Stephen vs. Stephane

I have always had a healthy interest in politics—I listen to politicians in moderation and exercise my right to vote. In high school social studies, I delighted in composing cheesy jokes about party whips and large caucuses. I also admired Jean Chretien, not always for his stance on issues or the ethics of his party but for his all-out crazed toughness. He could crush a protestor’s face and take a pie in his own just as easily.
So when Chretien left and the Liberal torch was passed, I didn’t envy the party for having to replace him. Where could they find someone as tough as him? Certainly not wimpy Paul Martin.
Now Stephane Dion is the federal Liberal Party leader—and he seems to be the final nail in the Liberal coffin. The Liberals need a leader who can communicate with the people, especially now when their popularity has waned so much. Dion might actually be a great choice, but the English-speaking public has no idea because we can’t understand what the hell he is saying. Where Chretien made up for his lack of English fluency with strength and charisma, Dion comes across as a scared bleating lamb.
But, to give him some credit, Dion is to the English as Stephen Harper is to the Canadian French. After the Liberal Party elected Dion last year, I thought they had failed miserably with their choice of candidate. But then I attended a press conference held by our current prime minister, Harper. During this conference he announced funding for Fraser Valley dike rehabilitation, and then took (carefully selected) questions from reporters. A Quebecois reporter queried Harper: Harper had him repeat the question, then stumbled through his garbled French response, tripping over every word. He looked like an idiot.
So, one could argue that it is not he who speaks the best English but he who leads the country the best. But then one could retort with the fact that the English population outweighs the French by millions, so it is the Anglophones who overrule. I will just remind people to be patient when dealing with those with strong, muddled accents because they may actually have something significant to say—you’ll just need an interpreter.

Bear in Mind

It’s rare to find a forest now that doesn’t reside in the shadow of high rises. So it’s understandable, what with our encroachment on their habitat and food sources, that bears and other wildlife find our garbage scrumptious— you would too if you had nothing else to eat.
It’s actually amazing that such huge animals manage to stay hidden from sight most of the time—but when they do come out, how does a regular citizen make a decision that is in the best interest of the animals and the community?
Conservation officers remind us to “stay calm, never turn and run, face the animal and make it aware of your presence” when you come into contact with black bears, the most common bear in the Lower Mainland. But after you’ve survived a run-in, the choice between animal and surrounding humans can be tough. Calling a conservation officer may be a call to certain death for a bear, but it may save your next door human neighbour. Not only that, but an armed person may take things into his own hands.
Our local bears are getting ready to hunker down for their annual hibernation, so that means they have to stock up on food and fat—that means your discarded leftovers. Why can’t the bears get their own damn food? Well, because humans have destroyed their homes and tempted them with easy meals.
It’s an increasingly prevalent problem in the suburbs—and even in busier cities—so how does a citizen make the right choice when the answer is so complicated? Some of the bearsafe requests made by BC’s Ministry of Environment seem contrary to our current green thought processes— what is good for some creatures is bad for others. Conservation officers frown on outdoor composting and encourage homeowners to chop down any unattended fruit trees to make backyards less appealing.
Like most problems, prevention is the best course of action. An easy step in saving the furrier members of our towns is in the way we deal with garbage: Keep it in your garage or in bear-proof containers, and wait until the day of collection to put it out. Don’t let lazy people continue to kill bears—it’s easier to kill then relocate.

Bomb Me Baby One More Time

Ignorance is easy to maintain when students are sheltered from the world. It is not deliberate—if kids are never allowed the exposure, they might grow up thinking that puppies rule the world and there is no such thing as genocide. Ignorance is bliss— and I have been blessed with it for far too long.
The Canadian public school system failed me in a few ways, but mainly on its presentation of history. While I was celebrating my friend Katie’s birthday, Rwanda was drowning in a torrent of hate-driven slaughter. I ate cake and smiled while children my age had their limbs hacked from their torsos by blunt machetes—and I had no clue.
I wasn’t deliberately ignorant; it’s just that no one discussed this in school. I never knew about the Rwandan genocide until years later when I watched Hotel Rwanda, which made me feel like an unaware jerk. How could something so devastating occur in my lifetime without my knowledge?
No one really cares about Africa— you hear it all the time: “Those negros are killing themselves, it’s their own fault.” “Why don’t they just stop having sex? Then the population, hunger, and the AIDS problems would all be solved.” “They should rise up against their corrupt governments and take back the donations that have been stolen.”
History is repeating itself in Darfur. Millions of Africans are dying from various causes and the West doesn’t care. But maybe if we taught our children about the horrors of war and genocide when they are still young then a sense of caring would be instilled within them as they grew? Isn’t that the point of history class—to learn from the past to have a better future?
History classes in public schools all have a Canadian viewpoint, as they should, but some main and recent acts of history are left out—we weren’t even allowed to watch Schindler’s List in my high school. I appreciate Lois Riel and all, but a little less Red River Riot and more Dieppe may have helped boost patriotism within students, too.
Recently, I devoted a day to watching documentaries on You Tube about Rwanda. From there, I moved onto Bosnia and Cambodia. I’d heard scatterings of these stories on the news, but obviously not to the gory extent that I discovered on my own.
It’s not like my knowing about the carnage would change anything—one girl can’t stop a genocide— but learning about them has changed my viewpoint on other races, and given me compassion for the millions that have died during these slaughters or have sought refuge in our peaceful-by-comparison country. Just acknowledging the plight of others can make you a better person.

