books and covers

A story that puts me at ease and also makes me on edge at the same time. I was in Kentucky Fried Chicken today in Yellowknife, NWT, Canada looking for some deep fried dead bird and was being served by a person of the darker skin. Now, I dont want to say African-Canadian because I dont believe in the whole hyphenation of nationalities, you are either African or you are Canadian, dont spead yourself around and take all the sides. Also dont want to say 'black' because I hear that is not politically correct. Anyways, the person serving me had to be the advanced age of at least 15 or 16 years old and was a friendly and polite individual. Suddenly I noticed a rather thin phillipino woman go bustling around the back area and in the counter area. She had the air of authority and the voice of power. Suddenly the door opened and an individual walked in dressed head to toe in arctic winter apparel. He (I am saying he now only because I heard him speak later, but when the person walked in all I could tell was it was a bipedal humanoid form and that was it) was no more than 2 steps into the store when the woman in authority turned, looked at him and said "He is not allowed in the store" and then hustled into the back.

The man stood stunned at the door, the poor young man behind the counter just looked stunned at the announcement and said nothing. The native man, after taking off his mask to reveal his face, stood stunned and announced in a loud voice "what did I do? I have never been in this store before" and the poor guy behind the counter stood stunned and gave the hand gesture of "I dont know. I just work here. I did nothing". The manager lady stayed in the back and didnt come out and the guy had to go to the window and talk to her through it. All this time the man stood at the door, a little disorientated, looking for either someone to throw him out or someone to let him in. After some talk in the window with the little lady and the young man, the young man went up to the guy and spoke to him from across the counter and asked "you've been drinking?". To which the guy screamed out that he hasnt been drinking, he doesnt drink, he hasnt had a drink in years. The young man then just turned and walked away and the guy, after looking around stunned, walked into the dining area and started to talk with a group of people (a group of other natives) and the lady didnt show her face after that.

I remember this incident because whenever I hear about racial stereotyping in Canada it always involves a caucasian stereotyping against someone else of racial decent. It is interesting to see that anyone could be open to this type of flaw in human nature. Looking at the outer person and not the inner person, taking the sins of the past person and generalizing it to all others in that race. I am wondering if this KFC manager has had so many bad run ins with natives that are drunk that now any native that is unshaven and haggard looking walking into the restaurant get treated with the same disrespect. Guess the thought of 'telling a book by itself cover' is still a long way off and not really ingrained in everyones mind, or perhaps there have been so many bad books out there that the good books in the same genre get over looked.

immigrants in canada

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070130/statscan_immigrants_070130/20070130?hub=Canada

Immigrants no better off now, StatsCan reports

Updated Tue. Jan. 30 2007 10:05 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The financial situation of new immigrants showed no improvement after the turn of the millennium although they have more education and skilled qualifications than a decade ago, Statistics Canada reports.

The report examines the economic welfare of immigrant families and individuals and assesses their financial situation since 2000, the extent of so-called "chronic" low income, and the impact of changes in education and skill classes on their economic well-being since 1993.

In 2002, low-income rates among immigrants during their first full year in Canada were 3.5 times higher than those of Canadian-born citizens. Two years later, the low-income rates were 3.2 times higher.

In this study, low income is defined as family income below 50 per cent of median income of the total population, adjusted for family size.

Statistics Canada says the low-income rates were higher than at any time during the 1990s, when they were around three times higher than rates for Canadian-born people.

"The increase in low income was concentrated among immigrants who had just recently entered the country, that is, they had been here only one or two years," StatsCan says.

"This suggests they had more problems adjusting over the short-term during the years since 2000."

One likely explanation may have been the slump in the technology sector after 2000, Statistics Canada says.

The proportion of recent immigrants in information technology and engineering occupations rose dramatically over the 1990s.

In 1993, the immigration-selection system was modified to attract more highly educated newcomers and those in the "skilled" classes.

As a result, the proportion of new immigrants aged 15 and older with university degrees rose from 17 per cent in 1992 to 45 per cent in 2004.

Furthermore, the share of newcomers with skilled qualifications increased from 29 per cent to 51 per cent.

The rapid increase throughout the 1990s in the share of arriving immigrants who were highly-educated and in the skilled economic class might have been expected to lower the chance of entering low-income, and increase the likelihood of leaving.

"This is because the more highly educated and "economic class" immigrants traditionally did better in the labour market," the government agency says.

However, government researchers found the large increase in educated newcomers and a policy shift toward favouring skilled-class immigrants had only small impacts on their income levels.

"Overall, the large rise in educational attainment of entering immigrants and the shift to the skilled class immigrant had only a very small effect on poverty outcomes as measured by the probability of entry, exit and chronic rates," Statistics Canada said.

In addition, the small advantage that the university-educated newcomers had over the high-school educated in the early 1990s had largely disappeared by 2000, as the number of highly educated immigrants rose.

