While I can't say that I'm impressed by the behaviour of protesters demonstrating against the G20 and G8 conferences being held in Toronto this week, I can't exactly say it surprises me either.
When an over-the-top set of security "measures" turns a large chunk of Toronto into a fortified bunker zone, disrupting the lives of thousands of Torontonians, it created a powderkeg situation.
Quite frankly, the security preparations around the G20 and G8 conferences - an expenditure of some $1 billion of taxpayer's money - serve only to isolate these so-called leaders from the very people they allegedly represent. It seems to me that there is something very, very wrong with a situation where our political leadership goes to such great lengths to avoid the public that they are allegedly accountable to.
I won't excuse those protesters who engaged in violence and destruction - they deserve to face our criminal justice system. However, the government(s) that demand such dramatic measures to "protect" their leaders also hold a degree of responsibility here. The "need" to isolate themselves entirely from the public that they are responsible to gives the extremists the excuse to become violent. The disruption of life in downtown Toronto this week is an excellent example of how an overweaning desire to create absolute security in fact creates the volatile situation that we see unfolding.
I've said it before about these types of situations - the most effective security is the security that nobody sees or experiences directly (except the violators). When you create what is so obviously a police state, that does not promote the peace and security that is sought, it provokes the very violence that we are seeing.
Sadly, I doubt that our government - either Mr. Harper or Mr. Toews - will understand or admit to their role in creating this powderkeg. Even more depressing is the lack of accessibility to our political leadership means that the politicians will go even further to isolate themselves from the public - and become even more disconnected from the people they purport to govern.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Attempting Erasure of Transsexuals
A paper was published in a journal called "The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly" last year. Titled The Psychopathology of Gender Reassignment Surgery, this paper attempts to lay out why it is wrong to provide Gender Reassignment Surgery to transsexuals.
I've spent a fair bit of time since I ran across this paper pulling apart its web of tangled reasoning. (and tangled it is) My first inclination is to go through it point by point and describe why each paragraph is leaping to incorrect conclusions or is so filled with assumptions that the authors clearly have failed to adequately research the subject they are writing on. However, that would produce a huge, tedious rebuttal that doesn't really address the underlying problems with this paper.
In my study of this paper, I have come to recognize a series of serious flaws in the assumptions and evidence that the authors have used. These include basing their description of what Transsexualism is on some deeply flawed theoretical models; drawing on sources that are, at best, marginal voices in the research and treatment community and ignoring data and sources that clearly arrive at different conclusions than the authors of the paper set out to find.
In short, the authors set out to confirm the conclusions they already had in mind, and paid little heed to the breadth and depth of the research field.
The first thing that the authors set out to do is invalidate the notion of transsexualism. They do this through several basic tactics. First, they use the emotionally loaded language of "mutilation" to describe Gender Reassignment Surgery. Any reasonable assessment of the ethical implications of a given procedure would be expected to stay away from such language in the early stages of the paper as it clearly prejudices the interpretation of subsequent data.
The paper proceeds to describe transsexualism using Blanchard's notion of Autogynephilia. Fortunately for transsexuals in the world today, Blanchard's model isn't exactly the dominant theoretical model describing transsexuals. In fact, the view that gender identity occurs in a spectrum has become much more prevalent. The problem with the Autogynephilia model is that it uses two fairly absolute categorizations to describe transsexuals - both firmly rooted in the language of sexual identity. Whether we are talking about the "Kinsey Scale" (which was emulated by Harry Benjamin for transsexuals), such attempts to define bounded categories tend to break down when applied to the breadth and depth of human diversity. As a thought experiment, try defining what it means to be 'a man' or 'a woman' in today's society - it's trickier than you might imagine. Then consider how difficult it is to categorize people in general.
The narrative discussion about transsexuals in general focuses intensely on people's sex lives, while ignoring the far more crucial discussions around the individual's adaptation and integration with society. While we are certainly all sexual beings in some capacity, it seems to me more than a little problematic to attempt to describe people based on their sexual behaviours. Worse, the reference material cited to derive this narrative is often based on such small numbers as to be better viewed as anecdotal evidence rather than population evidence. Sadly, the authors hold up numerous anecdotes about poor adaptation and misconceptions as being "the general case", a logical inference that simply does not stand up to any reasonable analysis.
Sadly, they even go as far as to reference a television show called Sex Change Hospital, as if such a program is going to be any kind of meaningful guide to the breadth and depth of experience that is humanity. Even worse, their criticism is that the people who have surgery aren't always "perfectly passable". Transsexuals, like the rest of the population come in all sorts of shapes and sizes - not everybody is model material, how dare they apply such a standard to transsexuals? Such programs tend to emphasize the physical change that surgery brings, but do not (and cannot) explore the complex and often bewildering path that is transition - that goes on with the patient and their therapist over a period of years.