The Good, the Bad and the Disgustingly Ugly

There is some sick shit on the Internet.
You can look up anything and view it in text, photo or video form. And it needs to be seen. All of it. It needs to be brought to light and discussed, because, at the risk of sounding like Hedy Fry, atrocities are being committed every day, all over the world—and there is no other way to know about many of them other than the Internet.
Knowledge is power; but knowledge has to have balance, so that includes the dark side of life, too. Combating the bad things on this planet require learning about them first. There is hypocrisy to those who eat beef but refuse to watch cows being slaughtered, or racists that support the Nazis but never watched footage from concentration camps—you need the facts before you can make the statements, and consequently, the action.
Internet material needs to be examined closely, though, not just absorbed. Fact is so easily manipulated by technology that uproar can be created over the silliest of things, (ex Bonsai Kittens) which can become counterproductive.
When exploring the darker side of life via the web, it’s easy to get tangled up in it. Farce is so realistic now that an open mind may let in hoax after hoax—but that should not prevent a person from witnessing truths.
It is not morbid to request reality; it will feel wrong, it can feel sick, but seeing where your food comes from should be mandatory for all humans. Vegetarians can watch fruit harvests, and meat-eaters can witness chickens being boiled alive.
Seeing the truth about something, whether it is a human-rights violation or a freaky sexual fetish, can inspire, comfort or scare a person. Everything in life needs to be examined—the good, the bad and the disgustingly ugly.
Dogs and cats are being brutally skinned alive in Asia, their fur passed off as faux and sold as trim on popular coats in Canada. Innocent people are being dismembered in countries for participating in the most benign of activities. Disfiguring diseases can strike even the most ¸
Shock can spur people to action, whether it’s a letter, article or a volunteer aid trip to Africa—there are things that need to be seen in this world, voices that were silenced before they got an audience.Check out the ghosts of the past, easily accessible with the click of a mouse.

Not All That They Seem....

Sometimes they come on after the news on weekends, their highly contrasted eyes large and bright against their dark skin. They seem unaffected by the flies crawling over their faces, and their malnourished bellies seem to protrude from the television screen and bump against your heart—all the while a voice tells you that you can help, you can make a difference in these children’s lives.
The voice says that for the price of a daily coffee you can feed a child in Africa. He says that if you give so much money a month, you can sponsor a child. Your money will go towards feeding, clothing and housing the poor and hungry orphans of AIDS or the disabled children of conflict.
But how the hell can a sponsor be so sure?
Aid organizations that have a religion in their name blatantly shout out to the followers of that faith to send money, but simultaneously dissuade people from other beliefs from wanting to help. How does a sponsor know if her money is going to feed a child rice or the body of Christ?
Although it is always important to give people hope—especially the young—giving faith before food is a waste of money; but it’s easier to force others to their knees when they are starving.
But it is not only religiously associated organizations that deter potential donations—animal aid societies flip-flop on their positions so much that it is hard to know if your money is going to help or hurt creatures you want to save.
Recently, Greenpeace, an international environmental organization, flipped their stance on the killing of kangaroos in Australia. In a report released to the media they stated the consumption of kangaroos could cut down on the greenhouse gases and land clearing directly related to rearing conventional livestock.
This new “eat roos for the climate” attitude is contrary to the 1986 film Greenpeace released called Goodbye to Joey where they criticized the slaughter of the Aussie marsupials.
This Greenpeace report has obviously caused dismay in animal lovers and those that who enjoy small drumsticks. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the website for Sea Shepherd, an organization created out of Greenpeace rebellion. Founder and president of Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, left Greenpeace after he used physically forceful methods to stop the killing of baby seals.
Since Watson has prior animosity with Greenpeace, it makes sense that Sea Shepherd would jump at the chance to point out Greenpeace’s sudden hypocrisy.
Sea Shepherd portrays themselves as an action-oriented organization that sails around the world fighting evil in the form of unlawful whaling boats and any other illegal offenders; their ships have been known to ram fishing vessels and the crew has been filmed fighting seal hunters. If you love the sea and would like to make a difference, Sea Shepherd seems to be the “real deal”; donating to or volunteering with them sounds like the way to go.
But even Sea Shepherd causes questions to arise when it comes to assisstance; if you want to volunteer on of their “all-vegan” crews, you need to fill out a form—and become a “member” by paying a fee of $100. Paying to even be considered as a volunteer for a dangerous voyage where you will be giving up time, energy and possibly your clean criminal record seems a little much.
But as far as hypocritical tactics and iffy donation results go, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have raised more controversy than all the Jesus-prompted help organizations combined. PETA’s advertising campaigns have compared livestock operations to the Holocaust and displayed nude celebrities endorsing anti-fur; the society has released undercover investigations and even video games to promote their cause.
Then in 2005, two PETA employees were charged with animal cruelty after it was discovered they were euthanizing adoptable pets and throwing the carcasses in dumpsters. Co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, has made several statements that have caused companies, fellow animal-rights groups and the public to be highly offended.
So, as just one person, how do you make a difference once you’ve decided you want to? Who do you trust with your well-intentioned, hard earned donations?
The organizations mentioned above have done incredible things for their causes; but some of their actions cause potential donators to wonder what they might be contributing to. The Canada Revenue Agency is a good resource when deciding what charity to go with, but there is never a guarantee that your money or time is going to the exact person, animal or cause that you intended. Charity is an unconditional force—it should not consider whether a person converts his or her faith before getting food, an animal is cute before getting shelter, or a disease is marketable before being researched.

