When I was a horny university student (more than a DECADE ago; my how time flies!) I lived in the Place Vanier residence at UBC in Vancouver. In the summers I was trying to get relevant experience (ie office slave work) and kept running up against the "extracurricular activities" trap in interviews.
I don't know about the University students you know or knew, but the majority of my extra-curricular activities consisted of getting drunk and trying to get some attractive young lady I didn't know (or did, depending on how much whiskey was in my system) to retire to my boudoir for an evening of slap and tickle... Sometimes this clumsy approach even worked! Most times it didn't and resulted more in just SLAP!
This did not qualify as "extra-curricular activity" in the eyes of job recruiters. So I figured I'd need some "student politics" to pad my resume...I wanted a position that wouldn't require any actual work mind you...something that had the potential for a bit of fun... so I stood for House President at the end of my second year and was elected so that in my third year I had control of the house party funds and the house VCR for my third year. My neighbour across the hall also had the largest collection of Star Trek tapes I had ever seen, so my grades dropped accordingly.
So what did this mean? I had to attend a weekly meeting of other House Presidents that made up the Residence Council. This council had nine other house presidents, then the Secretary, Treasurer, VP and President. The President was this guy named Liam, whose only noteable characteristic was that he looked like the lead singer of The Pogues.
OK, maybe he had better teeth, but the ears and face were the same...
I would've forgotten all this except for one incident that became known as "Jacket-gate." This was to teach me the true nature of government.
Close to the middle of the year, as is done in most Universities, it was time to order "the jackets." The term swag wasn't in my vocabulary back then but this was one of the payoffs: the team jacket. Usually there was a subsidy from the council of about 25% of the cost of the jacket. The rest of the cost was paid by the council-members themselves. The subsidy was seen as a "thank you" for the work being done over the year.
David, resident stoner of the council, who looked more bored than I felt, piped up with the only motion he ever pushed hard: "I move that the PVRA council be subsidized for 100% of the costs of the jackets."
David had made a variety of such "joke" motions over the entire year:
- beer subsidies to those that consumed more than 3 cases of beer in a week
- enforcement of "attractiveness standards" for attendees at "social functions"
- council meetings should be held in swim-wear (female council members only)
But he seemed serious about this one. I thought that Liam as Council President would squash this motion as he had squashed David's other joke motions but he surprised me: he allowed this to go to a vote. I think he did this because he believed that everyone would vote no, as this would in effect be diverting money from the residence council to the council members: a clear conflict of interest. At 19 I already had a clear idea about what this was about and was now no longer bored. I also had to decide how I was going to vote. Sensing things were getting out of hand, Liam decided to delay the vote 'til the next week, with the motion tabled...
And the weirdest thing happened that week: I was actively lobbied by both sides to vote their way. This was something totally new in my experience...See, the cool guys who got the chicks were strongly behind the "yes" faction. The geeky, nit-picky guys (and ALL of the girls on council) were behind the "no" faction. So in that week, I got invited to the cool parties that week by the "yes" men and got sweet-talked by the council cutey Raquel (whose nick-name was "Rocky" - in that it was reputed that she liked it ROCK-HARD) who was campaigning for Liam on the "no" side.
I wanted the jacket, but I also felt uneasy about how things looked. I was broke and paying for the damn thing meant I'd have to drink eat cheap for awhile. So when the time of the vote came I did the only thing I could do with a clear concious: I abstained.
When the votes were finally counted there were 7 votes for, 6 votes against and 1 abstention. The motion carried and we got our jackets for free. Liam was visibly nervous now: there were residents accusing him of stealing. He asked if anyone wanted to change their vote. He was staring right at me. This was a breach of procedure and he knew it but he was screwed. He told me later that guys in his house threatened him with a hazing he'd never forget if it passed (and they delivered.)
Years later I was reminded of this incident when I watched Seinfeld, with Jerry's dad Morty being impeached from the council of del Boca Vista, phase II.
So what did I learn from all this:
1. If you can control the agenda and prevent stupid votes, you should. You shouldn't assume that you have the votes to defeat a motion.
