The Benefits and Need of Defining through Exclusion

This blog article is in response to an article posted by Mercedes on her blog Dented Blue Mercedes, of which I am an avid follower. I was just going to respond in the comments section, but my post became more of an independent article,so I am posting it here with a link in the comments of Mercedes' article. The specific article I am responding to is titled Rocky Horror and the Holy Grail, or: The problem with Defining to Exclusion.

Mercedes has argued that when marginalized communities define themselves by exclusion it creates problems and as such, from my understanding, these newly emerging communities should instead define themselves through inclusion. While on the surface that solution sounds great and would prevent conflicts like the ones Mercedes mentioned from occurring, it also explicitly prevents a clear definition of the community itself, and thus perpetuates the marginalization of various groups within the community.

To define oneself is to distinguish and articulate how you are different from others. For example, I am a transsexual woman; I am not, and never have identified as, a crossdresser. This distinction is important because to understand who I am and thus understand the concerns and issues that are relevant to me, you must understand that I am not a crossdresser. To try and define the community of which I consider myself part of ,via inclusion to encompass me and crossdressers, is to marginalize the specific concerns of both me and crossdressers alike. We are different; to fail to recognize that difference is to fail to self-identify and thus continue the marginalization. Consider what defines the LGB community, particularly, that this community encompasses all those whose sexual attraction is not confined to the opposite-sex and is thus defined by the fact that they are not heterosexual.

This exclusion criteria is important because the only way a community can be recognized as one that was marginalized and whose rights and equality is something that needs to be safeguarded, is by saying "We are different than you and as such my concerns are not always the same as your concerns". By defining and clearly articulating that difference, or rather that exclusion criteria, the community itself draws attention to the specific needs and concerns that are unique to that community.

Defining yourself through exclusion is a fundamental and necessary fact of human existence. The real concern here is that, when defining yourself through the process of exclusion, these communities must acknowledge that that exclusion does not preclude some shared interests ,and that the exclusion itself does not necessitate conflict.

Having said all that, while defining yourself via exclusion is important in having your individual needs and rights recognized and protected, it is also important to recognize that the needs and rights of other such defined communities may coincide with some of the needs of your community. In those situations, by working together as a unit you can achieve more than you can by working independently. Translated into the specific GRS situation within the trans community, having GRS reinstated is a transsexual concern, not a crossdresser concern, and trying to say differently only creates problem; however the freedom of gender identity and expression is an issue that both transsexuals and crossdressers alike can join forces and fight for. I am not arguing that GRS reenlistment does not have ramifications on the freedom of gender identity and expression. I am simply arguing that enlisting crossdresser support for GRS reenlistment only serves to inflame the differences between the two distinct communities, and perhaps a better solution would be for the transsexual community to enlist the help of the crossdressing community to enshrine the freedom of gender identity and expression, without attaching GRS reenlistment to the agenda. Then the transsexual community, buoyed by the enshrinement of gender identity and expression can have better expected outcomes on the issue of GRS reenlistment.

Coup d'état

What does a coup d'état look like?

We have all seen the news footage of these events, lets go down memory lane... Iran 1979... The Philippines 1986... Yugoslavia 2000... Argentina 2001... The Philippines again 2001... Bolivia 2003... Georgia 2003... Ukraine 2004/5... Ecuador 2005... Bolivia again 2005 (remind me not to move to Bolivia anytime soon) .... and of course Canada 2009...

WAIT, CANADA!!??!! 2009!!! My math, history, and geography all suck, but I think that means HERE and NOW. Oh crap, why didn't I see the burning cars, protesters getting shot, and the army mobilized to seize power... I slept in today, but seriously did I miss it ALL? No. Sorry. Wrong! This is Canad; that kind of stuff doesn't happen here, we do things differently than those crazy banana republics.

Well, that is correct. This is Canada and yes we do things differently here. Here our coup d'état didn't involve guns, or mass protests, or a significant change in our way of life. In fact, it was intended on never even receiving any press, but thankfully their well-laid revolutionary plans were thwarted and it did (sort-of) make the news (in a manner of speaking). Now as Canadians we must recognize what happened, understand the purposeful, malicious intent behind it and ensure it NEVER happens again.

You are now likely wondering what exactly I am talking about and possibly even wondering what my tin foil hat looks like. However, please let me explain. First of all what I am talking about first hit the news on the afternoon of Thursday Oct 8, 2009. Here is the article. Now on first read it appears to be a fairly innocent slip of the tongue that Stephen Harper responded to in a fairly harsh manner. The particularly savvy among us would recognize the shrewd political maneuverings of Harper's minority government. To be honest, my interest in the story before an hour ago was nothing more than interest in the "meta" politics involved and the cleverness at Stephan Harper's actions in the grand scheme of things. However today with this news article, the whole tone of the story changes and you start to see the toes of the coup d'état poking out from under the blanket of deception.

Here is the situation and a relative time-line:

1. Monday October 5, 2009 Governor General Michaelle Jean refers to herself as Canada's Head of State twice during a speech given to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
2. Wednesday October 7, 2009 The Prime Ministers Office issues a statement saying that Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's Head of State, and said that the Governor General should not be referring to herself as Canada's Head of State.
3. Friday October 9, 2009 Rideau Hall launches a new website with numerous references to Governor General Michaelle Jean as "head of state"
4. Retired Liberal Senator Laurier LaPierre publicly announces that all 'decent Canadians' should accept Governor General Michaelle Jean as Canada's Head of State and that our monarchist system needs to be done away with.
   

So what does this mean? First of all it demonstrates clear "intent" on behalf of the Governor General. Monday's speech was no slip of the tongue. It was part of a clear plan to establish herself as Canada's recognized Head of State from the member nations of the United Nations. This is evidenced by the rolling out of a new website on Friday in order of establish herself as the recognized Head of State for Canada by the citizens of Canada. Remember rolling out a revised website is not the same as issuing a press release, it takes weeks or months to roll-out a new website. This time-line for quietly introducing the new website was in the works weeks before the Governor General's "slip of the tongue" at the UN.

Stephen Harper publicly denouncing the Governor General for referring to herself as the Head of State was the "kink" in her plan. Laurier LaPierre's public statement on Friday was an attempt to counter Harper's statement and try to compel "decent Canadians" to recognize the Governor General as the Head of State.

This is nothing short of scary when you consider what could have happened if nothing was said. The Governor General gets international recognition as our Head of State, through the website and other internal educational means she essentially tricks normal Canadians that she has always been the head of state, and then when it comes time that a replacement was to be appointed the trap is sprung. Who determines the next Governor General? Well the Head of State does, after considering the recommendations of the current Prime Minister. So now we have the outgoing Governor General appointing the incoming Governor General... umm the only thing that differs from a true Monarchy is the tradition of WHO gets appointed, but the reality of the situation is the same, Governor General Michaelle Jean would have started a line of Royalty.

Now you may all think to yourself "but that is impossible, we would then stop her!" But How? Legally she has the status quo of being the recognized Head of State both internally and internationally. Legally she is the Commander in Chief and is ultimately the one who holds the power to order the Canadian Military to do this, that, or the other. Constitutionally the matter would be muddied as then the distinction of exactly WHO is the Head of State is debated with Governor General Michaelle Jean having 5 years of status quo on her side.

Bottom line is we would either be forced to accept our new Queen Michaelle Jean, try and find resolution through the courts... unlikely, or have an all out Civil War, where everyone of us decides who we each believe to be Canada's Head of State, and then we all grab guns and start killing our friends and family who don't agree with us.

Never thought I would be thankful that Stephen Harper did anything, but the realization that he may well have inadvertently prevented an all out civil war (or Revolution depending on your outlook) by his political games taunting the Governor General and the Opposition to forcing an election while he was looking at a potential majority.

Catastrophe Averted, now I must make dinner, ahh what a day :)

Here Kitty Kitty....

So here in the lovely city of Calgary, Alberta, some unbelievably stupid individual thought to himself "Hey, it's 1am on a Sunday night, and since I am incredibly stupid and am pissed off that I spent yet another weekend with no date I am going to change that!!! I know, if I break into the Zoo, scale the outer perimeter fence of the tiger enclosure, and get a picture of me petting the tiger then all of my women problems will be over!!" As can be expected Monday morning greeted Calgarians with the following headlines...

