Like It Is

I’m totally chuffed. In the week I’m blogging about… er why I blog, I get quoted on Slate Magazine on my article about the recently jailed Egyptian blogger. What a surprise! Of course I had to share the news . Scroll down the Today’s blogs page to see the article quote.

Blogging is so cool… you simply never know who might find what you’ve written. And I’ve now found another very interesting site.

Slate Magazine is owned by the Washington Post.

Today’s blogs on Slate

Says UK minister for Family Policy, Beverley Hughes in a book to be published in May.

All 29 million UK workers should have a right that is at present granted only to parents with young families, according to the minister in charge of family policy.

Yes. About time too.

But a universal right to ask for part time work? How will businesses be able to take it?

Business chiefs have said that thousands of companies would simply not be able to cope. I think this is particularly true of smaller businesses.

The Government introduced the “right to request” flexible work in 2003 for parents with children under six. Since then, 22 per cent of eligible employees have requested it and 80 per cent of bosses have agreed. Although the employer can refuse, s/he must show the request has been considered seriously and, if it goes to tribunal, prove that s/he had a good reason. This April the right will be extended to the 2.8 million people who care for elderly or sick relatives. Read the rest of this entry »

Seems to be Women’s Week with another first and another story that I thought worth highlighting.

First woman deputy follows heavy pressure from African states

Now this is what I call a rather more balanced write-up of a recent woman appointee, even though the appointment itself isn’t met by jubilation from all. This is because this appointee comes from the previous UN cabinet that had more than a few failings and most were hoping for a new broom.

“Sources said that Ban Ki Moon, the new UN chief, met her when he visited Tanzania, then on the 15-nation UN Security Council, during his campaign for the top UN job last year. She will be responsible for managing the unwieldy UN bureaucracy that has been plagued by corruption and sexual abuse scandals in recent years.

Mr Ban, a former South Korean Foreign Minister who began his five-year term at the United Nations this week, has promised “bold steps” to reform the organisation but his early appointments have disappointed UN staff.

They had called on him to bring about a “fundamental change in the mindset of senior management . . . from a relationship based on dominance, disregard and fear to a real partnership.” Instead, Mr Ban named two insiders from the scandal-scarred administration of Kofi Annan, his predecessor, to key internal posts.”

Doesn’t augur well, does it? But I like the bio,myself. Not a word about fluffy hair,make up or high heels at least in this report. No brood of children in her wake. All about her achievements and just one bullet point about her family status. That’s more like it. Maybe that’s why it didn’t make the wider networks. No sexy angle to be had here:

First lady

Reading (and writing) about Nancy Pelosi’s appointment yesterday and the media reporting of women appointed to positions of power reminded me of this article I wrote back in August 2006 on the appointment of Katie Couric to CBC, the first anchor woman and the highest paid news anchor of any gender. This is the article:

And Now For Katie Couric - Gender Bias Is Alive And Well in The US

I referred to it today and thought, for those who hadn’t had the opportunity to read it back then, it’s worth revisiting. It remains one of my most popular articles, but the reason I think it’s important is to once again remind ourselves of how differently from men women are treated in the media when they achieve positions of power. And it isn’t even subtle. Bringing your kids along to a political appointment doesn’t help, but Katie did not do that. I said then and I say now, that the media should be, collectively, ashamed. While this continues, articles like this can never be old news.
But I also wonder, don’t women read and watch the same media? Maybe we should be demanding equal treatment when reporting on our female counterparts. Perhaps then there’ll be a change. Here’s an excerpt:

And it’s bordering on the ridiculous on USA Today where the focus of recent stories on Katie Couric have been on how she’ll wear her makeup, her hair colour, her toned legs, the merits of her “over-bubbly personality” and whether she’ll be wearing stillettos. Not a word about her accomplishments as a reporter. However old, handsome or balding her male counterparts are, I hardly think this would be the focus had one of them been appointed.

She will have to not only perform, but outperform her predecessors. If ratings at CBS News don’t increase, we know who’s getting the blame. You wait, it’ll all be the fault of her hair. Or the fact that she’s beautiful.

Good luck Katie Couric. Looks like you’re going to need it in buckets since your myopic peers still seem to believe your ability to do your job is wholly dependent on your hair, your legs, and your personal life.

The Times Online reported today that Pope Benedict XVI is considering “concessions” over the use of condoms to fight Aids.

