Further reflections on the occupy movement

I have spent the better part of two days at Occupy Sudbury, and two days before that at Occupy Toronto… that hardly makes me an expert, but I have heard some reoccurring questions that I want to address here.

What is it I think this movement can do?

First and foremost, in my opinion, is that it opens up space for dialogue. I often talk about politics in my everyday interactions with people, but I often read that talking about controversial things like politics is not polite in certain situations. I have friends that never talk about politics, which saddens me… politics are so much fun to talk about!

In my last post about the occupy movement, I talked about Weber, and in this one, I will discuss another theorist that I almost never use in my own academic work; Habermas! Hopefully I don't simplify this so much that I am not doing his work justice, but basically, what he said was that within the public sphere, which is a public space not controlled by the state, people could engage in conversation and exchange views and knowledge and that this undistorted communication could lead to liberation. However, through the mass media and mass consumption (as well is bureaucracy and excessive rationality among other things) we lose our ability to think critically about the state.

The space that has been created by the occupy movement, and how it has been used for political discussions, has reminded me of my third year sociological theory prof's lecture on Habermas. There are a lot of problems with his work - for instance, whereas Habermas thinks that opening up this space for communication could allow people to speak freely about politics, I would argue that we really need to put more emphasis on the social and economic hierarchies that shape how we view the world and how we can talk about it… speech, in a racialized, patriarchal, capitalist society will likely never be free from distorting influences such as social power, and this is something I keep bringing back into our conversations at the occupy sites (such as in my critique that most of the leaders-who-are-not seem to be young, charismatic, white men). Anyway, it just amuses me when every day experiences bring to mind lectures or readings that I haven't really thought of in years.

So, back to the question of what I want this movement to do. What I hope it is currently starting to do is expose some of the social relations involved in aspects of our economic and political system that have been reified to the point where they seem like naturally existing structures without any alternatives. We created capitalism. It is not a thing that has always existed... it hasn't even been around very long. We made it. We can end it or we can change it.

In order to want to do so, we have to expose so many of the ideas that we have come to think are true, but are really just ideologies that serve to uphold capitalism. Ideas like poverty being caused by individual flaws, we need to get rid of the language associated with "helping the poor" and "handouts" (which were used last weekend by some very progressive people in the group).

These imply that certain people deserve everything they have gotten within capitalism, but should help others who are less fortunate. This is problematic because it upholds the capitalist system.

The other question I hear a lot of is with regards to solutions… let's just say that the education part works, then what?

Here is where I come into problems... I simply don't know what the answer would be. But I think that is a good thing because I don't think that any one person has that answer. Nick Dyer-Witheford writes about using people's creative capacities to come up with something better - a new way of organizing. I like this idea, we can learn from previous movements - what has worked and what hasn't - and build from there.

I do think it has to be everyone working together. The workers movement was quieted by dividing us up into trade unions without the capacity to organize together and support all workers. It is difficult to frame this movement in a way that all people are being included, that reparations are being made to certain groups, that decisions are being made while considering the specific needs of groups, the ways that the current political, economic and social relations are affecting the ways that we are able to participate in this movement.

As a sidenote, also relating to Nick Dyer-Witheford's work, I love how we are using tools of capitalism against itself within this organizing. Using facebook, twitter, youtube, blogs, etc. to get the messages out to so many people.

It is very early in the organizing process. There are so many possibilities. And I believe that the problems within the movement are easier to talk about now, while it is still new, as opposed to later, when things become more entrenched and the social relations become hidden in routine processes.

Still, at the same time I am having trouble working in a movement with so many people with such diverse opinions. I enjoy the dialogue, and I am usually good at respecting the fact that people have different beliefs and ideas and that everyone's are just as valid as my own… but sometimes I hear things that make me cringe at just how problematic I think they are (granted, I'm sure there are people there who do the same when I speak)... I should add, are not reflective of the movement as a whole, just a few opinions that keep popping up either here or in Toronto, or both.

