Category: Politics

When is it time for me to throw my voice in?

By Katie Kish, September 14, 2009 10:08 am

Posts are coming in from all over the place about Justin, his man blog, CFI-Canada and democracy. As per usual Zak is an asshole (he’s usually an asshole, right…but an asshole), Joe breaks it down unbiased and sensible style and Gordo makes me want to pee my pants laughing so hard but at the same time hitting the nail on the head. But then there is Ian Bushfield, who as first you want to be like “hahahaha…” but then you’re like “haha..ha….h…….a…oh, that’s not funny at all, because it’s so true.” And then there is this new site….which is starting to look pretty interesting…

As the pres of the Freethought Association of Canada I really feel like I need to just stay out of all of it. But that’s not really true Katie Kish fashion, (but keep in mind these are my opinions, NOT FAC’s!!) despite the fact that Justin himself asked me to stay out of it. I think that really goes to show how problematic this all really is.

It breaks down to two issues, in my opinion. The first is the future and sustainability of The Center For Iquiry in Canada and the second is multi-cause leadership. …So here are my unedited (its getting late in the morning and I have a class to go to) thoughts about what is going on.

Zak points out that a democracy in CFI is pretty much a delusion and says this:

“So, until more people get involved and more money can be raised, it’s likely Justin won’t be going anywhere, nor should he since we don’t yet have anyone with the experience or dedication willing to replace him.”

There are a couple problems here. The first is that Justin isn’t the only person. As someone who worked for CFI I’ve seen a lot of people come and go. People who are dedicated, who don’t mind putting hours at a time into CFI and who would gladly take Justin’s spot coordinating CFI Ontario. He isn’t irreplaceable at CFI Ontario. I think in the media, he is pretty irreplaceable, but that’s just because Im terrified of writing for things like Holy Post and going on the Michael Coren show so in my eyes, anyone that does that is amazing.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again and again and again. There are people in Toronto who want to work for CFI, if given the chance, they would apply. But this is all besides a very important point. …Justin founded CFI Ontario 3 years ago. How many consistent volunteers are there? Why hasn’t he found people that can hold up CFI as a place? 3 years of being the leading secular voice in Canada is a long time. And while I’ve seen a lot of people get involved, I’ve seen just as many who would have been firm and solid volunteers leave because of the way CFI is run. If I talk to those people and ask if it is okay to use their names I’ll do a follow up something to back this point up.

The Center for Inquiry – Ontario is not sustainable right now. There aren’t enough volunteers to do stuff (when I was working there I had to pull teeth to get 2 or 3 people show up to help me with an event.), the actual building is a mess and does NOT look like a think tank organization’s major building in Canada should…, the structure doesn’t allow for democratic processes even for the board of directors and I’ve seen unanimous decisions by the CFI general volunteers completely overturned by Justin single handedly.

So you may ask “Well, Katie, if you’re so concerned why aren’t you there being one of the pillar volunteers that you think CFI really needs to be sustainable?”… Well imaginary question asker, I’ll tell you, as this is my point number 2.

Some causes are controversial and some are not. It takes a moron to not understand why one cause might be more controversial than an other. Because of the previous issue Justin is pretty much the only face of atheism in Canada. I’ve been on a few national media outlets, but Justin has been on them all. And this is amazing. He speaks for secularists (agnostics, atheists, secular humanists, freethinkers, …) on a regular basis on national media outlets regularly. Its been amazing, he’s given a face to secularists and our efforts in Canada. He’s also founded most of the major secular players in Canada and really rallied up the Campus groups. Woohoo!

So lets google, Mr. Trottier, to see ALL of his accomplishments! …What is this? He has a personal blog?! Cool!

What? … I can’t say it better than other people have:

“words like “whiny” and “complaining” are throwbacks to old gendered stereotypes about big mouthed bitches who don’t know their place.”

“About the quote mining do I really need to point Read moreout how intellectually dishonest it is?”

“I’m disappointed that at how ideologically driven your comments are especially considering that you are supposed to be the executive director of a secular humanist organization (CFI) that promotes critical thinking. Many of us have been having a hard time keeping CFI going in Canada in light of your misogynistic views Justin and we aren’t even the ones getting paid. I’d suggest that if this is really the path you want to follow that you do us a favour and resign for the good of the organization.”

Justin: If people who don’t like your views are leaving, and those who find your blog and agree and then follow to CFI join, doesn’t that tend toward an ideologically narrow CFI?”

“I’m not saying he can’t speak, but as head of an organization he has to understand that his words are damaging to the reputation of that organization. So if he wants to say these things, and remain head honcho of CFI, then he’ll need to accept that many may leave.”

