a much larger scale than is happening even today. 'Cause, let's face it, not everyone puts that much thought and effort into their dietary choices:

the shock doc’s [Super Size Me] main point is not that McDonald’s is bad for you -- because, well, duh -- but rather that the average American thinks so little about the quality and history of the food they put into their body.

The sustainable diets I’ve explored have one unifying priority -- they aim to return thought back into diet. But, once the rules become unthinking habit, loopholes appear. Sure going raw can be healthy, but eating three Chilean avocados a day could leave you with high cholesterol and a hefty carbon footprint. The trick to eating with a conscience is to mix and match ideologies to create meals that are healthiest for you and the planet.

I don't think I could have said it better myself!

An object lesson in the history of avant-garde film.

2007-06-25T00:54:00.000-04:00

Check out Joseph Cornell's 1936 short film, Rose Hobart: part one and part two.

Links to the film via Jessica Winter's article on the minisode.

The future of agriculture?

2007-06-24T01:47:00.000-04:00

From the BBC:

Vertical farming in the big Apple
By Jeremy Cooke
BBC News, New York

Downtown Manhattan is hardly a place you would associate with agriculture. Rather, with its countless restaurants, cafes, shops and supermarkets this is a place of consumption.

And so every morsel, every bite of food New Yorkers munch through every day must be trucked, shipped or flown in, from across the country, and across the world.

Now though, scientists at Columbia University are proposing an alternative. Their vision of the future is one in which the skyline of New York and other cities include a new kind of skyscaper: the "vertical farm".

The idea is simple enough. Imagine a 30-storey building with glass walls, topped off with a huge solar panel.

On each floor there would be giant planting beds, indoor fields in effect.

There would be a sophisticated irrigation system.

And so crops of all kinds and small livestock could all be grown in a controlled environment in the most urban of settings.

That means there would be no shipping costs, and no pollution caused by moving produce around the country. [Read the whole thing.]

Why, oh, why can't the future be now?!

It's cool to care.

2007-06-14T22:48:00.000-04:00

I've mentioned before how it was the environmental sustainability arguments for vegetarianism that finally got me to drop the "I'm against animal cruelty, but I like the taste of meat" bullshit, and become a vegetarian. Though the aforementioned post was made in January of this year, I made my decision to stop eating meat almost two years ago (though, as I've said before, I made the dietary gradually so as to ensure that I did it healthily and that I didn't feel like I was really depriving myself of anything.)

Well, apparently, I'm ahead of the curve. Conscientious eating is cool--even for the gourmet set:

Peter Hoffman, whose organization Chefs Collaborative works to promote connections between restaurants and small farmers, defines sustainable cuisine as "following practices and management techniques that don't take any more from the world than they put back." An umbrella concept that incorporates the best from a number of movements, this is the latest food-world trend, and it's poised to enter the mainstream. "There's a whole new level of awareness," says Hoffman. "People want to understand how they're participating in the global food supply." And if they can do it while eating dishes like roasted pork loin with black beans and baby ramps, served at Hoffman's Manhattan restaurant, Savoy, all the better.

[...]

Increasingly sophisticated about food, they have begun to crave a more informed, meaningful gastronomic experience. "People want to reconnect with the source of their meal," says Dan Barber, a New York-based chef and strong supporter of local farms. "It adds romance, makes it taste better."

The organic craze was the first wave of this new awareness. But as government regulation has broadened the meaning of this term and diminished its value (a recent move by the USDA to further relax organic standards was, thankfully, dropped after a huge outcry), a diverse group of organizations have filled the vacuum. Slow Food, founded in Italy, focuses on rescuing traditional artisanal products, such as handmade salamis and raw-milk cheeses, from growing homogenization. Barber's latest venture, the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, is the ultimate experiment in cooking locally: A branch of his successful Manhattan restaurant, Blue Hill, is nestled on an 80-acre Westchester farm, which supplies food for the restaurant. And Waters, the movement's patron saint, is still going strong. She has created a student-staffed teaching garden at a Berkeley middle school, and works with school districts around the country to include more natural ingredients in their cafeteria food.

The term that unites all these agendas is "sustainability." It's a tall order, but, according to Barber, both fulfilling and attainable. "In our culture, we associate doing good with sacrifice," he says. "But here's an opportunity to combine morality with pleasure. You can cast a vote with every piece of food you buy, choosing what kind of world you want to live in. And you can make an enormous difference."

[Read the whole article, complete with tips for incorporating considerations of environmental sustainability into the way you look at food, here]

It's nice to see the article's hat-tip to Oldways, who has had a link in my sidebar since I foud out it existed three or four years ago.

Anyway, while I've always liked cooking and food, if you think I've been giving even more thought to these matters recently, you're right. It's hard not to, though. When you choose a diet to fit your politics, your ideals, it's no longer a just a diet; it's a lifestyle. And it's hard not to reflect on ways you can make further improvements, and to look actively for ways to better inform the way you live your life.

Which is why, even though I have a thesis I'm working on and even though I don't anticipate being able to start reading it until July 19th, I bought Tim Harford's The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor--and Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car! yesterday. (Which is why I am particularly looking forward to reading the following chapters in the book: "Who Pays for Your Coffee?"; "What Supermarkets Don't Want You to Know"; "Why Poor Countries Are Poor"; and "Beer, Fries, and Globalization.")

Which is also why I've been eyeing (but the thesis has so far kept me from buying) Food Is Different: Why We Must Get the WTO Out of Agriculture since February, and which is why my eyes lit up when I stumbled across The Ethics Of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter earlier this evening.

Still alive.

2007-06-13T23:08:00.000-04:00

This is just a quick update to let you all know that I still exist. It's just that I've had moving issues, and landline issues, and social insurance number issues, and cell phone issues. Oh, yeah! AND computer and thesis issues--the former entailed my almost-seven-year-old PC dying on Thursday (I think it's just the hardware, so my uncle--when I ask him nicely--should be able to salvage the few files that weren't backed up) and then me buying a shiny, new MacBook on Friday, while the latter entailed (entails!) me having trouble focusing and then, of course, beating myself up for it (I'm hoping that the deadlines I gave my supervisor will help me kick it into gear.)

Anyway, since I have company this weekend (my childhood best friend Kerri is coming down for my birthday on Saturday, and my parents are coming for a birthday brunch on Sunday) and I've promised to send my allegory chapter to my supervisor by Monday, I'll probably continue to be pretty quiet here until Tuesday. Unless something either really amuses me or really pisses me off. Care to tempt me?

WTF?!

2007-05-30T16:35:00.000-04:00

This is just reprehensible [link via Radical Indian.]

Please, register your disgust by contacting Tim Hortons' corporate headquarters at the following:

874 Sinclair Road
Oakville, ON L6K 2Y1
Tel: (905) 845-6511
Fax: (905) 845-0265

EDIT: Human Right for All: No Exceptions - The Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Directed to this page by an A.I. link on the Radical Indian's blog.

I'd say I have a bone to pick, but I'm a vegetarian...

2007-05-23T14:40:00.000-04:00

Okay. While I am an ovo-lacto vegetarian and not a vegan, this article, "Death by Veganism" (via Fatfree Vegan Kitchen), bothers me.

Now, I'm not equipped to address Planck's nutrition data regarding veganism and infants (I defer to this article on veganism and pregnancy and the ADA's work on vegetarian diets--both links via this post at the Fatfree Vegan Kitchen); however, I am more than equipped to take issue with this paragraph:

Historically, diet honored tradition: we ate the foods that our mothers, and their mothers, ate. Now, your neighbor or sibling may be a meat-eater or vegetarian, may ferment his foods or eat them raw. This fragmentation of the American menu reflects admirable diversity and tolerance, but food is more important than fashion. Though it’s not politically correct to say so, all diets are not created equal. [Emphasis mine.]

In the penultimate sentence in the above quoted paragraph, Planck equates veganism with "fashion." To me this seems to be just another example of the dismissiveness with which vegetarians, vegans, and vegetarianism are treated by certain (large) sections of the meat-eating population.

Now, I don't want to turn this blog into my own veggie soapbox because I'm not out to convert people--vegetarianism isn't going to be right for everyone and far be it for me to try to force it on them!--and also because I respect the number of meat-eating friends and family members who are more than supportive of me and of my vegan sister (they're totally cool with my bringing vegetarian/vegan dishes to potlucks, and they're cool with eating those kinds of dishes when I invite them over to dinner at my place. Family members like my mother and my maternal grandmother are always on the lookout for new recipes that are veggie-friendly. With them my vegetarianism has never been an issue--one of my friends even jokes how she's friends with me only for my vegetarian cooking!) and who read this blog to keep tabs on me, not to be proselytized to. But lately I've encountered a lot of the kind of uneducated dismissiveness of my lifestyle exemplified by both Nina Planck's and Martin Booe's recent articles.

I am reminded of an instance that occurred at one of the campus pubs back at the beginning of April. After class, my professor/thesis supervisor, my colleagues and I had gone out for a couple pints, and vegetarianism--and, tangentially, macrobiotic diets--came up in conversation. Well, my professor--fully knowing that I was a vegetarian--went off on a rant about how stupid/naive it was to choose those kinds of lifestyles, how it doesn't really make a difference (I had said how my primary motivation for adopting my lifestyle was on account of my concerns for environmental sustainability.) His attitude--whether he intended to come off that way or not--suggested that he thought people following vegetarian or macrobiotic diets were misguided or flaky. I couldn't help, but feel both hurt and insulted.

The vast majority of vegetarians I know--myself included--took the time to educate themselves about all aspects of vegetarianism, going beyond the animal rights and environmental arguments for adopting such a lifestyle to the nutritional requirements and benefits for vegetarians; for the vast majority of vegetarians, vegetarianism was not entered into lightly. In order to ensure that I didn't become malnourished, I adopted a vegetarian diet gradually, reducing my meat intake as I incorporated more and more meat alternatives, all the while learning what I need to eat to sustain the levels of iron and B-vitamins (and if the blood work I had done during my physical in January--the first blood work I had done as a vegetarian--is any indication, this approach was a success.)