1. The national anthem.

I was not there when they sang this in Toronto, but I was shocked when I heard about it. Indigenous communities were torn apart by European settlers and that these communities are still struggling in a variety of ways. The national anthem is a colonial song - it celebrates a colonial nation. There were indigenous peoples present objecting to it, but it was sung anyway.

Then, in the local occupy movement, it was played in a youtube video right before an indigenous drumming circle, which fostered more than a few discussions yesterday afternoon at the occupy site about whether this is a sign of "solidarity and friendship" or whether it is colonial and disrespectful. Neither side won, but the people advocating for fostering friendship and solidarity agreed to check with elders in the community.

And, on top of colonial implications, nationalism does nothing to help support what should be viewed as a global movement.

2. "The police are our friends."

The police are not our friends. Individual officers do make up the 99% in that they do not have huge sums of money that influence decision making on a legislative level, but, as a group, they do have a considerable amount of power. Yes, they smile and act friendly towards us, and I am not necessarily opposed to us doing the same, but remember, when they get their orders to arrest us, the power they have will become very evident. This also has other implications, where certain groups are more likely to have problems with the police than others (such as indigenous people).

Still, the local police have told us that they support us, and we don't exactly have large numbers of people at the occupy site at the moment, so I wouldn't advocate for anything that is is too anti-police. But don't think of them as friends or allies.

3. The word "violence" is thrown around.

"No using violence... like yelling at police officers or breaking things". Now, I agree that the protest is probably best off being peaceful, especially because we are trying to build public support, but I object to using the word "violence" when referring to damaging property or speaking loudly. For police actions to be considered violent, there has to be bodily harm inflicted... why do we not have the same standard. I'm not saying that we should damage property... I think that doing so would likely halt the movement through mass arrests and outrage against the 'violent' and 'threatening' protesters. I just think we should reframe how we are conceiving of violence and use different language when we are talking about these issues. Property damage is not violence (unless someone is likely to get hurt).

4. Lastly was the phrase "the most important thing is..." at facilitation/organizing meetings. To me, the most important thing for a facilitating meeting is to work out the logistics to create a space that will foster discussion and allow occupiers to have necessary amenities (bathrooms, food, shelter, warmth, etc.). If you are coming to the facilitation meetings to talk about how the most important thing is promoting electoral reform or climate change or whatever else you think it is, then I believe we are going about this the wrong way. What makes the occupy movement so amazing is that it can bring in so many people with diverse experiences. Your specific soap box argument is not the point of a facilitation meeting (and yes, I understand that using my soap box - this blog - as a means to convey this statement can be seen as ironic, or even somewhat hypocritical, but my point stands).

And now I will set aside some of this cynicism, make a few more kick ass signs (thus far, I have carried a sign with a Marx quote "What the bourgeoisie produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers" and one I have carried before in Toronto "there's no war like class war"- which I would love to nuance, but a sign does not allow for that). I will be back at the occupy site this afternoon for the rush hour road-side demonstration I can't wait until we have enough people to have a march like in Toronto.

The wage gap between top paid CEOs and average workers in Canada

This article, which critical of the wages received by the highest paid CEOs in Canada, is reminiscent of a lecture by my intro to sociology prof that was part of what got me interested in the discipline to begin with.

The article states that

By about mid-afternoon Monday, the 100 best-paid chief executive officers in Canada will have already earned the equivalent of an average full-time salary in this country.

The gap between the executive suite and minimum-wage workers is even larger. The average CEO had earned a full year’s worth of minimum-wage work by about 3:15 p.m. on New Year’s Day.