Data for this study came from a database that combines the Longitudinal Administrative Database (LAD) and the Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB), and allows comparisons of known immigrants and other Canadians.

As a result, this study created a "comparison group" consisting of the Canadian-born, plus the immigrants who had been in Canada for more than 10 years.

The report compares results for recent immigrants to those of individuals in the comparison group of the same age.

****

I also caught a story on the news this evening concerning this as well. It was about how immigrants have come from India and other countries to Canada looking for a new life and job only to find that no one will employ them and they can not file for unemployment insurance since they have not been in Canada long enough, and then fall to welfare. The problem is that, according to the lady at the employment agency that was interviewed '...once you are on welfare, it is hard to get out of it.' Now I wonder, does the welfare safety net that Canada have create a situation that calls to immigrants coming to a new country provide too much of a net so that people are not afraid to come to the country and try a new life? after all, if you were given the choice of going to one country and had to choose between two, where both had a difficult time finding work but one had a welfare social safety net that would catch you when you didnt find work and another wouldnt give a dime, which country would be your first choice? This then would cause problems with the social fabric since when a natural born citizen can get a job easily over an immigrant and then sees the immigrants on social safety nets there is a higher chance that a negative stereotype would be created in that the immigrants are lazy and coming to Canada only for a free hand out, not a job. Would the natural citizen see that the only reason the immigrants are on the safety net is because the natural citizens make it harder for the immigrants to get job. If the immigrant is given an equal chance to get the jobs on the market, and it is discovered that the immigrants have more education than the natural citizens and the natural citizens are reduced to the menial labour where the immigrants become the higher elite with the higher jobs, would the natural citizens start developing a stereotype that the immigrants come to Canada to 'steal away the jobs from natural citizens'? So, in the end, when it comes to immigration and natural citizens, it is a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation, dont you think?

So which is the lesser of all the evils before us? do we take away the social safety net set up to protect citizens down on their luck so that we dont attract immigrants to the country? do we keep the safety nets and create an equal country for employment, and possibly create a place where immigrants are flocking to? or, what would happen if we create the equal opportunity place but then make the entry restrictions so high that only a small handful of applicants can make it into the country? but, if we do that, then wont that create a harder place for the job market since the high elite immigrants that get in will be fighting the high elites of the natural citizenship for certain high paying jobs, and then again the natural citizens will complain about giving away high jobs to foreigners.

I guess there is no answer to this problem. We just have to deal with it all. Guess this place was a much better world when there was no country lines and all you needed to go from one place to another to live was a bundle of food, skin of water and a good horse or donkey for travel.

everyone has a touch of evil

http://ca.entertainment.yahoo.com/s/25012007/6/entertainment-muslims-complain-hollywood-bad-guy-image.html

Muslims complain of Hollywood "bad guy" image

Thu Jan 25, 11:51 AM EST

By Paul Majendie

LONDON (Reuters) - Western movies from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" to "Aladdin" promote negative stereotypes of Muslims by casting them all too often as villains, a British Muslim pressure group said on Thursday.

"There is no such thing as a Muslim good guy," said Arzu Merali, co-author of a report by the Islamic Human Rights Commission that argued that movies played a crucial role in fostering a crude and exaggerated image.

The commission's study, based on soundings taken from almost 1,250 British Muslims, also found that 62 percent felt the media was "Islamophobic" and 14 percent called it racist.

"Cinema, both in Hollywood and Britain, has helped to demonize Muslims. They are portrayed as violent and backward. That reinforces prejudices," Merali told Reuters.

"This stretches back before the 9/11 attacks in the United States," said Merali, head of research at the campaigning body.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has commissioned studies into attitudes toward racial and religious minorities following bombings in London in 2005 when four British Islamists killed 52 people in suicide attacks on the transport network.

The government has cracked down on radical extremist preachers who, it says, inspire suicide bombers.

But critics say the government's focus on Islam could backfire if Britain's 1.8 million Muslims feel under attack.

The report pointed the finger of blame as far back as the 1981 blockbuster "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in which "the cultural stereotypes and scenarios are patently obvious" as veiled women hurry through the bazaar to snake-charming music.

The 1998 film "The Siege" starring Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington was accused of reinforcing "the monolithic stereotype of the Arab/Palestinian/Muslim being violent and ready to be martyred for their cause."

Disney's cartoon was criticized for describing Aladdin's homeland as "barbaric."

The report called for British film censors to be given greater power to cut out "objectionable material" and said media watchdogs in Britain should be more effective in ensuring "responsible coverage" of Muslims.

