Public transportation not an essential service? That’s news to me.

Ok, so Ottawa is going through it's first day of a strike by the OC workers, who run the public transportation. As someone who buses everywhere, from school, to work, to friends, to my house, I am fucking livid! Both the city council and the union reps don't appear to give a shit about people like me, who can't afford a cab, can't walk for an hour to work in the fucking snow (yes, we got about 20cm last night, did I mention?), don't own a car, and if anyone thinks biking is a good option for getting around, as the OC's website helpfully suggests, I'd love to see them do it in a Canadian winter. Essentially, I'm being forced to choose between not going to work or going to work, but blowing my entire pay-cheque on the cab ride there and back.

Amalgamated Transport Union local 279 is representing the OC workers. Their president, Andre Cornellier, is the biggest jerk I've ever seen. He got a striking mandate from his union members on the city's last proposal, and now he's not even letting them see the revised proposal, let alone vote on it. Here he is, being a total douche:



We already pay an arm and a leg for inadequate public transportation. The City isn't doing much to change things. Both sides are flexing their muscles, and commuters like me are left stranded. My sister has to miss school for the rest of the week, because she has no way of getting there and back without buses. One of my friends had to sleep on a couch in the student lounge at the university, because he had a 9 am exam and couldn't get there on time without buses. Yeah, did I mention that all students are going through exams right now?

In Toronto, public transportation was declared an essential service last April, after one day, when their workers went on strike. This would usually fall on proviancial. In Ottawa, however, it falls in the hands of federal, because we have a few buses that cross over to Quebec. Federal, being unstable as it is right now, is unwilling to do anything, and city councillors decided this morning to not even try, because apparently, public transportation isn't so essential after all.

Given that I, as one of the people most affected by this strike, have absolutely no power to do anything else about it, I've been writing letters to local papers and politicians who do have power. I'll post here the letter I sent to the Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Sun:

The ATU is holding Ottawa’s citizens for ransom, while city council is either weighing the monetary savings of a strike against the rights and well-being of residents, or is tragically out-of-touch with its constituency. What other motivation could push either side to decide that it would be reasonable to leave Ottawa’s citizens without public transportation, especially at a time like this?

The bus drivers, of course, should know riders well enough to realise that many of them do not have an alternate mode of transportation. As someone who takes the bus almost everywhere, including university and work, I count myself among those people. Today alone, I have lost $17 because I could not get to my second job for lack of transportation. While that may be pocket-money to a bus driver or city councillor, it is at least three lunches for me. And I am far from the worst-hit by this ridiculously selfish strike. School-children, students, low-income people and the elderly will all suffer because of this. The thing is, the people most affected by this strike will not be the ones who ultimately decide whether or not the OC workers get their scheduling rights and sick days.

The union and its members have demonstrated nothing but callousness during this strike. How could they, for instance, refuse to guarantee the safety of yellow bus drivers and students, thus forcing Ottawa’s school boards to abandon the plan for alternate transportation for their commuting students? The last I checked, education and safety are rights in this country, and the ATU is infringing upon them.

This does not, however, excuse the way city council has acted in response to the strike. Announcing that public transportation is not an essential service and refusing to present Councilor Bloess’ motion to declare it as such to the federal government is a slap in the face for commuters, especially the ones who are completely dependent on public transportation. But hey, with savings of $3 million a week in the event of a strike, who can blame ‘em, right? Lucky for the commuters, the City has published a helpful list of alternatives to public transportation. University students trying to get to their exams on the other side of town, for instance, could walk to school. The elderly should try biking in order to get their groceries. Minimum-wage workers and high-school students can take a taxi, can’t they? And everyone has a car-owning friend or co-worker with a compatible schedule and destination willing to drive them around town.

Of course, both OC workers and city councillors, who all make a decent-enough wage as it is, can rest easy at night, knowing that they are Right and the other guy is to blame! Meanwhile, the people suffering most are left with no way of getting around and virtually no say in the matter, either way.

I guess it’s a good thing that it’s not about the money, as Andre Cornellier keeps repeating self-righteously. No, stranded commuters can rest assured that it’s about dignity and respect! Well, I feel thoroughly robbed of my dignity as a citizen by both city council and OC workers, and any respect that I held for either is now lost.

