Cyn for Prime Minister

Who's in Charge of this Train, Anyway?

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:02:00 +0000

A friend just "recommended" this editorial by Michael Ignatieff on Facebook. My initial thought was to recommend it myself, with my thoughts. Then I decided to post it here, instead. I've noticed lately that I've lost a few FB friends, and although at first this hurt me, I had to wonder if it was due to my political/ideological postings. If that's the case: too bad. I am who I am, and I believe what I believe. Often very strongly.

What I don't understand is why people who disagree with me about these issues are so offended by the idea of society working together for everyone's betterment. Are they afraid for their own standard of living? Do they honestly believe that every poor person is poor because of laziness and/or drug and alcohol abuse? That every New Year's baby born today has EXACTLY the same opportunities for "success" as his/her peers?

I love the analogy in the article: that living in the Great Depression was like riding a train. If you had a job, "it was like being in the heated parlour car in the front of the train, while the unemployed were in the unheated freight cars in the back." I've noticed that those who are so adamantly against government programs to help the poor are usually those who are not only employed, but have been in the same job for a long time; who haven't had to deal with months and months of resumes and applications, and internet job searches; those who don't know that trying to live on $1800 per month (approximately the maximum amount of EI in our area) is nearly impossible for a family who may depend on that income as their sole source of support. For those who have been riding in those unheated freight cars, it is a ride of fear, shame, and despair, made all the more hard by living amongst those who are eating caviar in the parlour car.

I guess I just will never understand how it is that people can be so unwilling to give up a little bit of their wealth to make sure that other people have a reasonable standard of living. There is no way out of this mess while some are zealously guarding the proverbial Versailles and the peasants are crying for bread.

I once had someone ask me "Who are you to decide what's a reasonable income for anyone else?" That's not an easy question for me to answer. I suppose I have no right to say that no one NEEDS over a million dollars a year, but to me, that's just plain logic. To say, "I work 20 hours a day for that money, so I should get to keep it" discounts those who are working 2 or 3 jobs at minimum wage and barely surviving. Are you working harder than the person who's cleaning your office at 2am? The person who's out collecting your trash in -20 degree or 35 degree weather? Are you working harder than the person building the roads for you to drive to your company? The teacher who's educating your children? Who are YOU to say that what you do is worth more than what anyone else contributes to society?

I've been told that this whole "December 21, 2012" thing is more about a societal shift than about the end of the world. I really hope that's true, because until we all realize that we're all in this world together, I don't see us finding those middle cars on the train.

Jack Layton, 1950-2011

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:54:00 +0000

I was in a pretty good mood when I got to work last Monday morning. I'd barely sat at my desk and turned on my computer, though, when I got the news: "Jack Layton died."

It shouldn't have been a shock. Anyone who saw his gaunt appearance at his last press conference knew it couldn't be good. People talked about the possibility that he wouldn't return to Parliament Hill in whispers, as if saying it too loudly might cause it to happen.

Maybe in the end, someone spoke about it too loudly after all. Maybe it was just meant to happen this way. Maybe it was just a fluke of nature - a bad hand dealt in the game of life. I suppose in the end, it comes down to what you believe about life, and death.

In the past week, I've been kind of weepy when I thought about it. It's not because of any personal connection: like most Canadians, I didn't know Jack Layton personally; in fact, I never even met the man, or saw him from afar. Although I'm not registered with any particular party, I've always considered myself a Liberal who occasionally votes NDP. I've never lived in his constituency, so I have never had the opportunity to cast a vote for, or against him.

Really, me being weepy about something isn't all that unusual. Don't tell anyone, but the truth is I can get weepy over just about anything - happy or sad. Any strong emotion can elicit tears from me. It's kind of embarrassing.I don't think the subtle melancholy I've felt the past week has been my usual hyper-emotional state, though. There has been something about Jack Layton's passing that has affected me, and made me think about what I really believe in.

The title of this blog has always been tongue-in-cheek. As much as I've considered running for political office, I seriously doubt that my "30 Days of Ben Mulroney" entries are likely to help my cause. Layton's passing, though, does make me think a lot about what I believe.

I believe:

That everyone should have equal rights - including the right to marry and raise a family.
That every child deserves the best possible start in life. Sadly, this doesn't always happen at home, so our schools, and our community programs are pivotal, and deserve nothing but the best.
That healthcare is a right, not a privilege. No one should go bankrupt paying medical bills. Families going through catastrophic illness deserve support.
In justice, not vengeance.
That higher education and apprenticeship training should be available to everyone. While it may not be realistic to assume that it could be free, there needs to be a better way of making it accessible, without students going into massive amounts of debt.
That Canada needs to be at the forefront of finding alternative energy sources, while still keeping costs in line, so that families can afford to pay their utility bills.

In Jack Layton, we saw optimism, and hope for the future of Canada. Not that I'm generally a fan of Stephen Harper anyway, but I just don't see that kind of positive energy from him. He just always seems pissed off and angry. He appears - to me, anyway - like he's looking down on those he claims to represent. Jack Layton never did that. One of the best photos I've seen the past week was of Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow, riding in the Toronto Pride Parade, and looking like they were having a fabulous time.

I want to see Canada have a leader with that kind of vivacity. Not that personality alone makes a leader: you need the brains to back it up; but to see someone leading this country who actually cared what Canadians thought, and what they needed to make their lives better. Isn't that what we need?

As we talked on the day of Jack Layton's death, my husband said, "He was never meant to be Prime Minister." That may be so, but I truly hope that in the next few years of the Harper majority, a leader will emerge who will give Canadians a sense of optimism, and energy. I am so proud to be Canadian. I want the world to be able to see what an amazing country this is, and I want every Canadian to feel the same way.

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful, and optimistic. And we'll change the world."

RIP Jack.

