Robyn Urback's Blog

THIS SITE HAS MOVED!

2010-09-30T23:05:00.002-04:00

CLICK HERE or check out www.robynurback.com

A lesson in conflict resolution

2010-09-10T12:35:00.004-04:00

If you’re interested in conflict resolution, I hear that the University of Victoria’s Master of Arts in Dispute Resolution is quite reputable. For wannabe-mediators on the east coast, there’s the Certificate in Conflict Resolution Studies offered by the University of Prince Edward Island, and a cool $25,000 or so will get you an Honors Arts & Science in Peace Studies degree from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. But for those really itching to learn how to douse a fiery situation, look no further than the 11p.m. news.

Last evening, Florida pastor Terry Jones announced the cancellation--or temporary cancellation, at least--of his Quran-burning event, which was slated for this upcoming Saturday, the ninth anniversary of 9/11 attacks. Needless to say, Jones’s Gainesville church-led “International Burn a Koran Day” received condemnation from all over the world; from the Vatican to Pakistan, Obama to Stephen Harper, and most importantly, actress Angelina Jolie. But the denunciations just weren’t persuasive enough. Even a denied state burning permit couldn’t stop the furious pastor. Nor did the news that the Quran is also available on Kindle!

Then, of course, came the tipping point. Jones announced early Thursday evening that a deal had been reached with Imam Muhammad Musri of the Islamic Society of Central Florida that the much-disputed mosque near Ground Zero would be moved to another location. So the Quran burning was off. I know—apparently public charrings of religious texts can be doused by strategic urban planning. You haven't heard?

Well, in this bizzaro world in which we all seem to have fallen, moving a mosque fixes the problem. Moving this mosque, that is; the $100 million one slated a couple blocks away from the New York site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The controversial issue has garnered some international attention of its own over the past few months, with sometimes-libertarian Ezra Levant coming down against it in his July Sun column, whilst John Parisella reminded Maclean’s readers of America’s First Amendment and other Constitutional rights granting project managers the right to proceed. The debate has been futility playing out all summer, but managed suddenly to find a resolution last night. Or so it seemed. Later Thursday evening, Musri, acting as liaison between Jones and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is heading the mosque project, said that Rauf only agreed to meeting Jones in New York, and not necessarily to moving the mosque. And so we wait.

Of course, even if a deal is reached, this is not a resolution--not for either issue. Rather, it seems a scary game of chicken with potentially disastrous repercussions, nevermind teasing a dangerous precedent. That it seems, of course, unless a UVic Master can explain the sanctity of this little ceasefire. In the meantime, I’ll be waiting for Jones and Musri to yell “psyche!”

- Photo by David Shankbone

Queen’s offended by Sumo wrestling

2010-04-06T18:56:00.001-04:00

This post originally appeared March 31, 2010 at Maclean's OnCampus

What does Shinerama fundraising, dirty bingo, and—the latest—Sumo wrestling have in common?

They’re all activities you’d find on campus during Frosh Week?

Wrong, stupid.

They’re all instruments of oppression, manifesting innocently behind a guise of “harmless fun,” wreaking havoc on the consciousnesses of privileged white students.

Thank [insert name of respective deity] that we have the Alma Mater Society, the student government at Queen’s University, to tell us what we should feel guilty about. Read their two-page apology, and you’ll learn why the “SUMO Showdown,” scheduled during their food bank fundraiser, “fails to capture the deeply imbedded histories of violent and subversive oppression that a group has faced.”

And those puffy Sumo suits? “Caused feelings of hurt,” writes AMS. They were not “being safe on-campus by planning this event.” Well, the pursuit of the jovial obviously blinded these students to their own privilege. “Regrettably,” they write, “those of us who were aware of the event did not critically consider the racist meaning behind it.”

Red-faced, I admit I didn’t see the racist meaning behind it. The bun, the Mawashi, the size of the wrestler–that’s what makes Sumo intriguing and distinctive. The AMS thinks wearing these cultural garments dehumanizes the culture; I think it simply identifies it. Mike Grobe, a spokesman for Queen’s Athletics, didn’t see the controversy either. He told the National Post, “It’s the first time we’ve heard of [the racist aspects].” Queen’s Athletics uses the suits regularly at half-time shows. “They’re pink… No one’s complained.”

I didn’t think our cultural climate was so volatile that any mirth is suddenly menacing. But I guess I was wrong.

The AMS apology further reads, “The event also devalues an ancient and respected Japanese sport.” Well, amen, friends. Someone should also tell Carl Douglas, singer of “Kung Fu Fighting,” to stop devaluing that ancient and respected sport. Poke fun at any cultural traditions–but leave the sports alone.

Making a fuss over Sumo suits–does it trivialize more serious issues of oppression and racism? I’d think about it further, but it’s much easier to just let my student leaders decide for me.

Should soldiers’ children get special scholarships?

2010-03-27T19:34:00.001-04:00

This post originally appeared March 26, 2010 at Maclean's OnCampus

My fellow blogger Todd Pettigrew, as well as several professors at the University of Regina say no.

“Project Hero,” the program implemented several weeks ago at U of R, provides free tuition for four years (as well as $1,000 for books) to the children of military personnel who have died in active duty.

But to Prof Pettigrew and the 16 professors who are protesting the scholarship program, Project Hero does more than just provide tuition—it glorifies war.

“It implies that military officers have a special status simply by virtue of being in the military,” writes Pettigrew. “It suggests that the whole class of people is to venerated, and that military service is a special calling to which only a select group of heroes can aspire.”

I’ll admit, the name “Project Hero” leaves little to the imagination. So how about we call it the “Military Dependent Scholarship?” Or the “Children of Deceased Veterans Bursary?” Problem solved, right?

With the word “hero” gone, you’d have to do a hell of a lot of extrapolation to get back to the glorification of soldiers, no? (I can already feel the vibration of goaded fingers.) How would the renamed scholarship glorify war any more than, say, wearing a poppy on Veterans Day?

One could argue I’m missing the “meta,” but I see the the scholarship simply as a way to provide tuition to children who have lost a parent, and by extension, a financial resource. Yes the families of fallen military personnel are compensated, but this program provides a fiscal opportunity specific to the pursuit of higher education. I’m sure the U of R professors would agree with me when I say that it’s a pursuit worth of encouraging.

I think it’s also worth noting that this scholarship isn’t for “Children of Military in Afghanistan.” Canadian troops just happen to be there at the moment. Military lives are lost in combat and in training, during battles of which Canadian citizens approve and many of which they do not. Funny–in World War II, when professors and academics were one of the first to be persecuted in Nazi-occupied Germany, Canadian soldiers fought against constricting pressures, allowing for academic freedom and freedom of speech, which, ironically, grants our professors the opportunity to object to Project Hero today. What would attitudes towards the program have been back in 1940? Should we only compensate the children of war casualties who fought for causes with which we agree?

Another overlooked point in this whole debate is that the children of many professors at Canadian universities pay reduced or no tuition if they enroll at an institution where a parent works. As long as we’re extrapolating, what message does that send? Let’s say a professor is a racist bigot who spews ignorant propaganda in lecture all day–do we deny his/her child the financial break because of what could be inferred from the subsidy?

Professor Pettigrew makes the very good point that it’s not just military personnel who risk their lives for others; police officers, firefighters and others put put themselves in danger each day for the public. And I completely agree. To go further, I think universities should provide scholarships for the children of those who have lost their lives in the line of public duty.

But, in the meantime, I think we should let these veterans’ kids have their break. Just as “glorifying war” churns the stomachs of these professors, politicizing the tragedies of Canadian military families leaves a bad feeling in mine.

Stepping on free speech to keep out Coulter

2010-03-27T19:27:00.002-04:00

This post originally appeared March 22, 2010 at Maclean's OnCampus

University of Ottawa student union president wants to ban controversial writer and speaker from campus

“Fickle Students for Selective Free Speech?”

Yes, that’ll do nicely. After all, I think it’s about time we coin some sort of phrase to describe the exasperating irresolution of student leaders on the issue.

Free speech is good, right? Except when it comes certain stances on abortion, Israel/Palestine, and anything else that can otherwise make you uncomfortable or upset.

This week, it’s Ann Coulter, the notoriously controversial writer/speaker/columnist known for her right-wing opinions and provocative comments. Coulter is scheduled to speak at the University of Western Ontario Today and University of Calgary Thursday, but it’s Tomorrow’s visit to the University of Ottawa that has spawned a “Ban Coulter from Campus” Facebook group and disdain from SFUO president Seamus Wolfe.

“The federation does not support Ann Coulter speaking on our campus,” Wolfe told the Ottawa Citizen. “We’re trying to work with the administration to see if we can ask her to do her speaking event somewhere else.”

That’s not all. According to the Ottawa Citizen article, Wolfe has prohibited posters advertising the event from going up in the University Centre building.

It seems obvious to me that these are counter-productive resistance tactics. Not liking Ann Coulter—that, I get. But trying to keep her off campus? I’ll need a little help with that one.

If anything, U of O students should consider themselves lucky; they have home court advantage, strength in numbers (or so it seems, at least, from Wolfe’s comments) and the opportunity to challenge Coulter directly during a scheduled Q&A after her speech.

Censorship is nothing but a soggy band-aid. Why cover up contentious ideology when you can potentially reason it down to irrelevance?

If you really think Coulter spews ridiculous, insulting dribble, let her hang herself with her own words. It will be a lot more effective than putting tape over her mouth and insisting that she would have been offensive.

In a 2005 editorial, Gilles Marchildon, executive director of Egale Canada, a national LGBT lobby group, summed up this view of censorship very succinctly. Referring to a homophobic letter printed in an Alberta newspaper by Pastor Stephen Boissoin in 2002, Marchildon writes:

While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.

If Boissoin was no longer able to share his views, then who might be next in also having their freedom of expression limited. Traditionally, the LGBT community’s freedom has been repressed by society and its laws.

Plus, it is far better that Boissoin expose his views than have them pushed underground. Under the glaring light of public scrutiny, his ideas will most likely wither and die.

Coulter’s views, too, should face the glaring light of public scrutiny. And our universities are just the places to house the debate. That is, unless our student nannies get in the way.

Ryerson goes bottled water free

2010-03-16T21:02:00.002-04:00

Originally appeared March 15, 2010 on Maclean's OnCampus

On March 11, 2010, I was duped.

Yes, the collaborative efforts of the Canadian Federation of Students, the Sierra Youth Coalition, and the Polaris Institute got me.

Apparently, “Bottled Water Free Day” is nothing as it sounds. I know; I was shocked too! Not only did I not get my free bottle of water, but I found out that the very cap I untwist to seek refreshment can unearth a Pandora’s box of campus sin!

Defeated and embarrassed, I went home to mull over my misstep.

What was I missing? Clearly, Evian and Nestle were up to something dire; why else would student leaders be using my fees to campaign for something completely not student related?

Then I saw the press release: “Ryerson pledges to be first bottled water free campus in Ontario.”

OK, OK, something’s definitely going on; or else, why would my university pledge to eliminate all bottled water from campus? A band-aid move that reeks of appeasement? When everyone knows that prohibition will only create resentment? And that the way to get people to really align with your views is through reasoned argument and persuasion, not mandating its acceptance?

I stared at my half-empty Dasani. Oh, you’re trouble, aren’t you? That’s why my university has decided to stunt one of our few healthy consumer trends. Why the Ryerson Student Union has suddenly been granted the right to decide what others can purchase on campus?

Finally, after hours of reflection, I’m down to three possible conclusions:

Either:
• Bottled water was the root cause of the 5-3 upset suffered by the Canadian men’s Olympic hockey team’s to the United States in Vancouver this past February
Or:
• The grooves on many water bottles somehow serve as capitalist symbols
Or:
• Bottled water is responsible for high tuition fees

You decide…

Ryerson racism probe seeks to coddle students

2010-02-13T22:30:00.004-05:00

This post originally appeared February 9, 2010, at Maclean's OnCampus

Ryerson University, in all her racist glory, graced the front page of the Toronto Star Monday.

I know; I couldn’t believe it either. I didn’t know purgatorial images were allowed on the front page.

Well, nevermind. The real story is that a university-commissioned probe into campus racism identified serious issues at the school. Its 107-page report recommended specific and swift action to tackle the problems.

So, what were the issues? Well, some were of legitimate concern. The Task Force on Anti-Racism at Ryerson cited a few specific examples of harassment and vandalism, which, I agree, should be dealt with harshly and swiftly. But most of it? Hyperbole and pandering, I’m sorry to say. Obviously a task force committed to sniffing out racism will find something. They don’t want to be deemed useless, after all.

