Tories say "nanner nanner" to Scary Veiled Women

New bill to ban veiled voters

October 27, 2007

OTTAWA -- The Harper government yesterday introduced legislation requiring all voters - including veiled Muslim women - to show their faces before being allowed to cast ballots in federal elections.

This same manufactured controversy is getting old.

Do I have to bring out the parable of the old lady and the biker again?

Some sectors of the population just love it when the mainstream legitimizes their bigotry. And politicians long ago discovered that they earn popularity points with them whenever they do or say something against marginalized minorities. Scapegoating can be good for the polls. The power differential means the bullies can have their way; how many Muslim women will get to vote on this bill?

And I Thought my Bike Commute was Bad

Every time I travel on somewhere my bike I experience the heart-pounding feeling of impending death, and plenty of frustration. It seems Torontonians, especially the uptownians, have not yet realized their beloved car culture is dying. My bike commute usually consists of at least a handful of the following: people honking randomly at me as if to say "what are you doing on MY ROAD?", the delivery vehicles in the bike lanes, the cars stopped in the no-stopping-zones, the drivers too lazy to signal their lane change, the three or four cars that go through every red light, and the bike lanes with a 4 lanes of traffic and a raised streetcar right-of-way in the middle (St. Clair & Poplar Plains). Or I get caught in traffic because some impatient yahoo in a huge car wondering what's the blockage ahead (not considering that the blockage is more huge CARS) has to pull all the way over to the right to have a look, leaving not enough inches for wee little me and my wee little bike to get through.

But, I must say, my commute has NOTHING on this guy's.

For One Brief, Shining Moment...

... I came up in the Google blog search under "Laura Bush Breast". I had a whole bunch of perverts find this post on Laura Bush's breast cancer tour. I guess they were disappointed. I'm afraid it wasn't very sexy, what with the lack of boobs and all. Here, try these posts instead.

White Woman in a Pant Suit Rescues the Dark Masses

This article which I noticed while writing my last post annoyed me so much I though it deserved its own post.

Laura Bush helps women in Saudi Arabia
First lady Laura Bush helped launch a screening facility in Saudi Arabia Tuesday as part of a U.S.-Saudi initiative to raise breast cancer awareness in the kingdom where doctors struggle to break long-held taboos about the disease.

Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia, her first to the oil-rich kingdom, is part of a regional tour that aims to highlight the need for countries to share resources and unite in the fight against breast cancer.

"Breast cancer does not respect national boundaries, which is why people from every country must share their knowledge, resources and experience to protect women from this disease," Bush said in a speech at the King Fahad Medical City in Riyadh.

Course we don't expect American pharmaceutical companies to share their knowledge, resources, and treatment drugs.

"The cure for breast cancer can come from a researcher in Washington or a young doctor in Riyadh," she added.

Well shut my mouth! They have doctors in the desert?

Bush, who wore a navy blue pant suit, arrived in Riyadh from the United Arab Emirates, her first Mideast stop. Visiting female dignitaries are not required to don the traditional black cloak that all women in Saudi Arabia must wear in public. She was greeted by Prince Faisal bin Abdullah, the king's son, who is honorary president of the Saudi Cancer Society.

She's so modern and advanced, she wears PANTS! But hey, I want to know what the prince wore, too.

Bush visited the Abdul-Latif cancer screening center, the country's first, where she met with Saudi women affected by breast cancer.

She later witnessed the signing the U.S.-Saudi Arabia Partnership for Breast Cancer Awareness and Research agreement at a packed auditorium at the King Fahad Medical City.

Saudi became the third country to take on the program, which was organized by the State Department and includes the Susan G. Komen Foundation with MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, Johns Hopkins Medicine in Maryland, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Before the agreement was signed, Dr. Samia al-Amoudi, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in April, spoke about the pain she felt when her 10-year-old daughter asked her if she would one day be stricken with the same disease.

She said she told her daughter "hopefully you will be able to tell your children there was once a disease called breast cancer that killed women, but it no longer is the problem it once was."

Al-Amoudi, a gynecologist, said about 70 percent of breast cancer cases in Saudi Arabia will not be reported until they are at a very late stage, compared with 30 percent or less in the U.S. She also said 30 percent of Saudi patients are under 40 years old.

Al-Amoudi said many of the hurdles in Saudi Arabia are not medical. For instance, until recently, it was widely considered socially improper to refer to the disease by name in the kingdom, she said.

"People would refer to breast cancer as 'the bad disease' or 'that disease,'" said al-Amoudi.

"But today, when we talk to the highest levels of authority or are speaking in front of all kinds of media about this issue we name the disease for what it is: breast cancer," she added.

I don't know about you but I think women like this doctor are doing an amazing job on their own. Personally I'd rather hear more of what she has to say. First of all, becoming a doctor (getting through med school) is a hell of an accomplishment for anyone. She is providing essential services to women in her community. She is speaking out despite fear of reprisal (in this context, speaking the name "breast cancer" publicly is an act of bravery). Having the First Lady of America supporting your cause can bring helpful media attention, can maybe even exert pressure on the Saudi state, but how sad is it that women like al-Amoudi are eclipsed by a White Western Wealthy Wife?