Election Rant #2: Mid-Afternoon Phone Call

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:17:00 +0000

This afternoon I received a phone call that has me... somewhat concerned. It was to do with the election, which is not surprising, given that there is only a week to go.

A very YOUNG girl called here asking if Colin Carrie (our local Conservative candidate) could count on my vote. At the time, because she'd woken me up from a nap and I was worried that she was going to wake up my toddler, I just told her flatly no, that I didn't vote Conservative.

Now that I've had time to think about it though, several thoughts occur to me about this phone call.

A) The call came directly to me, by name (not my husband, and not "Mrs. Hill" which I often get); Dr. Carrie, just because I wrote to you about the potential Quebec violations of the Canada Health Act does NOT make me your supporter. PLEASE take me off your lists! I've already unsubscribed from your preening "Look what I can do!" newsletter.

B) I'm kind of concerned that a girl that young is supporting him. I know some people just SOUND young, but I would be incredibly shocked if this girl was old enough to vote. Is she doing volunteer hours for high school? Does she have ANY idea of the Conservatives' anti-women policies? Is she just there because her parents are going to vote for him?

C) No, no he cannot count on my vote. In fact, I'd suggest exactly the opposite. Oh, wait... I already mentioned that.

Election Rant #1: The Outsider

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:02:00 +0000

It suddenly occurred to me this morning, as I was ranting to my husband about an election issue, that I hadn't used this blog in a LONG time, and, coincidentally, that this blog was originally intended for, among other things, my political rants. Hmmm...

So here's the rant of the day:

I am a Liberal. Not an official member of the Liberal Party of Canada, although I am now seriously considering it, just so that I can yell at whomever came up with this hairbrained idea. But I live in an area that is very much NOT Liberal. The last several elections have had a Conservative win the riding. You would think, given the GM plant, that it would be an NDP area, but I haven't seen much of that. However, back in the days of the Chretien government, my riding was Liberal. It seems that it's kind of a "go with the majority" kind of area.

The last several elections, both provincial and federal, the Liberal Party has run the same candidate, over and over and OVER again. Said candidate, Louise Parks, was a councilwoman on the City Council for many years, until she lost the mayoral election this past year. Said candidate is also a very polarizing figure: you either love her or hate her. I've tended towards the latter, and I believe that the majority of the city feels the same way. Something about her just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it's just the feeling that, rather than working for the electorate, she's working for her own political ambitions. Realistically (and somewhat cynically) I think most politicians may be that way, but most of them hide it a little better.

Anyway, the Liberals have dumped Louise Parks this time. Originally, when I saw a lawn sign showing another name, James Morton, I rejoiced in that they had listened to my rants (although, since I never expressed my dismay to the local party leaders, I wonder if they've been bugging my house or something...)

But then I saw our local paper, listing the candidates and their backgrounds, and I knew that the Liberals haven't got a snowball's chance in the eternal fires of winning this riding. The Liberal Party, Oshawa riding, have decided that rather than finding a local candidate, they should put forward a Toronto lawyer who lives in Thornhill, but has "signed a lease" in Oshawa. In other words, they think they've brought in a ringer.

Pardon my language, but WHAT THE FUCK?

They honestly don't believe that there is a single qualified person anywhere in the city of Oshawa who could put up a fight for this Parliamentary seat? I believe that Whitby tried this in the last election, and it failed miserably. Oshawa people, if they actually read the news, will NOT be happy about a person who knows NOTHING about Oshawa being brought in to potentially represent their interests. Oshawa is a totally different kind of city - truthfully, it's one of the things that I like about it. Despite being a part of the GTA, it isn't Pickering, or Ajax, or Whitby, and it sure as Hell isn't Thornhill.

I will say that I'm sure he's perfectly qualified to be an MP. Reading about him on the website I'm not totally unimpressed, I'm just frustrated to be backing another sure loss.

Nice going, Liberals.

Blue Skies, Smilin' at Me

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:39:00 +0000

My blogging has been less than zero lately, here and on my other blogs. Blogging rules say that I'm not "supposed" to apologize for long absences, so I won't, but I am going to explain where I've been anyway. It's my blog, and I can do what I want!

I've been a more than a little preoccupied lately with a musical that I've been working on now since August. It's a production of "White Christmas" that the Scugog Choral Society in Port Perry is doing. (Tickets are almost sold out, but you can get what's left here) It's based on the old Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye movie, for those who don't know. It has fantastic music, a lot of dancing, and a whole lotta love! And the parting of the Red Sea! No, seriously!

The show closes tomorrow night. We have three shows left between now and then. Honestly, despite the show taking over a large chunk of my life lately, I am pretty bummed about the end.

I hear a lot from people in my life that I shouldn't "waste my time" being in the chorus of shows. These are people who love me, and care about me, and know my background in theatre. They think I should hold out and only do shows if I have lead roles. I understand where they're coming from, and truthfully I'm always a little bit bummed out to be "in the chorus AGAIN" but I don't have the strongest singing voice, and I know that, so even though it's always a bit disappointing to be given yet another chorus role, I end up accepting happily, because I know that in the end I will enjoy myself. I also don't do these shows in the hopes of being discovered by an agent, or a major movie director who just HAPPENS to go see a show in small town Ontario. I do them because I love musicals. I have them in my blood. I love the fact that in musicals it's okay - even expected - to have BIG emotions. If you're happy, you're the happiest guy in the world, but if you're not, it's the biggest trauma you've ever experienced. There's no in between in musicals. I love the costumes, and the dancing, and most of all, the music.

I openly admit that I wish life were like a musical. I truly believe that I should have an orchestra follow me around at all times who could just play along to whatever song fits my emotional state at the time. It's one of the reasons I love Glee - they just HAPPEN to have a band who can play any song, any time. It's my dream for life.