****

When I came across this article and read it, the first thing that caught my eye was the reference to Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Of course they have to portray the city scenes as snake charming music and veiled women, it is called 'continuity of the script'. Have you seen the list of goofs that were made during the making of this film? Planes that were being used either didnt exist, or the planes were not put into service until after WWII. One soldier is even supposedly reading a TIMES magazine in one shot that wasnt published til after Hitler commited suicide. There had to be some sort of realism in the whole film, dont you think? As well, I was in Egypt back in 1992, saw the pyramids, walked the bazaar and the whole thing. What I saw there was pretty much close to what I saw in the movies, minus the snake charming music. Veiled women walked around escorted by men, and while there were some men in jeans and tshirts, the majority wore robes and flowing outfits. Now, if the majority were like that in 1992, what would they have been like in the 1940's when the film was set in? Please dont tell me that guys were walking around in tshirts and jeans, women had on flowing sun dresses and stylish Paris fashions. I mean, looking at the strict code of Muslim life of scarf wearing and female subserviance, I doubt that in the 40's they were really relaxed and up with the times.

As for portraying the Muslim folk as barbaric and evil. Every cinema needs a villian. When WWII was on, german folk were portrayed in films as monsters and evil humans. Why? cause one man (Hitler) ruled a country that put the world at war and was doing unspeakable acts against an entire religious group of people. In the eyes of the world over seas, he was the inbodiment of evil because of his acts and those dribbled down to the people because the people knew what was going on, and even though a few in in North America might have said "he is bad, we must stop him", Germany didnt really rally against him but instead let him run his course. So what happens now with the Muslim population? A cartoon is drawn by Danish individuals and what do the easy going Muslim people of the world do? we find embassies torched, guns fired, riots broken out, death bounties put on the heads of the cartoonists by priests themselves. So of course when it comes down to creating a villian in Hollywood cinema, Muslims are the main target. How do we stop this from happening? I would say the Muslim extremists should stop strapping bombs to their backs and walking into the 'evil infidel cities' and blowing up people, or better yet, stop blowing up people in their own country. I mean, kind of hard to say "Muslim people are such nice, caring, understanding folk" when we turn on the news and hear about another bomb blast here, suicide bomber there, attacks here and there.

Now, granted, this could be North American media trying to create hatred of the whole religion. Perhaps they are just falsehoods. A car drives down the street, hits another car and because of poor workmanship (or perhaps it was a Pinto), the car explodes, the papers over there report the truth but the North American press gets a hold of it and falsly says a suicide bomber driving a car loaded with explosives drove into another car to kill american tourists (who just happened to be having tea on their vacation in a cafe across the street).

If you take the approach that the stereotypes are taken too far and that Muslims are not like that. Look at other films, it is not just looks and dress but other things as well. Romantic men are never just your average, everyday nice guys that listen, care and pamper women but with a life of their own that they want to lead. A romantic man is always cook, suave, sharp dresser and will dedicate his entire life to the happiness and welfare of the woman that he loves. You could say that his portrays an unfair stereotype of men and creates a barrier that normal men of the world can not get over in the minds of women everywhere. Also, when it comes to stereotypes, if you want to get it across to the people that a person is a certain nationality, you have to make the stereotypes known. Want to get it across that the guy is an American? easy, slap a cowboy hat on him, reduce his speech and intelligence to a 10 year old pre-pubescent boy spouting words like 'we will free the world from the oppression that exists' and you know he is an American. How do you let them know someone is Greek? huge nose, loads of hair on their body and give him a thick Greek accent. Chinese? besides the typical dress and garb, have them speak in poor english and walk around. Canadian? well they say all you have to do is show a hippy smoking a joint, drinking a beer and sueing every corporation in sight for stupid stuff that they should have known better. But, I think that stereotype is false...just, hold on a second, gotta get a fresh beer this one is warm and flat. So, in movies, it is common to put stereotypes to the extreme to get the point across as to what the character is about.

If we were to get rid of all the stereotypes in films and make them what the people really are, then why bother going to the movies at all? it would be just like life, no immediate villians, no immediate heros, no immediate anything.

so much to disagree with

Why is it that there is so much I disagree with in the world, and yet I am constantly told that I can have no opinion? After all, the Singaporean drug laws I totally disagree with, their stance on capital punishment I totally disagree with and even the death penalty in the states that they only hold for really hardass criminals I disgree with...and yet Canadians are constantly told to mind their own business when it comes to other countries laws and affairs. For instance, the Canadian gov't just recently got told off by the US ambassador to Canada saying that we have no right in giving any pressure on the Arar case of getting him off the USA watch list. True, we cant tell a country who they can and can not let into their country. No one can tell another country who they can and can not let into their country.

After months and months of coming to terms with being told that I, as a foreigner and Canadian, have no right to tell other countries what is right or wrong, but only to put myself in the other countries shoes and go from there, I feel I have achieved that task. It used to bug me horribly when I read stories about how human rights were being cast aside by some in certain countries, how great horrors (at least in my mind) were being done under the name of 'law' and how freedom could be cast aside so easily by some to please the rulig parties. But, not anymore. Nope, nope. I feel now I can honestly put myself in the shoes of the other countries people and see the reports and all from their point of view and not my own personal Canadian view. Like when I read this news article:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070125/jordan_crime_070125/20070125?hub=World
***
Dad kills daughter after doubting her virginity
Updated Thu. Jan. 25 2007 8:38 AM ET

Associated Press

AMMAN, Jordan -- A Jordanian man fatally shot his 17-year-old daughter whom he suspected of having sex despite a medical exam that proved her chastity, an official said Thursday. The man surrendered to police hours after the killing, saying he had done it for family honour.