I also left a rather nasty message on Andre Cornellier's answering machine. I honestly don't know what else to do. Luckily, I'm done with exams, or I'd be sleeping in student-lounges too. I really wanted to work extra hours during December to make some money for my tuition payments. I really do need it. And, unlike bus drivers, I don't get paid $25/hour. Sick days? Forget it! If I'm sick, I find a replacement and lose the shift and any money I might have made from it. Scheduling? I take what I can get, which often means giving up weekends. With the way the economy is going, bus drivers should be happy they have such well-paying jobs. I really think the City should tell them that if they want to stay on the payroll, they'd better show up to work tomorrow. I'm certain there are plenty of people who would be more than happy to take their jobs.

Review of "For The Bible Tells Me So"

So, I just watched For The Bible Tells Me So, a wonderful documentary about reconciling homosexuality with Christianity. It follows the stories of several strongly Christian families dealing with the fact that one of their loved ones is gay. Among the families interviewed are those of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church, and Chrissy Gephardt, the lesbian daughter of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt. The movie also features several religious scholars, including Desmond Tutu.

The bulk of the movie is made up of the families' stories and struggles in accepting their loved ones' homosexuality. Some families are more accepting than others. For some, like the Wallner family, acceptance comes too late. Ms Wallner's daughter committed suicide before the two could reconcile. Others, like the Reitan family, are positively transformed by the coming out of one of their children. The Reitans became gay-rights activists, and Mary Lou Wallner went on to found TEACH Ministries. However, the movie also touches on some important aspects of Christianity's rejection of homosexuals. Alternate readings of the biblical passages dealing with homosexuality are briefly dealth with, in particular the passage which calls homosexuality an abomination and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here's a taste (at the 1:24 mark):



The main argument, however, isn't in the possible alternate readings. The movie critisizes literalist approaches to the Bible, making the case that the Bible must be read with an understanding and consideration of the cultural context in which it was written. It also points out the way the Church tends to essencialize LGBT people by focusing solely on their sexuality, ignoring the fact that they are human beings deserving of the same love and respect granted to heterosexuals. It is argued that Christians who follow the Bible on this particular rule, but not on all the others, à la Jacobs, are picking and choosing passages to follow. Another thing the film rejects is the static view of religion adopted by anti-homosexual churches, which doesn't account for the many ways in which our understanding of the Bible has changed since it was written (ex: Women are no longer acquired by their husbands as a possession would be). Ultimately, the movie is about Christian Love done right.

It's definitely a powerful film, especially toward the end. I must admit, I shed a few tears (although anyone who knows me, probably knows what a crybaby I am). Tutu, in partucular, made a very powerful statement that really sticks out in my mind, so I'm going to try and paraphrase it as best I can:

I can't imagine God telling me, "I hate you, because you're black. You should have been born white. I hate you, because you're a woman. You should have been a man. I hate you because you're homosexual. You should have been straight."

Now, I know that when Hemant profiled this movie a few months ago on Friendly Atheist, some of the commenters said they didn't want to see a movie about reconciling Christianity with homosexuality, but would rather Christianity were rejected altogether. I don't think that's the point. I think that it's about being happy, and if you're happy being Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu, or any other religion (or no religion, for that matter), and you're also happy being gay, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, asexual, heterosexual etc., then noone should tell you that you have to pick one or the other, but not both. Religious belief and sexuality are both important parts of people's identities and they shouldn't be incompatible. And isn't that what Christian Love is all about - accepting and loving thy neighbour? I don't need to be a believer to know that that's the only Christianity I'd respect.

Maclean's Interview With Julian Barnes

This week's Maclean's (Nov 10th issue) features an interview with Julian Barnes, author of Nothing to be Frightened of, a memoir/essay about death without God. In the interview, Kenneth Whyte asks Barnes about his atheism, among other things. Unfortunately, the interview isn't available online (yet?), but I've transcribed some of the relevant parts below:

Q: Your first line is, "I don't believe in God, but I miss him."

A: That's right, yes. I just found myself saying that when I was on some public stage and someone said, "Do you believe in God?" and that was my instant response, and it was one that on reflection I thought was true. I grew up in a family where, probably from the point when my grandmother lost her Methodist faith and became a Communist - or socialist - nearly, oh, 90 years ago, there hasn't been anything that you would call faith in the family, let alone church attendance. But, you know, when a great story ends I think we all miss it, and it was a great story. There were aspects of it that leave a sense of want. One is that if life is a mere prelude or preparation for something else, then life becomes both more trivial and more important, and if not then we can grow to our full height but that height is comparatively dwarfish. If this is all there is and this is all we are then it's a bit disappointing.