I’ve spent nearly four years at Ryerson and have personally found it to be one of the most multicultural, inclusive, and culturally sensitive institutions I’ve ever encountered. Sure, maybe that’s my complacency/privilege/ignorance speaking, but from what I’ve observed, the campus is fairly harmonious (which says a lot, considering it’s a university). Globe writer Marcus Gee shares my view. “Ryerson University is one of the most diverse and welcoming universities in the country, if not the world,” he writes. Gee continues:

Under president Sheldon Levy, Ryerson has bent over backward to celebrate and encourage diversity. The university already has active programs on employment equity, a special office to serve aboriginal students and a prayer space for Muslim worshippers. At the university’s Ted Rogers School of Management, five of the 11 faculty hired in 2008 were visible minorities, just short of its target of six. Other faculties are striving to bring up their numbers, too.

The Toronto Star ignored these details in its article. Here are the more… umm… poignant excerpts:

Some observant Muslim students complained teachers often use jokes about sex that can make them uncomfortable.

One professor who was teaching students how to modulate their voices for radio told the class to pretend they were having sex and to imagine the voice they heard when they experience “pleasure.” Other students joined in and began making “very weird noises,” leaving some students very uncomfortable.

This line’s a gem:

Others longed for teachers who look like them, especially aboriginal and black students.

And straight from students’ mouths:

“Professors don’t address issues of inappropriate language.”

“I think a lot of Jewish students don’t run for student leadership positions because of the hostile environment and so they don’t have to vote for anti-Israel resolutions.”

Hmm. So what? We should be hiring professors for their looks, not their qualifications? (I wonder if the Force will advocate on behalf of the few men in my program, who swim in a sea of aspiring women-journalist, for more professors who “look like them.”) And what of the inappropriate language? Sexual innuendos? Hurt feelings? I thought we were out of middle school.

University is not supposed to make you feel comfortable. Sorry. Stay at home if you want to be coddled. University is one of those unique places where individuals are encouraged to express their beliefs and challenge their assumptions. And yes, some will often be offended. Personally, I celebrate it. What better opportunity to explore your own preconceptions than face that which irks you? And if you don’t like it: avoid it, challenge it, but don’t stifle it. If university can’t be a sanctuary for free speech, what can be?

Compulsory anti-racism courses for staff and students, as recommended by the racism report, won’t fix anything. You can’t force out ideology with a couple obligatory lectures. And telling profs to babysit or keep it PG is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Oddly enough, I’ll think we’ll end up homogenizing if we keep catering to the multiplicity of hurt feelings. The real world isn’t sterilized, why should university be?

Needless lament for the loss of a name

2010-01-29T15:51:00.003-05:00

This post originally appeared January 24, 2010, at Maclean's OnCampus

"Women's studies" becomes "gender studies" . . . and rightfully so.

What’s in a name?

Is it, “That which we call a rose?” Or, “Bee to the blossom, moth to the flame?” How about, “A history of structural and psychological oppression wrought with prejudice and inequality to capitulate only through ongoing and relentless insurgent pressure?”

Or, maybe it’s just a name.

Queen’s University has become the latest school to change the name of their “Women’s Studies” program to “Gender Studies.” And some people, such as Toronto Star columnist Catherine Porter, aren’t celebrating the rechristening.

Recalling her time as a student at McGill University, Porter writes:

I’d spent the summer flipping through the course catalogue, stomach down on my bed. There were all the history and English literature courses I would end up taking, the descriptions filled with names including Plato, Charlemagne and Shakespeare.

Then, turning the page, I saw the word that was missing elsewhere — woman. It was empowering.

It still is.

I’m very glad to hear Porter had a fulfilling class selection experience, but I’m more pleased to see universities shifting with the times. If that means swapping “women” for “gender,” so be it.

While I will explain why I’m in favour of the name change, I don’t seek to examine the merits of a women’s/gender studies program, nor do I wish to undermine the history of enormous struggle heaved by the women before me to bring society where it is today. But “today” is just what I’m going to focus on. And, in my opinion, “Gender Studies” is the more appropriate and relevant program title for contemporary study.

I’ll start with the obvious. To properly understand the role of women in society you have to understand the role of men. The history of one gender can’t be contextualized in a vacuum. “Gender Studies” better encompasses that idea; it is simply the more correct term. Furthermore, I think the name change will entice a greater breadth of student applicants. Those who have studied feminist literature know it often goes beyond the study of women, incorporating theory on many other forms of oppression (such as religious, racial and ethnic). “Gender” speaks to a wider audience. It is more inclusive (yes, I’m using that word) and doesn’t reek of an “us” versus “them” dichotomy.

Which brings me to some of my more general views on gender politics. (I’ve touched on some of these ideas in previous posts, but I’ll reiterate.) To be frank, I applaud dropping the “women” from “studies” because in doing so, I think it purges a very unnecessary proverbial “crutch.” Women want to be treated equally, right? So why call for special attention? To be perceived as equal, women need to present themselves as equal. After all, men are disadvantaged too, just in different ways. Women don’t need to victimize themselves by calling for special consideration. I think to do so is to insult all the progress we’ve made.

What a luxury it is to have these nomenclature debates. Nellie McClung, Jessie Gray, Dorthea Palmer wouldn’t believe.

I want my achievements to be successes for me as an individual, not as a woman. But if I keep reminding you how disadvantaged I am as a female, you’ll never see it that way.

Cooperating with strangers

2010-01-12T18:56:00.003-05:00

This post originally appeared December 21, 2009, at Maclean's OnCampus

Will separate school board ensure Aboriginal student success?

These are tricky little quandaries. A community struggles to get its kids through high school, and every Tom, Dick and Sally thinks he or she has the answer. It happened when the Toronto District School Board talked about opening its first Africentric school, and it’s happening again now, with calls to create an Aboriginal school division in Winnipeg.

So, Sally here, with another opinion to throw into the mix. The difference? I’m not an enthused parent, community advocate, political leader or sociology PhD candidate. In contrast, I still wear many of the same clothes I wore in high school, and feebly swap university lecture notes with friends (some of whom happen to be Aboriginal) the night before exams. My point: I may not be any better informed than Tommy-PhD, but I am a little closer to the action.

Granted, I didn’t go to high school near a reserve, and I can’t tell you why the native dropout rates are where they are. But I do know teens who didn’t make it through high school. And no one’s proposing an “I have an unstable home life” school board, or a “Who needs school when I’d make so much money working full time!” committee.

My position is that kids don’t drop out because the curriculum doesn’t speak to them. A discussion of the “mothers” of Confederation wouldn’t have kept the 16-year-old pregnant student at my alma mater in school. Advocates for race- or gender-based alternative schools seem to rely on the premise that relevant material will keep bodies in seats. I just don’t think so.

Well, one might argue, can’t the dropout rates of certain communities be attributed to specific societal trends? Take, for example, ‘Community X’ with its high rates of teen pregnancy and poor high school completion statistics. Doesn’t it make sense to concentrate ‘Community X’ students under one school or board to create a catered learning environment, one which specifically addresses the causes of teen pregnancy to prevent dropouts?

Yes, that does make sense. I’m all for student-directed learning, a more holistic approach to education, classrooms that are about more than just facts and numbers. But while it may be “easier” to lump together students of like backgrounds, I don’t think it would ultimately be to their benefit. Each community, no matter how outwardly successful, has its failings. By isolating one group or another, aren’t we just “othering” them? Why not create a more holistic learning environment for everyone, where more than one community’s troubles are part of classroom discussion? Won’t it empower students to know that they’re not the only ones with statistics not on their side?

Even if a native school board is the answer to getting more First Nations students through high school (a premise of which I’m doubtful) what then? In university, it’s sink or swim. In the workplace, it’s ‘do your job.’ We’re all lumped together, and most of the time, success means cooperating with relative strangers. Hopefully, we’ll see each other as people. But if we keep incubating our kids in racial, cultural, or class bubbles, I’m not so optimistic.

How to spread the word: lessons from Greenpeace

2009-12-09T00:06:00.005-05:00

This post originally appeared December 8, 2009, at Maclean's OnCampus

Dangerously scaling buildings costs lives

Twenty Greenpeace members were arrested yesterday after staging a protest at Parliament Hill. At 7:30 a.m., 19 individuals–in hard hats and jumpsuits–scaled two buildings and unfurled banners from the rooftops.

“Harper, Ignatieff, climate inaction costs lives,” read the banners, in both English and French.

Emergency vehicles were called to the scene, and protesters were helped down one by one. They were then arrested, along with an organizer from the ground.

I could deconstruct the merits of such a demonstration, but (as Obama would say) why not look at the situation as a “teachable moment?” We all have something to say, right? Why not tell it the Greenpeace way? Here are the points I’ve extracted:

Make sure your method upstages your message. That’s right; loud, brash and unapologetic. That way, everyone will be talking about what you did, not what you said.
It’s always best to break the law. You can later use your being-led-to-police-cruiser photo as your new Facebook profile picture. I predict 10 new friend requests. At least.
Nothing says, “take me seriously” like matching uniforms.
Make sure you identify to whom your message is directed. Spell it out in 72¹² point font. Just to make sure they don’t miss it.
Take a holistic approach. For example, incorporate physical activity in delivering your point. That way, you subtly lament the physical decline of our nation, while broadcasting your primary message. Talk about killing two birds. (Insert inoffensive idiom)

On a more serious note, Greenpeace did effectively reveal the gross security inadequacies at Parliament Hill. Pretty good for a protest that was supposed to be about.. um.. ya, pretty good!

Fed's latest choice for CIHR governing council

2009-12-02T11:07:00.003-05:00

This post originally appeared December 2, 2009, at Maclean's OnCampus

Guess they were a little loopy when they made this call.

The vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada has been appointed to the governing council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

It was announced Oct. 5 that Dr. Bernard Prigent was appointed to the publicly funded CIHR, which sponsors medical research across the country. The rest of the governing council is primarily made of medical practitioners, scientists and health administrators.

“He’s the VP of the largest drug company in the world, and he says he’ll keep that separate,” NDP health critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis told CBC. “How effective will that be?”

Well, you or I can’t really answer that. The decision is up for review in the House of Commons. But in the meantime, seeing as we’re already playing, “Screwing up Government Integrity,” why not throw a few more social scenarios into the mix?

Take, for example:

The Molson family running various nationwide AA chapters
Robert Friedland, founder and chairman of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd., joining Canada’s consultation board on the Kyoto Protocol
Jean Lafleur assisting Ontario Auditor General Jim McCarter in his investigation of the eHealth spending scandal
Rick Smith, CEO of Taser International, serving as RCMP watchdog

Which one would you prefer? Something to think about while trying to ignore that nagging federal disdain.

Innocent Halloween costume or blackface?

2009-11-17T22:22:00.003-05:00

This post originally appeared November 15, 2009 at Maclean's OnCampus

They’re students. They painted their faces. Someone called “blackface” and lots got ticked off.

They were called racist, ignorant, foolish and insensitive, and apologies were demanded all around.

The four boys darkened their skin (and one lightened his) for Halloween. They dressed as the “Jamaican Bobsled Team” for a college pub event, and won best costume. But they didn’t have much time to celebrate. David Topping called them out on his Torontoist blog, saying they were manifesting “blackface.”

Then it took off. Hundreds of responses, one townhall meeting and a handful of media reports later, and the issue remains as contentious as ever. (For even more details, click here.)

But do these boys deserve all the contempt that’s come their way? Are they guilty of blackface, or has the issue been blown out of proportion?

I’d say blown out of proportion.

Mind you, I don’t want to downplay the fact that the get-ups genuinely offended certain individuals. I can try to empathize, but I know I will never totally get it. Still, I don’t think that means I have to remain relativistic (as some have argued), especially on something so litigious.

So, was this blackface?

The word’s a bomb. I don’t know who first dropped it here, but others seem to have picked it up without regard to its connotative weight. And I think it’s been misapplied.

Blackface is a very specific type of makeup worn in the 19th century by white actors playing black characters. Blackface makeup exaggerated racist stereotypes, contributing to overall attitudes of intolerance. I think saying these U of T students wore “blackface” is a bit of a stretch. Just because something looks similar, doesn’t mean it’s the same. For example, if someone wears a flashing star broach, it doesn’t mean she’s making fun of Jews in Nazi-occupied Germany. Maybe she just likes tacky jewelry.