A letter written by a previous volunteer on June 6th 2009:

Hello all, please read below.

“Among cancers which affect both sexes, men are 60% more likely to develop the disease and 70% more likely to die from it. “we were surprised to see such consistent differences.” “Gee, now why would men think their health less valuable than women? All they see are “Women’s hospitals”, immigrant women’s health buses paid for by the government, and the highly publicly funded Women’s Health Network? Shocking!Read more
and:
“Living in an epoch that is selfish as well as matriarchal, our lifeboats are no longer marked “women and children first,” only “women first.” We invent euphemisms, such as “choice” for killing, and sophomoric dilemmas, such as pretending not to know when life begins, to ensure that nothing hinders Virginia’s quest for Santa Claus. No obstacle must interfere with her goal of self-fulfillment — least of all an issue (as it were) of her healthy sexual appetite.
Some put the question in terms of a woman’s right to
her own body. That would be valid enough in the realm of smoking, diet, liposuction or sex — but abortion? Abortion means controlling someone elseRead more’s body. Incidentally, I realize that as a man I have no authority to speak on the matter, but I’m not speaking as a man. I wouldn’t dare. I’m speaking strictly as an ex-fetus.”

Heya. The above quotes are a sample of what Justin Trottier, spokesperson for CFI Canada, and also spokesperson for http://www.equalismactivism.com/, is posting on his facebook page.

I wanted to make you all aware that someone who speaks for CFI, an organization that promotes science and reason, is also speaking publicly in support of what I consider regressive, sexist positions and policies. In addition, we skeptics continually discuss possible ways to get women more involved in the skeptical community. I’m pretty sure this Read moreisn’t the best way to go about it. As most of you know, his outspoken positions are the primary reason why I’ve stepped away from formal association with CFI.

I support everyone’s right to free speech, and these samples are from Justin’s personal FB account, not a CFI forum. However, Equalism Activism is a public website with Justin’s picture on the home page. In an ideal world, people would be able to separate the two. It is not an ideal world. In fact, when you google Justin’s name, Equalism Activism is the second hit.

I’m not suggesting that any of you do anything about this, just that you be aware. If CFI Alberta becomes successful in its quest to be the one-stop critical thinking shop for this province, it will only be a matter of time until some intrepid reporter asks about CFI’s opinion on Justin’s positions. You should be ready for it.

In Skeptical Solidarity,

d

Aaaand more quotes:

“When people see, read, or hear about Justin, they think CFI, and vice versa. That`s basic branding. And this, then, is a PR nightmare for all of us.”

“This post illustrates exactly what’s wrong with this blog. This is a manipulative and misleading story (which isn’t surprising for the Star) which could have been exposed with about 10 minutes of research (which is how long it took me).”

“I think Justin needs to choose his cause. I agree that it is not good strategically to be heavily involved (let alone leading) two different activist causes, especially such controversial ones.”

I`m not sure how it could be, when the author of a blog allows the kinds of things in that Denis Prager post to remain on his blog, especially after it was repeatedly made clear to him that Prager is condoning marital rape, using highly sexist (against women AND men) stereotypes to `prove`his point. Justin, as the owner of the blog, is also the editor, yet he to this day has not even thought twice about the content of that post or any other. If you take a quick glance at almost all of the other posts Read morein that section, you will also see his penchant for picking and choosing quotes that seem to fit his ideological argument, and ignore the actual facts and or real life subtleties within them.”

Will: that was one of many posts where Justin’s use of citations/sources were called into question, along with his polemical misrepresentations of complex legal issues, see:

http://www.equalismactivism.com/?p=1067Read more
and
http://www.equalismactivism.com/?p=849

for just two examples.”

Now how about some of my favorite quotes from Justin’s blog… starting with women should have sex, even if they don’t want to, because…like…come on! its just like taking out the trash, man!

Allow me to summarise. In these two columns Dennis Prager presents the argument that a wife who cares about having a happy husband rethinks the idea that if she is not in the mood then that means she must not have sex. Prager shines a light on the differences between men and women, sex is far more important to men than it is to women and that a man knows his wife loves him by the fact that she has sex with him. Does mood always determine our actions? No. Are you always in the mood to get up and go to work in the morning? Are you ever in the mood to get up in the night and feed the baby? Take out the trash? Sometimes we have obligations to do things that we don’t feel like doing because they lead to good consequences down the road.”