Tiger Injures Man at Calgary Zoo

Oh My God. I mean seriously how STUPID could one person be? If only the tiger could have gotten at his reproductive areas, then the gene pool could have hugely benefited from this incident! Unfortunately it appears from the various news coverage on the mauling, that there isn't any explicit damage to his reproductive capabilities. We can always hope for secondary infections or at least take solace in the fact that any man that stupid will be exceptionally unlikely to reproduce.

While I know someone must not be able to reproduce as a result of their own stupidity to officially qualify for a Darwin's Award, but there is still hope, and in the mean time, I think he certainly deserves a Future Darwin Hopeful Award for all his fine effort to improve the future for us all.

Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice

So first of all, I apologize for not writing in some time. Starting up school again has altered my priorities. Now since I am approaching the 4th week of classes, I feel inclined to write again :) It has nothing to do with my 6 page paper due for 1/3rd of my mark in one class, a quiz in another and a midterm worth 25% of my mark in yet another... Yes, I love procrastination, guilty as charged. However I digress, on to the task at hand which today is Abortion.

Last week I had the express displeasure of seeing exceptionally graphic images of aborted fetuses displayed on University campus which is why this is top of mind. Now keeping in line with my outlook that perspective is everything, I attempted to resolve myself with the Pro-Life stance by setting aside my personal views and morals. My hopes were that by trying to put myself in their shoes I could gain a better perspective to enlarge my knowledge base and at the very least have a greater understanding (note understanding does not equal agreement) of their views. However I was denied even a minimalist level of understanding because of what I see as a fundamental flaw in what they desire.

Since this is a touchy subject, I would like to preface the meat of my argument with a request for clarifications on any points, or assumptions, I have made about either the Pro-Life viewpoint, or the Pro-Choice viewpoint. I will also restrict my comments to a very confined aspect of these large issues as I see this aspect as both irresolvable and critical to even attempt to understand a Pro-Life viewpoint. If there is resolution to the problem I present, I would certainly appreciate a more enlightened viewpoint and as such welcome any discussion on this. While I recognize that "God" has a place in many people's lives, I also understand that everyone's interpretation of God is personal and not necessarily subject to the laws of basic logic; as such I will attempt to present this fundamental flaw absent of morals or religion with a one largely uncontroversial exception.

Ok now that I have laid out the framework, let me proceed. Pro-Life asserts that life begins at conception and that any abortion at anytime is murder. Science largely backs this viewpoint up if you accept that life does not require anything more than the miracle of cells dividing. So if we proceed on this basis that abortion at any time is murder and should be outlawed similarly to how any forms of contraception were outlawed in the late 1800's, then we are presented with one massive problem.

What about the case of rape that results in pregnancy? How does the Pro-Life supporter deal with this situation? I find it hard to believe that anyone regardless of religion or moral thought processes (short rapists of the worst sort) would insist that a victim of rape be required to carry the pregnancy to full term, give birth, and put the baby up for adoption. Since there is required this obvious exception to the law Pro-Life people would like to have, how would they then define rape? Violent rape? Date Rape? Spousal Rape? Incest? The rape of a child? The list goes on, and then how do we determine if someone was subjected to the wide and varied forms of rape? Conviction takes too long, in some cases the would be abortion could be entering kindergarten and I don't think aborting at that time would provide any help to the victim of the rape. So *IF* someone is raped, they get an immediate abortion, and since we cannot wait for convictions, or a third parties determination if in fact rape occurred, we then need to modify the law to say that if any woman is pregnant as a result of anything they call rape then they get an abortion if they desire.

So with such a clause in legislation that prevents an abortion by choice, there is nothing stopping any woman that so desires to say that she was raped, cannot identify the attacker, washed away evidence, and delayed notifying police because of shame, thus obtaining her abortion via legal means. Since this allows any woman to decide to have an abortion by using the rape clause, why have a law banning abortion in the first place? It has no effect, no enforceability, no reason. Regardless of any other argument, it is impossible to reconcile this problem without further victimizing victims of rape, and since any sane person understands that continuing to victimize a victim of rape is absolutely not an option, then why do we continue to have this issue pop up?

So since under the legislation that would ban abortion, this rape clause is an absolute requirement, and that any form of that rape clause invalidates the legislation in question, then it seems appropriate to just let the issue die (pardon the pun).

In my experience Pro-Life supporters are predominantly members of right-wing religious groups, or have similar ideals that do not mesh with mainstream society. While you are welcome to have your own policies and "laws" internal to your group (freedom of religion), the rest of us who do not share your views have the right to not be subjected to the laws of a religion or group that we do not affiliate with. This is the same concept behind same-sex marriage. While I understand many religions do not condone same-sex marriage; they do not, and should not, be able to force society as a whole to condemn such marriages as well. Marriage is a legal term that is applied in a non-religious or moral context and so trying to govern the use of that term with religious or moral imperatives is fundamentally flawed.

I do not go into your Sunday services, or your home, or your legal documents, and force my own views on you. What you do in these situations has nothing to do with me, and as such I have no business trying to force my views on you, likewise those who fight against extending equal rights to all need to stop trying to force their views upon others in the form of secular laws.

If any Pro-Life supporters wish to respond to this and counter this basic argument against banning abortion, I welcome a religion free discussion on the matter. Absence of any response, I will rightfully assume that there is no counter to this fundamental problem and that Abortion is an inalienable right of every woman on this planet and will remain as such until science can remove the fetus from the pregnant woman and bring them to term in an incubator of some sort. Of course this would present other problems, but that is separate and distinct from forcing a woman to incubate a child because of biologic circumstances she may or may not have had a choice over.

Now, having said all that, education is something to be treasured, and as such I fully support people providing education to their varying viewpoints, but it needs to be done in a voluntary manner, not in an illegal display in the middle of a University campus. I do however commend the University of Calgary in the manner in which they dealt with the illegal display. It was mature, responsible, and respected the dignity of all involved.

Next Step for Human Rights Complaints

When Alberta de-listed both Chiropractic services and Gender Reassignment Surgery from the list of funded procedures, Alberta's Transsexual Community launched over 40 Human Rights Complaints against the Alberta Government for violating their Human Rights. Discriminating against someone because they are transsexual is against the law in Alberta. So WHY is de-listing GRS a human rights violation, while de-listing Chiropratic care simply another retarded move by the provinical Government?

The difference lies in HOW the funding cuts were implemented.

Chiropractic patients were given 3 full months (until July 1, 2009) to prepare for the elimination of government subsidy of their treatment. It is reasonable to assume that treatment for all but the most extreme acute injuries was able to be concluded and a smooth transition made by the patients to non-chiropractic treatment options that remain covered by Alberta Health and Wellness for those whose financial situation means they can no longer seek chiropractic care. 13.5 million dollars is the additional cost to the health system to provide this smooth transition.

13.5 million dollars would have funded approximately 300 GRS surgeries. GRS funding was eliminated immediately for evey patient. No time was made for alternative arrangments. Current treatment protocols were immediately halted. So the problem hinges on WHY Chiropratic patients were treated differently then Transsexual patients. Since there is none, not providing a similar transition for GRS delisting is clearly discriminatory.

The Health Minister made statements on the floor of the Assembly that assured Albertans that those in the treatment protocol, would receive funding. The Minister repeated those comments to the media outside the Legislature

It would not be right for us to now say, ‘Well, you’ve spent all this money, we’re now going to change the rules,’ ” Liepert said. “It seems to me to be unfair to have someone believe that a certain surgery was going to take place, dug into their pockets for hormonal drugs that were prescribed by the medical community, and somehow we don’t follow through on it.

The Health Minister has gone back on his word and is NOT providing this transitional funding.

Nearly three months has passed since the complaints were initially filed.The Human Rights Commission has been working closely with myself and others affected by this decision to get all the ducks in a row. The Human Right Commission legal team has been spending the last three months researching the various legal precedents that affect this specific situation.

I am pleased to announce that process has been concluded and Human Rights Complaints have been officially accepted. Alberta Health and Wellness likely has the complaints in hand this very moment and are formulating their response. As of today the Province of Alberta is undeniably spending millions of taxpayer dollars to respond to these complaints. While I can only specifically comment on my specific complaint, I believe the total number of complaints to be over 100.

At any point in time the Government of Alberta has the ability to STOP wasting tax payer money and take the moral high ground, and admit their error by reinstating funding. The legal advice they are wasting taxpayer money on is nothing more than common sense. They are wrong. How many millions of dollars will be wasted until they realize this? How many millions of dollars were wasted on legal fees with the failed ring road project in Calgary? It is obvious to anyone using their head that NO ONE would agree to have their relative’s grave desecrated and major highway built over it.