And speaking of which, the Black Student Association at U of T has compared this “blackface” incident to wearing Nazi regalia. Again, I think this is a weak parallel. Nazi regalia reflect a specific ideology of hate. The makeup these boys wore doesn’t convey a particular set of ideas. Only through extrapolation has it been connected to blackface. The boys themselves stated they only painted their faces to look like the characters in the movie.

Just a costume?

The boys were dressed as the “Jamaican Bobsled Team,” characters from the movie Cool Runnings. They weren’t dressed as “Jamaicans” or “black people” or “white people wearing blackface.” They were specific personalities from a popular movie. Can we really call them racist?

Well, those that aren’t are at least calling them insensitive. Many have argued that although they were ignorant to the historical wounds they were reviving by darkening their faces, they were wrong just the same. The casualness with which they slapped on the makeup speaks to their “social ignorance” and “white privilege,” many have asserted.

Maybe so. I’m not about to debate that. But I do think there’s another way to look at it. Firstly, I think it’s important to emphasize that the boys didn’t seem to be motivated by malice; they didn’t think anyone would be offended by what they did. Whereas 19th century blackface exploited racist stereotypes, these boys were just trying to look like movie characters. Secondly, I think it speaks volumes about our progress as a society that these boys could darken their faces with such nonchalance. Doesn’t it say something about race relations that we’re not preoccupied with the differences between us? Doesn’t the fact that we’re not constantly worrying about offending one another show that we’re starting to see each other as one in the same? Maybe not, and you can disagree with me, but I think there are at least some positives can be drawn from this messy situation.

Regardless, I definitely think the issue has been mishandled. If it’s true that the boys meant no harm (and I think that’s been pretty much agreed upon) why make a public spectacle? I understand it’s a good way to educate people about the historical context of darkening one’s face, but it seems like these boys have taken the fall. And they’ve fallen too hard. If we really feel so compelled to call people out, let’s save the public condemnation for the malicious intenders, and quietly tell the inadvertent offenders to go wash their faces. Or maybe, (and in my opinion, preferably) just take a step back, pause, and see the issues for what they are.

Ticked beige by the Liberal 'Pink Book'

2009-11-08T22:18:00.003-05:00

Originally published October 25, 2009, at Maclean's OnCampus

I’m a little confused; I thought “pink for girls” and “blue for boys” went fringe a while ago. Isn’t it supposed to be Tonka Trucks for little girls and Barbies for little boys now?

Well, nevermind. The Liberal Women’s Caucus has released their third (poorly titled) volume of recommendations to improve the lives of Canadian women. The 38-page document outlines a series of Liberal policy positions on women’s health and safety, social equality and role in the economic sphere. The ongoing premise is that “The situation for women is rapidly deteriorating under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government,” and a new federal Liberal government should consider the Caucus’s policy recommendations.

Though I take issue with some of the Pink Book policies and look dubiously toward its latent irony (but more about that later), I don’t want to minimize or undermine its theoretical relevance. That is, though I’m uncertain of the real benefits to be reaped by a women’s Pink Book, I fully respect the organized and productive expression by self-perceived marginalized groups. Therefore, I’ll dissect it, criticize it, and question its objectives, but I won’t call it irrelevant.

My feelings on the Pink Book are mixed. Sure, the idea of an action plan for Canadian women sounds nice, but I’m having trouble swallowing some of the spin. (And I’m not just talking about gallant claims like, “Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence.” I’ll leave that alone.) One tendency I find problematic is how many Canadian issues described in the pink pages are passed off as selectively women’s.

Finding a family doctor is “one of the major difficulties women face,” reads page 22. The need for a national care-giving strategy to provide relief for women is outlined on page 23. Page 25 recommends new programs to prevent and provide support for domestically abused women.

Here’s my question: how is a national doctor shortage a women’s issue? Perhaps women, more often than men, are the ones seeking out family doctors, but should we really put a gender focus on this problem? A national care-giving strategy—I’m totally for that. I’m sure husbands and fathers are too. What about male suffers of spousal abuse? Where’s the “Blue Book” on that? Many of the causes and recommendations in the Pink Book seem legitimate, but to label them all “women’s issues” seems a little disingenuous. Why segregate, rather than unite, to tackle these issues?

Here’s my other issue with the Pink Book: it seems to dispute (albeit, inadvertently) my power as an autonomous female citizen. Take this example:

“Girls generally are not encouraged to enter hard sciences, technology or the trades,” reads page 21.

“The National Liberal Women’s Caucus therefore recommends that a new Liberal government develop a coordinated strategy and support mechanisms to encourage girls and women in science…”

Call my reasoning fallacious, but I can’t help but see the above “call for assistance” as a concession that girls and women can’t make it on their own. Think of it this way; fifty years ago, women were dropping out of universities to get married. Now, more women than men are applying to (and enrolling in) medical schools. If that change could happen without a “coordinated federal strategy,” why should the government be directly involved now? (Sorry, is my libertarianism showing?)

Personally, I don’t care much for an action plan written on my behalf with a flower printed on each page. Sure, women are disadvantaged, but so are men, children and seniors. Should women really be calling for special consideration? To be honest, I’m not really sure. But I do think that to be perceived as equals, women in government should present themselves as equals. And we “regular women” should continue to look critically at the ways we’re being represented. That means taking off the rose-coloured glasses.

Banning books: an old and tired tradition

2009-10-23T16:30:00.001-04:00

Originally published October 7, 2009, at Maclean's OnCampus

Can I emphasize “tired” once more?

Today (again) it’s To Kill a Mockingbird, the classic (c-can…can I say that?) novel by Harper Lee about 1950s racial injustice in the American South.

The mother of a Toronto high school student has raised concerns about the novel and supposedly wants it removed from the curriculum. If a formal complaint is pursued, the Toronto District School Board will strike a book review committee to decide what to do with the book.

This latest complaint comes after the novel was removed from the reading list of a Grade 10 Brampton classroom, where a student’s mother objected to the text’s inclusion of the “n-word.”

It seems so obvious that these moms are missing the boat—I feel cliché even mentioning it. To Kill a Mockingbird is the type of novel that seduces classroom thematic analysis about race relations. It decries intolerance and invites discussion about gender roles and hegemony. The novel’s value also lies in its timeliness; would Lee have depicted the black characters of the American Deep South the same way if she had written it today, almost 50 years after its initial publication?

I get it, though. Some people find the book offensive and believe there are other novels that will evoke similar classroom discussions.

To that I say: so what? These mommies should realize that their kids are going to face a whole lot more “offensive material” once they leave the nest. I guarantee that Professor X will be unimpressed with mother dearest’s “constructive criticism” on his or her reading list, so why don’t we give high schoolers a head start by letting them learn to speak for themselves?

Unfortunately, mommy’s wrath has come down on more than just Lee’s work. Books that have faced criticism in Canada include Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Timothy Findley’s The Wars, Alice Munro’s Lives of Girls and Women and even J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.

I have read all of the above (save Harry Potter, but I did see the movie) and I personally found little to be contentious. But even if I did, I think it is precisely that which evokes the strongest reaction that calls for the most open of discussions. The world is full of real characters—bigots with vices and malevolent schemes (no, this is not a political rant); why pretend like they don’t exist?

I’ll concede slightly; maybe we should keep Pornography: Men Possessing Women and Woman Hating out of the second grade classroom for the time being. But I do think we should let teenagers tackle the tough issues, especially while they’re in a relatively safe environment. After all, a little Boo Radley never hurt anyone.

Join the fastest growing campus cause: Concerned Students for Whatever is Popular

2009-09-26T15:28:00.003-04:00

Originally published September 24, 2009, at Maclean's OnCampus

Last night I went to the first in a series of free public lectures at Ryerson University. The series, called “Prospects for Peace: A Forum on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” was hosted by the International Issues Discussion student group. Last night’s lecture was by Dr. Juan Cole, a history professor from the University of Michigan. Cole has authored a number of books, is a regular on PBS’s Lehrer News Hour and has appeared shows like the Colbert Report, ABC Nightly News, Nightline and the Today Show. So, needless to say, I was anxious to see what he had in store.

“Palestinian Statelessness as the Heart of the Mideast Crisis” was the title of his lecture, and I got there just as it was about to start. I slipped past the two security guards manning the front entry and settled into a third row seat. Lucky me, the two seats on either side were empty; I had somewhere to toss my coat and bag. So were the few in front of me and a couple to my back left. At five past, the lecture still hadn’t started, and the hall was still half empty. To add—anyone who’s seen Ryerson’s lecture “halls” knows they compare pitifully to the grand galleries of the University of Toronto and other mid- to large-sized universities. The room could probably hold a few hundred—tops.

By the time the lecture started, a third of the seats were still unoccupied. I looked more closely at the audience. A lot of them didn’t look like students. (Well, maybe the mature kind.) I saw some former professors, staff members, and lot of unfamiliar ‘boomer’ faces. In fact, it seemed as though half or more of the listeners were over 40. So, where were all of the students?

To be fair, the new episode of “Glee” (the latest Global hit) was on last night. As well, it was Wayback Wednesday at club Menage on King Street. So, I guess important alternatives were aplenty yesterday’s eve. Still, I can predict based on years past that we won’t have the same sort of attendance problems when Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) rolls around.

Last March, Ryerson hosted the kickoff to IAW. There were hundreds of students packed in halls listening to the opening addresses by speakers such as Omar Barghouti and Naomi Klein. Events throughout the week were also hosted by York University and U of T, and included flag-waving (both sides) button-wearing (both sides) and the erection of mock barbed wire walls and security checkpoints. And from what I can recall, there was no shortage of participants.

So for me it’s a bit of a head-scratcher. So few show up to lectures, but so many show up for protests. Where does all of this political passion come from, if not from information?

Here’s the only conclusion I’ve been able to reach: Insufficient information often breeds political passion.

Maybe I’m wrong (and I’m sure there are a lot of you who think I am) but based on the readings I’ve done and lectures I’ve attended, this and so many other issues are way too complex and the information so heavily convoluted that infallible devotion to one side seems grossly unmerited. Again, maybe I’m wrong. But I recognize that I know far too little to call it black and white. So I’m going to devote my time to hearing from the experts, not claiming to be one.

It doesn't start and end with mid-east. Take a stroll on many Canadian campuses and you’ll be swimming in a sea of political buttons and graphic T’s :

“Drink tap water”
“STAND for Darfur”
“Obama ‘08”
“Herstory”
“Unite”

We all like to belong; we like to be affiliated, we like to stand for something. I just wonder how many of those sporting “Obama” tees know the major targets of his domestic policies. Or the debate surrounding his health care reform. Surely, I have no way of knowing. I can just hope that at the next Prospect for Peace lecture, I’ll have to keep my coat on my lap.

Advice from the entitled: How to get a job after graduation

2009-08-16T17:11:00.003-04:00

Ten surefire ways to make sure you’ll be in your parents’ basement for a very, very long time

The following list was inspired by Trina Thompson; the 27-year-old, lawsuit-happy, unemployed Monroe College grad. My OnCampus colleague, Jeff Rybak, discusses the issue here, aptly noting that there is much more to this story than a punch line. But alas, for me, the punch line is just too good to resist.

How To Get a Job After Graduation

1. Get your name out there

It’s best if the word “loon” doesn’t share any page space, however.

2. Assert your value

Parade just how unemployable you are through a widely publicized lawsuit.

3. Illustrate your social conscience

Suing at a time when millions of seasoned workers are being laid off will reveal just that.

4. Invest in an Oxford Dictionary

C-o-u-n-s-e-l-o-r

5. And a Good Grammar Book

“They favor more toward students that got a 4.0. They help them more out with the job placement.”

6. Be demure

Demanding $2,000 for stress because you’ve been unemployed for three months shows you can deal with pressure. Cool, calm and collected: that’s you!

7. Show your interpersonal skills

Involve your mommy.

8. Make meaningful theoretical contributions to your field

Get your ideas out there and change the way people think. For example, Thompson has shown us that post-secondary degrees and Velcro shoes aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

9. Boast transparency

Take after Thompson and put it all out there. Through her fuss, employers who would have been solely concerned with her work experience now know about her 2.7 GPA. So uncheck “private” on all your semi-conscious, under-clothed, deliciously inebriated Facebook photos and wait for the offers to flood in.

10. Be a community advocate

Thanks to Thompson, universities are now thinking about offering new common sense courses. On the table are:

The Art of Lawn Maintenance

Crossing the Street: More than Technique

Colouring Inside the Lines: For Advanced Artists

Way to go, trailblazers!