This one makes me LOL, because we buy nothing for men…and so we have to pick, diamond rings and spoils or pay equality, not both.:

“She [justin's girlfriend] finished before me and while I was having my haircut completed, she was asked by the hairdresser if she wished to pay for herself or to wait. And the wink that followed was to mean that waiting would have the advantage that I, the male, would then be obliged to pay for both my haircut and that of my girlfriend’s. Tell me why women ought to have pay equality if they are to have purchased for them diamond rings, dinners and haircuts?”

Ya know what women! You man THINK you’re making progress! But really, its the men still making decisions for you! Mwa hahah…err. wait… isn’t that supposed to be teh OPPOSITE arguement of his blog:

“One last reminder to those feminists who like to pat themselves on the back and tell each other that they and they alone are responsible for women’s progress.  All 9 Justices deciding Roe V. Wade were male.”

I can’t read anymore of it….The truly sad thing is that Justin has some really important issues raised on his blog. Men face sexism. Men work in high risk jobs. Men need birth control. Men often get screwed over in custody battles. Men have a higher suicide rate. Men lack support groups. But it’s all accompanied with ignorant comments about women and feminism. With an egotistical overtone that is really not helpful to anyone’s cause. If someone is going to be the face of any one cause or controversial organization – they shouldn’t try to pick up another. Especially one that alienates people. If I were the face of atheism/secularism in Canada…I wouldn’t be so active in my environmental things, I would stick to one cause if I was that prominent of a figurehead.

Justin thinks no one has left CFI because of his blog. I think it’s time we all stopped dancing around the issue. I don’t work with The Center for Inquiry – Canada, because I don’t agree with Justin’s other main cause. Actually, that’s not even fair. I support men’s rights. I DON’T support women bashing, grossly biased commentary about men’s issues, men’s issues trumping women’s issues, nit picking at articles because there is no “male voice” when there doesn’t need to be one, picking statistics that on their own support an argument but don’t in an overall sense, taking away women’s rights to give men rights and finally having the face of Canadian secularism association with all of these things. It is not healthy for CFI. And CFI IS losing volunteers despite what Justin would like to think. Myself and my hubby (John Xu) were very active at CFI and in campus groups. Neither of us are involved with CFI and campus groups now because of this issue. I know there are others, but we’re the only two I can really speak for. Hopefully other people start speaking up.

I wouldn’t be so upset, but I’ve heard and witnessed horror stories surrounding this issue.

Justin declining an interview from the CBC and accusing them of being sexist because they asked to interview me, instead of him???

Justin sending a response to a rape victim applying for a position within CFI saying that she is sexist and unprofessional because she has experience at women’s groups on her resume???

In my interview to work at CFI questioning the validity and necessity of my work as the women’s collective coordinator with a radio station?? Women are highly underrepresented on radio, men don’t need a specific group, they’re already the majority.

Telling me we can’t put “Equal opportunity” on our social service brochure because it’s sexist???

Using CFI contacts to promote his “equalism” blog???

Not allowing Debbie Goddard to come and do her talk on multiculturalism and gender at CFI because he doesn’t agree with the topic so he makes us do a panel with inexperienced panelists instead???

Having signs up in his cubical at CFI saying he supports men’s rights and a bumper stick about male bashing in the media???

UGH.

/Fin.

The Toronto Tamil Tigers…to love or to hate.

By Katie Kish, May 11, 2009 11:36 am

Because of the oh-so-wonderful strike York isn’t done its exam until the end of May. I’ll be finished on May 20th…But until then I have an exam today, three essays, a “campaign plan” (whatever the frick that means) and then another test. Words fail me to describe my hatred and anger toward York and the TAs. Curses.

So here is something I don’t understand. Well, I understand it, but I don’t agree with what they did.

email04668.JPG

The Tamil Tigers protesting on the expressway. With hundereds of Tamils on the expressway traffic came to a complete hault for over 5 hours. The tamils have been protesting in Toronto for months hoping that someone in Canada will help call for a cease fire in Sri Lanka. Their desperation rose to this illegal and unsafe demonstration after the news that came that there had been an all-night atrillery barrage i Sri Lanka killing more than 370 people forcing others to shoddy safety shelters along the beech. Their demonstration continued until Michael Ignateiff’s government assured them that they would make a statement about the issues today.

The Tamil race is being wiped out. In Sri Lanka, even in safe zones, people are being killed. Protestors claim that 4000 are dead, but official sources say 400. But with no media allowed into the area, it’s hard to say for certain what the number is.

It’s a hard issue. While I don’t agree with people blocking road ways, setting people back hours upon hours and disrupting the peace…I would be right up there with them if it were my culture that was going through a genocide. But I agree with Dalty, that despite passion and anger people need to protest legally. Not to mention the fact that some people honestly do not care about the issues that the Tamil’s have protested against, but now instead of politely sitting on the fence and ignoring them – they have anger towards them and completely disagree with their protests. That’s how people work – the Tamils have gotten the attention from those drivers, but not good attention. There is in fact probably no better way to lose supporters, alienate friends and create enemies than closing down a highway in Toronto on Mother’s day.