Common Sense is Free; however it appears to be a rare commodity indeed within the PC Caucus.

Good Samaritan

It can be hard to remain positive about the prospects for humanity when I am surrounded by such stupidity and greed. While stories such as this Multi-Donor Kidney Swap are rare, they still provide the much needed reassurance that the human race may not be doomed to self-extermination afterall.

It reminded me of the movie 7 Pounds. Why can't people in general realize that this is the holy grail. This is the meaning of life. People search endlessly trying to find validation in religion, their career, or their various activism activities, and what does it result in? One side of an debate works tirelessly to undermine the other side. Labels applied, names called, where does it stop? When do any of us actually stop and think about the other side. When do we take the time to reverse the situation and attempt to see things from their perspective?

People in general are never happy with what they have. They want more, they want things changed to suit them. Me me me, that is all I ever hear about now. Everyone complains that kids today are so selfish; that they don't understand what it means to sacrifice for something. They point to the luxuries today's youth enjoy and they say they are worried about the future because of that prevailing attitude among youth.

Well truth be told, the real problem is the youth of yesterday. Today's parents raised those children. Today's parents are the ones that are gorging themselves on the gluttony of luxury and convenience. Our kids have no choice in the matter. They are just living the only life they have been shown. WE are the ones with the choice. WE are the ones who lived through hard times. WE are the ones that knew life before the Internet. WE are the ones who should know better, and don't. We delude ourselves into thinking it is OK because we suffered as children. We don't realize that past suffering does not justify selfishness.

I am by no means perfect, although I do recognize that I stick out like a sore thumb. My children are in the extreme minority that I not only require them to be inside before 10pm, I expect them to go to bed at 9pm. I make my children do chores. *gasp* My children make dinner, do laundry, wash dishes (by hand), do bathrooms etc etc, and they keep their rooms generally clean. There are no free rides. I do not subscribe to the belief that my children need to be involved in a bunch of extra curricular activities. I do not subscribe to the belief that my children need hours upon hours every day to play with friends. I do not hesitate to discipline my children in front of guests or in public.

What do I hope my children gain from this parenting technique that would likely receive massive criticism from the likes of Dr. Phil and Oprah? My children know that NOTHING is to be taken for granted. They know that every freedom they enjoy comes with a responsibility. They know that in order to live a life that involves exercising those freedoms, they must first, work HARD to gain the right to that freedom, and second they must respect that freedom in others, regardless of differing opinions or beliefs. My children also rarely hesitate to help someone in need, it is instinctual for them. It is not because they have been guilted into helping because of fear of eternal punishment; not because I have told them they need to be Good Samaritans or any sense of obligation on their part. They act in that manner because they personally know how much hard work goes into the freedoms they enjoy, and as such they can't bear to stand by and watch anyone shoulder that burden alone.

I fully recognize that my parenting techniques are unorthodox. I have family members who are mortified that I have children clean up after dinner. I have had to endure having a child protection worker force their way into my home and challenge my parental actions due to misconceptions of abuse. I have had to spend time measured in days giving testimony during custody battles. These things don't happen to people who "go with the flow." One side benefit is that none of my family members want me to babysit their children, but at the same time, none of them have much of a problem babysitting mine. Hey sometimes it pays to be different.

I also had my 13 year old daughter tell me yesterday that she was so lucky to have two mom's who are both her best friend :) :) That is actually quite funny because the last thing I want to do is to try and be my children's friend. It is interesting though, that in teaching them how to live life, they have learned to respect that discipline and consider me their best friend because of it.

Remember!!!

Yesterday I had the grand displeasure of reading about Edmonton-Calder Conservative MLA Doug Elniski actions in this article by CBC. While I have come to terms with the fact that in general people are completely stupid and ignorant, I cannot fathom why they feel the need to open their mouth and infect others with their ignorance and stupidity.

While it is certainly bad enough that the people of Edmonton-Calder elected such a patriarchal, chauvinistic moron, it can be easy to be misled when you are voting on someone who has not served a previous term in office. I seriously hope that this serves as a reminder to everyone, not only in Edmonton-Calder, but in every single riding in this province. Remember what THAT person did, remember what their party did, remember every single thing that they did, and when you have 50 such incidents in 4 years then remember each and every apology that meant nothing. Remember that they are apologizing out of convenience and necessity rather then a realization that what they did was a horrible, horrible thing to do.

I am not referring to the instances where someone does something out of character without realizing the harm and apologizes because they realize what they did HURT. I am only referring to the all to common "convenience apologies." These are obvious when they are apologizing for something that is a part of who they are. They are apologizing, not for what they have done, but because they are part of the absolute scum of the earth, they know it, they just want to continue pretending for a little longer. They are trying to pull the wool over every ones eyes to conceal their true identity.

Doug Elniski is one of these people. He flaunts his male privilege, his chauvinistic attitudes, and his complete total disrespect for anyone who is not male. The fact that he actually spoke in front of a grade 9 graduation ceremony and attempted to spread his monolithic, self serving, patriarchal views is enough to require MUCH MORE then an "Oops, I didn't mean it that way, I'm sorry" Lets look at his past recent posts in public mediums to see what his character actually is, lets see him for who he displays himself to be, then we will examine his comments and the torridness of them with that perspective. I think it is important to keep in mind as we make this journey to understand the perspective from which this speech was given, that in general the face people allow others to see is FAR FAR nicer and more civilized then their true selves.

While I want nothing more then to NOT make this journey, in order to fully acknowledge the depths of depravity that these comments come from, and the EXTREME likelihood of either repetition, or worse, escalation, we must make walk down this path. So without further adu, lets get to business.

On June 13th, Doug Elniski posted on twitter

"bikini car wash 82 129 ave girls look cold (...)"

This coming from a man who has been married at LEAST 1 decade (likely 2 or 3 decades), and has THREE daughters!! This is a comment I could imagine a 17 year or, or a 20 year old making. I mean seriously, while the girls in question are obviously baring it for the intent to garner attention, and while I cannot condemn Doug for enjoying the view (although his wife certainly could, and should...), posting about it on a public forum where 387 people are "following" it is on much different level then elbowing your buddy and saying "hey look at that...." This is much closer to honking, driving around the block, leaning out the window, hollering at them, then going and pestering them to get their phone number etc. In my mind, this is near criminal behavior. Coming from a husband, father of 3 women, and an elected public official, this is SO far from "normal" that I would be terrified to have my children be ANYWHERE near him. This is very comparable to Hulk Hogan oiling up his bikini clad daughter's rear end a while back. Just plain disturbing.

Perhaps that was just a mistake, maybe his testosterone was abnormally high that day, maybe he just left Hooters, had feminine beauty on the brain and in an slightly intoxicated state accidentally violated normal behavior. So lets see the "big picture" here, maybe if we see what his other activities for the day were we can appreciate the perspective he was at in that moment...

On June 13th he also posted his speech that he gives to Junior High Students on his blog. So either he thought about Junior High Students and that put him in a leering objectifying women state of mind, or seeing scantily clad women and lusting after them made him think of the speech he gives at Junior High Schools....which ever one it is, it is near criminal and VERY disturbing.

June 13th he was also at the Pride Parade in Edmonton. Lets see if perhaps that influenced Doug Elinski's thought process. Perhaps his other twitter comments could shed some further light into his perspective and help us understand the person who made these comments...

"I am surrounded by bumping and grinding lesbians,"

Wait, this doesn't make sense, he sounds like he was participating in an orgy.... or maybe he just assumed that Lesbians were some sex crazed nut jobs that sleep with women not because they don't find men attractive, but because they exist solely to satisfy his erotic fantasies. Wow, he saw lesbians in a parade and correlated that with "bumping and grinding" and seemed to be bragging that he was watching them. Yes, Doug, they like creepy guys that stare at them. They like guys who stare at them who are married and have daughters of their own. They are there to satisfy your every desire. Maybe I can shed some light on this for you Doug, IT IS A PARADE NOT A PORN MOVIE.

So to recap, this is a man who in fairly quick succession, was fantasizing about lesbians who are not attracted to men, he was leering at scantily clad women and broadcasting that to others to come leer at as well, and then he thought about posting his speech that he gives to Junior High Students. Very, Very Sick Individual.