2. Never assume that people are as honest as you are.
3. Never under-estimate the power of your own greed. I could've voted "no" but chose to abstain, hoping the "yes" side would prevail so I could get my free jacket without feeling guilty...
4. If you're playing both sides against the middle, don't be surprised when neither side likes you. I didn't get invited to any more cool parties because I didn't overtly support the "yes" men and council goddess Rocky didn't talk to me the whole year (OK goddess is over-stating things - she had a nice rack but a mouth that was WAAAAAYYY too wide for her face...) because I didn't vote "no"
5. Even if you didn't vote FOR something the rabble, mob, losers voters will still blame you because you are part of the government. People saw through my cute little ploy of "abstaining" and saw my own greed.
I got into a political discussion at lunch about the war...
It turned ugly, because rather than discuss things, my opponent co-worker kept on dragging vague references to political conflicts back to the Vietnam War, stated it's all about the oil and that because the CIA put Saddam in charge this is all the Americans fault(!?)
Me: "OK, same situation going on, some dictator violating restrictions, developing chemical/biological etc. refusing to comply yada yada yada. What do you do?"
Him: "Work through the U.N., sanctions, inspections. Multilateral stuff."
Me: "12 years and that hasn't worked."
Him: "Who says?"
Me: "There's still restricted weapons in Iraq. SCUDs and that stupid drone that they said was a 'crop duster.' The factory that they're looking at...if it's what they think it is, I mean, come on!"
Him: "If they were illegal, wouldn't Hans Blix have said so? That proves nothing. They didn't attack anyone. The U.S. illegally invaded."
Me: "Because he's got restricted weapons!"
Him: "Like what?"
Me: "Like the SCUD they shot into Kuwait."
Him: "Why'd they fire the missile?" Leaning in.
Me: "Well, in response to the U.S. attack, of course"
Him: "EXACTLY!" He's smiling like he's won.
Me: "But he's not supposed to have SCUDs in the first place!"
Him: "Who says?"
Me: "It's part of the agreement that ended the first Gulf War"
Him: "I don't think Iraq agreed to anything. The U.S. forced them."
Me: "By winning the first God-damned war!"
Him: "You should calm down. You're not making a point, just rambling on and on."
DEEP BREATH...
Me: "So the only decent proof is if they shoot first?"
Him: "The Americans put him in there."
Me: "Wrong, they made the mistake of supporting him against Iran when it looked like they'd over-run the region when Saddam started losing a war he started."
Him: "So, the Americans are at fault!" TRIUMPHANTLY he says this...
Me: "Things were politically different then. Stupid deals had to be made because of the Soviet's.
Him: "I was wondering when you'd trot them out as bogeyman..."
Me: "Again, you'll only accept Saddam attacking someone else first as proof"
Him: "He didn't attack anyone. The U.S. went in without United Nations approval...
Me: "They'd never get France's approval. I'd hardly call that UN approval OR condemnation."
Him: "You're all over the place. Try making a point."
GETTING FRUSTRATED...
Me: "I'm trying; you're not listening. You say the only way the U.S. is justified in invading and destroying any weapons of mass destruction is if Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction first, which means that Iraq gets the opportunity to develop, field and then use something that can kill tens of thousands and then, and only then, can we do something about it?"
Him: "You're naive. It's all about the oil and the money. If they really cared about oppressed people then what about Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and all the other tin-pot dictatorships the U.S. has supported."
Me: "They should be next."
Him: "I can't believe how bloodthirsty you are."
Me: "There are two opinions on this as I see it. If you have the power to act to save lives and spread prosperity for the long run by interceding on others behalf, then you do it, because if you don't, you bear some responsibility when things go bad due to you doing nothing. A superpower should act like one and be judged by its actions and results. Others believe that the U.S. should just mind its own business when they don't realize that what goes on anywhere in the world IS the American's business."
Him: "So the U.S. doesn't have to abide by the same rules that every other nation does?"
Me: "I didn't say that. But the rules need to take into account the fact that the U.S. is the world's only superpower."
Him: "But nobody wants them in Iraq.
