On doctors and lady parts

Oh oh oh, it's TMI-time, travellers! This post has been brewing and stewing in my brain for a few months now, ever since a fateful day at the walk-in clinic proved to be the third strike against dudely doctors and dudes-who-aspire-to-be-doctors-but-instead-practice-what-is-largely-recognized-as-quacktacular-medicine.

Strike one occurred back in the 1980s when my mom's then-chiropractor responded to her not unreasonable request to examine her 8-year-old daughter's seemingly curved back with "She just has a large behind." Which a) I should be so lucky, b) is creepy and c) is a lazy, gross, patronizing excuse for medical treatment. (For the record, it is not so much the size of behind as the fact that it is constantly parked on the couch that accounts for my still lousy posture. Hey, do I get a pretend medical degree now?)

Strike two was back in the undergrad years, at the university's walk-in clinic:

Me: I'd like to get my pill prescription renewed, please.

Doc: When was your last physical?

Me: I'm a virgin.

Doc: Good for you!

"Good for you!", as if I'd spent the last eight or so years since menstruation fighting off an army of sweaty, shirtless James Masters-lookalikes, instead of being a gangly and self-conscious homebody who spent her spare time reading Stephen King novels and writing terrible poetry about not wanting to be a virgin anymore. "Good for you!" as if virginity was some sort of grand accomplishment and not the inevitable by-product of my particular blend of self-esteem issues, shyness and tendency to dork out to the extreme in front of any boy I liked. "Good for you!" as if 'virginity' is a medical term requiring no follow-up questions and not some sexist and heteronormative social abstract which means different things to different people and exists only in their minds, anyway.

Now that's a rant and a half, but I have saved the rantiest for last! Strike three happened just this summer when I, a grown lady who had spent a good half her life with (to the best of my knowledge) working lady bits, and had yet to cause some sort of international incident or natural disaster with them, went to get my pill prescription renewed yet again. In my mind, I was qualified  to a)make requests as to my reproductive needs, and b)receive medical advice in a professional, objective, and non-douchetastic manner.

BZZZZTTT!!!! WRONG!!! At least according to the douchiest of all dudely doctors, with whom I had an unfortunate encounter at the walk-in clinic I was frequenting while trying to find a family doctor in my new town. (Which I totally have now, and she is also a lady, and she is pretty swell).

This guy was such a douche, he earned his own three strikes within our five-minute appointment, for:

1) Telling me that once every two years wasn't enough for women with multiple partners, after I had just told him that I was in a long-term, monogamous relationship ("Whatever, slut!");

2) Looking so pointedly at my (wedding ring-less) hand the whole time that I finally snapped a "I'm married; we don't wear rings", which I hate because a)marriage is a legal relationship and NOT a medical one and therefore NOT RELEVANT to this particular conversation, dipstick, and b)when I have to pull the marriage card it reminds me just how patriarchal and sucktastic a lot of people want marriage to be and means that I am in the presence of someone who is probably against things like same-sex marriage, women's equality, and kittens. Because he is an asshole.

3) After the marriage admission, writes me a six-month prescription, "Since [you've] been such a good girl."

If ever you needed proof that Angry Floyd still has self-control - I am currently blogging about this instead of serving time for "aggravated assault with various medical implements". So there.

Ladies, gents and every in-between? Any douchestactic doctor experiences?

Random acts of wingnuttery

Via Pandagon, I found this site which details email forwards that get sent around by in wingnut circles. It's funny and terrifying at the same time (kind of like the movie Jesus Camp, where the Jeebus-fuelled antics of youngsters had me both cackling hysterically and hiding curled up in the fetal position, quaking in fear, under a blanket - sometimes both at the same time, like with adorable Levi with his spectacular rat-tail and precocious charm and public-speaking skills...which he used to preach fire and brimstone to his fellow pre-teens) in the way that only demonstrations of extraordinary ignorance coupled with insane amounts of hate can be.

"I may need a haircut, but you're going to hell!"

I've been on the receiving end of only a couple of these types of wingnutty emails (none that were nearly as bad as the ones on this site, thanks be to the Spaghetti Monster), but the few times it happened it's always a bit awkward. They only come from one family member (and people who know me can probably guess which gun-totin', rural-living', government-distrustin' one that is) who also happens to be someone I love, respect and admire. So what do you do when they display random acts of wingnuttery?

I've mostly taken the same stance with these types of forwards as the ones that tell me to Forward This to 10 Friends and Make a Wish and it Will Come True But If You Don't Your Hair Will Fall Out and You Will Get Scabies (Whatever That Is), or Bill Gates Will Donate $$$ If u Forrward this MessAge, or DANGER! my neigbor's SON/daughter/Goldfish was killed/raped/eaten because of HOT COFFEE EXPLODING IN THE MICROWAVE/Perfume bottels with DATE_RAPE druggs/HE tasted GOOD - ignore them.

This policy has worked pretty well for me in terms of emails, but it's often harder in person. I love me a good argument, but sometimes the time is just wrong, like the very uncomfortable Christmas dinner a few years ago where the host (a lovely man who is wonderful in many many ways) started in on the rabbi who had requested a menorah be included in the Christmas display at the Seattle airport, and how this was proof of the WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!! and part of the larger WAR ON AFFLUENT, STRAIGHT WHITE PEOPLE (PARTICULARLY MEN)!!!

Unfortunately, we were just about to eat, so I didn't have any delicious turkey on my plate, so I was actually listening to the conversation instead of stuffing my face and thinking "mmmm...tuuuurkey", and as a result I jumped in with "They could have just put up the menorah" at which point the conversation went south very quickly, and ended with the assertion that since Christian soldiers fought in WWII, Jews can never complain about anything, ever again.

Well, I couldn't think of which one of the approximately two hundred million things that are wrong with that statement to address first, then his daughter managed to change the subject, and the turkey was awesome, and we're still close with them, but boy did that memory stick out in my mind when I saw that website.

How about you guys? Any random acts of wingnuttery you've had to deal with?

A tale of three Punishers

One summer, my older brother worked at the local video store, and would come home from late shifts with as many seven-day rentals as we could watch before his next shift, which meant staying up all night with our shared love of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude van Damme, Steven Seagal, and all the other heavy hitters of the “martial arts and/or-guns and/or plot plus lots of explosions” genre of the 80s and 90s.

This is also known as the greatest summer of my life.