Before we get all hopeful that this means that perhaps the millions of Catholics are going to reduce their rate of breeding, or that at last the Catholic church has at last stopped to listen to anyone other than the Catholic church, you might want to hold your horses. Crush that flicker of hope. The Vatican intends to keep perfectly intact the overall ban on condoms, the use of which is, of course, considered a sin even if you are married. Because condoms are a from of contraception. And contraception is banned. According the the Times report, medical and theological experts advising Pope Benedict have suggested that:

“married couples could be allowed to use condoms when one of the spouses is HIV positive or a drug user”

A chink in the armour? Or a false dawn? Read the rest of this entry »

I can’t remember a day when I don’t think to myself “this is a beautiful world and it’s great to be in it.” Daily, I find so many things to be thankful for and I’m sure most people can do the same.

Yet, thinking about the horrible tragedy in the Amish Community, ( the latest addition to the dismal roll call of school shootings) where this time five little girls, aged between five and thirteen were brutally executed, it is hard not to think about the evil there is in this world as well. To me, the killer who did this is beyond sick. That is too kind. While reports are busy focusing on all the seeming “reasons” for his terrible act Read the rest of this entry »

Who said cocaine is bad for your career? Not, it appears, if you are Teflon girl Kate Moss.

Less than 12 months after revealing pictures of Kate Moss allegedly snorting cocaine were sensationally reported in the press in September 2005, resulting in the loss of several major modelling contracts – Kate is back. Along with billionaire Sir Peter Phillips, Kate, known to be a style icon, is now creating a new fashion range for Topshop, one of the UK’s biggest and most successful fashion retailers.

Not only is she back, her profile has reached even dizzier heights than before, with her annual income estimated to have risen to about 30 Million uk pounds. More than enough for several lines. Fashion lines. What else?

Now, you might ask, how is this possible? Where are all those bleating, sorry, hypocritical, sorry big fashion names that hastily dropped Kate on the cocaine allegations protesting (albeit reluctantly) that having a coke-head modelling for them was bad for business because it might send the wrong message? Well, I’d guess that they are all in line with blank cheque books waiting patiently to sign her up (again) for, oh, probably around double her usual asking price. But if, perchance I am wrong, plenty of others are lined up. Ms Moss isn’t going to run out of work anytime soon.

By the way Chanel and Burberry were two fashion houses who said, according to reports, that they would no longer be working with Kate Moss. Burberry, according to reports in 2005 said that it was to end its association with the model following the cocaine allegations. Considering Burberry was one of the first to say “how high?” when Ms Moss said “jump” hypocritical doesn’t really come close.

According to the Business section on BBC News Ms Moss is currently featured in at least 15 major campaigns for clients, including Rimmel, Agent Provocateur, Virgin Mobile, Dior, Luis Vuitton, Roberto Cavalli, Stella McCartney, Bulgari, Chanel, Nikon, Versace, Calvin Klein Jeans and Burberry.

Now that’s a coup that must make even Madonna shake her head and wonder where she went wrong. Probably just by being Madonna, but that’s a whole other story and we won’t go there.

As a recovery stage from drug use allegations the Topshop deal certainly takes some beating. Far more serious for some, however, might be the the fact that Kate Moss is credited with sparking the return of the skinny jean, mini dresses and hot pants. If this particular allegation is true, resign yourself to them being around for a long, long time.

I am no fan of the Pope, nor the Catholic church. But the recent hoop-la by some Muslims over his speech about religion and violence had me thinking that on this one, he had a point.

Strikingly reminiscent of the Danish cartoon furore, where over a hundred people died in the frenzied reaction to the cartoons, once again we had some Muslims violently protesting, demanding apologies, fire-bombing Christian churches, burning an effigy of the Pope, and issuing veiled threats of death and destruction.

When I read the now familiar headline “Muslim World Angered…” I thought, here we go again. Whether or not the Pope’s decision to quote the 14th Century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleaologus speech to illustrate the contradiction between religion and holy war was the right one will no doubt occupy the intellectuals for months to come. They’ll have a field day.

The fact is, if you read the entire speech, what he said (quoted) was taken out of context and blown up into yet another reason for some reactionary zealots to show their worst side. And of course it seems the Western Media (and yes, sadly the BBC is among the ringleaders) is only to happy to assist them in doing so, focusing air time on the rabble-rousers, the angry protesters and vapid talking heads, even implying that the Pope should apologise, while the moderates keep silent – as usual.

The contradiction the Pope was referring to also applies to Christianity. In other words, violent conversion of another to any faith goes against God’s nature. If anyone was interested, his points were open to debate. This weekend’s extreme reactions, around the world, particularly in the Muslim Press show that many Muslims and their leaders have no interest in any such debate. Debate is forbidden. Almost with one voice they united in attacking the Pope’s speech. Some of the reactions in Muslim papers in Pakistan are truly alarming:

This from Pakistan’s NAWA-I-WAQT

“We say people like the Pope should not get involved in such provocation without reason. This statement is a warning of serious danger in the future. In this situation, if Muslims fail to unite for protection of their religion and natural resources, they will face serious repercussions”.