A state forensic pathologist, who works at the National Institute of Forensic Medicine in Amman where an autopsy was performed, said in a phone interview that the girl had run away from home several times for unknown reasons.


Weeks ago, the girl had returned home from a family protection clinic after doctors had vouched for her virginity and the father had signed a pledge not to harm her, the pathologist said on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case.


"The tests proved that she was a virgin," the pathologist said. The girl returned home only after her father signed a statement promising not to harm her, he added.


The father shot the girl four times in the head on Tuesday. On Wednesday, an autopsy was performed that again showed "she was still a virgin," the pathologist said.


Authorities have not disclosed the names of the father or the daughter or even their hometown, saying only that they lived in a southern province.


The crime is the first "honour killing" this year in Jordan, where many men consider sex out of wedlock to be an almost indelible stain on a family's reputation. On average, about 20 women in the country are killed by their relatives in such cases each year. Women have been killed for simply dating.


Global human rights organizations have condemned such killings and appealed to King Abdullah II to put an end to them.


In response, the government has abolished a section in the penal code that allowed for "honour" killers to get sentences as lenient as six months in prison. Instead, the government has told judges to consider honour killings on a par with other homicides, which in Jordan are punishable by up to 15 years in jail.


But attempts to introduce harsher sentences have been blocked by conservative lawmakers who argue that tougher penalties would lead to promiscuity.


Queen Rania also has called for harsher punishment for such killers.

***

as I first read this article I thought 'wow, looks like the country is coming along' but then I took a closer look and realized that it was only because Global human rights organizations have put pressure on the king and gov't to do something. My GOD! how horrible of these Global human rights organizations. Cant they leave well enough alone! I mean, a father has every right to shoot his daughter if he feels that she has in some way or fashion tainted the family name. It isnt like the daughter didnt know that the dad could do this. The article says that 20 women a year are killed for such crimes. Though the article doesnt say it I am sure that the father had said a few times "If I find you screwing around, I will kill you". So there were warnings, it was a justified cause and a clean kill. Cant these stupid Global organizations leave well enough alone and just stay out of other countries business? I mean, just cause one group of people have an idea on what humans have as rights doesnt mean that all us countries have to bow down and take up their ideas. If it wasnt for these stupid organizations, then Jordan wouldnt have to take up valuable gov't time trying to rework the legal penal code to coincide with everyone elses idea of human rights. Time that could have been spent trying to make Jordan a healthier, safer and better place to live.

Oh well, at least there is some hope that the change is slow and harsher punishments are not coming soon. Who knows, maybe in by the time it starts to pick up, these horrible Global human rights organizations might have matured to the point of leaving everyone alone and only coming to help when they are asked.

Little Mosque On The Prairie

Finally, a show that is funny, amusing and sort of controversial. Little Mosque On The Prairie (http://www.cbc.ca/littlemosque/) has started its run with the first two episodes already airing, and already on Youtube. I have watched the first two episodes, and have attempted to put the first full episode up here for viewing by putting the links to youtube(complete with commercials so that you can get the whole feel for it). I only put the links up, someone else has done the work to put these things on youtube. If you cant find the links here, just go to youtube and search for little mosque on the prairie and I am sure you will find these again.

Part 1 of 4



Part 2 of 4



Part 3 of 4



Part 4 of 4




Of particular note, watch the commercial at 3:30 to 4:00. It seems that when Canadians see a problem in society instead of turning to the gov't to make laws and enforce massive force to stop it, Canadians make commercials and appeal to the society to change. It is a very good ad that does make sense and attempts to open peoples eyes. Though I am sure that there are two sides to every idea. I mean, on one side there is the idea that people come to Canada looking for a better life and advancement, but in the end are working in low paying menial jobs with their high degrees. On one side you can argue that this is a horrible practice, that we are discriminating against the person based on their nationality and ignoring their qualifications as a person. But on the other hand, there is the arguement that the country and society is obligated to give preference to their born citizens in jobs and schools before branching out to the international world. Always a catch 22 that all countries in the world deal with. If we treat immigrants to any country as equal people, give them equal opportunities and equal advancements possibilities, then those natural citizens will naturally grasp onto the whole concept of 'why do they come to our country and take our jobs? how are we to feed our families?' I guess it is human nature to think this way, and I am sure most people in the countries will feel that way. Mind you, I havent taken a poll or survey so it is entirely speculation.

