"What are you doing?"
"Putting books away."
"Why are you doing that?"
"So people can find them later."
"Do you have any books about fishing?"
"Books on fishing... let's see. Oh look, here's one with Winnie the Pooh fishing."
"I put that there!"
"You did?"
"I did! I put that there!"
"Conor, leave the lady alone. Conor, come over here and play. Conor..."
A few minutes later...
"What are you doing? Why are you doing that? Do you have any books about fishing?"
"Conor, leave her alone so she can do her job."
"No, that's ok, he's not bothering me."
Conor is a toddler. He was at the library with his dad. Conor asked questions in a rapid staccato that just cracked me up.
* * * *
I rode in the elevator with a mom and her pre-teen daughter. The library has big plastic baskets on wheels, like a luggage cart, and they had one filled to the brim with books. I said hi, commented on all the books they had.
Mom said, "She's gone from not being a very good reader, not interested in books, to a super reader, loves books, reads all the time."
I said that was terrific and asked the girl if she had a favourite author.
"Dr. Seuss."
"Excellent choice." She seemed a little old for Dr. Seuss, but if she had been a struggling or reluctant reader, that would make sense.
I asked where else in the library they were going, since they were headed up, not out.
Mom said, "We're just exploring. We're going to the top, then we'll walk our way down."
A bit later, I saw them in the children's department again. The girl was getting her Read To Succeed card stamped, and having her name added to the big wall of reading successes, a kind of reading hall of fame.
I am telling you, this girl was beaming. Her face was the image of joy and pride.
* * * *
"What are you doing? Why are you doing that? I put that book there! I fooled you!"
Conor's dad: "Sorry about this. He's very social."
"That's ok, he's fine."
Conor's dad was pretty social himself, chatting with the moms gathered around the train set. Conor's dad took Conor back to the trains. I shelved books for a while, and then...
"What are you doing?"
* * * *
"Is there a level 4?"
"Excuse me?" It was a mom.
"The easy-reader books go level 1, level 2, level 3. My son is bored with level 3, he's finding it too easy. Is there a level 4?"
"I believe after level 3 you go into the general junior's section. But let's go to the desk and ask."
I walk her over to the desk, and go back to work. Later, I see her wandering around the stacks. "Did you get the answer? Is it the junior section?"
"It is, but I don't know what books to get."
"What does he like to read? Does he like fiction - stories - or does he like to read about things, nonfiction?"
"He likes everything. You know, mummies, rocks, planets, animals. He likes everything he reads."
Do you know the SNL character Stefon (played by Bill Hader)? That's what this mom sounded like: "This boy has everything. Mummies, trucks, rocks..."
* * * *
"What are you doing?"
"Hi, Conor."
"What are you doing?"
"I'm putting books away. Conor, the library is about to close."
"Why?"
"Because we all have to go home and go to sleep."
"I don't want to go to sleep."
"I know. But you have to go home."
"Why?"
"Well, you can't stay at the library all night."
"What are you doing?"
2.18.2012
2.17.2012
dr. dawg on vikileaks
In case you haven't done so already, you'll want to read Dr. Dawg on the Vic Toews phony scandal, internet surveillance, and the mind-boggling hypocrisy of the both the Conservatives and the mainstream media: On hypocrisy, politicians and the media.
I'm not even going to quote from it, because you've got to read the whole thing. So go, read.
I'm not even going to quote from it, because you've got to read the whole thing. So go, read.
in which i call rogers to check on my disconnect order
Further to the saga of dumping Rogers, this morning I ordered internet service through TekSavvy. (I had already called for information on how to switch and called Rogers to cancel my service.)
The customer service rep was friendly, knowledgeable, and helpful. I wasn't 100% certain of my disconnect date with Rogers, so after I hung up with TekSavvy, I called Rogers, just to double-check. Ever since cancelling Rogers, we've been inundated with calls, paper mail, and email offering us deep discounts to return. I expected more of the same, but I didn't expect this.
LK: I recently cancelled my Rogers services. I already have a disconnect order, and I need to check on the date of the disconnect. Are you able to help me with that?
Rogers: Why are you leaving Rogers? Are you unhappy with the service?
LK: I appreciate your asking, but I am cancelling my service, and I'd prefer not to discuss it. Could you please check the date of my disconnect order? I believe it is March 6.
Rogers: May I just check on a few details of your account?
LK: Yes, of course.
Rogers: Your address is 35 Elmwood Avenue, Mississauga?
We last lived on Elmwood Avenue on January 1, 2007. Our address on Elmwood Avenue was number 25.
LK: No, that is not my address.
Rogers: And your email address is bobby@dhl.com?
LK: No. I don't know what that email address is. Could you please confirm the date of my disconnect order?
Rogers: May I ask why you are leaving Rogers?