It was also the summer that introduced me to the action stylings of one Dolph Lundgren, whose career can be accurately summed up here, or humourously summed up here. And it just so happens that, among my favourites of his many movies is the original Punisher. (Yes, I have more than one favourite Dolph Lundgren movie. Red Scorpion and Universal Soldier are the others, in case you were curious. And I know you were.)

It’s a dark movie - so dark they dye his hair black, which makes the normally blond, blue-eyed Swede look like he has, like, consumption or something. But he’s supposed to be dead inside, anyway (figuratively, not literally) (although a zombie Punisher would just be so much awesome that my head would asplode) so it only adds to the gloomy, morbid atmosphere of the film. Which is essentially about a guy who (spoiler? Maybe? Although you probably know this already if you’re at all interested in the film) takes the law into his own hands after his family is killed by the mob. Literally into his hands, with fists and guns and explosives and swords and knives. And sometimes his feet too. Awesome.

So I was more than a little excited when I was wandering around some European mall in 2004 and saw posters with a dark-haired Thomas Jane and the familiar skull symbol. This excitement was tempered half a second later when I realized that right next to that poster was one with John Travolta (entry #2 in “embarrassing crushes from Floyd’s youth”. Entry #1 can be found in this post). But still, I held out hope, even in the face of the dismal opening and turrrrible reviews. After all, I have liked unpopular, ill-received films in the past.

I finally rented it a few months ago, mostly fueled by the knowledge that a third one was in the works, with every major player (actors, director, writers) from the 2004 version unceremoniously dumped. I needed to know – was it really so bad?

Let me put it this way - if one measures the quality of a movie as being inversely related to how angry it makes me when I so much as think about the fact that it even exists, then the 2004 version of The Punisher is the Worst. Movie. I have ever seen. (I am not even going to link to its IMDB page, out of spite.)

The director, Jonathan Hensleigh, apparently blames this on having only $15 million and 50 days to shoot the movie. The director is an idiot. The problem with this movie is that it forgets the very simple, but necessary, formula of any action/revenge movie:

WBGD<WGDTBG. In plain language: what bad guys do must be exceeded by what gets done to bad guys. If the bad guy kicks a puppy, he should be hit in the face with a bat.If he attempts to rape your best friend and then insults and threatens her, he should be shot. If he kidnaps your daughter, you should slaughter of all his minions, accept his challenge to a knife fight - even though you know he will cheat - and then impale him with a steampipe with such force that it propels him backward into a live generator. It's simple math, people.

(Note – I’m about to get SPOILER-RIFFIC right here. It shouldn’t matter to anyone, though, ‘cause if you’ve seen the movie you won’t care, and if you haven’t seen the movie, do not make my sacrifice in vain by going out to rent it now).

So when the 2004 movie had the Punisher’s ENTIRE EXTENDED FAMILY - down to his second cousins and third aunt twice removed, including young children - BRUTALLY MURDERED ON-SCREEN, it upped the ante significantly in terms of what the bad guys did. Even by action movie standards, these were terrible, terrible men, whose actions went well beyond the comfort zone of what the audience expects. (Aside – and spoiler - Stallone did this with the most recent Rambo – having the bad guys be really, terribly graphically, evil - but then he spends the second half of the movie disposing of them with arrows, a machete and 10 glorious minutes behind a Gatling gun. Again - just do the math.)

So of course, when the Punisher gets hands on a member of the mob family behind this, surely he must exact a terrible, bloody and graphic revenge, right? Right? RIGHT?

Well, only if by “terrible, bloody and graphic revenge” you mean “pretend-tortures him with a popsicle in a scene played for laughs”. And it certainly isn’t what I meant.

Okay, but that guy was just small potatoes, right? And the play-torture was a way to get him to come around to the Punisher’s side, so that the Punisher could get really awesome, gruesome revenge on the real bad guys, right?

Sure, if by “awesome, gruesome revenge” you mean “tricks villainous John Travolta into killing his equally villainous wife and best friend.” Again – no, not what I meant. Tricks the bad guy to kill the other bad guys? Tricks him??!! Dude, this movie is not called The Trickster. It is not called The Manipulator. It is not called The super-dangerous guy who has a lot of guns and righteous anger, but would rather fool people into committing violence than resort to violence himself. Honestly, Dolph Lundgren would have turned in his grave. If he were dead. (Which he isn’t, since he’s currently in pre-production of The Expendables which features a cast that gives me a gore-gasm just reading it: Sly Stallone, Jason Statham and Jet Li.)

Not to mention that, just in case we forgot that these guys had massacred dozens of innocent people right before our eyes, we are reminded of how bad they are halfway through the film when they corner one of the Punisher's neighbors and tear out his facial piercings. Oh no! Shooting children point blank was one thing, but now you've gone and pulled out some guy's nose ring. On purpose!

So when the Punisher drags John Travolta behind his car and sets him on fire in the end, it's just waaaaaay too little, way too late. He should have done something like that to EVERYONE. For Travolta, it should have been even worse. The Punisher should have ripped out Travolta’s still beating heart, and stuck a popsicle in there, and said “I always knew you were cold-hearted” and then beaten him nearly to death with his own heart and then taken the popsicle out and eaten it to keep him cool as he burned Travolta alive, piece by piece, on a bonfire made up of the variously mutilated bodies of all the bad guys who worked for Travolta. And then he should have stabbed him in the eye with the popsicle stick. If that’s too much for you to stomach, Jonathan Hensleigh, than maybe you shouldn’t have made the bad guys do such terrible things. Maybe they could have just threatened his dog and stomped on his azaleas. Then your stupid movie would have made sense.

Man, I am just getting angry all over again.

So it was with a little bit of nervousness that I dragged DD to the theatre last night for Punisher: War Zone. I was hopeful, what with the new cast, including the awesome Ray Stevenson (if you see one new series this year, see Rome), Dominic West (if you see two new series this year, see Rome and The Wire) and Julie Benz, who, strangely enough, plays essentially the same role in this film as in the most recent Rambo (and, if you see three new series this year, see Rome, The Wire, and Dexter). The director, Lexi Alexander (Yes! A woman! Who made a film! Her vagina didn’t get in the way or anything!) was a bit of an unknown factor…

…but not any more. Because the movie? Is flat out awesomeness from start to finish. There are stabbings, and slashings, and explosions, and fisticuffs, and so many bullets that even John Woo is all “What? So many bullets!!”. The bad guys are bad, and they do crazy bad things, and then the Punisher kills them in new and interesting ways, and at the end of the day WBGD<WGDTBG and all is right in my world.

