.......who needs friends?! Not too long ago, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did not much like each other -- a holdover from the bitter battle between Hilary and Obama for the Democratic leadership. But holy cow! Bill hit it completely out of the park last night with his riveting speech. The guy is peerless when it comes to getting a crowd eating out of his hand. I don't care what your politics are, you had to love Bill last night.
Fifty minutes went by in a flash. In fact, I was sorry it was over when it was. I could have listened enraptured for another fifty minutes. He has it in clubs, diamonds, hearts and spades. He alternately cajoled, scolded, edified and charmed everyone in that room -- wagging his finger, as he always does in case anyone might actually be naughty enough to vote for the other side. If only he were running.............People just love Clinton because, although riddled with faults like the rest of us, he is a brilliant man. No getting away from it.
Would not like to be Obama following that act tonight.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
These Women Rock
They still have it, these Rodeo Queens and Princesses from the 70's and 80's. There they were, in all their finery, riding in the Cochrane Labour Day Parade -- the second-largest in Alberta, after The Stampede Parade. To qualify as a contestant a woman has to be able to ride a horse, or as the English put it, "sit a horse". These ladies remain completely cool and still gorgeous...
The parade also featured the Band of the Grenadier Guards, the most senior regiment of the British Infantry, formed in 1656. Quite a coup for Cochrane to get these chaps from across the pond....
We had a grand time.
 |
| Cindy Morres, Rodeo Queen in 1976, still gorgeous. |
 |
| Too bad you can't see these Queens' faces, my fault, but they were very cool. |
 |
| This year's Queen and Princess -- note the gorgeous chaps! |
The bearskins they wear are made from Canadian black bear. Apparently, they tried to substitute synthetic fur, but it just didn't work. Each hat (not to be confused with the busby, which is much smaller) is made from one complete bearskin and costs more than $1,200. Animal rights activists want the use of bearskin discontinued, but no such luck. Approximately 100 skins are taken every year by Inuit and native people, who operate under government supervision to keep numbers under control.
The pioneer women of The Wild West were also featured.......
 |
| Toting the necessary weapons of the day. |
Grandson, Reed, was keeping up with the marchers.......or trying to...............
We had a grand time.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Biology.......and its nasty consequences
Nothing has changed since I had my children 36 and 33 years ago. If you have the biological function of reproduction, you are discriminated against in the workplace.
I remember being pregnant and hiding it because I knew it would not help my prospects. I used to walk around holding files and papers over my front to conceal my condition because I was up for a promotion and the interview was fast-approaching. Well, I came first in the interview, but when they learned I was pregnant they cancelled the competition. Yep, that's exactly what they did. A few weeks later they reinstated it and guess what? The guy who came second "won". That used to happen on a regular basis. Be a woman, get pregnant.....big problem.
An article in 'The Harvard Business Review' brings it all depressingly home again. Nothing has changed. "If a woman has a child, her chances of being hired fall by 79%," the research proves. (In my case it was "zero".) "She is 50% less likely to be promoted as is a childless woman and her salary offer will be reduced by $11,000."
But women (mothers) are litigating and winning most of the time. In the US, two-thirds of plaintiffs who sue in federal court on the basis of "family responsibilities discrimination" prevail at trial. That's because the companies that demote, or do not promote, working mothers are in the wrong.
That's why so many educated women are not having children until later -- or are having none at all. The workplace is not friendly to mothers. I was told that to get a DG position in communications in the federal government I would have to spend two years in the Privy Council Office. The PCO! That's where everyone worked from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. -- whether they had to or not. Well, I had no choice but to turn down the job because I had toddlers. No way -- even with a live-in nanny -- could I have managed that. But no way could I also have mentioned the reason, otherwise the PCO guy would have told my (male)boss, who would have.............you know.............formed a negative opinion about me...."different priorities........too bad, she's such a bright woman".
No, you had to pretend you didn't have children and soldier on.
Still, I loved working outside the home. Much more rewarding in the long run than diaper sagas.
I remember being pregnant and hiding it because I knew it would not help my prospects. I used to walk around holding files and papers over my front to conceal my condition because I was up for a promotion and the interview was fast-approaching. Well, I came first in the interview, but when they learned I was pregnant they cancelled the competition. Yep, that's exactly what they did. A few weeks later they reinstated it and guess what? The guy who came second "won". That used to happen on a regular basis. Be a woman, get pregnant.....big problem.
An article in 'The Harvard Business Review' brings it all depressingly home again. Nothing has changed. "If a woman has a child, her chances of being hired fall by 79%," the research proves. (In my case it was "zero".) "She is 50% less likely to be promoted as is a childless woman and her salary offer will be reduced by $11,000."
