As it turns out, the old cartoons are accurate: The old cartoon image a little angel and devil sitting on our shoulder, whispering in your ear, a la Fred Flintstone, is completely accurate. (In truth, the image predates the cartoons. It is essentially the image of angels and demons one gets in The Screwtape Letters, and back to Marlowe's Doctor Faustus. I once saw a production of the play in which Faustus' good/bad angels played up on the cartoon style of silliness, by having Faustus himself lay the good/bad angels using sock puppets and a high pitched falsetto. "Do it, Faustus, do it!" "No, Faustus, no!") I feel the tug of war constantly at work these days, particularly when I am faced by some of the more... foolish customers.
Mispronunciations are common among students looking for books. I had someone looking for "Ho Bees LeeVEE a shun". It took a time to work out that the student was asking for Hobbes Leviathan. I won't even tell you what they do with non English names, like Nietzsche, or Kierkegaarde, and, perhaps worst of all, Goethe. I can feel the angels struggle every time I come up with a snappy answer to treat these people like idiots. "Go on... do it!" "No, let it pass." Sometimes I even feel like the angel is in on the deal. 'Usually, I would say no, but for this tool..."
Mispronounced names, a failure to read giant signs placed throughout the store, really stupid questions, and two opposing impulses. But some people are just asking for it. Today, a man came to me with a correction pen, in a package, clearly labelled "correction pen", and said: "Yo, is this, like, a hilighter?" This guy was fully capable of whiting out a passage he needed to remember. "Go ahead. Say yes." "Don't." Sigh. "No, sir,"- 'sir' is a teenager who probably can't spell 'sir'- "It isn't."
"You sure?"
Sigh. That devil is sounding really, really, persuasive. And after all, treating a moron like a moron is only natural. Treating him like he wasn't would be a lie. Uncharitable, even.
"Yes, sir,"- again with the sir- "I'm sure."
If only the angel were a little more- I don't know- fun.
Showing posts with label Idiots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idiots. Show all posts
19 January 2011
4 February 2010
The LIberal Party: Flogging Yesterday's Dead Horse Tomorrow
Check this out. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has resurrected the abortion issue, in the name of not resurrecting the abortion issue. He's pulling this out despite the fact that the Conservative government has not made a single mention of the issue, shows no interest in raising the issue, and is completelly unwilling to mention this issue. Ignatieff wants to make sure no one raises the issue again, so he raises it himself. As the article quotes him saying:
The conclusion of the article is spot on:
Perhaps we owe Ignatieff a bit of thanks. If he keeps this up, he will raise the issue again.
Someone should remind this academic genius of the old joke: "Don't think of pink elephants."
"We've had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it," he declared, noting that he wants to "lay down a marker" to ensure the government doesn't try to raised this difficult and contentious issue.
The conclusion of the article is spot on:
Because stirring up emotions for no better reason than to gain a few votes would be a cheap and wholly irresponsible thing to do.Women's groups are thrilled, despite the rather obvious fact that no one was threatening their rights, or that the laws in Canada could not possibly get any more prochoice. Still, it's always nice to have another mouthpiece on one's side, isn't it?
Perhaps we owe Ignatieff a bit of thanks. If he keeps this up, he will raise the issue again.
Someone should remind this academic genius of the old joke: "Don't think of pink elephants."
22 December 2009
They say you only hurt the ones you love...
...and I love you all so very, very much.
Here's a rather... unique, shall we say?... rendition of O Holy Night.
Just try and look away, if you can.
Merry Christmas, and you're welcome.
Here's a rather... unique, shall we say?... rendition of O Holy Night.
Just try and look away, if you can.
Merry Christmas, and you're welcome.
29 October 2009
Further adventures in first communion preparations.
We are continuing on through the deeply crappy "We Discover God's Paths" series of books for Younger's first communion/first confession, and I want my money back. So far the book is working to prepare younger for her first confession without once mentioning 'sin'. I would have thought some idea of sin would be kinda, sorta important for first confession, but those farther up the chain and wiser than me have decided it isn't necessary.
This week's lesson came close to mentioning sin, but not as sin, just as a Bad Thing To Do. And what was the sin they almost mentioned, you may ask? Why, failing to protect the environment.
Then the book goes into a mini biography of St Francis, focusing on his care for the animals. She asked me what she should draw. I told her to draw a picture of herself driving an SUV over an endangered species.