Dr. Abdullah al-Amro, head of the King Fahad Medical City, said that almost one-fifth of all women with cancer in Saudi Arabia have breast cancer.

Bush, whose mother and grandmother suffered from breast cancer, was also scheduled to meet with King Abdullah and with breast cancer survivors during her visit. She will then travel to Kuwait, where she will meet with women democratic reformers, legal advocates and business leaders.

Laura Bush last visited the Middle East in 2005, stopping in Jordan, Egypt, Israel and the Palestinian territories to promote freedom, education and the role of women.

Ugh. Gag me with a spoon.

Much worse than the story is the picture that went with it:

"Unidentified Saudi female doctor"? You couldn't ask her for her name? And doesn't Bush look so smug? And the darn medical equipment is blocking my view of her perfect perfect pant suit.

Women Being Kidnapped and Sexually Exploited: Oh That's So Odd and Quirky

In recent news of the odd, a man in a position of power extorts sexual favours from women prisoners in exchange for candy. Another man kidnaps a Malaysian woman who turns down his marriage proposal. Haha, that's so odd, so trivial, good for a laugh or two before I go read the real news. You know, the important stuff:

Amazon.com makes lots of money.
O.J. Simpson blah blah blah.
AT&T makes lots of money.
Laura Bush raises breast cancer awareness in Saudi Arabia.
New York Times makes lots of money.

Via Shakesville, with this comment:

I don't understand why I need to explain why a woman being kidnapped should not be filed under "odd news," but, because I evidently do, here's the lowdown (again): In recent months, I've read under the heading of "Odd News" stories about a man branding his wife with a hot iron, a man coercing his wife into having plastic surgery to look like his deceased first wife, wives/girlfriends/exes being held against their will in various "odd" places including a coffin, women being traded for "odd" objects or offered as reparations for "odd" transgressions, "odd" forms of abuse against women, and women doing notable things good and bad, that, while newsworthy, only seem to be "odd-worthy" because they were done by women, all reported alongside such frivolous fare as "Chocoholic squirrel steals treats from shop".

More on the Laura Bush Story to come.

Terrorism as a Rational Act of Resistance

I'm tired of hearing people say that suicide bombing and other such acts of terrorism are irrational.

There are many ways to opine about suicide bombing: we can be morally opposed to the specific tactic, we can support it in theory but oppose it in practice, we can be opposed to the ideology behind it, we can support it in some circumstances and not others, we can armchair speculate about its effectiveness, etc.

But we cannot really say that it is an irrational tactic.

Resistance ranges from demonstrations, riots, general strikes, petitions, destruction of property or symbols, and "everyday forms of resistance" such as false compliance, theft, sabotage, foot dragging, popular discourse, etc. Acts of violent resistance are simply one other tactic, and potentially a powerful one, for the weak to influence the strong. As such, they are as rational as any other tactic. Irrational would mean there was no reason behind the act, that it was a senseless act of violence for no purpose. But terrorist acts do have an internal logic and reasoning behind them. There's enough work done in the political sciences and history to prove that. Indeed that is the only premise on which to base an effective strategy to stop terrorism.

So why can't they admit that? Why can't the politicians and pundits oppose an act of terrorism by declaring it a tragedy and a terrible crime, or even by standing in opposition to the ideology espoused by the perpetrators? Why do they call it irrational?

I suppose to say that terrorism is rational is to admit the terrorists aren't so completely different from us, that they aren't inhuman, stupid, or beast-like. Or perhaps admitting respect for one's "enemy" displays a lack of machismo. Or maybe it's just laziness.

There's a desire in politics and punditry for simplicity. That's why stereotypes seem to be everywhere - they are a nice convenient way of avoiding any sort of depth, complexity, heterogeneity, multiplicities, layers, standpoints - you know, reality. The Manichean world view of good v evil is easily mapped onto other binaries, like Civilized/Uncivilized, Freedom/The Commies, Moral/Immoral, HonestHardworkingAmericans/Evildoers, Us/The Terrorists, Rational/Irrational. So you only have to conjure one of these and all the others are assumed. So maybe the word irrational is used as just another synonym for "evil".

Odd, because what "irrationality" is pretty much a synonym for is faith, and I don't mean it derogatorily. Faith, in the Christian sense anyways, is basically the gap between reason and God. What is beyond the rational.

Interesting, too, that the oppressed and marginalized have historically been labeled irrational. Women, people of colour, the colonized, pagans, the mentally ill, sexual "deviants", etc.

Irrational != Immoral
Moral != Rational

(Translation for non-geeks that means "Irrational does not equal Immoral, Moral does not equal Rational)

Jena Six Hearing Video

Best line:

Don't we have a system that is essentially using the criminal justice system to do what the Jim Crow system did in the past? Isn't it just an extension?

Via Automatic Preference

Guess Who's Running for US President?

Hint: last week, before he announced his candidacy, he said:

I am not ready to announce yet — even though it's clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative.

It's true. Stephen Colbert is running for '08.

He'll be almost as good as this guy.

In other breaking news (via PoliticsPlus) Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters.