Life on Queen Street

Via raincitygirl, I stumbled across the... shitstorm is the best way to characterize it, I guess, currently convulsing the feminist blogosphere (for those wanting more info, RCG has a couple of links and there are more via coffeeandink). It reminded me of a couple of things - one that academic feminism and most of organized feminism gives me a headache (quite literally - ow). I am a feminist but I've always felt alienated from the "movement", a feeling that comes from growing up with a profound love for my faith. My shiny happy feelings towards Roman Catholicism have faded in the intervening years but Jesuits said give me a boy at seven and I will show you the man and the same holds largely true for me - once a Catholic, always a Catholic. I've never been and likely never will be completely comfortable with the the aggressive pro-abortion stance I remember from the big name feminists of my youth, despite my pragmatic attitude towards guarding women's reproductive rights as an adult (which would no doubt annoy many a Jesuit, were they to hear of it - not to mention the nuns who tried to recruit me in January). So, largely not a fan of organized feminism for reasons that only sometimes have to do with organized feminism itself.

Two, as much as I find the term "white privilege" personally annoying and overused by white people trying to beat other white people over the head for their lack of vision, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't affect the way I see the world. There's a problem with the word "privilege", I think, and the connotations of monetary affluence and social prestige attached to it - it's one thing to recognize that you are privileged compared to Sudanese orphans in Darfur, it's another to recognize how a culturally white Anglo-Saxon Christian society privileges you compared to the South Asian woman working in the cube next to yours. Toronto is probably as heterogenous a city as you'll find anywhere in the world but the dominant culture is still white - white people are the majority on TV, white voices dominate on the radio (regardless of the ethnicity of the announcer), white faces on magazine covers, white actors at the movies, white names on the spines at the bookstore. It means picking up a book or turning on the TV or going to the movies and overwhelmingly seeing my experiences as a white North American of a certain level of education and affluence reflected back at me as what is normal. I'm not certain if that constitutes a privilege but it is certainly a benefit of being white.

It means I am less likely to feel excluded or under-represented in society. It raises the chances that my point of view or political positions will be validated, which I believe translates into greater confidence in my self. And that is certainly a benefit of being white and one that is connected to the getting of the affluence and social/political position associated with the word privilege. So maybe all white people (and white women) aren't privileged but they benefit from being white in a way that a person of colour doesn't, regardless of money or position. We live in a society that still posits white as the norm, just as our society continues to posit straight as the norm (which is far less likely to change IMO but that's a thought for another time). While that benefit exists, white people have access to the levers of our society in a way that people of colour simply don't. Hating the term "white privilege", as I do, doesn't change this basic fact. Nor does being a woman and disadvantaged in other ways mean that I don't benefit from being white*.

As a sort of post-script, these thoughts rolling around in my head have changed how I look at my writing, both in encouraging me to include more people of colour in my work and to be more consciously aware of how I present these people. I think it would be a loss if white creators - particularly those who actually have those levers in their hands and the potential to effect and encourage change that goes with them, and not merely us wannabes and tryingtobes - stopped writing characters of different colours and orientations (and genders) for fear of criticism. I think there's a difference between appropriation of voice and universality of voice (although that's a post for another time as well) but at the same time, white creators need to be responsible for how they present their characters. I think this is a responsibility that applies to characters in general but especially to characters who represent minority or marginalized groups in our society such as gays, people of colour and women, and especially if you are one of the lucky few who benefit and/or are privileged by your race, gender, orientation, etc**.

*By extension, being gay doesn't mean you don't benefit from being a (white) man *cough*RussellDavies*cough*.
**I now have TWO gay women of colour in my novel - I fear I may be trying to hard (that's like 70 per cent joke, in case you were wondering).

According to this column on Comic Book Resources, two Democrats, George Miller (D-California) and Reuben Hinojosa (D-Texas), inserted a clause in the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R. 4137) that would strip American colleges and universities of their federal funding if a single student downloads pirated music or video regardless of what computer network they use (their own, the college's, the local Starbuck's). I understand it will also require students to enroll in a legal music-sharing service, regardless of whether or not they want to download music and make the entertainment industry responsible for deciding what constitutes a violation, so they can bypass the courts and go straight to the Department of Education.

