Bullfighting... bullshit

The sweet news!

I am absolutely fucking THRILLED to hear this news. Bullfighting is something that makes me want to vomit and it's always felt vaguely like internalized racism that a number of Spanish people would claim this barbarism as part of their cultural heritage.

Bullfighting is often represented as a Disney-esque playtime between a matador and a bull, but the reality of this practice is actually quite sickening. Bulls are brought into a ring (often with vaseline rubbed into their eyes to disorient and blind them) where they are baited, tormented, cut and stuck with spears. The matador's function is to excite the bull with a brightly coloured cape until it is close enough for the matador to stab it with spears. This continues until the bull is so fatigued from blood loss that it collapses, at which point the matador beheads it with a knife.

Sadly, due in part to the media representations of this as a 'harmless' tease akin to a circus-act, rarely is anything done about it. No one seems to know what exactly bull fighting is. Thankfully, now that it is banned in Catalonia and is getting some legitimate and accurate media attention, perhaps it will become a larger issue.

More RCMP bullshit

So on CBC news this morning I heard that the RCMP are launching a complaint against Commissioner William Elliott.

The story.

I can’t believe that the RCMP would actually have the audacity to lodge a complaint like this, citing that he is “Verbally abusive, closed-minded, arrogant and insulting” and that “Commissioner Elliott threw papers at another officer in a rage.” Talk about throwing stones in a glass house – if this is the kind of behavior that the girls and boys at the RCMP think is unacceptable, then what exactly was it that we saw at the G20 a few weeks ago? If I’m not mistaken, verbal abuse (including threats of gang rape!), closed-mindedness (including segregating LGBTQ detainees from everyone else and mocking detained female professionals for ‘acting like journalists’), arrogance (including laughing at the situation as though the police are somehow above both the law and common decency), and insult (including name calling, ridicule, humiliation, strip searches, sexual assault and threats) were all on the G20 police menu. This is not even to mention the physical abuse suffered by detainees that actually went as far as seeing a man’s prosthetic leg ripped from his body in front of his daughters as he was dragged on his elbows across grass and concrete. So, sorry RCMP, what were you complaining about again?

Besides this, I recently heard on the radio that the inquiry into the G20 police conduct will only go as far as to examine Toronto police officers – excluding those who were brought in from other places to help – and that only policy violation will be discussed - not individual experiences with individual officers. Does it seem a little off that these individual police officers are now complaining about their individual encounters with their mean old boss, when people brutalized at the G20 aren’t allowed to? It’s outrageous. These “police officers” belong in jail, where they’ll have plenty of ‘arrogant’ meanies to complain about.

Now as to why the government is stupid for entertaining this bullshit - how many officers came forward with this complaint? “Perhaps as many as 10”! And how many after the G20? Over 200? ‘Nuff said.

The Burlington Post... Oh dear.

My mom got all excited this morning when she found a letter to the editor in the Burlington Post - it had to do with race, so she thought I'd be interested. I was, but now I need to figure out the course of action. I always complain about the attitudes of people in Burlington - the ignorance, the intolerance, the ridiculous displays of wealth, the lack of desire to learn about the experiences of anyone who isn't white and upper class - and the sad part - the passing down of this narrow world view to the children growing up here. In my own experience, when I came here from England I was teased relentlessly at school by children of rich parents who didn't like my accent and who made fun of my second hand clothes. There are obviously people in Burlington who aren't like this - in my experience, a lot are. So why then do I freak out at the idea of actually writing something back to this person - maybe because race is such a sensitive topic and I know that if I accuse someone in Burlington of typing with bigoted fingers then there's a good chance that I'll get snowed under with protest. Maybe I'm terrified of having my name attached to that. I'm sure I'll get over it.

So when I see a letter in the Burlington Post that criticizes an article written a few days ago about the lack of non-white representation at City Hall - my interest is piqued.