hope

Hope is a glorious thing. It keeps people going, it keeps people alive and it also keeps people fighting for something that might seem impossible. Hope is what kept thousands of Jewish people in the concentration camps alive during the holocaust. Hope that somewhere, someone would help them out and they would rise out of the persecution and death that they faced. Hope is what will help keep a soldier alive during war time. Hope that the next bullet fired wont be entering his body and ending his life in a horrible and tragic way. Hope doesnt even have to be about life and death, but simply about happiness. Many people hope that they find that special someone that they can be with for the rest of their life. This hope is what spurs them on, and helps them get through many countless horrible dates, bad relationships and broken hearts. It could be said that Don Quixote had great hope to such a degree that he would go out and dream the impossible dream, to fight the impossible foe, to dare where the bravest dont go. Hope that behind the next corner there might be something better. Hey, even Dr. Samuel Beckett had hope, leaping from life time to life time, hoping that the next leap, will be the leap home. Ok, so I watch a little bit too much TV back in the late 80's, early 90's...but you get the drift right?

but, at what point must a person give up hope and just leave it be. At what point should David sit down and think "I hope that I win the battle against Goliath, but I know I wont so why bother?" When does the impossible dream, the unfightable foe and the place where the bravest dont go become a reality? When should a person lay down their arms, curl up and admit defeat? or when should a person look and honestly say "this is an unbeatable fight, we must divert our resources somewhere else and try to save someone else and leave this one alone" After all, if you are fighting 20 fights simultaniously, isnt it logical that they are not all going to get the attention they deserve, and a few might be lost that could have been won had the attention to a few unbeatable fights not be diverted?

One such battle that I am wondering about is for the life of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, who is currently awaiting his execution in Singapore on a drug related charge. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwuchukwu_Amara_Tochi) Singapore, if you do not know, is known for their strict laws, harsh punishments and 'progressive and advancing economy'. My personal favorite quote to describe Singapore is "..it is like Disneyland, with the death penalty." It has been reported that they have the highest execution rate per capita in the world. However, this can not be confirmed as fact since the Singaporean Gov't does not release (or keep, not really sure on this one) records concerning executions because, as the old prime Minister Goh once was reported as saying "I have better things to do with my time".

According to the reports I have read and heard, it has been proven that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the accused knew that the pills he was carrying contained drugs that were prohibited in Singapore and would eventually get the man killed. However, this does not stop the gov't from proceding with the death sentence by rejecting the appeal and clemency plea. However, this really is not new to me considering having followed the Took murder case just recently that ended with his execution. Granted, I do admit that my information is a little sketchy and not complete, considering that (unlike here in Canada where they pretty much put all information about a trial and sentence in the papers) Singapore really doesnt like to publish any information that would be considered bad and only likes to fill their papers with glorious accounts of the gov't successes. Though, according to one of their television shows that I caught concerning the Took case, I was shocked to discover that it is not only the act of murder that will get you executed, but the act of assault and improper disposal/indignity towards human remains, that will get you executed. Since, according to the program, Took only admitted to tieing up the young girls legs, hitting her once and then disposing of the body when he discovered that she had died due to a seizure/fit that she had. It was even reported that one of the three appelant judges admitted that there wasnt sufficient evidence to prove that the girl died by actions of Took but could have died due to the seizure and Took had nothing to do with it. However, lucky for Singapore justice, it doesnt matter what a judge thinks individually, there is always a few other judges around to help set them straight and keep the wheels of justice going.

Just as in this case with Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, where the ruling judge actually states that there wasnt enough evidence to prove that the accused knew what the drug was and that he did not know he was being given an illegal substance to bring into Singapore. But, again, lucky for Singapore justice and well being, the law steps in and says that is irrelevant. You have the drug, you must be guilty due to quite simple logic. If you have the drug you will be executed, therefore if you are found with the drug, you will obviously lie on the stand to save your life, therefore all people caught with the drug will lie to save their life, therefore never trust a person carrying drugs. Following this argument, obviously Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi knew what the drug was, is obviously lieing and therefore must be executed for the good of Singapore and the world since Singapore is not a country based on rehabilitation and second chances, but on punishment and avoidance. After all, you trust this drug mule that he didnt know, then you must trust them all, and then you have to actually question the validity of killing all those other drug mules in the past. Which could actually put some ideas in Singaporeans heads that perhaps their laws are flawed, the leaders are flawed and their system might not be working...Egads...