This show has been so much more to me, though. I always enjoy doing shows, but sometimes the cast gels better than others. This has been one of those times. I knew a lot of the cast members before, through other productions with various companies, and some were good friends, but there were some I had never had the opportunity to work with previously. There were some I had "known" but didn't really know. There were a few that I was already good friends with. This particular combination, though, has proven to be magical (yes Liz, I'm stealing your word!)

I am really sad to know that after Saturday night I won't see these people again, in this particular grouping, on a regular basis. As much as I know my husband is dying to have me home again all the time to help with the kids, it has been a joy to go to the Town Hall, knowing that I was going to see them, and spend the evening running up and down stairs for copious costume changes, sitting backstage and whispering along to songs I don't get to sing, but wish I did, and occasionally making somewhat obscene comments - away from the younger members of the cast, of course! I've gotten to spend more time with one good friend than I have in years; I've gotten to know people I've worked with previously, but didn't really spend time with (even if some of them are total divas who have to have a follow spot everywhere they go!); and I've been lucky enough to get to know a few new absolutely fabulous people that I hope will stay in my life after the curtain closes for the last time.

There's almost always a camaraderie amongst a cast, and over the years I've learned that those fast friendships formed backstage can quickly fade after the final curtain call. I really hope that won't be the case this time. The friendships I've made, and strengthened, are far too valuable for that.

Why Do I Care?

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:27:00 +0000

I haven't lived within the boundaries of Metro Toronto since 1998. The last Toronto election I voted in was also the FIRST Metro Toronto election after the "megacity" was created. Since then our family has moved around, but for the most part we've been within the boundaries of the Greater Toronto Area (some "greater" than others).

So you might wonder why I care about who was elected Mayor of Toronto. Here are a few reasons:

I may not live there anymore, but I really do love Toronto. I love wandering around downtown. I love Queen West and the Beaches (wait, the Beach?). I love the entertainment district and all of the mega-musicals put on by Mirvish Productions and Dancap, among others. I love the smaller theatres like Passe Muraille, the Factory, Soulpepper and CanStage. I love the fact that I can walk all over downtown Toronto in the middle of winter without a coat using the PATH system. I love watching baseball games at SkyDome (I will never admit that it's no longer called SkyDome, so don't even try to make me.) I love the Toronto Islands. Most of all, I love the people - well, most of them, anyway. So I don't want to see a loudmouth politician screw up "my" city. I also don't want any Lastman-sized international embarrassments (African cannibals, anyone? How does that compare to wanting someone's wife to be go over to Iran and be raped? Hmmm...)
The truth is, what happens in Toronto affects the whole province to a certain extent, most notably the 905 area (for those not familiar with Toronto, this is a horseshoe-shaped area outside of Toronto thus called because of their "905" area codes.) If not a majority, then a lot of 905-ers are commuters. We may start our mornings in Oshawa, Pickering or Mississauga, but we spend our days firmly in the 416. Gridlock and public transit are issues that don't just affect Toronto residents.
Again, because so many 905-ers work in Toronto, if you mess up the economy of Toronto, you mess up the economy of a much wider area. Even if you don't take into account the commuters, products and services are regularly traded amongst the cities of south-central Ontario. The economy of the country's largest city has a ripple effect across the whole area, at minimum.
I was talking to someone last night who works in social services in Toronto. The look on his face when told Rob Ford was elected said it all. Outside of the Great Depression, this may be the worst thing to ever happen to the poor, under-privileged, and mentally and physically-challenged people in Toronto's history.
Why is it that the right wing is so against funding for arts organizations? My guess is that most of them can't read a book or have the attention span to sit through a play, but that's just my (somewhat biased) opinion. Arts organizations in Toronto are surely quaking today. Hopefully many of them have been making plans based on this possibility, because they can be sure sure to lose most, if not all, of their funding if Ford gets his way. It amazes me how people think this is such a huge waste of their tax dollars. Do you know how much Toronto currently spends per capita on the arts? THIRTEEN DOLLARS. Yes, that's right: $13 of your hard-earned money goes to support the arts. How much do you spend on coffee in a week? Or on take-out meals? Or anything else. You can't afford $13 per year to support thousands of artists and workers in arts organizations that bring in millions of dollars to Toronto's economy not only through ticket sales, but through hotels and restaurants as well? An article in the Star says that Pantalone and Smitherman both hoped to raise that spending to $25 per year. San Francisco, to compare one city to another, spends $86 per year on the arts. Yet Toronto, for example, is the third-largest centre for English-speaking theatre in world, behind only New York City and London.
Toronto will host World Pride Day in 2014, just a few months before the next mayoral election. Can anyone picture Rob Ford riding on a float in the Pride parade? Me neither. With the cuts that he surely wants to make to their funding, the entire experience will likely be embarrassing. However, I have faith in the Pride Week organizers, and I'm sure they'll find a way to get around the whole "bigoted mayor" thing.

I am not completely terrified of Rob Ford as mayor - just yet. I admittedly do not know much about those who have been elected as councillors, and so I don't know how much of his mandate he will really be able to pass. It could be - as many have speculated - that we'll have gridlock until the next election. Not that four years of a stalemate is a good thing, either, as we've seen in our years of minority federal governments, but at least it may mitigate the damage Ford will likely do. With any sort of luck, we can all just look back on the Rob Ford experience in four years as an amusing anecdote, and let the grownups go back to running the city.

An Evening in Yorkville

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 02:52:00 +0000

I used to work at Bloor St and Avenue Rd in Toronto, but that was a long time ago. It's been over six years since I spent a lot of time down there. If this tells you anything, I can count on two hands the number of times I've ridden the subway since we returned to Canada in 2008.