My point? Most vegetarians adopt the lifestyle not only because it conforms to their beliefs, but because they've done their research. It is thus both ignorant and disrespectful to suggest that we're uneducated, flighty trend-hoppers.

EDIT: Here's an excellent response to Planck's article that I found via the Fatfree Vegan Kitchen.

A word or two about unionism.

2007-05-21T16:08:00.000-04:00

My belief in unions and unionism, despite their flaws (see Brecht's St. Joan of the Stockyards for one literary instantiation of them), is strong. This is, undoubtedly, on account of the fact that I was raised in a home where both parents were union members in good standing.

I grew up seeing my father and his colleagues weather a six-plus month lockout to win more equitable working conditions. I grew up marching in along with my father and his local in Labour Day parades. And I had a mother who was a union steward.

Then, when I was 18 and applying for union scholarships for university, I had the opportunity to learn about unionism beyond that which could be gleaned from my family's personal history and the depersonalized labour history taught in schools. I was able to learn how unions function on both theoretical and practical levels.

At that time, there were rumours that then-Ontario Minister of Labour Chris Stockwell was going to change/try to abolish the Rand formula in order to make unions more "democratic." One of these union scholarships asked me to interview my local M.P.P. and a high-level local union member, and to write a paper on the tenability of the proposal (i.e. that no Rand formula = democracy.)

I did. My conclusion? Changing the Rand formula to allow workers at companies where there is a union to opt out of the union/paying union dues would do the opposite of what Stockwell et al. were spinning. It would weaken the resources that the union has for collective bargaining, etc., and, as a consequence, weaken workers' agency and voice. It could, in fact, open the door to all sorts of abuses and denials of fundamental workers' rights.

I share all this to illustrate how these experiences, these life-lessons inform both my relationship to labour (I'm an outgoing union steward--outgoing only because, nearing completion of my degree, I am no longer employed as a teaching assistant) and to politics (all that union-related research I did when I was 18 was the cause of my joining the New Democratic Party.)

I share this also so that there will be no surprise when I post the following links to labour-related news you may have missed (though if you've read this blog for a while, none of what I've written today should come as a surprise):

- Courtesy of the National Union of Public and General Employees: "Despite progress, discrimination remains a global challenge: Major new report by the International Labour Organization." This article includes a link to the original I.L.O. report in case you'd like to read it yourself.

- "Online voters to select most abusive corporations."

- This is older, but it's still very important if you're Canadian: "Anti-scab legislation killed."

- Liza Featherstone writes about how "Workers of the World Unite Against Starbucks." Having worked not only as a barista (not at Starbucks--the job title is not their invention, but a coffee industry term for the person who prepares specialty beverages) but in various jobs in the service industry at large, this article struck a particular chord in me. Lower-level service employees in North America are treated like shit. (I'm not saying that they aren't elsewhere--I'm only saying that to which my own experiences can attest.) Many of these employees work at low wages, without the breaks accorded to those employed in other industries, and with few or no benefits. Interestingly, many of these workers are non-unionized. Coincidence? I think not.

- And on that note, I give you the website for UNITE HERE, a union that does represent workers in the service (as well as textile, etc.,) industries.

"I must have left my sense of humour in my other suit."

2007-05-20T21:14:00.000-04:00

'Cause this is just not cute. I thought I was going to be reading a thoughtful column in which the problems encountered by both parties in an interdietary relationship (one partner is a vegetarian, the other is not) are addressed, and possible solutions/areas for compromise are suggested. What I got was something quite different.

I have a couple problems with Martin Booe's column. The first has nothing to do with the subject of the column, but with an analogy Booe's makes in the first paragraph. I'm not going to get into it in anymore detail than such idiocy merits, but I feel I need to point out that one cannot equate vegetarianism--which is a lifestyle choice--with lesbianism--which is not a choice. Such an analogy is both ignorant and disrespectful to the LGBT community.

Now, as for the column at large... I find the tone of the whole thing to be both dismissive and disrespectful of vegetarianism and vegetarians. Instead of focusing on how veggies and meat-eaters can partake from the same table, Martin Booe seems more interested in focusing on the hardships of the omnivorous set. He is "surrounded" by vegetarian tyrants--if one is to take his friend Ernie's wife as an example--who refuse to accept that others don't make similar dietary decisions. Booe's vegetarian (now ex) girlfriend is characterized as a princess:

she is displaced royalty, a missing link in the House of Bourbon and, I suspect, a not-too-distant cousin of King Juan Carlos. Place a pea under her mattress and she'll awake feeling like she's been beaten with a rubber hose. She likes things just so. [Emphasis original.]

She refuses to cook for herself, and so the meat-eating Booe must once again bow to her every whim.

And it is as a whim that Maria's conversion to vegetarianism is characterized. Booe casts aspersions on her commitment to her new lifestyle:

There's just one thing that puzzles me: Our cat, El Signorito Rafael del Carmen, has developed a voracious appetite for prosciutto, chorizo, and chuletas de cordero. Maria claims she feeds these things to him when I'm not around.

Can a cat really eat three quarters of a pound of prosciutto in one sitting?

Maria can't really have made a change in her diet; she must be eating meat in secret.

In Booe's world, vegetarians are alternately tyrannical/demanding, and flippant. How can one share a meal, let alone deal, with such people?! That seems to be the conclusion at which Booe arrives.

The thing is, most vegetarians understand that not everyone shares our lifestyle. In fact, most of us realize that we're living in a meat-eater's world, and we're just trying to get along. We don't demand that you change your diet to suit us--only that you show us respect by refraining from mocking us, from casting us as authoritarian dietary police or flakes. And, after all, it is respect, something of which Booe's column is completely devoid, that is the foundation for any relationship, interdietary or otherwise.

EDIT: I just found a discussion close to the kind I was hoping Booe would have. Please check out this recent Seattle Times article by Haley Edwards.

The Round-Up.

2007-05-18T16:31:00.000-04:00

Just a summary of how I've been feeling/what I've been up to lately:

- Lately, I've been thinking quite a bit about privilege (sexual, economic, but especially racial), how it manifests itself in my own life (i.e. how I come from a place of privilege, how that shapes my perspectives and, consequently, actions), and what I can do about it. (The discussions over at Feministe this week have proven timely.) I'm realizing that while I can never understand (in the truest sense of the word) the marginalization faced by others because I haven't experienced it myself--my experiences with male privilege do not map onto others' experiences with, for example, white privilege or heterosexual privilege--it doesn't mean that I should stop trying to understand. I know, too, that I can't just stop at trying to understand; in my position of privilege, more is demanded of me. But a general update post is probably not the best place for elaborating on this. This is far too important to be buried with the minutiae of my everyday. But since I'm still reflecting and learning (and I hope I don't ever stop!), I don't have a full post even close to being ready. Instead, please read this post on privilege, "Things You Need to Understand #4" (recommended by Sassywho over here), by The Angry Black Woman.

- I know I should be working on my thesis (I have only two months in which to finish it!), but I'm finding that I have increasingly little motivation to do so. I'd rather be buying and cracking the spines of one of these books listed here. I guess that the silver lining in being finished with grad school is that I'll have more time to read what I want. (Yes, I always chose classes that had reading lists which appealed to me, but this is different.)

- I've been feeling really exhausted both mentally and physically. I can understand the mental exhaustion--I chalk that up to grad school--but the physical? There is no obvious reason for my fatigue. I may have to make a trip to the doctor's for blood work. I had a bunch done back in January when I went for my physical, and my iron and B-vitamin levels were fine (as a veggie, I need to pay close attention to these), but a lot can happen in four months. I think I'm eating just as well (if not better!) now, but who knows.

- I've started back at the gym (no, that's why I'm tired. Actually, I have more energy in the couple hours immediately following my workouts.) It's a lot easier to get there when you don't have any classes to go to, or to T.A. Now if I could only find the time to read my Guardian Weekly issues cover-to-cover!

- I've been on a real noir kick the past few months. The most recent three films I've seen? Gilda, Night and the City, and Sweet Smell of Success (the latter which is arguably not quite noir depending on who you ask. Me? I say "noir!")

- I'm getting my hair cut really short again. Maybe I'll post a picture once it's done. The few of you who still read this blog know what I look like with short hair, though, so maybe I won't.

- And finally, I turn 26 in less than a month.

Though I know I am not old, I FELT old when...

2007-05-15T02:31:00.000-04:00

I read one reviewer call Lindsay Lohan his generation's Drew Barrymore. Sigh.

Intolerance is intolerance is intolerance.

2007-05-03T11:59:00.000-04:00

It seems that Suzanne Menghraj's post at Guernica's blog--a response to this New York Times op-ed and the comments it generated--was written just for me--so I wouldn't have to write it myself.

Though I was made aware of the NYT piece only upon reading Menghraj's post, Menghraj's response articulates many of the thoughts I've had upon encountering intolerance towards Catholics/Roman Catholicism over the past year and half.

Some of Menghraj's points that particularly struck chords with me are as follows:

Toner’s article and the lively comments it prompted remind me of an observation my mother, a former nun, voices now and then: Catholicism, she says, is the only religion it’s okay to bash these days. [...]

I find the targeting of Catholicism particularly frustrating: partly because, thanks to an immensely open-minded and compassionate Catholic mother, I had what appears to be an uncommon early experience of the religion (I’ve got a conscience, but I’m pretty damn near guilt-free!) — the Church of intolerance and guilt and conservative values is unrecognizable to me as the Catholic Church; partly because I’m as appalled by the Catholic hierarchy’s responses to contemporary (and not so contemporary) issues — need I name any one of them? — as the next freedom-loving person is; and partly because for all the harm Catholics did as they colonized the New World (not to mention the harm the Church’s clergy and followers have inflicted in the five hundred years since), they have played tremendously important roles in social justice and civil rights causes. And partly because I’m not really a practicing Catholic; the two or three times per year I go to church I go either to think in the solemn context of the Catholic mass or to participate in a ritual I find comforting. I don't go because I think the religion’s establishment has got it all right. It obviously has so many things wrong.