Q: You do talk about various writers and friends contemplating death and contemplating heaven and I can't recall one depiction of heaven being the least appealing.

A: Well, you sound a bit like my brother. I regard myself as a rationalist, but my brother - who's spent his life teaching ancient philosophy - is a super-rationalist and makes me seem sloppy and barely reasonable, and so part of the book is a friendly fraternal argument with my brother. He says, "I'd hate to have to spend eternity in the presence of saints and martyrs," and I say, "Well, actually, saints weren't just pious, boring fellows. They were often at the cutting edge of social change and they had often very interesting deaths, as well. And in medieval times they're probably some of the most intelligent, sophisticated people on earth. After all, Dom Pérignon - after whom the champagne is named - was a monk." I don't see why you should think that heaven must be infinitely boring.

Q: You write elsewhere that we have replaced our traditional ideas of heaven with a secular, modern heaven of self-fulfillment, where it all comes down to development of the personality and having a high-status job and pursuing material goods, which sounds, relative to what you've described, rather grim.

A: I think as modern society has become more secular we sell ourselves a sort of junior version of paradise. We too often need someone else to define what it is that we want, and in the old days religion did that for us, and nowadays it's multinational corporations trying to sell us stuff, or tone our bodies, or make us forget about death, so I don't think it's a substantial improvement.

Q: You quote somebody - I think it might have been Robespierre - on atheism being...

A: Aristocratic. Yes, that's Robespierre. I find that the hardline atheist's dismissal of people's religious beliefs as merely stupid and primitive is arrogant. And, you know, I agree with them that this life is all we have in all probability, but I don't believe that people who have a religious faith are necessarily either bigots or idiots. What I'm saying is that I find the spiritual or religious impulse in people to be natural and to be respected, even if the doings in the name of churches are often nefarious and oppressive.

Q: There seems to be most certainty about atheism in the U.K., when in a lot of the rest of the world we're seeing something of a revival in religious fervour.

A: Yes. The Brits, after all, gave Darwin to the world. I think in Europe the retreat of the traditional religions is strong. The collapse of religion in Ireland, for example, and France, and to a lesser extent Italy has been quite spectacular.

Q: America being one grand exception.

A: America is one grand exception indeed. America manages to combine extreme materialism with extreme religiosity, and it is a bizarre thought that in this presidential cycle, we could have had a woman in the White House, we might have a black man in the White House, but if either of them had said they were atheists neither of them would have had a hope in hell, all too literally.

[...]

I found Barnes' thought process interesting, so I'll try to get a hold of his book as soon as possible, and hopefully, I'll be able to update this post with a link to the whole interview. He's a good antidote to Hitchens' kind of atheism, so I definitely look forward to hearing more from him in the near future.

A Guide to My Heart pt. 1

This is a new theme I'm going to introduce to the blog. Sometimes, I realize just how deep my love for something runs and I need to express it. By blogging about it, hopefully I can avoid annoying my friends/co-workers with long, panting, one-sided discussions about these things I love.

So, the inaugural edition to this little guide to my heart will be about... aviator sunglasses on guys!


Yes. I love them! No guy can go wrong with aviator sunglasses! Seriously, find the doppiest-looking guy around, put a pair of these puppies on him and I guarantee you, he would instantly gain several levels of cool. And cool is hot. (That is so not an oxymoron, by the way.)

I usually realize that these guys could be total dirtbags under the glasses, but I still can't help feeling an instant attraction to men wearing aviators. I think it's because they convey a sense of non-chalence and confidence. They're also very classic and kinda mature. The glasses, not the guys, necessarily. Not to mention that men wearing aviators also seem a little bit autoritative (i.e. knowledgeable), since movie cops are always wearing them. All in all, I think it does come down to confidence.

Incidentally, girls also look totally hot/cool in aviators. Not being able to wear aviator sunglasses is probably the only regret I have about choosing to wear my (also totally hot) prescription eyeglasses, instead of lenses.