The Appeal of Dr. House

Dr. Gregory House is considered unconventional.
Besides the fact that he is addicted to painkillers and sometimes gets his patients drunk, the moody doctor does whatever it takes to get to the bottom of a patient’s problem; the dramatic TV show House revolves around his need to solve mysterious ailments. The show is a hit, but I reckon it’s not just because viewers enjoy watching the disabled doctor harass his subordinates—it’s a deeper illustration of the state of Western healthcare.
Those watching House get to indulge themselves in a medical fantasy where doctors will do anything to find the cause of their illness—not just treat their symptoms.
Western medicine has long been accused of bandaging surface problems and not healing the whole self. Whether it is an issue of money or a lack of patience, the quick fi x is the way to go for doctors on our continent. It doesn’t matter if you fully believe in the folkpracticing ways of Eastern and Chinese traditional medicine—you have to admit that focusing on the broader picture in terms of your whole body and your health instead of a specific warning sign seems only logical.
And if you are unlucky enough to be in the 18 percent of Canadians that do not have a general practitioner, then you know full well the sad state of walk-in clinics. Although clinics admittedly exist to relieve emergency room wait times, and not to continually treat full-time patients, much of the population relies on this fast-food version of healthcare because of a lack of family doctors. But seeing a different doctor every visit not only adds inconsistencies to your treatment, it can also invite medical mistakes since patient records may be scattered throughout various clinics.
But, recently, a study was published in Archives of Internal Medicine that noted the unproductive, and sometimes uncomfortable, nature of physician check up chitchat—so even those with regular GPs do not escape doctor related difficulties.
So, how come a drug-addicted, rude man has become the epitome of dashing medical professional?
Because, although his efforts may seem irregular, a doctor who puts more thought into how he is going to cure his patients rather than what he is going to say to them is what we need more of— patients want to know honest answers from their doctors, not what the doctors had for lunch. Perhaps, if every doctor were as much of a detective as Dr. House is, we’d all be in better shape.

A Response to My Article

Letter to the Editor

Criticize Celebs, But Don’t Stoop to the Shock-Jock Level
FROM READER

Pussy? Whore? Spearhole? The article “Worshipping False Idols with False Eyelashes” [October 11 issue] falls short of its promise of cultural criticism, and instead rests on the premise created by the very culture it is trying to criticize: when all else fails, say (or do) something crass. Such enthusiastically mean writing is hypocritical in that it embraces the cruel shock-jock mentality even while it derides the culture that created it. Hatred of specifi c superstars isn’t a viable solution to commercialism. In fact, it’s the other side of the same coin; the very act of arguing about whether or not Britney Spears is a whore, a degenerate, or an unfi t mother is crass consumerism no matter what your conclusions are.
The article contains valuable insights into consumer culture, but it is fl anked on both ends by more unfortunate hatred to fuel the fire, and it is my opinion that the author needs to take one step back and gain some rhetorical perspective. There are already too many Perez Hiltons in the world of celebrity writing.