Republished from Gateway November 3rd, 2010
Dear City Centre Mall's marketing department geniuses,
I am sacking you today for your insipid ad in the University LRT station, which states, "The last thing the world needs is another girl in sweats." I've got a lot of things on my plate. Global warming, economic collapses, James Cameron's ego — the list goes on. Sure, there are many things that I, The World, don't need to deal with. We all could have done without a Justin Bieber memoir or Sex and the City II.
But let's keep our priorities straight here. Jeans, trousers, sweatpants — it makes no real difference to me as long as I don't have to deal with roughly half of the student body carousing around with frost-bitten backsides.
Considering the poor bastards are spending large quantities of time stuffed into tiny desks and surviving on a diet of Edo, Subway, and A&W, sweatpants are a small but satisfying alternative to the skintight jeans your ad showcases as the appropriate apparel. For the record, trying to start a boycott against sweatpants at a university is about as productive as a one-armed trapeze artist with an itchy ass.
So back off sweatpants, before I put on my burlap pants and sack you a good one.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Prop 19 goes up in smoke
Republished from Gateway (November 9th, 2010)
Instead of a celebratory puff, stoners across North America will have to make do with a sad, sombre toke of defeat after California's Proposition 19 failed last week. Now that everyone's mellow, stick this in your pipe and smoke it: Prop 19 deserved to fail. It was a shoddily constructed, flaccid attempt at marijuana legalization.
Proposition 19 lost in the polls on November 2, with 54 per cent voting "No," and it's hardly surprising. The legislative framework behind Prop 19 was the flawed offspring born from a case of the late-night munchies. One of the big problems lay in the tensions that passing Prop 19 would create between the federal government and California.
It's all fine and dandy that you can buy your single ounce and smoke it, but you would still be committing an illegal act, according to federal law.
Taking on Washington over poorly conceived legislation is a pipedream, and even within California, there would still be a quagmire of complicated loopholes, such as taxation, which would be left up to the discretion of individual counties. Driving more than an hour in any direction would place you under a new jurisdiction, forcing you to navigate a set of unnecessarily complicated guidelines.
Prop 19 sounded idyllic. You could buy your taxed weed and smoke it in the comfort and safety of your home, smug in the knowledge that with every toke, you were bolstering the economy. But the reality of the situation is more tepid and murky than three-week-old bong water.
The world would be a better place if people got munchies instead of Molotov cocktails, but it would make operating heavy machinery a questionable enterprise. Much of the fear-mongering surrounding Prop 19 related to weed's role in the workplace, and the law's ambiguity concerning toking at work made it easy for Prop 19's opponents to tear it down.
California might be the home of Katy Perry's exploding cupcake bra, but it's not the freedom-loving state we imagine it to be. It's hard to rationalize the assumption that the state infamous for Proposition 8 would turn around and make the very liberal decision of legalizing marijuana.
Even though Governor Arnold Schwarz-enegger played the fun-loving robot in the Terminator franchise, it's imperative to remember that he represents the Republican Party, however moderate he may seem.
From there, it's even more complicated to paint California uniformly red or blue; while the state's major cities are largely Democratic, the further east you go, the more Republican everything starts to look. As it turns out, it might not be that the hippies were too stoned to vote.
The issue isn't that California is taking steps towards legalizing weed — it's that the first attempt went up in a blaze bigger than a lit bong on 4/20. But fear not, land of cupcake bras, there's already talk that the 2012 elections will feature a more sophisticated proposition where ...
I'm sorry, what was that about cupcakes?
Instead of a celebratory puff, stoners across North America will have to make do with a sad, sombre toke of defeat after California's Proposition 19 failed last week. Now that everyone's mellow, stick this in your pipe and smoke it: Prop 19 deserved to fail. It was a shoddily constructed, flaccid attempt at marijuana legalization.
Proposition 19 lost in the polls on November 2, with 54 per cent voting "No," and it's hardly surprising. The legislative framework behind Prop 19 was the flawed offspring born from a case of the late-night munchies. One of the big problems lay in the tensions that passing Prop 19 would create between the federal government and California.
It's all fine and dandy that you can buy your single ounce and smoke it, but you would still be committing an illegal act, according to federal law.
Taking on Washington over poorly conceived legislation is a pipedream, and even within California, there would still be a quagmire of complicated loopholes, such as taxation, which would be left up to the discretion of individual counties. Driving more than an hour in any direction would place you under a new jurisdiction, forcing you to navigate a set of unnecessarily complicated guidelines.