Truthfully, I preferred it when I worked further downtown. At least there I could afford to shop! In Yorkville (as the area around Bloor and Avenue is called) the stores are more Chanel and Versace than Wal-Mart and Dollar Giant. Being near the Eaton's Centre was great. I liked being within walking distance of the SkyDome (you can call it the Rogers Centre from now until Kingdom come, but it will always be the SkyDome to me!) and the Mirvish empire known as the "Entertainment District". I just love the feel of that area of Toronto.

But that being said, the one time of year that it's cool to be in Yorkville is during the Toronto International Film Festival, commonly referred to as "TIFF." During TIFF the entire area changes and starts dripping with celebrities. My big story from TIFF was always in 2002, when I saw Nick Nolte eating lunch at an outside cafe outside the Club Monaco store on Bloor. I went back to my office and was talking to a coworker who also saw him, and we both agreed that he looked like one of the homeless guys who sleep on the back ledges of the Club Monaco store. A few days later a certain famous photo of him was taken:

Tonight, for the first time in seven years, I wandered around Yorkville during TIFF. I was only there for about an hour, and it was the wrong time of day for celebrity-spotting. In fact, the most exciting thing I saw was - I think - Jon Hamm. And I've never watched Mad Men, so not all that exciting for me.

So, I had a lot of time for observations, and here are the ones that I remember:

Walking around Yorkville during TIFF, everyone looks like they could be somebody. 90% of them, aren't.
There are a lot of Escalades with tinted windows during TIFF.
During TIFF, I think that the population of Toronto (usually around 2.5 million) becomes much closer to the population of New York City (around 8.5 million). Seriously, I have not seen so many people crowded on to one section of sidewalk since the last time I was in Manhattan.
No offense to my American friends, but it is SO easy to tell the Americans when you're walking around Yorkville right now.
I don't like cigar bars. This has nothing to do with TIFF, but I just didn't like the giant cloud of smelly cigar smoke that got puffed into my face.
I did not see Ben Affleck. Despite being told that he's a jackass, I'm still disappointed.
I also did not see Ben Mulroney, despite hanging around a building with ETalk logos all over it.
I do miss being in Toronto. Hopefully as my kids get older it will be easier for me to just go and hang out again the way that I used to. Roger Ebert has made me a fan for life with the way he's been tweeting Toronto's praises in the past couple of days.

So that's it! My random thoughts after a brief evening in Yorkville. Anyone else have TIFF experiences or thoughts to share?

Terror Suspect Auditioned for Canadian Idol

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:03:00 +0000

You've probably heard this story by now, but if not, you can read about it here. But even though it's all over the news, to the point where "Canadian Idol" is actually trending on Yahoo (and it hasn't been on the air in two years) I thought I'd post about it anyway. After all, if it's even remotely connected to Ben Mulroney, you'll find it here!

Yes, I know, the Ben thing is getting old... I just can't help myself... it's hypnotic...

Speaking of hypnotic, here's the video... you know you want to watch it...

I swear, I'm not making fun of terrorism. I'm just making fun of this guy. You know you want to see him doing the Robot while singing (I use that term loosely) Avril Lavigne.

I read that he's actually a doctor. Anyone else think he must've lost a bet and that's why he had to do that audition? Like, "Dude, I bet you I can do backflips all the way across this room!"

"No, you can't, Dude!"

"I can! I can totally do backflips across the room!"

"I bet you can't. If you can't do backflips all the way across the room, you have to go and audition for Canadian Idol and do the Robot on national television!"

I'm right. You know I am.

Ben Reproduces! Twice!

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:44:00 +0000

Okay, so the whole "30 Days of Ben Mulroney" thing was sort of tongue-in-cheek, BUT, since I may now have dedicated Ben fans watching this blog for all things Ben, I thought I should mention that Ben and his wife, Jessica, welcomed twin boys Brian Gerald Alexander and John Benedict Dimitri this morning. I don't have any other details, but first-time dad Ben is apparently over the moon:

"Both boys are healthy and beautiful,” said Mulroney. “Jessica is radiant and in great health and sprits. I am the happiest man alive."

ETalk Daily is, of course, milking this for all its worth (I was about to make a breast milk joke here, but I'm thinking it might be crossing a line...) so they'll have all of the details tonight, and also "fatherly advice" from celebrity dads such as Tom Cruise and Peter Facinelli.

So... yeah... more Mulroney DNA in the world.... yeah... and two boys... that's a lot of future hair products...

Love Prevails

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:49:00 +0000

I was out at the gym last night. Yay me! But, of course that means I come home to the Twitter timeline from Hell. This time, it was okay, though.

Because everywhere in my timeline there were posts praising the court judgement against Prop H8 in California. From Ellen DeGeneres to the random moms that I follow, to friends I've known for years, it seemed everyone was happy. Of course, I'm guessing that if anyone WAS for Prop H8, then they weren't likely going to speak up too much anyway.

Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for five years now. It's just a fact of life. Our families haven't fallen apart. Our children haven't been "indoctrinated" and I doubt that anyone has been converted by "The Gay Agenda."

When will the H8ers realize that it's none of their business who other people love? Pierre Trudeau said so long ago that the government had no business in the nation's bedrooms. It has no business in the people's marriages, either. Let us marry (or divorce, as the case may be) who we want.

I don't know what will happen when this case in California goes to appeal (and I'm sure that it will), but I'm still hopeful that eventually California, and the rest of the US, will figure out that it is so much easier to love than it is to hate. Hate takes up way too much energy. Love only GIVES energy.

New Rules for Canada's Wireless Companies

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:49:00 +0000

I've been skeptical of cell phones for a long time. For one, I somehow always seem to get one where the reception is so bad that I'm constantly yelling to be heard, and saying, "What? What?? WHAT DID YOU SAY?!? Oh, forget it..."