LK: I'd really rather not go into it, as I am definitely leaving. Could you please confirm the date my service will be disconnected? I believe it is March 6.
Rogers: You have until March 11 to return your Rogers equipment.
LK: Yes, I know that. I was told that service would be disconnected on a certain date - I believe it's March 6 - and then I have until March 11 to return the equipment. I'm trying to confirm the date of service disconnection.
Rogers: That would be March 11.
LK: Are you sure of that?
Rogers: Yes. You unplug all the equipment and that's when your service ends.
LK: My service ends the day I unplug the equipment? I was originally told that service would be disconnected on one day, then there was a five-day grace period to return the equipment. Could you please confirm the date of the actual service disconnection?
Rogers: Could you hold a moment please?
Hold.
Rogers: Hello, thank you for holding. Your disconnect date is March 6. You have until March 11 to return the Rogers equipment. Is there anything else I can help you with today?
dear leadnow: i'm not sure i want to cooperate
Like many Canadian activists, I am currently being bombarded with emails from Leadnow and Avaaz, pushing their "Cooperate for Canada" campaign. We are being urged to join the political party of our choice, then to encourage the parties to "cooperate" in the next election, in order to defeat the Conservatives. This would supposedly be a one-time deal, after which the parties would work together for meaningful electoral reform.
I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm highly skeptical.
The Leadnow FAQ claims this is not strategic voting (which actually works in very few ridings), not a merger, and not a step towards a two-party system. I am skeptical about each of those claims. I fear that "cooperation" is a slippery slope, and at the bottom lies an even more broken system with fewer choices.
There's something else very wrong with this picture: the Liberal Party. Stories about the "cooperation" idea, such as this one in the Vancouver Sun, refer to Canada's "three left-of-centre" parties. But there aren't three left-of-centre parties. The Liberals are "left" only if the Conservatives are the perceived centre. Or to put it another way, only the reactionary nature of the Harper Conservatives make the Liberals appear to be left-of-centre. In reality, the Liberals are a party of war, corporate capitalism and neoliberal social austerity.
It's true that I initially thought I should vote Liberal in the last election in order to stop the Conservatives. But I hated the Liberals and I hated Ignatieff, and I eventually realized that voting for a party I didn't want in government was ridiculous. I support the NDP and I should register that support at the polls.
I want an electoral system that more accurately represents the politics of Canada. Certainly a majority based on 39% does not. But is cooperation with the Liberals really so much different than cooperation with the Conservatives?
[A small postscript. One of the emails from Leadnow said that "72% of Canadians strongly support" this idea. I'm sure the good folks at Leadnow know that a poll taken through their own email and Facebook list cannot claim to represent what Canadians want, only what Leadnow members want. I'm not saying that the majority of Canadians don't want this. Indeed they might. But Leadnow's own poll cannot demonstrate that.]
I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm highly skeptical.
The Leadnow FAQ claims this is not strategic voting (which actually works in very few ridings), not a merger, and not a step towards a two-party system. I am skeptical about each of those claims. I fear that "cooperation" is a slippery slope, and at the bottom lies an even more broken system with fewer choices.
There's something else very wrong with this picture: the Liberal Party. Stories about the "cooperation" idea, such as this one in the Vancouver Sun, refer to Canada's "three left-of-centre" parties. But there aren't three left-of-centre parties. The Liberals are "left" only if the Conservatives are the perceived centre. Or to put it another way, only the reactionary nature of the Harper Conservatives make the Liberals appear to be left-of-centre. In reality, the Liberals are a party of war, corporate capitalism and neoliberal social austerity.
It's true that I initially thought I should vote Liberal in the last election in order to stop the Conservatives. But I hated the Liberals and I hated Ignatieff, and I eventually realized that voting for a party I didn't want in government was ridiculous. I support the NDP and I should register that support at the polls.
I want an electoral system that more accurately represents the politics of Canada. Certainly a majority based on 39% does not. But is cooperation with the Liberals really so much different than cooperation with the Conservatives?
[A small postscript. One of the emails from Leadnow said that "72% of Canadians strongly support" this idea. I'm sure the good folks at Leadnow know that a poll taken through their own email and Facebook list cannot claim to represent what Canadians want, only what Leadnow members want. I'm not saying that the majority of Canadians don't want this. Indeed they might. But Leadnow's own poll cannot demonstrate that.]
2.16.2012
rob ford's latest strategy in the war on toronto public library: slash, downsize, then try to privatize
From Maureen O'Reilly, library workers' union, Toronto Public Library (emphasis mine):
+ + + + +
It hasn’t taken Ford and company long before launching a new attack on our public library.
Frustrated that we stopped him last month from wreaking massive reductions to open hours and slashing programs and services, such as the children’s literacy program and the Bookmobile, Ford and his allies have a new strategy to achieve their goal of off-loading our public library to private interests.