So now that we understand how someone like Doug Eliniski thinks, lets get to the real discussion about the speech his gives to unsuspecting, trusting, Grade 9 girls, (and boys.) This is my MAIN problem with this man. While the other actions are truly sickening, I would need to take action to see them. I would need to WANT to see what people like Doug Eliniski are thinking and saying in order to be affected by it. I seriously hope that I don't need to worry about any young women in grade 9 seeking out the thoughts of a man like that so that is not my concern. My concern is that these comments were made to young women who are just starting or are about to start the wonderful world of exploring their sexuality and starting to define their spot in the world. That these women did not make a choice to seek out his opinion, these women were subjected to that opinion. This is a SERIOUS problem.

"Ladies, always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."

I'm sorry where does this jackass get off telling young women that they exist to please the men around him??!! Who the fuck cares whether or not a man (or a women for that matter) thinks he is going to get shit for ANYTHING. If they are too stupid or ignorance to know what they've done wrong why should ANYONE care. Why should anyone care if they are so self centered and think so little about those around them that they believe that when someone walks into a room scowling, it is because of them that the person is scowling. I mean get off your high horse. Whatever you do, don't tell them something like this ... "When you see someone walk into a room scowling, go and see if you can cheer them up. Make people smile wherever you go. Everyone likes someone who helps lift them up when they are feeling down." No, can't say that, that might give them the impression that they are important, and that they can make a difference, and that they can have an amazing positive influence on those around them. I guess if Doug Eliniski promoted ideals such as that he would have less women thinking they need to show off their "assets" in order to get attention, and he would have less bikini car washes to leer at, or less fuel for the porn industry to satisfy his lesbian fantasies. No people like him need to keep women down and tell them that they exist for the sheer purpose of keeping men happy. Creep.

Okay, breathe, take a step back, lets remember, perspective is important. I may be taking these comments completely out of context, lets look to other snippets from his speech, perhaps they can show us what he really meant...

"Men are attracted to smiles, so smile, don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff. If you want Equal, it comes in little packages at Starbucks."

WHAT!!! You want Equal go to Starbucks!!!, OMFG. Seriously why is this person allowed to be near young women, let along talk to them! I guess my attempt at trying to be fair and look at the broader speech simply showed that my initial impression was correct. An apology does NOT suffice here. How many graduating classes did he give this speech to? How many young women were told explicitly that their purpose was to "Smile" for Men's benefits? How many young women were told to forget about Equality and stick to the sugar packs at the coffee shop when they talked about being Equal. How many young women saw a successful, elected official, whom makes laws, display this horrible attitude. Worst yet, how many young men saw this as their role model. How many of our future law makers were shown that women are there to serve them, and that by treating women like objects, they too can succeed.

This is absolutely appalling that these actions have happened. I am terrified for the youth that were subjected to that. If my children were in that school, I would be screaming from the rooftops. Ed Stelmach has indicated that no formal discipline is being planned at this time. What better way to reinforce the message that these actions are ok, that our Premier agrees with these actions. Silence is the Enemy. Forgetting only lets this episode repeat itself.

Above all else, REMEMBER!!!

Cosmetic or Not?

In Alberta, Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS) has been talked about in most households across the province (and to a lesser extent) across Canada. Whether people are upset that it was funded in the first place, or upset that the Government removed funding, most everyone has an opinion on the matter.

Ultimately the decision on whether or not GRS should be funded will be resolved by the Human Rights Commission. Given the Hogan V. Ontario decision in 2006, the outcome is largely pre-determined, despite the fact that Lindsay Blackett's (Community and Culture Minister) opinion that "redneck" Albertans who are on the commission here will rule in the Governments favor. I have done my part to try and convince the Government the extreme foolishness of their actions and have been largely ignored, lied to, and misled, by the PC caucus. They refused to listen to sound reason, and logical arguments, so the Government, and by proxy the taxpayers of this province will pay a hefty price in legal costs along the way, fighting a battle they cannot win.

However, I feel I am digressing slightly. I am now talking to "Joe the Plumber" since that apparently represents the conservative mind in North America. An argument that is made time and time again is

"Why should cosmetic surgery be funded by the taxpayer? I can't get breast implants on the taxpayer dime, why should transsexuals get their surgery funded."

While this would be a perfectly sound argument, the premise on which it is founded is totally and completely false, and therefore, the argument is almost childlike. Since logic is not based on emotion, and opinion has no bearing on this matter, let me use facts that require little to no knowledge of GRS and are devoid of influence by my opinion, to completely debunk this argument and lay it to rest for the rest of eternity.

First of all, while all cosmetic surgery is plastic surgery, all plastic surgery is NOT cosmetic. Let me explain. According to Wiki, which we all know can NEVER be wrong **heavy sarcasm** but is fairly accurate in most cases, and unless proven false, we can proceed with it being an authoritative source on these fairly basic facts. Wiki says,

"Cosmetic Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery are two fields that comprise the medical specialty of Plastic Surgery."

Wiki further defines cosmetic surgery as,

"Aesthetic Cosmetic Surgery is defined as an autonomous and independent specialty of surgery that uniquely restricts itself to the enhancement of appearance through surgical and medical techniques. It is specifically concerned with maintaining normal appearance, restoring it, or enhancing it beyond the average level toward some aesthetic ideal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery#Cosmetic_surgery

So cosmetic surgery fits into one of three categories,

1. Maintaining normal appearance - GRS is clearly not this as the appearance was never normal to begin with and "Maintaining" is certainly not a word that would fit when describing what GRS is.
2. Restoring it (normal appearance) - GRS clearly does not "restore" normal appearance, again in order to "Restore" something, you must have "had" it in the first place. And for Transsexuals, they have never had the genitalia the surgery is creating. Clearly not restoring it.
3. Enhancing it beyond the average level toward some aesthetic ideal - GRS is clearly not about improving the appearance of our vagina's to some aesthetic ideal. Again in order to improve, transsexuals would had to have had one in the first place. Clearly not applicable.

Since regardless of what personal knowledge you may have about why GRS is performed, simple logic proves that GRS clearly does not fit into the definition of cosmetic surgery. To continue with this argument represents a fundamental lack of understanding of what cosmetic surgery is, and as such is childlike at best. Regardless of your opinion on GRS and any knowledge you may have as to why it is done, it is fairly easy to understand that taking a penis and creating a vagina (or vice versa) does not fit the definition of Cosmetic Surgery in any way shape or form.

So for those of you that actually would like to know what GRS is, let me continue. For those of you that want to hide from knowledge in order to justify your ignorance, thank you for your time, and please stop repeating the same argument over and over again. Consider it officially refuted.

So what is GRS then? Could it be Reconstructive Surgery? Wiki tells us

"Reconstructive Plastic Surgery is performed to correct functional impairments caused by: ... developmental abnormalities ... Reconstructive plastic surgery is usually performed to improve function, but it may be done to approximate a normal appearace"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery#Reconstructive_plastic_surgery

So with that knowledge, lets explore why GRS is performed. To correct gender impairment between the physical body and the brain caused by developmental abnormalities that resulted in the wrong genitalia being developed by the body. It is performed to improve the function of genitalia for the patient and to approximate a normal appearance of the genitalia. Clearly this fits into the reconstructive surgery branch of the the plastic surgery family.

While I understand that Wiki is not "gospel" and can be less then accurate at times, unless the definitions of cosmetic surgery, or reconstructive surgery are radically different then what is stated on Wiki, the arguments are still 100% valid. And as such the question on whether or not to fund the surgery needs to be based on the same criteria that guides the decision on whether or not to fund other reconstructive surgery. Since Alberta has had a long standing record of funding GRS, and most every other reconstructive surgery, to pick one particular surgery, that affects such a small number of people in such a life altering way for a mere 19 pennies per Albertan, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.

PETA Confusion

I am confused. PETA confuses me.

Don't get me wrong I am an animal lover who hates the thought of an animal needlessly suffering. I am not as .... "devote" .... as PETA would have me be, I am not a vegetarian, I have worked in a Meat Packing Plant, but none the less, I support their general message in a very broad sense. Animals have rights that need to be considered. I have been reading the Twilight book series and Night World books that revolve around the concept that Humans are food, or prey and I believe that those books have certainly helped me see the world from an animals perspective to some degree.

However I am now confused with PETA. As many of you may know, apparently the last couple days have been EXCEPTIONALLY slow news days across North America. I have seen footage of President Obama's "fly swat" on pretty much every US AND Canadian network over the last 24 hours. I mean come on, he swatted a fly!! But none the less, I did a little poking around into the media sensation that has resulted from this incident as I (correctly) assumed it would provide me with ample writing material.

The Colorado Springs Gazette reports that this 'Fly Swat' is the same as Ronald Regan firing over 11,000 Air Traffic Controllers in that it sends a very clear message to America's enemies that the President of the United States will strike with deadly accuracy and precision when provoked...