If I had to pick one word to describe my reaction to the film, it would be gleeful. This movie made me so goddamn happy, I just wanted to fly down to L.A. (the city) and give L.A. (the director) a big ole sloppy kiss for bringing some cheer to my holiday season. Unfortunately, with the movie not doing so well at the box office (I guess not that many of us want to start the holiday season with exploding drug-running parkour guys) a sequel is likely out of the question - although if Twilight is any indicator, even surpassing all box office expectations isn’t good enough for a female director to keep her job. Sounds to me like the studio heads need a little...punishment.

The wacky, wonderful world of Canadian politics

I’d been working on a lengthy, verbose and profanity-ridden post about the single most exciting thing to happen in Canadian politics since that time I played touch rugby on the Hill with Peter Mackay, but then I realized that the entire situation, like most things in life, is best summed up by a single moment from The Simpsons:



And then I continued with my regularly-scheduled verbosity, regardless.

I mean, seriously – Harper goes in with the promise of a more open, cooperative Parliament, ready to work on the pressing economic concerns of Canadians, and he follows through how? By proposing to limit the rights of civil servants to strike and women to sue for pay discrimination, and trying to effectively gut his opposition financially*, of course. What, you were expecting actual substantive solutions to an impending crisis?

But what an amazing moment – not only for the unprecedented levels of cooperation between three different parties, but also for the incredible learning opportunity this presents. I am far, far from an expert, but all those years on the Hill taught me a thing or two, and still the nuances of this situation are fascinating, and not just for giant dorks like me.

And, unlike what Harper and the Conservatives are claiming, toppling the government and setting up a coalition in its stead is not at all undemocratic. It’s a very intentional feature of our Parliamentary system, and would feature a government that, with the Green Party’s support, represents the majority of Canadian voters (almost 8.5 million between the four parties, compared to the Tories’ 5.2 million).

Some people may make a big deal about the Bloc having signed on to support a Liberal/NDP government (the term “unholy alliance” being used) but I don’t personally have a problem with this. The Bloc are legitimately elected Members of Parliament, and while I may not support their ultimate goal, they are representing the interests of their constituents, as they should. This is how Parliament works (or is supposed to work), and Harper himself has counted on their support in the past to keep his government going (and to try and form a new one – hey, it’s just like now! Only with the roles reversed! Almost like the shoe is on the other foot! Or the pot calling the kettle so power-hungry that they’ll get into bed with socialists and separatists!)

Predictions? I think Harper will ask the GG to prorogue until January, and that she will take his advice. From what I’ve read, constitutional experts disagree on the most appropriate course of action, and there’s no direct precedent, but I think she’ll want to take a moderate path and give the government a chance to present their budget.

I also think the coalition will take down the government on the budget. The Conservatives are in a bit of a no-win situation here – you simply cannot please everyone with your budget, especially people who are looking for ways to criticize you. Add in a recession and you are screwed (pronounced “scru-ed”). However, Jean can decide to dissolve Parliament, or decide to let the coalition form a government, or she may decide to take all the party leaders into her office for a stern talking to (“Can’t I ever leave you kids alone? I go to Eastern Europe for a week and all hell breaks loose. Now, you all start behaving or I am going TURN THIS COUNTRY AROUND RIGHT NOW.”)

Whatever the outcome, though, it’s nice to see the top headlines a) about Canadian politics, b) interesting, and c) in a “this is history-making and thought-provoking” way, not a “oh man, what are those idiots up to again” way.

*As for the ranting about how the Bloc, Liberals and NDP are being whiny, greedy babies throwing tantrums at being cut out of the public trough: vote subsidies encourage voter turnout, represent voters proportionally and are a progressive way of ensuring a healthy democracy by keeping multiple parties competitive. Not bad for $30M every couple of years, eh?

RELATED POSTS:

• I could just kiss Chuck Cadman, Belinda Stronach and Carolyn Parrish right now...
• It takes a village to raise a child, but just one idiot to write a budget
• Opposing forces
  

Chuck Norris can and should roundhouse-kick himself in the face

I’m not going to link to Townhall, where this was posted, for a number of reasons (not wanting to boost traffic to their particular brand of unabashed pseudo-journalism being, surprisingly, secondary to how goddamn buggy their site was), so if you want to read the whole thing, you’ll have to use your google-fu. But here’s some highlights from Chuck Norris's recent column (yes, he has propelled himself into the realm of conservative punditry thanks only to his resurgent internet fame and cancer-curing tears) on the national backlash after Proposition 8 was passed in California:

There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us….

And what exactly is this bullying that’s going on? Only the most terrible kind:

You even can find donor blacklists online. The lists include everyone who financially backed Prop. 8 -- even those who gave as little as $46 -- with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.

Yes, refusing to give money to individuals and organizations (and engaging them in a series of witty quips and catchy one-liners? Like, “Hey, if God wanted two men to get married, he would have made Adam and Steve!” “Well, if God wanted me to roundhouse-kick you in the face, he would have given me a foot, and you a face!” “Well, you’ve got me theOOOMPH”) is apparently a form of bullying. I guess I bullied about 17 different homeless people on my way to work, not to mention a Domino's, Subway and bookstore-that's-really-a-front-for-marijuana-dealing.

In his defense, he’s not the only one pushing this particular argument - that protesting Prop 8 is EVEN MORE WORSE UH HUH than initiating, organizing and funding a campaign aimed devaluing and defaming a particular group of people's lives, relationships and families - but in his…opposite of defense, just because lots of people say something doesn’t make him any less of a douchebag for saying it.

Because having your rights taken away by your fellow citizens in a referendum is not the same thing as having the other guy win the presidential election. Repeat after me: An election is not the same thing as a referendum. The former is the process by which citizens choose the representatives who will carry out legislative duties, the latter is, for all intents and purposes, a legally-binding poll of self-selecting individuals. Just because they both involve checking a box doesn’t make them morally equivalent actions. Representatives are chosen by the majority because that's just. Laws aren't chosen by the majority because that's just stupid.

In fact, the whole reason we have elections is so we don’t have to have referendums. We elect people to make laws so that they aren’t enacted by freakin’ popularity contest. The masses, we are not infallible - we’re irrational, prone to knee-jerk reactions and most of us lack the resources, knowledge, or desire to actual educate ourselves on anything beyond the current number of Brangelina’s kids. (Seven, apparently.) Not to mention an inherent flaw in the system, which Chuckie unsurprisingly highlights unironically:

What's wrong with this picture? Lots.

First, there's the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority.