Today, they are targeting the librarians and other people who serve you at your neighbourhood branch, and the attack is playing out at the bargaining table. They want the right to get rid of experienced, career librarians and replace them (if at all) with lower-paid part-timers who, through no fault of their own, will not be able to serve library users half as well.
For Ford, it’s simple. If he can’t close your neighbourhood branch, he wants to make sure there are fewer people to serve you and a smaller collection of books to choose from. It’s a strategy to hollow out our public library from within.
Even though we were able to stave off the worst of Ford’s plans for our public library when the city’s budget was set last month, Council still voted to cut 107 service positions from the ranks of our public library as well as slash the collections budget.
Once these service providers are cut from the system, library staff will be down 17% since amalgamation, while during the same period circulation is up more than 23%. After 107 full time library service jobs are cut, more than half of librarians and staff will be part-timers without benefits or pensions.
In short, there is not much Ford and company can save by attacking librarians and other staff.
So what is the point of this plan?
We believe the strategy is to lower the world class standards of the Toronto Public Library in order to set the stage for off-loading at least parts of the system to private interests. It is no coincidence that the U.S.-based library management corporation, LSSI, has retained as their lobbyist a former city politician with close ties to Ford and at least one of his appointees on the Library Board.
There is a plan at work here and diminishing the library from within is an essential part of that plan. Lowering the quality of public services and increasing public dissatisfaction is a tried and true strategy for privatization. It’s a formula that has worked in the U.S. and is now being imported to Canada.
We can’t let this happen to our cherished public library.
That is why we are getting ready to stand up once more to say no to Mayor Ford and his allies. In the days ahead, this may involve asking librarians and other staff for a mandate to resist the punitive bargaining demands that will diminish our public library and make it an attractive investment opportunity for private interests.
This is a fight to preserve our public library and everything it means to the city, to culture and learning, and to our democratic values.
Working together during the autumn and early winter tens of thousands of Torontonians like you and me showed everyone that a single action can make a huge difference. We stood up in defence of our public library then, and we were successful.
With your help, I am very hopeful that we can prevail again.
+ + + + +
The library workers' union is asking for ideas on how to win this campaign: go here.
+ + + + +
It hasn’t taken Ford and company long before launching a new attack on our public library.
Frustrated that we stopped him last month from wreaking massive reductions to open hours and slashing programs and services, such as the children’s literacy program and the Bookmobile, Ford and his allies have a new strategy to achieve their goal of off-loading our public library to private interests.
Today, they are targeting the librarians and other people who serve you at your neighbourhood branch, and the attack is playing out at the bargaining table. They want the right to get rid of experienced, career librarians and replace them (if at all) with lower-paid part-timers who, through no fault of their own, will not be able to serve library users half as well.
For Ford, it’s simple. If he can’t close your neighbourhood branch, he wants to make sure there are fewer people to serve you and a smaller collection of books to choose from. It’s a strategy to hollow out our public library from within.
Even though we were able to stave off the worst of Ford’s plans for our public library when the city’s budget was set last month, Council still voted to cut 107 service positions from the ranks of our public library as well as slash the collections budget.
Once these service providers are cut from the system, library staff will be down 17% since amalgamation, while during the same period circulation is up more than 23%. After 107 full time library service jobs are cut, more than half of librarians and staff will be part-timers without benefits or pensions.
In short, there is not much Ford and company can save by attacking librarians and other staff.
So what is the point of this plan?
We believe the strategy is to lower the world class standards of the Toronto Public Library in order to set the stage for off-loading at least parts of the system to private interests. It is no coincidence that the U.S.-based library management corporation, LSSI, has retained as their lobbyist a former city politician with close ties to Ford and at least one of his appointees on the Library Board.
There is a plan at work here and diminishing the library from within is an essential part of that plan. Lowering the quality of public services and increasing public dissatisfaction is a tried and true strategy for privatization. It’s a formula that has worked in the U.S. and is now being imported to Canada.
We can’t let this happen to our cherished public library.
That is why we are getting ready to stand up once more to say no to Mayor Ford and his allies. In the days ahead, this may involve asking librarians and other staff for a mandate to resist the punitive bargaining demands that will diminish our public library and make it an attractive investment opportunity for private interests.
This is a fight to preserve our public library and everything it means to the city, to culture and learning, and to our democratic values.
Working together during the autumn and early winter tens of thousands of Torontonians like you and me showed everyone that a single action can make a huge difference. We stood up in defence of our public library then, and we were successful.
With your help, I am very hopeful that we can prevail again.
+ + + + +
The library workers' union is asking for ideas on how to win this campaign: go here.
jason kenney is at it again again: each refugee claim must be decided individually, not by country of origin
The Harperites have resurrected the unjust, immoral, and, according to international treaties to which Canada is a signatory, illegal bill formerly known as C-11.