The letter quotes the previous article as having said: "Burlington is white. Very white. Snow white." and suggests that this, to a "Canadian born citizen" is offensive. He asks why this is any less offensive than saying that a town is "Black. Very black. Jet black." or - be prepared to get pissed - why it's less offensive than saying that Brampton is "Brown. Very brown. Dirt brown."

I'll start at the beginning.

"Canadian-born citizen" is not synonymous with 'white.' It's problematic to think this way because, firstly, it erases people of colour who were born here (there are plenty), and it sorta sounds like this guy thinks the whites were the first ones here - like there was no human life on the land that we call 'Canada' before the whites showed up to legitimize the place. There was. And we still treat them like they're illegitimate.

Next, if this person can't see why "jet black" and "snow white" are less offensive than "dirt brown" then I don't seriously know what this world is coming to. To lay it out - we walk on dirt. We disrespect dirt. Dirt is "dirty" - it's unclean - it's less than clean. 'Unclean' invokes all kinds of offensive cultural stereotypes that are already associated with 'brown' people. On top of all this, with the amount of rampant racism that's flowing around right now that's specifically directed to middle eastern and Muslim people - they're terrorists, they won't assimilate, they dress funny, they smell, etc. etc. etc. - it's very telling that the racial epithet that this guy uses to describe them is far more offensive than the ones he uses to describe black and white. Can someone PLEASE let the world know that 'racism' doesn't just mean 'hatred of black people.' Stereotyping and discrimination of ANY non-white race fits into this category.

Finally, the idea that he's offended because he thinks he's being discriminated against as a white person is just ridiculous. I can guarantee that as a white man - who was admittedly born in Canada - that his privilege extends as far as to allow him not to notice that he even HAS a privilege. I wonder how many times he was teased, excluded, made to feel 'other,' or how many times he's faced flagrant racism directed towards him. If he really wants to know why "snow white" is less offensive than depictions of other races, why doesn't he go ask some non-white people to share their stories with him. Maybe then he'll get it.

What this sounds like, is a little boy upset that he's being left out of the whole "oppressed group" thing. He has nothing to complain about... so he's complaining about it.

If any of the (bahaha TWO!!) people reading this want to add anything, please comment. There's a good chance I'll woman-up and send something to the Post when I'm sure I've figured out what it is I want to say.

Something to take my mind off puking.

In a journal I kept back in the day, I gave myself a list of rules. Number 7 was: "If it costs less than $2 then it probably isn't a nutritious lunch." Before I begin an actual post, I'd like to take a second to amend that rule.

Rule Number 7
If it is larger than the palm of your hand, costs less than $2, and was purchased anywhere but a reputable grocery store, then not only is it likely not to be a nutritious breakfast, lunch or dinner, but it is also liable to make you dizzy and nauseous for upwards of 12 hours. (I made the astronomical mistake of buying a cinnamon bun from Ikea last night and now all I want to do is reach down my throat and extract it. I ate this thing at probably 8pm, and I'm convinced that it's what's making me still feel like hurling right now.)

Also, while I was looking through my old journal, I found this gem...

It took me the last 3 hours, but I read my entire Livejournal from highschool. I always thought I hated high school - but apparently I didn't. I have absolutely nothing to do at work. Can you tell?

ANYWAYS

Take a look at this.

Nicolas Sarkozy has approved a Burqa ban in France. He seems to think this is some kind of a step towards a feminist Utopia. Discussions about this on feminist blogs totally disagree... I disagree, too.

Let's assume for a second that not all Muslim women are forced to wear a full veil - some choose to. In that case, isn't this just taking their choices away from them? And isn't that dcidedly un-feminist? If they live in a country in which they have the right to wear something that isn't required by law, doesn't that sound an awful lot like the situation surrounding women wearing shirts in Canada? I mean, we don't legally have to... but we do. And if someone all of a sudden told me that I was being oppressed because I felt (internally!) like I had to cover my breasts, and told me not to worry because they'd take care of it by not just legalizing female toplessness, but altogether BANNING shirts... I think I'd feel that my body was being used as a political tool. I think I'd feel like the decision to wear whatever I wanted was my own decision, and not that of a governing party. I think I'd feel, especially if it was a man that was passing the law (ahem... Sarkozy) that maybe he was just pissed because his patriarchial feeling of entitlement to my body was being inhibited.