Second is the cost of long-distance. I live in the GTA. It's a fact of life that the majority of us are commuters. The reasons, to my way of thinking, for having a cell phone are a) in case you have to call CAA on the side of the 401; and b) to call home to see if dinner will be ready and if you need to pick up garbage bags and arugula from the grocery store. So what good does a $20 per month plan do me if I double that easily in long distance charges? On my land line, I pay less than $30 per month for unlimited long distance anywhere in North America (in case, you know, I need to call someone in Arkansas.) On my cell, it's $0.35 per MINUTE. As in, for a five minute conversation, I just blew $1.75. Do that five times per week and you're looking at $8.75. Multiply that by 4 weeks per month and you've got $35. Plus HST. For 100 minutes of long distance. Hmmm...

Then, of course, there are those mysterious "System Access Fees" and the like. Basically a way of screwing over naive customers who think that they're REALLY paying on $30 per month for their cell phone plan. "Sure it's only $30, but the 'GOVERNMENT' makes us add that fee on." Uh-huh.

So yes, I am not a fan of cell phones. I have the most basic plan I can get with my crappy, horrible reception cell phone.

But truthfully, I want a better phone. I want a better plan. I want to be able to waste time on Twitter and Facebook ANY TIME THAT I WANT! I see all of these Tweets from UberTwitter and Tweetdeck, and I think, "That should be ME!" I have a random thought while out driving, and think "I have to remember to Tweet this - WHEN I get to a computer." It's not fair, people!

I have been with my cell phone carrier for over two years now of a three-year contract. I am eligible for a new phone. I buoyantly went into the store and drooled over the shiny, colourful screens and QWERTY keyboards, ready to fork over a much smaller sum than I would have paid six months ago for a new phone. Except then I was told I had to sign ANOTHER three-year contract to get it. And I don't want to do that.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that the Canadian government is making an attempt to rein in the major cell phone companies. However, rather than being accused of being heavy-handed, they're doing, well, not a lot. Don't hold your breath unless you have the lung capacity of David Blaine or something.

The government has encouraged "self-regulation" in the industry. The companies have adopted a Code of Conduct and are funding an "independent" Commissioner of Complaints for Telecommunications Services. Woo hoo. That will work about s well as the doctors who work for the insurance companies in the US, I'm betting.

Quebec, on the other hand, is escaping my wrath this time: they're actually DOING something. They're restricting companies from being able to charge HUGE cancellation fees for ending a contract early. They will be limited to charging the amount of discounts for inexpensive phones given to the customer. If you didn't receive a cheap phone as an incentive, the limit for termination is $50. Contracts also can't be changed mid-stream without giving the customer 30 days notice, and allowing them to terminate the contract without penalty.

The wireless whiners, though, are complaining bitterly, and threatening not to bring the latest phones into Quebec.

You can read more about the changes here.

Speak to Me...

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:53:00 +0000

Do you have those song lyrics? You know, the ones where it doesn't even matter how much you like the song overall, but just one line of a song really speaks to you, and you always remember it?

I have a few:

From "Come on Get Higher" by Matt Nathanson

So come on get higher, loosen my lips
Faith and desire with a swing of your hips
Just pull me down hard and drown me in love

From "Everything" by Michael Buble

And I can't believe, that I'm your man
And I get to kiss you baby just because I can.

From "Woman" by John Lennon

Woman, I know you understand,
The little child inside the man.

From "You've Got to be Carefully Taught" from South Pacific

You've got to be taught to hate and fear,
You've got to be taught from year to year,
It's got to be drummed in your deaf little ear,
You've got to be carefully taught.

From "Rose's Turn" from Gypsy

Why did I do it?
What did it get me?
Scrapbooks full of me in the background.
Give 'em love and what does it get ya?
What does it get ya?
Thanks a lot and out with the garbage.
They take bows and you're battin' zero.

A more recent one that strikes me is the chorus from "Airplanes" by B.O.B.

Can we pretend that airplanes in the night sky
Are like shooting stars.
'cause I could really use a wish right now...

I think that one speaks to me specifically because of the times we're in. I don't know anyone who doesn't feel like that: I could really use a wish right now. No matter how many times we remind ourselves of the things we have to be grateful for, there are so many things to be fearful of, or to be, frankly, depressed about. Sometimes we're just looking for that ray of optimism.

What are some of the lyrics that speak to you? I'm sure I have more - maybe I'll do a part two to this entry, but in the meantime, share them with me!

If I Had 50 Million Dollars...

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:29:00 +0000

Well, I guess my husband will have to wait a little longer for his TARDIS-inspired media room. On the upside, so will all of the other Dr. Who geeks out there. No one won the $50 million Lotto Max jackpot last night, although 30 people are $1 million richer today, from the MaxMillions prizes. Not me, though.

What is it about lotteries that draws us in? We know the odds. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that they're more likely to have a rhinoceros end up in their living room than to win a big lotto prize, and yet we still try. As I said to my husband last night, the odds are a zillion to one, but if you don't play, they're zero.

Still, I feel pretty foolish today for wasting money last night on tickets. Not a ton, but still... a waste. So why?

Truthfully, I think we pay for the dreams. Is there anyone who doesn't have long conversations about what they'd do with the money? First, starting with all of your philanthropic goals, to absolve any guilt for the big houses, vacations and new cars and vehicles that you plan for after that. These days, especially, it just gives you a sense of hope that things can get better. Most people I've talked to, even though they dream about what they could do with $50 million, say that they'd be happy to just win enough to pay off debts, go on a vacation, have a little luxury in their lives. For so many of us right now, compared to what we may have known before, luxury is a distant memory. Hopefully, a little dreaming is enough for now.

