Particularly offensive advertising

I've long been puzzled by a particular advertising strategy: the one in which the advertiser purports to know about someone's life and/or history - specifically, your Dad's. Buick used this strategy, claiming to have been "your father's car", thus appealing to a sense of tradition and brand loyalty. Great: I should ignore consumer reports and recall records, and blindly buy a car just because my Dad supposedly did. Actually, he did own a few Buicks. He also owned some Pontiacs, an endless stream of Fords, and later, Toyotas and Hondas. The Buick years are not remembered fondly for reliability and maintenance-free driving.

Another advertising offender was Canadian Club, which was supposedly my Dad's drink of choice. That annoying ad strategy is back today, appearing on Facebook. The ad says:

"Your Dad Rocked.
He did what he wanted, when he wanted. Follow his lead."

I'm then urged to become a fan of Canadian Club.

Who comes up with this shit? Hey, "idea people": you don't know dick-all about my Dad. My Dad is a great guy, but he never struck me as "doing what he wanted, when he wanted". He was much too busy working and helping my Mom raise six kids. How are we not supposed to feel excluded when advertisers create this Dad-stereotype which doesn't fit the image that probably the majority of the population have of their Dads? And how are we supposed to feel about being excluded?

Stereotype-Dad played football in high school, graduated university, probably married his high-school sweetheart, and lives in a big house with a white picket fence. If there is a photo of stereotype-Dad, he is white. (I could never shake the feeling that stereotype-Dad was part of a university fraternity that didn't admit blacks or Jews, and if that's the image I have, the advertising idea people can blame themselves - it's their own contrived image.) My own Dad, on the other hand, had his Mother die when he was a baby, was on his own and out working for a living before his mid-teens, was put in a prison camp during WWII, joined the army to fight for Canada when he was permitted, and met my Mother when his army buddy brought him home during the war. So excuse me if I have trouble picturing my Dad when I see these stupid ads.

You know what? My Dad does rock: for loving me unconditionally, for raising me with a sense of security, for making all the sacrifices he did for family, and for teaching me to always persevere. These are the things I will always remember about my Dad. Fuck the whiskey and luxury cars.

Yet another international incident *unrelated* to terrorism

It was all over the news on Friday: a Qantas jumbo jet flying over the South China Sea makes an emergency landing in the Philippines after explosive decompression. Upon landing, a large hole is discovered on the underside of the plane, from the cargo hold. From the Toronto Star's article, here is the fourth paragraph:

"An official at the US Transportation Security Administration, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident was not domestic, said initial reports show it was not related to terrorism."

I found this mention jarring. It was an interesting piece of news, but the possibility of terrorism had not entered my mind. Is it foremost on the minds of most Canadians? Media have a responsibility and obligation to give the public information relevant to every story, and to answer our questions. So if most people are indeed thinking of terrorism when they read stories like this, then the mention is appropriate.

Nowadays, however, media are increasingly being accused of trying to shape public opinion by manipulating both what gets reported and how it is fed to the public. It is not a stretch to say that most media are guilty of editorializing throughout papers or tv programs (which is why I no longer make a point of reading/watching the editorial pages/programs).

I write about this now because for me, this is the third time in recent memory that an accident headline has been closely followed by the mention of "no terrorism". This, in itself, can be manipulative - putting terrorism in the minds of ordinary Canadians and making it the first thing we think about in every news incident. If you pay attention to this issue, governments worldwide - including, of course, the Bush and Harper governments - have been pushing this angle to make it easier to sell their citizens on increased military spending and extended occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

For trauma victims, new trauma can indeed renew memories of their past trauma. So in the two recent incidents in NYC, in which construction cranes collapsed, citizens near to the disasters were reported to have feared the worst when they heard a big crash. But for most of us, I don't think this is the case... unless the government and media propaganda is getting through to us.

Omar Khadr: an issue not of guilt or innocence, but of the right to justice

Saturday's rally in Toronto for Omar Khadr was a success. It drew a large and diverse crowd, despite some heavy rain and a severe thunderstorm watch. It was nice to see the Muslim community so well represented, as they are the community being targeted worldwide, but it made me feel good to see so many non-Muslims out in support. And as speeches by a number of prominent speakers finished, the sun came out to dry everyone off and we marched in a circle up and down the sidewalk on University Avenue, opposite the US consulate, while passing drivers honked in support.