If this was an attempt to create sympathy for the cause they have sucessfully achieved the opposite. If they’ve gained anything it is intolerance for their disruptful protests that have been going on in Toronto for months, and have no obviously started to effect those who have nothing to do with their issues. The Tamils are protesting against genocide, while deliberately ignoring the rights of Canadians. Good job Tamils.

It’s a valid questions as to why the police didn’t start charging and arresting people. And if their protests keep escalating like this, will we see violence in the future? Probably not, a lot of them seem pretty scared hiding behind their women and children. Granted their issue is pretty bad…children getting killed and their race being threatened. But they still have no right to block roads and traffic like that… especially if someone were sitting in their car with their child with an incredibly high fever. Or your wife who has just gone into labour. Or some other medical emergency.

Anyway, good luck with Ignatieff who has made it clear that you can break the law if you’re a visible minority protesting and that disruption and mobs interupting people’s lives is an effective way to get government attention. But that’s besides the point that he’s not actually in power, so good luck Tamils on negotiating and talking to the liberals, maybe they’ll put a good word in for you to Harper.

(As a side note: USA, UK, Australia, EU and Canada: all countires that have proclaimed the Tamil Tigers to be a terrorist group… WOOHOO!)

Yealy Kos Bonanza

By Katie Kish, August 5, 2007 11:53 am

tara.jpg

Picture of Tara Smith who blogs at Aetiology.

Picture by the wonderful photographer Lindsay at Majikthise

It’s pretty hard to avoid the topic of Yearly Kos while cruising around the blog-o-sphere this weekend. I myself didn’t go. I originally had a ticket, but ended up getting a job that required me to be around and I didn’t feel like spending the money on the bus for 16 hours to get there. I haven’t actually been reading all that much but I’ve come up with a couple of thoughts surrounding Yearly Kos.

There are things in this world that bother me. I’m not usually a complainer, nor do I find it productive to criticize people who are trying to make a difference. But Kos bothers me. The “organization” as a whole bothers me. Mostly for two reasons, it’s ability to deliver false hope and it’s inability to be fair to women.

The people at Kos generally have one big thing in common besides all being liberal commies – they blog. Many of them, in fact, think that one day they’re going to be huge big bloggers like Kos and are going there to network and get solid advice on how to make it big. But really, all their getting are panels of ill informed people who basically got lucky. On top of this, they think coming together is going to make a big different. But really, who is going to start paying these big salaries? It seems as though people are a little too involved with the idea of the proletariat, either that or they’re going to start sucking the money out of Google ads in a week.

There are a few problems here – people spend too much time blogging and end up with little result. I blogged non-stop for a year and developed a pretty good readership, but they sure as hell weren’t going to start sending me money. This new method of blogging, linking, is just so ineffective. People think that if they create a post that just links to someone else, and they add one or two thoughts of their own that they’ve created a really great post. But really they’re just conforming to the masses of what everyone else writes about. When I think of the “big blogs” I see some common traits. They all have a solid subject that they stick to. They all have fantastics writers. They all write posts that come out of their own heads, not just links from other people (feministing the exception, but women only go there so that someone else can think for them… ) And finally, they all have a hint of personality. (Oh, and many of them have books – which helps)

Now when I read the smaller blogs I see links, topics all over the board, unoriginal writing and nazi control of the comments. But very few of the little blogs are going to change. The problem with picking a subject and ceasing the linkage is that all of the sudden – you become *gasp* an individual. But bloggers are so painfully striving for any ounce of main blog-o-sphere acceptance. They’re willing to blog just like the big leagues and agree with them on all their points and bow down and kiss their feet just for a link. And this weakens the entire liberal blogosphere as a whole. You want a strong blogosphere? Have your own voice and be willing to fight with people on your own side.

So why does this link to Kos? People are there because they see the success of Daily Kos, so if you go to their conference you’re going to be up to par with the “intellectual masses” of their “movement” instead of staying at home coming up with real ways to create a unique voice that will actually be heard. Kossaks are all the same.

The reason I wanted to go to Kos was to see Chris Mooney – btw – not to become a big time blogger. My time with him will come.