So, with a gov't this strong, this powerful, and obviously this blind to interpretation of laws but rather a strict following ("A could be B or C depending on circumstance D and then we must think of E" but strict following of "A leads to B to C"),shouldnt the people of the world just back down from the fight? why fight an unfightable foe like that? when the cards are stacked against you walking into the legal battle in Singapore, you cant just play a different game. Why not actually look to a battle in a country that will actually listen to thoughts and ideas instead of pounding out black and white from a book written by elites? Why not leave them to their own little world and just send out education to other countries saying "dont go to Singapore, let them play in their end of the yard and do something different". After all, isnt it easier to try to direct the flies away from the spiders web than to pull the fly out once it is caught? I just hope that the people of the world will learn from the mistakes of hundreds that have been caught and killed in Singapore in the last 40 years and go somewhere else. Cause, honestly, this Disneyland aint worth your life. But, hey, that is just the opinion of someone with waaaay too much free time on their hands.

more offensive ads...at least for some

I remember, long ago (perhaps a couple of years, but in some circles that can be long ago) there was an advertisement for Tim Hortons coffee house in Canada for some iced mocha kind of drinks. The ad basically showed a man and a woman sitting on lawn chairs, out in the sweltering heat, both stareing at this drink, when all of a sudden the girl gets up, walks over and takes a big drink of it and the guy leaps up and shouts "yes, I won, I won, I won" and the girl walks away smugly drinking the drink going "yep, you won alright" and the guy stands there for a second in glee and then thinks about it and a look of "awww, MAN!" goes across his face as the ice mocha close up goes across the screen and you hear how it is a limited time.

At the time, I thought that this ad was incredibly sexist and horrible. I approached a few women friends of mine that were of the feminist sort and they all gave the answer "hell no that ad isnt sexist. Women are smarter than men". But if they switched it around, I am sure that the women would have screamed sexist and had the ad pulled.

Then, I see this ad. I was reading in the EdmontonSun that one woman, yes actually a woman had an issue with this, said she wrote to Kia and expressed her displeasure in the ad. After all, if it was a male cop that had pulled a woman over and was making out with her in the car, it would have been construed as sexual assault, abuse of power and all that stuff. However, since it was a guy getting mauled, then it is perfectly ok.



Now, I have to wonder, what is horrible at this moment. Does it show a bad light on the females of the world, saying that they are too oversensitive and that all the problems with ads being pulled, demographics and all the legal battles and stuff in court about 'degrading' ads are due to women? Are men just so uncaring and callous that we sit back and let these horrible ads run without caring, or are men just generally more laid back and liberal minded in that we see an ad as mindless entertainment and a general funny thing instead of a way of the advertising people trying to undermine peoples position in society and degrade them lower and destroy their self esteem.

I know that men have firmer grips on self esteem and all since a man can be 50 lbs overweight and still walk down the street in a tight shirt thinking they are gods gift to women whereas a woman is 2 lbs overweight and she has to throw on a baggy outfit and thinks she is the elephant woman. But are women so insecure about themselves that they have to whine about everything? or is it a case of women feel the need to mother hen everything to death. Hence why the main thing that men dont want to tell women (in the previous post) is that they want to be left alone sometimes and we really dont need to communicate every single little thing to them every single second of the day. Why do women have to nurture everything? They say it is a 'mothering instint' that makes them better mothers and parents. But could it also be a way of looking at it that they feel threatened by being out of control and therefore must control everything around them to assert that they are in control? Like how a bully in a school playground has to go around beating up little kids everyday to show that he is 'strong', whereas the other people with the inner strength, dont use the force til the bully comes to them and picks on them.

But, then again, I am generalizing, perhaps it is not all about women. Perhaps there are men out there that look at ads, like myself, and think it is sexist but us men are just too lazy to actually want to do anything about it. Perhaps that is the problem, both genders have the same urges, feelings and thoughts about certain things, but men are more inclined to think "too much work, not worth it" whereas women seem to think "one stopped horrible ad is worth 100 hours of work". Perhaps it is not a case of insensitivity and all, but it is a case of energy.

what we dont say to each other...

I came across this article after I had logged out of my email and thought it was interesting to give a read. I have to admit that I love to read about people and what they think secretly but dont say. I mean, I find it fascinating how a group of women will sit around and complain and all about another lady and all will agree that she is horrible. But, then two will get up and leave and the one they were complaining about will sit down and start to talk badly about one of the two that have just left. Then, all the women will tear the one that has left apart and all. I also love it when I listen to people talk about how much they hate others or what they think of life and then go completely opposite when the time comes.

So yeah, anyways, I also love it when people talk about relationships. I found this article amusing because it really gave me some insight into what women and men sort of think is a bad thing in a relationship.

Here is the male "Things men want to tell women -- but don't" part of the article: http://lifestyle.sympatico.msn.ca/Things+men+want+to+tell+women++but+dont/Relationships/ContentPosting_CL.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=235280&feedname=TRANS-CANADIAN-LIVING&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc

If you cant get the link (cause I am a computer unfriendly sod, or the link has expired) let me break it down for you.

Guy #1: girls staying in constant contact.
Guy #2: wife spends too much but when told, explodes
Guy #3: asking the wife to dress more sexy or tell them they are overweight or bad clothes
Guy #4: guy tells his wife everything cause 'that is why I married her'. **hmmm, could be he knew his wife was gonna read this article and he didnt want to sleep on the couch**
Guy #5: wife cooks bland and tasteless food for the family
Guy #6: woman buys more clothes than she needs
Guy #7: wont tell his wife he hates doing what they are doing cause it is 'together' time
Guy #8: guy hates being told to do stuff with the wife when he would rather be doing other things.