The relevant section of the bill - "SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION" - states:

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.

Part G of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`(a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--

`(1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and

`(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

`(b) Grants-

`(1) PROGRAM AUTHORITY- The Secretary may make grants to institutions of higher education, or consortia of such institutions, and enter into contracts with such institutions, consortia, and other organizations, to develop, implement, operate, improve, and disseminate programs of prevention, education, and cost-effective technological solutions, to reduce and eliminate the illegal downloading and distribution of intellectual property. Such grants or contracts may also be used for the support of a higher education centers that will provide training, technical assistance, evaluation, dissemination, and associated services and assistance to the higher education community as determined by the Secretary and institutions of higher education.

`(2) AWARDS- Grants and contracts shall be awarded under paragraph (1) on a competitive basis.

`(3) APPLICATIONS- An institution of higher education or a consortium of such institutions that desires to receive a grant or contract under paragraph (1) shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information as the Secretary may reasonably require by regulation.

`(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2009 and for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.'

Unfortunately, I can't figure out United States Code to tell whether or not the amendment would do what Steven Grant says it would do.

Still, anyone interested in keeping the RIAA/MPAA from riding roughshod over the privacy and education rights of millions of American students might want to call their representative and ask what the fuck is going on?

I haven't been hearing nearly as much about the upcoming FCC meeting about concentration of media ownership on LJ as I would have expected to, given the impact greater concentration of media ownership is likely to have on political and social discourse in the US.

There's a similar problem in Canada - we call it CanWest Global, which is currently trying to get the CRTC to let it buy Alliance Atlantis with US money from Sachs Goldman.

Um, can you say "No"?

It's probably too late to complain to the CRTC - although I encourage everyone to e-mail their MP and tell them that the CRTC should tell Izzy and the Aspers to go fuck themselves.

"Free speech" isn't very free when it's bought and paid for by the Aspers, Murdochs and Blacks of this world.

The Rich Pay Less in Tax Than the Poor (and me and the rest of the "middle class")

I'm shocked. Wait, no I'm not.

Given that when I left home September 4th, most of us who hung around politics were figuring McGuinty was good for a minority gov't, just how badly did John Tory fuck himself to see the Libs re-elected with three additional seats*?!

*As of 4:12 am GMT. The article will probably be updated when the final counts come in.

Large chunks of tradition Liberal Party supports - teachers, public servants, medical health professionals - were justifiably furious with McGuinty's government and his inability or inaction on fixing the mess Mike Harris, the last Progressive Conservative premier (no, Ernie Eves doesn't count) left the province in. While no one wanted another Tory gov't (aka Progressive Conservatives for those non-conversant in Cdn poli-slang), there were a lot of us who wanted to send McGuinty a message about how unhappy we were with his gov't so far.

And now this... a majority and a formidable 70-seat (out of 103) majority at that!

I can't imagine Mr. McGuinty suddenly got religion or turned into the JFK of the Ontario campaign trail, so I ask my Ontarian compartriots again - just how badly did Tory fuck himself?

And while I'm on the subject - shame on all three major party leaders for avoiding Toronto's Jane/Finch neighbourhood during the campaign. The centre of Toronto's gang and guns problem, J/F is arguably the most dysfunctional, desperate neighbourhood in the province outside a reserve (which are technically a Federal responsibility but I digress). Shame on Ontario's politicians for ignoring this community as they continue to ignore the serious crisis in infrastructure and social funding facing Toronto and cities across the province.

Shame on you all.

What mentally-deficient chimp designed the Elections Ontario site? It offers me only two options, one of which is currently unavailable (the "are you on the registry" link), which means that I cannot currently get any information from the Government of Ontario about how I can vote in the upcoming election.

Bravo - another job fucked right up the ass by the McGuinty Government. Jesus, at least Mike Harris did it on purpose. If I can ever find out how to cast an absentee ballot (fuck you with a chainsaw, Elections Ontario), it'll be for the NDP.