The paper implies that there are always underlying psychological problems associated with Gender Identity Disorder (GID).
To make such a claim is indeed spurious. The WPATH Standards of Care are very clear about the handling of comorbid conditions.
For Children:
For Adults:
Assuming that a therapist is knowledgeable and working within the WPATH SOC guidelines, one might reasonably suspect that recommendations for steps such as surgery aren't likely to be made until other related issues are dealt with adequately.
Inevitably, as one might expect, the writers turn to NARTH for more "experts" to reinforce their overt hostility to transsexuality and its treatment. They quote a paper published on NARTH's website by a Dr. Breiner - a particularly offensive piece of work that I have already analyzed here.
Following down the NARTH path further, we find the usual attempt to establish childhood sexual abuse as a causal or root factor in transsexualism. We've seen this before with homosexuality - it wasn't a terribly successful strategy before, and I know of no legitimate research that establishes any kind of reasonable causal relationship beyond the usual assertions that large numbers of have been abused sexually as children. This is an old saw, and one that doesn't deserve further consideration without serious evidence to establish its veracity.
Similarly, the attempt to link transsexuality with masochism is not only a very feeble argument, it's at best spurious to make such an association. While there are no doubt some transsexuals who are interested in S&M play, drawing the conclusion that their masochistic fantasies led them to transition is dubious at best.
When the authors finally do start addressing the ethical issues involved in providing treatment to transsexuals, they do so from this framework of questionable theoretical models, really awful logic and blatant misinformation. Needless to say, their conclusions are similarly flawed.
I'm going to restate some of their conclusions in my own words, in part because the objections the authors raise are often done in a manner that is elliptical relative to what they conclude.
Conclusion #1:
GRS is unethical because it doesn't "really" change someone's sex. (That is to say a MTF transsexual will not be able to bear children after surgery)
I don't think anybody denies the limitations of GRS as it stands today. To say that it is therefore "mutilation" is to suggest that any surgery that reshapes the body at all is mutilation as well.
The accusation that because the person is not able to directly procreate after surgery ignores the fact that for many transsexuals, the dysphoria they experience is so severe that it is unlikely that they would procreate in the first place. Further, it reduces human sexual and romantic partnerships to the production of babies - a position that treats the people involved as mere objects, rather than as human beings.
Transsexuals are really just lying about themselves
This is possibly one of the most offensive accusations that you can level at a transsexual. The journey through one's inner self that is part and parcel of a thoughtful, reasoned transition takes one well beyond the idea that they could be "lying" to themselves.
The archetype of the 'transsexual as deceiver' is rooted in the same rubric that leads the authors to assume that the deeply flawed model of Autogynephilia actually meaningfully describes the overall population of transsexuals. One of the most glaring problems with Bailey's "The Man Who Would Be Queen" book is the fact that most of his subjects were found in drag bars. That's like going into an outlaw biker bar to interview motorcyclists and concluding that all motorcycle riders belong to criminal gangs.
Conclusion #3:
Transsexuals are demanding that others lie on their behalf and they have no right to do so
If someone is clearly presenting as a woman, treat them as a woman - it's not difficult. To call someone who is obviously MTF trans "sir" or "he" when she is obviously living as a woman is just as wrong as the schoolyard bully calling his target a "sissy".
The religious objection that it is impossible to "change one's sex" is a personal belief, and should be kept personal.
Conclusion #4:
By providing GRS, the caregivers are not providing a medically justified procedure, and as such they are collaborating with the patient's mental disease
This is a restatement of Paul McHugh's position, which I have already addressed on this blog.
I will however, reinforce my statements about McHugh's position with the following from the WPATH Standards of Care (v6):
The ethical objections that are raised in this paper are also addressed quite effectively in the WPATH Standards of Care as follows:
It is a sad statement that the paper's authors could not even have been bothered to examine the WPATH Standards of Care, which addresses their concerns most directly.
I've spent a fair bit of time since I ran across this paper pulling apart its web of tangled reasoning. (and tangled it is) My first inclination is to go through it point by point and describe why each paragraph is leaping to incorrect conclusions or is so filled with assumptions that the authors clearly have failed to adequately research the subject they are writing on. However, that would produce a huge, tedious rebuttal that doesn't really address the underlying problems with this paper.
In my study of this paper, I have come to recognize a series of serious flaws in the assumptions and evidence that the authors have used. These include basing their description of what Transsexualism is on some deeply flawed theoretical models; drawing on sources that are, at best, marginal voices in the research and treatment community and ignoring data and sources that clearly arrive at different conclusions than the authors of the paper set out to find.
In short, the authors set out to confirm the conclusions they already had in mind, and paid little heed to the breadth and depth of the research field.
The first thing that the authors set out to do is invalidate the notion of transsexualism. They do this through several basic tactics. First, they use the emotionally loaded language of "mutilation" to describe Gender Reassignment Surgery. Any reasonable assessment of the ethical implications of a given procedure would be expected to stay away from such language in the early stages of the paper as it clearly prejudices the interpretation of subsequent data.