I've seen the usual conservative opposition to bringing Khadr back to Canada from Guantánamo. The most vocal opponents are, of course, the bigots and those who think immigrants to Canada are all criminals (these people have clearly never looked into the immigration point process to see how difficult it can be to come and live here). But there is also a segment of the population which thinks that Khadr doesn't deserve support because his family have been painted in the mainstream media as pro al-qaeda.

One of the speakers summed up the problem very concisely and eloquently; I hope I do him justice as I paraphrase. The point is this: in a free and democratic country, justice is not reserved for those we like. Are you listening, Mr. Harper?

I don't know whether Khadr is guilty of the allegations claimed by the US authorities. I only know that he will not get a fair trial through the kangaroo court system set up by the US military and the Bush administration. Harper wants Khadr to rot in Guantánamo; he is the youngest inmate there, and Canada is the only country which has not obtained release for its prisoner(s) there.

Some Canadians still think of countries in the middle east as barbaric places where there is no democracy, freedom, or human rights. Yet Bush and Harper have made the US and Canada into places where those things have been violated. If we continue to allow Harper to be Bush's lap dog, if we sit at home and say nothing, if we don't speak out against these wrongs and these atrocities, then we need to stop thinking of Canada as a better, free and democratic place.

Enjoy life.

My frequent and numerous calls for justice come from a desire for peace, kindness, compassion, and happiness for victims - and for all of us. That said, I balance my activism with as many positives as possible. I would hope that everyone would. Take a break. Laugh loudly and often.

Accordingly, here is a brilliant and inspiring little video, passed on to me by my Spanish teacher, Abdel. The guy in the video has a website too. Enjoy!

What we miss, because we live in Canada

Ok, so it's not that I didn't know Bill O'Reilly was a wingnut. But I hadn't known the depth of it. In surfing links from friends' blogs, I just came across mediamatters.org, and these choice quotes (just a selected few of many):

• On the September 13, 2005, broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "many of the poor in New Orleans" did not evacuate the city before Hurricane Katrina because "[t]hey were drug-addicted" and "weren't going to get turned off from their source." O'Reilly added, "They were thugs."

• On the August 16, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly argued extensively for "profiling of Muslims" at airports, arguing that detaining all "Muslims between the ages of 16 and 45" for questioning "isn't racial profiling," but "criminal profiling."

• During the September 19 [, 2007] edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's, a famous restaurant in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful," adding: "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." Later, during a discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams about the effect of rap on culture, O'Reilly asserted: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."

Holy shit. I'm having Margaret Wente and Christie Blatchford over for tea, and to give them fucking tolerance awards.

Mormons get dragged into the 21st century...

... kicking and screaming.



A firefighter-style calendar featuring shirtless mormons has created controversy in the mormon community (surprise!). Does their bible state that men can't pose in calendars? Are they not allowed to take their shirts off? Are mormon women not allowed to view their husbands as sex symbols when they make love? Are mormons only allowed to take personality into consideration when choosing a mate?

Oh well. There's no stopping progress...

Good news and bad news, as your Prime Minister continues to ignore democracy...

As part of a day of action across Canada, I took part in a war resisters demonstration this evening. In Toronto, we formed a human chain along University Avenue, all the way from Queen Street to the US consulate. I'm keen to hear an estimate of the numbers who turned out; standing as part of a human chain, you can't really get a feel for how large the crowd was. But it was clear to me that there is a lot of support for the cause, as indicated by the numbers of passing drivers honking horns - especially taxi drivers. Well - that, and the consistent evidence from polls which show that a clear majority of Canadians want the war resisters to be allowed to stay in Canada.

I was worried that a lot of people who had planned to come out for the demo would bail at the last minute, as word spreads that Corey Glass - whose imminent deportation was scheduled for tomorrow - has had his deportation stayed indefinitely so his appeal can be heard. The demo and the fight are no less urgent as news also spreads that war resister Robin Long has been imprisoned and is to be deported, possibly as soon as Monday. So it was great to see such a good turnout.

Our scumbag of a Prime Minister is still playing from the Bush rule book, defying the will of the people and pretending he hasn't heard of democracy. He has a mandate to implement the motion, as passed in the House of Commons, to allow the war resisters to stay.

Once again, please call and remind Harper to do the right thing.
• Prime Minister Stephen Harper (613.992.4211, pm@pm.gc.ca)
• Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley (613.996.4974, finley.d@parl.gc.ca, finled1@parl.gc.ca).