[...]

Catholics for whom belief is a private — not public or political — matter exist everywhere. I’ve met far more of them than I have Catholics who can't make the distinction between private belief and public law. Those who don’t have the capacity to make the distinction are far more impaired by conversative [sic] ideology than they are by Catholicism.

Like Menghraj, I don't regularly attend mass (I'm not proud of this; I'm just stating a fact.) While I find both solace and beauty in the ritualistic and symbolic aspects to Catholicism, there is a profound disconnect between my own beliefs and Catholic doctrine where issues of gender and sexuality are concerned. Notwithstanding this, though, I find that the faith in which I was raised not only informs but underscores my pacifism, my environmentalism/vegetarianism (Catholicism teaches that humans are to be stewards--not consumers--of this planet), and my desire for social justice.

But the fact that Catholicism has such a socially liberal dimension does not matter to those who would blame it for the conservatism, hypocrisy, and outright evil of some of its adherents. And it matters even less to the so-called "liberal" intellectuals who speak to me with scorn, treat me as if I were stupid, not because I'm Catholic, but because I believe in a higher power period.

Because I am not Fox News.

2007-05-03T00:58:00.000-04:00

In the interest of being (or at least trying to be) fair and balanced, I thought I had better point you all in the direction of Anthony Faiola's Washington Post profile on the "intellidating" scene, which was syndicated in this week's edition (April 27-May 3, 2007) of my Guardian Weekly:

In New York and other northeastern urban centers, including Washington and Boston, gray matter is the new black of the hip social scene. Thousands of young singles and couples are eschewing the perfunctory dinner and a movie for a growing circuit of late-night museum prowls, Oxford-style debates with pre-feud cocktail parties and book readings with cash bars and after-hour bands. In New York, even spelling bee nights have popped up as a romantic twist for the chic, unmarried and grammatically gifted.

It is, observers of the trend say, a visceral backlash to life in a Paris Hilton world. It's a chance to impress a mate, or a potential date, by flexing a body part that has lost ground in recent years to biceps and pecs -- the brain.

[...]

"Intellidating," first coined in England in 2002, sprang from "Intelligence Squared," a live discussion series launched by a couple of British moguls whose professed aim was to make debating "sexy." Heated debates on topics ranging from "Monogamy Is Bad for the Soul" to "Maggie Thatcher Saved Britain" brought in the London glitterati, including actor Hugh Grant and, until their split in February, svelte girlfriend and socialite Jemima Khan.

Hm. Well, I suppose it's good that people are making the effort to think about the world around them; however, I fear this series of Intelligence Squared U.S.-sponsored debates (to which, admittedly, I have not yet had the opportunity to listen)--even with its NPR pedigree--is more of an extension of the cultural influence of the glib talking head, rather than proof of the resurgence of genuine intellectual engagement within popular culture.

Furthermore, I can't help feeling that in casting intellectual engagement as a trend, we are transforming what should be a responsibility of all who would live in "society" into even more of a commodity. (I say "even more" because lets face it: there would be a much lower incidence of brain drain if intelligence and skill couldn't be bought and sold.)

Culture's carcass?

2007-05-02T00:23:00.000-04:00

I have often complained about the dumbing-down of North American culture. Andrew Keen's forthcoming book The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture appears to do the same thing. But if there's any truth to Andrew Wallenstein's early review of the book, Keen's arguments are one-sided and rife with an elitism that he leaves unacknowledged:

"Cult" casts the Internet as the bogeyman by reeling off a laundry list of its shortcomings. Keen's favorite targets include Wikipedia for disseminating lies, pro-corporate bloggers, silly video sensations like Lonelygirl15 and MySpace-based perverts.

But not only does "Cult" fail to cite a single example of any of the Web's redeeming qualities, it also exhibits a willful naivete -- or amnesia -- about the TV, movies and music that weren't all exactly Norman Rockwell paintings, either.

Keen finds blogs to be nefarious by nature for warping the truth or shilling for Wal-Mart, and yet he never gets around to mentioning the time Dan Rather's erroneous report on President Bush's military record was corrected in the blogosphere or how local news is awash in paid publicity masquerading as "video news releases."

"Cult" seizes on the Internet as if it represents some kind of quantum leap in cultural degradation, but all the book is really doing is applying a fresh coat of paint to the same hobbyhorses media critics have been riding for decades.

"Cult" is unabashed in its elitism, and there's something deliciously counterintuitive about someone essentially arguing that the ability of the masses to generate content is a bad thing. Absorbing Keen's jeremiad is like listening to Louis XVI decrying the French Revolution. [Read the whole review...]

As much as I find the perceived erosion of traditional aesthetic values disquieting, I am further unsettled by the elitism inherent in most discussions about the decline of North American culture. Political arguments aside, I find this kind of elitism so problematic because it allows people to ignore what is really at stake here: the approaches by which we currently evaluate and engage with our world and with "the beautiful" as they are represented in non-digital art do not adequately account for the changing relationship between art and technology.

Just as in the 19th and 20th centuries the daguerreotype, motion picture and mass production forced our predecessors to rethink the nature and function of art, so too must we. Change is disquieting, but--if you'll pardon the truism--it is inevitable. This we must accept. But we must also think! A knee-jerk condemnation of new media is equally foolish as a knee-jerk, "anything goes" valorization of it.

I'm not sure if this failure to engage--whether it be with art or in genuine debate--is a symptom or a cause of the anti-intellectual bent in culture on this continent...

At any rate, I plan to pick up The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture when it comes out in June. From the sound of it, I'll have plenty of material with which to engage! I have far from exhausted this topic; stay tuned...

EDIT: May 3, 2007, 2:40 a.m. - Check out this op-ed on a topic very-much related to the subject of this post. [Link via Bookslut.]

Vi presento la molta bella voce di Mina!

2007-03-22T00:43:00.000-04:00

"Le tue mani"

"L'immensita"

"E se domani"

"La voce de silenzio"

What makes me Natalie.

2007-03-13T13:05:00.000-04:00

My VisualDNA:

Read my VisualDNA™ Get your own VisualDNA™

[Thanks to Becky for the link!]

Women and power.

2007-03-10T05:57:00.000-05:00

Rebecca Dana has an interesting article up at Slate. In "The Katie Show: Does Couric's rocky start at CBS spell trouble for Hillary Clinton?," Dana compares Katie Couric and Hillary Clinton, speculating how the public reception of one (Couric) may indicate what voters have in store for the other.

Thoughts?

A belated (by thirty-five minutes) happy International Women's Day!

2007-03-09T00:31:00.000-05:00

To commemorate the day, click here to have Seventh Generation donate tampons to homeless women.

Jean Baudrillard died yesterday.

2007-03-07T06:11:00.000-05:00

And where on North American-based websites was this info to be found? Nowhere that I saw. I found out about Baudrillard's death because of this article at La Repubblica. You can read the BBC's obit here.

Apparently North Americans don't give a shit about real intellectuals.

A few things to think about.

2007-03-02T13:39:00.000-05:00

I'm back home now after a week's sojourn at my parents'. While I finish unpacking, I hope you find these online articles as interesting as I did:

- Heather Mallick 's op-ed about the infrequency of female bylines in general interest magazines (Harper's in particular): "Magazines: where are the women writers?;"

- The Guardian's Stella Duffy on the media visibility of gay women: "The only way is out;" and

- Slate's Dana Stevens on Black Snake Moan: "It's Hard Out There for a Ho: The Puzzling Sexual Games of Black Snake Moan."

EDIT: For more on Black Snake Moan, check out Dustin Rowles' review over at Pajiba.

Congratulations!

2007-02-28T16:44:00.000-05:00

A hearty congratulations to SkylarKD and her hubby on the birth of their first child! Daughter Claire was born on February 14, 2007.

Wishing you lots of love, joy, and compassion as the three of you embark on your long life's journey together!

A few thoughts on food (Or "I couldn't bring myself to title this post 'Food for Thought'")

2007-02-21T01:30:00.000-05:00

This post has grown out of a confluence of my feelings about a number of events/stories I've heard, and, as such, not all the arguments/questions herein apply to any one incident. This is kind of long post, but I need to get this off my chest. It'll help me sleep better...

When you are organizing a conference, if you ask attendees if they have any special dietary restrictions and they, in turn, apprise you of them, you have implied that you will work to accommodate them, ensuring that there are a few dishes that they can eat.

You do not, however, allow those without said dietary restrictions to eat, as I'll call it to be succinct, the "safe" foods until those with dietary restrictions have gotten their portions. That's not to say serve them first. Rather, serve them the safe foods before putting them out for everyone else (who, in the meantime, has been eating the foods that off-limits for those with dietary restrictions.) Would you risk peanut-eaters eating all the nut-free dishes before those with peanut allergies--those who (bear with me--I know this will tend to exaggeration, but I'm making a point) can't eat any of the other dishes, which, for some reason, all contain peanuts, peanut butter, or peanut oil--had a chance get a portion of what they can safely eat? Would you allow all those not adhering to a Kosher diet to eat all the Kosher food before those who are Kosher get their fill? No, you wouldn't.

So why, then, would you allow meat-eaters to eat the vegan/vegetarian dishes? Is it accommodating to just set out animal-free options, allowing them to be fair-game? No, it's not, for the simple fact that, as with the nut-sensitive and Kosher in the examples above, the vegetarians and vegans can't eat most of the other foods set out.

Set the safe foods in another room, bringing them to the main room after those with dietary restrictions have served themselves. Or, if you don't want to do that, at least label them as "nut-free," "Kosher," or "vegan"! (Crazy me, I still hold on to hope that some people have a modicum of consideration for people other than themselves.) But don't lump them in with the rest of the food where they can be quickly consumed by those who don't have dietary restrictions, leaving those who do have them hungry! That is not accommodating.

And for the record, when it comes to vegetarians and vegans, neither is tossing together a few varieties of lettuce leaves in a bowl, or setting out some crudites and dip.

So when I offer to donate to your conference not one, but two batches (serving six people each) of vegan tofu chili--SPECIFICALLY so people with dietary restrictions like myself can have something substantial to eat--you damn well better make sure the veggies get first crack at it!

I can't tell you the number of receptions that I've attended that have had little more than lettuce and carrot sticks--both which were significantly picked-over by the time my spot in line aligned with their location on the table--for people like myself to eat. The difference with these receptions is that those who were organizing them didn't ask me about dietary restrictions, so I cannot reasonably hold them to the same standard of accommodation as those conference organizers I mentioned who, I believe, did ask.

If I can, momentarily, speak for all conference-attending veggies, we're not asking that you serve us a five-course vegan dinner. We just want the same thing as anyone without our dietary restrictions: to finish lunch break and head back into panel discussions with our bellies feeling satisfied! You'd give that consideration to someone with food allergies, or religious dietary restrictions. Should we, because we've chosen this lifestyle for ethical reasons, be denied the same consideration? (As an aside, many people also choose vegetarianism for health reasons--not entirely unlike why someone would choose not to eat a food to which they're allergic.) Why should allergies and religious conviction be privileged?

R.I.P. Ryan Larkin

2007-02-17T03:34:00.000-05:00

The visionary Canadian animator--creator of Syrinx and the Oscar-winning Walking, and the subject of fellow Canadian Chris Landreth's Oscar-winning documentary short Ryan--passed away on Wednesday. He was 63. His death comes shortly after he had begun to animate again.

The world of Canadian animation is a lesser place for having lost Larkin once again.

Bah! Humbug!

2007-02-14T11:49:00.000-05:00

I am convinced that if Charles Dickens were alive in this era of crass commercialism, he and Ebeneezer Scrooge would be cursing Valentine's Day along with me.

Seriously. The whole thing is enough to make a girl sick--if she weren't already home sick today, that is.

So instead of attending classes or going on dates, how am I keeping the day? By finishing the abominable Under the Tuscan Sun, which I have to read for the class I T.A., and by making a dent in Kate Chopin's The Awakening. Of course, I plan on watching one of either Moonstruck or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, two of my favourite movies, later on tonight--just which one I choose depends entirely upon my level of cynicism at the end of the day (though, since today I'm cloistered away from much of the Valentine's crapola, I figure my cynicism might be fairly low tonight, and that I'll find myself watching Moonstruck.) But the bulk of today will be spent reading books and just trying to feel better.

Apparently, I'm not the only singleton turning to the books today (link via Bookslut.) Has Valentine's Day always been so connected with books with me noticing it only now, or is it just Valentine's Day this year? I mean, I know books can console a lonely heart. But maybe the book-romance connection (and I'm not talking about romance novels here) isn't so tenuous as that?

The things one chooses to read speak volumes (ha, ha--an unintended pun!) about one's personality. So what if we were to start evaluating partners/would-be partners on their reading materials? Doppelganger over at 50 Books has got me thinking, "What are the literary signs of a dead-end relationship?"

For me, it's finding out that he:

- has a subscription to/buys The National Post;

- has read anything by Ann Coulter;

- loves Frank Miller's Sin City. I have nothing against graphic novels or comics. Just Sin City and the way it portrays women. (Incidentally, citing the film version of Sin City as a favourite movie would also make me reconsider a relationship with a guy);

- enjoyed The Da Vinci Code. Just reading it--out of morbid curiosity, for example--isn't bad. Reading it and citing it as a good and/or favourite book is terrible;

- writes-off Margaret Atwood solely because of "the feminism thing." Disliking her is fine; disliking her for that alone is not; and

- is over-enthusiastic at the mention of The Beats, or looks for ways to work William S. Burroughs into everyday conversation. Admittedly, this one is included on this list more because of my experience with a Burroughs fan than any problem with Burroughs'/Beat writing itself.

But the ultimate literary portent that a guy is a bad match for me? Not reading at all. I can even overlook an appreciation of Mitch Albom's books. But refusing to read at all--and being proud of it--is unforgivable.

No wonder I'm single (link via 50 Books.)

Oh, baby.

2007-02-10T15:29:00.000-05:00

Does loving this and wanting to buy it make me an incredible nerd, a hipster-parent-in-the-making, or both? I'm so confused! ;)

EDIT: Screw the Coldplay lullaby CD! Any kid of mine is going to be indoctrinated with this! I wonder if this is what Thom Yorke's kids go to sleep to?

(This one made me think of my thesis supervisor and his toddler.)

EDIT 2: And PLEASE can I have this one, too? Sadly, there doesn't appear to be a lullaby tribute CD for my favourite band: The Smiths. (It's probably just as well, though. Don't want to depress the kids prematurely--high school will take care of that it time.)

Riot grrrl power.

2007-02-09T18:33:00.000-05:00

Just because I'm needing this after reading this over at Feministe.

"Aerobicide" by Julie Ruin (a.k.a Kathleen Hanna. See also Bikini Kill and Le Tigre):

"Entertain" by Sleater-Kinney (one of my FAVOURITE bands!):

On so-called "hipster parenting"

2007-02-08T03:26:00.000-05:00

Oooo, scare quotes? Are you suitably scared yet? You shouldn't be. If anything, you should be rolling your eyes at how ridiculous this whole, um,"debate" is getting.

Look, maybe it's not my place to say anything. But I've been following this debate closely (or as closely as could be managed by someone who's spent the past two weeks cloistering herself so she could finish her thesis presentation.) Maybe it's on account of all the new parents in my life?

So I'm sure there were discussions before, but the publication of Neal Pollack's latest book, the parenting memoir Alternadad, seems to have occasioned everything coming to a head.

Now, admittedly, I am very much on the outside of this debate, having neither read Pollack's book nor borne any children. But I really like what Doppelganger over at 50 Books has to say. This post provides what seems to me a well-reasoned, often humourous, take on the issue, as well as the debate initiated by Pollack's book. I especially think she hits the nail on the head re: hipsters calling hipsters "hipsters" (something that Andre Mayer hints at in his CBC.ca review of Alternadad when he lumps in the parenting site Babble, self-appointed host of much of the hipster parenting debate, with parenting memoirs like Pollack's.) I mean, who wants to be called "hipster" anyway? Certainly not anyone who could be classified as one! Hipsters are annoying!

But let us put problems of definition aside. Let us set aside even the supposed hipster parenting trend. Neither of those things is, I think, the real problem here. It's the tone of the debate that, as both a future parent (God willing) and a person who actually uses her brain, bothers me.

Debate in itself is good. You can look at parenting irreverently. Or you can treat it like a sacred office. You can impart your tastes to your children--I mean, face it: even despite your efforts not to, your child is growing up in an environment permeated by your taste. I don't see a problem with trying to share your interests with your child, so long as you don't spoon-feed them to him or her and the child is allowed to have his or her own say. Parents, talk about it; discuss parenting choices. Everyone is going to see parenting differently, and in the long run, everyone needs to do what he or she thinks is best for his/her own child. But ultimately, it's in genuine debate that new, interesting ideas--whether those be ideas about parenting that stem from conversations with other parents, or ideas about art and music and Barney that come out of your children (or their tantrums)--arise.

But this hipster parenting debate isn't so much a debate as a bunch of holier-than-thou mud-slinging (EDIT: That book review has so little to do with Alternadad itself it's not funny. Review the damn book, not Neal Pollack!) That's not debate. That's really not even critical in the genuine sense of the word!

And that is what I find most offensive about all this: further proof of the dumbing-down of North American culture. How can we expect parents to allow their children to think critically for themselves if we adults can't do that ourselves?!

Engage with the world around you. (Whether you like Pollack or not, it seems to me that you could never rightly accuse him of not engaging with his son, or even parenting philosophy itself.) Let your children engage with the world around them. But whatever you do, however you decide to raise your children, just don't perpetuate the disengaged, self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual bullshit that's passing for social commentary and debate these days!

Maybe I wouldn't find this whole "debate" so annoying if I were a parent. Or if all of you debating weren't a bunch of hipsters. ;)

James Joyce and Samuel Beckett walk onto a green...

2007-02-03T12:51:00.000-05:00

A short film brought to you by the Irish Film Board: Pitch 'n' Putt with Beckett 'n' Joyce.

Gold. I love it.

[Via Bookslut.]

Tempeh-ting your tastebuds.

2007-02-02T23:33:00.000-05:00

Just in case any of you carnivores are curious about what a veggie eats for dinner...

For dinner last night, I adapted this marinated tempeh stir-fry recipe.

For the marinade, I threw in an extra clove or two of garlic (of which I can never get enough), and substituted about a half a teaspoon of dried, ground ginger for the fresh ginger, which I didn't have on-hand.

I found that the tempeh I used really soaked up the marinade, so I had to whip up some more in order to make the sauce. This time around, though, I left out the garlic; I figured that all the minced garlic in with the tempeh would suffice--I didn't want garlic to be the only flavour I tasted! Also, because I wanted the sauce to be a little sweeter, I added an extra teaspoon of honey. (In hindsight, a third would have made the sauce even better.)

For the stir-fry itself, I used a wider variety of vegetables: bok-choi (which I will substitute for fennel, which is both tastier and healthier, the next time I make this), carrots, zucchini, broccoli, and kale. And I served the whole thing over couscous.