I realize, of course, that this is an idea that I've constructed in my mind and that not all guys who wear aviator glasses are confident, outgoing, and fun. They just have a fashion sense that corresponds to my tastes and speaks to my constructed ideas of what makes a man attractive and what his physicality says about his personality. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't droolingly check out guys wearing them. Especially if it's my boyfriend, Kanye West. <3

I'm glad I don't live in the US

Seriously, this is ridiculous:


(via feministing)

Anti-choice policies hurt women all over the world.

To digress slightly from the video, whenever I'm speaking with someone who is pro-life about reproductive rights, I find that they have the false idea that the only question is that of the fetus' life. What most of these people don't get is that legalized abortions aren't simply a means for women to have access to abortions. Women have been inducing miscarriages artificially for centuries. There are all kinds of methods to do this, from ingesting certain herbs (supposedly) to inserting tree bark into one's uterus in order for an infection to develop and induce a miscarriage. A lot of these methods are incredibly dangerous to women's health. Before abortions were made legal, hospitals had entire wards just for women suffering from botched abortion attempts! In spite of these dangers, women wanted the choice. They wanted to control their own reproductive health and their bodies. They needed the option. What legalized abortion does is provide women with access to safe abortions. Yes, it's about protecting women's lives. As in, the lives of actual living people who actively contribute to society.

It's mind-boggling that women's basic rights to body agency and safe medical practices are still being challenged. Wake up, US. If you pass these legislations, you'll have undone years of progress in terms of women's rights. You are undoing and devaluing that progress every time you place women's rights below the fetus' rights in terms of importance. Women are the persons. Women's rights issues are human rights issues and nothing less.

Liz, we need to have a talk.

So, I work at Liz Claiborne. Now, Liz sounds like a really fancy place, and a lot of people think it is. They are wrong. We do have nice business outfits, of course, but we also have some seriously messed-up shit. Frog-clasp jean jackets anyone? Red-and-white-striped sweater-coats?

Needless to say, I wasn't particularly impressed with most of the stock from the start. I'm 19, of course I wasn't impressed. However, the last couple of shipments have been surprisingly good. We had lovely blouses, nice trouser-pants, a few cute business dresses, adorable empire-waisted sweaters, cable-knit sweaters, cropped lamb-skin leather jackets. And in lovely navies, purples, whites, browns, blacks, camels and greys. In short, good stuff. This gave me real hope that Liz Claiborne was pulling itself out of its fashion rut and getting serious about this whole clothing thing. Creating clothes that women under 70 want to wear (although, I have seen some very well-dressed septegenerians). My dismay at the most recent shipment should then be understandable, at least to all other Liz Claiborne employees.

Seriously, what the hell, Liz? What were you thinking? This is, undoubtedly, the worst batch I've had the (dis)pleasure to receive and process since I started working for the company. Silver-polka-dot sweaters? Oversized white stitching on club-collar, engine-red cotton shirts? Really? It's been three weeks since the last shipment (1 week longer than usual) and this is the best you could come up with? It's like you raided Mrs. Claus' closet and only came up with the stuff she stashed in the back, out of sight, because it looks like something her mother-in-law would wear. And what the hell's up with pulling out the Christmas colours and decorations already? It's not even November yet. I understand a few early Christmas gifts going on sale already, but does the new collection really have to look like a gingerbread house? Also, I feel our customers all deserve a formal letter of apology for that black polyester shapeless dress thing with the hideous line of stitching down the front from the last shipment selling at $119,99Cnd. Not cool.

This is serious, Liz. With the economy in the state it's in, right now is not the time to get lazy and pull shit like this out of your ass. People are not going to shell out the big bucks unless it's really worth it and this latest collection is just not going to cut it. I like you, Liz, I really do. I mean, you sign my paycheques and all. And you just extended my staff discount to all the brands you own (thankyouthankyouthankyou!). I'll forgive you this one shipment. We all have our bad days (or weeks). But please, no more silver polka-dots!

The Princess and The Frog

So, I just found out that there's finally a release date for Disney's upcoming movie The Princess and The Frog! DECEMBER 25, 2009! This is exciting shit!