But women (mothers) are litigating and winning most of the time. In the US, two-thirds of plaintiffs who sue in federal court on the basis of "family responsibilities discrimination" prevail at trial. That's because the companies that demote, or do not promote, working mothers are in the wrong.
That's why so many educated women are not having children until later -- or are having none at all. The workplace is not friendly to mothers. I was told that to get a DG position in communications in the federal government I would have to spend two years in the Privy Council Office. The PCO! That's where everyone worked from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. -- whether they had to or not. Well, I had no choice but to turn down the job because I had toddlers. No way -- even with a live-in nanny -- could I have managed that. But no way could I also have mentioned the reason, otherwise the PCO guy would have told my (male)boss, who would have.............you know.............formed a negative opinion about me...."different priorities........too bad, she's such a bright woman".
No, you had to pretend you didn't have children and soldier on.
Still, I loved working outside the home. Much more rewarding in the long run than diaper sagas.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
It was not about Shirley
Another reality show has hit the ether. 'I'm having their baby' is about pregnant women (actually stupid girls) having babies and giving them up for adoption. Well, at least they are not keeping them -- one of the main causes of child poverty. By the way, why is it that we can never blame teenage mothers for contributing in a major way to child poverty? But I digress...............
These girls get pregnant. They then go to an adoption agency, where they pour over binders prepared by desperate, infertile couples putting themselves forward as potential parents. "I don't like the look of that one," says one teen. "I don't like their house," says another. I mean, come on. It is so sad for the couples, who have to try and impress a vacuous teen to maybe choose them as the parents....please, please.
When I was adopted, the whole thing was decided before I was born. That's how it was done. My birth mother, Shirley, had no say and the process worked perfectly. It wasn't about Shirley, it was about what was best for me. If you were putting your baby up for adoption, the system took over. The mother didn't study binders and photos. She didn't meet the potential parents to approve or veto their application. The idea was to give the baby up without ties, with no knowledge of what happened to the baby. You "got into trouble" and the system solved your problem. Plain and simple.
In my case, I was determined in later life to get to my roots. Luckily, and with a bit of chicanery, I succeeded. Sadly, my birth mother had died, but I did meet her brothers and sister. While they will never be my family, I am grateful I know who they are. As to my birth father? Well, that's another story.........
One of the saddest scenes in the episode of 'I'm having their baby' was the delivery room, where the "approved" parents participated in the whole process, only to be told a few days later that the mother had changed her mind. These parents had everything ready for the baby. Imagine what it must have done to them to have been rejected after they thought everything had been decided. It was appalling. The 17-year-old mother is keeping the kid.
Poor kid, is all I can say.
These girls get pregnant. They then go to an adoption agency, where they pour over binders prepared by desperate, infertile couples putting themselves forward as potential parents. "I don't like the look of that one," says one teen. "I don't like their house," says another. I mean, come on. It is so sad for the couples, who have to try and impress a vacuous teen to maybe choose them as the parents....please, please.
When I was adopted, the whole thing was decided before I was born. That's how it was done. My birth mother, Shirley, had no say and the process worked perfectly. It wasn't about Shirley, it was about what was best for me. If you were putting your baby up for adoption, the system took over. The mother didn't study binders and photos. She didn't meet the potential parents to approve or veto their application. The idea was to give the baby up without ties, with no knowledge of what happened to the baby. You "got into trouble" and the system solved your problem. Plain and simple.
In my case, I was determined in later life to get to my roots. Luckily, and with a bit of chicanery, I succeeded. Sadly, my birth mother had died, but I did meet her brothers and sister. While they will never be my family, I am grateful I know who they are. As to my birth father? Well, that's another story.........
One of the saddest scenes in the episode of 'I'm having their baby' was the delivery room, where the "approved" parents participated in the whole process, only to be told a few days later that the mother had changed her mind. These parents had everything ready for the baby. Imagine what it must have done to them to have been rejected after they thought everything had been decided. It was appalling. The 17-year-old mother is keeping the kid.
Poor kid, is all I can say.
What can I say?
Political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Andrea Louise Campbell, agrees with me. The current issue of 'Foreign Affairs' features an article by Ms. Campbell entitled 'America the Undertaxed'. Yes, they are. And they want to be even more so, if the Republicans win. I know, I know, I do harp on about taxes, but hey, you gotta have 'em. No way around it. That's how successful countries function.
"The most inportant debates in US politics today center (sic) on the cost and the role of government. Cutting taxes, limiting expenditures and reducing debt have become the chief concerns of Republicans, whereas Democrats generally seek to preserve or even expand government spending and are willing to raise taxes to do so," writes Ms. Campbell.