I'm not normally so anti environment. I have written in the past that I believe it is important for us to look after the planet God has entrusted to our care. We know from our own experience that there are tyrants and there are benevolent leaders (at least in theory there are benevolent leaders. I've never seen any but I'm willing to admit the possibility) and I don't believe we are meant to be creation's tyrants.
But what got me piqued about this passage in the book were a few things. Firstly, this is the first thing they mention that one should do. Failing to take care of the planet is the first, worst thing one can do.
Every era has its obsessions and failings. Every era seems to draw on one sin or another, and priests and preachers have thundered from their pulpits and street corners about one of the sins over all others at one time or another throughout history. One era condemns lust, while another condemns gluttony, and yet another time sees pride in every nook and cranny, and so it goes. In our time it has become the environment, as though the worst thing anyone could ever do, the most damaging thing one can to one's own soul, is to mix newspapers with pop bottles in the recycling.
Secondly, the writers of this book have just dumbed it down so far. They are trying to write at the level of children. But here's the problem: you can only dumb something down so much before you get to mere stupidity. Kids aren't stupid. People who try and write down to a child's level invariably fall below it. As a writer you don't try and lower yourself down to a child's level, you try and raise yourself up to it. Kids are capable of so much more than the officials in our era believe them to be, but they have to be asked, or required, or demanded to be. Dumbing things down just makes a bunch of idiots in the long run.
Lastly, the passage above expresses some fine sentiments, but it is mere sentiment. The book goes on about feelings and such, as though feelings are the most important reality there is. Feelings are important, but they are not the be all and end all of our existence. In time we must all learn to set aside our feelings to get the job on hand done. Part of maturing is to inure oneself against one's feelings, to develop a thick skin, as they used to say. Furthermore, this feeling nonsense is leading the kids to believe that God is some kind of warm and fuzzy bunny in the sky, ready to affirm all our feelings and sensibilities with a big, fluffy hug.
They tried something like this on me when I was getting catechised in school. I managed to avoid it through a few things. One was my mother, who used her old catechisms on me when she saw how bad the ones the school and church were using were, and the other were a few nuns who were still of the old school variety. But of my entire class, schooled and raised on this sort of nonsense, I know of only two or three who still occasionally go to church, including myself. That is the fruit of this sort of teaching.
I'm getting rid of these stupid books.
This week's lesson came close to mentioning sin, but not as sin, just as a Bad Thing To Do. And what was the sin they almost mentioned, you may ask? Why, failing to protect the environment.
Life is beautiful, but it is also fragile. And God has entrusted to us the care of the precious life that fills the universe. Are you doing your part to look after it? Write about or draw something you could do to care for the world around you.
Then the book goes into a mini biography of St Francis, focusing on his care for the animals. She asked me what she should draw. I told her to draw a picture of herself driving an SUV over an endangered species.
I'm not normally so anti environment. I have written in the past that I believe it is important for us to look after the planet God has entrusted to our care. We know from our own experience that there are tyrants and there are benevolent leaders (at least in theory there are benevolent leaders. I've never seen any but I'm willing to admit the possibility) and I don't believe we are meant to be creation's tyrants.
But what got me piqued about this passage in the book were a few things. Firstly, this is the first thing they mention that one should do. Failing to take care of the planet is the first, worst thing one can do.
Every era has its obsessions and failings. Every era seems to draw on one sin or another, and priests and preachers have thundered from their pulpits and street corners about one of the sins over all others at one time or another throughout history. One era condemns lust, while another condemns gluttony, and yet another time sees pride in every nook and cranny, and so it goes. In our time it has become the environment, as though the worst thing anyone could ever do, the most damaging thing one can to one's own soul, is to mix newspapers with pop bottles in the recycling.
Secondly, the writers of this book have just dumbed it down so far. They are trying to write at the level of children. But here's the problem: you can only dumb something down so much before you get to mere stupidity. Kids aren't stupid. People who try and write down to a child's level invariably fall below it. As a writer you don't try and lower yourself down to a child's level, you try and raise yourself up to it. Kids are capable of so much more than the officials in our era believe them to be, but they have to be asked, or required, or demanded to be. Dumbing things down just makes a bunch of idiots in the long run.