THE STUPID! IT BURNS! Hey, I know, let’s have a referendum on whether people named “Chuck” can own property. I call shotgun on all the Walker, Texas Ranger blooper reels! Sorry, pal, but it’s the will of the majority! Oh, and also, women*, black people, First Nations, all other visible minorities, non-landowning males, and persons with disabilities, you may start quaking in fear….now.

And then there’s this jem:

I agree with Prison Fellowship's founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."

Expressing outrage at people who voted to take away your rights is “hypocritical”? Being upset with business-owners who took your money knowingly and then donated it to a campaign to take away your rights is “hypocritical”? Protesting against a business or institution that contributed hundreds, thousands, or millions to devalue your family and relationships, all the while claiming they were about protecting families and relationships, is “hypocritical”?

I can’t believe the entitlement these people have. “I’m allowed to do whatever I want, say whatever I want, and invest lots of time and money into pushing the agenda that I want, with no repercussions whatsoever! If you complain, or criticize, or push back, you are a hypocrite!”

You know – ‘cause it’s not like the fundies ever boycott or protest anything. Oh wait, but they’re doing it for Jesus**, so it’s okay.

Better start now, Chuck - the line-up for roundhouse-kicks to the face is starting to get pretty long.

*Yes, I know women aren’t technically a minority. That doesn’t stop dudes (and self-hating non-dudes) from continually trying to stomp on women’s rights through popular vote.

**That would be Republican Jesus, of course, not the actual “Love God, judge not, blessed are the poor” Jesus.

RELATED POSTS:

• Keith Olbermann on Prop 8
• Dan Savage vs. Tony Perkins on Anderson Cooper
• From the mouths of morons
  

Dan Savage vs. Tony Perkins on Anderson Cooper

Sometimes insomnia is it's own reward - yesterday's sleepless night meant I was up to see Dan Savage be his usual awesomeness on The Colbert Report.

He's equally as quick-witted in person as he is on the page - just check out this video of him taking on (heh) Tony Perkins of the insidiously named Family Research Councilwhich I'm not going to link to because it's one of those organizations that uses warm fuzzy words like "Family" "Values" "Life", etc., because "Douchebag fascists who want all up in your bedroom/uterus research council" wouldn't fit on the bumper sticker.

Also - bonus points if you watch the video right to the end, for the "Oh, snap!" moment. My exact word were, "Oh, you just got told, Tony Perkiiiiins!" Leave yours in the coments for double-plus fun.

From the Archives - What a difference four years makes

Going through the dusty interweb archives and came across a blog entry reaction on the last U.S. election. Hope y'all savour the difference as much as I do.

Now that my mandatory two-week waiting period is up


RELATED POSTS

• My country 'tis of thee

Get your own damn uter...er, coffee

UPDATE - Per the discussion in the comments, here's some info from the National Advocates for Pregnant women on drug use during pregnancy. There's a fact sheet that refers to studies (although it doesn't name them! drat! My search continues!) and many articles that deal with how the "crack baby" myth is used to criminalize poor, and mostly African-American, women.

Back when I tried to keep my raging radical feminism separate from my raging political radicalism, I kept a separate blog called The Fetal Position where I angrily told theocrats, fundies, bitter folks young and old, be-penised or vagina-ed, to keep their grubby, most likely improperly-washed hands off and get their own damn uterus.

It’s also where I wrote this post, about an article from the Washington post detailing a report put out by the CDC in response to the U.S. ranking second to last in infant mortality rates in the developed world (in your face, Latvia!). According to the article, the report advised that all women who had functional ovaries should consider themselves ‘pre-pregnant’, whether they were planning on getting pregnant in the near future or otherwise, and therefore abstain from drinking fun things, eating fun things, doing fun things, or thinking of themselves as human beings entitled to have any enjoyment in their lives.

Of course, if you actually read the report, unlike me, then you would have known that it said a lot of things, including that the general health of women of child-bearing age could be improved. (Or, as John McCain would say, “health”.) But "Study gives detailed overview of complex issue with reasonable, science-based suggestions towards a solution" doesn't make for as catchy a headline as "Forever Pregnant".

Now, the CBC’s not going that far – but nothing exacerbates my Monday morning grouchies quite like two separate “Pregnant women who do X are bad!” stories. Don’t gain weight! Don’t drink coffee! Or else you are a TERRIBLE MOTHER who will probably want to have, like, ONE GLASS OF WINE, and should you suffer the tragedy of a miscarriage it will probably be YOUR FAULT because you went by a Starbucks and you INHALED.

Honestly, these types of reports are double-plus badness – another item on the already weighed-down shoulders of women, whose behaviours during pregnancy seem to be responsible for every possible aspect of their child and its development, from physical appearance, to character, to abilities and more (“damn you, slice of brie my mother had three months into her pregnancy, for preventing me from being a gorgeous, six-foot judo expert and concert pianist who solves crimes on her spare time using her hyper-sensitive sense of smell!”); PLUS another weapon for every self-righteous douchebag out there who gets off on judging a woman’s “morals” by her appearance, since nothing says irresponsible slut like a visibly pregnant woman, right douchebags? (Douchebags: “Nice sweater vest, man-hater.”) Better put her in her place, that uterus-having, life-creating, “I’m a human being with the ability to make decisions about what’s best for me, my body and my family”-thinking incubator.

Now, I’m not saying that research on healthy pregnancies isn’t important – it’s just frustrating that the studies (and the media coverage) focus on taking away stuff from women, rather than giving them stuff, like, say, comprehensive pre-natal health care. Because that would be SOCIALIST, and socialism is EVEN WORSE than having the second-highest infant mortality rate in the developed world. Or something like that.

Things that keep me up at night

I remember watching the results of the last U.S. election and getting that sinking, disbelieving, mind-reeling feeling that comes when mass stupidity is combined with raging hatred and widespread corruption.

For, as much as Canadian election results may frustrate me, I've never doubted their legitimacy. That is - it has never once occurred to me that a Canadian election has been rigged. I may not like our current PM, but I have no doubt he came by the position honestly, and with many sweaters.

Not so in the U.S. And with election day in two freakin' days, it actually keeps me up at night that the Republican party's total disregard for the will of the voters will manifest itself in enough voter purges, campaigns of voter misinformation, fear-mongering and vote rigging as to steal the election once again.

So, here's to you, Canada - at least your politicians are honest.

Well, more honest.

Well, less likely to try and rig elections.

Well, less likely to succeed at rigging elections.

Well, less likely to have the resources, including vast numbers of blindly-partisan assfaces who will commit election fraud.

Well, more likely to have elections when it's cold and there's hockey on.