In the lecture for my first year class, a brilliant professor (who occasionally reads this blog and has yet to distribute the final grades for our last class) began by asking the class of about 100 first year students how many of us expected to be earning more than $100,000 in 10 years. A large portion of the class, probably more than half, raised their hands. Keep in mind, many of them were sociology students, and the liberal arts are not exactly known for high salaries. He proceeded to show tables of statistics about the actual income of average workers with a bachelors degree in the social sciences, and I think the average income 10 years after graduation was something like $30,000, not even close to the 6 figures that most of them assumed they would be earning.

In this lecture, he also presented us with information on income inequality in Canada, and the most telling statistic for me was this same one. Sometime on the morning of January 2nd, Canada's top 100 CEOs have earned more than I am likely to earn with my degree in an entire year.

This was among the first steps in the process of me going from being a relatively leftist, but pro-capitalist, social work student to becoming a Marxist sociology student... which, I have to say this prof strongly discouraged for financial reasons. I was sitting in his office telling him that I felt as though I couldn't continue on with social work after having taken his class, but he said that because I was recently divorced and had 2 children, he was of the opinion that social work would lead to employment, whereas a BA in sociology would not. Another prof that stopped by his office while I was there said that a sociology degree would get me a job at the mall. They weren't the best recruiters, but when I decided that I could spend the additional 2 years working on a Masters Degree, they were both more than supportive of me switching programs.

Still, I guess this professor has earned the nickname Dr. Doom (which, despite his suspicions, I did not come up with, as much as I would like to take credit for it). However, I think a nickname like that would come with some pretty cool backgound music that follows every time he walks into a room holding a stack of graded papers (he is also known for being one of the toughest markers in the department).

Raising tuition fees... Again.

It has been brought to my attention that the university that I attend just raised tuition fees at a meeting last Friday (of course, organized during exams/christmas holidays so that we could not mobilize in any real form at the meeting). I was not there, but I heard that tuition would go up by 5% for returning students, 8% for new students and 16.2% for international students!

Here is the part that really gets me... I was just informed that they approved bonuses for some admin during that same meeting!

I'm glad that the money being taken from my family is going to make a few people that much richer.

Why the justice system doesn't work, as a comic

The comic doesn't exactly provide any answers, but the critique is good.

Coca-cola closing 3 unionized plants... blames new tax

As if there weren't already enough reasons to boycott coca-cola, there is now another one. According to a Seattle news broadcast this morning, coca-cola is closing 3 plants in Washington (Aberdeen, Bellingham, and Marysville) despite having negotiated with striking workers. These plants will close permanently on September 17th, 2010. Not all of the employees will be laid off, as some will be offered different jobs at nearby plants.... I wonder if the new jobs will still be unionized positions.

The main issue in the strike was the company's attempt to raise insurance premiums for workers. Far from a small increase, workers insurance rate would increase as much as 800% and retirees would no longer be able to buy in to the health care program. Coca-cola cancelled the striking workers' benefits, leaving them without any health care and forcing them to return to work prior to bargaining, which left them in a tough position at the bargaining table. The strikers then filed a class action lawsuit and unfair labour practices against the company for cancelling benefits.

Coca-cola had revenues of $31 billion in 2009. I find it difficult to believe that they could not afford to maintain previous benefit levels or keep these three plants open. The Bellingham plant has been open since 1905.

A company spokeman cited a new tax as a reason for closing plants. This tax will cost them a total of 2 cents per can (that will likely be passed on to consumers).

Wage restraint legislation in Ontario

I want to start by apologizing to any regular readers about the lack of posts over the last few weeks. There has been so much I wanted to write about but I feel like I haven't had a moment to breathe, nevermind write.

I am the president of a student workers union in Ontario, and there has been a threat of wage restraint legislation by the Ontario Government. All non-unionized public employees' wages have been frozen for some time now, and the government is going into "consultations" with unions where they plan to get unions to accept two years of zero compensation on their next collective agreements, with the threat of legislating this freeze if we don't agree to it. This is being presented to us as the only way to protect public services.