The movie's website even has a short little trailer, which made me chuckle giddily. I'm ecstatic about this release, because not only is this movie going to be a total nostalgia-trip for me when it comes out (I was raised on Disney princesses, dammit!), but it'll actually be the first Disney Princess movie to feature a black princess. Now, I admit that this love of mine for Disney princesses is sometimes difficult to reconcile with my feminism, because Disney has a history of perpetuating some sexist shit through the princess movies (not to mention all the heteronormativity and stereotypical gender-roles), but the more recent movies, like Mulan and Aladdin, were pretty good in terms of having strong female leads, so I really hope Tiana continues that tradition. Also, it's 2D! Animation has come a long way since The Little Mermaid, but I do miss good ol' 2D animation sometimes. And 20s jazz! It all seems like such an epic combination!

However, a few details seem to have changed since I last looked for info on this movie. For starters, the title's been changed from The Frog Princess to The Princess and The Frog. Also, Princess Tiana was originally Maddy, a chambermaid. This was more in keeping with the original story, in which the princess rejects the frog prince, whereas her chambermaid sees beyond his froggishness and lands herself a beautiful, rich husband as a result of her not being shallow (every girl's dream, right? You don't wanna be kissing amphibians for nothing, after all). In this version, Tiana is rich. She also looks less badass (and, might I add, a little more white) than her original jazzy version. According to Wikipedia, there was controversy over the initial character info, because Maddy was perceived as a "lower-class black-name" and chambermaid is not a Disney Princess occupation. I'm kind of disappointed with this. After all, we've had plenty of sheltered princesses in the past. A lower-class working girl is a heroine I can really get behind, but that's just me.

Still, the trailer gives me renewed hope for this movie. I'll be well into my 20th year when this comes out, but that's definitely not going to stop me from seeing it!

Quebec's Atheist-Headed Bloc Quebecois And The Catholic Vote

(This is a repost of a topic I started on the Friendly Atheist forum)

I read an interesting article this week in Maclean's (a Canadian political magazine) talking about the overwhelming Catholic Quebecois support for the province's sovereigntist party, the Bloc Québécois, despite the fact that the Bloc's leader, Gilles Duceppe, is a pro-choice, pro-eutanasia, pro-gay rights atheist, all positions (atheist translates into the party's secularist position) also espoused by the party.

From the article "Ungodly Union":

Notions to the contrary aside, Talin says, religion is alive, well, and politically active in Quebec. Even stranger: despite the Conservatives' family-oriented platform designed to attract churchgoing folk, it's the Bloc Québécois — a left-wing party whose leader is a former Communist and avowed pro-choice atheist who often rails against the Church's encroachment in public affairs — that does surprisingly well with the faithful.

In 2000, Talin concluded, roughly 50 per cent of Quebec's practising Catholics voted for the Bloc. Though much has changed in eight years, notably the formation of the Conservative party and its recognition of la nation Québécoise, that support has remained relatively stable.

What I find interesting, having read so many American secularists' concerns that religion sometimes becomes the number one issue in an election, is that the Quebecois are placing their national identity and separatist views on a much higher level than their religious views.

I think that, from a historian's point of view, this is somewhat explainable. The period between 1945 and 1959 in Quebecois history is known as la Grande Noirceur, the Great Darkness or Dark Ages, during which Quebec's Prime Minister Maurice Duplessis strongly opposed education and industrial development. The Catholic Church had a real vice-grip on public life at this point, controlling everything from education and hospitals to the printing press and what was deemed "acceptable" in the arts. In the 1960s, a new intellectual and cultural movement emerged in Quebec society. It is called la Revolution tranquille, the Quiet Revolution. It is a rejection of the traditional values, mainly through literary art, but also in the media, the political institutions, education, women's rights, etc. It is during this period that Quebecois society became heavily secularized and religion was ejected from public institutions.

However, Catholisism is in no way unimportant to the Quebecois society today and the separatist movement has been on the decline recently. In fact, in their latest election platform, the Bloc Québécois don't mention sovereignty as a current political issue. The Conservatives have been making headway into Quebec, traditionally a Bloc and Liberals stronghold, in this election, but the Bloc is still relevant to the Quebecois, despite recent criticisms stating the contrary.

Anyways, I just thought this would be interesting to share and I wanted to write down my thoughts on it since the Great Darkness and Quiet Revolution periods have always fascinated me. If you ever get the chance, do read some novels from that period - they are well worth it. One of the best (I should know; I wrote my Extended Essay thesis on it) is A Season in the Life of Emmanuel by Marie-Claire Blais. Good stuff and a text that really made me reflect critically on religion in my life during the period when I affirmed my atheism and feminism.