Heartbreaking Video of the Oil Spill

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:08:00 +0000

I admit it: I am an avoider. I avoid reading about issues that I know are going to upset me. I hate feeling helpless. If it makes me angry, fine, I'll read all about it, but if it's just plain sad, even with a little anger mixed in, I'll sometimes avoid an issue until I just can't anymore. I've done that with the oil spill.

Then the other day I watched a slide show of photos of marine birds, covered in oil, completely mired in, dying as surely as if they were covered in cement.

Today I came across this video of an AP reporter, Rich Matthews, scuba diving in the Gulf. It's a worthwhile piece, and I hope you'll watch it. You can read his account of it here.

Sale & Pelletier to Divorce

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:02:00 +0000

Jamie Sale & David Pelletier had one of the most famous "Love Story"s of the 2000's, but apparently it's coming to an end. The two skaters, who famously were awarded a second Olympic gold medal for pairs figure skating in 2002 captivated audiences worldwide. Those same audiences were thrilled to learn that the skaters were a couple off-ice, as well.

Sale & Pelletier married 4.5 years ago, and have one son, Jesse, who turns 3 in September. They say that they will continue to skate together professionally. They have been living apart for the past 18 months.

Mississauga or Abu Ghraib?

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:39:00 +0000

According to The Star, employees of Mississauga's transportation and works department were tied up with duct tape, spanked until they were bruised and humiliated, at the behest of a supervisor for over five years. The Ministry of Labour and Peel Region Police did nothing after viewing a videotape of one of the attacks. Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion admits that the city knew about the video back in 2009. Investigations were conducted by the MOL, police and by the city, and "action" was taken by the city, but the supervisor, Domenic Galamini was NOT fired. McCallion declined to specify what action was taken by the city.

In the words of SNL's Seth Myers and Amy Poehler: "REALLY?" Physical and psychological TORTURE of employees isn't a fireable offense? What the heck do you have to do to get fired from there? "Well, no one was actually killed..."

It's international news and people are jailed when American soldiers do it in an Iraq prison, but a supervisor doing this to his employees in a major North American city is worthy of what? A suspension? A note on his record?

This is why government employees (and unions) have such a bad reputation. I mean seriously - use some damned logic, people!

A Response to the SATC 2 Reviewers (I'm Looking at YOU, Roger Ebert!)

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:34:00 +0000

This past Wednesday night my friend, Janice, and I headed into Toronto to see a preview of Sex and the City 2. I had won tickets from the tv network Slice and so we were two of about 400 or so who got to view the movie in advance of its opening today. Most were contest winners from a couple of radio stations, some were media types.

I said to Janice as we were going in that it was blindingly obvious who the movie reviewers were: middle-aged white men in sport coats, looking like they were going to their execution.

I can't really blame them: Sex and the City is just not something that most straight men will ever understand. I'm sure I would have the same look on my face if someone tried to get me to watch Fight Club.

I enjoyed the movie. I imagine that most of the women in the audience did. Honestly, why would they have gone if they didn't already know that they enjoyed the series and the earlier movie? I didn't love the movie. There were parts that bugged me immensely: at the beginning, Carrie made me want to reach out and strangle her, whining about how Big wanted to spend the night at home, sitting in a chair staring at him like there wasn't a single thing to do in a glamourous - if somewhat user-unfriendly, in my opinion - Manhattan apartment. They eat out or eat take-out every night? Seriously? How can someone possibly be that spoiled? So, the movie already had a bit of a climb to dig out of that hole, about ten minutes in. Don't even get me started on Charlotte wearing white vintage Valentino while baking with two little girls.

However, as a general rule, I don't watch SATC for its intricate plot points, its statements on modern life or its moral values; I watch SATC for pure escapism, and this is where most of the reviewers and I differ.

Film critics - like theatre critics - are an interesting bunch. Every once in a while you get one who can accept a movie for just being fun, but that's rare. They want a "film", not a movie. There has to be some deeper meaning to all of it. They want to be intellectually stimulated (or just to be fooled into feeling intellectually stimulated). Absurdist comedies? That's okay. Heavy drama that makes you want to slit your wrist into your popcorn? Excellent - bring it on! Lifestyle porn for women? What's the "point" of it all?

And "lifestyle porn" is what SATC was created for. Yes, most of the women watching like to picture themselves as one of the characters (almost everyone claims to be a "Carrie", by the way), but for the thirty minutes of the tv show, or the 2.5 hours of the movie (and yes, even I think that's a bit ridiculous) you get to escape the reality of your own life. I don't know anyone who lives in an apartment like the ones in which Charlotte and Carrie live. I don't even know anyone with a house in Brooklyn like Miranda's. I sure as Hell don't know anyone with a hot, young movie star ex-boyfriend who gets invited to stay in a beyond luxury hotel in Abu Dhabi with a personal butler for each guest, just for the sake of a little PR. And, sadly, I've never been to a gay wedding officiated by Liza Minelli. A girl can dream, though.

Most of the reviews that I've read take issue with the "obscene" materialism of the movie. In real life, I would agree with them. It would be completely sickening, and I doubt that many real life women would enjoy hanging out with these characters. Most of us couldn't afford to! Watching them, though, is like picturing yourself glorious clothes and shoes that magically appear at just the right time, beautiful scenery that most of us will never see first-hand (even if it's actually Morocco standing in for the UAE) and having a butler fondly called "Paula Abdul".

And yes, men are always objectified in the movies. They were an abundance of package shots that had absolutely nothing to do with shopping. You know what? Good! For the amount of nudity that women do in every other movie on the planet not produced by Pixar, why can't men show a little skin (and er, other things...)? Why is it that women aren't allowed to have sexual thoughts? Do we all have to fit into the whole Virgin, Madonna, and Crone molds?

So Roger Ebert, I know that you feel you wasted your time in that movie. Did you really expect anything different, though? Why not just simply write a review saying "There was no way that I was going to like this movie. I can't objectively review it. If you enjoy Sex and the City you're going to go anyway, and if you don't, you won't."

