Monday, December 01, 2008

Britney Spears "Womanizer"; playing the blame game?

I guess I question the motivation behind this song simply because of the apparent hypocrisy it conveys. I have to say that this song and it's music video do nothing to promote respect for women, but to the contrary they actually degrade women to as little as objects for the use of men (the definition of a womanizer is a man who has numerous casual sexual encounters with multiple women - *paraphrased). This video is about how she won't fall for someone "like that", yet she dresses (or undresses) and acts in a manner that encourages just this action from a man. So really who is the womanizer? Is it the man who responds to the enticement, or the woman that encourages the behaviour?

If you don't demand respect by appropriate actions, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get it. Unfortunately this undermines efforts of women throughout the ages who have worked tirelessly to advance the status of women without the use of sexuality, but based on a woman's abilities.

The thing that disturbs me the most about this video is really the message it sends out to men that tend to "prey" on women, and by this I mean the ones who don't require consent to fulfill their desires. This song and video just scream conflicting messages that could be very dangerous in the long run for women.

There is also a number of relational problems I see arising from the mentalities I see on both sides of this song and video. Foremost is the possibility for long term productive and fruitful (meaning mutual love and respect) relationships. Let me analogize for a moment; if I see a commercial for my favorite restaurant I may want to go out and have a meal, but it doesn't make me feel like going out and buying the establishment. (You know, the whole "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".) This promotes a fragile shallow relationship which is easily broken by the next "commercial" that offers something different.

I haven't even come close to touching on all the issues I saw in this song/video, but I can break it down to simply saying that you have to "*honestly" respect yourself if you want others to have respect for you.


(* I used honestly here to accentuate the fact that we must all be aware of our own faults and self evaluate ourselves critically to become a person worthy of respect for ourselves through moral actions and attitudes. We cannot expect that we should receive respect just because we are alive, because respect is really not a human right but a privilege we enjoy when we we contribute positively to society.)

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Once again Quebec holds back progress in Canada.

I'm not going to mince words; I think the Bloc has no place in federal politics. PERIOD! There is no place on a Federal stage for a Provincial party to be elected. If you want to sit in the House of Commons I think there has to be a simple understanding that you must run candidates in all provinces of the Country.

Honestly what can the Bloc accomplish in the House that any one of the Federal party candidates from their area couldn't? There are local members of a legitimate federal party that could represent them not only as adequately, but more effectively with the support of a national party behind them.

I personally think it's a travesty of democracy to have to kiss Quebec's behind with it's own "special" party because they somehow think they are more deserving, more entitled or simply better than everyone else in Canada.

Hey Quebec... Grow up.


Friday, August 01, 2008

With record profits for "Big Oil", how can they claim competition over collusion?

With record profits being recorded by companies like Exxon raking in 11.7 Billion dollars profit, Shell right behind at 11.5 Billion and 2 other major companies in the states (BP and conico) also raking in 9 and 7 billion dollars respectively.

So let's think about this for a second; In a competitive market place costs are driven down by companies "competing" for business by giving the consumer a better deal than the next company, on the other hand we have the collusive market place where companies form alliances and strategies to control the market place and increase profits. So with how on earth can big oil explain the consequences of collusion (big profits) of as being competitive?

The only competition I see, is the one between big oil companies for the dollar sitting in YOUR pocket.

Time for these Government watchdogs to pull their heads from where they are firmly planted (where the sun don't shine), and come down hard for the consumer they are supposed to be there to protect!

Sincerely (from me to the Government),

Saturday, July 26, 2008

The Order of Canada now means murder is acceptable.

With the Order of Canada being awarded to Henry Morgentaler, Canada has not only condoned the murder of innocent children but by the award it says that Canada believes that this is something to strive for.

This award is even worse than if it had been posthumously awarded to Adolf Hitler! The problem is that Morgentaler's efforts will kill far more people than Hitler could ever have imagined to. I see Morgentaler's beliefs and actions as even more heinous than the Nazi leader because of his fight to kill those that have absolutely no way to fight back for themselves.

In a nutshell, that's the way I see it.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

"Worst Neighborhood in Canada" strikes again.

In a place that has made itself infamous with the problems of substance abuse (and all the crimes that follow it), we have people who say they encourage healthy lifestyles and yet through their actions promote the opposite. This is yet another black eye for the "Worst Neighborhood in Canada".

What bothers me the most in this situation is that the people that are supposed to be in charge and helping inner city kids overcome an unhealthy lifestyle where the ones perpetuating the usage of alcohol and tobacco (and I hesitate to not to say drugs, because logically in a party situation with high risk individuals this would not be a very broad leap, especially in Jamaica. But as there is no evidence, I shall apply the benefit of the doubt here as it does nothing to diminish the scope of inappropriateness of the known situation.).

Here's the issue, The North Central Family Centre's mission states: "Our Mission is to carry out works for the encouragement and empowerment of the inner city community by offering a variety of programs. Our programs and services will promote positive and healthy changes in our community." From what I understand all of the children enrolled in the marathon program were required to sign a contract abstaining from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Now I've heard the justification that "the contract ended after the race", but wouldn't anyone that truly wanted to help these kids live healthy lives off of the dependence from any type of substances continue that contract on principle? What I'm trying to say is that if you TRULY wanted to help these kids live a lifestyle free of dependence, why would you EVER supply any of them to high risk individuals? Ii makes me feel the need to ask how this in any way fulfills their motto of "Empowering Youth, Families and the Community"? Why wouldn't you continue the contract even after the race, and if a deadline is required make it after you've returned home? Even on principle this contract should have been enforced by the chaperone's until the children were no longer THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!

I believe the Centre needs to take measures to re-establish it's credibility in the community which they propose they are there to help, and I feel this action is obviously the dismissal of the chaperone's involved, and further after the ridiculous decision of the Board of directors not to accept their resignation that these Board members ALSO need to step down and let others with a higher standard of values step in and take over.

Obviously this was not entirely an altruistic undertaking for these people, and it makes you wonder why they are doing it if their beliefs don't really match up with their stated philosophy........ Money maybe?

Ever more the cynic,