Alright, we’ve had our fun, but who knows? Maybe Thompson’s out-of-the-box thinking will land her a position at a prestigious law firm, or else get her her own reality show. A quick Google search of “Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants” or “Octomom” will reveal that neither is beyond the realm of possibility. I guess we won’t be laughing then.

- Originally published at Maclean's OnCampus

Point the finger: In praise of priceless conspiracy theories

2009-08-16T17:03:00.004-04:00

Thanks for the smiles.

* Originally posted on Aug. 4 at Maclean's OnCampus *

Today is Barack Obama’s birthday. Tell most people and they’ll give you a cockeyed stare.

“Why are you telling me this?”

But tell a group of right wing theorists in the United States and you might get an inflamed response.

“Obama wasn’t actually born in America. His documents are bogus. He shouldn’t be president.”

Say hello to the “Birthers,” a group of fringe fanatics who reject the legitimacy of the Obama presidency. Though the details of the conspiracy vary depending on where you look, the underlying premise stays the same: Obama was born in Kenya. His presidency is illegal.

So, in humble appreciation for this and other perpetual sources of constant amusement, I present:

“Point the Finger: In praise of priceless conspiracy theories.”

To the “Truthers,” who think 9/11 was an inside job, thanks for Loose Change and the George Bush/devil bobblehead. And I know, they did Pearl Harbor too… they did Pearl Harbor too. To those who supported the Toronto green bin initiative, I believe you; one day our garbage really will be separated. To those who deny global warming, yes I see your sweater and yes, I know it’s August. (But could you turn off your stalling vehicle anyway?) To the space haters, thanks for letting me know NASA faked the moon landing. Somehow, that makes me feel better about their $17 billion annual budget; I am forever indebted to you. To the brave men and women who tell me religion will control my mind, and to the other brave men and women who tell me atheism will rot my soul, thanks for sharing your wisdom. And finally, to the Telegraph-Journal for Wafergate, and Fox News for the Obama-Dijon mustard break, and concerned citizens everywhere for constantly reminding me that Starbucks is the source of all evil. And, of course, to the Birthers: thanks for making my August 4 so very special. With you on the forefront of my mind, I praise the most priceless of conspiracy theories.

- Photo by Luna715

Swallow your rights and shut your mouth

2009-08-16T16:46:00.003-04:00

I haven’t felt such institutional and political wariness since Jack Layton vowed to eliminate poverty in Canada in 12 years.

Get this—a law to be passed in Ireland will make it illegal to utter blasphemous words.

Swear to ***, I’m not lying.

According to a CBC report, blasphemers could be fined up to 25,000 euros for abusive or insulting statements that are proven to cause violent reactions or intend to cause outrage.

Think that’s bad?

Pakistan’s president Asif Zadari has outlawed humour! That’s right, under the country’s new Cyber Crimes Act, Pakistanis who send jokes about Zardari by text message, email or blog can be imprisoned for up to 14 years.

Why so serious, guys?

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “That’s Ireland and Pakistan. We don’t have the same types censorship here in free-speech-loving Canada.”

Sorry, Canada’s no Eden. (Oops, too soon?)

Cunningly subtle and charmingly PC, Canada, in my opinion, harbours a type of selective censorship.

The perfect example:

In 2006, an Alberta Human Rights Commission complaint was brought against Ezra Levant, publisher of the (now defunct) Western Standard magazine. The complaint was filed by Syed Soharwardy after the magazine reprinted the controversial Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad.

Disgusted with the complaint, Levant stuck it to the Commission at his January 2008 hearing. (Levant refers to it as his “interrogation.”) He called the proceedings a “joke” and labeled it an attack on his constitutional rights.

I won’t try to paraphrase further; I couldn’t do it justice. You can check out the video here.

Amidst some ranting, Levant makes a very important point:

Simply put, there is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

But sadly, a simple scour of section 13 cases (re: hate messages) filed with various provincial Human Rights Commissions proves otherwise. It seems that not only is this “right to not be offended” entertained, but it is also selectively applied. Tough luck for you white males.

Here’s another example. Consider the statement made by US Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She publicly stated that she would hope a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Now, just imagine the inverse:

“A wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”

It reads as disgustingly bigoted coming from a white man. So why is it permissible for Sotomayor to say it? (Click here for more of my Sotomayor argument.)

I don’t claim to be well-versed in the ins and outs of censorship law. But I do know about social discourse taboos, especially on a university campus:

Tell us your opinion, as long as we agree with it.

Taboos I’m OK with–it’s their evolution into law that upsets my stomach.

The bottom line: It doesn’t matter if we don’t like what we hear. Censorship is a delicate mechanism. If not handled properly, it can erode our rights.

So, how many priest jokes told in Ireland, texted to a friend in Pakistan, forwarded to a relative in Canada along with a Zadari cartoon does it take for you to be sued, imprisoned or defamed?

- Originally published at Maclean's OnCampus. Photo by Esther G

Online Privacy: Blame Facebook

2009-08-16T16:34:00.005-04:00

It seems we’re all taking a lesson from our beloved Toronto mayor in failing to read the fine print. (See Miller’s Illiteracy: Infrastructure Stimulus Fund.)

And, staying true to our national heritage, we’ve decided to blame The Man. Today’s target: Facebook. That evil, information-hoarding, corporate lackey serving troughs to capitalistic insatiability. Or something.

Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart posted her concerns in a report released Thursday. Stoddard says that Facebook does not comply with Canadian privacy laws and gives the company 30 days to amend procedures. Subsequently, the case can be brought to the Federal Court to force Facebook to tighten its policies.

Chief concerns include third party access to user information (via games, quizzes, etc.) and Facebook’s retention of personal information after users have closed their accounts.

…Well boo hoo. Cue the violins.

To me, the approach is baffling. Let’s spend lots of money bringing a case to Federal Court that could so easily be solved by telling our 14-year-olds not to post photos of themselves drinking Smirnoff Ices and making out with their best friends. No, the lesson: deflect blame, and you shall prosper.

To be pitifully cliché, it’s my opinion that privacy in an information age is an illusion. There are breaches everywhere—when you use your credit card, fill out survey or attend a public event or club. Chances are, if you don’t remember what happened last night, BeforeLastCall.com can refresh your memory.

It’s not an Orwellian prediction come true or an international intelligence conspiracy; it’s idiots like Ray Lam forgetting to de-tag his photos. So take down your home addresses, remove your SINs and delete those incriminating bachelor party photos. It’s time to come to terms, dear disgruntled, anonymous commenter, that if I really want to, I can probably find out your name. So be nice.

- Originally published at Maclean's OnCampus

Manufacturing ferment

2009-07-21T13:34:00.011-04:00

*Originally published at Macleans OnCampus*

For a real laugh, sometimes you have to stray from the comics. Yesterday, I found mine in The Globe and Mail’s Health & Fitness section.

“How to talk to your kids about swine flu.” Gold.

Yes, I’m being shortsighted. Yes, I’m being insensitive. But when an issue is pushed that far, it’s almost seducing a smile. Tell me you can take the Dr. Phil special Dr. Phil House: Heroin Twins seriously, and I’ll retract my comment.

But since everyone’s doing it, I suppose I’ll hop on the bandwagon and come up with my own list of helpful hints to deal with the growing pandemic.

How to talk to your kids about swine flu

By Robyn Urback

1. First off, it’s H1N1, jerks.

2. Wash your hands.

3. Lysol the area, then sit your child down.

4. Tell your child you have something important to talk to him/her about. Best to start crying from the get-go. That way, your child will know you’re serious and won’t get distracted by toys or games or other frivolous things three-year-olds busy themselves with as they bask in ignorant global disconnect.

5. Wash your hands.

6. Explain the history of global pandemics, paying special attention to the 1918 Spanish Flu.

7. Detail the molecular breakdown of the H1N1 virus.

8. Now it’s time for the nitty-gritty. Glaze over nothing. Pair positives with negatives to ensure smooth reception. For example, tell your child that a vaccine is in the works, then say that camp/daycare/play dates/day trips/vacations/going outside has been canceled.

9. If your child gets upset, coddle with your words. Physical contact spreads contaminants.

10. Wash your hands.

There you have it! Now get inside, and enjoy your summer.

-Photo by Talea Miller, NewsHour

My two cents on the Sotomayor debate

2009-07-15T13:47:00.009-04:00

…because it’s always fun to beat a dead horse
(no, don't email me, not actually, see here)

Though I’m still clumsily trying to understand U.S. Senate proceedings, I’ve been drawn into coverage of the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Here’s the part I care about:

Judge Sotomayor has publicly stated that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

And that, of course, makes my fingertips tingle. How deliciously hypocritical. Don’t ask me how, but for some reason it’s OK for Sotomayor to parade a complete abandonment of cultural relativism. What does she know about the lives of white men? They drink light lager and sit too close to the steering wheel?

Secondly, again, really too easy so I won’t waste much space on it but just consider the inverse:

“A wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”

True, you could argue that generally a white man won’t face the same types of structural oppression and/or discrimination that may face a Latina woman, but that doesn’t make the statement any more acceptable. It’s narcissistic and out of place. Which leads me to my next point:

Isn’t the whole idea to be objective? Who cares where you come from. All I want to know is if you strive for and are capable of (relatively) unbiased decision making.

But here’s what really bothers me. Sotomayor, and others like her, are self-appointed representatives of women everywhere, and for me, they are not only unfit, but frankly, they’re embarrassing.

Call me dramatic, call me self-hating, call me whatever. But just look at Clinton vs. Obama. Arguably, one of the factors that caused Clinton to tumble in the polls was her persistent mention of her quest to be the first female president. Obama’s racial allusions were subtle and infrequent. Clinton, on the other hand, made herself a martyr. “To be able to aim toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling,” she said, “is history-making.”

Maybe so. But there’s a subtle dignity to breaking through quietly, without calling attention to the sound of broken glass or using a hammer from well-meaning bureaucrats who softly nod to the idea you couldn’t do it yourself.

If someone makes fun of my frilly skirt, I’ll go for the nuts, not the Human Rights Commissions. If someone says I’m not good enough, I’ll employ some self-reflexivity before I call him chauvinistic. Christopher Hitchens can think I’m unfunny and Will Ferrell can make fun of my “small brain.” Whatever—I’ll still laugh.

I strive for success as a person, not a woman, and I won’t concede to the allusion that I’m incapable by taking a handout. In my opinion, to be loud was to be strong 50 or 100 years ago, when women vehemently had to fight for their rights. Nowadays (I think, at least) it takes a truly strong, confident person to silently challenge the status quo. If you’ve shattered a glass ceiling, others will say it for you.

Lessons on how to cheat on your wife and subsequently embarrass yourself (with the sorriest attempt at damage control… in recent hours)

2009-07-03T15:36:00.008-04:00

Don’t ask me how Bill Clinton did it. The man’s a hero, obviously. Who else could pull off an affair while holding presidential office, lie about it—while holding presidential office—and go on to sell more than 2.2 million copies of his autobiography?

And it wasn't just scandal sales; there were line-ups in bookstores all over the world with hopefuls trying to catch a glimpse of that charming smile and boyish good looks.

But nevermind Bill (or Eliot or John or Neil or Newt or James or Rudy), I’m going to shamelessly hop on the bandwagon and zero in on Mr. Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina. After following the scandal for the past few days, I’ve compiled a list of seven ways to cheat on your wife and subsequently embarrass yourself:

Number Seven: Announce that you’re going to “try to fall back in love with your wife.”
This guy has the charisma of Al Gore and the haircut of Professor Frink. Let’s hope he doesn’t go on to describe the intricacies of his affair in the same formulaic tone.

Number Six: Mention that you’re sorry for hurting “Tom Davis” five times.
That's about as many times as he mentioned his wife's name.
...Did you hear about James McGreevey?

Number Five: Have a history of admonishing others for the same act.
(Ok, so that was before, but too good to resist)
"The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust.”
"I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign)...”
- Mark Sanford on Bill Clinton

Number Four: Hold a press conference. Talk for nine minutes.
See subtext, “Number Seven.”

Number Three: Make sure everyone knows it wasn’t just about the sex.
Identify your mistress as your soul mate. Describe your passionate love. Cry.
That way, you’ll be a deceitful liar and horndog, but at least everyone will know you did it wholeheartedly.

Number Two: Ramble
You’ll come off as complicated and mysterious.
While talking for nine minutes, be sure to include the irrelevant. Talk about your college days, what you ate for lunch, and your kids’ dinosaur-printed sheets. Because that’s not creepy… especially this week. (*Bites fist* too soon?)