The paper proceeds to describe transsexualism using Blanchard's notion of Autogynephilia. Fortunately for transsexuals in the world today, Blanchard's model isn't exactly the dominant theoretical model describing transsexuals. In fact, the view that gender identity occurs in a spectrum has become much more prevalent. The problem with the Autogynephilia model is that it uses two fairly absolute categorizations to describe transsexuals - both firmly rooted in the language of sexual identity. Whether we are talking about the "Kinsey Scale" (which was emulated by Harry Benjamin for transsexuals), such attempts to define bounded categories tend to break down when applied to the breadth and depth of human diversity. As a thought experiment, try defining what it means to be 'a man' or 'a woman' in today's society - it's trickier than you might imagine. Then consider how difficult it is to categorize people in general.
The narrative discussion about transsexuals in general focuses intensely on people's sex lives, while ignoring the far more crucial discussions around the individual's adaptation and integration with society. While we are certainly all sexual beings in some capacity, it seems to me more than a little problematic to attempt to describe people based on their sexual behaviours. Worse, the reference material cited to derive this narrative is often based on such small numbers as to be better viewed as anecdotal evidence rather than population evidence. Sadly, the authors hold up numerous anecdotes about poor adaptation and misconceptions as being "the general case", a logical inference that simply does not stand up to any reasonable analysis.
Sadly, they even go as far as to reference a television show called Sex Change Hospital, as if such a program is going to be any kind of meaningful guide to the breadth and depth of experience that is humanity. Even worse, their criticism is that the people who have surgery aren't always "perfectly passable". Transsexuals, like the rest of the population come in all sorts of shapes and sizes - not everybody is model material, how dare they apply such a standard to transsexuals? Such programs tend to emphasize the physical change that surgery brings, but do not (and cannot) explore the complex and often bewildering path that is transition - that goes on with the patient and their therapist over a period of years.
The paper implies that there are always underlying psychological problems associated with Gender Identity Disorder (GID).
Some therapists too readily accept a patient’s “I feel trapped in the wrong body” explanation and do not probe—let alone help the patient to resolve—the patient’s underlying narcissism, anger, and inability to embrace the reality of their sexual identity.
To make such a claim is indeed spurious. The WPATH Standards of Care are very clear about the handling of comorbid conditions.
For Children:
3. Therapy should focus on ameliorating any comorbid problems in the child’s life,
For Adults:
Ideally, the clinician's work is with the whole of the person's complexity. The goals of therapy are to help the person to live more comfortably within a gender identity and to deal effectively with non-gender issues.
Assuming that a therapist is knowledgeable and working within the WPATH SOC guidelines, one might reasonably suspect that recommendations for steps such as surgery aren't likely to be made until other related issues are dealt with adequately.
Inevitably, as one might expect, the writers turn to NARTH for more "experts" to reinforce their overt hostility to transsexuality and its treatment. They quote a paper published on NARTH's website by a Dr. Breiner - a particularly offensive piece of work that I have already analyzed here.
Following down the NARTH path further, we find the usual attempt to establish childhood sexual abuse as a causal or root factor in transsexualism. We've seen this before with homosexuality - it wasn't a terribly successful strategy before, and I know of no legitimate research that establishes any kind of reasonable causal relationship beyond the usual assertions that large numbers of
Similarly, the attempt to link transsexuality with masochism is not only a very feeble argument, it's at best spurious to make such an association. While there are no doubt some transsexuals who are interested in S&M play, drawing the conclusion that their masochistic fantasies led them to transition is dubious at best.
When the authors finally do start addressing the ethical issues involved in providing treatment to transsexuals, they do so from this framework of questionable theoretical models, really awful logic and blatant misinformation. Needless to say, their conclusions are similarly flawed.
I'm going to restate some of their conclusions in my own words, in part because the objections the authors raise are often done in a manner that is elliptical relative to what they conclude.
Conclusion #1:
GRS is unethical because it doesn't "really" change someone's sex. (That is to say a MTF transsexual will not be able to bear children after surgery)
I don't think anybody denies the limitations of GRS as it stands today. To say that it is therefore "mutilation" is to suggest that any surgery that reshapes the body at all is mutilation as well.
The accusation that because the person is not able to directly procreate after surgery ignores the fact that for many transsexuals, the dysphoria they experience is so severe that it is unlikely that they would procreate in the first place. Further, it reduces human sexual and romantic partnerships to the production of babies - a position that treats the people involved as mere objects, rather than as human beings.
Transsexuals are really just lying about themselves
This is possibly one of the most offensive accusations that you can level at a transsexual. The journey through one's inner self that is part and parcel of a thoughtful, reasoned transition takes one well beyond the idea that they could be "lying" to themselves.
The archetype of the 'transsexual as deceiver' is rooted in the same rubric that leads the authors to assume that the deeply flawed model of Autogynephilia actually meaningfully describes the overall population of transsexuals. One of the most glaring problems with Bailey's "The Man Who Would Be Queen" book is the fact that most of his subjects were found in drag bars. That's like going into an outlaw biker bar to interview motorcyclists and concluding that all motorcycle riders belong to criminal gangs.
Conclusion #3:
Transsexuals are demanding that others lie on their behalf and they have no right to do so
Those who believe that it is impossible to change a person’s sex do not want to be insensitive to others, but neither should they be forced to lie by calling a man a woman or by calling a woman a man.
If someone is clearly presenting as a woman, treat them as a woman - it's not difficult. To call someone who is obviously MTF trans "sir" or "he" when she is obviously living as a woman is just as wrong as the schoolyard bully calling his target a "sissy".
The religious objection that it is impossible to "change one's sex" is a personal belief, and should be kept personal.
Conclusion #4:
By providing GRS, the caregivers are not providing a medically justified procedure, and as such they are collaborating with the patient's mental disease
This is a restatement of Paul McHugh's position, which I have already addressed on this blog.
I will however, reinforce my statements about McHugh's position with the following from the WPATH Standards of Care (v6):
Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental," "investigational," "elective,"cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.
The ethical objections that are raised in this paper are also addressed quite effectively in the WPATH Standards of Care as follows:
How to Deal with Ethical Questions Concerning Sex Reassignment Surgery. Many persons, including some medical professionals, object on ethical grounds to surgery for GID. In ordinary surgical practice, pathological tissues are removed in order to restore disturbed functions, or alterations are made to body features to improve the patient’s self image. Among those who object to sex reassignment surgery, these conditions are not thought to present when surgery is performed for persons with gender identity disorders. It is important that professionals dealing with patients with gender identity disorders feel comfortable about altering anatomically normal structures. In order to understand how surgery can alleviate the psychological discomfort of patients diagnosed with gender identity disorders, professionals need to listen to these patients discuss their life histories and dilemmas. The resistance against performing surgery on the ethical basis of "above all do no harm" should be respected, discussed, and met with the opportunity to learn from patients themselves about the psychological distress of having profound gender identity disorder.
It is unethical to deny availability or eligibility for sex reassignment surgeries or hormone therapy solely on the basis of blood seropositivity for blood-borne infections such as HIV, or hepatitis B or C, etc.
It is a sad statement that the paper's authors could not even have been bothered to examine the WPATH Standards of Care, which addresses their concerns most directly.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Stephen Harper: Dragging Canada Backwards
It's taken a while - far too long, IMO, but the press in this country is starting to realize just what Harper's been up to since day one:
Travers: Changing Canada, one backward step at a time
Think about it ...
Travers: Changing Canada, one backward step at a time
Imagine a country where Parliament is padlocked twice in 13 months to frustrate the democratic will of the elected majority. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that slyly relaxes environmental regulations even as its neighbour reels from a catastrophic oil leak blamed on slack controls. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that boasts about prudent financial management while blowing through a $13-billion surplus on the way to a $47-billion deficit. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where a political operative puts fork-tongued words in a top general’s mouth. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that refuses to fund the same safe abortions to poor women abroad as it provides at home. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where the national police commissioner skews a federal election and is never forced to explain. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that writes a covert manual on sabotaging Commons committees. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country dragging its climate change feet as the true north melts. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that silences political debate on the sale of a publicly owned, crown jewel corporation. That country is now this country.
Published On Sat Jun 19 2010
* Republish
* Add to Favourites
* Report an error
*
Share Share634
* Article
* Comments (117)
Ads by Google
Alzheimer's Disease
See if a Doctor should be Consulted
about Alzheimer's. Take this Test…
www.OnMemory.ca
More about
Prime Minister Stephen Harper»
Image
By James Travers National Affairs Columnist
Imagine a country where Parliament is padlocked twice in 13 months to frustrate the democratic will of the elected majority. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that slyly relaxes environmental regulations even as its neighbour reels from a catastrophic oil leak blamed on slack controls. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that boasts about prudent financial management while blowing through a $13-billion surplus on the way to a $47-billion deficit. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where a political operative puts fork-tongued words in a top general’s mouth. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that refuses to fund the same safe abortions to poor women abroad as it provides at home. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where the national police commissioner skews a federal election and is never forced to explain. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that writes a covert manual on sabotaging Commons committees. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country dragging its climate change feet as the true north melts. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that silences political debate on the sale of a publicly owned, crown jewel corporation. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that puts higher priority on building super-prisons than keeping people out of them. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where parties that win the most federal seats are dismissed as “losers”. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that twists its foreign policy around the interests of another nation. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that argues that barricading its largest city promotes tourism. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that promises Senate reform only to continue stuffing it with political hacks. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that avoids answers about a controversial war by accusing questioners of supporting the enemy. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where party apparatchiks decide who in a nominally free press is allowed to ask the Prime Minister questions. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where donut shop wisdom is more prized than expert analysis. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that builds a fake lake for a tough-times summit. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that preaches law and order while killing a long-gun registry police chiefs insist makes citizens safer. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where serving the Prime Minister as chief propagandist is job preparation for running a national news network. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where charities mute constructive criticism of public policy for fear of losing federal funding. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that can spend $1.2 billion for summit security but can’t find the petty cash needed to invest in the status of women. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that promises accountability only to impose secrecy. That country is now this country.