The result? So good that I was too busy eating to take a picture of the finished product! Truly, it was both tasty and satisfying. (No, Dad, it was fine without meat!) Come to think of it, it was satisfying in both a physical sense--it left me feeling full (but not stuffed)--and a psychological sense: I had just eaten a meal that I knew was high in vitamins A, C, and K, and was a good source of both protein and iron--two things that, as a vegetarian, I need to be extra diligent about consuming. I knew that I had done something very good for my health.

While I've had tempeh while eating out at vegetarian restaurants, at home I make my meals using a lot of lentils, beans, and tofu. But after having this stir-fry, I plan on incorporating tempeh into more of my meals. Checking out what the World's Healthiest Foods site had to say about the meat-substitute only made me more certain of my decision:

Soybeans are regarded as equal in protein quality to animal foods. Just 4 ounces of tempeh provides 41.3% of the Daily Value (DV) for protein for less than 225 calories and only 3.7 grams of saturated fat. Plus, the soy protein in tempeh tends to lower cholesterol levels, while consuming protein from animal sources tends to raise them, since they also include saturated fat and cholesterol. In addition to healthy protein, some of tempeh's nutritional high points include:

Riboflavin: 4 ounces of tempeh provides 23.5% of the DV for this B-vitamin. A nutrient essential for the transfer reactions that occur to produce energy in the mitochondria, riboflavin is also a cofactor in the regeneration of one of the liver's most important detoxification enzymes, glutathione.

Magnesium: Tempeh also provides 21.9% of the DV for Nature's blood vessel relaxant, magnesium, in just 4 ounces. In addition to its beneficial role in the cardiovascular system, magnesium plays an essential role in more than 300 enzymatic reactions, including those that control protein synthesis and energy production.

Manganese and Copper: That same 4 ounces of tempeh will give you 72.5% of the DV for manganese and 30.5% of the DV for copper. These two trace minerals serve numerous physiological functions including being cofactors for the antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase.

You know, the longer I go without meat, the easier to be a vegetarian it becomes. And that's not just because I keep finding tasty new ways to get my protein.

Up until a month or two ago, I would get really strong cravings for red meat. I asked my younger sister, who has been a vegetarian for seven or eight years and a vegan for at least the last five, about this. I assumed that--even though I made the switch a gradual one, so as to ensure that I/my body wouldn't feel deprived (it took me a year to wean myself off of seafood)--this was just part of my body's response to adjusting to the new diet. My sister, whose dietary change wasn't gradual (although I don't know that that has anything to do with it), didn't experience any cravings for the proteins she left behind. Maybe it's because, as she maintains, she never really liked the taste of meat anyway?

At any rate, my cravings for meat are fewer, further between, and weaker than ever. I find myself getting cravings for meat-substitutes--peanut butter and brown lentils (cooked curry-style!) especially. I find my commitment to my new lifestyle--because, when it comes down to it, vegetarianism is more than just a diet--becoming more firm, and my decisions about what goes into my body easier and healthier.

And now I'm off to eat some fruit (blueberries and oranges!) and yogurt, and to do some more reading.

To read by Sunday night:

2007-02-01T16:28:00.000-05:00

1.) Finish re-reading Gabriele D'Annunzio's Il Piacere;
2.) Read Georg Simmel's "The Metropolis and Mental Life";
3.) Read the first part of M.M. Bakhtin's "Forms of Time And of the Chronotope in The Novel: Notes toward a Historical Poetics";
4.) Re-read Frank Kermode's The Sense of an Ending; and
5.) Read a chapter from Peter Osborne's The Politics of Time: Modernity and Avant-Garde.

Then by Monday morning at the latest, I'll write up my thesis presentation notes. I can do it, if I'm diligent.

Speaking of diligence, off I go.

Baby's first Amazon order.

2007-02-01T15:30:00.000-05:00

To celebrate her birth, Becky and Jerry's Emma received a little Amazon package from me. The contents? Two of my own childhood favourites: The Snowy Day by Ezra Jack Keats, and Free To Be...You and Me (on CD--of course, my own childhood copy was on cassette) by Marlo Thomas, Alan Alda, et cetera--two items that are, in my opinion, essential for raising a creative and confident young women!

With help from her mommy, lovely Emma sent me an equally lovely thank you e-mail, which was accompanied by the adorable photo of Emma with her new things that you see here.

I love this photo. It looks as though Emma's already singing along to "William's Doll" and "Free to Be"!

Happy birthday!

2007-02-01T11:37:00.000-05:00

A very happy 29th birthday to my favourite new mommy, Becky (from Grrrl Meets World.) May this new year be your healthiest, happiest yet!

The woman's got spunk!

2007-02-01T11:31:00.000-05:00

The man, well, not so much: Former Italian PM begs wife's forgiveness". Veronica Lario, bravissima!

YouTube, your money.

2007-01-29T10:52:00.000-05:00

YouTube has announced that it's going to start paying its users who provide content. No word as to whether YouTube owners will start paying the copyright holders of a lot of the content that's uploaded. This could get interesting.

What I mean when I say "environmental sustainability"

2007-01-28T00:01:00.000-05:00

When people ask me why I became a vegetarian and I respond by saying that the number one reason was my concern about environmental sustainability (to say nothing of world hunger!), I often get puzzled, if not downright strange, looks. (Maybe they assume that for me to be a vegetarian, I must be a member of PETA--something that I would never become because of my utter disgust with their disrespect of human life. My distaste for PETA is so strong that I remain reluctant to refer to GoVeg.com, even though the site is by and large a good resource.)

The question, then, that I'm ultimately asked is what I mean by "environmental sustainability." Well, Kathy Freston over at The Huffington Post puts it very articulately in this blog entry.

A few highlights:

"Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.

[...]

They noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we'd need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggets, and other plant foods. On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels--and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide--as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.

According to the UN report, it gets even worse when we include the vast quantities of land needed to give us our steak and pork chops. Animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet

[...] the real kicker comes when looking at gases besides carbon dioxide--gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, respectively. If carbon dioxide is responsible for about one-half of human-related greenhouse gas warming since the industrial revolution, methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for another one-third. These super-strong gases come primarily from farmed animals' digestive processes, and from their manure. In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.

It's a little hard to take in when thinking of a small chick hatching from her fragile egg. How can an animal, so seemingly insignificant against the vastness of the earth, give off so much greenhouse gas as to change the global climate? The answer is in their sheer numbers. The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when "a chicken in every pot" was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death.

What we're seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty.

[...] Animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world's acid-rain-causing ammonia, and it the world's largest source of water pollution--killing entire river and marine ecosystems, destroying coral reefs, and of course, making people sick. Try to imagine the prodigious volumes of manure churned out by modern American farms: 5 million tons a day, more than a hundred times that of the human population, and far more than our land can possibly absorb."

I'm not going to try to convert you. But please, go read the full article here. A little reading is going to hurt you.

Because I missed Blog for Choice Day...

2007-01-26T03:33:00.000-05:00

And because this is something that merits watching (and rewatching, if you've already seen it), regardless of your opinion about abortion: Frontine's 1983 documentary Abortion Clinic.

Many thanks to Becky for bringing this to my attention back in October.

Two of my favourite things brought together!

2007-01-25T12:49:00.000-05:00

The wonderful, talented (and VERY handsome!) Adam Beach (Dance Me Outside, Flags of Our Fathers) is joining, full-time, the cast of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. I am so excited!

EDIT: Just to clarify, in no way do I mean to objectify Adam Beach by using "things" in the title to this post. My use of "things" is testament to my being at a loss when it came time to choose a collective noun that could adequately describe both a person and a television show. I remain stumped.

Virtually me.

2007-01-23T01:42:00.000-05:00

2007-01-21T00:21:00.000-05:00

I've had a nasty headcold since I woke up Monday morning and am running a fever. Again. But instead of going to bed early like I should, I'm drinking coffee so I can stay up later to work. Not bright, I know. But grad school makes even the most intelligent of us quite stupid.

So why aren't I working now? I couldn't wait any longer to post my sincerest congratulations and warmest wishes to Becky and her husband Jerry, who welcomed their first child, daughter Emmalee Anne, on Thursday morning. May you all be blessed with health and happiness, and more than enough strength to bear up the love you share through all the trials growing together may bring!

The Speed of Science

2006-12-30T19:17:00.000-05:00

I defend a woman's right to choose what is done with/to her body, but this is ridiculous:

MADRID (Reuters) - A 67-year-old Spanish woman became the world's oldest new mother on Saturday when she gave birth to twins, a Barcelona hospital said.

The woman, who became pregnant after receiving IVF treatment in Latin America, gave birth by caesarean section, a spokeswoman at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i San Pau told Reuters.

I understand that as the average lifespan of human beings increases, our conceptions of age and ability need to evolve accordingly. This is why, in part, mandatory retirement at age 65 is no longer being enforced in the province of Ontario. But the fact remains that people still aren't living that much longer--in Canada, the average lifespan is between 77 and 82 years of age. While the laws are ready to adjust, we have evolved only so much biologically. Pregnancies in women over forty remain high-risk for both the fetus and the mother. Just because 60-plus pregnancy is possible doesn't mean that it should be done, as it still poses an unnecessary risk to the parties involved.

What is needed is more time for our bodies to adjust to the sciences that are prolonging our lives. The expectation that every aspect of human physiology will keep pace with science is, if not entirely hubristic and misguided, at least symptomatic of the vanity and self-centeredness of youth-obsessed Western culture.

When it comes down to it, I am as unopposed to the science as I am to the freedom to take advantage of it. What concerns me, though, is doing too much too soon.

My Five Favourite 1980s Cartoon Females

2006-12-10T20:11:00.000-05:00

[Cross-posted from my LiveJournal.]

1. Rebel, activist, and all-round sexy, sassy heroine ("And now for my tight-wire act!"):

She-Ra!