Number One: Stick it to the patriots
A woman from Argentina? What happened to “Buy American?” Pft.. and this guy is supposed to be a Republican..
Why just offend people of faith by juxtaposing your religion with your adulterous affair, when you can underhandedly flip the bird to the patriots as well?!

---------------------
"Brace yourselves gentlemen. According to the gas chromatograph, the secret ingredient is... Love!? Who's been screwing with this thing?"
- Professor Frink

Brace yourselves; it's an animal rights story

2009-07-02T14:01:00.007-04:00

The headline on the cover of today’s National Post read, “Activists take on Stampede.”

“Oh great,” you must be thinking. “Now that the Obama fly-swatting fiasco is old news, these people have to go back to ruining another celebrated outdoor event. Why can’t they just be content in tie-dying their hemp ponchos and eating organic hummus?”

Now, normally I would join in the organic-hummus-eating mockery (though I must concede; it is quite delicious) but I’m on the Humane Society of Canada’s side with this one.

The Society has criticized the Calgary Stampede as being a “brutal, violent spectacle,” and has also filed a complaint with Canada’s broadcasting regulator over the rodeo's airing.

While I don’t necessarily agree with pressure to ban the airing of the event (censorship is a whole different issue, in my opinion) I definitely think that measures should be taking to regulate the obvious cruelty that’s taking place.

A few facts from the Humane Society of Canada’s website:

• In 2001, a horse broke its shoulder in the chuckwagon event and a calf’s leg was broken in the roping event

• In 2006, two horses were killed in a chuckwagon collision

• In 2007, three horses were killed in a collision during the Rangeland Derby. One died after its broken pelvis severed an artery, the other two had to be euthanized.

Barry Cooper, author of It’s the Regime, Stupid: A Report From the West on Why Stephen Harper Matters, gave his opinion to the Post. He said, “The people who lodge these complaints [. . .] are philosophical illiterates when it comes to animal rights because there is no such thing as animal rights. It’s something these people have invented as an analogy with human rights.”

Um.. look up Bill C-10B, stupid, and tell me if animals don’t have rights in this country.

But ok, I get it, Cooper is saying that from a philosophical perspective, animal rights is a fallacious analogical extrapolation from human rights.

You shouldn't have put forth that challenge, sir. Because I accept:

To start off, I think philosopher Jeremy Bentham said it best:

“The question is not, Can they think? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”

I'll humour Cooper and approach the issue philosophically. From a utilitarian perspective, the morality of an agent is irrelevant to the question of whether he or she is entitled to rights. In other words, it doesn’t matter if a person or animal is capable of moral judgment; the individual is deserving of rights just based on the premise that he or she is sentient, can feel.

Consider this:

A cat is not a moral agent.
When provoked, a cat will scratch its aggressor, unable to distinguish between its own interests and what is morally right.
Should the cat, therefore, be abused or physically punished?

Compare this to a child with severe autism:

Children with severe autism often have trouble relating to others, understanding right and wrong, understanding others’ emotions and the consequences of their actions.
Should an aggressive, arguably immoral autistic child be physically reprimanded?

Of course not. It seems ridiculous to say an immoral child should be stripped of rights, so why should the morality of an animal come into question when deciding if it should be deserving of rights?

Moving on, Cooper and friends may argue that animals are not rational thinkers, and, for that reason, are not entitled to rights.

Well, Australian philosopher Peter Singer argues that cognitive ability is not considered when granting rights to humans. Equality of people is proscribed, as Singer argues. Proof of cognitive equality is not needed for equality among people, and thus, should not be disqualifying factor for granting rights to animals.

Consider this example:

In our society, women and men are given equal rights. (Please, don’t fight me on this one; just go with it.) This is done without the need to prove that men and women are cognitively equal.
For example, both men and women have the right to vote.
Now, if it were somehow proven that women think less critically then men, would their votes count for less?

Of course not. But never mind that, nowadays we would never seek measures to evaluate cognitive ability as a determining factor when granting the right to vote.

Therefore:

In our society, equality of rights is proscriptive (we do not need to prove cognitive equality to be granted equal rights).

Whereas:

The denial of equal rights to animals is descriptive (since animals do not think rationally, as we do, Cooper would argue they should not be granted rights).

So:

There is a discrepancy between the proscriptive nature of equality among humans with regard to rights and the descriptive justification for discrimination of animals.

Philosophers like Bentham, Rousseau and Singer argue that animals’ ability to suffer makes them deserving of rights. They argue we should focus on the outcome—the suffering—not the preconditions, i.e. reason, morality, etc.

And, as outlined above, even if we do use rational and moral disqualifiers to deny animal rights, the same criteria could be used to deny the disabled (or simply those who are less bright) of basic rights.

Ahem. Checkmate?

- Robyn Urback, clearly a philosophical illiterate

Mr. Miller’s woes continue

2009-06-26T12:21:00.007-04:00

Poor David.

Let’s ignore those pesky CUPE and Toronto Civic Employees strikes that have paralyzed the city for a brief moment to discuss our beloved mayor’s more important streetcar troubles.

Earlier this month, David had some trouble filling out the paperwork when applying for a grant from Ottawa’s $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund. Not only did he initially annoy bureaucrats by insisting his application be drawn up on rice paper, and then by repeatedly signing his name with a “b” instead of a “d” (a common kindergarten mistake), but he glazed over some of the major stipulations of the fund.

Miller wanted to buy 204 new streetcars from Bombardier to replace Toronto’s aging fleet; a project that would cost $1.2 billion dollars, $417 million, he hoped, from Ottawa. Federal Transport Minister John Baird said Toronto’s proposal was ineligible because it didn’t focus on job creation within the next two years in the 416 area. Miller said it fit the criteria. He was quoted as saying, “Nuh-uh!”

Whoopsies. Someone didn’t read the fine print. No matter, Baird later amplified that fine print for Toronto:

“They should f--- off.”

"Twenty-seven hundred people got it right,” he said of the other municipal applications, many of which included several project opinions. “That is not a partnership and they're bitching at us," Baird said.

Well, isn’t someone’s face red? (Note that I’m not specifying precisely whose face is said rosy shade.)

Nevertheless, Miller has swallowed his pride and plans to seek stimulus funding for other projects that meet the criteria.

But does that mean he’s stopped pushing his streetcar initiative? Of course not! Incessant spending is always the answer. Let’s throw together some new proposals to suck up federal dollars, while still using the $400 million from the city of Toronto and $416 million from Ontario towards the Bombardier deal.

What about the outstanding $417 million Miller hoped to get from Ottawa? That’s the question for today’s city council meeting at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. Why the MTCC? To avoid the picketers at city hall of course. Why just symbolically ignore a striking union when you can physically relocate—to talk about an entirely different issue!

The TTC has said they may be able to foot some of the cost for the new streetcars by deferring funds from other projects. Like station maintenance and upgrades. The TTC—the same people who have been talking about constructing a subway line to York University for the past 10 years. The same people who seem to raise their fares ever year. The same people who apparently don’t notice the nightly vomit characteristic of almost every downtown station. Pft… station maintenance. That’s for pansies and princesses.

From this embarrassing debacle, I’ve learned that Mayor David Miller may or may not be able to read. I’ve learned that if he had his way, he’d spend hundreds of millions of dollars with the same nonchalance he’d carry if buying organically grown, fair trade, made by unionized workers (well, certain types of unionized workers) candy. I’ve learned that John Baird and I speak a similar dialect and that the city is playing with $1.2 billion dollars while I’m deciding if I should fork over five cents for a plastic bag. If this deal goes through and the city of Toronto suffers, I’ll be mailing the mayor some reading glasses.

robonlinecourse.blogspot.com

Proposal: new rewards for sex offenders

2009-06-19T12:11:00.008-04:00

Looking to make some extra money this summer? I think I’ve found the perfect way to cash in on some of that superfluous federal taxpayer money:

This weekend, head to your downtown core. Prep is key: don't wash, natural is in. You'll want to start by heading over to the university to bum some weed off the college kids. Better yet--go for the steal. That way, they'll know you're desperate. Next, improperly cover your manhood as you scout out and leer suggestively at minors. Remember to smile. Bad breath? Find a 24-hour drugstore and pick up a bottle of mouthwash. Make sure you chug the whole thing; it'll keep you charming.
Now, you're good to go. Do a line or two before urinating publicly and surrendering to violent curbside vomiting. Again, don't forget to smile. And remember: the night is always young. Just stagger and steal, prey on the vulnerable and remember to slur when the cops pick you up. Once you’ve gotten to this point, know that the dime is in reach. (No pun intended.)

If the stars are aligned in your favour, you'll go through the motions and end up with some sort of conviction; drug, alcohol, or sexual.

Here’s where you cash in.

Take advantage of Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan's new proposition for sex/drug offenders and receive your monetary "reward" for enrolling yourself in a rehab program.

Yes, that's right, cash for treatment. Because clearly the most successful rehabilitation will incur among those who have been bribed to take part in the program. Don Head, the commissioner of federal prisons, certainly thinks so. He told a committee at the House of Commons last week that incentives are needed to encourage the 20% of offenders who “absolutely refuse outright” to participate in treatment programs.

Or… how about the idea that maybe these “resistant” offenders will simply go through the treatment motions to collect a reward?

Sorry; I’m being silly again. Who considers more than one outcome to a proposed motion? Pft. How taboo.

So, resist initially, concede reluctantly, and reap the benefits. Couldn’t be easier!

The unemployment rate is the highest it’s been in 11 years and bankruptcies and EI claims are soaring. National stress levels are so high that even poor transport ministers let their curses off rail. (Again, no pun intended.) So, let’s bribe sex offenders to go to rehab. I can’t think of a more perfect way to use our federal dollars.

Gentlemen: nicely done again.

Nice effort Mayor Miller…

2009-06-08T16:18:00.007-04:00

But you still fail. Sorry, when you’re mayor of the most populated city in Canada, it’s not the thought that counts.

Starting June 1, a Toronto bylaw requiring retailers to charge a nickel for single-use plastic bags was put into effect. It’s everywhere—supermarkets, pharmacies, décor shops, convenience stores—they’re all obliged to charge customers five cents for each plastic bag used or else provide a free alternative (i.e. a cardboard box). Stores must post signs alerting customers to the new fees and record bag sales on the receipt.

Unlike with many municipal initiatives, my jaded skepticism has not prevented me from recognizing the benevolence here. I really think this bylaw was created with good intentions; principally, of course, to reduce the number of plastic bags ending up in landfills. And what do I know? Maybe it will. The Recycling Council of Ontario fully supports the new law and says it puts a price tag on pollution. But I’m a quasi-informed 20-something university student. So, of course, I think I know better. Here’s why:

Will there really be less waste?

The City of Toronto aims to divert 70% of waste from landfills by 2010. Discouraging the use of plastic bags seems like a logical step. But c’mon kids, let’s think beyond the surface. Are the pl*st*c b*gs in question truly “single-use?” Fully acknowledging the possibility that I only associate with scavengers and pack-rats, I can say with conviction that I don’t know a single person who throws away plastic bags. As far as I’ve seen, they’re always reused; as garbage bags, to pack lunches, to pick up after a pet, etc.

Using personal anecdote as support, (as only a university student would) I know that my family’s consumption of plastic bags won’t change. One, we have a dog, so unless we want to violate bylaw 608 section 38B (2), we’re going to keep picking up after her. Which means we’re going to keep using plastic bags, which means no less “plastic bag waste" will be coming from our home. Secondly, we use plastic shopping bags as garbage bags throughout our house. The only difference now? We’re going to be paying for them.

Really working for the cause?

Ok, this bylaw makes sense for Toronto supermarkets. My grocery trips are rarely impromptu, so I can plan to bring along some canvas bags. But really, I’m not going to start dragging around a rolling suitcase just in case I decide to pick up some things on my way home from work. I will grind my teeth (as I so often find myself doing in this city) and pay the five cents. But mind you, I’m a university student living on a budget on my own. And if I find myself shelling out five cents over and over again for spontaneous purchases, I will not only be disgruntled and blog-driven, but less likely to pay the additional cost for biodegradable bags for my domestic garbage. Instead of charging people a fee that goes nowhere, why not focus on creating for affordable biodegradable alternatives?

