Why I didn’t watch the Rousey/Carmouche match tonight

I know, I know. You’d think this is right up my alley. Women finally getting a chance to partake in, and star in, a UFC match. One of the reasons I have historically boycotted the UFC is because of Dana White’s insistence to ignore the female fight market. Never mind that a good chunk of the people who watch UFC are women. I had just assumed he was a chauvinist who got dumped and never forgave us.I also thought he was an extraordinary idiot for barring women from participating in a sport (not really sure how it is even legal…?). Comparatively, boxing sanctions female bouts, as does wrestling and every martial art there is, not to mention previous MMA organizations featured women (remember Gina Carano? Yeah, she was actually fucking bad ass before she made Haywire).














There’s no way you would LOSE money by having females on your card; there really is only money to gain. But, I digress, since Mr. White has seen the light (apparently).

So we’ve finally made it. Why, then, do I still not want to watch? Part of it is petulance.  I still don’t like Dana White for doing what he did, and I think he’s a huge D-bag. I would hate to put a cent in his pocket. But even if I could have streamed it for free, I still wouldn’t have watched. For two reasons.

One: I HATE hearing the argument people (typically men) make that they don’t like watching women fight. “I hate watching them get hurt,” they say, with this strange air of chivalry, as if even though they don’t want to admit it, they still have an ounce of nobility in them. Well, fuck that. Have you noticed we are watching a sport where men are routinely knocked senseless and where the audience departs the venue spattered in blood? Also, women get beaten up E’RY DAY! One third of women will suffer sexual assault in her lifetime, so it really fucking pisses me off that the time that men actually care about women’s safety is when they have actually CHOSEN to engage in violence. It’s backwards and fucked up. I don’t like hearing their dumb double-standards, which inevitably crop up every time a chic is shown participating in an aggressive sport. I want to see bitches’ eyes gouged out just as much as all the fucking jacked up, jerk-off male fighters (read: not at all).

Which brings me to TWO: I don’t see why I have to make myself a hypocrite just to support my fellow woman. I don’t like UFC; I think anyone who knows me knows this. It just seems to attract a strange cross section of people I generally choose to avoid.















I am also maybe what you would call a martial art purist: when I was taught karate, I was taught that my body was a temple and that you don’t put it in danger for a bit of fun. I learned that my body was also a weapon, and that I have a higher duty to not hurt others. I don’t think that MMA follows the main principles that most martial arts try to instill in students. Perhaps if it was called something else (i.e. Mortal Combat), it wouldn’t irk me so much. So just ‘cause there are women fighting alongside of men, I don’t see why I have to suspend my intense dislike for this gruesome “sport” just to support women’s rights.

Sure, women deserve to kick the shit out of each other, just like men do. But I still won’t be watching them do it. 

RE: Of Babies & Beans - Adam Gopnik (New Yorker)

I just read this piece on the recap of the 2012 VP debate, talking about Paul Ryan's unfortunate stance on abortion, or more accurately, his stance on secularism. Religion and state unequivocally should be separate, it  is unthinkable to even argue otherwise in this day.

Mr. Ryan is toeing a pretty serious line when he says, "I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do.”

Here's what I have to say about this: It is absolutely essential for politicians to remove themselves from their own privately held values and opinions in order to represent thousands of people in their ridings. You must do your best to represent your constituents, and if you are the president or vice-president of the country, you must represent EVERYONE. Not just the people who voted for you. That is why as president, you must compromise and give in every so often, because it isn't just you or the people who voted for you that you are making decisions for - it is the entire country.

This is why when people criticize President Obama for doing "nothing" during his four years, I roll my eyes. First off, it is glaringly obvious that without majorities in the House and Senate, any bills and legislation are going to struggle. This is why it is imperative to create policy that is acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans, or it will never survive. Also, even if some controversial piece of leg broke through, what will stop the future Republican president (it will happen eventually) from striking it down and reversing it? Good policy benefits all, not just right or left, and that is what Obama is doing. Instead he could be a giant bulldozer like Harper, jamming in all sorts of nonsense legislation with omnibus bills and refuse to let it spend time under debate in the House. Good policy needs compromise, debate and it must not be based on the religious dogma that Paul Ryan insists on dispersing with every word.

Back to abortion. I have been having ever-increasingly complex views on this. I am staunchly pro-choice; I believe every woman can decide for herself whether she should have a baby or not. Science has not told us indisputably where life begins yet, and as defined by current laws, you are not recognized as a person until you are born. And as one commenter on the story above put it so well, since a fetus' life is intrinsically linked to its mother's, its rights are intermingled with the mother's rights. And no person's rights should interfere with another person's rights.

But at the same time, I know that if I were pregnant accidentally, no matter when it happened, I could not have an abortion. My own personal spirituality is based on no accepted religion, but instead on an idea of positive and negative energy, and that things happen for a reason. While I don't necessarily believe in a higher power, I believe their is a rough map to the universe and that the things we do set other things in motion: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." So I am of the personal belief that if I am pregnant, it was for a reason. And if I choose an abortion, how do I know I am not putting something in motion that could change the world for the worse. (See: Looper). I suppose you could argue how could I know that by choosing abortion I could change the world for the better (again see: Looper), but this is why I am more inclined to leave it up to "Fate."

Now this is where it gets complicated for me. If a woman is pregnant, and she is assaulted - let's say she's raped or bludgeoned savagely within an inch of her life - and she loses the baby... do we consider this an extra insult to injury? In the eyes of the law, does the fact that a woman lost her baby as a result of the assault add extra aggravation to the crime? In some states it is punishable to kill an unborn baby, it would count as two murders if you killed a mother and an unborn child. And I think for the most part, society feels this isn't so bad. If I were trying to have a baby with my partner, and we worked hard for that baby, let's say we had to take several fertility treatments (that can cost 10's of thousands of dollars) and you assaulted me and killed my baby. I would be doubly devastated than if you just assaulted me alone.

So, if we as a society, accept that it is a greater crime to kill a pregnant woman than it is to kill another person, then shouldn't the same values be applied to abortion? I'm not saying that I would LIKE this to happen, but I have recognized that their are a lot of double-standards when it comes to the law in this case. The law needs to protect vulnerable members of society, and this includes pregnant women - they are given job security on maternity leave, they are given closer parking spaces and seats on the bus, and if they are a victim of a physical crime, often their aggressors are given greater retribution. Many argue that the law also needs to protect unborn fetuses from abortion, and if these current laws are protecting pregnant women at a higher standard than other citizens, then I can't legally argue against that.

But every once in awhile  the law does something funny. It allows for context. Obviously there is a moral and ethical difference between a wanted and unwanted fetus. An unwanted baby, as pointed out in the story, is more often than not subject to a life of cruelty - foster care, abuse, and their own struggles with rejection. Whereas the loss of a wanted baby can devastate the family, mentally, physically and financially (as in the example above). I don't think this contextual exception is necessarily bad; it is more intuitive and relevant than the alternative.

However, it leaves room for this constant debate and gives the rightwingnuts a foot in the door to disseminate their religious nonsense, and it lends credence and legitimizes their opinions. But, overall, I think as long as our society strives to create contextual and constantly relevant policies in general, including on this matter, that's all we can ask for. I would hate to see this become an issue that flip flops every time a new president is elected, which is why it is essential we create lasting and complex policy around it.

I was actually looking forward to playing the new UFC Undisputed 2009 game the other day. Normally I choose to avoid video games, as they are generally filled with strippers, criminals, explosions and boy-humour. But I thought there was a sort of an epiphany in the way of video games recently, with the invention of Rock Band and other games like Fable that are as female-friendly as male. That was the point of Rock Band, to involve everyone - Mom, Dad, sis and bro - and is largely the reason why it was so successful. So then when I nestled into the couch for a long day of playing the new UFC game, boy was I shocked when I couldn't even pick a girl character.