I remember how my friend Melissa had a She-Ra costume--sword, belt, helmet (is that what you'd call it?) I would've loved to have had one of my own, to look like She-Ra as well as act like her. What little girl wouldn't want to be like She-Ra? She embodied independence, resourcefulness, and intelligence. And she had a horse! Wonder Woman can keep her stupid plane!

I may not have had the costume, but I had She-Ra, Frosta, Sweet Bee, Entrapta, and Double Trouble dolls; my sister's Castaspella, Catra, Glimmer, Queen Angella, and Peekablue dolls; a couple of the horses; the Crystal Castle; and a very vivid imagination at my disposal.
Does knowing, as an adult, that the whole television series, created by Mattel, was essentially a marketing ploy for action figures taint my love for the She-Ra character and the rest of the strong, resourceful (even if they were evil) women of She-Ra: Princess of Power? A little, honestly. I blame this kind of exploitation of female empowerment for commercial gain for my new-found cynicism.

But cynicism is one thing. Nostalgia is another. And I still have many fond memories of She-Ra: Princess of Power, the characters, the dolls, and the many hours of inspired play when I was every bit the rebel, activist, and all-round sexy, sassy heroine as She-Ra.

2.

Lest you immediately think I loved Jem when I invoke the cartoon of the same name, let me say this: while Lou Grant might hate spunk, little girls don't. Jem and The Holograms were not spunky. (Though, admittedly, I totally dug Aja's electric blue, only-in-a-cartoon-world angular-cut hair.) The Misfits were spunky and oh-so-rock! And Roxy was my favourite of the lot.

Roxy had the coolest white hair--I actually used to put Johnson's baby powder in my hair so I could look like Roxy!--and I coveted that one-sleeved (which was 3/4 in length) royal purple sweater (why does it look black in that clip?)
The Jem series, like She-Ra: Princess of Power, was one big ploy for hocking merchandise. But what glorious merchandise it was--the dolls came with cassettes featuring songs from the cartoon bands! Of course, I had a Roxy doll (and later a Jetta doll, too); and Jem-themed book, and a Jem board game (Concert Clash) that came with a tape full of clips of The Misfits' and The Holograms' songs.

But I never got into the Jem series as much as I did with She-Ra, partly because I wasn't allowed to. My mom was less than impressed with the way the characters in the series acted--far from the heroism, self-reliance and camaraderie exhibited by She-Ra, the Rebellion, and even the Horde.

Whereas I looked to She-Ra: Princess of Power for role models, Roxy and her fellow Jem characters were never allowed to become more than childhood fashion icons.

3. Cheetarah (Thundercats):

She totally held her own in a group of guys (I can relate to this even more as an adult than I did as a child!), and she did it all with bitchin' hair and with glam eye shadow even Gene Simmons would envy!

4. Rainbow Brite:

Sigh. Why must so many of my favourite childhood cartoons be marketing tools?
Anyway, I don't recall why I loved Rainbow so much. I just know that I did. Maybe it was because she simplistically represented all that was warm and vivid and good in my six-year-old mind? There was something about Rainbow that was just so--reassuring. (EDIT: Maybe it was, in part, that Rainbow Brite did all the things she did even though she was just a kid like me?)

I had Rainbow Brite and Patty O'Green dolls/sprites, and my sister had LaLa Orange, Canary Yellow and Red Butler dolls/sprites. Unlike my sister, I had no desire to own any of the male dolls. In hindsight, though, I wonder why I never asked for Boy Blue. If only to keep Patty O'Green company--she had SUCH a crush on him! If remember rightly, though, he was more into Rainbow. Anyway... I also had some Rainbow Brite storybooks, which came with a record to which you'd read along; a couple puzzles; and a Rainbow Brite lunchbox. As an adult, I even have a Rainbow Brite t-shirt.

The dress-up theme continues here. Except there were never actually any costumes. Both my sister and I would have our mother draw a single purple star on our left cheeks. And we'd go out in public--to the grocery store, supermarket, et cetera--like that: normal clothes, Rainbow Brite star.

5. Strawberry Shortcake, who also happens to be one of my favourite redheads:

I have the same problem with Strawberry as I do with Rainbow Brite: I can't quite put my finger on what it was about her that I loved so much.
Whatever it was, it warranted my owning a couple dolls (Strawberry Shortcake and Orange Blossom); a couple games (a Strawberry Shortcake bingo/domino/memory card set); a movie (Strawberry Shortcake: Housewarming Surprise); a birthday card or ten (not surprising, given that Strawberry Shortcake was originally conceived for greeting cards produce by American Greetings); et cetera. I also think that I may have had a pair of Strawberry Shortcake pajamas, but I'm not quite sure...

What I am sure of is my Strawberry Shortcake saturation back in the early to mid 1980s. Apparently, though, I wasn't alone:

At least I can say that I never had the cereal! Sugary cereals were verboten in my house. It was oatmeal or cream of wheat--both which I love to this day--for me!

All we are saying...

2006-12-10T13:29:00.000-05:00

In honour of this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammed Yunus, who accepted the award earlier today, I present this interview, in which he talks to The Hour's George Stroumboulopoulos about his work.

You can read more about microcredit, the Grameen Bank, and Yunus himself at Wikipedia.

The status of women in Canada? We're not that important, apparently.

2006-11-30T00:20:00.000-05:00

What this is is the beginning of an attack on women's rights in Canada.

So long as an economic disparity between men and women in this country exists; so long as violence against women persists; so long as women are shamed for breastfeeding their infant children in public (SkylarKD has posted on this a couple of times this past month); so long as there are roadblocks to a woman's right to choose, there is need of a government office dedicated to addressing and defending women's issues!

How is the Canadian Heritage Department (?!?!) going to help women "more directly" than Status of Women Canada? How are we supposed to fit into their mandate?

I have never felt more acutely a sense of alienation from a federal government which not only fails to represent me, but believes it is not expedient to address me and my "issues."

In memoriam et gratiam.

2006-11-11T13:00:00.001-05:00

Today, we remember. But they remember every day.

My maternal grandfather, my Bubba, John Killop was about seventeen years old when he enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy. After completing his basic training, he was stationed as an ASDIC (Anti-Submarine Detection Investigation Committee) man on the HMCS Montreal (the original one, which was a river class frigate, not the new HMCS Montreal, which is a Halifax-class frigate whose commissioning ceremony my grandfather attended.)

My grandfather has always been a very bright man. Even now, after all the strokes, his quick wit and keen intelligence are frequently the sparkle in any conversation among our extended family. It's no wonder they made him an ASDIC man.

As such, it was my grandfather's responsibility to pinpoint where the ship was to drop depth-charges. My grandfather, barely out of his teens, was directly responsible for ensuring the safety of all of his colleagues on board--talk about pressure!--by sinking German U-Boats.

John Killop survived the war. He returned to Canada, married my grandmother, fathered five children (including my mother, Judith), and became the grandfather to thirteen.

But while he left the navy behind--evolving from ASDIC man to husband and father to grandfather--my grandfather carried, and still carries, the memories with him.

I've often sat with my grandfather, prodding him to memory and listening to his stories. And while he shares willingly, I can't help thinking that there are some stories he holds back, not wishing to articulate, to reanimate the occasion past.

Perhaps it's that those occasions are too painful? My grandfather has alluded to having to pull the corpses of U-Boat crewmembers from the water. But this memory received none of the detail or colour characteristic of my grandfather's storytelling (Bubba's been known to affect brogue when telling stories about his Irish immigrant parents and siblings, etc.,) I can thus only speculate as to what kind of affect this had on him. But frankly, my imagination fails me. I cannot fathom what it would be like to be barely out of high school and not only to know that you are being made responsible for the life and death of human beings, but to come face-to-face with the cold, water-logged consequences of that responsibility one evening on the cold Atlantic.

Nor can I fathom what it must be like to live with the memory of those consequences each and every day.

"The Dead"
By Rupert Brooke

Blow out, you bugles, over the rich Dead!
There's none of these so lonely and poor of old,
But, dying, has made us rarer gifts than gold
These laid the world away; poured out the red
Sweet wine of youth; gave up the years to be
Of work and joy, and that unhoped serene,
That men call age; and those who would have been,
Their sons, they gave, their immortality.

Blow, bugles, blow! They brought us, for our dearth,
Holiness, lacked so long, and Love, and Pain.
Honour has come back, as a king, to earth,
And paid his subjects with a royal wage;
And Nobleness walks in our ways again;
And we have come into our heritage.

I have made my pacifism no secret. But in no way does my belief in non-violence diminish my appreciation for the sacrifices made by servicemen and women. If you're Canadian and you haven't signed this petition, please do so now in memory and in gratitude.

I am too frustrated to address this right now.

2006-11-08T22:46:00.000-05:00

Vatican asks Israel to ban planned gay pride parade in Jerusalem

VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican asked Israel Wednesday to ban a gay pride parade this week in Jerusalem, saying the march in the city considered holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians would offend the faithful.

Thousands of gay activists are expected to march in Jerusalem on Friday.

"The Holy See has reiterated on many occasions that the right to freedom of expression . . . is subject to just limits, in particular when the exercise of this right would offend the religious sentiments of believers," the Vatican said.

Read the full article.

Must regain tact and composure before commenting on this tripe. Stay tuned...

Serious stuff.

2006-11-08T21:09:00.000-05:00

This has been bothering me since I first read it a few days ago. It disturbs me that rape can still be trivialized in this way. I'm sure the participants in the conversation, as well as the bloggers who reported it, would argue that they "were only joking," but that, in fact, is the problem. To suggest, especially in jest, that a rape can be "good" is to fail to recognize the gravity of the violence that is done not only to the victim's body, but to his or her security of person.

As I understand it, security of person--which is a fundamental human right according to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--refers more to psychological than physical state. It is the sense of safety; it is the awareness of one's own freedom from threat or harm. It is one's security of person, I would argue, that is often most damaged by rape. (There's that bit of folk-wisdom about emotional and psychological wounds taking longer to heal than the physical ones...) To suggest that a rape can be "good" in the way that our two conversationalists did with their "joke" is to suggest that rape can be pleasurable. It is to diminish, if not deny outright, the emotional and psychological effects of rape.

