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.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
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
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.
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.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
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
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...
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.
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...
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!!!
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!!!
Monday, June 22, 2009
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
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,
Wiki further defines cosmetic surgery as,
So cosmetic surgery fits into one of three categories,
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
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.
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#Cosmeti c_surgery
So cosmetic surgery fits into one of three categories,
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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#Reconst ructive_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.
Friday, June 19, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