Lastly, the passage above expresses some fine sentiments, but it is mere sentiment. The book goes on about feelings and such, as though feelings are the most important reality there is. Feelings are important, but they are not the be all and end all of our existence. In time we must all learn to set aside our feelings to get the job on hand done. Part of maturing is to inure oneself against one's feelings, to develop a thick skin, as they used to say. Furthermore, this feeling nonsense is leading the kids to believe that God is some kind of warm and fuzzy bunny in the sky, ready to affirm all our feelings and sensibilities with a big, fluffy hug.
They tried something like this on me when I was getting catechised in school. I managed to avoid it through a few things. One was my mother, who used her old catechisms on me when she saw how bad the ones the school and church were using were, and the other were a few nuns who were still of the old school variety. But of my entire class, schooled and raised on this sort of nonsense, I know of only two or three who still occasionally go to church, including myself. That is the fruit of this sort of teaching.
I'm getting rid of these stupid books.
4 October 2009
Another Happy Fun Omnibus Posting.
Once again, I haven't been blogging much, in spite of my good intentions to spew random thoughts at regular intervals out into the Internet ether. So here is another post rounding up various things that have struck me over the last little while.
I see dumb people. No, really dumb people. And they're in office.
My disgust with the Canadian government continues to grow. In recent weeks we have had various parties threatening to force another election (our last was less than a year ago) which of course creates silly season all around. On the one hand we had Conservative leader Harper accusing Liberal leader Ignatieff of political opportunism for trying to force an unnecessary election just because it looks as though the Liberals might win. Which is true, but it is also exactly what Harper did when he forced an unnecessary election last year. In Harper's case, it didn't work, and he came back into power with another minority government. And then, when Harper forms a loose alliance with the left wing party of the NDP, Ignatieff accused the conservatives of getting comfy with the socialists. Which is true, but it is also exactly what Ignatieff and the Liberals were doing when they were trying to force the election.
But, as odious as this rank hypocrisy may be, it is not the reason why my disgust has climbed past the stratosphere. No, it was the news that the Canadian Federal Government was suing the tobacco companies for fifty billion dollars to try and recover the costs to the medical insurance system for treating smokers.
Let me say this about smoking before I continue: I hate it. I hate the stench, I hate the feel of second hand smoke in my lungs and on my skin, I hate everything about it. Thirteen years ago I sat beside my father as died of lung cancer. That is actually a very clinical way to describe what happened. What I should say is that I sat beside him as he drowned in his own mucus- or I could say snot if I feel like being shocking. I loved my old man, (and I use that term with respect) but no one ever held a gun to his head and forced him to smoke a cigarette. He did that to himself, of his own free will, and he paid a heavy price. He barely got to see one of his grandchildren, and he waited a long time for us to give him grandkids. All his plans and hopes for the future were, literally, up in smoke. And we pay a heavy price without him, and he left a big hole. Smoking robbed me of a father and my children of a grandfather, but I do not blame the tobacco companies for that. I blame my father.
So why are the federal government going after tobacco companies? They are already very heavily taxed, also for the purpose of paying for the health insurance. Have they not collected enough in tax already? The government revenues from cigarettes are enormous. Are the people who start smoking unaware of the dangers of smoking? I can hardly see how that is possible. This move makes absolutely no sense. Smokers already have more restrictions put on them than the people who smoke pot. Can anyone explain the sense of that to me?
The government is suing companies for selling a product the government has deemed to be legal and is allowed to be sold in Canada. This case should be found to be absurd in its face and thrown out of court. In fact, there should be a class action counter suit filed by smokers- against the government. If smoking is so dangerous and so costly to the system, why isn't it banned? By allowing the sale of these products the government is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands every year. That makes as much sense as suing the companies.
The News From the Church in Canada.
A few different things gong on here. First, we have one of the most public faces of the church in Canada- Father Rosica, head of Salt and Light tv- accused bloggers and EWTN of doing the wrong thing when they all condemned the public funeral of Teddy Kennedy. Both the bloggers and EWTN were condemned by Rosica as "Satanic."
And then, just recently, the bishop of Antigonish in Nova Scotia was found to have child pornography on his laptop. The way the airport security found the pornography can only mean one thing: They had been tipped off by persons unknown. Father Rosica weighed in on this one, and the bishop got off lighter than the bloggers and EWTN. Was he Satanic? No. Was he evil? Bad? Naughty? No, no and no. He was misguided. Such a nice man, it is hard to believe how this happened, says Rosica.