According to some recent surveys (both the ones conducted by unions and the ones by the government), people seem to think that workers in the public sector are highly overpaid. This is definitely not the case if you look at front line workers in comparison to University Presidents, for example. My membership last got a raise in 2003. Over that period of time, housing has gone up more than 30%, tuition has increased by 4-8% per year more often than not, and the salary of the university's president has increased by approximately 124%! Yet, it is not the president that is overpaid, it is me... and I am making less than half of what some of my peers at other universities make- and nevermind living below the poverty line, my wage doesn't even cover the cost of my education at the school where I work.

I don't believe that forcing workers to take zeros is good for anyone, even those who do earn a living wage, but my point right now in this particular post is that we also need to be careful not to make sweeping generalizations about public sector employees. One of my union colleagues at a different university spoke about how his membership went from about 100 full time janitorial and maintenance staff to about 10 full-time and about 100 part-time, the majority of whom work between 3 and 12 hours per week... I'm pretty sure they don't feel overpaid. I can make many similar comparisons throughout the sector, and I am rather sure that people in different parts of the public sector have similar stories to tell.

I am getting increasingly frustrated with how quickly some people are buying in to these assumptions. I am baffled by how the government can demonize public employees so fully that even the NDP supports wage restraint legislation because doing otherwise would fail to gain votes at the upcoming election.

This government clearly represents the economic elite in the province. And yet, they try to make us feel guilty because many of us have kept our jobs during the recession; so guilty, that we should accept concessions in order to do our part. What about not cutting $4.6 billion dollars in corporate taxes? What about actually protecting our social services by providing services that help people rather than punishing them?

I have yet to figure out how legislation that goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Labour Relation's Act is supposed to protect Canadians. To me, it is just another example of the Ontario government picking and choosing which Rights Canadians are entitled to, not unlike what happened at the G20... they just spin it the right way in the media and they come off as protecting us. The only thing that we need protection from right now are these neoliberal politicians.

Comparing hockey riot with G20 protest

Found here


The hockey riot referred to seems to be from 2008. Hockey fans aren't a big threat because they are just celebrating a win or getting angry about a loss... possibly protesting a ref's call... not trying to end poverty or send any type of message to politicians.

Gotta love "Democracy"

For the duration of the G8/G20 summit, there is legislation in place called the Ontario Public Works Protection Act, which goes directly against the Canadian Constitution. Among other things, gives police officers in and near the fenced area:

the power to require anyone entering or attempting to enter or approaching the public work 'to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise'.

The police may also 'search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work'. The police can also search 'a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger'.

Finally, the police 'may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering'.

Police may arrest, without warrant 'any person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction of a guard or peace officer, or who is found upon or attempting to enter a public work without lawful authority'.

Neglecting or refusing 'to comply with a request or direction made under this Act by a guard or peace officer' or if you are a person found upon a public work or any approach thereto without lawful authority means you could be found guilty of an offence and be liable to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two months, or to both.

This means that in Canada, people MUST show identification to police officers for no reason (sounds like the Arizona law that has so many people enraged, but with less obvious racial connotations), submit to searches of themselves and their vehicle without cause, and be arrested without a warrant, facing up to two months in prison if they fail to comply? This is taking security way too far.

It's always nice that the most elite people in the world get to throw their billion dollar party that is closed to everyone else, while the "little people" get arrested merely for being in areas near the party that they paid for. I wonder how many peaceful protesters are going to be arrested or worse because of this legislation.

The elitism and issues of social class seem so transparent with regards to this summit that I am baffled at how many people keep telling me that we need this type of security to protect world "leaders" instead of questioning who these "leaders" represent and why the summit exists in the first place.

I should also mention that this was passed secretly, with no public input and little mention until yesterday, and that it is being described as unprecedented in Canada.

Toronto's G8/G20 and women's health

I just spoke at a forum tonight on the G8/G20, and I thought I would try to recreate some of what I said because I think it is important. I spoke on women's health, and more specifically, abortion. Keep in mind that this is one small piece of the summit, and there were other presenters who gave much needed information on topics like the environment, indigenous relations and global capitalism in the context of the Steelworkers strike.