If, on a Saturday UFC event night, you go to your local pubs you will see an assortment of individuals gathered around raucously hooting for the various fighters. Among them are a surprising amount of women, who I would think would quite appreciate muscular naked men grappling each other in a cage. UFC may not have a women's division, but I always assumed it was because it was still a young sport and had not generated enough competitive female fighters yet.

The point of video games is to do things virtually that you could never do in reality. Judging by the amount of detail in the ring girls's breasts as they bounce around the ring, I'm guessing physically generating digitalized females was not the problem, but instead it was a complete disregard for 50 per cent of their target market. It was some ignorant chauvinist jerk sitting in a meeting room brainstorming about the 43 different hairstyles, 16 different styles of eyebrows and the countless angles and degrees of depth that a guy can use to shape his male figher's face, who couldn't even fathom allowing his female fans a chance to create a fighter in her likeness.

If you are going to put that much thought into detail and accuracy (from the cuts on the fighter's faces, to the referee and ring girls), how could you blatantly ignore such a chunk of your market?? Girls not-so-secretly enjoy watching UFC events with their male friends or boyfriends, and they are an integral part of the UFC culture. UFC Undisputed 2009 gets two big thumbs down from me. I guess I'll just go play Fable again.


-- the golden girl

Do female athletes have to look good?

Gina Carano, Michelle Wie, Maria Sharapova, Cassie Campbell, Gabrielle Reece, Misty May, Danica Patrick. All these girls dominate their respective sports, and all have that unique marketable quality of being goodlooking. Do women have to be goodlooking to be accepted as the best in their field, or at least as worthy contenders ?




With these overwhelming examples, it seems that across the board goodlooking girls are the poster children we first think of when we talk about women's sports. However, I argue that this is the case with most sports, even men's. Take a look.

Sidney Crosby ("Oh, he's cute!"), Andy Roddick (even Federer and Nadal are not unfortunate-looking), David Beckham, Floyd Mayweather Jr., A.Rod, Derek Jeter, Tiger Woods, I could go on. Even guys who are not arguably the best in show are given extra attention, possibly because they are attractive. I'm thinking Sean Avery, Aaron Baddeley (who?), or even Josh Beckett (yeah, we know him, but how many girls like the Red Sox simply becuase of this guy) or David Wright for the Mets.

There goes that feminist argument. Most top athletes are goodlooking, male or female, or so it would seem. But why? Perhaps we hold these athletes up to our highest standards, they are, after all, our role models. Greek athletes in ancient times were sculpted and beautiful and stoic, and not much has changed in our ideals for our top players. They are our idols, we look up to them and relate to them. We don't want to be like someone who's ugly - they better have unparalelled talent, enviable humility and graciousness and one hell of a smile if we are willing to call them our own.

Do women have to look good to dominate their sports? Damn right. But so do men.


-- the golden girl

Tamil Turbulence

Ever since the day I came out of class and noticed the giant Tamil wall lining the downtown streets, I have been keeping a close eye on the struggle in Sri Lanka between the government and the country's notorious rebel group, the Tamil Tigers. Actually, my interest goes back further when a famous Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge, made world news by predicting his death at the hands of the government. He was vehemently opposed to the war against the rebels, and was eventually gunned down likely for his stance on the war. Three days later, his paper published a self-written obituary that read, "When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.''




This naturally piqued my interest, as I am a firm believer in journalism as the catalyst to democracy, or at least an essential fragment of democracy. We know journalists in other countries don't have the freedom we do over here, and it deeply saddens me. What is worse is that Wickremetunge is not the only innocent person to have died at the hand of the Sri Lankan government. Many papers here and elsewhere hailed the government for finally collapsing the rebel forces and murdering their leaders (Velupillai Prabhakaran, and feared military leader Pottu Amman). Apparantly, the streets of Colombo were alive with people dancing and cheering in thanks for the end of the civil dispute. I just can't believe this is the whole story.


I am aware that the Tamils, like most rebel groups, used child soldiers and their leaders Prabhakaran and Amman were responsible (or thought to be) for a handful of Prime Minister murders both in India and Sri Lanka. I'm certain most rebel groups don't always follow international laws, but it seems to me that the Tigers have been quite peaceful in the decades leading up to these past few months. Even in Toronto with all of the protests, people complained that they blocked the Gardiner. No one noticed or cared that they picked a Sunday, of all days, in the afternoon. Few people would be travelling to work or leaving town - Sunday was definitely the day they would cause the least turmoil. But people were outraged that the Toronto Tamils had the audacity to get our attention through hunger strikes, picket signs and chanting. Dangerous.

While I do feel bad (very slightly) for the handful of people who were inconvenienced on that Sunday afternoon - not being able to get to Grandma's house for dinner is a real bitch - I am bewildered that no one has even questioned the victory of the Sri Lankan government over this relatively peaceful and very reasonable rebel group.

When colonization occured, many many groups were displaced and boundaries were set where they shouldn't have been. Nearly every previous colony - including Canada and America - have had civil wars to determine if the rebel groups can live in the country without being marginalized or they need their own independent boundaries. I believe Canada takes the French for granted, and if things were different, we could have faced a civil war ourselves when the Quebecois threatened to separate. We didn't choose to wipe them out, kill their political leaders, innocent children and men and women, cut off their medical supplies and food and water. We didn't starve them, murder them. But when it comes to another rebel group in a different country, we turn a blind eye to their plight? Was it so long ago that Quebec threatened to separate? We have no sympathy for the hundreds of other countries going through a similar problem, a heightened problem.

The thing that hurt me the most throughout this conflict was the absolute apathy that the Tamils met in Toronto when they clambered to raise awareness of the issue. Child soldiers, the deaths of 15,000 Tamils, the defeat of a marginalized group who deserve their own boundaries and separate state are all maddening. The worst - the cold, heartless IGNORANT Canadians who cared more about the Gardiner Expressway than people suffering. Wake up Toronto.


-- the golden girl

Civil war timeline -- Courtesy of Ravi Nessman (Associated Press)

Developments in Sri Lanka's conflict:
1975: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam group forms. It demands a separate state for minority ethnic Tamils in the island's north and east.
1983: Civil war begins.
1991: Tamil Tiger suicide bomber assassinates former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, apparently in revenge for sending peacekeeping troops who ended up fighting the rebels.
1993: Tamil Tiger suicide bomber kills Sri Lanka's president Ranasinghe Premadasa after his government's failed peace efforts.
February 2002: Sri Lankan government signs a ceasefire agreement with Tamil Tigers.
June 2005: Relations between the government and rebels deteriorate over the issue of sharing international tsunami aid.
August 2005: Tigers blamed when Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, an ethnic Tamil who opposed a separate state, is assassinated.
December 2005: Rebels launch first major attack since truce, killing at least 12 Sri Lankan navy sailors. A series of attacks follows.
Feb. 22, 2006: Government and rebel officials meet in Switzerland for peace talks and agree to de-escalate violence. A second round of peace talks a few months later is postponed as the two sides argue over transport and security.
June 8, 2006: Talks in Norway aimed at restoring peace collapse.
July 20, 2006: Tamil Tigers close sluice gates of an eastern reservoir, cutting water to more than 60,000 people, prompting the government to launch its first major offensive on Tiger territory since the 2002 ceasefire.
July 11, 2007: Government announces ouster of rebels from eastern Sri Lanka
Nov. 2, 2007: The head of the Tamil Tigers' political wing, S.P. Thamilselvan, believed to be the second-in-command of the group, is killed in a government air raid.
Jan. 2, 2008: Government says Tamil Tigers must disarm before any future peace talks, a day after the authorities decide to withdraw from an internationally brokered ceasefire.
Jan. 16, 2008: Sri Lanka's ceasefire deal officially terminated.
Aug. 2, 2008: Sri Lankan military says troops enter the district housing the Tamil Tiger rebels' de facto capital for the first time in 11 years.
Jan. 2, 2009: Military captures the Tamil Tigers' de facto capital, Kilinochchi.
Jan. 25, 2009: Government captures rebels' last major stronghold of Mullaittivu.
May 17, 2009: Surrounded rebels offer to lay down arms, saying the war has reached the "bitter end.''
May 18, 2009: Government says it has captured the last rebel-held land and killed rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, his top deputies and his son Charles Anthony.

The recessionist

"Trees don't grow to the sky and markets don't fall to the floor,"

says Prem Watsa in a Toronto Life article. This small statement gave me hope in an increasingly dire economy.


Image Hosting

Watsa is a savvy business trader, a Bay street boy, the Canadian Warren Buffet if you will. He predicted the economic crash in 1987, Japan in 1990 and the one we are currently wading in. He reacted accordingly by moving most of his $16-billion portfolio out of the stock market and into a secure treasury. He is the guy who is actually benefitting from this economy, buying up cheap stocks while protecting his assets. Why does this make me happy?

Well this is further proof that this entire economic collapse is based on ignorance, negligence and... people spending money they don't have, stupidity, rather. Sure sure, it's easy to say this now, when we all know better, I know hindsight is cheap. I just find comfort in the fact that this is a curable disaster. It came about because the stock brokers had no idea what they were investing in and truly didn't understand the moves they were making. Banks handed out loans to people who really couldn't afford it to suckle the interest from them, but they lost out overall. Why didn't anyone stop it? The business journalists reporting it barely had a clue what they were writing about - how could they if their sources were either uninformed or money-mongering vampires?

Meanwhile, there are a handful of men who saw this coming and have profited. This is comforting because it means there are people who know what they're doing out there, it's only a matter of the rest of us choosing to listen to them and learning from them. If one good thing will come of this recession, it will be the lesson that ignorance is not bliss. We need to ask questions until we understand, we need to challenge those even if they are our superiors. Groupthink is a killer, and the only way we can put an end to it and these little recessions every decade will be if we stop "paying our dues" and stand up and ask what is going on.

Knowledge is power after all. Business is not a psychic matter, it isn't all about gut instincts. A lot of it is calculated and can be predicted. Watsa knows this and we can know it too, if we take the time to learn.


-- the golden girl

Let's stay together... or not

I was perusing through the National Post yesterday and saw an article about a survey conducted that depicted the toll that divorce takes on Canadian children. I looked past the fact that it felt like the authors of the piece sounded like they were the ones who conducted the survey (Screw objectivity and conflict of interest!) and noticed some interesting, albeit, lopsided statistics.


Image Hosting

Families headed by single mothers are at least four times more likely to be poor than those made up of a married couple and their children. -- REALLY? Wow. What about those headed by single fathers? Oh right, children tend to live with the mother after a divorce. Well I guess that explains that statistic. Next.

When children are raised by single parents, they are more likely to be poor, and their families are more likely to rely upon public assistance programs for housing, child care and money for food, clothes and medication. -- Again, this seems obvious.

In 1960, fewer than one in 10 households were made up of single parents or common-law couples; today, that number is one in three. -- Well yes, in 1960 women could barely file for divorce. It wasn't until the Divorce Act of 1985 and much grunt work by the feminist movement that women could truly file for divorce, other than on extremely violent or disgusting grounds. (Women had to go to the Senate and plead that their husbands had a)committed adultery, on top of b) performed some violent or obscene sexual act to them). This stat is useless.

Yet instead of bemoaning this breakdown of marriage, our society tends to applaud it, saying
"live and let live." The irony is that raising kids outside marriage actually makes a laissez-faire live and let live lifestyle less achievable -- because it increases the need for costly social programs, all of which amount to interventions in private family life. -- I'm so sorry that our public divorces are infringing on your paycheques. Let's force women to stay in abusive relationships. Let's force people to stay with alchoholic, deadbeat partners who do no share of the housework, or emotionless lovers. Let's force our children to have to huddle in their rooms while mom and dad shout at the top of their lungs. Let's excuse any philandering and cheating. In Al Green's words, "Let's stay together." COME ON.

A U. S. study last year determined that $140-billion in public spending could be saved if all children lived with their own married parents. In the U. K., the extra costs to the taxpayer of poverty in single-parent households were measured at $66-billion, equal to more than 6% of total government spending. -- I wonder how much government spending could be reduced if we took funding out of homeless shelters, nursing homes, children's group homes. They don't matter to big business either. Let's cut 'em all!

Of course taking money out of social programs would give our government more money to bail out faltering banks and disbanded businesses. The point of social programs is to increase the quality of life for people who can't afford to buy their way out. It's to provide relief to people who are divorced, to the homeless, poor children, students and the elderly, because they are the ones who need it. Taking money out of these social programs or altering legislation to make divorce more difficult, would of course lend more money to all the miniature Conrad Black's who read the National Post. But that's not the point. We could also charge $5.00 for the TTC, and that would generate a huge amount of money. But the people who use the TTC aren't the ones who can afford $5.00 every time they ride the rocket. It's the same idea.

This study was biased. It was useless. And the point behind it was so atrocious to me, who believes whole-heartedly in generous social programs, and the monetary equity of Canadians.

All children deserve to grow up in a household with their own married parents. -- they write. Shut-up Rebecca Walberg and Andrea Mrozek. Children deserve to grow up in home free from violence, substance abuse, constant fighting and simply bad parents, which are the leading reasons for divorce. Children deserve not to be used as masks for greedy conservative agendas.

-- the golden girl

STOP booing your own team members

A big part of why I hate Leaf fans made its way into the Skydome (Roger's centre) last week during the World Baseball Classic. Every time Magglio Ordonez stepped up to bat for Venezuala, the fans would vehemently boo him and shout mean-spirited phrases at him in Spanish. (I couldn't understand them, but I could tell from the tone of their voices.)




Everyone else was baffled at why anyone would boo Magglio who is easily the star of the Venezualan team and a genuinely nice player, which is hard to come by. The guy goes out of his way to sign autographs for everyone right up until his coach beckons him to the bench before the first pitch. Not just during Venezualan games, but Tigers games as well, home and away (I've been to both). And this wasn't a one time thing, they did it both games I attended and have continued the tradition when Venezuala moved to the final rounds in Miami. It got to the point where his team members were coming off the bench and signalling fans to cut it out.

Magglio has been batting... well, normally, but nowhere near his regular self. He has a .312 career batting average - last year he hit .318, and in 2007 he averaged .363. In the Classic games, his average has sunk to .150, just over his spring training statistics, where he has only had three at bats. This is abysmal. He had 21 homeruns last year and 178 hits, and that was a BAD season. You can tell the fans are really getting to him, he usually has a hop in his step and a big goofy smile on, but he appears sullen and depressed.



My thing is, I hate teams that boo their own players. The Leafs are notorious for this, and it's part of the reason why the team deflates and chokes and players get distracted. I believe you can be displeased with players on your team, but you should keep quiet. If a player isn't doing well, more than likely, he will be traded - management doesn't need your boos to know whether or not to trade a player.

You should treat players you don't like as a dysfunctional member of your family. You shouldn't harass them til they leave, just pray silently by your bed at night that they get better or get traded. For Magglio, he doesn't need to improve, he's already the best on the team. And he can't be traded, this is the World Classic, you are supposed to play where you are born, and we all know you don't choose where you're born any more than you choose the dysfunctional members of your family.