UPDATE

Nobody in the history of the world has deserved a kick to the box more than this lady.

The Laws of Traffic vs. the Laws of Physics

As I subtly alluded to in a previous post, one of the many things that I am still readjusting to upon my return to Vic City is the complete and utter faith pedestrians have here in the reflexes, attention span and general good-nature of drivers.

Living downtown means I don't do a lot of driving, which is probably a good thing, because years of living in O-town means that I am simply not used to pedestrians taking their lives into their own hands like this. Maybe it's the close proximity to Montreal (where, according to a recent study of my own anecdotal data and third-hand horror stories, being hit by a car while on the sidewalk is the second-leading cause of death, behind only choking on a frozen Joe Louis). Maybe it's the fact that crosswalks were obscured for half the year. Maybe it's the fact that nobody walked anywhere (which was certainly true based on my three years of living in the 'burbs, where DD and I were often the ONLY pedestrians, especially in the ginormous strip mall which was, in all fairness, actually three strip malls in a row, but still, people, do you really need to drive 150m from the Loblaws to the Wal-Mart? Do you? Really? You do? Yeah? ...okay, then.)

And certainly, my few brief months in France left me no more trusting in the driver-pedestrian relationship, either. (Although it did leave me a few pounds heavier and with a good appreciation of grocery store wine and unpasteurized cheeses, so we'll call that one a win.)

Now, let me be clear - it's not that I dispute the legal right-of-way of pedestrians. It's just that I put my faith in the laws of physics over the laws of traffic. The latter gives pedestrians right of way. The former allows me to predict the winner when "metallic structure moving at high velocity" takes on "soft, fleshy object". And this certainly dictates how I pedestrianate...pedestriage...pedest...walk around.

And, again, I do quite a bit of this. And Vic City has crosswalks EVERYWHERE. And when I come to one, I continue to be amazed at the consistency with which even three lanes of traffic will all come to halt when I approach the street. Quite honestly, it freaks me the hell out. How did they know I wanted to cross the street before I even made it to the crosswalk? Who are these people? WHY YOU WATCHING ME?????

So, it's been an adjustment from both sides. Yet even as I continue to get back into the "pedestrians ARE going to step out right in front of you, so you better start braking as soon as you see one, just in case" style of driving, I hope I never slip into that category of pedestrian. After all, I remain a soft, fleshy object.

At least until I save up enough for that custom-made titanium exoskeleton. Then it's jaywalk city, my friends.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

There's some terms out there that get so horribly misused I almost want to take out restraining orders on their behalf against the general population. Political correctness, for one (poor dear) Begs the question, for another. And unique, that which is one-of-a-kind, without equal, endlessly saddled with useless superlatives...listen, people, something is either unique or it's not. Your friend is not VERY unique. Your idea is not REALLY unique. Your band's sound is not SORTA unique. And your child is not TOTALLY unique - she's unique, sure, but just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON IN THE FRAKKIN' WORLD, and I don't care how well she finger paints.

But as much as the use and abuse of such terms tickles my grouchy bone, at least they're ACTUAL terms. Unlike certain other terms which are totally, completely, and without question MADE-UP because actual language doesn't reflect the fantasy world their users have concocted in their head. Sincethese terms have no fixed meaning, sincethey do not refer to an actual, specific thing, they are little better than fancy swears, multi-syllabic slurs that signify an excess of opinion in comparison to actual knowledge. (...don't look at me like that!)

However, as most of these are politically-loaded (the terms that one makes up when one cracks one's knee against that stupid support under one's dining room table for the UMPTEENTH time notwithstanding) the one tiny silver lining on the vomit cloud is that their use, while telling you nothing about the subject in question, tells you plenty about the speaker.

For example: "Partial-birth abortion." means "I somehow believe that women who want abortions wait until the last possible second. Why? I don't know. Maybe pregnancy is really fun? Maybe they just didn't notice? Maybe they were too busy washing their hair and talking about boys? Maybe they want the largest possible fetus to sacrifice to the secret cabal of aborto-feminists that runs the world so that now men have fewer rights than women, even though all the legal, financial and economic evidence points to the opposite? How am I supposed to know? Bitches be crazy."

"Slut." Sars at Tomato Nation says this better than I ever could.

And the one that is currently a hot topic in Vic City,, due to recent events:

"Judicial Activism", which means "I don't like this ruling, but I don't have the basic legal knowledge or intellectual standards to try and understand the judge's decision, therefore I am going to make a values-based argument against what I see as the outcome of that decision - that people are setting up a tent city in Beacon Hill Park - and fan the divisive flames of manufactured outrage, rather than dispute what is essentially a narrow legal decision that a municipal by-law forbidding the erection of temporary shelter in public parks when a)sleeping in public parks is not illegal and b)there is a vast and recognized shortage of shelter beds, violates section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees life, liberty, and security of the person. Because that would take, uh, effort. And brains. And a desire to be constructive and help solve a difficult, frustrating and tragic problem, rather than complaining that liberal elites and smelly street people are ganging up on me like a bunch of meanies."

FYI, Michael Smyth. Pass it on to your buddy Ian, too...maybe he'll calm down if he knows those "softheaded liberal activists" exist only in his mind...

Sorry I'm Late - Must Be the Daycare

The Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children recently published a booklet containing some pretty startling facts about daycare in a totally reasonable, unbiased, unpatronizing, non-mysogynistic, scientifically-thorough and non-ideologically-motivated way! Oh, except for all those last parts.

The cover letter accompanying their ground-breaking pamphlet states that three studies found results that are "a serious cause for concern", such as:

1) The amount of time you spend away from your mom before you turn five is a "predictor of assertiveness, disobedience, and aggression." Whereas the amount of time you spend away from your dad is a predictor of how many fart jokes you know.

2)Daycare before the age of three increased anti-social behavior at age three. And we all know that nobody changes after age three. Now excuse me while I go play with my Barbies without sharing.

3)Children in daycare either become aggressive or compliant. This is totally in sync with the study I did just now in my head that shows that they also grow up to be tall or not tall.

Basically, they have 40-odd pages of poorly punctuated "articles" (honest to goodness - every single title uses ellipses...like this...it is terribly awkward...not to mention incorrect...) describing how anything less than 24/7 mothering turns infants and toddlers into, at best, emotional basket cases and, at worst, dangerous psychopaths.

I'm all for scientific inquiry into the effects of early childhood groupcare and education, but if you want to be taken seriously, maybe you shouldn't start the intro to your "scientific" report with:

I feel sorry for women who cannot look after their babies themselves[...].