And now there is going to be a general meeting of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and guess what is on the agenda, scheduled for a closed door meeting? Is it the issue of the continuing problems of paedophilia within the clergy? No, they're going to discuss bloggers. Bloggers are the threat, bloggers need to be brought under control, after showing they have opinions about Ted and about the Canadian bishops giving money to groups that support abortion.
Some bloggers are worried about what may come of this meeting. I am not very much concerned. I imagine one or two of the more sensible will point out the bishops have no way of controlling the bloggers, and what is most likely to come out of the meeting will be a set of recommendations, directives and guidelines for the bloggers. Bloggers should follow our shepherds' example and read the bishop's recommendations with the same care and obedience these self-same bishops regard the recommendations, directives and guidelines which come down from Rome.
Education Stamps Out Creativity
Hat tip to Roving Medievalist for this video.
I agree with much of what he says. I mean, isn't it obvious education is designed to stamp out creativity? Look at how we begin and how we end. We go into school with a box of brightly coloured crayons, and we draw, write and scribble on multicoloured papers. We graduate from that school system with a single pen (usually either blue or black) and write solely on white paper.
Quite frankly, I have no idea what we should do. Right now, the world is changing so rapidly we have no idea what to teach our children. What knowledge they will need in the future is impossible to say. When I went through school, no one had any idea that computers would be running everything in a short time. However, by the time I was in high school, it was clear that computers were going to be a Big Thing, and people started jumping into that field. For some reason, many also started taking business courses, perhaps believing that there would be an acute shortage of middle management bootlickers in the future. Because of this, many of our shops got closed. As a result, there is now a shortage of plumbers, electricians and bricklayers.
On the whole, I am wary of people who propose one over-arcing solution. My main problem with the school system is that it is a system- we take all these children, whom we apparently believe are all individuals, run them all through the same system and expect them all to turn out more or less the same. Where is the sense in that?
Of course, education is a government affair, brought to us by the same guys who want to sue tobacco companies. Sense is in very, very short supply.
26 June 2009
Pursuant to the last post
After I had had published the previous post, several more thoughts occurred to me regarding this 'heteronormativity'.
First is more thoughts towards the neologism issue. Neologisms are a sort of club or sect language, as I said. They are also a way of controlling debate in the way of Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. Those who remember noted modern linguist Humpty's scenes will remember his great theory of language. From memory, it went something like this:
Humpty: My words mean what I want them to mean.
Alice: The question is, can you do that?
Humpty: The question is, who is master? That is all.
Modern linguists are absolutely concerned with power and mastery. Neologisms are a way of controlling and asserting mastery over language. It also reduces debate to a three card trick, one which I have been trapped in many times. You cannot call your opponent on their assumptions or meanings during a debate because she/it is always redefining their terms to suit them as the debate progresses/ goes against them. Neologisms are perpetual weasel words. The she/its would be more honest if they argued in pig Latin.
Next, I have not seen the entire piece, but the sections quoted in the article contradicts themselves. The movies encourage heterosexuality in children who are predetermined homosexuals. The article seems to be working both the idea that children are a tabula rasa (blank slate) upon which society writes their character, while at the same time the are also inherently homosexual. Is the article saying that homosexuality is inherent whilst heterosexuality is a construct that constantly needs reinforcement? Perhaps I should look it up and look more closely into the issue.
Finally, it strikes me as amusing just how often academics get it absolutely wrong. By this I mean they often come up with elaborate theories which sound good even to me, and then they choose some example which not only doesn't prove their theories, but actually disproves them.
The basis of their theory is that movies aimed at children generally portray heterosexuality as the norm. I can agree with this point: my debate is mainly what they do with this premise. But after saying how these movies promote the normalcy of heterosexuality, what movie do they single out as an example? Little Mermaid. That's right: a romance between a girl who is half fish and a human male is promoted as a paragon of heterosexuality. If they were going to coin a neologism, they should have termed what happens ni this movie as "cryptozoophilia". It would be a more accurate description of this situation. That would make a more interesting article. Disney promotes illicit love between humans and mythical beasts/monsters rather than heterosexuality or even homosexuality.