Next – women. Have you heard of the BlogHer conference? Believe it or not, it is the biggest conference from women on the blogosphere. The BlogHer conference invited all presidential candidates to either appear or… send surrogates. Edwards and Clinton both sent surrogates. Edwards sent his wife. And then you look, apparently, a week makes a monumental difference in making presidential candidates available because at the Yearly Kos convention, a gathering of bloggers whose main attendees appear to be white and male, all of the candidates showed up… in person… together even!

Alright, alright, that’s not really the fault of Kos – but Markos being a sexist pig is. Gordo has blogged about it before. Gordo isn’t the only one to have written about it, and it’s not even just in the past year… it’s been going on for yeeears. Read the following for more:

Godless Liberal Homo
Skakes’ Sister
Echidne
Shades of Grey

“Yeah, but Katie… Yearly Kos isn’t held by Daily Kos” … Seriously, THEY HAVE THE SAME NAME AND MARKOS IS LIKE IDOLIZED! After the earlier sexist out break at the beginning of the year I was convinced that the feminists of the blogosphere wouldn’t even step three miles close to the Kos convention – but turns out the majority of them were there for a panel. Using the exact same defence of “It’s run by different people” …

Sure, the thing may not be planned by Daily Kos, but they’re affiliated – closely. When you think Yearly Kos – you think Daily Kos. Yearly Kos is the child of Daily Kos and while Markos may not be the one running the show – he’s running the name. It’s too bad all the women had to jump at that chance for stardom while completely leaving their ethics behind them. And the really sad part is that they’re not going to a) convince anyone of anything or b) get any new followers because they people that are they already agree with them, already want to be their friend and already follow their every move for hours upon hours on the net.

Anyway, that’s my rant on Kos.

cross-posted at appletree

Clinton’s Cleav

By Katie Kish, July 23, 2007 12:12 pm

Okay, so I always get these e-mails from Feminist groups and magazines and what have yous because I like to keep up to date on things and it’s a lot easier for blog material to get sent to me than it is to go and look for some. AH ha. Right, so today I get an e-mail and these feminists are down right pissed off.

The Washington Post ran an article on Hilary Clinton’s cleavage.

Of course the feminists want us all to e-mail the post and sign petitions to let the post know that this sort of thing isn’t acceptable, and they’re right. It’s not acceptable at all, it’s down right disgusting and degrading. …But also hilarious.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking — environment of Congress.

Oh it was not startling you dinkus. They’re BOOBS.

After all, it wasn’t until the early ’90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor.

…Okay, okay. And it wasn’t until the 50′s that they could vote so really – should they already be trying to run for president? Trying to GET votes??? I think not.

Throughout Clinton’s time as first lady, she wore clothes that were feminine and stately. But sexiness was not part of the image.

Vut are you talking about? Clinton is damn sexy…

sexy.jpg

Wild life or illegal immigrants?

By Katie Kish, May 26, 2007 3:49 pm

ap_border_fence_wildlife.gif

Maybe if caging Mexicans out isn’t enough to change some minds, animals will be… hrm.

The Rio Grande Valley thrives with wildlife and interesting plant life. Bearded moss, ebony tress, kiskadee, chachalaca, bobcats, lizards, tortise, ocelots and jaguarundi (2 endangered species of cat)… As if the border that the U.S government plants to erect wasn’t inhumane enough it now threatens the very life and existance of these natural wonders.

 A treaty made in the 1970′s declared that the international boundary to be at the middle of the river and that no construction of any kind could deflect or obstruct the flow of the river harming the other side. The fence could, and probably would, cause flooding thus being in direct violation of the 1970′s treaty.

THe quick solution to this was the use of solid steel landing mats that would be impermeable to water. Obviously, environmental issues were not a part in the decision making. But hey – keeping those damn Mexicans away from unplugging our dying Grandmothers is much more important than preserving land. Secure the frikkin’ borders at all cost!! Woo!

“If you have a fence that runs several miles long, if you are a tortoise or any animal that can’t fly over or go through it, then you have a pretty long distance that you have to go to get water,” said Brown, an outreach manager at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, 225 miles south of San Antonio. Also, “any destruction of any brush is very damaging.”

Screw ‘em, right? Oh but wait – the tourist industry! Money!

In addition, some worry that the barrier — described in some plans as triple-layer metal fencing — will damage the tourism industry along the Rio Grande.

The wild cats, reptiles and at least 500 species of birds attract visitors from around the world who bring the impoverished region $150 million a year. Depending on how far inland the fence is built, it could create a no man’s land north of the river, hurting tourism.

If they’re not going to reconsider the fence for the fact that it’s hideously inhumane, or that it has the potential to destruct and screw up 14 unique ecosystems at LEAST reconsider it for the tourism!!! …[roll eyes]

(Cross posted at appletree)

Panorama Theme by Themocracy