And to Lindy West, does every movie have to be about your version of feminism? "essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls"? Really? Because that isn't offensive at all. Why isn't it okay for women to be offended by and curious about women wearing burkas? We're just supposed to assume that they wear them (in that kind of heat!) out of their own free will? Do you really think that every woman wearing a veil is doing it because she WANTS to? Are the writers and producers of SATC playing with fire a bit by "going there"? Probably, but how many of us wouldn't be fascinated by a woman having to lift her veil just to put every bite of food in her mouth? Those of us who grew up with the ability to choose our own clothing, including how much skin to show, have every right to wonder how another woman can enjoy life like that.

Oh, and Ms. West? The "c-word" is never appropriate. EVER. So when you write thing like "SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it's my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car" you offend me WAY more than any spoiled rich girl ever could.

The Last Five Years

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Wed, 26 May 2010 12:39:00 +0000

Back in April, my friend Lisa came for a visit. We don't get to see each other very often, even though she's my best friend from university and I miss her dreadfully when she's not around. She's one of those people who honestly just make me happy by their very presence. She told me about a show happening in Toronto in May, and that I had to see it with her.

Theatre is still my first love, but I rarely get to indulge myself anymore. When she decided it was my birthday present and she was taking me, I couldn't say no.

So last week I drove down to the Toronto Centre for the Arts. There, in the studio theatre, a new company called Angelwalk Theatre was presenting their second show: The Last Five Years by Jason Robert Brown.

It was everything Lisa told me it was: touching, sad, funny - altogether just a really good show. It's a two-hander: not something I'm used to seeing in musicals. It tells the story of a relationship from beginning to end, and from end to beginning all at once. Cathy tells her side of the story from the end and works backwards; Jamie tells his from the beginning to the end. The only song they sing together is "The Next Ten Minutes", which comes at the very middle of the show and shows their wedding.

Of course, I'm late now in posting this, since the show ended last weekend, but I wanted to congratulate Angelwalk Theatre on a great show, and encourage any GTA theatre-goers to check them out next season. If their next shows are as good as this one you'll be in for a wonderful evening.

In the meantime, here's a clip of the actress, Sherie-Rene Scott, who portrayed Cathy in the off-Broadway production, singing the song that's been stuck in my head since last Thursday night. The soundtrack is available, and I really recommend checking it out.

A Man and His Pickle...

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:41:00 +0000

I have to get this out somewhere or I'll burst!

I was in the grocery store this morning. My son and I walked around the corner of an aisle and there were two men, probably in their late 20s, with this ENORMOUS jar of pickles. They were holding it up and discussing how big it was, and joking about it being too heavy for the one guy to lift.

It took EVERYTHING in my being to keep my mouth shut. The number of pickle jokes that went running through my head was astonishing. Somehow I didn't know if random strange men would appreciate a 30-something mom making jokes about their pickles.

So since I (surprisingly) managed to hold it in there, I'm letting a few of them rip now. Feel free to add your own!

You know what they say about men with big pickles...
Is it really a good idea to display your pickles like that?
I've never really liked my pickles that sour.
At least you're not comparing pickles.
A pickle in the hand is worth two in the jar.
You men, all you ever think about is the size of your pickles.

All right, I've forgotten some since then, but still! It was REALLY hard! (Hey, just like the pickles!)

Toronto in the 1920s and 1930s

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Tue, 11 May 2010 17:05:00 +0000

I'm looking for stories about Toronto in the early 20th century, preferably 1920-1950. I'll take links, original stories from those who were there, whatever. It's for a project I want to start working on. Photos are always great, too.

You can comment here, or send email to eighthcyn@gmail.com

Thanks!

More on Harper's Vendetta Against Women

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Tue, 11 May 2010 00:37:00 +0000

I try not to just copy and paste articles as a general rule, but this one, from the Guelph Mercury, is worth reading.

Confused about federal take on women’s health

So, the Harper Government decided not to open up the abortion issue and allow debate. How surprising.
It didn’t want to open up a can of worms and embarrass its members. Refusing to fund international programs that fund abortions puts women’s lives at risk and is fundamental to the issue of maternal health. Thousands of women die every year from botched abortions. Let alone the number of women who die during and after child birth, because they do not have access to medical care.

Whatever your view, women who seek abortions will find a way to have one. The real issue is whether that abortion is a safe one. We can argue forever on whether it is ethical. There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. But the issue is women’s maternal health and reproductive rights.

Canada’s stance is confusing. Canada’s public health care funds access to abortions, but the country denies that access internationally. Canada ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, back in 1980. That convention guarantees women’s reproductive rights including access to safe abortions. The United States is taking an opposite stance. The U.S. never ratified the convention. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it clear that maternal health includes access to safe abortions. President Obama’s National Health Care Plan does not include public funding of abortions. But America will fund it internationally, as will the other G8 countries. So, why is our government taking this stance?

Abortion is an issue few want to talk about and it is politically dangerous. It’s a topic that is emotionally charged and many people see it as black and white. Instead of seeing it as a health issue, many people will let their religion decide what side they are on. But the facts speak for themselves. There is compelling evidence that where there are broad legal grounds to safe abortions mortality among women is considerably reduced. Currently, according to the World Health Organization, 300,000 mothers die a year during pregnancy and childbirth, and thousands more die of botched abortions. Furthermore, according to the WHO, if barriers to safe abortions and abortion services are removed more maternal lives will be saved. Clearly, access to safe and legal abortions should be part of the goal of maternal health. Has the federal government followed the same path as our Ontario government on the safe sex curriculum and caved into pressure from religious groups?