The reasoning behind all this? Magglio has publicly supported Venezualan leader Hugo Chavez, who in February just passed a law that can allow him to remain as the President forever, as long he keeps winning elections. Sorry, there was a referendum on whether or not he should be allowed to pass this law, and popular vote approved it. That means that most of the people IN Venezuala (not the ones who have left and are living in Miami) approve enough of Chavez to keep him in power indefinitely. Now I'm not an expert on Venezualan politics, they may be corrupt, but do you think one of the biggest names to come out of the country would publically support a leader he (and the majority of the country) believed was good? I just find this hard to swallow.

Even so, I'm sure many players in the MLB supported Bush when he was unpopular. This would never have happened here, especially if the player in question was the best on the team. In any event, the Venezualans have managed to make it to the semi-finals with the rest of their star-studded roster having to overcompensate (Miguel Cabrera, Carlos Guillen, Bobby Abreu, Endy Chavez and the various Blancos). What the fans are doing, however, is rendering their biggest gun almost ineffective. It's leaving a huge hole in their lineup, a hole in the field and it means other team members have to work harder. Other teams don't have this problem, so it may be only natural that the Venezualan team will fall just short. And if they don't make it to the finals (they should, the USA team is quite disadvantaged next to them) the only ones that can be blamed are the fans.

Shame on you, Venezualan fans. As Magglio said in an interview, "baseball and politics don't mix." Nor should they. This is the same drudge that happens during the Olympics all the time that everyone hates. Keep your politics off the ball field!

-- the golden girl

The human Tamil wall

Goodness, was I surprised when I got out of class at 3:00pm today at Dundas and Yonge, downtown T-dot. Drums were beating, Tamil Eelam flags were whipping in the wind and it seemed like hundreds of people were chanting to end genocide.

Genocide? Apparantly, the Tamil's inhabit a portion of Sri Lanka (and India as well) and conflict has been stirring since the 1980's, but things have been heating up in recent years. The Tamils are accusing the Sri Lankan government of committing genocide on its people. A person demonstrating in Brussels was quoted saying the government is killing up to 50 Tamils a day. Previous protests in Toronto have reached up to 45,000 people. Officials have warned downtowners to find alternate routes around the core, as Canadian Tamils have expressed they wish to create a wall from Front Street, up Yonge to Bloor, across to University and down. Protests seem to be taking place all over the world, I've heard of Brussels and Paris, so far.

I need to read up on this conflict, I really have never seen a protest of this magnitude up close before. I could still hear the shouts from nearly three streetcar stops away at Jarvis. I'm impressed.

-- the golden girl

We takin' over

With all this talk of recession, everyone in the news industry is wetting their pants over the impending blogosphere.




I would just like to note that blogs do not replace news. They complement it. The only part of the newspaper replaced by blogs may be the opinion section and possibly the sports section. It's just silly to wait until the next day to read about how your sports team did. And it's way better to read opinion pieces that have an abundance of profanity and no limits on political correctness, and all that jazz.

Any publication that does not embrace online technology and exploit it, are the ones that will be waving good-bye to their readers. To not enhance your publication to make it more convenient and accessible to everyone is backwards, and the journalists who refuse to upgrade will find themselves out of a job. It's natural for us who grew up in the information age to accept these changes - not that they are changes for us. But for the dinos like Buzz Bissinger who think that the blogosphere has nothing to offer journalism, I would like to hand them a shovel and inform them to begin digging their own grave already.

What does an old bag of bones like Bissinger care that online journalism is taking off, other than he may be out a job sooner than he likes? The point is, is online journalism - including blogs in all their uncensored and unabashed glory - isn't for the aging populous. It's for us up and comers, who don't like unfolding a giant spread in crowded coffee shops or on the TTC and mucking through the various articles we have no intent or care to read. I mean, unless these newspapers want to specialize in gerontology, they're really going to have to embrace this whole Wild Wild West thing.

My parents are over 50, they read the paper. I laugh at the thought of my poor father squinting his eyes at a computer screen trying to read the news. He will leave the paper out on the table when he leaves for work, in hopes I will read it. Each time he comes home and sees his beloved orderly folded paper, dissected and haphazardly thrown back together after I finally found the cartoons.

I'm not saying that journalists don't deserve to be paid or that the newspaper is dying. I hope that those things are not true, as it is the business I hope to enter soon. But the industry NEEDS to stop looking at online and critisizing and mocking it. They need to hop off their elitist pedastels and utilize the new medium to their advantage. Maybe it isn't the Internet's fault that you are losing readership, newspapers, maybe it is your own fault for not adjusting your format to the new generation of news-consumers. Ultimately, the publications (cough, Globe and Mail, loves it) that do embrace the benefits of the blogosphere, wikis, Facebook and Twitter, etc. are the ones who will be around after the Ice Age.


-- the golden girl

"Lazy" comes from the French expression, Laissez-faire

Go here and skim this article - tell me that this doesn't infuriate you and I will call you Adam Smith.

Why is it in times of economic peril that the slimiest, skeasiest, laziest companies prosper? It's a little thing we like to call capitalism, kids, and it's everywhere. It's the reason we have any new technology, it's the reason we can talk to Bob online in Austrailia, it's the reason that there are civil wars all over Africa, it's the reason we are wading in financial debris up to our necks right now.




A conservative, or anyone with a lot of money, will give you a lecture about how capitalism is good, and breeds competition, strives for innovation and basically encourages society to "better" itself. But the deepest problem with capitalism is - a fact that has been known since its popularization during the 1700's - that there is always a loser. When someone is winning, their economy is thriving, the citizens are happy, water is flowing, money is growing out of trees, culture is pounding, there is another country that is losing. Oftentimes, it is the Third World countries in Africa or South America, where colonialism is still deeply entrenched. It's not hard to be at the losing end of capitalism. All it takes is a blow to the financial sector to stall the system, and then selfish companies (really, you can't blame them for trying to save their own skin) cut off workers, decreasing employment, which decreases overall spending.

Spending, aka consumerism, is the key to capitalism. You spend money on the local grocery store, which puts money in Mr. Grocery's pocket, who then spends money at the local bar, putting money in Mr. Bartender's pocket, who then spends money to invest in stocks, putting money in Mr. Banker's pocket, and so on. Well that sounds good, don't you think? If everyone did that, Canada would be in a good position. Except then come multinational corporations (MNCs).

MNCs have really been around since capitalism, and is largely what sparked the whole movement to begin with. Basically, the idea is you have a company that is based in one country, but has branches in other countries. While a portion of the money earned by the company goes to wages and property costs in the branches, the majority of it feeds right back into the mothership in the home country. McDonald's is the timeless example of this kind of company. Based in the United States, there are restaurants all over the world. So Mr. Canadian consumer goes out, and instead of going to a local restaurant, he hits up Mickie D's. He pays his $8.00 for a Big Mac meal - much cheaper than a restaurant, since he doesn't have to tip for service - and goes about his business. Meanwhile, that $8.00 and the billions of dollars generated all over the world by McDonald's consumers, largely flows right into the pockets of the States. Sure, some Canadian McDonald's employees are earning minimum wages, and the owners are paying to take up space on Canadian soil, but that is all small potatoes compared to what the CEOs and execs are raking in on profits.




McDonald's and Wal-mart and probably every other MNC save money by paying their employees poorly, and through their globalized branches worldwide. McDonald's pay their workers minimum wage, and in countries like Mexico and regions of South America and the Carribbean, the minimum wage is a hell of a lot cheaper. The prices stay the same, but they pay workers in less developed countries less money, because they can. Wal-mart buys cheap products from China or Mexico, where there are few labour laws and workers are paid the bare minimum. Wal-mart then inflates the price of the cheaply made product, which they still manage to keep below their competitor's prices, and sell it all over the world. Are the workers in Mexico or China ever compensated more if their products sell better? No.