I also won't be voting for this new 'mixed-proportional representation' boondoggle Dalton's Citizen's Assembly's come up with - yes, first-past-the-post sucks and it can screw you on the popular vote. But it works. You know what doesn't work? Proportional representation - take a look at the Knesset or Weimar Germany . More to the point, the proposed 'neither hare nor hound' system will screw over cities by increasing riding sizes. The GTA represents 50 per cent of Ontario's population but only 47 per cent of the seats in the provincial legislature, which is how government's like Mike Harris' can survive by screwing over cities. I don't see anything in this proposal to address this problem. And, frankly, the idea that any party who wins 3 per cent of the popular vote in an election will get a seat in the legislature without being accountable to any constituency scares the shit out me.

Arguments in favour of any kind of proportional representation are all based on the same flawed premise - that a move towards greater proportional representation is an absolute good. Once again, see Weimar Germany for why that's not always the case. Frankly, Ontario electing someone from the "Progressive Jedi" party or some such shit is a best case scenario, here. The blithe assurance that a 3 per cent minimum vote would eliminate fringe and extremist parties is unconvincing at best. That's 3 per cent of voters, not the general population, which practically invites any group with money and organization enough to hijack the political process. Sure, getting the Greens into the legislature is one thing - the Khalistan Separatist Party of Ontario or the Canadian Heritage Party is another.

The current system, flawed as it is, makes elected representatives responsible to a specific, localized constituency. While this doesn't guarantee good government, it does provide a basic level of accountability when every member of the legislature can be held responsible for his or her actions by their constituents. At the same time, the first past-the-post system largely ensures that the members elected reflect the concerns and values of their riding. The proposed reform weakens that accountability by holding out the opportunities to parties to enter the legislature and form governments by winning seats that are beholden to no particular person or region - I'm unconvinced that just because Toronto and Timmons have fundamentally different political concerns, the inhabitants of either city should see the value of their vote diminished.

As Churchill said, parliamentary democracy is the worst of all possible systems of government, except for all the rest.

And this is the party Steven Harper wants us to believe cares about protecting the environment.

Because nothing says green like several dozen high-octane cars racing in a giant circle all an afternoon.

*eyeroll*

Hey Ho
Catholic Education in Ontario
Has Got to Go

On a related note: Calling for someone's death not the best way to encourage "religious sensitivity".

And just for the hell of it, a reminder that sometimes the paper prints good news, too.

Here's a question for the masses - why isn't the government telling us how many Afghans Canadian Forces have captured and turned over to Afghan security forces?

Mr. Harper's government tells us that the number is a "state secret" - secret from whom?

The Taliban? The Afghanistanis? Presumably not, since - in theory, anyway - these men are prisoners of the Afghan national government.

Canadian voters?

eta: Andrew Coyne, you are a worthy opponent, sir. Misguided, alas, but brilliant and incisive. However, I think Chantal Herbert could probably take you - especially if you keep up with the false analogies.

Afghanistan is neither World War I nor World War II for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that our nation has not mobilized to fight in Afghanistan, our resources and our wealth has not been committed to fight in Afghanistan, and our government hasn't even the initimation of a suggestion of an idea of doing so - Mr. Harper is taking a page from Mr. Bush's playbook (who cribbed his notes from Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush Senior's actions in Kosovo and Gulf War I) and waging war on the cheap. Not in terms of dollars but in terms of lives.

I submit that no Canadian politician and certainly no Conservative government will ever make more than a token commitment to Afghanistan or any conflict where Canadian national interests, sovereignty and native citizenry are not directly threatened.

In World War I, one in eight Canadian men enlisted - One. In. Eight. When Canada had a population of less than 10 million. Today, Canada has a population of roughly 33 million and there are roughtly 2,500 Canadian Forces personnel deployed to Afghanistan.

2,500 soldiers tasked to do a job that would require at least a brigade, if not a division, to do properly (two to four times more soldiers than currnently deployed). 2.500 men and women assigned to a mission that has become the centerpiece of Mr. Harper's foreign policy. A mission to which he has personally committed himself - 2,500 from a nation of 33,000,000.

And that is only one of the ways in which Afghanistan in not World War I.

"I'm the commander guy."

Seriously?

Seriously?!