I started by discussing my experiences of reading about abortions on American bloggers websites. For example, Feministe, Jezebel and Feministing have discussed the Stupak amendment at length on many occasions, which makes abortion even less accessible to poor women by restricting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. Recently, Louisianna passed laws requiring women to get ultrasounds before abortions. Nebraska has imposed confusing laws regarding women's mental health in relation to abortions, and Utah has essentially criminalized miscarriages. Reading this over the past few years, I have often found myself greatful to live in a place where abortions are free and largely unrestricted (although not always accessible).

When Harper announced that maternal and children's health would be a major issue at the summit, I was rather pleased... and surprised. Harper is not exactly known for his women friendly policies... actually, he thinks that we have already attained gender equality! Globally and historically, women and children have not had much acess to funding for their specific health care needs, as they have taken a back seat to issues that directly affect men's health.

Then, Harper announced that this initiative would not cover abortions (my reaction to this announcement here). He explained

"We want to make sure our funds are used to save the lives of women and children"

I always thought that this was part of the purpose of abortions, but I guess the life of the fetus is being prioritized over the health of the mother. The fact is that women and girls often die when they do not have access to safe abortions.

As a sidenote, the USA does plan to include abortions in their contribution for maternal and children's health, even though they have some very restrictive laws domestically.

Women's groups began to speak out about abortions right away, and within 2 days 11 groups lost funding. Within a month, 24 women's groups lost federal funding. These cuts undermine women's equality and democracy within Canada.

Nancy Ruth, a "feminist" Conservative Senator spoke out on this issue (previously posted here), saying that women need to

"shut the fuck up on this issue... Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Dont' make it into an election issue"

So, we are to allow white male politicians to decide what counts as maternal health (See this post), even in countries they may never have visited. Colonialism is rampant within Harper's maternal health initiative.

And, for the bigger picture. We have to fight for our right to choose, and for women everywhere to have this right. But we have to make sure that this isnt' being used as a distraction. Saving abortions might distract us from fighting for more accessible abortions for women in rural areas. This issue, as important as it is in its own right, cannot distract us from the cuts to women's programs and social spending, lenient corporate regulations that lead to tax loopholes and lacking health and safety regulation, Israeli's occupation of Palestine, aboriginal treaty rights, or any other systemic inequality.

The moral right and neoliberal movements have political power in Canada. They also have corporate sponsorship and financial backing. The left typically does not have this type of money or power. What we have is our voice, and that is why we are being told to shut the fuck up. Because when we do come together and speak, we threaten the status quo.

As those of you who know me are well aware, I will not shut the fuck up.

Will you?

BP Coffee Spill Spoof

Someone mentioned a spoof that was played on Canada AM this morning that depicts the BP boardroom with a coffee spill.



Like many people, I have been following the oil spill from the start with much sadness, but frankly, little surprise. What I am surprised and annoyed about is the USA vs. Britain mentality that I have seen, from comments posted after this youtube video to people arguing that the US/England soccer game would be a good rivalry because of the oil spill (which I first heard about as a joke on The Colbert Report, but the previous link shows that it goes much further). BP ownership is 40% UK and 39% US, so this rivalry is ridiculous, in my opinion.

When pointing fingers, we seem to skip right past the idea that capitalism as a way of organizing and the reliance on oil for so much of our everyday lives are more to blame than a particular country or political figure. I really can't figure out why so many people blame Obama for not fixing it, such as Elizabeth Hasselbeck from The View... would she have blamed Bush if this had happened 5 years ago?

Hopefully the environmental devastation from this does not affect future generations as much as I fear it might.

Eyelashes and moral regulation

Nicole gave me the box for this "Bad Gal" mascara, which came with a sample pack of make up that you get for shopping at a specific store.