So I see this article that Wal-mart is still thriving when everyone else is faltering, and it makes me sick. It is an exploitative business, that does not give back to the countries it takes from. Okay okay, the people in those countries need those jobs, and want to work for the payment they recieve. I'm aware. But if you are First World company, you should be paying your workers First World wages - that would be a fair practise, and the only way to outsource without exploiting your own employees.




What happens in times of economic strife is people desperately need to save money. So they shop at Wal-mart and eat at McDonald's, because its cheap (because they pay Carlos in Mexico, $6.00 a DAY, maximum to work). This sickens me the most, that these companies exist for the lower classes of society. They know that people on a budget don't have an option, and that is why they can't afford to pay the extra amount to buy from local stores or restaurants.

In some of the locations in the Carribbean or Europe or South America, these companies set up shop and boast the same prices you would find in America. The locals can't afford to eat there (not that they would want to), so the McDonald's and Wal-marts end up serving mainly tourists. They pay suppliers in other parts of the world and ship the products in, pay the workers in these places insanely low wages, and still cater to a First World crowd. Does the money from the tourists go back into the said countries? Nope, it trickles right into America's pockets. Whereas, if McDonald's wasn't there, tourists may have gone and eaten at the local pub. Hotels and resorts are no different. So the tourists come and absorb the beauty and wonder that exists in these exotic places, but don't even contribute back to their economy. They are taking in all the good that these countries have to offer, and not giving back. They are basically raping the countries of, really, the only worth and value they have to Western civilization. It's awful.

I know, this is a lot of socialist mumbo jumbo, but I think if you are going to be exploiting other countries, the least you can do is own up to it. By going on vacation in Cuba (unless you actually use the country's own accomodations), by eating at McDonald's, by shopping at Wal-mart you are only adding to the economic instability. The best thing you can do for your country, is go to the local restaurants, buy local produce, shop at local grocery stores and buy locally made clothing. Just keep this in mind next time you eat a Big Mac.


-- the golden girl

web hit counters

Porno for everyone!

I am working on a story involving pornography, and I keep coming across what seems like an addage that professes "women aren't as visually stimulated as men." What is this supposed to mean? That women aren't as visually inclined as men? That women find watching sex repulsive? While those statements are up in the air, I propose another theory.




First off, we know that there are generally equal amounts of men and women who claim to learn and think visually, and that visual thinkers compose a good majority of the population. It has since been illustrated that more women think photographically, and more men think spatially (a very obscure term that I am not going to try to explain, but click here.)

It is also a popular, err.. concept (myth) that women just don't find watching sex a turn-on. They may be more into erotic literature, or actual physical foreplay, as opposed to racy images. This just seems odd. Who would rather read the script of a film than watch the movie? I mean, you can't argue with an hour and a half of foreplay, but who's that lucky? So either, women are forced to go it without arousal, or watch porn. But why do some women insist on going without it?

Porn, though paying and treating its female stars well, is a male-centric business. The top dogs are male. The viewers are predominantly male. People who care enough to critique porn (excluding feminists and the violence debate) are male. Even the camera angles are largley shot from over the male's shoulder, or focusing on a female's face.

So rarely do we get lengthy erotic close-ups of men's chiseled bodies, beads of sweat dangling off their luxurious curves. We rarely get to see a guy's face during orgasm, usually only the ensuing gooey mess, which we are more than acquainted with already. You never see movies shot from a girl's POV (unless it's sapphic in nature). It's the 21st century, it's well-known that women like sex. And since women are just as visually inclined as men, isn't it time to rethink the underlying issues in why women don't like pornography?

I love to watch porn, oftentimes just for a laugh. But I do have to search through extensive bins of raunchy material (a lot of which still degrades women), to find anything I like. I'm not about to boycott the porn biz because there's a few skanks exploiting women. In fact, the exact opposite needs to happen if women want to see porn change. We argue, well if there was more women-friendly content, we would watch it. But if we showed we were a marketable force in the first place, then someone might cater to us. And it has been happening more lately.

In the same way the radicals embraced words like "bitch" in the 70's, we need to embrace porn. Be classy, if that's you. You don't have to shout to the world you watch porn, or say write about it in your blog. But if you're with someone you trust, don't be shy in suggesting to watch a little porn as part of your foreplay. That is still totally respectful and tasteful. It might ultimately help you find out what you like and don't like, and give you more insight into who you are as a person. Knowing yourself intimately is part of knowing yourself all over. Getting in touch with your sexual desires can only boost your self-esteem and possibly lead to some hotter nights (alone... or not.) Go porno!


-- the golden girl

Everybody Hurts

Sometimes it feels like Canada is in a bubble, safe from all the war, terrorism and economic strife that goes on outside its plastic walls.




And while it is certain that Canada hasn't felt the grief experienced even to our neighbours to the south, the economic strain hasn't left our big beautiful country out of its deplorable grasp. Layoffs are widespread, to the point where I pray for my grocery store to be busy so I don't lose my job. Magazines are disposing of freelancers, auto workers are taking "extended non-paid vacations," houses are sitting idly while their values sink like the stocks on Wall street.

As people lose their jobs, everything is rising in price in order to compensate for the lack of spending. The government has issued some stimuli in their Jan. 26 budget, including some relief to homeowners renovating their homes, taxpayers in the way of broad-based cuts and tax-free savings accounts, workers in new training programs and credit-users in increasing access to credit. But is it enough?

The Conservatives, backed in majority by the Liberals (with zero support from the NDP and Bloc, surprise surprise), are being heavily criticized for sinking into a deficit for the first time in a decade. A deficit that Liberals worked hard to dig Canada out of from the previous government under Jean Chrétien. But how can they avoid going into deficit when so many people are suffering? And are they even going into enough of a deficit?

While I applaud Harper for coming up with a satisfactory budget, I feel sincerely left out. As a student, and even a young Canadian, I don't make enough money to pay taxes in the first place, nor enough to save any money in a tax-free account. I don't even own a home and I already have a credit card that I am struggling to pay off. I know I'm part of a demographic that makes under and survives on less than $20,778, which can be defined as Canada's poverty line. I am safe for now, while I'm in school, I have support from my parents, but when I'm finished I'll be on my own in an industry that probably pays about $30-50 per project.

Harper did a fair job of helping those in the upper classes of Canada, but again, the Conservatives would rather help out the banks and affluent taxpayers in high brackets with the installments of TFSA's, businesses (albeit, small businesses, which is a nice change) and those with enough money for home reno. I am pulling in barely enough to eat anything besides fake macaroni and cheese and 29¢ Mr. Noodles, I won't be making any renovations, sorry.

While I am severely disappointed in Layton's decision to instigate this idiotic excuse for a rebellion (I'm talking about that coalition you may have heard about in November that seems to have disintegrated), I am happy he at least stuck to his word and voted against the budget. While Ignatieff trumped him in the overall, and passed the budget through the Commons, maybe Layton does remember his "kitchen table" nonsense he preached so vociferously in the election prior. Or maybe he is trying to save face after allowing the public a peek at his greed.

I just would like to see some relief for the generation who will ultimately be living with the aftermath of this recession, which is us. If we can't get through school because of soaring tuition costs, and a steep rise in cost of living (especially in Toronto), where is the hope for the future? We will be a poor, uneducated generation because we aren't part of Harper's ideal demographic. I do a lot of complaining, what do I propose Harper does to help my cause?