So, what do we have here? basically guys complaining that their ladies dont give them enough free time to themselves and wives that spend too much money on useless items.

but, dont be discouraged ladies, you had your say. They flipped it around and gave us the "Things men want to tell women -- but don't"

http://www.canadianliving.com/CanadianLiving/client/en/Health/SpecialDetailNews.asp?idNews=235458&idsm=420&special=1

Again, computer unfriendly sod, here is the breakdown:

Girl #1: guy doesnt clean house right
Girl #2: guy doesnt do dishes right
Girl #3: guy wears two layers of socks in winter but doesnt peel them apart before putting in the laundry.
Girl #4: ummm, pretty much everything in life in general. By the list that she has, I am amazed that this girl has someone in her life. She is definitly living a lie and the husband has GOT to look into a divorce lawyer ASAP
Girl #5: guy dwells on the past and doesnt get over hardships quickly
Girl #6: she spends too much on items ($6000 to mastercard for lattes and other coffee drinks)
Girl #7: how much info is told to girlfriends when they are out having drinks.

ok, so what do we have. We have women that dont like to be treated like maids and housekeepers and keeping their spending habits a secret, as well as how much info is being told. Most of the women's problems that they dont tell their husbands can be solved with a few simple words and actions. The words "do your own laundry you slob" and the actions, just let the guy be a guy and stop being a mother hen. Sheesh, if the guy leaves socks and underwear on the lamp shade then fine, mother hen him and teach him to act like a civilized human being. A guy leaves a dish in the sink for a couple days, dont go all freaky on his ass. Either do the dish and be done with it, or leave the dish and let him do it in his own good time. I personally never forget to do the dishes in the sink. I always do them in my own time, but they do get done. The dish might be there for a week or two, but when I need it, I wash it and go about my way. I guess the one problem with the house might be that the ladies make it their job to do the laundry, so the guy depends on the girl to do the laundry and all is well. But, if you have different visa accounts and different cars, then why dont you have different clothes piles? make two hampers and do your own laundry. Cause heavens knows that guys have two piles of sorting. 'Clothes that need to be washed NOW' and 'clothes that can be washed in the next week or two'. Whereas women have multiple piles of clothes ranging from 'clothes that need to be washed now' to 'clothes that need to be washed later' and then they are all broken down into 'air dry' 'fluff dry' 'delicate wash' 'hang dry' 'long cycle' 'low cycle' 'quick cycle' 'barely pass the item of clothing under a spring brook found only in the highest mountains in Asia cycle'. I think that it takes the common husband at least 5 years of their marriage before they can figure out this strange washing obssession (unless that guy has lived with 5 sisters and has been given the duty of clothes washing from a young age). Though, that last lady really doesnt have to worry since guys know that women share all details. Hell, I know my wife tells her girlfriends pretty much everything and anything about me. Though I know it goes both ways since most of my friends, especially co-workers, know everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) about my wife.

Also, why is it that women always claim that they want communication in the relationship, they want to be told things, they want to have feelings shared and to be open and honest with their partner...and yet there are many things that a woman wont share with her man. Why should women have different rules to live by for men? men, on the other hand, are not so hypocritical. We tell women "I really dont care and really dont need to know, thanks" and in return we really dont share things with our women. If only women were not so hypocritical, this world might be a nicer place.

anyways, I just found it to be a nice article to read. and thanks, blueheeler, for your congrats. It is nice to be in wedded bliss.

We are everyone...

To Kill an American or a Canadian.

You probably missed it in the rush of news lately, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published an offer of a reward in a newspaper to anyone who killed an American or Canadian, any American or Canadian.

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American or Canadian is, so they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate ! ! ! !)

Here is the excellent editorial written by a brave and admirable Australian...

An American or a Canadian is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.

An American or Canadian may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans or Canadians. An American or Canadian is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America or Canada than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American or Canadian is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God. An American or Canadian lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.

The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence or in Canada, the Charter of Human Rights, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

An American or Canadian is generous. Americans or Canadians have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return. When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans and Canadians came with arms and
supplies to enable the people to win back their country ! As of the morning of September 11, 2001, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.

Americans and Canadians welcome the best of everything, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services. But they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America, the Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed.

These in fact are the people who built America. Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

So you can try to kill an American or Canadian if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans and Canadians are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American or a Canadian.

pious cause it is loved, or loved cause it is pious?

I remember from my philosophy classes the question from Plato's 'Euthyphro' where Socrates asks "Is the pious loved by the gods because it (the pious) is pious? Or is the pious pious because it (the pious) is loved by the gods?". That one statement has always sort of followed me in the back of my mind and I have always put it towards all the other actions and emotions that people have. Recently, however, it has come to my attention yet again in an action that has been done around me.