Aw, that's so nice! You feel sorry? For my mom? Wow, I bet she really appreciates your pity. Here, why don't you go tell her in person! Oh, and just so you know, in our family we show appreciation by smacking people upside the head.

This issue really burns me because I went to two stellar, and one pretty good, daycare. I made good friends, had plenty to keep me busy all day, learned a lot about a variety of topics (including socialization because - duh, I had to get along with other kids) and had access to activites, toys, games, play structures and other things that my own parents could never have provided on their own.

Do I wish I had been raised at home? Do my parents wish they'd been able to do so? Maybe. But I'd say that's based more on the desire to have spent those precious years together, than out of regret that daycare has turned me into some sort of mentally unstable, violent, anti-social monster.

This type of argument does nothing more than pit people against each other, which is where the ideology seeps in. Are they really doing this out of concern for mothers and children? After all, if they'd managed to guilt my mom some 25 years ago into quitting her job, she could have reaped the glorious benefits of raising infants in abject poverty - which, as we all know, has no negative impact on children whatsoever.

It's not an either/or issue, no matter how hard they try to frame it as one. You can easily be in favour of both daycare and homecare. There is no conflict, no cognitive dissonance, in saying "I believe that both daycare and homecare are valid and valuable ways of raising healthy and happy individuals".

Oh, but there I go, asserting myself again! Damn you, daycare!

March for Life? Fuck off and die

Thank Jebus it only comes once a year, or my head would asplode faster than you can say "Get your own damn uterus!"

Yes, it's the effin' March for Life on Parliament Hill.

I haven't dared do much more than peer out my window, lest I be overcome with the temptation to bash their stupid faces in with their "yes, of course an 8-week old fetus has arms, legs, and eyes, as you can clearly see in this totally accurate photo of a helpless aborted baby" signs.

I just...I can't. I just can't face these people. There is no reasoning with someone who believes that they are divine champions on a holy quest to be saviour to zygotes cannon-fodder adorable little cherubic angels trapped inside an demonic incubator-thing that ridiculously purports to be an actual, living human being with, like, "rights" or something.

What drives me bonkers is that these people are trying to frame the argument in that if you support abortion rights, than you despise babies. Well, I've always known I wanted to have kids. I want to have kids because I want to experience the full power of my body, a woman's body. I want to have kids because I've always loved kids. I want to have kids so that when I grow old I'll have people to nag about not calling me who'll listen 'cause they want whatever's left of my wealth that didn't go to feeding, clothing and educating them.

Whatever the reason - I WANT to have kids. But I want to have them WHEN I want to have them, under the circumstances I choose, with whom I choose, by whatever methods I choose, and that means controlling my reproduction by contraception, emergency contraception, or abortion, and it doesn't matter how much of a sinful whore you think I am, random old guy with a sign, because there's all of four men whose advice I would seek on pregnancy, and YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM, and it doesn't matter how fervently you pray, scary young woman my age, you are not going to influence my decision on whether or not to abort, and angry little grandma? Congrats on your daughter's fertility, but fuck off about mine. And fuck off about everyone woman or man out there who DOESN'T want kids, for whatever reason, because it is none of your GODDAMN BUSINESS.

These people, with their righteous anger and their holier-than-thou smugness, and their, "Big Daddy and the sky loves me more than you, nya nya nya" make me physically ill. How they courageously speak up for non-sentient blobs of tissue while ACTUAL, HONEST-TO-GOD children are being starved, beaten, abandoned, abused, exploited, and so forth; how they act like they are all "pro-life" for wanting to impose motherhood on woman, even though pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion; how they probably pray every night for this to be invented...

There are six billion people on this effin' planet. We are not likely to die out any time soon. We are likely to kill each other in a variety of increasingly diverse ways and poison our environment beyond habitability. Drop the anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-reason argument and go and do something that God ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT.

Maaaan...would you believe me that today's post was originally going to be on the suckitude of Hollywood Homicide and the awesomeness of my high school rugby team? See? The fundies RUIN EVERYTHING.

Your Regularly Scheduled Post Has Been Delayed

Hey all,

Spent yesterday writing my grad school essay instead of my blog. At least, I hope I did. It's kind of all a blur, seeing as Air Canada got me in two hours late and I was up six hours later and jet-lagged for work. So I really hope the department chair is not reading something that starts with "Dear Wonderful Airline Staff, thanks sooo much for leaving the plane uncovered overnight on the tarmac in Ottawa in February. There was nooo way to know that it would get covered in ice! Why, that only happens every single night during the winter here! And I really enjoyed spending nine hours at the gate, and paying those extra special airport prices. Sincerely, A Totally Satisfied Customer."

The Writing's on the Wall

One of the bathrooms at DD’s parents’ house is decorated with this whimsical wallpaper made up entirely of folksy sayings like “Children are a joy in your old age – and they help you reach it faster, too”, or “Just when you make ends meet, somebody moves the ends”. One of my favourites is “You grow up the first time you have your first real laugh at yourself”. It reminds me not to take myself so seriously. It also reminds me that there are a few people out there who could use that advice. Like, maybe, people who are committing acts of violence over a handful of cartoons.

When the story about these controversial ‘toons started gaining momentum this last month, I did what any average web-literate person in a free and democratic country would do: I googled them. My search led me to this article, and when I scrolled down to the cartoons, I was shocked. Shocked that buildings were being burned, death threats were being uttered and boycotts were being launched, all over a dozen editorial cartoons that, had they featured any other religion, wouldn’t have even made the news as much as Paris Hilton’s need for Depends did.

(Personally, I laughed my ass off at the one about heaven running out of virgins, because I always wondered a)where they got all these virgins, and b)what said virgins had done to deserve becoming the sexual slaves of suicide bombers in the afterlife, and c)no seriously, what gives with all the virgins?)

I’m not saying that some people aren’t genuinely offended by these cartoons. I am saying…how to put this delicately…"tough titty". One of the tenets of a liberal democracy is free and independent media. That means that sometimes, we are going to see things that offend us to the point where the next time we’re in a pharmacy and we see some ignorant prick buying Axe deodorant we want to smack him upside the head and scream “THIS WILL NOT MAKE RANDOM HOT GIRLS FUCK YOU! GET A GODDAMN PERSONALITY! AND A JOB! AND A BELIEF IN THE PRINCIPLES OF GENDER EQUALITY!”

“But!” people might say, “That is not the same thing! Here, they are making fun of religion!”