Jason Kenney doesn't want so much riff-raff allowed into Canada. So first he let positions on the Immigration and Refugee Board go vacant, so there weren't enough decision-makers to hear cases, thereby creating a backlog. Then he uses the backlog to say there are too many claimants.
The IRB is under political pressure to reject certain types of cases. Kenney then uses those rejections to "prove" that claimants from certain countries are "bogus" refugees and no review of their claims is needed.
When the minority Conservative government tried to rush this bill into law without debate in 2010, the NDP fought back, and after enough pressure was applied, the Liberals grew a (temporary) spine.* Amendments were added protecting the most vulnerable refugee claimants. Now the Harper GovernmentTM wants to use its majority power to get their anti-refugee, anti-human wish list into law.
Rather than re-write what I've already written, I will quote myself, and more importantly, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Refugee Lawyers Association, and former immigration ministers, from the earlier fight in 2010. I hope you'll go and at least skim some of these links.
Amnesty: amnesty: flaws in refugee bill put lives at risk
Canadian Council for Refugees: Canadian Council for Refugees statement on bill from 2010
Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1999-2002) and Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration 1984-1986): "human rights are on the line": two former immigration ministers decry rush to pass c-11
stephen harper dismantles canada's refugee system
* Not really. Liberal Immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua, allegedly promised a Conservative endorsement of his forthcoming campaign in the city of Vaughn, did the Tories' work for them, playing sock-puppet for Jason Kenney. By all reports, then- Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was ready to side with Bevilacqua, until a revolt from his own caucus forced his hand.
Jason Kenney doesn't want so much riff-raff allowed into Canada. So first he let positions on the Immigration and Refugee Board go vacant, so there weren't enough decision-makers to hear cases, thereby creating a backlog. Then he uses the backlog to say there are too many claimants.
The IRB is under political pressure to reject certain types of cases. Kenney then uses those rejections to "prove" that claimants from certain countries are "bogus" refugees and no review of their claims is needed.
When the minority Conservative government tried to rush this bill into law without debate in 2010, the NDP fought back, and after enough pressure was applied, the Liberals grew a (temporary) spine.* Amendments were added protecting the most vulnerable refugee claimants. Now the Harper GovernmentTM wants to use its majority power to get their anti-refugee, anti-human wish list into law.
Rather than re-write what I've already written, I will quote myself, and more importantly, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Refugee Lawyers Association, and former immigration ministers, from the earlier fight in 2010. I hope you'll go and at least skim some of these links.
Amnesty: amnesty: flaws in refugee bill put lives at risk
Canadian Council for Refugees: Canadian Council for Refugees statement on bill from 2010
Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1999-2002) and Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration 1984-1986): "human rights are on the line": two former immigration ministers decry rush to pass c-11
stephen harper dismantles canada's refugee system
* Not really. Liberal Immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua, allegedly promised a Conservative endorsement of his forthcoming campaign in the city of Vaughn, did the Tories' work for them, playing sock-puppet for Jason Kenney. By all reports, then- Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was ready to side with Bevilacqua, until a revolt from his own caucus forced his hand.
2.15.2012
results of poll on immigration shows conservative anti-immigrant policies are out of step with dominant canadian view
I was pleased to see the results of a recent Environics survey about Canadians' attitudes towards immigrants and new Canadians. It's reassuring to know that the attitudes that led to an attack on a Muslim woman in Mississauga and the directive forbidding women to wear veils at a citizenship ceremony - while abhorrent - are not the majority view. Even several supposedly hot-button issues, like dual citizenship or Canadians living abroad, do not appear to be a problem for most Canadians. Only for Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney, and the rest of the Conservative lackeys.
CBC:
CBC:
Most Canadians feel immigrants are just as likely to be good citizens as people who were born here, a recent Environics Institute survey suggests.
Canadians also don't appear to have problems with dual citizenship or with Canadian citizens living abroad, according to the telephone survey, which the Environics Institute says is the first poll to directly ask Canadians their views on citizenship.
A group made up of five national organizations – CBC, the Environics Institute, Maytree, The Institute for Canadian Citizenship and the RBC Foundation – commissioned the public opinion poll, which asked over 2,000 Canadians what they think are the characteristics of a good citizen and other questions about citizenship.
. . .
The survey suggests Canadians have a broad, inclusive view of citizenship and see immigrants as their equals: nearly 9 out of every 10 respondents agreed that a person born outside Canada is just as likely to be a good citizen as someone born here.
"There's no real evidence of people feeling threatened or a sense that, 'Well, people can come live here from other countries, but they're not quite the same,'" said Keith Neuman, executive director of the Environics Institute.