Prop 19 sounded idyllic. You could buy your taxed weed and smoke it in the comfort and safety of your home, smug in the knowledge that with every toke, you were bolstering the economy. But the reality of the situation is more tepid and murky than three-week-old bong water.
The world would be a better place if people got munchies instead of Molotov cocktails, but it would make operating heavy machinery a questionable enterprise. Much of the fear-mongering surrounding Prop 19 related to weed's role in the workplace, and the law's ambiguity concerning toking at work made it easy for Prop 19's opponents to tear it down.
California might be the home of Katy Perry's exploding cupcake bra, but it's not the freedom-loving state we imagine it to be. It's hard to rationalize the assumption that the state infamous for Proposition 8 would turn around and make the very liberal decision of legalizing marijuana.
Even though Governor Arnold Schwarz-enegger played the fun-loving robot in the Terminator franchise, it's imperative to remember that he represents the Republican Party, however moderate he may seem.
From there, it's even more complicated to paint California uniformly red or blue; while the state's major cities are largely Democratic, the further east you go, the more Republican everything starts to look. As it turns out, it might not be that the hippies were too stoned to vote.
The issue isn't that California is taking steps towards legalizing weed — it's that the first attempt went up in a blaze bigger than a lit bong on 4/20. But fear not, land of cupcake bras, there's already talk that the 2012 elections will feature a more sophisticated proposition where ...
I'm sorry, what was that about cupcakes?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Bringing Prostitution to the light
Republished from The Gateway.
The immortal George Carlin once asked, “Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why is selling fucking illegal?”
There was good news for Carlin last week — an Ontario Superior Court Justice, Judge Susan Himel, struck down three Criminal Code provisions relating to prostitution on September 28. The case, launched by Terri-Jean Bedford, Valerie Scott, and Amy Lebovitch, and represented by lawyer Alan Young, overturned three of Canada’s prostitution laws. In the province of Ontario, prostitutes are now allowed to operate a common bawdy house, live off the profits of prostitution, and solicit for purposes of prostitution.
Prostitutes will have the opportunity to sell their wares in a safe and controlled environment, where they can employ people to ensure their safety and even call the police for help without fear of legal prosecution. Although prostitution itself wasn’t technically illegal, pretty much every action surrounding it was, and as such, violence against those involved in the sex industry was rampant. Those participating in the industry had to function outside the law, without basic protection to ensure their safety.
Bedford, Scott, and Lebovitch, who have all worked in the sex trade, are qualified to talk about the state of the industry in the years leading up to Himel’s decision. They haven’t painted the rosiest of pictures. Young gave the courts an overview of what he called “shocking and horrifying” stories of abuse suffered by prostitutes as a result of the industry being pushed underground. Even though these dangers still exist, by decriminalizing prostitution, the Ontario courts have given prostitutes a chance to create an industry where they can ensure their own safety.
Of course, no sane thought goes unpunished. There are those taking advantage of the 30-day window in which to overturn the Court’s decision. Federal conservatives squirmed as their tight pants got even tighter when Himel released her decision, complaining that the change will make prostitution even easier.
Well, yes, and that’s really the point. It’s about improving the lives of prostitutes and giving them a chance to work in a safe environment, rather than treating them as criminals.
Foremost amongst the dissenters is Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien, whose problem with Judge Himel’s decision centers on his belief that the move will only facilitate pimping and increase drug dependency. It seems he has missed the point.
Preventing continued drug abuse would be best combated with increased social and educational programs, not by shaming and charging those that work in the sex-trade industry. As for pimps, if the industry is regulated but not criminalized, there is a greater possibility that prostitutes will be able to form unions in which they are able to set their own standards of safe employment. By driving the sex industry further into the margins of society, prostitutes are regularly forced to go without the basic personal safety considerations they should enjoy.
The potential improvements in the industry resulting from this ruling are further highlighted by looking at incidences like the Robert Pickton murders. An internal report released by the Vancouver police in August of this year details the RCMP’s failures, listing the variety of ways in which the disappearances of prostitutes from the East Hastings area went ignored from the 1990s onward.
While the majority of the report focuses on the in-fighting, computer problems, and inadequate training that caused the investigation to stall, it stands to reason that had lines of communication between sex workers on the East side and police been more open, there would have been greater information pointing to Pickton’s involvement, which could have potentially saved lives.
The point to be made is that simply making prostitution illegal won’t deter people from buying and selling sex. If the federal Conservatives were really willing to help those victimized by the sex trade, they could do so by funding better drug counselling, job training, and education.
Like other controversial decisions that have sprung up from the east and spread across Canada, if Judge Himel’s decision stands, there is a good chance that it may be reproduced in other provinces.