Every example is familiar, all are documented. Only the cumulative effect is surprising.
Think about it ...
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Idiot File: Lindsay Blackett - Television Critic
After hearing Blackett's statements about the quality of Canadian television productions for the last couple of days - and his flaccid attempts to defend the "rightness" of what he says, I finally have a few things to add.
First, let me put my own cards on the table with respect to television. I don't watch it - period. Quite frankly, I got turned off network television in the 1990s - the era of such innovative tripe as "Friends", "Beverly Hills 90210", "Frasier" and "Seinfeld" - and the first generations of so-called "reality" shows, a genre that I thought was awful then and I have yet to see anything to change my opinion. I simply decided that there were better places to spend my money than pouring hundreds of dollars into cable to get access to the handful of channels that I might enjoy.
Which leads to my point. Minister Blackett is busy whinging about how "poor" the quality of Canadian-made television is. A sentiment I find ironic in an era when shows like "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and "Corner Gas" have been garnering awards and audience share like wildfire.
However, if Minister Blackett wishes to whinge about "how bad" Canadian TV is, I invite him to think about it a little differently. He should be asking himself how it is with the millions of dollars that American productions sink into actors, advertising and so on for their shows why there's such a dearth of material that is actually worth the time to watch it?
Quite frankly, the most enjoyable TV series I've seen anything of (usually on DVD's borrowed from friends) have had precious little money sunk into them compared to the extravagant expenditures made by American networks on their "top prime time" material.
Are the big American productions profitable? Undoubtedly. On the other hand, are they high quality? Not necessarily. A glossy finish, perhaps - which is what I suspect Blackett is really attracted to.
It reminds me of a co-worker years ago getting a "great deal" on what was then a fairly new Camaro. When he pulled into the parking lot, we all admired the shiny, obviously fresh paint. On closer inspection though, one of us noticed that his car was sitting a lot lower on the left hand side than the right. The proud new owner told us "it was just that the springs needed to be replaced - besides, listen to how solid this thing is ..." followed by slamming the door shut so we could hear the solid "thunk" of a good car door closing. Well ... there was a thunk alright - it was the sound of half the door falling onto the pavement, revealing a travesty of automotive handiwork. An enormous lump of Bondo and fibreglass fell off the door, revealing a door which had been caved in by another vehicle.
The shiny paint was there as bait. The car itself was worse than a beater - it was beaten. I won't bore you with the litany of problems he had after that trying to rehabilitate the vehicle - the point is this - Television shows are a bit like that car these days. They are often very slick and glossy, but underneath it all, there often isn't much to recommend them.
Minister Blackett might want to consider that the next time he decides to make "off the cuff" remarks about the quality of Canadian productions.
Some friends have pointed me to shows I have actually enjoyed in recent years - Firefly, Dark Angel and Pushing Daisies among them - but there's not enough to make me want to do more than borrow the DVDs once in a while - I'd much rather be outside on my bicycle, walking in the mountains or have a good book to read.
First, let me put my own cards on the table with respect to television. I don't watch it - period. Quite frankly, I got turned off network television in the 1990s - the era of such innovative tripe as "Friends", "Beverly Hills 90210", "Frasier" and "Seinfeld" - and the first generations of so-called "reality" shows, a genre that I thought was awful then and I have yet to see anything to change my opinion. I simply decided that there were better places to spend my money than pouring hundreds of dollars into cable to get access to the handful of channels that I might enjoy.
Which leads to my point. Minister Blackett is busy whinging about how "poor" the quality of Canadian-made television is. A sentiment I find ironic in an era when shows like "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and "Corner Gas" have been garnering awards and audience share like wildfire.
However, if Minister Blackett wishes to whinge about "how bad" Canadian TV is, I invite him to think about it a little differently. He should be asking himself how it is with the millions of dollars that American productions sink into actors, advertising and so on for their shows why there's such a dearth of material that is actually worth the time to watch it?
Quite frankly, the most enjoyable TV series I've seen anything of (usually on DVD's borrowed from friends) have had precious little money sunk into them compared to the extravagant expenditures made by American networks on their "top prime time" material.
Are the big American productions profitable? Undoubtedly. On the other hand, are they high quality? Not necessarily. A glossy finish, perhaps - which is what I suspect Blackett is really attracted to.