Well, some money re-inserted into the arts wouldn't hurt, which includes the Canada Magazine Fund. Some serious investments in the auto industry would help a lot, since a great portion of Canadians are/were employed in this sector. Though, invest in companies that make green efforts and technologically advanced efforts. Freeze tuition for one year, or set period of time (NOT permanently) to allow us to catch up with the rising costs, or provide relief in the way of some financial reimbursement for students who attain a clear status, or grants towards textbooks. Invest in green projects in order to generate some more jobs, where the worker training the government initiated already may have some use. Lastly, send me the sum of $1-million so I can buy an endless supply of chicken tenders - the good kind.

I feel sad to grow up during this recession that people are equating to the Great Depression. Only a war isn't going to pull us out of this one. Everywhere I turn, I see the effects of the faltering economy, widespread poverty and gross inequality. We can't hide in our igloos any longer, it is time to face that things may not look up for time to come. So what do I personally plan to do?

Go local. Buy from my local grocers and restaurants, so the money goes into your own community and isn't fed into some wealthy multinational corporation. Yes, McDonald's is cheap, but in the long run you will help yourself buying locally.

Budget well, keep a tight ship and never spend more than you make. This includes trying to pay off any credit that exists, in order to make sure you aren't burdened by debt.

Save money on making your apartment as energy-friendly as possible, turning off lights, using less water and heat, watching less TV, making sure the fridge is closed properly, etc.

Put any money you have saved up and not using into either a TFSA or an RRSP, depending on what you're saving the money for. Long term investments, like for retirement should go in an RRSP, whereas if you're saving for a car or trip or simply when you're released into the wild, then a TFSA.

Stay positive. It's very easy to lose sight of the light in tough times. Constantly remind yourself to look at the world in a positive light, and strive to find good news around the world. If it's not essential to your life, perhaps avoid watching the news on a regular basis, so you don't get overwhelmed with negativity. Anything truly important will make its way to you one way or another.

It looks like we won't be receiving much help from our government, so it is up to us to get through the storm that just hit Canada.

-- the golden girl

Where does Toronto fit in the budget plan?

Well, parliament will be returning from an lengthy holiday on the 26th, and there are several questions at hand.

Canadians are all desperate to see if the Conservatives will be initiating an economic stimulus. They insist they are, but with the stern Jim Flaherty running such a tight ship, can we really expect anything outrageous? One thing is for sure, Ontario will likely be getting the short end of the stick as per usual.

I don't condone capitalism and I believe that the rich (provinces) have a duty to aid the poor (provinces). If Ontario is a wealthier region then I don't have problems distributing the wealth to other parts of my country that require it. Only, it begs the question, with the state of our economy and the tragic losses in the automotive sectors, is Ontario still the leader?

When I go outside and see nothing but potholed roads; when I breathe, I inhale dirty, polluted air, is Ontario really the wealthiest province? Some of the poorest people in the country - a lot of recent immigrants, homeless that flock to urban centres to sponge off of tourists, those who work for minimum wage downtown at all the countless restaurants, bars and clothing stores - live in Toronto. TTC fares are soaring, not to mention it is a flawed haphazard system, in some serious need of improvement.

It gets to the point where I can't streetcar or subway because it costs upwards of $5.50 a day to go anywhere. I can't walk very far because the streets are incessantly crowded and the air quality is abysmal. Toronto is one of the most expensive cities to live in, with some of the poorest citizens in Canada.

I'm not one to complain for no reason, but Flaherty seems to get all haughty when Torontonians approach him and ask for more funding. The last place Canada needs to invest is apparently Ontario.

Well excuse me, but with the current lack of well-paying jobs (especially in the magazine industry, thanks to a series of arts cuts by our loveable prime minister) and the soaring living expenses in Toronto, and elsewhere, I'm sure, how are Ontarians expected to stay on top? This is how urban centres go from wealthy and flourishing to dingy, old and dangerous. You must continually invest in cities to keep them rejuvenating.

It's incredibly frustrating. The government is supposed to be encouraging spending to keep our economy afloat, but they aren't making it any easier on citizens to spend. If we are making less or the same amount of money, but everything else is rising (TTC fares, rent, hydro, clothing costs, food costs), how are we expected to spend?

There needs to be a form of help for those of us who are stuck in the roving middle class. It's true, Ontario houses many rich, celebrity-status individuals who probably aren't even aware of the economy crisis. But in this contemporary age, there are so many of us in the middle, who pay our bills, but never have any extra money to take the TTC, to eat healthily, to buy clothes that look professional so when we do get a job we don't look like slobs.

I appreciate that there are Canadians in other provinces who probably struggle more than I do. Canadians in general are blessed and I am so proud to live in this bountiful country. But I don't appreciate being thrown under this stereotypical umbrella that all Ontarians are wealthy, and that we don't need financial assistance like the next person.

All I ask is the recognition that everyone is feeling the effects of the spiralling economy, it touches the lives of everyone in an equitable way. Have compassion and empathy for us in the middle, and the millions of us that are on the bottom.


-- the golden girl

free hit counter

Prorogue pro quo

Stephen Harper hasn't yet stimulated the economy, but he sure has stimulated the voters. Yesterday, the Conservative minority government asked Gov. General Michaëlle Jean to grant Harper "prorogue," a.k.a the allowance to suspend Parliament until Jan. 26, or as NDP Jack Layton so illustratively put it, "put a padlock on Parliament Hill."


So I figure, it's a safe time to write a blog, while all the politicians are sitting in their $1-million homes, stewing and scheming of ways to underhand the others. You could practically see the steam coming out of Layton and Dion's ears in the frigid cold, as they addressed Nathan Phillips Square today in Toronto, looking like Dick Dastardly and Muttley. And there are handfuls of anti-coalition rallies, and anti-Harper rallies, and pro-democracy rallies -- lots and lots of rallies.



But I've decided to look at the positives of the situation, aside from the fact that this little blip has actually gotten a rise out of Canadian voters and may influence a better turnout. Sure, we know Harper is vengeful and strategic, albeit tricky, but in his defence, the formation of the coalition was just as sneaky and it provoked Harper's move to stall Parliament. The populous voted (maybe a very low percentage) and Harper won a minority government. It feels to me that the remaining losers needed to spite the Conservatives in a shifty, politic way. To be honest, I voted for Layton and the NDP, but this coalition reveals that he is only interested in the short-term promise of seats, and not in the way his party is perceived by voters for the next election.


And talk about short-term gain. Didn't Dion just resign? What does he care if Harper stimulates the economy or not, he's not even going to be in office to see it happen. Don't tell me it's out of the sheer patriotism in his heart? What does he stand to gain, except closure that he managed to prove Harper - the man who beat him fair and square - wasn't capable of "maintaining the confidence of the House." Of course, he wasn't capable, because Dion is running around promising more seats to the NDP, and God-knows-what to the Quebecois. No one can actually understand that man.


Pro-coalitionists argue that Dion was completely within his rights to form a coalition, and vote non-confident at the next bill. It's part of politics. It's also part of politics for Harper to demand prorogue. The point is, it was never about whether or not the parties were confident in the Conservatives to deliver a proper package concerning the economy. It was most definitely about spite, abusing democracy, and winning in the game of politics. While I would consider myself a Liberal thinker and an NDP-supporter, I have to say thank God for Michaëlle Jean.


Further, the point is, the coalition did not give the Conservatives enough time whatsoever to deliver an economic plan. They demanded he insert a stimulus package, and Harper retorted that he was not prepared to do so until Jan. 26. Because unlike Dion, a rash and bumbling buffoon, he knows that the economy is a complex, tangled mess with many factors. He knows that in order to best protect Canadians from the failing economy, he must think it through. The fact of the matter is, I am not utterly pro-Conservative, but I sure as hell do not want Dion leading me into a fluttering economy.