I don't criticize the bloggers for publishing the comments to which I've linked above, nor do deny the right of those two engineers to joke in the way that they want (within reason, of course, but I won't get into my thoughts on freedom of speech and hate speech tonight. Especially since I don't think that the rape comments can be construed as hate speech. Offensive, vile ignorance, yes; hate speech, no.) What I do find objectionable is the assumptions about rape that are implicit in such a joke.

Rape is neither pleasurable, nor is it trivial. And as long as we cultivate an atmosphere of disregard, if not hostility, towards rape victims by tacitly approving of offensive jokes--whether by laughing, or by failing to voice our objections and thus turn ignorance into an opportunity for education--there will continue to be unreported rapes. We must treat the subject of rape itself seriously if victims of rape are to feel as though they will be believed and treated with respect--which for many may indeed be a first step towards repairing that security of person.

I know that what I've said isn't anything that hasn't been said before, but I really needed to get that off my chest.

All of them puppets and villains.

2006-11-08T02:39:00.000-05:00

Is it too much to hope that one so seemingly humourless as Stephen Harper has suddenly acquired a sense of humour?

According to Don Cherry, when he visited Parliament today, Harper met with him and "asked him to run in the next election."

Serious or not, Harper's offer was turned down. Cherry reported, "You know what I told him? I'm too great on television, I can't."

Don't get me wrong, I love Don. I especially love the dynamic he has going with Ron McLean. What I don't love is undignified behaviour in the House of Commons. Though perhaps Don would fit right in? Cherry, himself known for his lack of propriety and decorum (which is, confined to Coach's Corner, perfectly charming), was booed by some members of Parliament during his visit to the House on Tuesday. It's more than unfortunate--it's disgusting--that this sort of behaviour in the House of Commons has become, well, commonplace.

I'm reminded of one of my favourite episodes of Seinfeld: "The Fire." In this episode, Kramer brings Toby, a co-worker of Elaine's, to see Jerry's comedy club act. Toby heckles Jerry throughout his entire set.

Incredulous, Jerry shouts after the show, "Booing and hissing are not part of the show! You boo puppets! You hiss villains in silent movies!"

Likewise booing and hissing shouldn't be a part of the circus they have up in Ottawa. In fact, it shouldn't be a circus at all! Maybe if members of Parliament tried to adopt some semblance of civility, if not respect, they'd actually accomplish something? Maybe they'd even become the kind of people I want representing Canada to the world?!

But then again, maybe I just need to have a sense of humour about this sort of thing.

A GN'R Bonanza

2006-10-19T22:01:00.000-04:00

Really, I was just looking for the opportunity to listen to Guns N' Roses and ogle Slash (no one weaars leather pants better!) at the same time!

"Welcome to the Jungle":

"Patience":

"Don't Cry":

"November Rain":

"Estranged":

Half-ass it like Rona!

2006-10-19T12:04:00.000-04:00

This is too little too late.

"I like feminists!"

2006-10-15T15:30:00.000-04:00

The things you miss when you don't have cable: "Cooking with Feminists"! Stephen "It's French, Bitch!" Colbert bakes and gabs about women's talk-radio with Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem:

[Via Feministing.]

And to listen to Jane and Gloria's baby, click on over here.

Great minds think alike. (And others don't think at all.)

2006-10-10T02:36:00.000-04:00

It's hardly surprising that Becky should also choose to post about The Hour and George Stroumboulopoulos. And it's also unsurprising that Becky, too, has some reservations about dear George...

The Hour, having been relegated to CBC Newsworld for the past two years, made it's debut on the main network tonight. I've watched this show off-and-on since its Newsworld debut, and it's become somewhat of a guilty pleasure for me; however, I'm not sure how much longer it will be at all pleasurable.

It's interesting, somewhat bittersweet, to see how a show that originally purported to provide coverage of news that mainstream media ignored--replete with as much manufactured "edginess" its CBC packaging can afford--and that tacitly promised unintentional camp in spades can degenerate into the sort of pap that tonight's interview with Belinda Stronach was!

Irritating me even more than Stronach's increasing adeptness in talking around questions (the girl is learning to play politics, and she's learning to play well! Ladies and gentlemen, I think she'll be in Parliament for a while!) was George's softball questions, schoolboy-ish giggles, and coy smiles. (The giggles and the smiles were few, but still. There were enough of them.) He may know his music--I don't think I could ever accuse him otherwise--but George is not a journalist. Irony and sarcasm can get one only so far...

Where is the alt-news show (I emphasize show since I know I can find plenty of alternatives to mainstream North American news coverage online--especially since I can also read the news in French and in Italian--or at the newsstand) that doesn't insult my intelligence in its privileging style over substance? I love The National, but it doesn't cover everything.

EDIT: Someone's finally put this interview up on YouTube. Am I too harsh on George? Decide for yourselves:

Not an all-encompassing update (yet!), but nevertheless...

2006-10-09T00:57:00.000-04:00

Today was my first Turkey-holiday meal, post-meat.

I wasn't sure how well I would handle it--the smell wafting from the oven as the bird browned in its own juices was intoxicating.

But once I got to the dinner table, surprisingly, not being able to eat turkey wasn't that big of a deal. My mother is such a good cook and there was such a variety of food that I could eat that I didn't feel the least bit deprived. In addition to the garden salad, cranberry sauce, dill pickles, stuffing, and garlic and oregano mashed potatoes, there was a sweet potato dish with garlic, onions, shiitake and white button mushrooms, and rosemary; carrot soup with roasted pumpkin seeds, fresh grated carrot, and fresh mint; and vegan (for my sister) rolls. And the meal's crowning touch? My mom's freshly baked apple crisp, garnished with butterscotch ice cream.

Turkey? What's that?!

Christmas dinner can't come soon enough!

Hm...

2006-10-03T22:08:00.000-04:00

Methinks this page could stand for an update sometime within the next two weeks...

Suffer the Little Children

2006-05-08T09:54:00.000-04:00

This is disgusting:

Aid workers giving girls food for sex in Liberia: report

The aid agency Save the Children says aid workers and peacekeepers are sexually exploiting young girls in Liberia, despite pledges to stamp out such abuse.

Girls as young as eight are being forced by local and international agency workers to have sex in exchange for food, according to a report called From Camp to Community: Liberia Study on Exploitation of Children, released Monday.

"These children were engaging in sex for money for education, for food for the day, or even for something as small as a ride," said Save the Children spokeswoman Emilia Brookstein.

[...]

"There is a zero tolerance for this kind of behaviour in an organization like the World Food Programme, as indeed there is in any United Nations organization," said World Food Programme spokesman Greg Barrow.

"We have to investigate exactly who was involved, which organizations were involved, and you can rest assured that if any guilt is identified at the end of the day, action will be taken to terminate that relationship immediately and steps will be made to make sure that those people do not find themselves in these positions of power that they can abuse again."

Read the full article.

Hm, well, to me, "zero tolerance" means not only terminating relationships with abusers and ensuring they cannot return to prominence, but prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. They should be tried under international law first and foremost for their exploitation of children and, secondly, for the damage they've done to the integrity of the W.F.P. (to me, it looks like a case for fraud could be made against them, but I'm not a lawyer...)

This situation is simply unacceptable.

Wow.

2006-05-06T22:57:00.000-04:00

Not forty-five minutes ago, I heard Jane Birkin's cover of "Harvest Moon." Wow. I like Neil, but he has never sounded this beautiful, this achingly sensual. Wow.

I can't wait to hear the rest of Birkin's new album.

Reuse/recycle?

2006-05-06T08:00:00.000-04:00

The format of Bob Dylan's satellite radio show sounds an awful lot like Randy Bachman's Vinyl Tap...

I haven't heard Bob's show, but Randy's is great and if it is indeed Bob's model... I dunno, though. Couldn't they have come up with an original format for Bob? In my mind, this format--whether this is true or not--will always be Randy's.

So, apparently, I'm not missing anything interesting on television...

2006-05-04T10:31:00.000-04:00

Dave Letterman, we hardly knew ye...

...but not forgotten.

2006-04-07T01:46:00.000-04:00

My Great-Uncle Gerald died last Saturday.

Progress Revisted

2006-04-07T01:39:00.000-04:00

Number four is finished. And number five is done in theory. The first day of the conference was today. It'll all be over on Saturday.

Oh, and number three is done, too. I present that paper--my first conference paper of my academic career--tomorrow afternoon. I'd be kidding us all if I said I weren't nervous.

Proof that Stephen Harper's Government will Fall in a Vote of Non-Confidence Sooner than You Think #1:

2006-04-02T13:48:00.000-04:00

"'There will have to be constitutional changes,' Harper says."

Progress

2006-03-28T22:39:00.000-05:00

What an invaluable program! [Link via PopPolitics.]

And speaking of progress, of all the things on my March "To Do" list, I've completed item numbers one, two and six; I'm half finished with items four, five and seven; and I've started (in some way shape or form) items three and eight.

By the end of next week, I will have finished numbers three, four, five and seven, as well as part of number eight (I'm reading Angela Carter's Night's at the Circus right now.)

All in all, I'm mostly pleased with the progress. Especially since I now have to add another Bible and Lit paper (this one on the Tournier text), as well as my thesis prospectus, to the list.

I know my thoughts are fragmentary, somewhat incoherent. I apologize. My mind is several other places right now.

If you're the praying sort, please keep my great-uncle in your prayers; if you're not that sort, please, at least, keep that uncle in mind.

Lost, or "How to Disappear Completely"

2006-03-08T18:38:00.000-05:00

Have you ever wanted nothing more than just to cease being? Not die--I make a distinction here--but cease being?

Please don't worry about me. I really just want to be left alone. Completely alone.