It reminds me of a co-worker years ago getting a "great deal" on what was then a fairly new Camaro. When he pulled into the parking lot, we all admired the shiny, obviously fresh paint. On closer inspection though, one of us noticed that his car was sitting a lot lower on the left hand side than the right. The proud new owner told us "it was just that the springs needed to be replaced - besides, listen to how solid this thing is ..." followed by slamming the door shut so we could hear the solid "thunk" of a good car door closing. Well ... there was a thunk alright - it was the sound of half the door falling onto the pavement, revealing a travesty of automotive handiwork. An enormous lump of Bondo and fibreglass fell off the door, revealing a door which had been caved in by another vehicle.
The shiny paint was there as bait. The car itself was worse than a beater - it was beaten. I won't bore you with the litany of problems he had after that trying to rehabilitate the vehicle - the point is this - Television shows are a bit like that car these days. They are often very slick and glossy, but underneath it all, there often isn't much to recommend them.
Minister Blackett might want to consider that the next time he decides to make "off the cuff" remarks about the quality of Canadian productions.
Some friends have pointed me to shows I have actually enjoyed in recent years - Firefly, Dark Angel and Pushing Daisies among them - but there's not enough to make me want to do more than borrow the DVDs once in a while - I'd much rather be outside on my bicycle, walking in the mountains or have a good book to read.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Did Anybody Else See This Turd Coming?
I did. Way back in the 90s when King Ralph took away school boards' right to levy and collect property taxes.
It's taken a while, but sure enough the CBE takes some $10 million in deficit, and some 200 teachers are expected to lose their jobs as a result.
The problem? The provincial government has deliberately hamstrung regional school boards. First of all, the school boards are all funded by the provincial government, and they have no say in the amount of funding that Edmonton hands over.
It's pretty obvious to any thinking person that running the CBE is going to be a little more expensive than running the schools in the Crowsnest pass - at a minimum it costs more to live in Calgary than it does to live in Blairmore, therefore people demand higher salaries.
The second problem is that the province signed an agreement with Alberta's teachers - but it leaves the funding of those agreements in the hands of the school districts. So, on one hand, the government has placed a chokehold on the public school boards by committing them to employment terms and then tightens its grip by refusing to fund the school boards to meet their obligations - obligations which the province signed up to in the first place by signing those agreements.
That isn't just irresponsible governance, it's deliberate malice intended to undermine the public education system so that the privatization program that started with the introduction of so-called "Charter Schools" can be furthered.
It's taken a while, but sure enough the CBE takes some $10 million in deficit, and some 200 teachers are expected to lose their jobs as a result.
The problem? The provincial government has deliberately hamstrung regional school boards. First of all, the school boards are all funded by the provincial government, and they have no say in the amount of funding that Edmonton hands over.
It's pretty obvious to any thinking person that running the CBE is going to be a little more expensive than running the schools in the Crowsnest pass - at a minimum it costs more to live in Calgary than it does to live in Blairmore, therefore people demand higher salaries.
The second problem is that the province signed an agreement with Alberta's teachers - but it leaves the funding of those agreements in the hands of the school districts. So, on one hand, the government has placed a chokehold on the public school boards by committing them to employment terms and then tightens its grip by refusing to fund the school boards to meet their obligations - obligations which the province signed up to in the first place by signing those agreements.
That isn't just irresponsible governance, it's deliberate malice intended to undermine the public education system so that the privatization program that started with the introduction of so-called "Charter Schools" can be furthered.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Bill C-389 - Including Protections For Transgender People
A private member's bill tabled by MP Bill Siksay, Bill C-389, has been wending its way through Parliament in recent months.
Bill C-389 would amend our criminal and human rights laws to explicitly provide protections to members of the transgender community by adding the terms 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' to the Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code. The bill itself is brief, but to members of Canada's transgender community, filled with positive implications.
Of course, Canada's wingnuts see it through a far different lens, and are quite unabashed about showing us their ignorance, too.
Let's start with McVety mouthpiece C.F.A.C, run by Brian Rushfeldt hand in hand with McVety. From their website, the following bit of inspired stupidity:
This only underscores Rushfeldt's ignorance - he is busy misunderstanding the distinction between gender identity and sexual identity. Contrary to Rushfeldt's alarmist rhetoric, it would be impossible to argue that pedophilia has anything to do with someone's gender identity. Although sexual identity is intertwined with our gender, there is no meaningful way that one can claim that pedophilia is a form of gender expression.
Then we have LifeSite spewing Gwen Landolt:
Of course, trust Landolt to play the bathroom card along with the "trans people are homosexuals" card. Yet another example of how the right wing assumes that anything they cannot be bothered to truly understand is automatically conflated with a dozen threats - all of which are imaginary.