And, just as in 2003 when Ontario was the first Canadian province to legalize gay marriage, we can expect that Alberta will be dragged kicking and screaming into the new age. Judge Himel’s decision won’t eradicate violence from prostitution, but at the very least, it will give the people involved a fighting chance to fuck on their own terms.
The immortal George Carlin once asked, “Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why is selling fucking illegal?”
There was good news for Carlin last week — an Ontario Superior Court Justice, Judge Susan Himel, struck down three Criminal Code provisions relating to prostitution on September 28. The case, launched by Terri-Jean Bedford, Valerie Scott, and Amy Lebovitch, and represented by lawyer Alan Young, overturned three of Canada’s prostitution laws. In the province of Ontario, prostitutes are now allowed to operate a common bawdy house, live off the profits of prostitution, and solicit for purposes of prostitution.
Prostitutes will have the opportunity to sell their wares in a safe and controlled environment, where they can employ people to ensure their safety and even call the police for help without fear of legal prosecution. Although prostitution itself wasn’t technically illegal, pretty much every action surrounding it was, and as such, violence against those involved in the sex industry was rampant. Those participating in the industry had to function outside the law, without basic protection to ensure their safety.
Bedford, Scott, and Lebovitch, who have all worked in the sex trade, are qualified to talk about the state of the industry in the years leading up to Himel’s decision. They haven’t painted the rosiest of pictures. Young gave the courts an overview of what he called “shocking and horrifying” stories of abuse suffered by prostitutes as a result of the industry being pushed underground. Even though these dangers still exist, by decriminalizing prostitution, the Ontario courts have given prostitutes a chance to create an industry where they can ensure their own safety.
Of course, no sane thought goes unpunished. There are those taking advantage of the 30-day window in which to overturn the Court’s decision. Federal conservatives squirmed as their tight pants got even tighter when Himel released her decision, complaining that the change will make prostitution even easier.
Well, yes, and that’s really the point. It’s about improving the lives of prostitutes and giving them a chance to work in a safe environment, rather than treating them as criminals.
Foremost amongst the dissenters is Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien, whose problem with Judge Himel’s decision centers on his belief that the move will only facilitate pimping and increase drug dependency. It seems he has missed the point.
Preventing continued drug abuse would be best combated with increased social and educational programs, not by shaming and charging those that work in the sex-trade industry. As for pimps, if the industry is regulated but not criminalized, there is a greater possibility that prostitutes will be able to form unions in which they are able to set their own standards of safe employment. By driving the sex industry further into the margins of society, prostitutes are regularly forced to go without the basic personal safety considerations they should enjoy.
The potential improvements in the industry resulting from this ruling are further highlighted by looking at incidences like the Robert Pickton murders. An internal report released by the Vancouver police in August of this year details the RCMP’s failures, listing the variety of ways in which the disappearances of prostitutes from the East Hastings area went ignored from the 1990s onward.
While the majority of the report focuses on the in-fighting, computer problems, and inadequate training that caused the investigation to stall, it stands to reason that had lines of communication between sex workers on the East side and police been more open, there would have been greater information pointing to Pickton’s involvement, which could have potentially saved lives.
The point to be made is that simply making prostitution illegal won’t deter people from buying and selling sex. If the federal Conservatives were really willing to help those victimized by the sex trade, they could do so by funding better drug counselling, job training, and education.
Like other controversial decisions that have sprung up from the east and spread across Canada, if Judge Himel’s decision stands, there is a good chance that it may be reproduced in other provinces.
And, just as in 2003 when Ontario was the first Canadian province to legalize gay marriage, we can expect that Alberta will be dragged kicking and screaming into the new age. Judge Himel’s decision won’t eradicate violence from prostitution, but at the very least, it will give the people involved a fighting chance to fuck on their own terms.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Burlap Sack - Reproduced from The Gateway
To my more fabulous fellow students, I am begging you, put the weapons down. That magnificent genuine leather product you have swinging under your arm certainly does make a statement and it’s screaming, “I am armed and dangerous.” As cherished as I’m sure your purse is, when it comes down to it, it’s just a thing — and it’s loaded with your wallet, keys, cat food, bricks, and other daily essentials that on their own might be insubstantial. But when you condense all these knick-knacks into one fashionable and accessible collection, it becomes a deadly weapon.
Sure, your purse is an “investment piece,” but might I ask you to put aside a few dollars for a purse hook, thus saving me from the necessity of wandering aimlessly through my classroom, looking for a purse-free chair? And quit giving me those dirty looks — I’m not asking you to put your child on the floor.