Policies, profits help integration
When it comes to immigration and citizenship, the views of the majority of Canadians born in the country and the 20 per cent born outside it are largely aligned. Canadian-born and foreign-born respondents were equally likely to feel fully like citizens (78 per cent versus 75 per cent).
Usha George, dean of Ryerson University's Faculty of Community Services, says the survey's findings confirm a lot of what those working with new Canadians know already.
The willingness of Canadians to not view a person's foreign background as an impediment to citizenship is a product of the country's multicultural policies and the visible effect of immigrants on the economy, George said.
Integration of immigrants has worked in Canada because the government has funded programs that teach immigrants about Canadian values and society has adapted its institutions to accommodate diversity.
"The mutual recognition that we should be respectful to each other and celebrate diversity in a genuine way, those values permeate the whole society,” said George, whose faculty trains many of those who provide social and other services to new immigrants.
Whatever Canada is doing, it seems to be positively influencing immigrants' views of the country, the survey suggests: 88 per cent of respondents who were born outside Canada said they were very proud to be Canadian, compared with 81 per cent of those born here.
"Canadians who were not born in Canada are more proud than naturally born Canadians simply because we had the choice of being Canadian," said Vikram Kewalramani, who immigrated to Canada in 2006 from India. "It wasn't something that, literally, was a birthright. We consider it a privilege."
For Amal Ibrahim, a Palestinian who became a citizen last year along with her two children, Canadian citizenship is primarily about respecting differences.
"It's a great diverse culture where people learn how to live in harmony with each other while they have different ideas, different religions and different backgrounds," she said.
Tolerance of others who are different was among the top five behaviours survey respondents considered a "very important" part of being a good citizen.
jason kenney is at it again: defend free speech, defend the rights of palestinian canadians
Our illustrious Minister of Censorship and Deportation is at it again - attacking freedom of expression and those who defend the rights of Palestinians. This time his target is Palestine House, a Palestinian cultural and educational organization based in Mississauga, for its highly successful settlement program.
Last week, Palestine House was informed by the CIC that all funding for its immigration settlement program had been cut.
This must be seen as an entirely political decision, as it fits the broader pattern of government-led censorship and intimidation of anyone who is critical of Canada's foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Palestine.
See below for action alert. Meanwhile, some context:
• The Canadian Arab Federation - funding was cut by Kenney in February 2009, in response to its criticism of Harper's support for Israel’s attack on Gaza
• Former British MP George Galloway - banned from entering Canada by Kenney in March 2009, in response to his humanitarian aid convoy to Gaza
• Pathways to Peace, an academic conference at York University in June 2009 - funding threatened by an unprecedented intervention by a Conservative cabinet minister
• KAIROS, "Canadian churches working for peace" - funding was cut in November 2009; Kenney later boasted to an audience in Jerusalem that the cut represented his government’s "zero tolerance" policy on anti-Semitism
• Rights & Democracy, an organization "created by Canada's Parliament in 1988 to encourage and support the universal values of human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and practices around the world" - Conservative-appointed board members cut funding in January 2010 to Israeli and Palestinian NGOs that were critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians
• The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) - Canadian funding was cut in January 2010; UNRWA administers health and education programs to 59 Palestinian refugee camps
• Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, Palestinian democracy activist and former presidential candidate - denied entry to Canada for a speaking tour in March 2010
• Israeli Apartheid Week, an annual campus-based educational conference - condemned by Conservative MPs, who attempted to officially ban in it in March 2011
• Palestine solidarity in general, which the so-called "Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism" equates with anti-Semitism, in its report issued in July 2011
These attacks represent a serious threat to free speech in Canada, a loss of community workers' jobs, and a loss of the vital services they provide.
Please take a moment to email Jason Kenney and to Bob Dechert, the Conservative MP for Mississauga-Erindale (where Palestine House is located). Let them know you oppose this latest attack on free speech.
Step 1:
In your email message, cut-and-paste the following email addresses into the "To:" line:
jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca, Minister@cic.gc.ca, bob.dechert@parl.gc.ca, bob.dechert.c1@parl.gc.ca
Step 2:
Cut-and-paste info@PalestineHouse.com into the "Cc:" or "Bcc:" line. Let Palestine House know you support their demand to restore funding now.
Step 3:
Cut-and-paste "We support Palestine House. Restore funding now." into the Subject line.
Step 4:
Cut-and-paste the message below. If you choose, write your own personal statement at the beginning of the message. Please include your name and address at the end of the message.
I oppose your decision to cut federal funding for the successful immigration settlement program administered by Palestine House. This decision is not based on the success of the program (which your department has recognized), but on politics. I oppose any move by the Canadian government to penalize civil society and cultural organizations in Canada based on their legitimate political views. This represents an attack on free speech and free expression in Canada, and is contributing to the steady criminalization of Palestine solidarity initiatives in Canada. I call on you to reverse your decision and to restore immediately the federal funding for Palestine House's immigration settlement program. Thank you for your consideration.