Start/Finish This Month:

2006-03-02T19:49:00.000-05:00

1.) Writing paper one of two for my Bible and Literature class;

2.) Reading All the Names by Jose Saramago (for my Archive in European Culture class);

3.) Working on my conference paper on the nineteenth-century discourse on hysteria (the paper's done in theory. Now comes the hardest part: the seemingly relentless editing);

4.) Reviewing my students' rough drafts/marking their research papers;

5.) With Veronica, organizing food stuff for the conference mentioned in #3;

6.) Reading The Four Wise Men by Michel Tournier (for the Bible and Literature class);

7.) Working on the book and literature reviews for my thesis; and

8.) Re-/Reading--among a number of essays--Tipping the Velvet by Sarah Waters, Nights at the Circus by Angela Carter, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction by Michel Foucault, and "Of Other Spaces" by Michel Foucault (for my final paper for the aforementioned Archive class).

Those are the big things. I left of the tedious little assignments and all the prep-work I have to do for my tutorials. I don't need to see everything in print--I'm feeling overwhelmed enough as it is.

Anyway, I'm off to work on item #1.

Enjoy the Silence

2006-03-02T19:20:00.000-05:00

Within the past year, too many strong women have died, the media allowing their memories to go gentle into that good night. How can we let women like Betty Friedan, Octavia Butler, and Andrea Dworkin pass without honouring sufficiently who they were and what they did?

Of the three, Dworkin, who died last April, seemed to generate the most posthumous headlines. Indeed, I heard about her passing the first day it was publicized. Maybe this had something to do with how polarizing she was?

But Friedan? And Butler? Next to nothing. Octavia Butler died February 24. I read about the reclusive Butler's death only half an hour ago. Why is that?

Is the media lax in their coverage? Or do they have a blind spot when it comes to women of genuine achievement (the Britneys and Madonnas of the world need not apply)? I certainly hope that this is no implicit value-judgment of Friedan's and Butler's work! Do women have to be as divisive as Andrea Dworkin in order to be considered noteworthy?

For those of you coming here in search of Bronwen Wallace...

2006-02-13T02:09:00.000-05:00

"A Simple Poem for Virginia Woolf" is available in Rich Text Format at this site here. Enjoy!

Matters Over Mind

2006-02-13T01:53:00.000-05:00

I don't know what's wrong with me lately. It seems that whenever I open my mouth to say something, it's only to switch which foot is in my mouth.

I'm so distracted. I keep finding myself unable to say what I mean, and not meaning what I say (or at least not meaning my thoughts to come off as they are.) I feel like such an idiot.

I wish I could shake this.

If this is what academia is going to do to my social skills, I had better count myself out...

Implicit (or EXPLICIT?) Double Standard

2006-02-09T11:00:00.000-05:00

Can I be candid?

Belinda Stronach was raked over the coals for crossing the floor to the Liberals in 2004. Why the hell would David Emerson think that he's above criticism for defecting to the Conservatives?

Fucking double standard.

An Update:

Ohhh...! I feel so silly--this explains Emerson's attitude:

Conservatives sputtered with rage after the defection of Belinda Stronach last year, disgusted by a lack of ethics and demanding that MPs who switch political parties face the music in a byelection.

But many are singing an entirely different tune now that they're in power and Liberal David Emerson has joined them. Carol Skelton said just months ago that she was sick to her stomach when Stronach defected to the Liberals.

The Saskatchewan MP even introduced a parliamentary motion to restrict the practice of party-switching, but won't be bringing it back anytime soon.

"That was last year," Skelton, now the minister of national revenue, said Thursday.

"We talked about it and I decided not to proceed with it. It's one of those matters that is debatable."

[...]

Ontario MP Harold Albrecht appeared to be softening the position he advocated during the election. He campaigned on a promise to ensure floor-crossers face the electorate anew to confirm their switch in allegiances.

"I expressed that, yeah. I would prefer that when someone crosses the floor they would have a byelection," he said Thursday. "But I want to talk to my colleagues about that."

B.C.'s James Lunney, who supported a proposed law to force byelections after Stronach defected, now indicates he's not as supportive any more.

He said he's discovered some wisdom in floor-crossing. Party leaders would have too much control over MPs if they were not free to switch caucuses on matters of principle, he said.

Ontario MP Garth Turner was one of the few who spoke publicly about his unease with Emerson's move. On his web site, he posted a letter from a furious constituent.

"I am feeling incredibly betrayed by Stephen Harper," said the letter.

"This is more of the same crap that the Liberals have been serving out for 12 years and which made my blood boil.

"The lies, the deceit, the arrogance. I couldn't wait to vote those bastards out and vote in some integrity and honesty. But this! This is a betrayal of my confidence in Harper and the Conservative party."

Turner said he campaigned on the idea that MPs who switch parties should be forced to face byelections. And he still supports the idea.

"I think anyone who crosses the floor, ultimately, should go back to the people for ratification," Turner said.

Let's talk ethics.

2006-02-08T23:57:00.000-05:00

Parliamentary ethics--as paradoxical as that may be.

The Conservative Party touted their ethics package as one of the crown jewels of their platform. Promising to clean up government, they insisted that they'd work in constituents' best interests. "Stand up for change," they implored.

Instead, constituents in the Vancouver Kingsway riding in British Columbia re-elected Liberal David Emerson--a man who crossed the floor to both the Conservatives and a cabinet post a mere two weeks after the election. The voters of Vancouver Kingsway clearly did not want a Conservative M.P. representing them:

Emerson easily won the riding by a margin of 4,592 votes, garnering about 44 per cent of the total ballots cast. The NDP candidate came in second, followed by the Conservative candidate.

In fact, said Conservative candidate garnered only 18.79% of the vote.

So I'm not surprised that the Vancouver Kingsway Liberal riding association is calling for Emerson to repay the funds used to re-elect him as a Liberal. (I am surprised that each of the 20,064 people who voted for Emerson aren't calling for it, too.)

Emerson, on the other hand, does seem surprised--and generally pissed off--that anyone would have the gall to ask that he repay the campaign donations, and run in a by-election as a Conservative candidate. (Incidentally, the New Democratic Party included a proposal for an Accountability to the Electorate Act--which would require M.P.s who switched parties to resign and run in a by-election--as part of their ethics package.)

Now, what be the ethical thing to do, David? Really, I know you're not required by law to repay those funds or run in as a Conservative in a by-election, but aren't you at least required to try to be ethical?!

If a newly-minted Conservative is at all indicative of our newly-minted Conservative government, it would appear that the Canadian electorate is in for more of the same unaccountable, disrespectful governance.

Edited to add:

Will the new government be haunted by ghosts of Conservatives past?

I know that legally he was exonerated, but in the court of my very public opinion...? I'm not convinced yet. And given that the fifth estate's just illuminated a few more things, I'm even more skeptical.

Boneheaded Stephen Harper Move #1

2006-02-06T11:29:00.000-05:00

Tony Clement is the new Minister of Health??!! Riiight... 'Cause he was so impressive as Ontario's Minister of Health!

Proof that silver linings do exist:

2006-01-24T02:01:00.000-05:00

- the N.D.P. made significant gains in the number of elected Members of Parliament;

- one of the London ridings (London-Fanshawe) elected Irene Mathyssen, an N.D.P. M.P. Too bad she doesn't represent my riding (which, again, idiotically elected a Liberal M.P.);

- the lovely-and-amazing Tina Keeper--most of you may know her from the C.B.C. series North of 60--is now an M.P. Sure, she's a Liberal, but I can't hold that against her; she's far too lovely-and-amazing;

- the Bloc Quebecois lost seats and a percentage of the popular vote in Quebec; and

- at least it's only a Conservative minority win: a win that might help Canada see some much-needed electoral reform. (It'll be a cold day in Hell before the Liberals, who--historically--have fared so well under our very undemocratic system, introduce any of those initiatives!) Cold comfort, I know, but I'll take any form of comfort I can get.

But the clouds do still exist:

- Svend Robinson wasn't able to defeat Hedy Fry;

- the N.D.P., while it has made significant inroads, still doesn't hold a firm balance of power. Nor do I think we can hold a balance of power again until we either a.) regain the federal seats/momentum we lost in Saskatchewan back in 2004 (I miss you, Lorne Nystrom!); or b.) win at least one seat in Quebec--a feat we have yet to achieve;

- the Conservative stances on same-sex marriage rights; Kyoto and climate change; deep integration with the U.S.; bulk water exports; health care privatization; education; aboriginal affairs; the G.S.T.; et cetera; and

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper--I'm surprised my computer didn't implode after I typed that.

Tonight, I leave you all with Tommy Douglas' (that's "The Greatest Canadian"/Keifer Sutherland's maternal grandfather for those of you who aren't up on your Canadiana) call-to-arms.

But first, sleep. New Democrats have got to get their sleep now, if we want to be a thorn in the great Conservative Side.

It's sad, but...

2006-01-17T21:34:00.000-05:00

I am mostly in agreement with Paul Martin on this one.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that Jack Layton has betrayed N.D.P. policies and ideals, he certainly has focused an inordinate amount of time and energy campaigning against the Martin Liberals at the expense of critiquing Conservative policies. Jack has virtually let Stephen Harper and the Conservatives "off the hook." And I'm not happy about that.

What makes me even more unhappy is that, increasingly, the N.D.P. campaign has seemed more like a campaign against the Liberals than a campaign for a progressive, socially responsible and fiscally accountable government.

But more on this later (and there will be more! I've LOTS of ire in store!). I have to finish preparing a presentation on Foucault's "Of Other Spaces" for my Archive in European Culture class tomorrow.

As opposed to what? Made-up truths?

2006-01-14T00:50:00.000-05:00

"All the reports about phone calls between Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie are all made-up lies."

-Stephen Huvane, publicist for Jennifer Aniston.

[Via Yahoo!]