Hmm. I thought what the Pope was saying was that religion doesn’t justify violence.

Or this from HUSAYN SHABAKSHI IN LONDON-BASED AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT

“If the new Pope’s manners remain the same, the Catholic church will be subject to upheavals that it has never seen before… It is up to the wise men in the Catholic church to rectify the stance and make a prompt apology in order to resolve a hot issue”.

Or what? They’ll all be blown up? There’ll be stabbings?

You can read more reactions from the Muslim press on the BBC web site.

To me, it seems clear that this is a head on clash between nations that encourage religious diversity and those that practice religious intolerance; those who favour and welcome open debate and those who think free speech should not be tolerated – except, of course, if it’s criticism of Christians and Jews in the Muslim press.

I wonder, is every speech, everything governments and people do now to be edited and censored for fear of offending the easily offended “Muslim World” and seeing the now common eruptions into violent protest? Are we going to allow Muslim zealots to impose restrictions on free speech in the West? We are in big trouble if we allow that to happen.

Whether or not the Pope knew of the hornets nest he was stirring up there was nothing inappropriate, taken in context, in what he said. The question isn’t whether what he said offended Muslims. That much is obvious. The question is whether he is right that there is a debate to be had.

The Pope has apologised that his remarks caused such offence to Muslims. Predictably, they are saying that isn’t enough. They are demanding a retraction.  I for one hope he isn’t pushed into giving one.

What a total loser.

The papers here in Canada were splashed with the lurid news yesterday and today. It even made the BBC website front page.

In Montreal, Canada, on Tuesday a nut-bar turned killer went on the rampage on a college campus - Dawson College in Montreal. Kimveer Gill, 25, who called himself the Angel of Death is now dead, having died from a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head, after being shot in the arm by the Police. Not before shooting two people and leaving eight in hospital.

Originality isn’t a quality Gill appeared to possess however. If he was going to do such headline grabbing stuff he could have at least tried to be original. Instead he copied Marc Lepine – a misogynist loser – who, on December 6 1989, went on a murderous rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique (also in Montreal) and killed 14 women – all engineering students. Lepine was a failed Engineering student who blamed his failure on all the fact that he had to compete against women engineers. He got pissed off and decided to shoot them to get even before shooting himself.

And, of course, Gill copied the mother of all North American school massacres: Columbine where, in April 1999 two more pissed off Goth teenager misfits decided they wanted to get even with… well, whatever it is pissed off Goth teenager misfits want to get even with. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold ended up killing 13 students and wounding 21 before turning the guns on themselves.

Gill wasn’t even a good shot, only managing to kill one person. The other person died after the fact in hospital. As bad as it sounds, if you’re going to go on a rampage, have an arsenal of weapons, and don’t give a damn for your own life you should, at the very least be a decent shot. But not even there was he any good.

Waffling, Quebecois copycat. Couldn’t decide whether to copy Marc Lepine or Columbine. So he copied both. A total loser.

Good riddance to bad genetic material.

Since the day when the world saw passenger planes deliberately flown into the Twin Towers in Downtown New York, with the death of almost 3,000 people I wonder if, years later, there is anyone who hasn’t asked and answered that question.If there is anyone who cannot remember exactly where they were and what they were doing at the precise time they found out that planes had been crashed into one of the most famous and recognizable landmarks in the world.

It’s five years today, and I remember it as if it were yesterday. I was still living in England and was at home preparing to pack all my stuff for shipping because I was emigrating to Canada. It was just after 2 in the afternoon. I had turned off the tv and was upstairs when the phone rang. It was my husband (he wasn’t my husband at that point). I picked up the phone upstairs, surprised he was calling at that time, because we usually timed our calls around the 5-hour time difference between Toronto and London.

“…Have you got the tv on?” he asked.

“No, I’m upstairs packing.”

“Go downstairs and turn on the telly.”

“Why, what’s up?,” I ask.

“Just go downstairs and turn it on.”

“O.K..heading downstairs… are you o.k?”

When I turned on the t.v. I saw the now familiar film of the second plane hitting the World trade centre. It was surreal, and at first I thought it was a Tom Clancy or other blockbuster film. I had been at the top of the Twin Towers just three years before, now I was seeing planes flying into them? This couldn’t be real. I said a lot more, but I remember one other thing I said, apart from “Oh, my God, oh my God,” over and over again.

Still on the phone to Toronto, I said: “But…but aren’t there people in there?”