What? Oh my Intelligent Designer! Making fun of religion, you say! Why, no one’s ever done that before! Nope, never in the history of the world, right up until this very moment, has anyone ever mocked any religion whatsoever. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED EVER. In a completely unrelated note: Do not look here. Or here. Or here. Or here. And do not google “religious jokes” because you will not find anything. Nope, nothing to see here folks! Move along, now, move along. (Also, definitely do not turn your speakers all the way up and look here or here.)

And yes, I am aware that you are not supposed to draw Muhammad. I know this because it is written in every article on this story, or told to me in somber voice over by well-coiffed news anchor. I also know this because I studied Islam in university, and while I’m not saying that taking three religious studies courses make me in anyway an expert on the subject, it does make me slightly more qualified than a whole slew of journalists and politicians who don’t seem to know the five pillars of Islam from the menu at their local shawarma joint; or their own religion for that matter. Because the whole thing about not drawing Muhammad? ONLY APPLIES TO MUSLIMS. So all you non-muslims out there? Doodle to your hearts' content. I drew Muhammad in my journal the other night. He’s saying “Don’t quit your day job”. Good freakin’ advice.

Also, this ban against drawing Muhammad? Not actually in the Qur’an. What is there is a condemnation of idolatry; that is, worshipping an object or image that may or may not be intended to represent God. The hadith (recorded oral tradition) forbids pictorial art of any sacred figures – these include not only Muhammad, but also Jesus and Moses, who are also considered prophets in Islam. Now we already know those other two guys/guy and saviour have been pictorialized to high heaven, seemingly without provoking riots. Does anyone out there believe that in almost a millennium and a half of Islam, a dozen editorial cartoonists are the first people ever to break this last tradition? That some tiny Scandinavian newspaper sullied this previously virgin (heh) territory? That some Danish editor was the first person ever in the history of the world to come up with the genius idea to draw Muhammad? I’ve got two words for that: Bull. Shit.

Also? Stop presenting this “Muslims are forbidden to practice idolatry” as if it’s some new and novel idea that nobody ever thought of before. Because I’m pretty sure Judaism beat them to the punch by several thousand years. Which means that Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike are all forbidden to create images of God. Which, again, obviously means that that has never happened, and should it have happened, it would have happened in some dirty, dank den of iniquity by filthy atheists and would certainly not be a celebrated piece of religious art displayed at the heart of a sacred place. Nope!

Which is why my beef is not only with (and I’m not going to call them Muslims because they are no more Muslim then the raging asshats at the anti-SSM march are Christian) the Islamic fundies who are causing this shit, but also with the Western media. Sweet Shesus, has it actually come to the point where I’m actually agreeing with right-wing superstar Ezra Levant? Has hell, if it exists, finally frozen over? Because Canada, the US and the UK (among others) are all “We’re not running these cartoons out of respect” and Ezra is all, “It’s not out of respect, it’s out of fear” and I am all “Amen, Ezra” and then I’m all “What the fuck? Did I just say that?” and then I’m all freaking out, curled up in the fetal position in the corner, rocking and moaning and wondering what the fuck happened to this world that people are being killed over cartoons and I’m with agreeing Eazy-L.

See, I too had thought of posting the cartoons here. And I didn’t, for two very good reasons: a)I don’t know how to load pictures on my blog, which is currently number one on my “blog to-do” list, followed closely by updating my layout and getting an RSS feed; and 2)I’m highly suggestible, in the sense that seeing the cover of the movie “Jaws” at age five prevented me from learning how to swim because I refused to put my back to the water. Yes, I was in a pool. Yes, I know it’s stupid, and there’s no monsters in my closet, no knife-wielding maniac in my bathroom, and the only person under the stairs is my roommate. But we’re just people, and threats of violence, real or imaginary, scare us. So I don’t blame editors or producers for being scared to show these images, but I do blame them for pretending it’s for some other reason.

Because censorship is really at the root of this problem. Other than one paper in Egypt, the images haven’t been published. Most protestors haven’t seen them. Some may have seen copies, others have seen false images designed to stir up angry protest.

People are dying because of these cartoons, and I am sick of being told that I don’t need to see them. When someone denies the Holocaust, I am told what he said, I am able to judge for myself and form my own opinions, whatever they may be.

So when people riot over supposedly racist cartoons (which, they’re not, since Islam is a religion and not a racial group), I want to know what all the fuss is about. When the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress says that he’s considering charges against the Western Standard for distributing hate literature, arguably one of the most serious offences in Canada, how am I supposed to know whether or not I agree? How can the accused defend himself fairly without being allowed to show us and say “Here. Here they are! What’s inciting more hatred against Muslims – a handful of cartoons, or images of violence, death threats, and declarations of war?”

When we are not allowed to judge for ourselves, when we are given half the story, no story, or the wrong story, then we are being manipulated. We become tools, or weapons, for the goals of others. We don’t need less freedom of the press, we need more, and we need it right now and we need it everywhere.

And, for the love of God, we need to step back, have a good laugh, and grow the fuck up.

Why You Do Me So Wrong? Episode II

Dear contributor to my already obscene amount of personal wealth,

Congratulations on purchasing the single greatest movie trilogy of all time, the digitally-remastered Star Wars Episodes IV through VI. You may have heard that this edition features the cleanest, sharpest footage of these classic movies, painstakingly restored to their original glory. Well, it's true! I had all three films meticulously cleaned and digitized until the droids sparkled and the lightsabres popped. All for you. That's how much I love you, and all the Star Wars merchandise you buy.

You may also have heard that I've updated them...again. Now, based on what little of the outside world I allow to penetrate the sanctified walls of Skywalker Ranch, I have come to believe that a certain rebellious faction were less than pleased by the updates I made when the Star Wars films were re-released theatrically in the late 90s. I believe the term "butchery" was used. You know - a couple of new CGI backgrounds here, a couple of new CGI characters there.What can I say? CGI back then was the Emperor, and I was weak. I was led down the path to the darkside.

Many of you saw the DVD-release as my opportunity to make up to those I hurt the most, my most loyal fans. And so did I! And as I was preparing those DVDs for release, I knew what I had to do. Heed the calls of the fans and release the original theatrical versions with remastered picture and sound and God intended?

No. That would be the easy way out. I had to release a new version, a third version, and prove to all those pimply virgins that when it comes to Star Wars, I am their God, and they'd better like my freakin' creation because it's all they're going to get. If you can't appreciate my unquestionable genius, you can go kiss a wookiee.