There have been recent successes in overturning strict abortion laws in some countries. Mexico and Nepal overturned strict abortion laws even against political and religious opposition. Canadian and international human rights groups are surprised and disappointed with our government’s stance. According to a recent article in the Globe and Mail, Canada is getting failing grades on issues of human rights. I am saying human rights because women’s rights are human rights.

The problem is that international human rights groups have been critical of the Harper government, and groups that are critical lose their funding. As we know, this government does not respond well to criticism. It would rather shut down parliament and end debate rather than face criticism. In this case, it is the funding of international programs that support reproductive rights. Like women who seek abortions, these programs will be funded anyway from other more progressive countries — mainly the United States and European countries. I find it shameful and sad that Canada is now not considered progressive. This Conservative party got rid of that word and have to appease their backsliding origins. These backward world views do not match with the rest of the world, and what we need to do to improve the human condition. There are thousands of unwanted pregnancies due to sexual violence and these women do not have access to safe abortions and are at risk. If this conservative government is truly concerned with maternal health, then it should put its money where its mouth is.

Judith Sainsbury is a member of the Guelph Mercury Community Editorial Board.

RIP Lena Horne

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Mon, 10 May 2010 13:59:00 +0000

I was truly sad this morning to hear about the passing of Lena Horne. I'm not a huge jazz fan by any means, but I did love her voice.

She joined the chorus at the famous Cotton Club at the age of 16. She later moved to Hollywood and eventually starred in movies such as Cabin in the Sky and Stormy Weather. She found herself blacklisted, though, during the McCarthy era, and returned to her nightclub roots, also releasing many albums. She was an activist in the Civil Rights Movement, as well.

There are a lot of more thorough obituaries out there right now where you can read more about her. She's actually quite fascinating. I have a feeling that many people of my generation will remember her mostly from this, though.

Shout Out Louder!

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Sun, 09 May 2010 15:05:00 +0000

Today is Shout the F**k Up Day, according to a group on Facebook. I think it's about time. Today, as well as being Mother's Day (happy Mother's Day to meeeeeeee...) is also the 50th anniversary of the FDA approving "the pill" for use as birth control. It's ironic the way that the current government has been working to take away women's rights.

Conservatives deny it's happening. They say we shouldn't be funding abortion in other countries anyway, citing laws in many of these countries make abortion illegal. This ignores the fact that it's not illegal in ALL of the countries that the G8 is trying to help.

Funding cuts are affecting everyone, they say, not just women's groups, and if new rules created by this government make it easier to deny funding to certain groups, that's just a coincidence. If the Toronto Pride Parade loses it's funding, it's because it's such a big event that it can stand on its own two feet. The Calgary Stampede (which has been around since 1886, by the way) obviously can't.

What does the Pride parade have to do with women's rights? Truthfully, it has everything to do with women's rights now, because the Tories are just showing again that if you're not a white, middle- or upper-class man, they just don't care about you.

The claim this week is that this government has done more to promote safety than any other, and apparently that's what women care about. We don't care about abortion rights at home or abroad, they told us. We don't care about groups promoting women's equality, or protecting women from violence. Isn't it good that they told us that? Because obviously we don't know what we care about without Stephen Harper telling us. And the claim about safety? This is the same government that's trying to dismantle the gun registry, despite a coalition of police officers and chiefs telling them that they want and need it.

Stephen Harper, you do NOT speak for me, and you have no idea what I care about, but I will not STFU just to avoid further backlash. I will use every last breath that I have to keep shouting the f**k up. I am a mother, a daughter and a woman, and there is nothing "fringe" about that.

But what if she [CENSORED]???

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Tue, 04 May 2010 03:40:00 +0000

The publication ban in the Tori Stafford murder trial (which I suppose should really be referred to as the trial of the woman accused of her murder, but I'd prefer not to use her name) has me a little perplexed. I'm not a journalist, so I'm not in the "freedom of the press!" camp. Personally I think that freedom gets taken a little too far sometimes, but I also wouldn't want it taken away.

I also remember the publication ban in Karla Homolka's plea bargin, leading up to Paul Bernardo's trial. There is still so much anger across Canada, but especially in southern Ontario, about that plea bargain (AKA "The Deal with the Devil" for my US readers) that I think for a lot of us this is bringing up some very bad memories.

Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy were my age. In fact, Kristen French was born just over two weeks after me. Her abduction and murder was a source of terror for girls my age in 1992. I doubt that there is a girl my age who didn't feel anger, fear, sadness, and so many other emotions over that case. When Karla Homolka was released from prison in 2005 it brought back all of the anger that she had gotten such a "sweet deal" from the prosecution.

And so, seeing the woman in this couple, both charged with first-degree murder, and apparently being tried first, having a similar publication ban imposed on her court proceedings, it is hard not to see the parallels. We don't know why the ban is there. We don't know what's going on in those proceedings (although apparently it's fairly common knowledge in Woodstock, Ontario where the trial is going on). It could be that there's a perfectly logical reason for this ban. I don't really trust the newspapers in their outrage: they have obvious motivation for their righteous indignation. It's possible that they are right, but for most of the general public it's impossible to know, and it's unsettling, to say the least.

No one wants to see another Deal with the Devil. All we can do right now, though, is wait and see, and hope it's not too late by the time that the ban is lifted.

Mr. Rogers is EVIL???

noreply@blogger.com (Cyn) — Sun, 02 May 2010 00:53:00 +0000

I must thank Roger Ebert (whose Tweets I enjoy mightily @ebertchicago ) for pointing this out to me. It's apparently an oldie, but still amusingly asinine, clip from good ol' Fox News.

Yes, it's Mr. Rogers' fault that the current generation has a sense of entitlement. God forbid anyone think that they're special just because of who they are. Just wait until you see the response from "Nancy" in Tallahassee. Apparently it's not just Mr. Rogers who ruined children's lives!