Recently I was watching a stage performance of a children's cartoon by real live actors. You have seen these things before where real people dress in the over styled costumes of the characters and do a little mimiced routine to a sound track people played. The one I saw had the one main character fighting the one big evil dude. Of course, the big evil dude was kicking the good guys butt something royally and then, just at the moment when the evil dude stood over him, raised his mighty weapon to deliver the final killing blow, the main characters friend jumps into the fray and diverts the evil dudes attention and more fighting ensues. The evil guy again manages to force the friend to their knees, as well as managing to keep the recovering main character at bay, and forces both to their knees and, again, as he gives his big speech of "not even your pitiful friend can save you now...now, you shall both perish" and again raises his gun, another friend jumps into the battle. The two fallen friends, seeing their third friend in battle, manage to gather their strength and, together, the three battle the evil dude and force him to retreat to safety in a cloud of smoke as a symphony of victorious music marks the victory for our heros. All three stand tall and say "through co-operation and friendship, we have succeeded and defeated the evil person".

Now, flash to another scene. A news report tells of how three males between the ages of 25-30, surrounded a 38 year old man and attacked him and robbed him of his wallet and valuables. The reports are neutral, as all news reports attempt to be in that they try to keep out the words like 'cowardly' and 'inhumane', and only give the facts. However, there are a few words slipped in that give you the impression that this is a horrible act of cowardness. Even though the news reports keep those words out, when friends and those around me hear about the news report I hear them mutter about the thieves 'spinelessness', 'cowardly', and 'horrible' behavior.

Now, I sit back and wonder, what exactly makes the ganging up on someone and co-operation good or bad? I mean, I see the three good people fighting the evil person and hearing that co-operation is good, but when I read about three bad people ganging up on one person it is bad. Is it the end result that makes the transition from good to bad co-operation? if I co-operate for a good reason (beating an evil person) then I am co-operating for good, but if I co-operate for a bad outcome then it is bad? if that is the case, then what exactly is a good or bad thing? I mean, countries gang up on others all the time and we call it war. Is that ganging up good or bad?

Or perhaps it is a case of strength. The three good people had to gang up on the evil person because the evil person could defeat the two and the good needed a third, so therefore it is a case of equal strength. Then that would explain why the three thieves ganging up on the one man was bad cause we assume that the strength of the one man was that of one guy, so having three was an unfair advantage on the thieves part. But, if that is the case, then would it make the thieves action good and understandable if the one man was a body builder and had the strength of 4 men, and the three men managing to take him down was a miracle?

Or is it the final outcome and the purpose of the fight? the good guys were stopping the bad person from hurting someone so the ganging up was fair, but the villians were stealing from a man, therefore ganging up is bad. But, if that is the case, what does constitute a good or bad outcome or action. I mean there is the so-called obvious ones of 'he tried to steal my money' or 'they beat me up for no good reason'. But what about the ones that would be like 'they ganged up on him for no apparent reason' but what the guy being ganged up on doesnt tell you is that he was part of a gang that beat up one of their friends, or perhaps he was a guy that dated one of the gangers sisters and beat her up pretty bad when she wouldnt 'play nice' on the date. At what point does the ganging up be bad or good. I guess you could say that in the case of the bad guy and the good guys at the beginning of this Alice in Wonderland fall, the ganging up is obviously a good thing to co-operate because the bad guy was beating up on one of the good guys and had him down and kept coming. So what would have happened had it been the other way? if the good guy had the villian down and then the good guy kept coming and the villian had another henchman come in and assist in the fight. Would that be cowardly or co-operation?

The last possible thing I can think it to come down to is subjectivity. If you, the viewer, see something as cowardly, then it is cowardly. If it is noble, then it is noble. So, does that mean that we have answered Socrates question by saying that it is not the act of piousness that makes it loved by the gods, but the fact that the gods see it as a way and therefore it is that way?

back, but not forgotten

wow, over 5 weeks and no postings from me. Mind you, not that anyone out there reads this but me..and, perhaps Blueheeler. Though the lack of writings hasnt been for lack of thoughts or mindless wanderings of my little mind. It was because I went out and got married. Yep, did the deed, said the words and found that special someone for me. Yep, I found that special someone that I felt right annoying for the rest of my natural life*G* It was a good ceremony. Good times and all were had by all. My wife put a lot of effort into the whole thing. Did decorations by hand, organized the whole thing by herself since I was in another country and basically had to put up with my complaining about it costing too much. In the end it was a fairly inexpensive (or so I am told considering that some chinese weddings range in the $40,000 area) and very intimate affair (as many of the guests said that the guest list in some weddings go to the 300 people range whereas we had nearly 80 people attending).

Mind you, I will be back in a bit with some mindless thoughts very soon. Just have to get back on track with work, life and basically everything else that comes my way. But, like I said, who else reads this but me and Blue, huh?