Now I know a lot of people out there over the age of 10 have fond feelings for the original theatrical versions, and may tell me that they were just fine as they were, what with the record-breaking financial success, the cultural impact, the landmark achievement, blahblahblah. Look, those first three were good, I'll give you that. But let me ask you this - if Leonardo DaVinci were alive today, would he leave the Mona Lisa as it was just because it was "pretty good?". Because it was a "cultural landmark?". Because there's no need to "update a classic, because classic implies that it's already a timeless creation in its original form?" Hells no, people. If he was here, that lady would not only smile, she'd wave and say "Go buy the Star Wars trilogies on DVD!". Because even DaVinci knows a superior artistic genius when he sees one.

Now, the first time I remastered those movies, that was a mistake, sure. I was eager to jump on the CGI bandwagon. But on the bright side, it did give me the much-needed experience to create the world's first fully-animated character in that unanimously-adored fellow, Jar-Jar! And, when all of you flocked to the theatres, I knew I had a hit. So, no more location shooting for me! No more focussing on narrative and character development! Wacky creatures, slapstick comedy, dialogue more unnatural than most porn films (and I should know), and action sequences which look like they were designed by the ADHD kid next door! And, most importantly, all the CGI you can cram in! THAT'S what makes a great movie!

And those movies gave the know-how to finally give you the version that you've all been waiting for. That's what all my closest advisors tell me. "Yes", they say. "Put in that scene with Jabba the Hutt in Episode IV where Han calls him "a terrific human being" because it was originally filmed with a fat man, but why let that stop you?" Or, "Yes, I think that Hayden Christensen should be in Return of the Jedi, at the very end. Please don't fire me." Or "Yes, what all those movies need are new CGI-aliens all over the place, in random scenes, for no apparent reason, I agree completely, please don't throw me into the digitally-altered pit of the Sarlacc like you did with that guy who kept quoting to you from fan letters that started with "Dear Imperial Asswipe"."

So, enjoy your Star Wars Original Trilogy Version 3.0 DVD box set! And for those of you wondering how I sleep at night after all I've done to a treasured part of our cultural mythology, the answer is "on a pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful she-droids".

May the Force Be With You!

George Lucas

Election Post #1 (of what is sure to be many)

Alright, there's just under three weeks left in this campaign, and I can't fight this feeling anymore. Must...post...political...commentary...

So - the Cons are in the lead. Apparently. Oh, sweet Jebus, why have you forsaken us?

All blasphemy aside (and good thing, because who knows what that'd get me in a Stephen Harper government), if the one statistics course that all Communications students were forced to take has taught me anything, it is that polls are, at best, educated guesses, and at worst, flawed reports no better at predicting outcomes than cow shit bingo.

(Aside - whenever we have our beer/cat asphyxiation meeting, remind me to share the stories about what happens when Arts Students and Math Collide, As Witnessed by an Arts Student Who Also Took Physics 12 With Mr. Agnew, He Who Does Not Tolerate Fools, William!)

So - less than three weeks left, and as my handy spies in Vic City have reported (thanks guys!), outside of the surreal bubble that is Ottawa, nobody really gives a fart about this campaign.

But I hope that you all are going to vote! Vote or...well, not die, because I'm not Whathisface Coombs. Maybe a good solid wedgie. I've updated my sidebar with all sorts of election goodies, so proscratinate freely - I do! Also, if anyone has any questions, about the election or a political party or why Harper was a fear-mongering hypocrite when last time around he was all "Even if the Liberals don't win the most seats, Paul Martin's still going to try to form a government" (answer: Because the incumbent PM's supposed to - check out the "Term" section), then please post them!

Also - speaking of hypocrisy - check out the "They'll Go Neg" ad for a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black from the fine minds at the Conservative War Room. It's like "Gee, how can we get Canadians to think that Paul Martin's going to eat a puppy?" "Gee, I don't know...wait a minute! Let's dress a little puppy up like Martin, and then have Stephen eat it!" Seriously, marketing guys - if you're criticizing someone for something you think they're going to do, maybe that criticism shouldn't take the EXACT FORM OF WHAT IT IS YOU'RE CRITICIZING THE OTHER GUY FOR THINKING ABOUT DOING. Just a little tip from one communicator to another.

Alright...that's it for now...but not for long, I'm sure. Oh wait, before I go - check this out. It'll be especially handy come next Monday night!

Now that my mandatory two-week wait period is up:

I can finally pick up my handgun! Juuuuust kidding. Like I want to shoot myself in the foot. Or the face. Or anywhere at all, for that matter.

Actually, what I was waiting for was two weeks of cool-down time after the U.S. election. I'm not going to dwell on the fact that the results mean four more years of this (and also this, which is awesome but not quite enough to make a Bush mandate worthwhile) but I think I've calmed down enough to talk about reactions to this recent Bushwhack.

There seems to be lots of coverage of disenfranchised American liberals looking north for greener pastures. And on the one hand, I feel for them. I mean, Bush robbed Gore last time around, but this time he actually won based on a majority of Americans being - and I hate to generalize, but, c'mon - total bitchfaced asshats. And I know that if I suddenly found out that the majority of my country were basically angry conservatives, I'd sure as hell want out too. So I completely understand why some U.S. citizens are desperately looking for a way out. And, considering the gains that the Conservative Party made here last election, I'm definitely willing to greet my peace-lovin', tree-huggin', same-sex smoochin', civil rights respectin' compatriots from the south to help tip the balance back.

HOWEVER (and you know this must be important because it's all caps, and normally I hate all caps because IT'S LIKE BEING SHOUTED AT SERIOUSLY DID YOU FLUNK KINDERGARTEN WHEN THEY TEACH YOU WHEN TO USE THE BIG LETTER AND WHEN TO USE THE SMALL ONES???!!!) while the liberal Americans are certainly welcome here, they're really much more needed right where they are. Actually, not so much where they are (San Francisco, New York City) but more where they're not (Florida, Ohio, Texas). Instead of fleeing to Canada, we should be fleeing to them!

See, when roommie Mo and I went to see "Farenheit 9-11" and, we came out thinking "What can we do to stop Bush?" And what we came up with was liberal Canadians marrying Americans and taking Yankee citizenship to vote against the rapid conservatization of the U.S., which is a country that, while much lamer, is also much more influential than our own. To paraphrase the great philospher Denis Leary: "The rest of the world, they can have all the democracy they want...they can have a democracy cakewalk right through the middle of Tiananmen Square and it won't make a lick of fuckin' difference, because we got the bomb, OK? "

So - who wants to marry an Mississippian?