There are a million reasons why a woman could choose to wear a veil. It's not a government's place to analyze those reasons and decide whether they're right or wrong because that assumes that our white privilege extends to making choices for other women whose experience we don't know anything about. White is not always right. This is Islamophobia at it's grotesque finest.

And yes, certainly some women are forced to wear veils - but there's an issue here, too. If women are forced to wear a veil in order to leave the house, doesn't it stand to reason, then, that a ban on veils will just mean that the oppressive party will prevent these women from leaving the house? Doesn't that make things even worse? Once again, wouldn't some kind of support for women trying to leave oppressive family situations be beneficial? And when I say 'support', I mean non-judgemental support where a woman won't be chastised for wearing a veil, or even CONTINUING to wear a veil if that's what she wants.

We need to stop assuming the naivety of women wearing veils and consider that perhaps they, too, have considered the implications, consequences and connotations of wearing a veil, and that they are making an informed decision to do so. All of this and no one thinks for a second to stop women from wearing outward expressions of Christianity, even though the Bible is overflowing with sexism (and homophobia, racism, ableism, rape celebrations etc...) (For an example, see this.)

But Kelsy... don't you think Muslim women look like they're being silenced by having their faces covered?? Tradition is no excuse!!"

So... uhh... kinda like this?

So much for taking my mind off puking...

Fifa world silliness.

SPAIN WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!!1!!1!!!!1111one
YAYYYY right?

Aaaaaand I still don't care.

Can someone please explain to me what exactly it is about sports that gets everyone soooo excited? I say 'sports' not 'soccer' because people don't actually love soccer - they love sports, and this is a cycle that is just going to keep repeating all year long - hockey, basketball, soccer, football, and when all else fails, golf and maybe poker. As long as there's a bunch of men running around in little outfits kicking, hitting, or poking something.

What's the difference if Spain wins? Would it really make a difference if it was the Netherlands who won? Or Greece? Or if the Arctic got a team together and won? What actually happens when someone wins? If Tibet wins, will gays be allowed to marry? If Canada kicks some ass, will the world decide to end all wars? If the USA is out first, does that mean that no one will ever rape again? If Bolivia wins, can (ohmigod) women finally play?? Hmm, nope. I'm pretty sure all that happens is that everyone has a big party regardless of whether their country's team won, and then we all forget about it until the next 'big game.' It's like a romantic comedy - we all know the end result (someone wins, someone loses) and yet we watch anyway (except sports are more legitimate because traditionally, they're what boys like and only men can play**. And things girls like are 'gay.' Didn't you know?)

So what's the big damn deal? Why is it that for the last few weeks it's been monumentally more difficult to hold a conversation with a stranger (someone working at a store, the bank, the computer guy, the accountant here at work...) because all anyone wants to talk about is soccer? Why can no one understand why I just can't bring myself to care?

It's also troublesome that the world cup is conveniently taking place right now. Although I don't think that this was any kind of conspiracy, I still think it's a pity that instead of talking about the police brutality and bad bad policy at the G20, all anyone wants to talk about it is Spain and the Netherlands. The front page of some newspaper in Toronto the other week had a picture of a guy dressed in soccer fan garb holding a sign that said "Forget about politics for 90 minutes!" Unfortunately, it's not 90 minutes. It's been 4 weeks. And something tells me that if you're the kind of person who thinks it's appropriate to forget what's important while you go chill and watch the game, that you're not entirely likely to start thinking about them again when the game ends. In fact, I'd put money on it that you're the kind of person who would be likely to forget about politics for the next 5 minutes while you make a sandwich, and then the subsequent 10 minutes while you take a dump, then another 30 minutes while you watch Two and a Half Men, and then another 8 hours while you sleep. Rinse, and repeat.