Then there's what one of the idiot Con$ said in the House of Commons during debate over this bill:
That's part of the problem - transsexuals are protected - but often only after surgery, assuming they are legally recognized in their chosen gender.
The problem is that those protections don't extend to people who don't transition fully, or who are in the midst of transition but have not yet started to live full time in their chosen gender role.
There are risks aplenty to those who find themselves between the normative gender structures that society has. The amount of systemic discrimination that exists throughout our social and legal structures that place transgender people in multiple forms of jeopardy is astonishing, and the impact on individual lives is astonishing.
Of course, it does not surprise this writer that the Con$ would happily throw transgender people under the bus.
I hope that Siksay's bill makes it through parliament and gets signed into law, but I'm not holding my breath - it's a private member's bill to begin with, and there is a high probability of an election sometime in the next six months.
Bill C-389 would amend our criminal and human rights laws to explicitly provide protections to members of the transgender community by adding the terms 'gender identity' and 'gender expression' to the Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code. The bill itself is brief, but to members of Canada's transgender community, filled with positive implications.
Of course, Canada's wingnuts see it through a far different lens, and are quite unabashed about showing us their ignorance, too.
Let's start with McVety mouthpiece C.F.A.C, run by Brian Rushfeldt hand in hand with McVety. From their website, the following bit of inspired stupidity:
Dear members of parliament,
Beware of the ramifications of Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code put forward by Siksay.
If you legislate this ill defined and unsubstantiated definition of “gender expression” as Siksay talks of below you will have just opened the door to every uncommon, unnatural and dangerous sexual expression that can be imagined.
From Hansard May 10, 2010 – Siksay said “Gender identity refers to an individual's self-conception as being male or female, their sense of themselves as male or female. Gender expression refers to how a person's gender identity is communicated to others through behaviour, speech, dress or mannerisms.”
Just as Svend Robinson scammed wording changes and definitions through parliament now Siksay is trying the same thing. His use of “gender expression” is not only foolish it is dangerous.
Reject this attempt to legalize all sexual behaviors. Pedophilia is already being argued as a sexual identity/ orientation. Will it now be argued that it is a “gender expression”?
I ask you as legislators - reject this attempt to change both Human Rights code but more startling the Criminal Code. Reject it before the second sober thought Senate has to do so.
This only underscores Rushfeldt's ignorance - he is busy misunderstanding the distinction between gender identity and sexual identity. Contrary to Rushfeldt's alarmist rhetoric, it would be impossible to argue that pedophilia has anything to do with someone's gender identity. Although sexual identity is intertwined with our gender, there is no meaningful way that one can claim that pedophilia is a form of gender expression.
Then we have LifeSite spewing Gwen Landolt:
Landolt said that the bill "goes to show that homosexuals are never satisfied and will push the situation as far as it will go." She warned that it could "create all sorts of difficulties to ordinary, everyday communication in society between men and women," such as the use of public washrooms.
Of course, trust Landolt to play the bathroom card along with the "trans people are homosexuals" card. Yet another example of how the right wing assumes that anything they cannot be bothered to truly understand is automatically conflated with a dozen threats - all of which are imaginary.
Then there's what one of the idiot Con$ said in the House of Commons during debate over this bill:
Daniel Petit, parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Justice, said Tuesday that the amendments proposed "are useless and unclear." "Transsexuals are already protected against discrimination based on sex under the Canada Human Rights Act, a federal law," he said, noting that "the courts have upheld the validity of discrimination complaints filed by transsexuals."
That's part of the problem - transsexuals are protected - but often only after surgery, assuming they are legally recognized in their chosen gender.
The problem is that those protections don't extend to people who don't transition fully, or who are in the midst of transition but have not yet started to live full time in their chosen gender role.
There are risks aplenty to those who find themselves between the normative gender structures that society has. The amount of systemic discrimination that exists throughout our social and legal structures that place transgender people in multiple forms of jeopardy is astonishing, and the impact on individual lives is astonishing.
Of course, it does not surprise this writer that the Con$ would happily throw transgender people under the bus.
I hope that Siksay's bill makes it through parliament and gets signed into law, but I'm not holding my breath - it's a private member's bill to begin with, and there is a high probability of an election sometime in the next six months.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Parochial Alberta ... Again
Can Alberta be any more parochial? Or perhaps the Stelmachites are just terrified of the Wildrose Alliance party. In any event, Alberta's reaction to CPP reform is just ridiculous.
Yes, Ted, let's talk about how wonderfully the private sector has "innovated" on pension plans, shall we? Every private corporate pension plan in the country is in arrears with massive unfunded liabilities. Further, these "plans" have a nasty tendency to vaporize when the company goes bankrupt - as Nortel workers have discovered.
Then there is the practicality of putting aside enough to retire on - not many people I know have an income that enables them to pay their mortgage, raise their families _AND_ put aside the 20% of gross income that is likely needed in the face of an inadequate CPP. While from Morton's perspective (making a healthy six-figure income, no doubt), it may seem quite reasonable to put 25% of income aside in savings - I dare say that Canadians making less than that might just disagree.