What I want to know is whether "bad girls" have different eyelashes than "good girls." What makes one a "bad girl?" Long eyelashes is supposed to be alluring, so does being alluring and seductive make a woman bad? It plays into the Madonna/whore complex, in which there are only two types of women- good women and bad women.

Madonna (a biblical reference, not to be confused with the popstar) represents "good" "pure" and "well-behaved" women. These women do not have sexuality, and therefore, do not need alluring eyelashes. The "whore" is supposed to represent sexual women. What is most problematic is that within this dichotomy is that all women that do not follow the "good girl" rules end up being seen as bad, as is evidenced in the double standards imposed on women's behavior.

Like this product, a general theme throughout pop culture involves playing into this stereotype rather than trying to change expectations regulating women's behavior. As a result, women (and, increasingly, young girls) want to conform to standards of beauty and behavior that are imposed on them by this norm- for more on this, see the book "Female Chauvinist Pigs". As women's sexuality becomes less taboo, it is less stigmatizing to be a "bad girl" but it I don't like that the category still exists. A lot of TV shows and movies portray female characters as either "good," meaning asexual, motherly, or if they are sexually active, it is only within the bounds of a long-term monogamous relationship or "bad" women, meaning sexually active, deceptive, generally seducing poor men who can't help but fall for them.

Despite the name of this product, I think that long and thick eyelashes have become a beauty standard that women are expected to have regardless of their behavior within this dichotomy. Eyelashes that are "inadequate" by dominant standards are now considered a medical problem requiring prescription medication! At very least, needing medication to "fix" this "problem" seems to break away from the previously mentioned dichotomy, but it does so because there is money to be made by drug companies who want as large of a consumer base as possible (as do companies selling mascara). This medication also has side effects, such as the permanent darkening of the iris, which sounds a bit dangerous to me.. if you had blue or green eyes, they could turn brown, and if you had brown eyes, they could get darker. It entirely blurs the distinction between beauty aids and health care.

I wonder how many men have felt as though they needed a medication to thicken their eyelashes... or have purchased products which labelled them as "bad" because of a desire to conform to dominant standards of beauty.

Every child (with wealthy parents)

I have been passing this same bench every day for the past year or so, and it has been getting on my nerves every day since I first saw it.

It is somewhat blurry, but it says "Every child, every chance, every day" and is an ad for Montessori schools.

Now I love the premise of Montessori schools, I really like how kids can essentially teach themselves without all the same structures of a typical classroom setting. However, I don't like the $7000 per year tuition price tag, but apparently that is quite cheap. In Toronto, tuition ranges from $10,300 for kindergarten to $19,895 for grades 11 and 12. That is more expensive than my undergraduate university tuition in this province (Ontario), but it is for children in elementary school.

So, how can they claim this option is for every child? Maybe it should say "Every child whose parents can afford the tuition, every chance offered to children of the elite, every day in capitalist societies."

I don't know how they can even use the words "every child" in their ads when they do not allow just any child in their school. This is a blatant example of how privileged is reproduced.

monument to victims of "communism"

In my opinion, communism doesn't exist... I wish it did, but it doesn't. I've read that it probably existed in certain gatherer-hunter tribes and pre-colonial aboriginal communities, but I wasn't there, and I don't know if we could use our words for social, political or economic organization to describe something that happened in such a different context to the world that we understand. And yet the Canadian government plans to erect a monument to victims of communism. I want them to create one right next to it for victims of dragons- dragons are much scarier than communism, except possibly for the super-rich who could buy dragon slayers so long as they remain wealthy.

I have two problems with this monument. First, it encourages the dichotomy between capitalism and communism as the only possible ways to organize, with communism being represented by what I would call totalitarian states. This makes Marxist and socialist minded people appear to support Soviet style military control.