**I understand that women play sports, too. They don't, however, play in the Fifa world cup, the NFL, the NBA, or any other recognizable clever abbreviation. There's less public interest and less funding involved, and it's probably because - as always - if girls can play, then it's just not manly any more. In fact, it just might become 'gay.'

Mel Fucking Gibson.

Read this...

And this.

Above are some links to the current story involving Mel Gibson.

I never really liked Mel Gibson all that much to begin with... his movies aren't my cup of tea and something about the Passion of the Christ really rubbed me the wrong way. Now, though, I think he's a real dick. Possibly a dangerous one.

Let's look at his choice phrasing:

"You look like a f***ing bitch in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of n***ers, it will be your fault."

"I am going to come and burn the f**king house down, but you will blow me first."

...And what really grates my cheese, is this: "We can't represent a guy who used the N-word," the agency's director, Ari Emanuel, said in an email to a business partner, according to the Hollywood blog Deadline.com. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7883011/Mel-Gibson-fights-to-save-career-after-racially-charged-rant.html)

Don't get me wrong - I'm overjoyed that they've decided not to represent him any longer.

But pardon me, does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

This guy has just launched a violent verbal assault against his wife, threatened to sexually assault her and then set her house on fire, and suggested that she deserves to be violently gang-raped, and his agency decided to drop him for the SOLE REASON that he said the N word??

Don't get me wrong - the "n-word" is horrendous, and no he absolutely shouldn't have said it, and he's a GIANT racist... but I'd suggest that perhaps his violent misogyny should have been an aggrivating factor as well when his agency was deciding whether or not to continue to represent him. In fact, I read in other reports that he punched Oksana in the mouth, knocking out some of her teeth. I'm astounded that a good portion of the articles I've read have painted him only as a racist.

Not to mention the fact that if we do want to talk about how he's a racist, why don't we look at the context in which he used the word rather than just the word itself. He's suggested that somehow being raped by black men is worse than being raped by white men (or, I suppose, any other race) and, in fact, that black men are more likely to be the ones doing the raping. He's painted them as primitive, out of control, irrational and volatile... and to add insult to injury, yes, called them 'niggers'.

I get that the N word is an incredibly offensive term - but I'm shocked that the cultural sterotype that Mel Gibson is perpetuating when he suggests that black men are more likely to be rapists has been ignored here. Or the fact that Mel Gibson just referred to a group of black people as a 'pack' in what can only be interpreted as an animal reference. Or the fact that he's shared the enormously misogynist opinion that a woman can be responsible for her own rape.(She can't. Ever. No matter how many breast implants, no matter how short her skirt, how many previous partners, how many beers, what her job is.)

Either way. Fuck Mel Gibson. Ask me if I'll ever watch anything with him (or his voice - I'm looking at you, Pocahontas) in it again.

The Luminous Veil...

A photo.

Firstly because it's ugly. It has a pretty name, sure, but seriously, a 'veil' by any other name would be as hideous.

Secondly, imagine this: You go to a store to buy some toilet paper. When you get there, the store manager tells you that unfortunately, they are no longer carrying toilet paper because the owner of their company (the store you're in happens to be a chain) has decided that toilet paper is unethical and harmful to the environment. "Crap!" you think, "What shall I do? I can't just not wipe my ass... and I don't agree that toilet paper is bad!" In this situation, would you A) decide that the effort is far too much and that you'll just have to go without, or B) get in your car and drive to another store. Thought so.

Now apply this tale to the Bloor Viaduct and the Luminous Veil.

According to Wikipedia (the most reliable source on the internet!), the veil was built as an attempt to prevent suicide because something like 400 people had jumped to their deaths from this bridge since 1919. It was completed in 2003 and cost 5.5 million dollars - 2.5 of which came from taxes.

The real kicker? The suicide rate hasn't dropped since this thing was built... I don't know that it'll take a scientist to tell me why. Don't you think that if a person had decided that their life needed to end - that they'd made the monumental decision to stop living - that they'd taken the time to think this through and plan it out - that they were so desperate not to go on living that they were willing to jump from a bridge and destroy the lives of their family and friends - that they'd likely not be deterred by the fact that their bridge of choice was 'veiled'? Do you not think that they'd just find another bridge? Or heck, maybe even another method?