"This was, indeed, a defining moment of this young presidency. Mess with Obama, and he might just swat you down." -- Full Story

While the mere fact that this story went to print, and that swatting a fly is compared to firing 11,000 people, and that is a defining moment in a presidency is in of itself amazingly stupid and certainly worthy of my critism, I got side tracked near the end of the article when it mentions PETA's reaction to this incident...

""We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," said PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich, explaining his group's disappointment with Obama's killer instinct"

Now this was just too juicy to pass up, I mean, I thought I fully realized the depth to their fanaticalism, but I was again proved wrong. So off I went to the PETA website to get the story from the horses mouth. Don't worry I did so in a kind, gentle manner that respected the horse's rights and individuality. Now when digging through their site I see the various campaigns that they have, Kentucky Fried Cruelty, Pets Mart Cruelty ok the first one was clever, but I just don't get this one, I think someone on the PETA Board was copying their neighbor when coming up with campaign slogans.

Torture for Sale, Military Training Trauma Yes, I agree Obama should have had one of his first orders of business to be signing an Executive order banning the torture of animals while being interrogated..... wait that makes NO SENSE. While I understand PETA believes animals are the same as humans, do they really think we interrogate animals and use torture methods on them? In all fairness though the campaign is geared towards stopping the use of animals to simulate training for combat medics, which I agree. Maybe that policy of training medics to be vets is why there have been so many casualties? "Yep looks like a broken ankle, just shoot him and end his suffering".... perhaps there is a better way? If only there were somewhere that a medic could go to practice treating injuries on Humans..... In other news, the wait times in ER rooms across the country were scorned as being completely inadequate due to the lack of staff available to treat patients.....Hey wait, I think I just had an epiphany..... no that was just gas.

Where was I? Oh yes, PETA Campaigns... Animal Liberation Project, Ringling Beats Elephants. Wow, what a piss poor campaign slogan. That is not a slogan that is a headline in the newspaper. They really need to get rid of the guy that is came up with that one and the Pets Mart one, they just plain suck. McCruelty : I'm Hatin It, I like it, catchy, nice play on words, but I think they should really use a thesaurus. Having Cruelty be the central word in 3 of their slogans is kinda repetitive. I think I was taught not to do that in grade 7. Might I suggest, McMalice, or McMeanness, or McSpite (ok that last one sucks I admit) Just some thoughts, please don't paint my door with fake cow blood as a response....

Canadian Seal Slaughter I like this one, play off the Olympics use that to flaunt your cause, while it is not original at all, and didn't work out so well for Tibet, by all means, it worth a go, us Canadians are known for our tenacity and non-apathetic ways....wait did I say Canadians? That makes no sense, I have no idea what I was thinking , strike that last comment from the record.

And last but not least ABC or Animal Birth Control. When I saw this I thought to myself "WTF they have come up with a condom to put on animals now instead of cutting off their balls??" And thankfully, no PETA does not expect us to fondle our cats when they are in heat to prevent procreation... But surprisingly (at least to me) they support spaying an neutering of animals to prevent any procreation. They are against all breeding or even allowing animals to breed. While I get that out of control pet populations contribute to the many animals dying through euthanasia and other means, and that preventing those animal deaths would be a priority for PETA, forced sterilization is CONDONED!??!!

Talk about the ends justifying the means. PETA sits there and repeatedly uses the argument that "You wouldn't accept [INSERT HORRIBLE THING HERE] being done to Humans, we should not accept it being done to animals!!" This is a pretty big reversal pm PETA's part. Forced sterilization and removing someones reproductive rights is a MASSIVE NO NO when it comes to humans. I mean there is NO WAY this flies. To my knowledge there is not anywhere in the world that is this allowed to happen in a open manner any more. So what the hell is PETA doing saying 'Nope it's too hard to feed and care for these animals, just cut their balls off'. I mean for christ sake, spaying or neutering any of my pets is NOT something that has ever been a given. I would only do it if the situation meant it would improve the quality of life for that animal. And since cutting off their balls could be considered as a fairly traumatic experience (well not for me, but that is beside the point) Denying an animal the most basic fundamental reason for their existence and using the ends to justify the means is nothing short of retarded.

I can understand that people may have belief's I don't agree with. I respect that. But for the love of all things holy, if you want to have an extremely fanatical belief structure and make the most extreme statements to push your agenda, at least be true to your fanatical beliefs. When you use the ends to justify the means, your nothing more then a sell-out and massively damage your message. Now it is apparent that PETA is a fraud, and only seeks attention for it's own fame and glory and has no real morals or ethics when it comes to the treatment of animals. I am quite disappointed, now I need to find another fanatical organization to support in a moderate casual non committal way. Sigh. Life is so hard.

Ignorance is Certainly NOT Bliss

Here is a letter sent to the Premier Ed Stelmach, and Finance Minister Iris Evans.

Dear Sir, Madam, and others,

This letter is being written to express my extreme concern over comments made by Finance Minister Iris Evans as reported June 18th, 2009 by CBC.

While many aspects of what was said is extremely troubling, I want to focus on this statement

"The huge failure of Canadians is not to educate the children properly, and then why should we be surprised when they have mental illnesses or commit dreadful crimes?" - Full Story

Not only were these statements made in complete ignorance of the actual cause of mental illness, they perpetuate the uninformed stereotype that someone who suffers from mental illness is uneducated, has low intelligence, and is that Canadians should not be surprised when they commit dreadful crimes. As someone who is university educated, has a spouse and four children, has never knowingly violated the law or has any desire to "commit dreadful crimes", AND suffers from 2 separate and distinct mental illnesses, this comment is inappropriate, hurtful, and should never be made by someone who serves as a representative of the people of Alberta as our Finance Minister.

This is a further attack on Albertans who suffer from mental illness and clearly demonstrates this Governments direct assault on Albertans with mental illness by promoting hate, ignorance, and enacting policies and budgets that prevent Albertans with mental illness from obtaining the treatment they require. This is clearly an attempt at eradicating mental illness from Alberta by "pushing" them out of the province through denial of services and actively promoting ignorance by spreading mis-information about mental illness.

I ask for a full public apology by the Minister of Finance, I ask that she participate in sensitivity training and also be personally educated on the causes of mental illness. I also request that all Elected Officals participate in that education and sensitivity training as the Minister's comments were an extension of the beliefs and actions of this Government. Furthermore, I request that the Minister step down, or otherwise be removed from her position as the Minister of Finanace as such actions and statements are not congruent with the execution of her duties as a Minister of Finance.

Funny Business

Well it has been some time since my last post, which was oddly enough one day after FIVE government agencies declared war on my family. Needless to say I have been busy. I will however get back to being regular and making posts on issues I feel are relevant. As my life has taken a drastic swing towards advocacy, you should expect my posts will be along those lines for the most part.

On that note, I have been involved with the setup of a Non-Profit Organization called TESA which stands for Trans Equality Society of Alberta. We are legally organized and are very near being able to accept memberships and donations. I will try to keep people up to date on what is going on which should not be hard as my life at this point in time is tied to TESA. Having said all that, here is on of the funniest exchanges I have ever taken part in, it was cut and pasted from the TESA forums. Which I might add you are all welcome to come and peruse, however you will need to become TESA members to see the post contained below.....but you are also welcome to become members. Without further adu.....

Orginal Post by Jan (Co-Chair)

";-)

Okay, probably not really, BUT I PROPOSE THAT FROM HENCEFORTH NO BOARD MEMBER OF TESA SHALL RESIGN FROM THEIR POST OR THEIR POSITION MORE THAN ONCE PER CALENDAR MONTH, TO A LIMIT OF THREE TIMES PER CALENDAR YEAR, INCLUSIVE OF LEAP YEARS OR CALENDAR SYSTEMS OF NON-EUROPEAN ORIGIN (CALENDAR IS ALWAYS ASSUMED TO BE EARTH-BASED--NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO USE CALENDARS FOR PLANETS WITH ORBITAL YEARS ***SHORTER THAN*** PLANET EARTH'S!).

So say we all?

;-) ;-) ;-)"

.....