Obviously, David and the boys got bored halfway through the meeting

According to the new bylaw, “Retailers are entitled to keep the money received from the plastic bag charge, the money is not remitted to the City of Toronto. While the City does not stipulate what retailers should do with this money, it does support reinvesting the funds in local environmental or community-based initiatives.”
Let’s be real. How many of these retailers are going to “reinvest the funds in local environmental or community-based initiatives?” Especially when one of their most-visible and cost-effective forms of advertising (logos on plastic bags) has been taken away? The five cents retailers collect for each plastic bag is total unmonitored profit. I can’t help but think Miller and co. got distracted by an ice cream truck (let’s hope it’s a hybrid) or something and never came back to the table on this one. They should have planned to collect all or a portion of the fees from the bags to further see through their environmental agenda. Why not use the money to foot the difference to stock grocery stores across the city with biodegradable bags? That way, families like mine, whose consumption of plastic bags won’t change, will at least be using the environmentally friendly kind. Still, to do something now seems almost too late. It’s one thing to introduce a new policy and announce from the get-go that the government is taking a portion of the money collected, it’s quite another to let retailers taste the profits, then later take them away. Of course, issues of monitoring would also then come to play; it's just something to think about.

Good intentions, good effort, poor execution.

Morons respond to idiocy

2009-06-04T13:51:00.009-04:00

All you can do is laugh… and then cry as you somberly realize that human logic has been trumped by troglodytic imbecility.

GLOBE magazine, one of those tabloid rags shameless enough to print headlines like “Judge Judy Sex Scandal” and “Scott Peterson is Death Row Sissy Boy” has reached yet another embarrassing low.

A recent cover (or maybe it wasn’t so recent…sorry, I'm not always up with the latest “breaking news" stories) boasted the headline “Obama Gay Cover-Up” atop a bashful and perplexed-looking president. From what I’ve gathered from the web (I won’t spend a cent on tabloids—and no, it’s not a Jewish thing…mostly) GLOBE is reporting that Michelle Obama got a letter from Larry Sinclair, who claims that he and Obama used to smoke crack together whilst entertaining a gay love affair.

Ha ok, very good. Another terrible sensationalist story. To attack that would be too easy, however. I prefer the defenseless and innocent posters that parade their stupidity on the GLOBE forum website:

..............................................................................

User “The Globe has become true journalism” says…

“The Globe has become true journalism and deserves the respect and recognition that has for too long been aford [sic] the fraud [sic] like NY Times, CNN, MSNBC etc…”

I think the most important thing that dear "The Globe has become true journalism" has done is shed light on the apparent merger of the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC. It seems this latest big-business move has been grossly under-reported. The fraud indeed--capitalist corporate conglomeration at its worst.

..............................................................................

"Anonymous" says…
“Thanks for all you do to expose this Kenyan illegal aiien [sic].”

Damn Kenyan aiiens. Don’t even try to tell me they don’t exist.

..............................................................................

Another "Anonymous" (popular name, I guess) says…

“I know why the mainstream media doesn’t report this kind of stuff…THEY AREN’T CALLED THE “LEFT WING MEDIA” FOR NOTHING! THEY WILL GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO COVER UP ANY DEMOCRATS FAUX-PAS INCLUDING OMAMA’S [sic] GAY/DRUGGIE PAST!”

Ok, fair points, but what did he just say about my mother?

..............................................................................

"Bill" writes...

"I enjoy your Globe magazine.Somebody should say, Mr. Obama you are under arrest for buying and using drugs, sex with guys."

Now, I'm a little confused. Is Bill suggesting Obama should be arrested for "buying and using drugs [and] sex with guys?" (Someone's a little nostalgic for the days when Oscar Wilde was arrested for "gross indecency," huh?) Or, has Bill used a comma before "sex with guys" to introduce a new clause? And if so, is he condemning sex with guys, or introducing a possibility? Should that period be a question mark? Hmm..

..............................................................................

Thankfully, user Tricia Hubbard comes to the defense of the defamed president and says…
“IT’S NOT TRUE. HE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT MALE."

Thanks, Tricia, both for calling out this dishonest reporting, and highlighting the colloquial and erroneous assumption that one can be both gay and male. Subtle, but I caught it. You sly dog.

..............................................................................

Even Canadians get into it:

Tammy Bonds writes...

"OMG I DO'T [sic] BELEVE [sic] THIS AT ALL THEY ARE HATERS AND ....HEADS OMG I AM SO HAPPY BARACK WON U WOUND [sic] THINK HE WAS MY PRESIDENT BUT I AM CANADAIN [sic] LMFAO BUT I WATCH IT ALL DAY AND CRYED [sic] LIKE A BABY MICHELLE KEEP YOUR HEAD UP OK LOVE HIM OR NOT BUT U KNOW IN YOUR HEART IF IT IS TRUE OR NOT OK I LOVE BOTH OF U AND DONT [sic] WANT NOTHING [sic] TO HAPPEN OK LOVE TAMMY OH SAY HI TWO [sic] YOUR GIRLS THEY R SO BEATFULL [sic] SORRY CANT SPELL LOL"

God, it's practically poetry, isn't it? I'm glad Tammy is showing support for Obama on my behalf, as well as on behalf of my fellow Canadians. Way to go, Tammy; stick it both to GLOBE and society's overuse of punctuation and grammatical modifiers. I would be a bit more careful, though. I'm glad you're adamant in expressing your unwavering support of Obama, but watch your future posts for stereotypical comments. I don't think it's necessary to say Obama's girls are "beatfull." That's a cultural generalization, and may not be true.

Man of the people… yeah, right

2009-05-08T11:37:00.008-04:00

Ok, Obama promised change, but I think he’s gone a bit too far with this last move.

During a lunch stop at Ray’s Hell Burger in Arlington, Virginia, the new President unpatriotically declined to top his burger with ketchup, dismissing the “everyman’s” topping, and instead asked for—get this—Dijon mustard!

Luckily, Fox News was on the beat and brought the story to the public just as the scene was breaking. Thank Jesus (yes, I said “Jesus;” I’m following the lead of Fox News and refusing to acknowledge any other deity) there are responsible news media out there who recognize the need to keep a watchful eye on our political leaders.

I understand that President Obama wants to right some of the wrongs of the Bush administration, but really, must he be so radical? In 2003, when France strongly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, socially-conscious American conservatives rightly (excuse the pun) began referring to French fries as “freedom fries.” Now, not only has Mr. Obama announced that all troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by August 2011, dispassionately abandoning Bush’s Operation Iraqi Freedom, but he is twisting the knife by siding with its initial critics—the French—and eating their fancy mustard!

Sir, please, we get your point. No need to drive the stake deeper.

But maybe I’m reading too much into this. Maybe Obama’s topping choice is reflective of his elitist attitude, which he successfully hid from his “Democratic” supporters throughout the duration of his campaign and early presidency. So much for being a president for the people. So much for representing hope, progress and prosperity.

In his 2008 Presidential Acceptance Speech, Obama famously told his critics, “I will be your president, too.” Not with that fancy condiment choice, sir. Not with that fancy condiment.

The video below:

http://robonlinecourse.blogspot.com/

13WHAM News perpetuates animosity towards journalists

2009-05-06T21:54:00.005-04:00

As if journalism's reputation could get any worse.

13WHAM News in Rochester, NY released a story about a week ago that put the industry to (further) shame. Yes, more bad news for journalists. And to think, we were doing so well; respected almost as much as labour union leaders and used car salesmen!

It's bad enough that WHAM decided to devote a whole segment of their broadcast to a story about Popeyes restaurants running out of chicken, but did they really have to interview every black person within a mile radius of the driveway?

Thanks, WHAM. You're showing the world that yes, we truly are society's watchdog.
Yes, we bring the most critical and relevant news to the public eye, and yes, we strive to break down social stereotypes with the most subversive, investigative reporting possible.

Shucks, you make us look so good!

Redesigned Not So Much News blog

2009-05-02T19:22:00.006-04:00

The site will be updated regularly throughout the summer under the watchful (read: oppressively dictatorial) eye of one, Anand Ram. Hilarity is guaranteed (read: hopelessly aspired to).

Check it out

Leave the scholarship program candidates alone!

2009-04-30T16:36:00.015-04:00

Enough, already.

Damn media; they won’t leave these poor girls alone. First it was Miss Teen USA 2007 candidate Lauren Upton, now it’s Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean.

Everyone loves to talk about how these women degrade our gender; how they’ve stood motionless (excuse the pun) while feminist forces valiantly try to push for better acceptance, equity and respect for women. Pageant girls are the 95-pound anchors holding us back, extremist claim.

Well, how about being a little less superficial, people, and trying to recognize the positive (dare I say—heroic) ways in which these girls have contributed to our society; not just for women, but for all of humankind? Humour me, if you will, for a few moments and consider these points.

1) They shed light on issues deemed socially “irrelevant.”

Please watch:

Now consider this:

A Tamil protest on University Ave. in Toronto goes on for four days in an effort to bring attention to the Sri Lankan civil war.
Upset by a tardy (or lack of) UN response the genocide in Darfur, “STAND” and “Darfur” T-shirts begin popping up to create awareness for the cause. (Alright, they’re mostly just worn by university students who really don’t know what they mean and are just trying to look cool and/or get laid, but still.)

These things we tolerate, these efforts we condone, these, we even champion!

But when Miss South Carolina tries to bring attention to the national map drought that plagued the United States for most of 2007, we ridicule her! Thousands were lost, hundreds of thousands were confused! Husbands had to pull over at gas stations to ask for directions; their self-esteems wilting with each soft press on the brake pedal. This was a national disaster, friends, made even worse by the lack of public attention. So I, for one, would like to thank Miss South Carolina for trying to create some awareness.
(It’s ok, Lauren, they laughed at Gandhi too. Wait—I’m sorry, you probably don’t know who Gandhi is… here’s the Wikipedia link.)

2) They create new schools of thought by coining original phrases

Please watch:

When Edward Said coined the term “Orientalism” in the late 1970s to describe the way in which Western perceptions frame Eastern cultures, scholars worldwide practically (let’s hope just that) soiled their pants. “What a revelation!” “How provocative!” “The man’s a genius!”

Said’s book, aptly named Orientalism, has since been translated into a least 36 languages, and has catalyzed whole new schools of thought on the West/East divide.

So, let me see if I have this straight; Said is revered when he coins a new phrase, but we make fun of poor Carrie Prejean when she talks about “opposite marriage?”

Look beyond the superficial, people. Anyone with half a brain can recognize that Prejean was purposely and subtly trying to make a statement to undermine our social dogmas about relationship “norms.” Let me spell it out for you:

We consider the heterosexual relationship the “normal” kind of relationship in our society and therefore see no need to define it further. A marriage is a marriage, assumed to be between a man and a woman.
By calling it “opposite-sex marriage,” Prejean is underhandedly calling out our preconceived notions of “normal” marriage. In a sense, she is saying that since our society is so diverse, nothing can really be considered “normal,” so everything must be defined by explicit criteria.

See? She’s not as “dumb” or “blindly conservative” as everyone keeps saying. I hope her response will be translated into 36 or more languages too.

A couple final points:

3) The tiaras

Again, people, please look beyond the surface. By competing
for a crown, these women are making a political statement about the importance of maintaining a merit-based society. Civilizations based on familial ties, caste or other predetermined systems of social stratification should not be upheld in North American societies. We’re lucky to have such politically charged, motivated women making these statements for us.

4) The swimsuit competition

These scholars are trying to combat the stereotype that the academically driven are unfortunate looking “nerds.” After all, they are in scholarship competitions so I'm sure they're doing it to finance their educations. By parading in swimsuits, these women are showing that academia need not be classified as an aesthetically displeasing world.

Sure, they may think that "suffragists" were people in favour of torture of death-row prisoners, and none of them can probably tie their shoes, but I'd like to personally thank these women for showing me that you can have both books, and looks.

http://robonlinecourse.blogspot.com/

Starbucks is "Evil"

2009-04-26T23:17:00.013-04:00

*Breaking News*

Egyptian cleric Safwat Higazi has made an astounding discovery. I can’t believe it’s gone unnoticed for so long. He's put us all to shame!

Higazi went on Egypt’s Al-Nas TV making a plea to all Arabs to boycott Starbucks. The reason?

“The girl in the Starbucks logo is Queen Esther. This queen is Queen of the Jews.”

Higazi goes on to explain the story of Esther; how she won over the Persian king without letting on she was Jewish.

“We buy her products?” says Higazi. “It is inconceivable!”

Starbucks has said the claim is totally inaccurate. They say their figure trademark was taken from a 16^th century Norse woodcut.