Not to worry, though. I'm sure Disney's next movie after Little Mermaid promoted heteronormativity. Let me check... that movie was... Beauty and the Beast. Whoops. Cryptozoophilia again. Don't worry. I'm sure there must be some movie out there which proves their theory right. Let me know if you she/its find it.
And in the meantime, ixnay onay ethay eologismnay, ooyay umday itshays.
First is more thoughts towards the neologism issue. Neologisms are a sort of club or sect language, as I said. They are also a way of controlling debate in the way of Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. Those who remember noted modern linguist Humpty's scenes will remember his great theory of language. From memory, it went something like this:
Humpty: My words mean what I want them to mean.
Alice: The question is, can you do that?
Humpty: The question is, who is master? That is all.
Modern linguists are absolutely concerned with power and mastery. Neologisms are a way of controlling and asserting mastery over language. It also reduces debate to a three card trick, one which I have been trapped in many times. You cannot call your opponent on their assumptions or meanings during a debate because she/it is always redefining their terms to suit them as the debate progresses/ goes against them. Neologisms are perpetual weasel words. The she/its would be more honest if they argued in pig Latin.
Next, I have not seen the entire piece, but the sections quoted in the article contradicts themselves. The movies encourage heterosexuality in children who are predetermined homosexuals. The article seems to be working both the idea that children are a tabula rasa (blank slate) upon which society writes their character, while at the same time the are also inherently homosexual. Is the article saying that homosexuality is inherent whilst heterosexuality is a construct that constantly needs reinforcement? Perhaps I should look it up and look more closely into the issue.
Finally, it strikes me as amusing just how often academics get it absolutely wrong. By this I mean they often come up with elaborate theories which sound good even to me, and then they choose some example which not only doesn't prove their theories, but actually disproves them.
The basis of their theory is that movies aimed at children generally portray heterosexuality as the norm. I can agree with this point: my debate is mainly what they do with this premise. But after saying how these movies promote the normalcy of heterosexuality, what movie do they single out as an example? Little Mermaid. That's right: a romance between a girl who is half fish and a human male is promoted as a paragon of heterosexuality. If they were going to coin a neologism, they should have termed what happens ni this movie as "cryptozoophilia". It would be a more accurate description of this situation. That would make a more interesting article. Disney promotes illicit love between humans and mythical beasts/monsters rather than heterosexuality or even homosexuality.
Not to worry, though. I'm sure Disney's next movie after Little Mermaid promoted heteronormativity. Let me check... that movie was... Beauty and the Beast. Whoops. Cryptozoophilia again. Don't worry. I'm sure there must be some movie out there which proves their theory right. Let me know if you she/its find it.
And in the meantime, ixnay onay ethay eologismnay, ooyay umday itshays.
25 June 2009
Heteronormawhatity?
It is one of the hallmarks of modern education to tend towards needless obfuscation. I find this to be intrinsic to the university structure, which favours novelty, even over truth. If, for example, you wish to get a PhD you must write on a topic that has not been covered, or cover an old topic in a way that it has not been covered. An Academic cannot, for instance, take a piece of received wisdom and say: "What he said" and leave it at that. (Actually, modern academia frowns on assuming that it was a "he" who said anything, and that there are "he"s out there who still insist on calling themselves "he"s, so one should refrain from using the neutral "he/she" or even "s/he". In deference to academic standards, I will use the new neutral pronoun "she/it". Please pronounce it accordingly.) This is with good reason. Academics are supposed to add to the field of knowledge, and not leave it standing where it was. The she/it's of today are to add to the she/it's of the past and create a brighter, smarter world for us all.
Except few will ever understand it. Part of the newness of academia is shown in a fondness for neologisms- a new word which means "new word". Many modern she/it's will create a new word even if it to explain an old concept, in an attempt to legitimize their ideas, or to give their ideas an air of gnosticism- knowledge solely for the initiates. Esoteric knowledge. It's like a secret handshake; welcome to the club. We're very exclusive.
Which brings me to the new neologism, heteronormativity. Literally,this would seem to mean "representing hetero (something) as normal." If you would assume that the she/it who coined this phrase was aiming at heterosexuals, you would be correct. So, first and foremost: a math lesson for sociologists: A phenomena that occurs 90+% of the time is normal. Secondly, apparently the full term "heterosexual" is not to be mentioned in polite conversation among she/it's. So, just where did this she/it pursue and identify this naughty heterosexualization? What was the object of study that added to the knowledge of the world? Disney cartoons.
Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children's films - such as the Little Mermaid - are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label "heteronormativity."
"Despite the assumption that children's media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape," wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.
Kazyak and Martin said they studied the role of heterosexual relationships in several of the highest-grossing G-rated films between 1990-2005.
The results, say the researchers, illustrate two ways that the children's films "construct heterosexuality": through "depictions of hetero-romantic love as exceptional, powerful, transformative, and magical," and "depictions of interactions between gendered bodies in which the sexiness of feminine characters is subjected to the gaze of masculine characters."
"The male gaze"- that's dated. I used to run into in feminist analyses of sonnet sequences which treated how the male gaze was a form of control over the female subject. There were some sequences for which what they said was true. There were some for which it was not, but they claimed it was so anyway. The "gaze" idea became a structure that was placed upon every book, whether it fit or not.
In the case of Disney, the male characters do often gaze at the female characters, but in the one movie they single out, Little Mermaid, it is the mermaid who gazes upon the male, and the male loves her not for her beauty, but because she rescued him and because of her voice.
There is also a secondary question: who gazes at the gazers? The audience of most of the Disney cartoons, and the buyers of most of their paraphernalia, are girls. Male control, or little girls deciding for themselves what they like?
No, it's heteronormalization. The films are insidiously constructing heterosexuality as the norm.
Actually, the films are rather non sexual. Only someone who is obsessed with sex, who sees it everywhere and defines themselves according to it, would see it as sexual. And here they are, the she/its.
Time, money, spent on this. A study which says, in effect, little girls like movies about princesses and princes and magic, and that's bad. Thank you, you she/it's. The world is a dumber place for your contribution.
Except few will ever understand it. Part of the newness of academia is shown in a fondness for neologisms- a new word which means "new word". Many modern she/it's will create a new word even if it to explain an old concept, in an attempt to legitimize their ideas, or to give their ideas an air of gnosticism- knowledge solely for the initiates. Esoteric knowledge. It's like a secret handshake; welcome to the club. We're very exclusive.
Which brings me to the new neologism, heteronormativity. Literally,this would seem to mean "representing hetero (something) as normal." If you would assume that the she/it who coined this phrase was aiming at heterosexuals, you would be correct. So, first and foremost: a math lesson for sociologists: A phenomena that occurs 90+% of the time is normal. Secondly, apparently the full term "heterosexual" is not to be mentioned in polite conversation among she/it's. So, just where did this she/it pursue and identify this naughty heterosexualization? What was the object of study that added to the knowledge of the world? Disney cartoons.
Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children's films - such as the Little Mermaid - are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label "heteronormativity."
"Despite the assumption that children's media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape," wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.
Kazyak and Martin said they studied the role of heterosexual relationships in several of the highest-grossing G-rated films between 1990-2005.
The results, say the researchers, illustrate two ways that the children's films "construct heterosexuality": through "depictions of hetero-romantic love as exceptional, powerful, transformative, and magical," and "depictions of interactions between gendered bodies in which the sexiness of feminine characters is subjected to the gaze of masculine characters."
"The male gaze"- that's dated. I used to run into in feminist analyses of sonnet sequences which treated how the male gaze was a form of control over the female subject. There were some sequences for which what they said was true. There were some for which it was not, but they claimed it was so anyway. The "gaze" idea became a structure that was placed upon every book, whether it fit or not.
In the case of Disney, the male characters do often gaze at the female characters, but in the one movie they single out, Little Mermaid, it is the mermaid who gazes upon the male, and the male loves her not for her beauty, but because she rescued him and because of her voice.
There is also a secondary question: who gazes at the gazers? The audience of most of the Disney cartoons, and the buyers of most of their paraphernalia, are girls. Male control, or little girls deciding for themselves what they like?
No, it's heteronormalization. The films are insidiously constructing heterosexuality as the norm.
Actually, the films are rather non sexual. Only someone who is obsessed with sex, who sees it everywhere and defines themselves according to it, would see it as sexual. And here they are, the she/its.
Time, money, spent on this. A study which says, in effect, little girls like movies about princesses and princes and magic, and that's bad. Thank you, you she/it's. The world is a dumber place for your contribution.
19 May 2009
He's doing it again
By 'he' I mean 'Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper'; by 'doing it' I mean running a negative ad campaign against his current rival; by 'again' I mean just that: he's done it before, now he's doing it again.