The free market and big business cannot run a country. Unfortunately, the Republicans think they can. Don't get me wrong, I am not an Obama fan, but he is the lesser of two evils -- except for the fact that the American system stymies him at every turn. He can never seem to get to his agenda.
The article contains a graph which shows the total tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in the industrialized world. Denmark is at the top, with 48.1%, Canada is in the middle, with 32.0% and the US is third from the bottom with 24.1% -- just ahead of Chile and last-placed Mexico. How can you run a country like that?
She concludes: "The decision of tax reform is a referendum on the direction in which Americans would like to take their country. The US currently taxes top earners at some of the lowest effective rates in the country's history. The US tax system collects little revenue, poorly re-distributes that money across the population and is mind-bogglingly complex."
Recently, tax dollars have been used to bail out automobile giants and investment banks. What a mess.
"The most inportant debates in US politics today center (sic) on the cost and the role of government. Cutting taxes, limiting expenditures and reducing debt have become the chief concerns of Republicans, whereas Democrats generally seek to preserve or even expand government spending and are willing to raise taxes to do so," writes Ms. Campbell.
The free market and big business cannot run a country. Unfortunately, the Republicans think they can. Don't get me wrong, I am not an Obama fan, but he is the lesser of two evils -- except for the fact that the American system stymies him at every turn. He can never seem to get to his agenda.
The article contains a graph which shows the total tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in the industrialized world. Denmark is at the top, with 48.1%, Canada is in the middle, with 32.0% and the US is third from the bottom with 24.1% -- just ahead of Chile and last-placed Mexico. How can you run a country like that?
She concludes: "The decision of tax reform is a referendum on the direction in which Americans would like to take their country. The US currently taxes top earners at some of the lowest effective rates in the country's history. The US tax system collects little revenue, poorly re-distributes that money across the population and is mind-bogglingly complex."
Recently, tax dollars have been used to bail out automobile giants and investment banks. What a mess.
Why didn't I write this book?
I am always running into novels I could have written.........but didn't. "Bridget Jones' Diary, for example. Now along comes another: 'The Blondes'. Everyone knows what I think about "dyed blondes" and apparently Emily Schultz agrees.
"I was on a flight to New York and I was reading 'Vanity Fair' and I noticed that all the ads seemed to feature blonde women and I opened up to this Gucci spread in particular and it was a gang of blonde women," Ms. Schultz explained. "They looked so vampiric, as if they were ready to murder somebody. They had the eyeliner that almost made their eyes look sunken in and I just all of a sudden said 'The Blondes'! and as soon as I said that, even though I was still joking around....I just knew that I had to write the book and I started to take the idea seriously."
The book is about a "blonde plague" and explores all the issues that surface because of it. "I knew that I wanted to explore relationships between women and also the many levels of what it means to be a woman in general," she explained. "The book starts with a rant about women and it's not a very positive rant. But I wanted it to start that way because I felt the heroine needed to work through her issues...and all the things that arise from this blonde plague."
Yes indeed-y. As I have blogged, something happens to a woman when she dyes her hair blonde. Presto-chango, she becomes a "dyed blonde". If you dye your hair blonde, apparently you do not accept yourself. By taking that step, you are a "wanna be". You morph into another category of female. B will start an anecdote with, "I ran into this dyed blonde this morning.........." and I will immediately know what's coming next.
For some reason North American dyed blondes have a desire to be noteworthy. Ironically, they are not. What do we all do when someone says, "Well, she's a dyed blonde, so what can you expect?" We roll our eyes. So, to dye your hair blonde, you have to make a conscious decision to be perceived as belonging to the "dyed blonde" category-- in some circles even the "dumb blonde" category. And since no dyed blonde has ever been able to fool anyone into thinking she is a "natural", the dyed blonde can't win.
Weird choice.
"Hairburner", you are the expert, any comments?
"I was on a flight to New York and I was reading 'Vanity Fair' and I noticed that all the ads seemed to feature blonde women and I opened up to this Gucci spread in particular and it was a gang of blonde women," Ms. Schultz explained. "They looked so vampiric, as if they were ready to murder somebody. They had the eyeliner that almost made their eyes look sunken in and I just all of a sudden said 'The Blondes'! and as soon as I said that, even though I was still joking around....I just knew that I had to write the book and I started to take the idea seriously."
The book is about a "blonde plague" and explores all the issues that surface because of it. "I knew that I wanted to explore relationships between women and also the many levels of what it means to be a woman in general," she explained. "The book starts with a rant about women and it's not a very positive rant. But I wanted it to start that way because I felt the heroine needed to work through her issues...and all the things that arise from this blonde plague."