Me: "I think opinion is split on that."
Him: "No, an incredible majority want the U.S. out."
Me: "Where'd you pull that number from? That's right, thin air. Polls say Americans support the war by 70%."
Him: "Who cares what AMERICANS think? Besides, polls are as reliable as a Hyundai Pony."
Me: "Then how'd you come up with that "incredible majority" comment?
Him: "Just open your eyes. I am proud of our Prime Minister and what he's done."
Me: "Turned our backs on our closest friends...Screwed us into second-class status on the North American continent...Made us look untrustworthy in the eyes of our closest ally?
Him: "Shown Canadians that we are our own country, that we aren't lapdogs that jump and beg at our Master's call...'Sit Canada, lie down, roll over: Good Canadian pet...'"
SILENT STARING...
Him: Looking at his watch- "Well we're not going to solve this today."
Me: "Like anyone gives a shit about what we say anyway..."
Him: "War is never the answer."
Me: "There's no point in discussing this any further because your mind and mine were made up before we started talking..."
Him: "But I made my point, war is never the answer."
Me: "Sometimes it is. It certainly was in 1945."
Him: "To think that nobody remembers the lessons learned in Vietnam."
Me: "What, not to run a war from remote control by politicians in Washington? I think they learned that, judging by the results so far. The 60's are over, MAN."
« less
I've changed the Canadian flag I've been flying to a combo Canadian/US to show my support for our neighbours to the south.
Apologizing for our government would serve no purpose. All I have to say to our American friends is that you only deal with them from time to time. We've had to LIVE with them for 10 stinking years with no end in sight (our TWO right of centre parties spend more time squabbling with each other than developing a cohesive attack, so the Liberals will be in power for the foreseeable future.)
Know that there are many Canadians who do support you.
Relatives of Canadian soldiers killed by a U.S. bomb in Afghanistan were bitterly disappointed at the recommendation yesterday that two American pilots not be court-martialled in the incident.
Let's face it, the only reason that this "special military hearing" took place seeking charges originally was to keep the Canadian allies happy. How many "friendly fire" incidents have happened over the years? How many involved court-martial charges? Exactly. The Americans have killed dozens more of their own in incidents over the years and has any serviceman been subjected to this kind of process?
Since our loveable Prime Minister idiot, the scrappy little boy from Shawinigan has seen fit to declare all of Canada anti-Bush anti-war (funny, he didn't ASK anyone did he?) I've had the sinking feeling that Canada has bitten the hand that feeds. Funny little things in the news, like 2-hour border waits, Americans not selling to Canadians on eBay have me thinking that there is a reckoning to come that many of us are not going to like.
Maybe I'm reading more into this than there is- But it's not like there's any sort of pressure to keep seeking a court-martial to keep us happy.
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. You have your legacy now. Publicly crap all over a nation that takes 84.6% of our exports (2000 figures)
Eventually the elephant sees the mouse and decides to stomp it.
Democrat - You believe that there should be a free market which is reigned in by a modest state beaurocracy. You think that capitalism has some good things, but that those it helps should be obliged to help out their fellow man a little. Your historical role model is Franklin Rosevelt.
Last night I decided to take advantage of the temporary lull in gas prices (so cheap! It was actually UNDER 80 CENTS!) to fill up at the local gas station.
When I went in to pay, I made the off-hand remark that gas prices are probably moving based on the belief of speculators on if/when an attack will be made, and that the speculators are starting to think an attack will never come.
"I think the Prime Minister is right and that we've won already." says the lady behind the counter, a forty-something mom-type.
"How's that?" I ask, immediately bracing for combat. It's amazing how quick I am baited by this sort of nonsense now. The constant media tension must be getting to me...
"Well, he can't do anything, can he? We've trapped him there and he can't do anything."
I don't want to fight with this woman. I pay and mutter under my breath "...as long as someone's guarding him. Chretien is SUCH an idiot."
"What did you say?"
"Saddam'll be a good little dictator and only kill his own people as long as 250,000 soldiers are right next door in Kuwait. Who'll pay to keep them there? Not us, not FRANCE." That last word I almost spat out.