Step 5:
Send.
Step 6:
Share this with your contacts!
Last week, Palestine House was informed by the CIC that all funding for its immigration settlement program had been cut.
This must be seen as an entirely political decision, as it fits the broader pattern of government-led censorship and intimidation of anyone who is critical of Canada's foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Palestine.
See below for action alert. Meanwhile, some context:
• The Canadian Arab Federation - funding was cut by Kenney in February 2009, in response to its criticism of Harper's support for Israel’s attack on Gaza
• Former British MP George Galloway - banned from entering Canada by Kenney in March 2009, in response to his humanitarian aid convoy to Gaza
• Pathways to Peace, an academic conference at York University in June 2009 - funding threatened by an unprecedented intervention by a Conservative cabinet minister
• KAIROS, "Canadian churches working for peace" - funding was cut in November 2009; Kenney later boasted to an audience in Jerusalem that the cut represented his government’s "zero tolerance" policy on anti-Semitism
• Rights & Democracy, an organization "created by Canada's Parliament in 1988 to encourage and support the universal values of human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and practices around the world" - Conservative-appointed board members cut funding in January 2010 to Israeli and Palestinian NGOs that were critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians
• The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) - Canadian funding was cut in January 2010; UNRWA administers health and education programs to 59 Palestinian refugee camps
• Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, Palestinian democracy activist and former presidential candidate - denied entry to Canada for a speaking tour in March 2010
• Israeli Apartheid Week, an annual campus-based educational conference - condemned by Conservative MPs, who attempted to officially ban in it in March 2011
• Palestine solidarity in general, which the so-called "Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism" equates with anti-Semitism, in its report issued in July 2011
These attacks represent a serious threat to free speech in Canada, a loss of community workers' jobs, and a loss of the vital services they provide.
Please take a moment to email Jason Kenney and to Bob Dechert, the Conservative MP for Mississauga-Erindale (where Palestine House is located). Let them know you oppose this latest attack on free speech.
Step 1:
In your email message, cut-and-paste the following email addresses into the "To:" line:
jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca, Minister@cic.gc.ca, bob.dechert@parl.gc.ca, bob.dechert.c1@parl.gc.ca
Step 2:
Cut-and-paste info@PalestineHouse.com into the "Cc:" or "Bcc:" line. Let Palestine House know you support their demand to restore funding now.
Step 3:
Cut-and-paste "We support Palestine House. Restore funding now." into the Subject line.
Step 4:
Cut-and-paste the message below. If you choose, write your own personal statement at the beginning of the message. Please include your name and address at the end of the message.
I oppose your decision to cut federal funding for the successful immigration settlement program administered by Palestine House. This decision is not based on the success of the program (which your department has recognized), but on politics. I oppose any move by the Canadian government to penalize civil society and cultural organizations in Canada based on their legitimate political views. This represents an attack on free speech and free expression in Canada, and is contributing to the steady criminalization of Palestine solidarity initiatives in Canada. I call on you to reverse your decision and to restore immediately the federal funding for Palestine House's immigration settlement program. Thank you for your consideration.
Step 5:
Send.
Step 6:
Share this with your contacts!
2.14.2012
we like lists: list # 14: three reasons you like/dislike valentine's day
Do you like Valentine's Day? Do you celebrate it or avoid it? Do you celebrate it and avoid it? Tell us why. Three reasons, please.
I don't do Valentine's Day. Here's why.
1. I don't like being told when to be romantic. If everyone is supposed to be romantic at once, where's the romance in that?
2. It's another weapon of mass consumption. Buy, buy, buy, more, more, more.
3. Here's a Valentine's Day story from my childhood. I'm not sure what grade this was in, possibly first. We made paper and cardboard mailboxes, decorated with hearts and whatnot. Then everyone was to make valentines, as they were called, and deliver them to classmates' mailboxes.
My mother had a package of these little valentines. One side was a heart or a goopy picture of a puppy, very cheap stuff, the other side was blank, and you folded it closed. We made a valentine for each child in the class. I don't remember exactly how this happened, but I think my mother must have had a class list. I wrote my name on a bunch of cards, folded them in half, then I think my mother wrote kids' names on the front of the cards.
The next day, Valentine's Day, all the kids went around the classroom delivering their cards to each other's mailboxes. Mine was full of cards, tons of kids had given me valentines, which I think surprised me.
There was one boy in the class who only had one valentine, the one from me. If my mother hadn't set up the project the way she did, he would have had none. No one thought of him.
Valentine's Day is an opportunity for millions of people to feel like that boy must have felt that day, only worse. The card companies, the chocolate companies, the jewelry stores, the florists, the restaurants - it's all a huge set-up for people to feel left out and passed over.
