Fifty shades of domestic abuse

— 02.08.2015 06:13 PM

Last night, my (feminist) partner and I went to see a movie.  The trailers came on, and one was for Fifty Shades of Grey, which has attracted no small amount of controversy.  When we got home, I looked up the plot on Wikipedia.  Here’s what I read:

“The tension between Ana and Christian eventually comes to a head after Ana asks Christian to punish her…Christian fulfills Ana’s request, beating her with a belt.”

That’s how the thing ends, apparently.  Sound like entertainment to you? Me neither.

Anyway, I tweeted this:

Which attracted a fair bit of agreement, but also this:

FullSizeRender

I thought that was an idiotic comment, and suggested the author do PR for Jian Ghomeshi. She responded that I was “cheap and uninformed.” That may be so, but I got curious about my correspondent. So I went looking, and here’s what I found:

FullSizeRender copy 3

Wow. So I asked her this:

She didn’t respond. She did, however, delete her earlier tweets, in which she defended the beating of a woman with a belt.

Today’s NDP: still full of shit.


Comments (17)

Here is a question for those who still oppose combat against ISIS/ISIL

— 02.05.2015 11:21 AM

At what point, exactly, do you finally admit you were tragically, fundamentally, historically wrong?

(Reuters) – Islamic State militants are selling abducted Iraqi children at markets as sex slaves, and killing other youth, including by crucifixion or burying them alive, a United Nations watchdog said on Wednesday.

Iraqi boys aged under 18 are increasingly being used by the militant group as suicide bombers, bomb makers, informants or human shields to protect facilities against U.S.-led air strikes, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child said.

“We are really deeply concerned at torture and murder of those children, especially those belonging to minorities, but not only from minorities,” committee expert Renate Winter told a news briefing. “The scope of the problem is huge.”


Comments (73)

Somewhere, political war rooms are rejoicing

— 02.05.2015 08:39 AM

About this:

“Twitter is expected on Thursday to announce a new partnership with Google, clearing the way for tweets on the microblogging service to be easier to find on the world’s most popular search engine.

The deal, according to a person familiar with the matter, will give Google direct access to the hundreds of millions of tweets that flow through Twitter every day, and make it possible for tweets to more quickly appear in Google search results.”

The war roomers will be delighted that they will now be able to quickly locate stupid tweets made by their opponents, and disseminate them to grateful media organizations who cannot afford to cover campaigns like they used to.

And then the war roomers will remember that, um, their opponents will be able to do the same thing to them.

Ain’t politics grand?


Comments (4)

If you read any poll this year, read this one

— 02.04.2015 11:05 AM

My friends at Abacus have come up with the most fascinating survey – and the most important one – of this election year.  It will make you smile, and it will make you think.  Here it is summarized in three helpful bullets.  The link is below the graphic:

  • Stephen Harper will win if the big issues are the economy and the future
  • Justin Trudeau will win if the big issue is who is most likeable
  • Tom Mulcair will win if everyone needs to borrow a hundred bucks in a hurry

Screen Shot 2015-02-04 at 11.03.48 AM


Comments (40)

Being Walkom, being dumb

— 02.04.2015 08:22 AM

Quote:

“…the Liberals and NDP are running scared. They are so worried about Harper outmanoeuvring them in the public opinion polls that they are giving his fatally-flawed bill a pass. They think that will make us vote for them.”

Forget about the fact that lazily calling up a bunch of civil libertarians, and asking them about just about anything a government does, will always elicit a predictable response.  Forget about the fact that even a cursory review of Supreme Court decisions will strongly suggest that the anti-terror bill will pass constitutional muster.  Forget about the fact that public opinion – which, you know, Parliamentarians are asked to occasionally consider – is wholly supportive of measures to make civil society safer, and oppose genocide.

Forget about all that.  And consider that, on the very same day that Parliamentarians were starting to consider C-51, these things happened:

All. On. The. Same. Day.

I, for one, am happy to see that the Liberals and the New Democrats are starting the painful process of extracting their collective heads from their nether regions. I, for one, think the NDP and the LPC should be applauded for starting to consider that, you know, Harper may actually have had a point. Rhetorical bluster aside, (a) jihadist attacks really are becoming more frequent, (b) attacks are not confined any longer to the Middle East, and (c) sending over bags of rice, and nothing else, will never defeat ISIS/ISIL’s genocidal campaign.

Mr. Walkom is doing what columnists always accuse politicians of doing: he is fighting the last war.  He needs to pay attention to the current one.


Comments (15)

Sudbury speculative sweepstakes

— 02.04.2015 07:51 AM

Place your bets! Comments are open!

  1. NDP ahead by three points!
  2. Liberals ahead by four points!
  3. We don’t have a clue who is ahead, but we’re going to use up 804 words to give you the impression we know, when we actually don’t, not in the slightest!

My gut, which I have resolved to listen to more often, tells me that the Libs will win – solely and entirely due to the favourable impression folks have of Kathleen Wynne.

What’s your take? Speculate recklessly, without making recourse to facts! The pollsters certainly do, so why can’t you do likewise?


Comments (15)