-- the golden girl

free hit counter

Top 12-16 Albums of All Time (or my lifetime, at least)

I was inspired by a friend to write this. Before Friday I used to be sort of against the idea of an album. I just don't truly believe its possible to enjoy every single song on an album by one artist. There's usually one or two (or in most cases, many many more) songs that are garbage. I'm a much bigger fan of creating my own mixes, and not meaning to brag, but I'm quite the DJ. Aside from that, there are a handful (well, almost four handfuls) of artists whom have created albums I have been able, and been excited, to listen to the entire thing, more than once. They are the following, not really in any particular order.

Your Favorite Weapon/Deja Entendu - Brand New (I love both of these equally, I know every single word to every song on both CDs)
Transatlanticism - Death Cab for Cutie (truly a catchy, mellow, beautiful album)
Discovery - Daft Punk (this probably has the most plays in my iTunes)
Give Up - Postal Service (in LOVE with this album, and am begging them to make another)
808's & Heartbreak - Kanye West (pretty recent, but quite an earful, amazingly innovative)
Miseducation of Lauryn Hill - Lauryn Hill (classic)
Call Me Irresponsible - Michael Bublé (this is the perfect mood-setting album)
Me Against the World - 2pac (his best, and arguably the best rap album of the 90s)
Marshall Mathers/The Eminem Show - Eminem (both very good, obviously, Grammy-winning/nominated albums)
Continuum - John Mayer (I actually dislike his earlier stuff, but really appreciate this one)
The Bake Sale - Cool Kids (amazing, amazing album, please support this group, they're the future)
Eye to the Telescope - KT Tunstall (another great atmosphere-setting album)
Songs for Polar Bears/Final Straw/Eyes Open - Snow Patrol (again, I like all of these, and they mingle together for me) + "Olive Grove Facing the Sea" and "Firelight" from When It's All Over We Still Have to Clear Up

Anyways, I think that's all. I guess that's a top 12 or so. My absolute favourites are at the top. I just think it's incredible for one artist to put together an amazing, listen-through-to-the-end quality album. These artists deserve to be paid the top dollar (some aren't). If anyone argues that there are no good albums anymore, point these ones out. Til' next time,


-- the golden girl

free hit counter

Here is a poem I have been working on. I really loved to write poetry when I was younger, but stopped because I felt that I wasn't being original or terribly creative. But, I don't know, I felt compelled one day to write another poem, but I felt it was more sincere in French. Maybe not as pointed, or blatant. A little more subtle, is the approach I hope it takes. It may not be entirely grammatically correct, so if not, please don't get hung up on it. Anyways, voila.

Où est allée ma famille?

J’ai la mal au cœur
Je n’ai plus de famille
Je ne le vois plus jamais
Depuis je suis partie

Quelquefois, je les verrai de nouveau
Je veux, à ma maison, aller
Mais je n’ai pas une maison
Il faut que je le crée

La maison est où le cœur est
Je suis tout à fait sûr
Mais, je n’ai pas une maison
Est-ce que j’ai un cœur?

Si je n'ai pas un cœur
A-t-il y un trou au lieu?
Où est allée ma famille?
les trouver, Ne pas puis-je

Je manque ma mère
Et la voie elle me souriait
Ils disent je souris la même
J’adorais quand elle riait

Je manque mon père
Et la voie il me criait
« Rangez vos vêtements » il dit
Mais, je ne les rangeais jamais

Je manque mon petit frère
Toujours, je l'aurais corrigé
Maintenant, il fait de meilleures qualités que moi
Et nous pouvons nous discuter

J’ai la mal au cœur
Si j’ai un à tous
Un jour, je ferai ma propre famille
Et je ne devrai les manquer plus


-- the golden girl

Afrocentric Schooling

40% - the percentage of black Canadians that don't graduate from high school.
80% - the percentage of incarcerated Canadians that haven't finished high school.
25% - the percentage of the black American population below age 30 behind bars.

As Louis March, Communications Director for the African-Canadian Heritage Association, says, "It's a horror story." No other minority group in either country presents such staggering numbers.

Months ago, sensationalist photos were splattered on the front page of the Toronto newspapers, as the Toronto District School Board approved a pilot program for a separate Afrocentric school in Sept. 2009. Black mothers were seen holding each other crying in triumph - to them, this meant something was really going to change.

What black people (in my opinion, of course) don't need is a half-baked attempt at splicing more black history into the current system. What they don't need is a watered down version of their heritage, censored reports about the genocides in Africa, or dumbed down math classes designed just to get them through the system. What they really don't need is white people - or any other people - telling them what they need.



The black community of Toronto came to the School Board asking them for an Afrocentric school. Crime rates still soar for black teens. Why? It's a very complex issue, involving education, socio-economics, demographics, psychology and culture, among others. A contributing reason, however, is the lack of pride I suspect black people feel when they come home from history class.

"Mommy, was grandpa a slave? Was he lynched from a tree? Was grandma raped? Did our ancestors get shipped here on a stinking boat?" Are those the types of stories black people have to be proud of? Instead, they look at the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, where black people fought back. Where black people started gaining a morsel of power. While there are honourable black people as role models - Luther King, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rosa Parks - the models teens can identify with closer are 2pac, Biggie, NWA. While these rappers' influence in black history and music are severely underrepresented, their aggression personified attitudes from nearly 20 years ago.

Human rights have come a long way, and its a much better place for all minorities. Racism still exists, yes, but its not as suffocating as it was in the 80s or 90s.

What these black children need is some context. They need to know how important 2pac was for the black movement and to black culture. Yes, black people are not a homogeneous group of people - some from Jamaica, some from Trinidad, some from Ghana, some from Ethiopia, etc. - but there is an undeniable "black culture" that connects the majority of black Canadians.

They need to know about the black Pharaohs in Egypt, the black Muslim leaders in the middle East, the black tribal leaders in parts of Africa.

They need to learn about how tribes survived in the Congo, how many communities existed in relative tolerance of one another for centuries before Europeans initiated colonialism and instigated decades of bloody African wars and genocides.

They need to know about Chinua Achebe, and African literature - how enlightening it truly is. They need to learn about African art and how some of Picasso's greatest inspirations came from it. They need to learn how African drums inspired music in the West. These are stories that can instill some pride in a black child when he comes home from school.

But there isn't enough time for a Eurocentric system to incorporate what's necessary for black children into the curriculum. That's why parents want an Afrocentric school. It won't be teaching dumbed down skills, but instead teaching subjects from an African perspective. They will study literature, but literature that delves into African lifestyles and history. They will teach the same math, but using teaching methods more engaging for black children. All the same subjects will exist, but in an African context.

To the people who believe that an Afrocentric school will lead to a Russian school, or a Chinese school, or whatever, read the statistics. Chinese people aren't dropping out of high school at horrific rates. Chinese people aren't the ones ending up in jail. They aren't the ones killing each other.

To the people who believe this is segregation, think deeply about what segregation is. In the context of history, it is the forceful act of separating people by race, which is not what's being done. Choosing to attend an Afrocentric school is no different than choosing to live in black-populated area. The difference is choice.

And to the people who think black people will have a tough time integrating back into society, it's not like they are leaving society. It's not like they are in a boarding school, where they only return to civilization once a year. They still live in Canada, which is white in majority. They'll still run into white people, and interact with the rest of society.

There really is no legitimate reason to hold black people back from Afrocentric schooling. Something has to change, and clearly, trying to assimilate black kids in with regular systems hasn't worked. So why not try something new, to save countless lives and inconceivable amounts of money keeping them out of jail? If anyone has paid their dues long enough to have any kind of schooling they want, its African-Canadians.