Reply by Jordenne

"I have a MASSIVE problem with this proposal. I currently use the Venus calendar which everyone knows is less then 2 days long!!! For you pathetic Earthlings, the Venusian year is 224.7 Earth days long and the Venusian day is 116.75 Earth days long. The sheer laziness of Earthlings revolts me. Venusian workers achieve amazing results during the course of their workday.... Whereas even the hardest working Earthling only puts in 16 hours of work before quitting. Absolutely pathetic. We can also have governments that last more then 3 freaking days....I mean COME ON are you all retarded???!!?? As this is part of my Venusian culture, I find it personally insulting that you would propose a policy that invalidates my heritage. This is nothing less then an outright attack on the Venusian way of life and stabs at our very existence! This blatant act of genocide will NOT be tolerated. Expect a swift and decisive response from our highly paid, highly pressurized Venusian lawyers. As the atmospheric pressure on Venus is 92 times that of that which your mere Earthlings are adapted to, all we will have to do is request a change of venue to a location on Venus that is not so blatantly Anti-Venusian. Your expect team of lawyers will be CRUSHED like wurms, (quite literally) and we will use the jelly from their eyes as jam on our toast!

This is so typical of Earthlings, always jealous of those of us closer to the sun, oh sure you ALWAYS favor Martian first. This plan of yours allows them to use their culturally appropriate calendar, no doubt they bribed you when you visited them with all those landing rovers. Of course NO ONE visits Venus.....I hate cliques, it's not like we have a choice that our year is shorter then yours yet our days are over 100x's yours. We were born this way. and we all know God doesn't make mistakes.

Sigh.... I wonder when the funding will be approved to change Venus' orbit to be congruent with what she identifies as...... I hate the bullshit right-wing crap Venus has to endure at the inter-galactic council. I mean seriously, did you hear they kicked out Pluto??!??? I mean WHAT THE FUCK, oh sorry your not a planet anymore. I mean for the love of all that is holy, just because you don't understand Pluto and he orbits in a slightly drunken manner doesn't mean you can just KICK HIM OUT. Who is next?? Jupiter?? No while he seems to be full of gas and has that weird red birth mark, he is WAY bigger then the rest, he'll just kick their ass. Saturn, that whore. Oh everyone look at me look at my pretty rings. She is such an attention whore. I swear she is shown in every freaking science fiction movie out there. Screw showing a spaceship flying past Venus, no other planet EXISTS with Saturn around. God I hate Star Trek.....

It not like we don't try. Every morning and night we BUST OUR ASS getting done up and making a good show for everyone, and that used to mean something. The Romans sent am emissary, the Goddess of Love. Venusian's were revered for their prowess in bed. (To a Venusian, 3 seconds is actually about 6 mintues.... needless to say the women LOVE it) But then everyone got distracted by their toys. The moon started getting attention, then Mars....I mean what the hell? Has anyone LOOKED at the moon's acne? I mean it's not hard, wash your damn face.

Now it's so bad that we are not even allowed to have water on our planet. I mean at least Mars can keep it stored in subterranean orifices, I mean talk about WEIRD. I have always heard stories about planets inserting weird things into themselves, but WATER??!! sigh, there is no decency in the Milky Way anymore.

Anyway where was I...yes prepare to get crushed.

Loyal Venusian Jordenne"

Hope that made someone smile.

19 Cent Letter Campaign

This is a formal request for anyone who reads this to send an individual letter to each and every MLA and include 19 pennies with the letter. Everyone has permission to use the letter provided in whole or in part as part of this. The Edmonton Journal has mentioned this campaign and many individuals have already pledged their support. Hopefully the more exposure this gets the faster it can be corrected. We NEED everyone's help!!!!

Open letter to all MLA's in Alberta.

Hello, I have recently been informed that the budget for 2009 has removed funding for Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS). I am writing this letter to have several questions answered. If you could please take the time to respond to each question it would greatly help.

First, the Alberta Government is required to fund medically necessary procedures. The general consensus in the medical community in North America is that this procedure is a medical necessity to promote the the long term mental, and physical health of a patient who has Gender Identity Disorder (GID) The Ontario Provincial Government was recently forced to re-list GRS as a covered procedure due to a class-action lawsuit. BC recently re-listed it a medical necessity as well.

• In light of the Alberta Government's duties as defined under the Canada Health Act, what is the justification you are using to deny funding for this surgery?

Second, the Calgary Herald reported that denying funding for transsexual patients for GRS will save $700,000 per year. Let me explain some of the medical ramifications of this before I get to my question. Transsexuals undergo Hormone Replacement Therapy as part of the treatment. This produces secondary characteristics to better align the patient appearance with their gender identity. With Male to Female patients, this allows a re-distribution of fat to the hips and buttocks, reduces the upper body muscles, starts breast development, reduces and softens overall body hair, prevents the progression of male pattern baldness, and many other items that in concert create a female image. Most of these changes will revert without Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) with the most notable exception being breast development. Before surgery a higher dosage of hormones are required because the natural production of testosterone needs to be suppressed and estrogen needs to be introduced. After surgery the testicles are removed with allows a much lower dosage due to the drastic reduction in the body's overall production of testosterone. Prolonged HRT without surgery will eventually lead to liver problems and other associated issue. Denying funding requires patients to spend much longer on HRT before surgery as they need to save up the minimum $20,000 required. This produces medical problems that Alberta Health Care will be paying for. The suicide rate among pre-operative transsexuals is documented at 3 times the national average. Due to the many failed attempts this would undoubtedly involve, it is common sense to see a drain on the Health Care System due to those attempts.

• What are the projections for the secondary expenses that Alberta Health Care will be encountering due to the denial of surgery funding?
• What is the ultimate savings/or cost with denying this surgery.
• If those projections have not been done, Why have they not been done?

Third, as I have already mentioned the suicide rate among pre-operative transsexuals is 3 times the national average, whereas the suicide rate among post-operative transsexuals is lower then the national average. The denial of funding will result in the deaths of Albertans.

• What studies has the Alberta Government done to examine the cost of human life this policy will create?
• If no such study has been done, how can you deny the funding for GRS when you don't even understand the ramifications for denying that funding. Why has no study been done?
• What dollar value is the Alberta Government willing to spend to save a single life? How many lives need to be saved per $100,000 in order to justify treatment?

Fourth, on or about November 19th, 2008, Mr. Blackett responded to a question by Ms. Notley with the following:

Mr. Blackett: Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker? In our party we have one native, we have four Sikhs, we have two Chinese, we have two Caribbean, and we have somebody from the Philippines. We understand diversity. We understand it for all. We have a multicultural education fund that goes out and helps educate. We fund organizations, including gay, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered individuals, on education of their rights and promoting equality for all Albertans.

If it is your governments stance that you wish to fund organizations that include gay, lesbian, transsexual, and transgendered individuals and wish to promote their rights and equality among all Albertans then

• How do you believe that denying this funding will impact your governments declared dedication to the promotion of equality for transsexual people?
• What message is being sent to Albertans about the basic rights of transsexuals?
• Many will see this as a justification to discriminate against transsexuals. What secondary impact has been considered as a result of this action by the government?
  

Fifth, transsexuals cannot change the gender marker on government issued ID without having the surgery performed. This includes Drivers License, Social Insurance Card, Birth Certificate to name a few. These items of identification are required to function within our society. Since your government requires that the surgery be performed to have your ID reflect your gender, does that not make the surgery a requirement imposed by this government?

• How can the government require that a medical procedure be performed and yet not fund that medical procedure?
• How can the government state that a medical procedure is elective, yet require it's completion?

Sixth, the total budget for Health Care in Alberta is Almost 13 billion. The $700,000 per year that is paid for GRS, amounts to 1/18000 of the budget, or approximately 0.00005% or a 200th of 1 percent. This represents 19 cents for every man woman and child in Alberta. I am including 19 pennies in this letter to show my commitment as an Albertan to shoulder the cost of this surgery for the betterment of our province.

• I want to know whether you intend on specifically fighting the de-list of GRS as a funded procedure.
  
• If you do intend on challenging it, I want to know what you specifically intend on doing.
• If you do not intend on challenging it, I want to know your specific reasons why you refuse to.

I as a resident of the province of Alberta I expect a personal response to each of these questions. I thank you in advance for you time and attention to this matter.

Kings and Sheep

New TV series, if I may have ANY interest whatsoever with the show I will record the pilot and judge whether it is worthy of taking up space on my PVR. Several nights ago I finally had the chance to sit down and watch it while doing my nails. Now when I originally watch it, I was intrigued and interested. In fact I initially gave the show my approval. The whole concept of dealing with a modern day Monarchy with real governing powers is very intriguing. However, sleep and time changes everything. Since they needed to create a fictional country with a fictional governing system with fiction wars, they needed to spend a significant amount of time on "setting" the stage so to speak. But that time was wasted on shallow political intrigue and maneuverings. The King orders an assassination of one of his advisers of 15 years because he stood before the King at the end of a meeting. They launch an offensive in their war to scare the other side into peace. They get the peace, celebrate in the streets, then their king launches another offensive to appease his financial backers.

