|
|
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Damn.
Shit.
Fuck.
A Conservative government.
Damn you, Paul Martin, for letting this happen with your ineffectual leadership. The Liberals better get someone spotlessly clean who is a good leader and fast.
At least the Tories were held to a minority government. It's still saddening that people picked the morally reprehensible Conservatives over the morally bankrupt Liberals (and as a lifelong Liberal voter, I'm very disappointed with my party right now). At least the Grits morals only fail around money and power. The Tories morals fail over so much that is good and decent, the typical social conservatism that is bad for women and the GLBT community, and the economic conservatism that is bad for the poor and the environment and good jobs.
Damn.
posted
by Tabby at 1/24/2006 01:27:00 p.m.
|
Sunday, January 22, 2006
So Stephen Harper, a staunch conservative who wants to be our next prime minister and has been doing a fine job of covering most of his staunch conservatism, feels he is the man to unite Canada.
In today's Edmonton Sun, he is quoted as saying, "Only the Conservative party can bring this country together, only the Conservative party can win in the East and the West, can win among French and English, among old Canadians and new Canadians, in the city and the countryside."
Never mind the sheer arrogance of that (other than being the only party that can win in the West, where in Alberta 35 years of Tory government is not seen as being a problem), what jumped out as me is that he's essentially saying that he's an uniter.
Which reminds me of another conservative politician who ran a campaign hiding the most radical of his conservative ideals, who claimed to be an "uniter, not a divider." A conservative politician who, when elected, then went on to divide his country more sharply than any who came before him.
Yup, George W. Bush has done just fine when it comes to polarizing the electorate. His administration would love nothing more than for Harper to become prime minister. And sadly it looks like it's going to happen. Damn Paul Martin for fucking up so royally. I'd like to think that we can learn lessons from the debacle that has been the Bush regime, but it looks like it's going to have to be the hard way. By that point the damage will have been done, of course.
I'm not just talking about same-sex marriage. There's no point in touching on that again right now. Now I'm talking about simple math. Tax cuts and increased military spending. The former I have issues with, the latter not so much. We do need to spend more on that, and there is much waste that could be cut back on to afford it. However, lower taxes and increased spending in conservative pet areas mean one thing, especially if they want to maintain a balanced budget and pay off debt - cuts in social areas.
The Klein government did this in Alberta, where we're so wonderfully prosperous and there are high paying jobs for everyone for life and nobody gets sick and... Okay, the rosy picture of Alberta only works if you ignore the devastation wreaked on the poor (and the environment, but that too is for another time). The only reason any money is going to social programs right now is that we're sitting pretty on top of huge oil revenues. It may cost you an arm and a leg right now to fill up your gas tank, but it's helping Alberta keep our taxes low and not as many people starving on the streets.
That's Alberta. The rest of Canada doesn't have as much in the way of oil revenues (though Newfoundland has some now). We at least have something to soften the conservative blow in this wonderful province. Not so much the rest of Canada.
I'll weep tomorrow if there is a minority Conservative government at the end of the day. I'll cry my eyes out if there is a majority.
***
I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I noticed something during the Mad Cow crisis that nearly destroyed the beef industry in Alberta.
The thing about cattle ranchers is that they tend to be conservative. The type that will vote Tory both provincially and federally. I'm sure there may be a few that vote Liberal or NDP, but come on, these are rugged individualists we're talking about here. The type who talk big about how lazy welfare bums should get off their lazy welfare bum lazy asses and get friggin' jobs.
The type who, when the going got tough, instead of getting into new lines of work were crying out for government money. Of course it's not as easy as that, but it rarely is. I guess all those bums on welfare and unemployment aren't as bad as... Oh, who am I kidding. Of course the same rugged individualist ranchers who needed government money to help them out when times got rough haven't changed their tunes. If they have, we could be looking forward to a NDP Member of Parliament or two being elected in rural Alberta.
But maybe they just care more about keeping those goldurned fairies from gettin' hitched.
posted
by Tabby at 1/22/2006 12:37:00 p.m.
|
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The customer is always right? Bullcrap. If the customer is always right, then I'd be able to walk into a car dealership and buy myself a nice new car for a dollar or two. But I can't dictate that the price of that nice new Smart Car is only $1.99, which means if I tried I wouldn't be right.
The biggest problem with the phrase "The customer is always right" is that not only do too many people take it too literally, but you'd almost think that they must believe it to be the law of the land.
Frankly it's become nothing more than customers using it as an excuse to be rude or to get away with unreasonable crap like wearing an item of clothing for a couple of months then returning it for some really stupid reason.
I know in the need to keep profits up and attract customers some retailers have policies that make customers feel they really are always right, but come on. Take a stand, set reasonable policies, and stand up to Joe and Jane Asshole. Let them know the world doesn't revolve around their cheap-ass butts.
posted
by Tabby at 1/21/2006 10:19:00 a.m.
|
Friday, January 20, 2006
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
You gotta give it to homophobes, they succeed in getting "homosexuality" connected to "anti-family" every chance they get. Not that they've succeeded in getting that connection to stick in the heads of decent, caring people. And yes, I've just demonized homophobes as indecent and uncaring, because frankly no matter how good someone is in the rest of their life, homophobia puts a big ol' stain on them, just as racism or misogyny would. Yes, I'm saying homophobes are almost as bad as Nazis, and just as bad if they believe in killing people for being gay.