Canadians tend not to like negative ad campaigns. There was case of the famous ad from 1993 which mocked Jean Chretien by showing his face at its most distorted- he suffers from Bell's palsy- and asking the question 'is this the face of a leader?'. The ad and the outrage is caused, along with Chretien's smooth ability to turn the ad around and make himself look good, were a major cause of the Conservative Party's absolute defeat that year.
And here we are now with Harper. The last time he was on the attack against the former head of the Liberal Party, Stephan Dion. For months upon months, when there was no election campaign on the horizon, he ran ads attacking Dion for 'not being up to the job'. At the time Harper was the leader of a minority government. (For my American readers, a minority government is when the leader of the the party with the greatest number of elected members still has less than half the seats of the House of Commons. It is fairly common in a system with three or more parties.) After months of this aggressive campaign Harper called an election in the hopes of forming a majority government. Dion ran one of the most lacklustre campaigns in Canadian history, and Harper still managed to return with a second minority government, with virtually no change in the electoral map.
After that election Dion got turfed as leader, a new leader has been chosen, and voila, Harper is now using the very tactic which failed the last time. Tell me, what level of intelligence does this show? What kind of man does the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time? Who goes to their fridge and says: 'hmmm, this milk is sour. Maybe it'll be better tomorrow.'?
I am sick of this garbage. I never liked the attack ads, not one, from the beginning. I look at these clowns and I want them to tell me why I should vote for them- not why I shouldn't vote for their opponents, but why I should vote for them. What is their policy? Not being Stefan Dion or Not being Michael Ignatieff is not a policy. It is not a platform. it is not a reason to vote for Harper. I am neither of Dion nor Ignatieff. By this logic I deserve a vote. So does the guy who shines shoes at the train station. So does the bum to whom I tossed a quarter on the weekend. So do the thirty million other people who live in Canada. With but two exceptions, none of them are Ignatieff or Dion, and they deserve our vote!
But of course, he can't tell us what his platform is because he has none. He has not taken a stand on any issue, and his most common tactic when an issue arises is to wait for the furor to die down, and then pretend it doesn't exist. On issues of interest to Catholics- abortion, same sex marriage, you name it- we can count on this man to do exactly nothing. But hey, his opponent is a jerk, so we should vote Harper.
This is our Prime Minister's idea of a Smart Thing to Do. This is his level of intelligence, his level of class, his level of purpose. I see pictures of this man, and I used to wonder what went on behind those serial killer eyes of his. I now know the answer: Nothing. I don't like any of the other guys, make no mistake, but this clown will never get my vote.
Canadians tend not to like negative ad campaigns. There was case of the famous ad from 1993 which mocked Jean Chretien by showing his face at its most distorted- he suffers from Bell's palsy- and asking the question 'is this the face of a leader?'. The ad and the outrage is caused, along with Chretien's smooth ability to turn the ad around and make himself look good, were a major cause of the Conservative Party's absolute defeat that year.
And here we are now with Harper. The last time he was on the attack against the former head of the Liberal Party, Stephan Dion. For months upon months, when there was no election campaign on the horizon, he ran ads attacking Dion for 'not being up to the job'. At the time Harper was the leader of a minority government. (For my American readers, a minority government is when the leader of the the party with the greatest number of elected members still has less than half the seats of the House of Commons. It is fairly common in a system with three or more parties.) After months of this aggressive campaign Harper called an election in the hopes of forming a majority government. Dion ran one of the most lacklustre campaigns in Canadian history, and Harper still managed to return with a second minority government, with virtually no change in the electoral map.
After that election Dion got turfed as leader, a new leader has been chosen, and voila, Harper is now using the very tactic which failed the last time. Tell me, what level of intelligence does this show? What kind of man does the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time? Who goes to their fridge and says: 'hmmm, this milk is sour. Maybe it'll be better tomorrow.'?
I am sick of this garbage. I never liked the attack ads, not one, from the beginning. I look at these clowns and I want them to tell me why I should vote for them- not why I shouldn't vote for their opponents, but why I should vote for them. What is their policy? Not being Stefan Dion or Not being Michael Ignatieff is not a policy. It is not a platform. it is not a reason to vote for Harper. I am neither of Dion nor Ignatieff. By this logic I deserve a vote. So does the guy who shines shoes at the train station. So does the bum to whom I tossed a quarter on the weekend. So do the thirty million other people who live in Canada. With but two exceptions, none of them are Ignatieff or Dion, and they deserve our vote!