As for your dramatic exit, when you swing your purse onto your shoulder to flounce off into the sunset, please give yourself at least a clear two-foot radius, so there you don’t inadvertently Fendi me in the gut. Ladies, you might be carrying a purse, but watch yourselves, ‘cause I’m toting a burlap sack.
Sure, your purse is an “investment piece,” but might I ask you to put aside a few dollars for a purse hook, thus saving me from the necessity of wandering aimlessly through my classroom, looking for a purse-free chair? And quit giving me those dirty looks — I’m not asking you to put your child on the floor.
As for your dramatic exit, when you swing your purse onto your shoulder to flounce off into the sunset, please give yourself at least a clear two-foot radius, so there you don’t inadvertently Fendi me in the gut. Ladies, you might be carrying a purse, but watch yourselves, ‘cause I’m toting a burlap sack.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Gateway republished - US army still can't handle the gays
At this year’s VMAs, Lady Gaga arrived wearing a dress and chapeau made of meat, with an entourage of four gay former service members. It was an act of protest against the American military’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), under which gay and lesbian soldiers were discharged because of their sexual orientation. The law was sort of repealed back on May 27, pending a study by the Department of Defense. As part of the study, the DoD distributed a survey in order to gauge soldiers’ responses to the repeal of DATD.
The survey, which leaked online over the summer, asks service members a variety of questions to determine their feelings about the possibility of having gay unit members.
One question asks, “Did you ever serve in combat with a service member of any rank whom you believed to be homosexual?” It is quickly followed by another question that asks, “How much did the belief that the service member was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s combat performance?”
The implications are as obvious as they are ludicrous — a person’s sexual orientation, whether actual or simply suspected, will affect not only their own performance, but the performance of those surrounding them.
The Log Cabin Republicans, an American lobby group of gay Republicans, has been an active force in bringing about the end of DADT. They estimate that 13,500 people have lost their positions within the U.S. Army based on their sexual orientation since the law’s inception in 1994. That’s an enormous loss to a nation that is currently involved in major military operations in two countries. Is Uncle Sam so set in his ways that he can afford to give that many able-bodied people the old heave-ho because of their sexual orientation?
Even though repealing the DADT was featured in Obama’s presidential campaign, he should receive no credit for this push towards finally achieving equality. As the leader and main executive power of the U.S., Obama has made the very responsible decision to pass the buck all the way over to Congress, although he could have repealed DADT very easily with an executive order. Earlier this month, Californian judge Virginia A. Philips had the proverbial cajones to rule the law violated the constitution on multiple counts, although that should have been glaringly obvious to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex and a basic moral compass from the outset. Even so, it’s a hollow sort of victory, considering a repeal of DADT was passed in May 2010.
Handing out paperwork doesn’t make the law any less unconstitutional; instead, it underlines how offensive and discriminatory DADT is, and signals another constructed delay in the push for equal rights. If the U.S. Military’s survey had asked about service members’ feelings about black or Jewish soldiers, there would have been an immediate and justifiable outrage.
There is no rational argument that can be made for DADT’s continuation and this survey doesn’t serve to represent the interests of the members of the United States Army.
The survey obviously isn’t about maintaining lines of communication with the troops; instead, it’s a clear example of bigotry surrounding the DADT policy. It sends a message, something idiotic that one might find pasted to the side of heavy machinery: “Keep limbs away from moving parts. Do not attempt to stop machine with genitalia. Do not operate in the presence of alternative sexualities.”
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the clusterfuck surrounding it makes one thing abundantly clear: there’s only one group that scares the United States Army more than the terrorists, and that’s the gays.
http://thegatewayonline.ca/articles/opinion/2010/09/16/us-army-still-cant-handle-gays
The survey, which leaked online over the summer, asks service members a variety of questions to determine their feelings about the possibility of having gay unit members.
One question asks, “Did you ever serve in combat with a service member of any rank whom you believed to be homosexual?” It is quickly followed by another question that asks, “How much did the belief that the service member was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s combat performance?”
The implications are as obvious as they are ludicrous — a person’s sexual orientation, whether actual or simply suspected, will affect not only their own performance, but the performance of those surrounding them.
The Log Cabin Republicans, an American lobby group of gay Republicans, has been an active force in bringing about the end of DADT. They estimate that 13,500 people have lost their positions within the U.S. Army based on their sexual orientation since the law’s inception in 1994. That’s an enormous loss to a nation that is currently involved in major military operations in two countries. Is Uncle Sam so set in his ways that he can afford to give that many able-bodied people the old heave-ho because of their sexual orientation?