I'm actually surprised to see Flaherty talking about pension reform at all. It comes completely out of left field for the most right-wing government we've ever had in Ottawa, and no doubt is another piece of the Harper "all elections, all the time" campaign machinery gearing up for a late summer or fall election call.
It's been no secret that Canada's CPP needs an overhaul. It's been bubbling about for the better part of fifteen years as an issue. With the baby boomers starting to retire, Flaherty and Harper are no doubt hoping to secure the vote of retirees with the carrot of pension reform to alleviate the belt tightening that will no doubt be necessary as people realize that their own savings aren't up to the job of carrying them through their retirement years.
Coming back to Alberta's response though, I'm actually quite annoyed with the Alberta government's out of hand dismissal. We often scoff at Quebec's seeming distance from the rest of confederation, and yet here's Alberta busy playing exactly the same game - playing the whiny, petulant child over matters where the province has to play ball with the rest of Canada.
Morton's response whiffs of an attempt to play to the so-called "libertarians" that are swinging towards the Wildrose Alliance - of whom Morton is one. His "firewall" advocacy has its roots in an attitude that government has no place in the lives of citizens - an approach that so often throws the people at the lower end of the economic scale under the proverbial bus wheels.
Yes, pension reform is going to cost money. I'd much rather see my tax dollars going into a program that I know benefits Canadians. In contrast to the billions of dollars being spent on fake lakes and "security" to isolate a bunch of politicians from any kind of opposition to their position. Whether Flaherty's proposals are what I'd like to see is another story.
Morton says the Flaherty's pension reform vision is an overreaction and not targeted response.
"Expanding the Canada Pension Plan may benefit the significant minority who are not saving enough for retirement, but it would also provide additional and unnecessary benefits to those who already have adequate income provisions, and at significant cost to both them and their employers. It would also hurt low-income workers, who would be required to make additional contributions during their working lives." said Morton.
He says Canadians should be encouraged to save for their retirement.
"We should be looking for the right combination of private sector delivery with public oversight and monitoring. Alberta is already working with British Columbia on harmonized pension standards legislation that will help enable the private sector to innovate and enhance the retirement savings system."
Yes, Ted, let's talk about how wonderfully the private sector has "innovated" on pension plans, shall we? Every private corporate pension plan in the country is in arrears with massive unfunded liabilities. Further, these "plans" have a nasty tendency to vaporize when the company goes bankrupt - as Nortel workers have discovered.
Then there is the practicality of putting aside enough to retire on - not many people I know have an income that enables them to pay their mortgage, raise their families _AND_ put aside the 20% of gross income that is likely needed in the face of an inadequate CPP. While from Morton's perspective (making a healthy six-figure income, no doubt), it may seem quite reasonable to put 25% of income aside in savings - I dare say that Canadians making less than that might just disagree.
I'm actually surprised to see Flaherty talking about pension reform at all. It comes completely out of left field for the most right-wing government we've ever had in Ottawa, and no doubt is another piece of the Harper "all elections, all the time" campaign machinery gearing up for a late summer or fall election call.
It's been no secret that Canada's CPP needs an overhaul. It's been bubbling about for the better part of fifteen years as an issue. With the baby boomers starting to retire, Flaherty and Harper are no doubt hoping to secure the vote of retirees with the carrot of pension reform to alleviate the belt tightening that will no doubt be necessary as people realize that their own savings aren't up to the job of carrying them through their retirement years.
Coming back to Alberta's response though, I'm actually quite annoyed with the Alberta government's out of hand dismissal. We often scoff at Quebec's seeming distance from the rest of confederation, and yet here's Alberta busy playing exactly the same game - playing the whiny, petulant child over matters where the province has to play ball with the rest of Canada.
Morton's response whiffs of an attempt to play to the so-called "libertarians" that are swinging towards the Wildrose Alliance - of whom Morton is one. His "firewall" advocacy has its roots in an attitude that government has no place in the lives of citizens - an approach that so often throws the people at the lower end of the economic scale under the proverbial bus wheels.
Yes, pension reform is going to cost money. I'd much rather see my tax dollars going into a program that I know benefits Canadians. In contrast to the billions of dollars being spent on fake lakes and "security" to isolate a bunch of politicians from any kind of opposition to their position. Whether Flaherty's proposals are what I'd like to see is another story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Running around the internet, and speaking in various venues is a somewhat rare creature by the name of Walt Heyer who claims to be an ...
-
I woke up this morning to CBC's Jason Markusoff and The Toronto Star's Richard Warnica talking about Alberta separatism on the Front...
-
The CPC is polling just a hair below 30% , and Pierre Poilievre's "favourability" as next PM is now tied with "Undecided...