But of course, he can't tell us what his platform is because he has none. He has not taken a stand on any issue, and his most common tactic when an issue arises is to wait for the furor to die down, and then pretend it doesn't exist. On issues of interest to Catholics- abortion, same sex marriage, you name it- we can count on this man to do exactly nothing. But hey, his opponent is a jerk, so we should vote Harper.
This is our Prime Minister's idea of a Smart Thing to Do. This is his level of intelligence, his level of class, his level of purpose. I see pictures of this man, and I used to wonder what went on behind those serial killer eyes of his. I now know the answer: Nothing. I don't like any of the other guys, make no mistake, but this clown will never get my vote.
4 December 2008
Proroguing Parliament - A rant that has everything to do with the
For background to this rant
A new election would have been preferable to this horrible precedence. It is the nature of Minority governments that they must seek the consensus of the majority of the House in all confidence-involving issues, like budgets and fiscal statements. Mr Harper did not receive a majority mandate in the last election, he should have been careful. 51 days have passed since the Conservatives took power in the last election and it will be 53 days before they have a new session and a new Speech from the Throne etc etc etc. If a repeat of the King-Byng affair was undesirable, and I would agree it would have been, an election would have been preferable, or even just a referendum. (But this isn't exaclty the same- in that Lord Byng refused the Prime Minister, whereas in this mess she granted the PM his request)
It will be 53 days before the house sits again. The last election was had in 39 days from the call to the voting, so an election owuld have had them back at work faster. Canada needs a working parliament. This one is not only still dysfunctional it isn't even sitting.
I guess until Harper has enough courage to face parliament again, all Canadian industries should hire all the unemployed in Canada, and have them begging on every street corner in the country. [They can work out a 60/40 deal (Beggar get 60% of the take and the Canadian auto industry gets 40% )]- Actually that might garner them more money in less time than asking parliament for a bailout, or an economic stimulus package.
Wherefore our country is sailing without a helmsman through the stormy seas of this crisis, therefore it is not out of disrespect but as a call for help:
A new election would have been preferable to this horrible precedence. It is the nature of Minority governments that they must seek the consensus of the majority of the House in all confidence-involving issues, like budgets and fiscal statements. Mr Harper did not receive a majority mandate in the last election, he should have been careful. 51 days have passed since the Conservatives took power in the last election and it will be 53 days before they have a new session and a new Speech from the Throne etc etc etc. If a repeat of the King-Byng affair was undesirable, and I would agree it would have been, an election would have been preferable, or even just a referendum. (But this isn't exaclty the same- in that Lord Byng refused the Prime Minister, whereas in this mess she granted the PM his request)
It will be 53 days before the house sits again. The last election was had in 39 days from the call to the voting, so an election owuld have had them back at work faster. Canada needs a working parliament. This one is not only still dysfunctional it isn't even sitting.
I guess until Harper has enough courage to face parliament again, all Canadian industries should hire all the unemployed in Canada, and have them begging on every street corner in the country. [They can work out a 60/40 deal (Beggar get 60% of the take and the Canadian auto industry gets 40% )]- Actually that might garner them more money in less time than asking parliament for a bailout, or an economic stimulus package.
Wherefore our country is sailing without a helmsman through the stormy seas of this crisis, therefore it is not out of disrespect but as a call for help:
What should have happened: the Opposition should have offered to pass the economic statement if amendments were made, and present the government with those amendments. We are in a crisis, work together, or would that have been too easy.
It's a good thing our Patron Saint is Saint Joseph, the Worker. At a time when the Parliament needs to be working, so that Canadians will have a chance to keep working, and thereby support their families as Saint Joseph supported his family - well repeat after me
Memorare to St. Joseph
Remember, O most chaste spouse of the Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who implored your help and sought your intercession was left unassisted. Full of confidence in your power, I fly to you, and beg your protection (for Canada, and all families in her). Despise not, O foster-father of the Redeemer, my humble supplication, but in your bounty, hear and answer me. Amen.
You can send your comments to the PM
by e-mail to pm@pm.gc.ca
or write him at:
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
or fax the Prime Minister’s office at: 613-941-6900
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)