I don't do Valentine's Day. Here's why.
1. I don't like being told when to be romantic. If everyone is supposed to be romantic at once, where's the romance in that?
2. It's another weapon of mass consumption. Buy, buy, buy, more, more, more.
3. Here's a Valentine's Day story from my childhood. I'm not sure what grade this was in, possibly first. We made paper and cardboard mailboxes, decorated with hearts and whatnot. Then everyone was to make valentines, as they were called, and deliver them to classmates' mailboxes.
My mother had a package of these little valentines. One side was a heart or a goopy picture of a puppy, very cheap stuff, the other side was blank, and you folded it closed. We made a valentine for each child in the class. I don't remember exactly how this happened, but I think my mother must have had a class list. I wrote my name on a bunch of cards, folded them in half, then I think my mother wrote kids' names on the front of the cards.
The next day, Valentine's Day, all the kids went around the classroom delivering their cards to each other's mailboxes. Mine was full of cards, tons of kids had given me valentines, which I think surprised me.
There was one boy in the class who only had one valentine, the one from me. If my mother hadn't set up the project the way she did, he would have had none. No one thought of him.
Valentine's Day is an opportunity for millions of people to feel like that boy must have felt that day, only worse. The card companies, the chocolate companies, the jewelry stores, the florists, the restaurants - it's all a huge set-up for people to feel left out and passed over.
2.12.2012
happy birthday to charles dickens from eric blair
For reasons unknown, Blogger will not allow me to follow my friend NN's blog for more than a few hours. It insists on dropping Stacked-NYC from my reading list. Because of this, I missed Charles Dickens' 200th birthday!
NN's post reminded me of the excellent essay by George Orwell (call the Squad Squad, the phrase itself is a redundancy) exploring Dickens' staying power and analyzing his politics. Was Dickens a revolutionary? (No.) Did he really love the working class? (Nope.) If Dickens protested the conditions of his day, what did he offer as an alternative? (Be nice.)
I have three writing idols*, and reading one of them write about another is loaded with meaning. I love Dickens, and I love Orwell, and Orwell didn't make me love Dickens any less. But it did help me think about Dickens through a more political lens. And because it was Orwell, it was sparkling clear, perfect prose - brilliantly accessible, totally unpretentious, a bit wry, very warm, witty, generous, kind, moral but not rigid or dogmatic.
Reading Orwell's essays transports me. He is among the greatest writers of the English language. In fact, while I'm reading Orwell, I believe him to be The Greatest Writer I've Ever Read. Not that there is any need to choose such a person or bestow such a title, but while I'm reading an Orwell essay, I feel that he must be, because no one could possibly write better than this stuff I'm drinking in right now. One of my life goals is to read everything Orwell has written. It's a modest goal. Every once in a while, I read another essay, and the sad part will be when I've read the last one.
Although 1984 should be re-read every ten years or so, my favourite Orwell books are nonfiction: The Road to Wigan Pier and Homage to Catalonia.
The complete works of George Orwell are online, and if you haven't yet had the pleasure, or if it's been too long, try Shooting An Elephant, Why I Write, and the classic Politics and the English Language.
* John Steinbeck
NN's post reminded me of the excellent essay by George Orwell (call the Squad Squad, the phrase itself is a redundancy) exploring Dickens' staying power and analyzing his politics. Was Dickens a revolutionary? (No.) Did he really love the working class? (Nope.) If Dickens protested the conditions of his day, what did he offer as an alternative? (Be nice.)
I have three writing idols*, and reading one of them write about another is loaded with meaning. I love Dickens, and I love Orwell, and Orwell didn't make me love Dickens any less. But it did help me think about Dickens through a more political lens. And because it was Orwell, it was sparkling clear, perfect prose - brilliantly accessible, totally unpretentious, a bit wry, very warm, witty, generous, kind, moral but not rigid or dogmatic.
Reading Orwell's essays transports me. He is among the greatest writers of the English language. In fact, while I'm reading Orwell, I believe him to be The Greatest Writer I've Ever Read. Not that there is any need to choose such a person or bestow such a title, but while I'm reading an Orwell essay, I feel that he must be, because no one could possibly write better than this stuff I'm drinking in right now. One of my life goals is to read everything Orwell has written. It's a modest goal. Every once in a while, I read another essay, and the sad part will be when I've read the last one.
Although 1984 should be re-read every ten years or so, my favourite Orwell books are nonfiction: The Road to Wigan Pier and Homage to Catalonia.
The complete works of George Orwell are online, and if you haven't yet had the pleasure, or if it's been too long, try Shooting An Elephant, Why I Write, and the classic Politics and the English Language.