I'm fully into the breach now.
"Pretend you're a farmer with chickens. You know there's a fox on the loose just outside your chicken coup. As long as you guard the coup with your shotgun the fox won't get in: but you can't stay there 24 hours a day, can you? At that point, wouldn't you just shoot the fox and eliminate the problem?"
The woman looks at me as if I was the Devil himself.
"But war and killing aren't the answer..." she's sounding unsure.
"Tell that to anyone who fought in World War 2. Supposedly we won in '91 as well, yet we're still here aren't we?"
I leave the gas station and head home for the night.
« less
QUEBEC (CP) - An unflappable Premier Bernard Landry refused to apologize Wednesday for saying poor people should manage to feed their children because even birds - with their tiny brains - can do it.
Landry admitted he made the comment during a private meeting with officials from poverty groups, women's groups and advocates for single-parent families last Friday. However, he said the remarks were misinterpreted and he expressed shock that some people were offended. "I am surprised, I am disappointed and I regret that comments aimed at comforting the least fortunate, were interpreted to the contrary," Landry told reporters.
"It was a deep feeling which urged me to say I don't understand how in a society advanced like Quebec, rich like Quebec, children can go hungry."
Also, Landry defended comparing people with birds.
"If it's true with birds, imagine how true it could be with mankind (that all parents feed their young)," he said Wednesday.
"It's natural to assume responsibility for children and feed them. If it's not done, there's a problem. And the problem can be one of society, or of money."
The remark was a lead story on all Quebec newscasts and political opponents immediately seized on it, with one opposition critic calling the premier a "bird brain."
Last Friday, Landry told a private gathering of social activists he didn't understand why many Quebec schoolchildren go to class hungry.
"If birds, with the brains they have, feed their young in the morning, how is it that there are still people who don't feed their children," Landry was quoted as saying in a government transcript released Wednesday.
Landry illustrated his point by holding up his thumb and forefinger to represent the tiny size of a bird's brain, witnesses said.
Landry said nobody in the room complained when he made the remarks last Friday.
But witnesses said the comments sparked an immediate reaction.
"It was an outrage to hear that sentence," said Nicole Jette, an anti-poverty activist who was at the 90-minute meeting.
"It confirms the work we still have to do about people's mentality regarding the poor.
"I don't think the premier consciously wanted to attack poor people - but that's what's serious. There's a lack of understanding."
Another witness said the premier was confronted immediately.
"I reacted right there," said Sylvie Levesque, head of a federation of single-parent families.
"During the meeting, we told him we thought it was inconceivable what he said."
Landry's opponents immediately jumped on the remarks, with Liberal Leader Jean Charest demanding an apology.
"I think it's deplorable," Charest told reporters in Montreal.
"Families deserve better from someone who's premier of Quebec."
Another critic said Landry is isolated from reality in the skyscraper that serves as his official residence.
"From atop the Price building, I can understand if he sees more birds than people living on the sidewalk," said Francois Corriveau, a member of the Action democratique du Quebec.
"It's a lack of respect for poor people. I think he had a bird brain."
Received this in my inbox today from a good friend in British Columbia:
TODAY we are at a point of imbalance in the world and are moving toward
what may be the beginning of a THIRD WORLD WAR. If you are against this
possibility, the UN is gathering signatures in an effort to avoid a tragic world event. Please COPY (rather than Forward) this e-mail in a new message, sign at the end of the list, and send it to all the people whom you know.
If you receive this list with more than 500 names signed, please send a copy of the message to
Even if you decide not to sign, please consider forwarding the petition on
instead of eliminating it.
My response is printed below verbatim
Hi __________,
While I wouldn't presume to debate politics with you (everyone is entitled
to their own opinion) I happen to think that this particular item is spam.
There is no specific resolution in this petition. Say no to WW3? Who
wouldn't? But there is no specific point to this petition.
How do we say no to WW3? Which side is this petition advocating? And the
UN is collecting entries for what purpose? What would signatures do in this
situation? See what I mean? People put their names to things too quickly,
I think.