What I keep finding on websites discussing this is the fact that apparently most suicides are spontaneous - that the person will be foiled by the veil and will often go on to receive psychiatric care. Apparently a similar veil worked in Washington and the suicide rate actually did go down... thing is, it didn't work here. I understand the intent, but what I can't understand is why someone would think that the way to go about preventing suicide is to give the folks a bandaid. I think we should try caring what people go through to reach the point of suicide. Shouldn't depression to that degree raise some kind of concern?

Does it occur to anyone else that perhaps 5.5 million dollars would have been better spent on better access to therapy? Or some kind of social program that could take at-risk people and give support to them and their families? Or even something like (morbid as this is going to sound) programs for people dealing with the suicide of a friend or family member? Is it entirely unlikely that a program like that could help prevent more suicides?

I mean, fuck. If you're going to do this... then DO IT. Why just wrap one bridge? Why not wrap all of them? Why not cover the roads in bubble wrap, just in case? Why not stop selling knives, guns, pills, rope, heavy objects, cords, tape, plastic bags, ovens, glass and scissors? Cut off electricity? Ban chemicals? I'm looking around this room right now and I can see literally hundreds of things I could use to off myself - none of them happen to be the Bloor Viaduct.

How To Write a Best Seller

I think it's a formula... and I think I've figured it out.

It goes a little something like this:

1. Think of something that everyone likes, uses or agrees with (we'll call this factor 'X')

2. Decide it pisses you off, (the degree to which it pisses you off shall be 'Y')

3. Do some shoddy half-research that suggests not only that whatever you hate is somewhat harmful, but that it is destroying our society both morally and economically, and that it will make you fat. Use this as leverage to create a panic. (The terror factor will be called 'Z')

4. Release the book at an opportune time or in a convenient location - for instance, hate Kleenex? Think they'll cause an epidemic of incurable toenail fungus in pre-pubescent boys and destroy the environment one bleach particle at a time? Release the book in December. Hate tea? Think it'll not only cause insomnia, but also, with enough consumption, cause your bones to glow in the dark due to high levels of tanic acid? Hold the launch party in London, England. Hate douchebags? Think that high levels of douchebaggery in youths between the ages of 17 and 24 will cause cancer and that by extension, will cost all of us good taxpayers (and family folk! Won't someone think of the children??) extortionate amounts of money in healthcare costs???? Release the book somewhere near the Brick Brewing Company. What this does, is ensure that the very people reading your book are the ones most influenced - and most immediately influenced - by factor X. They'll pick up your book while using a dreaded Kleenex and wonder if perhaps these tissues are not quite as innocent as they appear to be, and then curiosity and fear will do the rest. (For simplicity, curiosity will be 'C', and fear 'F')

And there you have it! The formula for a best seller: XY(C+F) + Z

Disclaimer: I understand that there are many things in this world that are truly harmful, and I fully support those who write books about them. It would be awful if some of these books weren't written. People definitely need to know that things like milk, cell phones, diet pills, purity balls, tanning beds, etc. are harmful and that they should limit their exposure. That being said, it grates my cheese when books like this get airplay on CBC (hilarious and jabbing as that interview was...) Despite the hard work that probably went into coming up with such a witty title, I truly feel that the connection between air conditioners and obesity is weak at best. It depresses me that people will be less likely to come across books like "The Purity Myth" because the shelves are too cluttered with crap. Just because everyone and their dog is writing a book these days, it doesn't mean you have to as well - especially if your book is about something stupid.

I think I'm going to write my own bestseller. It's going to be called "Booked!!" (the cover will feature a bunch of crappy best sellers in handcuffs - double entendre!) It's going to be about how crappy books about crap no one cares about are destroying the planet by causing mass idiocy in people ages 10-90 and are eating our precious trees one by one as we have to make more paper to print them. Also, they cause polio, anorexia and the flesh-eating disease.