* John Steinbeck
this week in sexism, or why feminism still matters
In celebration of African American history month, thousands of Texas schoolchildren attended a screening of the film "Red Tails," about the famed Tuskegee Airmen, the first black aviators to serve in the US military. Well, thousands of boys did, anyway. Girls were brought to a screening of "Akeelah and the Bee," about an 11-year-old girl who competes in a national spelling bee. A spokesperson for the Dallas Independent School District said the arrangement was made because seating at "Red Tails" was limited, and they thought boys would enjoy the movie more than girls.
Reporters caught up with one of the original Tuskegee Airmen, a 94-year-old gentleman named Herbert Carter, for his thoughts on this boys-only screening. Turns out that Herbert Carter's late wife Mildred Carter was also an aviator, and the first black woman to hold a pilot's license in Alabama. Mildred, who died not long ago, wasn't allowed to fly for the military. Good things times have changed. But not too much. When told about the slight to Texas girls, Herbert Carter was "almost speechless".
Read more here.
* * * *
Although the sports world itself has made huge strides against sexism, the world of sports advertising and marketing seems stuck in a Cosmo magazine. A company promoting fantasy baseball - a game where you create your a fictional team from exisiting players, and use real-time stats to match them against other fictional teams - feels female players require a different type of fantasy. This excellent post by Craig Calcaterra explains it so much better than I can.
It's worth reading: Great Moments in Sexism: Who’s your “Baseball Boyfriend?”
Reporters caught up with one of the original Tuskegee Airmen, a 94-year-old gentleman named Herbert Carter, for his thoughts on this boys-only screening. Turns out that Herbert Carter's late wife Mildred Carter was also an aviator, and the first black woman to hold a pilot's license in Alabama. Mildred, who died not long ago, wasn't allowed to fly for the military. Good things times have changed. But not too much. When told about the slight to Texas girls, Herbert Carter was "almost speechless".
Read more here.
* * * *
Although the sports world itself has made huge strides against sexism, the world of sports advertising and marketing seems stuck in a Cosmo magazine. A company promoting fantasy baseball - a game where you create your a fictional team from exisiting players, and use real-time stats to match them against other fictional teams - feels female players require a different type of fantasy. This excellent post by Craig Calcaterra explains it so much better than I can.
But a company called A View From My Seat – “In cooperation with CBS Sports Interactive” according to their website — has decided that the reason women don’t play fantasy baseball is because there isn’t enough romance in it. So they’ve decided to change that. By allowing girls — and they specifically say “girls” — to choose their “Baseball Boyfriend”. . . .This post made me click around to read more by the same writer, and he's a great find.
The website asks “girls” to go through their “little black book” and pick the handsomest player. Oh, I’m sorry, it asks you to “choose your stud.” How long have you kept a player on your roster? No: it’s “how long you’ve dated him.” If “one man is not enough” it encourages you to play in multiple leagues. The pics from the site have little hearts and stuff around pictures of, um, handsome players like Lance Berkman and Matt Cain. . . .
Guess what: women like baseball. They watch a lot of it. They write about it. They are, increasingly, executives in the game. Every fantasy league I’ve ever played in has had women in it, and they invariably beat the crap out of me (not that that’s hard). Are the numbers where we’d like them? No, because ideally everyone on the planet is doing basebally things. But the disparity between male and female fans is not because baseball is too hard for “girls” to understand or two manly for them to enjoy.
I get what they’re trying to do here. They want to expand the number of people who click where they’d like them to click and are trying a unique approach to get there. But there are certainly better ways to do so than by misguidedly attempting to girly-fy fantasy baseball or to dumb it down. Women do not need to be treated like love-struck teenagers to be drawn in.
It's worth reading: Great Moments in Sexism: Who’s your “Baseball Boyfriend?”
2.10.2012
(un)lawful access: watch, share, remix, and take action
Last summer I worked as a research assistant on a project about video surveillance in stores, malls and public spaces.* That project was headed by Andrew Clement, an expert in the field of identity, privacy, and surveillance. Andrew co-created this mini-documentary with Kate Milberry, about the so-called "lawful access" legislation being rushed into law by the Harper Government.
Please watch it, share widely, and take action. It is of the utmost importance.
I've posted this petition before, but we all get so many petitions and opportunities to sign letters, I wonder how much of it registers. Please educate yourself about this, sign the petition, and pass it on: Stop Spying.
To get involved, join the campaign.
* A condensed version of our final report was presented as a paper at this year's iConference. It won an award as one of the five best papers of the conference.
Please watch it, share widely, and take action. It is of the utmost importance.
I've posted this petition before, but we all get so many petitions and opportunities to sign letters, I wonder how much of it registers. Please educate yourself about this, sign the petition, and pass it on: Stop Spying.
To get involved, join the campaign.
* A condensed version of our final report was presented as a paper at this year's iConference. It won an award as one of the five best papers of the conference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)