Fighting the Corps!

Once again, the NDP are the champion of the average Canadian.

Cell phone carriers Telus and Bell are going to be, next month charging their users for every incoming text message, spam or not.  Each of these messages will cost 15-cents.  The problem with this is that the person receiving has no control over the messages that he or she will receive and the person sending it likely already has a plan to cover it or they don’t mind stomaching the cost of sending a single message.

By this logic, spammers will already be paying for a plan and it would likely cover the process of sending an unlimited number of messages.  The receiver doesn’t want spam.  We hate it in our mail, we hate it in our blogs, we hate it in our email.  We hate it period.  So why should we have to pay for this?  I’ll tell you why; some poor CEO is only able to afford one luxury vacation this year instead of two.

Fortunately for Canadians, despite our very closed market, we do have two options, Rogers (the least of the three evils) and my preferred carrier Virgin (who I am currently with an enjoying an incredible cell phone plan because they don’t feel the need to gauge me at every turn).

Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that we as Canadians are being just plain fucked over because the Conservatives don’t want to open up the market to foreign competition, which would drastically reduce our dependence on these large oligopolies.

Even if we don’t open our market, we as consumers deserve protection from unscrupulous corporations out to make an easy buck.

Even if you don’t fundamentally agree with the NDP on most issues, I believe this is one time when you will want to.  Do yourself a favour and visit the link at the top of this entry.  Click on the nice picture.  You know you want to.

Thank You Mr Layton

Many of us at one time or another in our lives have thought of writing to our MP or Congressman or Senator.  We have likely had a topic that was of great concern to us and we wished to see this topic raised during parliamentary season.  So, in an attempt to be politically active, we write a letter and more often than not we get a reply, though that reply is generic and meaningless.  It is a rare treat to get a politician who will answer your question.

I wish to highlight a case example at this time of what a good response from a politician should look like.

A while back I wrote a letter expressing concern over Bill C-484 to the NDP, the party I vote for and a party I feel represents me as a Canadian, even if my local MP is a Liberal.  I explained how I felt about the bill and how it didn’t truly respect my rights as a woman.

I wrote it back in May.  Today I opened my inbox and I was greeted with a pleasant surprise; I had a response back from the NDP.  I was expecting it to be a generic response at the time but when I clicked on it, I found that it answers my question and provides me with more details about what the party is doing to ensure that the bill isn’t passed.

I have attached the email in question to this post because I want to share it with everyone who has ever felt that there is no one who will listen to your legitimate concerns.  There are politicians who will listen and will take the time to heed your concerns.

Thank you, Mr Layton.  It’s a shame that more Canadians don’t see you as a real leader.

Thank you for writing concerning Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence).

Please know that I am receiving many letters and emails from others who also agree that C-484 must be stopped. Let me assure you that my NDP caucus colleagues and I stand firm in support of women’s right to choose. We are united in our opposition to Bill C-484 and when it is returned to Parliament for a final vote, the NDP caucus will vote against it.

Speaking in opposition to Bill C-484 in the House of Commons, New Democrat Members of Parliament articulated that such a measure would open the door to restricting a women’s right to choose and therefore must not become law.  A “fetal homicide” law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence before it happens. It would also do nothing to protect women who are abused shortly after giving birth. Foremost, the government has an obligation to make sure that women’s rights are protected by addressing the systemic problem of domestic violence.

NDP MPs also stressed that effective measures to stop violence against women, particularly pregnant women, and children must be undertaken. These include investments in: programmes to end violence against women, affordable housing, regulated child care, improvements to maternity and parental leave and the legislation for proactive pay equity.

As you may know, the NDP is the only federal party which has publicly declared support for a women’s right to choose. The NDP has consistently stood for universal access to abortion services for women and believe that reproductive freedoms must be guaranteed for all Canadian women, regardless of income or where they live.

Finally, we are proud of the efforts of Irene Mathyssen (NDP critic for the status of women) and Judy Wasylycia-Leis (NDP caucus chair) in launching our comprehensive action plan for equality in Canada. We have also challenged the leaders of all other parties to join us in addressing issues affecting women. Key issues addressed in our proposal include: equal pay for equal work, child care, workplace flexibility, affordable housing, women in politics, human trafficking, discrimination, violence, parental and maternity benefits, and much more. For complete details, we encourage you to visit: http://www.ndp.ca/fairnessforwomen.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to explain our position on this important matter. Feel free to pass along this email to anyone who may be interested. All the best.

Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada

And the Down Side Is…?

Correct me if I’m missing something or not getting the whole picture but… seeing this head line: Springhill inmates protest smoking ban by staying in their cells inspires me to think, there is a downside to convicts staying in their cells.  Am I the only one thinking why is anyone making a big deal out of it?  Shouldn’t we be rejoicing?  After all, these are convicts who WANT to stay in their cells.  Why is this being made to sound like such a bad thing, isn’t this what we want when we send people to prison for breaking the law, to just sit there and think long and damn hard about what they just, just like when one was 5 years old?

I don’t know about you, but this deserves a LOLcat (or the next best thing).

Fashion Faux Pas

Common sense dictates that there are just some things you never wear in combination with other items.  For example, one doesn’t wear polka dots with stripes or with plaid.  It would be just plain wrong.  Or you don’t wear socks with your sandals unless you’re old and devoid of any fashion sense.  Or any other number of items.  As said items will clash and make you look like you walked blindly into your nearby thrift shop and randomly picked an outfit out.

Or in the case of Rachael Ray, you can’t wear a keffiyeh (a scarf) otherwise you’ll earn the ire of right-wing bloggers who think they’re the new fashion police.  According to this group, she had crossed the line with her choice in attire as the keffiyeh represents terrorism and extremism as the keffiyeh is typically worn in the Middle East.  The problem was “symbolism”.

So our new fashion police are keeping is misinformation slovenly masses in check.  Whatever would we do without their helpful advice about our clothing?  Perhaps go on with our lives without worrying what Ray wore in an ad produced by Dunkin Donuts (sic - should be doughnut, but that’s asinine American “English” for you).

Apparently it’s not fashionable for these bloggers, like Michelle Malkin to exercise common sense and realise that there plenty worse than a simple scarf that is worn by a chef in an ad for doughnuts.  They will continue to delude themselves into thinking that the keffiyeh and other “fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence - unintentionally or not - they matter“.  Too bad they’re woefully out of touch with reality.

US chain drops ‘terror scarf’ ad

It’s curious isn’t it?

Whenever there is an attack involving a beloved family pet, the headline blazing across the headline always seems to involve a dog. I cannot ever remember seeing a headline proclaiming someone to have been mauled by their beloved family cat, bird or ferret. It seems that every time there is an attack, it’s always a dog, it’s never a cat or any other animal, or even a snake.

Yet there are people out there who want to claim that dogs are naturally well behaved animals, and the ones who turn on humans are those who were conditioned to act like that.  Sorry, I don’t buy it, not when it’s just as easy to do that with a cat.  The only difference is the cat will just hide and will only strike out at you if it feels threatened.

What’s more likely to maul your leg, your tabby sitting in the corner sulking or a Rottweiler?  I vote for the latter because experience says that a cat will not attack you unless you forcefully invade its space.  When a cat runs over to you, you know that it can’t hurt you the way a dog can.  Then again, the only cats I’ve only seen run over to people are domestic cats, not the feral kind that keep to themselves.

And people wonder why we have laws to deal with dogs and not cats…