But nevermind the facts, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is a Jew, so naturally, it can be assumed the logo is indeed Queen Esther.

I think Higazi may have been tipped off by Ryerson’s own former VP Heather Kere. Early 2008, Kere pushed the university to boycott the “Zionist” coffee from Starbucks. Funny, I wasn't aware that the inanimate were capable of being politically affiliated.

Kere said, “The CEO and chairman of Starbucks is a financial supporter of the state of Israel, an oppressive state that violates many UN resolutions, and so by supporting Starbucks, we’re supporting the apartheid system in Israel.”

I’d like to take Kere’s statement a step further, and say that since Starbucks is an American company, and the US has supposedly condoned torture tactics of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, we are supporting, in a sense, human rights violations by Americans in Cuba. Not only should we boycott Starbucks, but I say, how about a boycott of all products and services coming from the United States?

But back to Kere’s statement. Starbucks has flatly stated that their Seattle firm does not provide support for the Israeli government or the Israeli military. But again, nevermind the facts; Schultz is a Jew, which automatically means he is a Zionist, which automatically means he is supporting Israel with Starbucks' corporate money.

Well, I’m embarrassed, to say the least. To think, I’ve spent years drinking apartheid coffee with the Queen of the Jews on my cup! Abhorrent, indeed.

Ashamed by my ignorance, and inspired by Higazi and Kere’s relentless search for the truth of fact, I’ve done some digging myself. Here are some companies you should avoid, and the reasons why:

Frosted Flakes: Tony the Tiger

Clearly, our friend Tony is a dirty Bolshevik. As if I didn't recognize the red scarf earlier. Frosted flakes are GRRRREAT huh? Did you pick up that studder during Stalin's purges? Thanks for keeping it real Khrushchev.

Subway Restaurants

As a staunch feminist, I'm embarrassed to admit that I've glazed over the inherent misogyny in Subway's logo. Clearly, the pointed ends off the "S" and "Y" are phallic symbols, which serve to reinforce the implicit patriarchal hegemony of our society. Very "fresh," subway. That one almost got past me.

Dodge Ram (Hood Ornament)

Absolutely disgusting. I bet the fellows over at Dodge are having a good laugh about this one. This is just another example of the hyper-sexualization of Western women. And calling it, "The Ram?" Real subtle. Makes me sick to my stomach.

Rice Crispies (Snap, Crackle & Pop)

Sure, they look innocent enough. But don't be fooled. This light-hearted trio, with their songs, dances and mischief are parading their homosexuality before susceptible young cereal-eaters. Don't let them indoctrinate your children. I suggest covering them up with a picture of the bible or photo of Safwat Higazi.

http://robonlinecourse.blogspot.com/

Justice... sort of

2009-04-24T13:48:00.008-04:00

Jorrell Simpson-Rowe, previously known as JSR (protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) has been convicted of second-degree murder in the 2005 Boxing Day slaying of 15-year-old Jane Creba.

Simpson-Rowe was a few weeks shy of his 18th birthday when the incident happened, so his lawyers have been pressing for a youth sentence. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

“A youth sentence would fail to address the seriousness of the offence," said Justice Ian Nordheimer. "It would fail to hold Mr. Simpson-Rowe accountable for his actions. The use of guns to settle disputes is conduct that our society has the right to say will not be excused.”

Now 21, Simpson-Rowe must serve at least seven years in prison before he can apply for parole. But since he's been in pre-trial custody for the past three years, Simpson-Rowe will be eligible for parole in 2012.

To me, that seems so ridiculous it's practically laughable. The facts of the case have been so mangled and skewed it's hard to follow exactly what Simpson-Rowe did; apparently he didn't fire the shot that killed Creba, but fired other shots that wounded others, and didn't actually bring the gun to the scene but received it from someone else during the battle. Whatever, to me, those details are superfluous; garbage, really. This guy was involved in a daytime shootout that killed a girl. Period. And he'll be eligible for parole in a couple years. Absolutely insane.

Forgive me for being redundant, but I'm continually surprised by just how stupid some people can get. Really, sometimes I hear a story or read about something in the news and figure, "That's it; it would be impossible for any human to reach a level of idocy beyond what I have just read." Alas, I'm repeatedly proven wrong.

Who has a gunfight in one of the most populated areas in Toronto in broad daylight? On BOXING DAY! When it's even more crowded! Who shoots at another person from across a street? Did they really think a bystander wouldn't get hurt? And that they'd just escape from the scene even though the sidewalks were crowded with BOXING DAY shoppers turned witnesses? Really, I'm astounded. Two plus two equals four, kids, and entering a gunfight in broad daylight on a populated street will get you in trouble and someone will get hurt. Ah, I guess our elementary schools are slipping; kids are losing grasp of the basics.

It's even more nauseating when you get into the nitty-gritty details of the case. Apparently, someone (not sure if it was JSR or someone else) was firing shots with their hand positioned sideways (think any of the Godfather movies). I know absolutely nothing about guns whatsover, but even I could tell you that you have better control and are less likely to miss your target (saying that sounds awful) if you hold your gun properly. I guess, for Simpson-Rowe & co., looking "badass" outweighed the possibility of murdering an innocent bystander.

In pressing for a youth sentence, Simpson-Rowe's lawyers played the "broken upbringing" card. Apparently, Simpson-Rowe's father was a drug dealer who was deported when JSR was nine, and his mother had alcohol problems. Ok, that's shitty. It really is. And I'm all for social assistance programs to help a kid like that out; maybe mentoring or financial aid to steer someone like that in the right direction. But letting him off the hook? (Ok, not "off the hook," but given a much milder sentence.) So if I grow up in a broken home am I allow to commit major tax fraud?

Judge Nordheimer said, "The realities of Mr. Simpson-Rowe’s background may explain his current situation but they do not absolve him of all personal responsibility for his acts.” He said that at the time of the incident Simpson-Rowe was capable of “deciding right from wrong.”

Good. At least the idocy stops somewhere. But parole in 2012? Ha. I sincerely hope not.

...
http://robonlinecourse.blogspot.com/

Amazing Documentary

2009-04-22T17:33:00.003-04:00

So, those who know me know I am a pathetic loner (read: introverted intellect) and watch a new documentary every day. Why I do it, I'm not really sure (read: I need them to fall asleep). I suppose over the past few months (years) I've gotten sick of poorly acted feature films with some sort of lame, pseudo-meaningful message hidden under a garbage plot. (Not that I have an opinion on it, or anything). Why Nicole Kidman still has a career (or how she can convey emotion with a face that doesn't move) is beyond me.

Anyway, I know I'm constantly vexing those around me by claiming I just watched "the best documentary ever," a title I reassign to a new film practically every week, but I think I've just watched a documentary that is worthy of that description permanently.

Dear Zachary: A letter to a son about his father is documentary created by Kurt Kuenne. When Kurt's best friend, Andrew Bagby, was murdered, Kurt decided to create a film for Andrew's unborn son, to show him what his dad was like.

Not only is the story captivating, honest, and raw, but the film is remarkably edited. I suggest you all check it out.

Not So Much News Ep.6 Part 4 of 4

2009-04-14T12:51:00.003-04:00

Not So Much News Ep.6 Part 3 of 4

2009-04-14T12:37:00.004-04:00

Not So Much News Ep.6 Part 2 of 4

2009-04-14T12:30:00.001-04:00

Not So Much News, Ep. 6 Part 1 of 4

2009-04-14T12:28:00.003-04:00

My thoughts on the Passover Seder

2009-04-12T15:07:00.002-04:00

Why is it that we extol lazy bums like Rabbi Yehuda who abbreviate the ten plagues? I think someone was a little anxious for the “festival meal.”

I think we should re-evaluate our standards of “contrary” or “wicked.” Just because one odious son asked, “What does this Seder mean to you?” must we grit our teeth and reply, “…Because of what the Lord did for me when I was freed from Egypt.” For me, not him, “If he had been there, he would have not been redeemed.” Sheesh. Apparently, there are such things as stupid an/or damning questions that may effect one’s salvation and spiritual worthiness in the eyes of others.

Passover: a holiday where we celebrate our liberation from our oppressors—real original.

What’s the deal with this “Rabbi Jose the Galilean” I keep reading about each year? Did Avi Shulman or Benjamin Goldbloom or whoever is working at the Beirut University Press forget the “é” in his name? I want to know what congregation Rabbi José is leading down in Cabo San Lucas and whether they spill drops of Jose Cuervo instead of wine during the ten plagues (or three abbreviated acronyms. Such indolence).

All we have are doctors, lawyers and accountants. Why, then, is half the Haggadah taken up with silly number debates? i.e.:
“Thus you must now say that in Egypt they were struck by forty plagues, and at the sea they were stricken by two hundred plagues.
Rabbi Akiva said: How do we know that each individual plague which the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt consisted of five plagues?
For it is said: "He sent against them his fierce anger, fury, and indignation, and trouble, a discharge of messengers of evil": "His fierce anger," is one; "fury," makes two; "indignation," makes three; "trouble," makes four; "discharge of messengers of evil," makes five. Thus you must now say that in Egypt they were struck by fifty plagues, and at the sea they were stricken by two hundred and fifty plagues.”
Common boys, we’re all hungry!

Every year, we read a “new” song, “Halleluyah, Praise the Eternal.” I’ve been reading this damn song for 20 years so I would really like to know when it stops being “new?”

“The mountains skipped like rams, the hills, like lambs.” Beautiful. Just beautiful. Poetry like this could give William Blake a run for his money.

And finally, the last of the four questions:
4 ) “On all nights we eat sitting upright or reclining, and on this night we all recline!”
I don’t know where this kid has been, but if I’m not mistaken, sitting upright is the closest thing we Jews have gotten to the Olympics. “On all other nights we sit upright.” Yeah—right.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know Weinstein's parents were upset, Superintendent, but I was sure it was a phony excuse. I mean, it sounds so made up: "Yom-Kip-pur."
- Principal Skinner, The Simpsons

Not So Much News Ep.5 Part 4 of 4

2009-04-08T16:11:00.001-04:00

Not So Much News Ep.5 Part 3 of 4

2009-04-08T16:08:00.001-04:00

Not So Much News Ep.5 Part 2 of 4

2009-04-08T15:17:00.001-04:00

Not So Much News, Ep.5 Part 1 of 4

2009-04-08T14:19:00.001-04:00

The Legacy of My People

2009-02-28T00:36:00.000-05:00

Like a pack of ravenous wolves they gather. Lured by the sweet scent of success, pushed by the manicured claws of their neurotic, controlling mothers. With fervor and determination, they pace the surrounding courtyard. There hang the signs of blue and white; crests of achievement, emblems of fortitude, symbols of future. Oh yes, they’ve come.

Painted eyes dart from one building’s door to the next. Where are those ambitious specimens? They begin to idle, for it’s begun.

Lavalife ads have started to churn their stomachs and incapacitating thoughts have permeated their minds. “Don’t let me hit thirty.” Like a sickness, the fear has infected their subconscious, oozed from the realization of what it means to have their names ‘plus one’ addressed on a wedding invitation. With such pity and connotative sadness is written that ‘plus one.’

“I don’t want to have to find my ‘plus one.’ Oh please, don’t let me hit thirty.”

They're watching each other now. Hungry for weakness, lusting for prey. Was that a growl? No, just a BBM alert. Just an alert--this time.

“I’ve got the bitch with the canckles, but not everyone’s unfortunate-looking. Should I undo a couple more buttons?"

And then…

He emerges. Such a presence at just five foot five. Is that the sun shining just a bit brighter I see? Black waves decorate his head. And his arms, quite substantially. But no matter, the salivation’s beginning. What’s that in his hand? A book on infectious diseases?

“Take me now,” they all think. “Oh God, take me now.”

The glasses, those brilliant, brilliant magnifiers. It is they that will facilitate the absorption of all that will eventually translate to Versace sunglasses and Dior purses. And all the glory one could hope for. The “stein” or “berg” or “man” on the end of his name means an end to mothers' nagging. And overpriced parochial school the children. And an unnecessarily large vehicle.

"He’s a med student." They're salivating now.

And they all think,"He’s mine."

Someone played a cruel joke in my family. While my brothers played with doctors’ sets and bank teller machines, someone was hanging over my crib, whispering “journalism” in my infant ear. My parents have sworn revenge.

"Don't marry for money, go where the rich people are and marry for love."

In light of recent economic changes, the instructions have changed slightly:

"When you're ready to settle down, really think about it. Marry someone with a job that's recession-proof." Read: "Get a ring, and make it from a doctor."