I've been thinking of this whole "anti-family" crap lately. It was an article on Brokeback Mountain winning a Golden Globe that prompted me to writing this, but it's an issue in the current federal election here in Canada. If the Conservative Party wins, and unfortunately that's starting to look like a possibility, Stephen Harper would like to repeal the same-sex marriage law with a free vote, hoping there'll be enough support to overturn it (because we are a democracy you see, and putting minority rights to a vote is always such a grand idea that could never, ever go horribly wrong, and I'm horrified that anyone thinks voting on minority rights because it's "democratic" is in any way a good thing because tyranny of the majority is still tyranny).
The terms "anti-family" and "pro-family" haven't been bandied about as much as terms such as "pro-marriage" and "protecting marriage" have. I'm really hoping to get a call from the Conservative candidate in my riding so I can ask him if he'll do his best to protect marriage. If he says yes, it'll make me happy because I can then tell him I'm glad to hear that because it would be a bad thing to see people lose the marriage rights they fought so hard to obtain. Ah, I want that to happen. I want to hear the reaction. I really hope there'll be sputtering! Sputtering would be great!
It's time for supporters of gay rights to start laying claim to the terms "pro-family" and "pro-marriage" as we are the ones who are truly in favour of families and marriages as inclusive of far more human beings than those who would like to exclude large portions of tax-paying citizens. As we know it's not really about protecting families and traditional marriages anyway, but about hatred of homosexuals and the desire to marginalize them as much as possible (and spare me the "loving the sinner, hating the sin" crap as the homophobic rhetoric shows a lot of hate towards homosexuals). Seriously, listening to homophobes for a while will make you think that the collapse of society is at hand, and it's all them gays' faults.
I did find it ironic during the arguments leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriage that the social conservatives got all freaky over protecting the rights of churches to not have to perform same-sex weddings. Religious freedom you know. The irony came in two delicious parts. One, the vast majority of arguements against same-sex marrage were based in religion, which makes religious freedom an apparently one-way street. "Don't force us to do something against our religion, but we want to force you to abide by our religion!" That is such fucking hypocrisy. Sorry for the language, but it pisses me off. Anyway, the second deliciously ironic part is the whole slippery slope thing. You know, if we allow same-sex marriage now, the next thing people will want are polygamous marriages! Considering how many polygamous relationships are based in religion right now, particularly Islam and offshoots of Mormonism, they really weaken their own religious freedom arguments.
Frankly I have no issues with polygamy as long as everyone involved are adults and were in no way coerced into the relationships (which sadly isn't the case a lot of the time, but that's a whole other issue than allowing polyamourous relationships). In fact, now that I think about it, legalizing polyamourous marriages might be a good step in weakening cults that cut themselves off from the world to practice polygamy and protecting girls who are being coerced into these relationships.
posted
by Tabby at 1/18/2006 12:49:00 p.m.
|
Sunday, January 08, 2006
How fun! I have a new camera phone!
Please don't take the quality of this picture as an example of my picture taking abilities. That would be better served by clicking on the Tabby Studios button to your left. It was fun experimenting with the new equipment today though.
posted
by Tabby at 1/08/2006 06:19:00 p.m.
|
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
I have a theory about phone calls from clients and customers at work. Basically I believe that no matter how upset or confused someone is, most people will be placated or enlightened by the second employee they talk to, no matter who it is and even if they say exactly the same thing.
This is something I've observed over the years by transferring calls or taking transferred calls. It seems like no matter who it is that takes the transferred call, the client or customer feels they are talking to someone with more authority or experience, that the person who answered the phone in the first place is more likely a lowly grunt. This of course isn't always the case, as supervisors and such often answer phones themselves at different businesses.
That isn't to say that this always works, as there are certainly people who will never be happy no matter what happens, but it definitely worked almost every time I've ever seen this situation come up by chance.
I'm not confident enough in this theory to try it out deliberately, but it would be nice to see some sort of study done on this.
posted
by Tabby at 1/03/2006 11:54:00 a.m.
|
The
critics are calling
I
Was an Atomic Robot Jungle Vixen...
"Very
cool!" "Awesome!" "Good times!"
"Inspires
me..." A Critic - I
respect
"Cool.
And miles more exciting..." Someone Else -
You
might not know
"I
totally love it!" Whoo hoo! -
Posted
somewhere
"All
I have to say is... Cool!" Another Critic
"I
like the look..." An Opinion - YACCS
Comments
"You
think I have time to give you a quote? You're out of your
mind!" Wil Wheaton -WWfreakin'DN!
|
|
|
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
December 2007
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
March 2009
February 2010
July 2010
current |