Yes indeed-y. As I have blogged, something happens to a woman when she dyes her hair blonde. Presto-chango, she becomes a "dyed blonde". If you dye your hair blonde, apparently you do not accept yourself. By taking that step, you are a "wanna be". You morph into another category of female. B will start an anecdote with, "I ran into this dyed blonde this morning.........." and I will immediately know what's coming next.
For some reason North American dyed blondes have a desire to be noteworthy. Ironically, they are not. What do we all do when someone says, "Well, she's a dyed blonde, so what can you expect?" We roll our eyes. So, to dye your hair blonde, you have to make a conscious decision to be perceived as belonging to the "dyed blonde" category-- in some circles even the "dumb blonde" category. And since no dyed blonde has ever been able to fool anyone into thinking she is a "natural", the dyed blonde can't win.
Weird choice.
"Hairburner", you are the expert, any comments?
Saturday, September 1, 2012
No clue
Richard Martin wrote a letter complaining about the one I had written in support of the Monarchy in Canada. He advocates just declaring independence -- like Jamaica did. See, that's typical of the ignorance surrounding what it would take to do away with the Monarchy and the Queen as head of state. This guy doesn't even know that Jamaica remains part of the Commonwealth, that it is one of the 16 realms, as is Canada, that the Queen is still Queen of Jamaica and Head of State.
"Marley-Clarke says we are a constitutional monarchy. That's a polite was of saying that we're a colony," he complains. How dumb can you be. We are not a "colony", of course, and Canada just can't "declare independence". We are an independent nation, as is Jamaica. You don't have to have a republic to be independent. People are just simply uninformed. Remember what happened when Trudeau patriated the constitution in 1982? It was a herculean task even without changing a word of it. And look what happened when Mulroney tried to shove through the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Canadians would have none of it.
Canada is a country that works -- in every sense of the word. No politician in his or her right mind would try to re-write the constitution. Can anyone spell "instability"? Business would fold up as fast as you could say, "we're outta here". Business does not like instability, just a fact. That's what happened in Quebec in the '70s and that's what will happen again if, for example, Pauline Marois wins the upcoming election.
"Recently Jamaican-Canadians marked the independence of Jamaica on Parliment Hill. They were so proud of their heritage," he went on in his letter. Really? We should follow Jamaica's example? Please. After declaring independence, it was all downhill for that island. In fact, the only Caribbean island that remains successful and functioning in a law-abiding manner is Bermuda -- also the only country left that did not declare independence from Britain. The crime rate is so high (tourist advisories and more than 1,500 murders a year), you take your life in your hands vacationing in Jamaica, unless you stay in a gated hotel....and even then......
Why Jamaican-Canadians flocked to Parliament Hill to celebrate is beyond me. Firstly, they are Canadians, not "Jamaican-Canadians" and secondly, why hold the event on Parliament Hill? Guns and ganga are the biggest exports out of Jamaica. And last time I checked, people were emigrating in droves from Jamaica, not lining up to get in. I mean, if it's so great there, why stay here?
"Marley-Clarke says we are a constitutional monarchy. That's a polite was of saying that we're a colony," he complains. How dumb can you be. We are not a "colony", of course, and Canada just can't "declare independence". We are an independent nation, as is Jamaica. You don't have to have a republic to be independent. People are just simply uninformed. Remember what happened when Trudeau patriated the constitution in 1982? It was a herculean task even without changing a word of it. And look what happened when Mulroney tried to shove through the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Canadians would have none of it.
Canada is a country that works -- in every sense of the word. No politician in his or her right mind would try to re-write the constitution. Can anyone spell "instability"? Business would fold up as fast as you could say, "we're outta here". Business does not like instability, just a fact. That's what happened in Quebec in the '70s and that's what will happen again if, for example, Pauline Marois wins the upcoming election.
"Recently Jamaican-Canadians marked the independence of Jamaica on Parliment Hill. They were so proud of their heritage," he went on in his letter. Really? We should follow Jamaica's example? Please. After declaring independence, it was all downhill for that island. In fact, the only Caribbean island that remains successful and functioning in a law-abiding manner is Bermuda -- also the only country left that did not declare independence from Britain. The crime rate is so high (tourist advisories and more than 1,500 murders a year), you take your life in your hands vacationing in Jamaica, unless you stay in a gated hotel....and even then......
Why Jamaican-Canadians flocked to Parliament Hill to celebrate is beyond me. Firstly, they are Canadians, not "Jamaican-Canadians" and secondly, why hold the event on Parliament Hill? Guns and ganga are the biggest exports out of Jamaica. And last time I checked, people were emigrating in droves from Jamaica, not lining up to get in. I mean, if it's so great there, why stay here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)