Whether goaded to attend, or there by free will (i.e. internalized feelings if guilt and social obligation) my heavily lacquered sisters still patrol the green gardens outside U of T medical. I, however, have not yet joined.

My brother's in law school in case I get fat and need a hookup to an abundant, loveless marriage. This is the legacy of my people.

Sid Ryan is an idiot

2009-02-23T19:51:00.001-05:00

It’s almost cliché to that say now, but alas, his persistent senselessness is just too pungent to ignore.

At a conference in Windsor yesterday, the moronic assembly of the Canadian Union of Public Employees voted to pass a motion boycotting Israeli universities. This comes a month after initial suggestions to ban Israeli academics from speaking at Ontario Universities.

Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario said, "(We want to) do what we can in a peaceful way to end the occupation of Palestine." Ryan, apparently our new foreign policy decision maker, has been pushing Israeli boycotts vehemently since Israel’s attack on Gaza. (Of course, no need to mention hezzbollah rockets.)

With regards to his proposed ban of Israeli academics on Ontario campuses, Ryan was quoted saying, “We are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general.”

Well, I am ready to say that Ryan should stop being a disgrace. Nevermind free speech and holistic learning, which university is supposed to be about, but explicit condemnation? Really? So every professor who can properly make the “ch-“ sound has to begin each lecture with “I condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza?”

Oh, what a lovely idea. But why stop there? We can make everyone publically condemn a whole plethora of actions that probably have no relevance to what they would be speaking about:

“I condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza and mistreatment of third world (sorry—developing world) factory workers and exploitation of small business by big industries and abortion and the use of the word ‘Christmas’ instead of ‘holiday’ and bottled water.”

What about the U.S.’s illegal occupation of Iraq? Why isn’t Ryan pushing for a condemnation of the Iraq invasion by all university speakers?

Imbecile.

News to Ryan; your silly boycotts will have no effect on a war that’s been going on for decades. The only result will be continued humiliation of you and your union.

If Sid Ryan got everything he wanted, no one with a unconformist opinion would set foot in any educational institution. Post-secondary debate would be dormant; critical thinking, irrelevant. No tangible item in a university would be bought with money that could somehow make its way back to Israel. If Sid Ryan had his way, crybaby TAs would have six-figure salaries and everyone would agree with his statement that Israel’s missile attacks on the Islamic University of Gaza are just like Nazi book burning practices.

Oh, Sid. Get with it, hm?

Carleton University embarasses self once again

2009-02-23T10:08:00.002-05:00

Carleton University has shown the Ryerson community to be a bunch of amoral bigots.

The student union of the D-grade university recently voted to cancel their annual Shinerama campaign for cystic fibrosis, a fundraiser conducted by 65 other Canadian colleges and universities, deeming the disease not “inclusive” enough.

Their motion read that, “Cystic fibrosis has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men.”

Members speculate that other universities have been slow to drop the campaign because they have been influenced by garbage propaganda from the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, which claims that “research” has shown the disease to affect both men and women equally, as well as minority groups.

Only one elected member of the Carleton Student Union, Nick Bergamini, voted against the motion.

Bergamini expressed his outrage saying, "They're not doctors. They're playing politics with this. I think they see this, in their own twisted way, as a win for diversity. I see it as a loss for people with cystic fibrosis."

The other members of the council responded saying Bergamini could go to hell or his respective believed afterlife location based on his own religious and/or moral code of which they had no right to pass judgment.

Statistics show that there are more men than women living with Cystic Fibrosis, but that is because women tend to die earlier from the disease. Insiders say students at Carleton University got distracted watching a garbage bag caught in a tree and therefore never got to reading about how women succumb more quickly to the disease.

Ryerson University, however, continues to push the Nazi-esque campaign. Foolish students will persist in their fundraising for these “inflicted” white men, who are rumored to eat puppies and not recycle. Many students are outraged and calling for change.

The Carleton University Student Association plans to continue with their policy changes. They pledge they will abolish the walk for prostate cancer, the term “blackboard,” and rename “brownies,” “fudge squares of inclusion.”

RSU Election

2009-02-23T10:01:00.002-05:00

It’s that god-awful time of the year again. Where the paradoxical emerge from the SCC and erroneously-based Queen’s Park rallies to take up time and space. RSU political candidates. Only with them can you boast a “going green” pin and 17,000 copies of leaflets proclaiming “Ryechange” or “Time for new leadership” (read: “I’m a big douche”), be anti-oppression and hiss and scorn and mutter nonsensical ramblings to their co-douches about students who don’t want to participate in their playground politics. The only thing cheaper than their half-hearted messages (or nighttime rates) are their dollar store, sharpie-stained slogan t-shirts. Pitiful.

If I had a dollar for every peppy jerk asking me if I’ve voted today I’d likely have just enough to cover the mental rehabilitation needed for making my way through the kerr hall-to-library death row of pseudo-political wannabees waving and thrusting their futile leaflets in my face.

Gould Street; are you really still talking about that? Didn’t you realize that your hot chocolate megaphone rallies did nothing except make students temporarily stop making fun of you in order to down your bribe. (Which you bought with their money. Crooks. Don’t think we don’t know) The city of Toronto is not going to shut down a street, however small and littered with whiney know-it-alls, because you have some poster board and lots of spare time.

And you’re stupid for suggesting you can build extra, affordable student housing in the downtown core. Almost worse than the brace-face, acne clad high school pres nominee who promises extra dances and P.D. days. At least you don’t expect anything better from him. Oops (sorry Undivided)… him or HER.

No tuition fees. Because that will happen. You’re all idiots.

So listen up everyone; I’ve got the key to success. If you want to win an RSU election, don’t harass me while I’m getting my 8am coffee, don’t interrupt my group meeting, don’t swarm me at a staircase landing, don’t push your stupid promises and irrelevant campaigns on me and wipe that god-awful smile off your face. Shut up and be professional. That’s it. Of course, that’s like telling Oprah diet and exercise are the keys to losing weight. Makes perfect sense, but she’s still drawn to the waffles and hot chocolate.

Who won?

Who cares.

Go Print Yourself

2008-03-20T12:42:00.000-04:00

Radiohead did it.

For their latest album, In Rainbows, Radiohead said "Pay What You Want." They did away with the bling-clad record execs and put their album online, telling consumers to pick their price.

Now you can do it too, with your writing. It probably won't be as good as In Rainbows though.

Self-publishing is becoming a phenomenon, with amateur and not-so-amateur-but-just-fed-up-with-publishing-company writers have turned to online resources to sell their works.

Self-publishing is nothing new. Zines have been around forever; they were even once printed on paper! Strange, I know.

Online print-on-demand (POD) companies, however, are fairly new, and gaining popularity. A good thing? Probably. A lot more crap on the Internet? That too. Scam? Strangely, doesn't seem to be. Hmm.

Lulu is one of the more well-known POD sites, with over a million users. Authors upload books and selling prices are based on the number of pages. Until you sell a book, Lulu doesn't make any money.

Strange, very strange.

Maybe it's just my burning skepticism but I'm looking for the catch. Lulu takes a small percentage of the difference between the printing and retail fees but that's it.

Other self-publishing sites, like Trafford Publishing, AuthorHouse, and iUniverse require fees upfront. But Lulu won't take your money.

Someone doesn't want your money?

There's that burning skepticism again.

I wonder about copyright regulations, and all of those other things that are way over my head. Does the site own your work? Do you hand over any rights by uploading your document to the site. These are questions I would certainly ask before putting my work on any POD.

Furthermore, who is actually buying these books? If I want someone's opinion, I'll go to a blog. If I want a credible book, one where I am assured of its editing and quality, I'll go to Chapters.

Sure, it may give you a warm fuzzy feeling to see someone fork over their Visa number for your writing, but is it really necessary?

Well, maybe. I guess I wouldn't mind a little fuzz for my work.

Online Privacy: A Thing of the Past

2008-03-03T16:52:00.000-05:00

And lucky for us journalists.

Our job is to expose the truth; to delve into the details of the most controversial issues and people, and reveal the juicy tidbits that will make our editors smile. And hopefully won't get us sued for libel.

Never before has so much information been so easily accessible. It doesn't stop with Canada 411 , or the numerous sites that will provide anyone with a credit card the power to do background checks. No, new networking sites such as Facebook have exposed us (pardon the pun) to an entirely new world of practically limitless information. For journalists, it's glorious.

Not only does it allow me to see what my suit-by-day interviewee wore--or didn't wear--at his friend's bachelor party, but it also provides the opportunity to find contacts in a snap.

For a recent feature article about a program at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, I found myself unable to contact any parents of patients for interviews. The hospital has a strict privacy policy about disclosing patient information, and I was out of luck. So I went on Facebook and looked up groups about SickKids.

It was a journalist's paradise. I found a group for parents of patients, many of whom had discussed details of their child's condition on the group wall. Suddenly, I had over 500 people I could contact. I sent private messages to several people (of course, after adjusting the privacy settings on my page so they couldn't see my photos) and ended up with several people willing to do phone interviews.

Was this a breach of privacy? I think not. Anyone who can say "De-tag" knows that social networks such as Facebook put you out there. Anyone can contact you. Anyone can access your information. It's up to you to monitor and limit it.

The trouble comes when monitoring it becomes beyond your control. I had no idea that when I Googled my name, a science convention that I attended in Grade 8 would pop up. So much for maintaining my non-science geek facade.

According to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, businesses are not allowed to electronically disclose information about you without your permission. You are also entitled to see all personal information held about you, as well as a number of other conditions. The problem is, most people have never heard of PIPEDA, and for those who have, I imagine few have actually sat down and read it. That basically means that your information can, and probably is, tossed around without regard, for whatever reason, because you don't know about your rights.

Sucks for you. Good for me.

I don't have any skeletons in my closet. But as a reporter, I'm always searching for other's bones. The lack of online privacy helps me find them.

Citizen Journalism

2008-01-31T12:31:00.001-05:00

What a farce.

In We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People Dan Gilmor says that to an extent, news is analogous to a university classroom. He argues that news is becoming more of a "discussion" rather than a "lecture."

I've had discussions in some of my university classrooms. The other day in my History of the Third Reich class, someone asked what Bolshevism was. In a journalism class, someone argued that no one sues for libel anymore. And I won't even go into the idiocies tossed from one uniformed mouth to the other in an English class where the discussion topic was, "Why women should have sex like men."

Just terrible.

Give me back my lecture.

I am not interested in what John sub-in-hand Doe thinks about the 9/11 conspiracy after watching 30 minutes of the documentary "Zeitgeist." I don't want Sally with an agenda going to a public rally about Black-centred schools and telling me what happened. And self-professed freelance journalist Bob, or whoever, can enlighten someone else on the abortion debate. Give me my news. They can eat their subs.

I'll admit that citizen photographers, with their low-resolution cell phone shots, can be an asset to the world of news. The Virgina Tech photo is an example. As well as the video in the tunnel during the London bombings in 2005. But that's not journalism. That's being in the right place at the right time with an over-priced piece of technology in your hand. And enough sense to snap a photo.

But these so-called citizen journalists? Firstly, are they really journalists at all? Do they adhere to ethical guidelines or try to remain objective or fair? (Well, to be perfectly honest, perhaps the lack of ethical concern makes them that much more of real journalists after all). Bloggers can post whatever they want. There are sites, such as Oh My News, where freelance articles are checked by editors. But for the most part, many "citizen journalists" can spew whatever quasi-informed idea they picked up from reading CBC headlines and pass it off as news.

So, about the argument that it gives a voice to the people. Makes the news more balanced, objective, etc. Um, seriously? Noam Chomsky would have something to say. I can see it, standing at a podium of some American university, sweater-vest clothed and monotone voice, saying just how powerful the media big guys are. Our understanding of important issues is so carefully crafted, presented to us with the intention of having us conform to ideas in the interest of the "elite." Of the seemingly few people that actually do sit down and inform themselves about the world, the majority are probably reading The Globe, or The Star, not NowPublic or blogger websites. Granted, alternative media is becoming more mainstream, with, for example, CNN adding a News to Me section on their website. But, for the most part, alternative media is not reaching the average citizen.

Sure, citizen journalism gives a voice to the people. But how many are listening?

Dripping with condescension, I say it's very nice that people are writing. I suppose it means there are less people watching Britney Spears videos or developing wrist strains from Guitar Hero. But it shouldn't be called a revolution. It should always be taken with a grain of salt. And it probably should be monitored. Oh, and being in the right place at the right time doesn't count.