My second problem with it is that in demonizing 'communism' it further entrenches the belief that capitalism is the only option. What about a monument to victims of capitalism, as is suggested here. I would like to see a statue erected for all the people who died of hunger or froze to death while sleeping on the streets. All the people who had to struggle to make ends meet or go to bed hungry, whether they were working at low paid jobs or struggling to make a social assistance benefit last through the month. People who died, were injured, or became ill from performing dangerous work for very little money, while somebody else made huge profits. And yet, capitalism is the only socially just way of organizing, right?

The Olympics and a grade 2 class assignment

My daughter's class has a special homework assignment for the next few weeks. Each child is bringing home the local newspaper every day and are to read the olympic section with their parent(s) every night. The teacher described this as a great learning opportunity... I agree, but probably not in the way that she thinks. I'm just trying to rationalize how much of my opinion to tell her, and how much I should just step back, and let the olympics retain some kind of magic for her, not unlike Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

I will use this opportunity to teach her about capitalism- by sending home a newspaper everyday for several weeks, I'm sure they are hoping parents will want to subscribe once the Olympics are over. Should I also tell her about how much of the Olympics is linked to corporate sponsorship and consumerism?



Do I tell her about how many social programs were cut to fund these games, which were estimated to cost $6 billion. And about how this money is then given to companies who build the infrastructure to support the games instead of being put back into the community to help people.

Or about the environmental devastation that has occurred, such as in building a large highway from Vancouver to Whistler which is not needed after the games are over.




Or about the lack of treaties with aboriginal communities which was entirely illegal, and means that the Olympics are being held on stolen land?



Can I tell her about the criminalization of the poor, where Project Civil City was passed because of the games, making it illegal to beg for money or sleep outdoors, and is being enforced during the games by the largest police force ever in Canada.



As a former athlete, I used to dream of going to the Olympics. I love the idea of people becoming great at their sport, and coming together in celebration of this passion. I do not consider myself entirely anti-olympics, and I hope the protests do not affect the athletes too much. But, there are a few aspects of the games that I am not as happy with, and I think it is important that they are discussed throughout the games.

When I think about it, I find the concept of nationalism kind of silly. I am cheering for this person (but not that person) because the first was born in a geographical location that is politically defined as being the same country as I happen to reside in. That really doesn't make sense to me... rallying behind the maple leaf (or various other symbols). I think we should be rallying behind the athletes, not locations that are attached to them to make them a guaranteed fan base. One particular athlete representing Canada used to compete for the American team until he was kicked off for repeated drug problems, then was asked to compete here because he had dual citizenship. I'm not saying that we should not cheer for him, just trying to point out how arbitrary these relations are.

Another note is the imperialism that is used when defining what is and what is not a sport. I'm not as informed on this as I would like to be, but I am pretty sure most Olympic sports were developed in the western world. Also, the arbitrary nature of what is considered worthy of being an Olympic sport is shown in the battle that female ski jumpers went through over the past decade in trying to be a part of the games, which, unfortunately, did not work yet again, even though a woman holds the record for longest jump at the course they will be using.


As for my daughter's assignment, I am going to watch the Olympics with her and we will read the newspaper together. We are going to cheer on the athletes while I try to teach her about critical thinking. Together, I suspect we will enjoy the artistry that comes together as we see so many people dedicated to what I hope is a passion for their sport. I do need to use this as a teaching opportunity, I just have yet to decide to what extent.

Cute... but sad

Found here

And the number one answer is....

From a rerun of Family Feud

Question:
Name something they put in beer commercials to (host was cut off by contestant buzzing in)-

Answer:
Beautiful girls

And that was the number one answer, with 91 out of the 100 people surveyed answering "Hot Women"

It certainly says something about our culture when the host doesn't even have to finish the question, but I think the most telling part is that with 91% of respondents giving the same answer, people are aware of the way women are being portrayed in advertisements. People are fully aware that women's bodies are being used as tools to sell items for already rich companies, like those that sell beer. Does this mean that people largely don't think it is a problem?