While it is still interesting, they have gone too far. Maybe it is just because there is no western modern day monarchy to compare it to. Maybe it is because the whole premise of a monarchy is so far removed from my reality, that I cannot accept even an alternate reality where there is a monarchy. Whatever the reason, it remains, I cannot watch a TV show where the "alternate reality" isn't believable. I mean I love X-Files, Stargate and other sci-fi shows that bend the laws of reality in some pretty messed up ways, but the key is they bend those laws in accordance to the laws within the reality they have created. Imagine Stargate where one of the worlds was a cartoon world ala Roger Rabbit. It just doesn't work.

Shows that deal with a signfigant departure from our accepted reality need to put a tremdeous amount of effort into keeping it believing within their context, while also flushing out the culture and enviroment within which the show exists. Shows like Star Trek are successful because there is very little cultural crossover. Kings will ultimately die a quick death because culturally, it appears to be set in a typical, American type, present day culture. It is too close to what we have now, and a Monarchy is too far away that we struggle with merging the 2 in our mind. In order for this show to be successful, it would have to be set in the future 20 years or so. The Kingdom could then be formed out of the ashes left after an North American War that began with this economic crisis as the flash point. This allows present technology and ways of life to be preserved, while setting the stage for a Modern Monarchy that is embrolied in the intrigue involved with nation building, wars, and everything else that surrounds that.

In anycase, they have left room open to allow this enviroment to be created, if they can do that in the next couple of episodes (if they even have them) then I may continue to watch. Having said that I am fairly confident that Kings will never be a permanent fixture of my PVR.

In the mean time I will be staying tuned to this masterful series which is nothign short of captivating.....

Extreme Sheep LED

Short Selling

On March 16th, The Daily Show with John Stewart aired a piece on short selling. Now up until this point I thought "Short Selling" was the practice of intentionally lowering the price of a stock through what I consider to be the "stampede effect." By creating movement in the price of a stock, casual traders see that downward movement get scared, stampede like cattle, sell off everything driving the price down to an undervalued low. The "Short Seller" would then snap up these stock that were undervalued, using the liquidity that was gained through created the stampede, essentially multiplying the number of stocks they hold. As normalcy returns, they now have stocks that are worth the same as they were last week, but they have more of them by capitalizing on the stampede. I did not have any particular opinion on this matter as in order to succeed, the stock ultimately had to recover from it's demise. However this piece showed me that either my knowledge was wrong, or was simply talking about another practice, so I decided to get some education on what 'Short Selling' was.

So thanks to the all knowing and powerful entity only referred to as "Wiki," I now have some of the basics about short selling within my understanding. Basically, "Short Sellers" are borrowing a stock, selling that stock (which they do not own) then when the stock goes down, they buy the stock back to return to the original holder of the stock. I'm no financial genius, I certainly have never even taken a business course, in fact spending 30 minutes reading the Wiki on Short Selling, has expanded my knowledge of financial markets by an order of magnitude. But this seems fundamentally flawed.

People knowledgeable about the markets claim that short selling is a vital part of the process. When the downward march began in September 2008, bans on short selling were enacted by many of the G20 countries. Those bans have been lifted in many cases with the financial gurus claiming the ban was a mistake. I fail to see how it could possibly be a mistake. Right now there are some very scared, very stupid, people out there increasing the downward trend that current conditions have created. Every day that passes without a end in sight, that stampede only attracts more investors. Seemingly this would create an environment where short sellers are then gods capitalizing on every scared citizen out there who just wants to be able to retire. Now add to that the fact that the Daily Show has also pointed out the major financial news network, CNBC, has in many ways been completely and total abdicated their responsibility to confirm facts, independent of the lies being told to them by CEO's. What moron would assume that a CEO, whose primary responsibility is to protect the shareholder's value, would go on CNBC and say "Well we are in bad shape, I honestly don't know if we will be bankrupt in one month or two." It is their JOB their entire meaning of existence to create positive expectation for their company. CNBC did nothing. In fact their failure to report the truth, could easily be taken as hiding the truth from the average person and thus allowing them personally to make their moves to capitalize on the inevitable downswing.

These financial reporters and investigators are not idiots, they are aware of how short selling works. They find out that a company is going to tank, like Bear Sterns, they fail to report that while they set up their short sell, the higher the price of the stock when they begin the short sell transaction, the more they profit. So they go on TV and report only what they have been explicitly told by the CEO's and fail to mention the dirty little "unconfirmed" secret they uncovered. This generates false promise in the stock, they then just sit back and wait for the inevitable and cackle gleefully all the way to the bank when Bear Sterns drops from $65ish to $2 in 5 days. Every $1000 worth of "borrowed stock" would result in a profit of $970 minus the cost of borrow the stock, which even if I used an extremely high number of 7%, still results in $900 profit for every $1000 borrowed. For someone to be able to profit like that from simply not going live with information that would devalue the company, is wrong in every sense of the worse. Warren Buffet, you may be a financial god, but I must believe your insistence on the "good" of short selling, is backed more by your desire to profit from this bear market, then your desire to protect the average person approaching retirement.

The fact that someone can make insane profit from the absolute destruction of a stocks value, is a very troubling notion that should raise the ire of anyone who has any common sense. It is well known that it is easier to drag someone down, then to lift yourself up. By allowing a system where savagely destroying a stocks value can result in massive profits, you are rewarding people for creating fear and giving them incentive to destroy the lives of people holding that stock, and the employees of that company. While I know any money earned is ultimately taken from other people, this seems like a malicious perversion of that theory. This financial crisis speaks to the extreme weakness of the free market economy and ultimately the solution likely requires a diversion from the debt based economy we now have.

Liberal MLA's...WTF is wrong with you?

Reading my daily dose of news is always a guaranteed way to get my ire up and give me something to discuss. Today the news has not failed me, always some idiot spouting off random crap that they heard from someone who saw it posted on this blog written by some self-righteous wanna-be pundit .... mmm ... wait, that's a little close to home. In any case without further adu, the Alberta government recently passed a non-binding motion calling for an end to mandatory testing in grade three students. You can read about this via CBC. I assume that since CBC is the only place I can readily find actually reporting this news, I usually can safely assume that there is really nothing here to report or at least nothing worthy of my interest. However I was pleasantly surprised at the end of the article by a statement that evoked a WTF!!??!!

"Liberal education critic and Calgary-Varsity MLA Harry Chase said standardized tests are a poor way to measure achievement.

"It's absolutely repulsive, particularly at the Grade 12 level, where two hours of multiple-guess [questions] is the equivalent of an entire year of a Grade 12 student's academic performance," he said.

"Standardized achievement tests … serve a purpose for the government, but they're testing guessing as opposed to testing learning and achievement."

This is the exact reason why Liberals are a dead party in this province. This is why the Tory's have had majority after majority for the last 38 years. The Liberal Education critic is denouncing multiple choice as means to test knowledge and has reduced them to nothing more then a guessing game. While, like every method of testing, multiple choice has some weak points, it still remains a vital part of an appropriate testing regime. Liberals, if your listening (and I hope you are) you need to follow the advice I give to my son with ADHD every single day...

"Stop speaking just for the sake of making noise. It will get people to look at you yes, but they will look at you like you are retarded. Think about what you want to say, then using intelligence and logic, state your opinion."

The real problem with politics everywhere in Canada is that no one has any original ideas. Opposition parties oppose everything regardless of what it is. The problem is no one will ever listen to a group of people who simply say "Your doing that wrong" over and over again. Formulate your own ideas independent of whether those ideas support, or erode the governing parties platform. Get elected based on your own platform rather then going to work once every blue moon and simply spouting sound bites that say "The Tories are Bad"

The fact that they Tories passed a motion to do away with standardized testing in grade three students is commendable. Students should be eased into having information crammed down their throats and standardized testing turns grade three into nothing more then a knowledge cram fest. So what exactly should the Liberal Education Critic say in response? Instead of poking at Diploma exams, with a "Multi-guess ... hehe ... hehe ... he said guess" in a Beavis and Butthead manner, perhaps there is a way that would reach further and faster then this. Does the Liberal Critic have a point? Yes absolutely, having Diploma exams that consist of entirely multiple choice questions does not appropriately test knowledge. Every person is different and as such testing them requires different approaches. Personally I loved multiple choice questions as I could almost always deduce the correct answer from sheer logic and remembering brief phrases that were mentioned in class. The results of those test showed me "smarter" then I was, and likely penalized others because their method of thinking was less logically based and more abstract. There is a vital need to promote abstract thought processes and develop a system that ensures these people can succeed. Having the majority of abstract thinkers delve into the arts because the current acdemia testing standards label them as "below average" hurts our ability to promote change and ultimately hurts our progress as a society. I am not trying devaluing the arts, just pointing out that abstract thinkers that may test poorly have amazing contributions to make.