Even though repealing the DADT was featured in Obama’s presidential campaign, he should receive no credit for this push towards finally achieving equality. As the leader and main executive power of the U.S., Obama has made the very responsible decision to pass the buck all the way over to Congress, although he could have repealed DADT very easily with an executive order. Earlier this month, Californian judge Virginia A. Philips had the proverbial cajones to rule the law violated the constitution on multiple counts, although that should have been glaringly obvious to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex and a basic moral compass from the outset. Even so, it’s a hollow sort of victory, considering a repeal of DADT was passed in May 2010.
Handing out paperwork doesn’t make the law any less unconstitutional; instead, it underlines how offensive and discriminatory DADT is, and signals another constructed delay in the push for equal rights. If the U.S. Military’s survey had asked about service members’ feelings about black or Jewish soldiers, there would have been an immediate and justifiable outrage.
There is no rational argument that can be made for DADT’s continuation and this survey doesn’t serve to represent the interests of the members of the United States Army.
The survey obviously isn’t about maintaining lines of communication with the troops; instead, it’s a clear example of bigotry surrounding the DADT policy. It sends a message, something idiotic that one might find pasted to the side of heavy machinery: “Keep limbs away from moving parts. Do not attempt to stop machine with genitalia. Do not operate in the presence of alternative sexualities.”
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the clusterfuck surrounding it makes one thing abundantly clear: there’s only one group that scares the United States Army more than the terrorists, and that’s the gays.
http://thegatewayonline.ca/articles/opinion/2010/09/16/us-army-still-cant-handle-gays
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Down with the ship
Hold onto your hats people, here comes James Cameron on his white horse to save the day. This week, Cameron will be in Fort McMurray visiting the oil sands, or what he affectionately refers to as a “black eye” on Canada’s environmental record. In addition to the hot air he will be blowing at press conferences and the like, Cameron’s plan to fly to Fort McMurray will also have negative environmental impacts, like the approximate 0.56 tones of carbon dioxide produced by a plane flying from Los Angeles to Fort McMurray. In addition, Premier Ed Stelmach’s has announced his intention to make use of a government-chartered plane, which will take him from his previous scheduled visit in Ottawa to Fort McMurray in time to meet Cameron. So far, Cameron’s plan to save the world includes two short-term plane rides, one of which will cost Canadian taxpayers approximately 10, 000 dollars. Two green thumbs up for that one, Cameron.
While discussing Canada’s environmental track record, Cameron brought up the idea of “social responsibility” and while that is definitely something that we all need to be reminded of, it’s a lesson that hasn’t seemed to stick very well with him. Did the world really need Dances With Wolves 2: Blue Edition? That would have saved the world $280 million (and me a mind-boggling $17), a figure which comfortably exceeds the GDP of eleven countries. Instead of leading by example, Cameron’s lifestyle is only considered frugal by Imelda Marcos. His $3.475 million, 6-bed, 7-bath, 8,272 square foot residence in one of America’s smoggiest cities sits firmly in the category of opulent. He visited 107 countries while promoting Avatar, shaking babies and kissing hands while promoting a very one-sided sustainable lifestyle.
Here’s some advice for you Mr. Cameron: Next time, save us some eye-rolling and a chunk of carbon offsets by staying in Los Angeles.
While discussing Canada’s environmental track record, Cameron brought up the idea of “social responsibility” and while that is definitely something that we all need to be reminded of, it’s a lesson that hasn’t seemed to stick very well with him. Did the world really need Dances With Wolves 2: Blue Edition? That would have saved the world $280 million (and me a mind-boggling $17), a figure which comfortably exceeds the GDP of eleven countries. Instead of leading by example, Cameron’s lifestyle is only considered frugal by Imelda Marcos. His $3.475 million, 6-bed, 7-bath, 8,272 square foot residence in one of America’s smoggiest cities sits firmly in the category of opulent. He visited 107 countries while promoting Avatar, shaking babies and kissing hands while promoting a very one-sided sustainable lifestyle.
Here’s some advice for you Mr. Cameron: Next time, save us some eye-rolling and a chunk of carbon offsets by staying in Los Angeles.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Poutine poutine: A lament.
You dastardly poutine fry. The gravy and cheese that you loll about in is simultaneously appealing and challenging. While the medley of flavours is the reason for my delirious hunger pains, it also provides you with a last minute opportunity to escape your eventual destiny; assuaging my hunger. My cheap plastic fork leaves me inadequately prepared, its tiny tines unable to grasp your slippery stalk. Wily French creation. Just when I have you in my sights, my dining companion swoops in and devours you before my eyes. Back to the drawing board.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