-- the golden girl


Check out this awesome Kanye video, too. Love it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7G-o9oUnvc

You Can Drive MY Soul, Lights

Aaah, so I went to see Lights tonight at the Mod Club on College W. Just returned from touring in the States, Lights couldn't help but laugh at her adoring Toronto fans, comprised mostly of chic Queen-westers, wrapped in scarves and suede and teeny boppers all sporting Wonder Woman-esque headbands. "This is awesome," she said, apparantly not expecting the bumper-to-bumper throng inside the Mod Club.



Refusing to reveal her age or real name, Lights is a mystery, alright. She told Toronto Music Scene, "it’s kind of what people have been calling me for so long and it totally explains what my music is about." On her MySpace, she writes, "this world is a little dark, and I am Lights," and claims she is 104 years old.

Lights, though mistaken for a Toronto native, actually toured the world with her missionary parents for most of her life. It was a recent decision to move to Toronto, all on her own, and pursue her music career. And lucky for us, she did. The new-wave hippie, clad in a skin-tight yellow drop-line v-neck, black mini-skirt and signature headband, had checked any nervousness at the door this time. Charismatic and cheerful, she appeared to be relishing the tiny screaming fans all reaching for her at the front of the stage, and all crooning her lyrics along with the music. She would throw her head back and smile, as if thinking "I can't believe this is all happening."

She played all of the songs off her EP including February Air, Drive My Soul and White, an unreleased number with an odd forties' feel, called It's Over Casanova, as well as a new song. "There's lots of love in this room tonight," she yelled with a grin, "so sing along to this next one if you know the words," before diving into her version of Akon's Don't Matter. Everyone knew the words, even the teeny-boppers parents camped out up on the balcony. She concluded the show with a tingling performance of The Last Thing On Your Mind. Ripping off her headband, and scrunching her hair, Lights abandoned her set of keyboards and walked over to the edge of the stage. She reached out and grasped dozens of little hands. Her dark black hair hung over one Egyptian-like eye, while she crooned "sing the last thing on your mind, the last key in your head, I'll be the one to keep you, keep you at your best." She then came back for an encore and played Ice.

On stage, there were about 4 different keyboards, two each for Lights and bandmate Adam, as well as a keyboard-guitar, which allowed for the funky synthesized notes. Her drummer, Maurie, joined them, with a picture drawn by a fan taped with duct-tape to the front of the kick-drum. A sleek white Mac also sat upon a keyboard case in the middle of the stage. Needless to say, Lights had to hop over about 50 million cords to reach her fans.



The petite ageless exotic-looking Lights is full of love. Her EP is just a positive collection of songs that make her feel "apple-pie" happy, a feeling that transcends to her audience. And the girl can sing. Such a simple, yet refreshing commodity for a female artist - it's not always a requirement, these days.

Anyways, I totally enjoyed the show, it was upbeat and charming. I restrained myself from buying up all the merch in the back of the club - Lights headbands, bookbags, t-shirts, buttons - but I will be attempting the Wonder Woman look sometime soon. Hopefully, I can pull it off. If you like the sounds of Death Cab for Cutie/the Postal Service, you will love Lights. Her concerts are only $15.00, so try to see her before the prices rise, you won't be disappointed. Til' next time,


-- the golden girl

Arts Cuts

I have been pondering this issue for days, because I really have two separate views on the matter: a personal view and a public view. First off I want to start by saying this issue has been really blown out of proportion because of the current elections. I'm not convinced that other than Gilles Duceppe, any of the other federal leaders would be making such a commotion if this were after the election; maybe I'm wrong. Anyways, I'm going to take you through my thought process.

I heard these vague reports about cuts to the arts, to programs I had never heard of or really, to be frank, cared about. The arts. It's a pretty broad topic. Well the brunt of it seems to have been absorbed by the Canadian film industry, which we know is struggling as it is. But on the bright side, people love that low-budget amateur feel these days, so maybe it's a plus. I'm a big fan of the 'art for art's sake' motto. I like the idea of art being created for the purpose of releasing emotion, for creating something new and inspirational, for capturing the nature of something. I like the idea of creating art as a hobby, because I think once people produce art for economic gain they begin to conform to societal pressures. I think artists should sell their paintings, but should not receive any tax cuts from the government (except maybe to write off their supplies and such), just because they are a starving artist. There are other things you can do in the art community: you can be an agent, buying and selling art for people, teach drawing/painting in schools or privately, set up a photography studio, get into graphic design or fashion, etc. All of these things depend on your marketing and entrepreneurial skills, and can generate quite an income. It is my opinion that individuals should not receive tax breaks, but looking deeper it isn't individual artists suffering from the Conservative arts cuts.

What are being affected are arts-based organizations, like PromArt, Trade Routes, Canadian Independent Film Fund, the New Media Research funds. Oh, and the CANADIAN MAGAZINE FUND. That woke me up. This is the potential field I will be getting into. It is a very strenuous task to find steady work in the magazine business, as is. Interns go for years without being paid because magazines can't get enough government funding to pay them. Some magazines pay their writers with tickets, CDs or swag. I will likely live on no name macaroni and cheese, stolen toilet paper rolls and printer paper for a surplus of five years and the government is cutting magazine funding? This is my personal feelings on the matter.

Stephen Harper basically said the Conservatives cut programs that didn't appear to be as efficient. I suppose this is true because magazines do recieve little funding from the government, relying mostly on ad revenue. If the government can put in place a more effective program, then by all means, but I know how long these things take, and it worries me having to enter the magazine industry in less than two years.

So why are people so outraged about this? Ordinary people don't care about the arts. The arts, in general, are a critique of society - whether through film, fine art, music, writing, etc. You don't want the people who are going to be painting your picture to the public (literally) to be pissed off, right, Jean Chrétien? Investing in art and culture is always a good thing, it makes citizens feel that they have an identity and a meaningful place in society. It evokes thought, emotion and feedback. It allows people to feel like they are free. In the days of slavery, music and dance are the things that ultimately kept slaves hopeful, and today the arts have the same effect for everyone in this dismal world we live in.

These cuts were made with good intentions for Canadians, to reduce taxes, which is my public view on the matter. I realize money has to be cut from somewhere, and arts on the grand scheme of things may be less important.But ultimately if you want to be part of free, social-minded nation (which I do) then you don't cut culture. In fact, its countries with strong social programs and leftist governments that rebuild the best - countries with strong senses of community. Look at Rwanda rebuilding after the genocide, it proceeds to grow more and more liberal. The countries that thrived during the financial crises in the 1990s, were all strong communitarian societies. Switzerland - notoriously big on the social programs - is still envied for its neutrality and peacefulness.

The truth is, what more can you expect out of a Conservative party? They are concerned with property, the economy, individuals, privatization. They want less to do with the arts , because they believe individuals should fund their own endeavours (health care, daycare, savings, etc.). They generally believe in less government interference. Of course, Conservatives in Canada are quite liberal, but, nonetheless. I believe what people were angered most about was the way Harper dismissed the cuts. "Ordinary people don't care about the arts," was the message given. This is the similar dim-witted strategy (or lack thereof) used against Québec separtists, which gave rise to such ruckus. The ordinary people Harper referred to were more than happy to object. If you want to see social programs become a priority, I would consider voting NDP or Green parties - maybe even the Bloc - as they have a strong commitment to these issues. Anyways, that's all for now.

Oh. These sites were fairly helpful in my research on the subject. Maybe they can clear things up for you.

http://www.mastheadonline.ca/news/2008/20080904588.shtml Talks about the funding cuts to Canadian Magazines.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2008/08/15/govt-arts-cuts.html Breaks down most of the arts cuts clearly.
http://mastheadonline.com/news/2008/20080820868.shtml More in depth about the magazine cuts.


-- the golden girl