This is a great opportunity to address the deficiency in our testing practices that the Liberals have missed out on. Lets make year end testing, especially diploma exams and university level exams, a combination of testing methods. Every final exam should have a take home component, a written "essay" type component (even Math classes can and should do this), multiple choice, long answer, and whatever other form of questioning is common practice. To allow students to not suffer because of their individual weaknesses, make it a standard practice to weigh each component of the testing equally and drop the lowest mark component. This would give a solid representation of each students knowledge and ability to learn while not focusing on weaknesses.

Ahh but herein lies the problem. This kind of expensive testing is expensive to implement, expensive to administer, and expensive to grade. As it stands now in 2008 we spent 15% of our total revenue on basic education. Compare that to just over 10% allocated to surplus. I think we can make room for spending on the education of our successors. We have all contributed to the mess we are forcing them to inherit, I think we should all contribute to giving them every possible tool to deal with those problems.

Holy Brier Batman!!

Think of curling whatever you will, but for anyone who has ever tried to throw a rock down a sheet of ice and actually have it do anything close to what you intended it to do, you know that curling is a sport of incredible skill.

Alberta's Team Martin has now won 26 straight Brier games and 2 consecutive Brier titles. Truly an amazing feat that they should be proud of. As Albertans and Canadians should also share in that pride. Unfortunately, I have a hard time being proud of the support that is given to these amazing athletes. Which brings me to my topic. The really sad part that I want to discuss is the fact that this victory means a whopping 72 thousand dollars in support from Sports Canada for the next year. What kind of pathetic crap is that?

As Canadians we pay hundreds of dollars to attend Hockey games where fighting is a part of the game. We pay players millions of dollars a year, for what? Sports should be a celebration of fitness, and skill, but what it has turned into is a marketing competition that generates revenue from over sensationalizing the sport. Ultimately, however, Hockey dominates the Canadian sports scene. Why is that? Is it because of the physical prowess, or skill requirements of the game? Not likely. My wife grew up with a hockey player who played in the NHL his only skill was being able to remain standing while fighting. He could not shoot, pass, or do anything else except fight, yet he was a hockey player. He earned more for "breaking the rules" of a sport, in a controlled, accepted, way in just 3 games with not much more then 6 or 7 minutes ice time total, then all of Alberta's Curling team has earned for 26 games of flawless performance. They displayed sportsmanship, skill, dedication, and perseverance, and in return we gave them a standing ovation (I only assume as much) a trophy and a pittance that only cover a portion of the expense they have personally incurred.

We value entertainment and reward breaking the rules in sports. We pay to watch these sensational acts. We condemn the very acts we pay to see when they result in permanent injury (Bertuzzi) but then we turn the other cheek and don't address the true issue. That incident happened because as fans WE paid to see Bertuzzi fight. As fans WE leap to our feet when a fight breaks out. As fans WE cheer when blood is spilled. As fans WE make our desire for this bastardization of a sport known to the owners, and marketing genius' responsible, by paying ever increasing ticket prices and selling out game after game and keeping the waiting list for seasons tickets years long.

It is time, as a society that supposedly condems violence, that we stop supporting this with our money, and start putting money into a sport where fighting is likely the last thing on anyones mind. Don't get me wrong, there is place for fighting in sports; however those sports are ones in which fighting is the point of the sport, rather then an accepted form of breaking the rules. Boxing, MMA, and all their variants are amazing to watch and I fully support thier promotion. Whether your following the rules should make all the difference in the world.......Now where was I? Oh yes, GO TEAM MARTIN!!!!!!

Sometimes, how I get off topic confuses even me.

My faith in Humanity has been restored...

Well at least in a small way. I still think we are doomed to die a slow horrible death at our own hand due to our own ignorance, but that post is for another day. Today we are discussing hope and the capacity for sound logical discussion to actually influence people's opinions.

So you may be wondering what prompts this odd perspective of enlightenment? Well three things actually. First one is rather simple. I have been in self imposed exile within my home for the last week. Today I was forced to leave the house to drive my older brother to school so I could have the car to get my mother to the airport this afternoon. So I ended up driving my brother to school, and my wife to work and will be taking my mom to the airport this afternoon Even though it may sound obvious, just the act of getting out of the house improved my mood drastically.

Second factor contributing to my enlightened opinion today. I got accepted into the program I wanted at the University. Which in over itself is not a huge deal, but my program has one of the most competitive entrance requirements at this University with a minimum GPA of 3.4 for transfer students. In any case getting accepted required them using the best 10 classes instead of the last 10 classes. This left some uncertainty into whether I would get in or not, and as luck would have it, they used the best 10 classes. It is nice to see an institution be able to look past a obviously messed up semester and see my true brilliance for what it is (yes I know I'm laying it on thick, but I feel smart today so oh well)

Third, and most important factor. The ongoing feud my family has had with my wife's parents over the upcoming family reunion ended last night. We received an e-mail with a sincere apology, and a personal invitation to attend the reunion. Honestly this surprised me as much as the insistence that I not show up. What this shows though is a remarkable ability in my in-laws to humble themselves and admit they were wrong.

Most people hide behind their religion to justify their intolerant ways. In my dispute with them I used their religions doctrine to argue my point. While they initially refused to acknowledge the fact that I was not perverting their doctrine to suit myself, they have since realized that they were in the wrong. It is an amazing trait to be able to admit wrong doing, and while I still am very wary of them and their intentions, I fully intend to give them a fresh start.

Life on Earth would be a near Utopian existence, and Humanity itself would be generations ahead of where we now are if we could all learn how to openly admit our faults and mistakes. Only by acknowledging fault, or incorrectness, can we ever hope to improve ourselves. Today a small step in that direction was made, and I give credit where credit is due.

Some Things Make No Sense

I am sure you are all aware of Josef Fritzl and his murder/slavery/incest/rape trial. If by some chance you don't, there are some news articles that give the back story here, here and here.

So since you are now all fully enraged by what this man has done to his daughter, let's discuss his punishment. If he is convicted of everything except the murder charge, under Austrian law he faces a maximum 20 years imprisonment. I assume that gets further reduced by standard methods common to Canada and the US. This means he will end up spending at most 7 or 8 years behind bars. Considering the punishment is for imprisoning his daughter for 24 years, how does that make any sense at all? He will get to see daylight each and every day. His daughter was denied daylight for 24 years. He will likely spend only 1 day behind bars for every 3 he kept his daughter locked up for. I mean that doesn't even consider the fact that if convicted of all charges except murder, he did a hell of a lot more then just confine his daughter. I am assuming that the same sentencing restrictions are present whether he confined her for 1 month, or 24 years.

Now this is a result of two massive flaws with the Austrian justice system, and while Austria may be a fair distance away, similar problems exist within our own system. In Austria when convicted of multiple offenses all time is served concurrently. Which means you pay the price for the worst crime you committed, and get a free pass on every other crime. So I guess the lesson is, if your going to get caught for a crime in Austria, might as well get some freebies in there as well. In Canada and the States, this same ability to get a free pass exists, although it is up to the Judges to implement it. Serving time concurrently is the single largest flaw in Crime and Punishment. I understand there are instances where serving concurrent time is in the best interests of Justice, but having it be common practice, or worst yet, the law (in Austria) is insane.

Now generally I am of the opinion that stiffer sentences do not equate to deterrence or have any real effect on reducing crime. The justice system is generally trying to achieve three goals. One, punish the offender by removing freedom. Two, restitution to the victim where possible. Three, rehabilitation. Canada has a good balance between these three directives. Using murder rates as a comparison (since that is really the only reliable way of comparing crime rates between jurisdictions with differing classifications) in 2000 the Murder rate in the United States was three times the murder rate in Canada. But while increasing the punishment for individual crimes is clearly not the answer, I don't see how this translates in giving perpetrators of crime sprees a free pass for all but their worst.