I will write later on a more social note, but right now this pro-war,
anti-war stuff has got me steamed (no not at you, _______!)
If you want to know my position on this you can ask and I'll send you
another email detailing it (I won't presumptuously think that you care at
this moment)
My quick response: Bush is an idiot (OPINION) but on Sadaam he is right
(OPINION). Sadaam is evil (OPINION). Sadaam has used chemical weapons on
Iranians (FACT) and on the Kurds (FACT). Sadaam has been trying to get his
hands on nasty weapons for the last 10 years (FACT) and needs to be stopped
(MY OPINION as well as others).
Do you see anyone advocating disarming North Korea? NO. Why? Because they have the Nukes that make them unassailable, the nukes (or bio or chem) that Sadaam wants. WMD=power and we can't wait for more North Korea's to spring up.
The US supported him early against Iran (FACT) which was stupid (OPINION)
but between 2 lousy choices they made their deal with the lessor of 2 evils
(the Iranian brand of Islamic fundamentalism would destroy all infidels
without thinking and were threatening to over-run the region in the early
80's) and now they have a big mess which they (along with the rest of the
world) have to clean up.
I was quite amused by the pictures of protesters holding up signs saying
"Peace In Our Time" because they were obviously ignorant of the historical
context. Those words were spoken by Neville Chamberlain just before Hitler
made him bend over by taking Poland after he'd told the world that he and
Hitler had come to "an agreement." I am always amazed at how consistently
history repeats itself.
Peace has a price and that price is blood. The only thing Sadaam will
understand is a loaded gun pointed in his face.
Sorry to get all heavy on you, but I've needed to vent on this for awhile
now....
Take care.
My friend then emailed me back that she had just "passed it on" as she thought it might do "some" good. I didn't feel like pointing out the fact that just passing this note on with your name on it IS SUPPORTING THE POSITION of the article. Somebody will take this and say that these people SUPPORT OUR POSITION.
Or at the very least their names and addresses will be harvested by the true evil in this world: Marketers.
Putting your name on a document should mean something dammit!
« less
Sorry about the time between postings - Stupid Accounting exams are getting in the way of my blog creativity!
Something has been bugging me for the past couple of months now:
A summary of what seems to be going on is as follows:
1. The United States is fighting a war against al-Qaeda in response to terrorist attacks made on New York and the Pentagon
2. The United States is threatening to invade Iraq to disarm the current regime (ie Sadaam Hussein) of suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
1 does not equal 2.
The logic of many anti-war protests seems to be that if Iraq has no connection to al-Qaeda, then there is no reason to go bugging Sadaam. Let sleeping dogs lie. That seemed to be the stategy the US pursued in the 90's (thank you President Clinton) Sadaam even became a defanged caracature of himself (I'm thinking Hot Shots, South Park and Seinfeld here) rather than the evil bastard that used chemical weapons quite cheerfully in the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds in the north of Iraq.
The scary part is that I don't think anyone (even the most bleeding-heart) doubts that Sadaam is up to no good- he's had 12 years since Desert Storm to brew up as much mischief as he can (again thank you Neville Chamberlain sorry Bill Clinton) He needs removing.
The reason to do it now has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. With suspected WMD's but as yet no major capability to deliver them the world has an opportunity to stop Iraq now, whereas would could anyone even consider stopping North Korea now? Iraq isn't North Korea as many are fond of saying- but they could be; unless the world acts now.
When this guy was in opposition he was a straight-shooter (in public, of course - who knows what'll come up now that the press will be digging?) always yelling at NDP MLA's to resign at the merest whiff of impropriety, that they were compromised by their personal misconducts.
An MLA couldmaybe get away with this, but not a Premier
Quit.
Now.
While your just a drunk and not a total laughingstock/hippocrite, which is where you're headed.
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
Gross Display of Most Naked Capitalism
Blogroll
Red Ensign Blogs for Victory!
-- One of the Original Red Ensigns carried by the Penticton 1st Volunteers. It was present at Vimy Ridge when our little Dominion stood up and became a nation worth fighting for...
