Merry Atheistmas!

I was brought up in a christian home until I was old enough to make a decision when it came to faith. I personally came to the conclusion that no god is the god for me. Since then every christmas my dad makes a point of saying how I shouldn't celebrate it because I do not take part in the religion. To that remark I simply shake my head.

Image

Since when did christmas really have so much to do with Christ in the first place. A lot of people tend to forget that it actually originated from a pagan holiday and really has no association with the birth of Jesus. Pagans used to celebrate this date long before Jesus came along, it was a celebration which included lots of eating, drinking, and gift giving in order to pay respects to the sons of isis (goddess of nature). The exact birth of Jesus is unknown and therefor the 25th of December was simply chosen because it was already a day of celebration. In fact some of the original pagan rituals are still seen today such as the christmas tree, which was used as a pagan worship tree.

That aside, I don't even really see much of Christ in christmas anymore. The church itself is realizing how it has now become a materialistic holiday where people go into debt in order to make people happy with gifts. I can't even count the amount of "put the CHRIST back in CHRISTmas" banners I see over churches and on peoples vehicles every year now. So where did all the christians go on christmas? Almost every country takes part in celebrating some form of christmas regardless of their religious beliefs. This leads me to believe that anyone can take part in the gift giving that our consumer driven world focuses on.

I love christmas so much I make fun of myself for it, I even consider myself to be a christmas enthusiast. I collect ornaments, bake cookies, and take part in all the festivities around town. It's even a point of contention in my house when my dad considers canceling christmas because we don't celebrate what we're "supposed" to. My love for christmas is simply because of how happy everyone is and because everyone comes together in a meaningful way. We live in a world where good news is boring news, where hearing about murders and war has no effect on us anymore. So anything that brings us together simply to say I love you I'm going to take part in.

With that I wish you all a very merry christmas, holidays, aetheistmas, hanukkah, or whatever it is that brings you and your family together.

Image

Because Social Media Told Me To

How many absolutely stupid things have you seen become popular thanks to social media tools? Think of all the terrible music that has been given to the world since social media, apparently everyone can sing and play music now. All the fashion trends that have swept the world and all the aimless hate that people can spew without being held accountable. Bet you can all think of a lot of activist movements that have gained momentum thanks to a lot of uneducated people just pressing the shiny like button because their friends like it. I'm not a hater of social media, in fact I take part in it very regularly. I just can't believe some of the things that have managed to spread, when if it didn't exist people would just think these fads are absolutely ridiculous.

Image

Planking. How many times have you taken part in this or watched your friends? Sober or... well not so sober? Someone please tell me how this has become something, how this is as prevalent as it is? I remember when I started seeing photos of this all over Facebook, and all I could think was "uhmm...what?" I admit hilarious, but it's definitely something to be questioned.

Image 

Another popular one you may or may not have seen or taken part in is batmaning. Just another pointless thing to occupy time that people you know have potentially already taken pictures of themselves doing. Instagram and Facebook are littered with all of these "ings"; there are many more including owling, horsemaning, and coning. I was so confused of the popularity of all of these things so I decided to bring it up in conversation with my friends. They all agreed that they have been a part of one or two of them and really didn't have a reason for their participation. The main response was usually "well I saw it on (insert social media tool of choice) and figured why not". Like I stated before I have nothing against taking part in these but when you think about how easily we grab a hold of things through pressing the shiny like and share buttons, re-tweeting, and mass forwarding e-mails, how easy is it for us to do the same for social movements and businesses?

If your friends or yourself like to take part in the next fads on social media I got the next thing for you. Make sure you take notes due to how complex it is.
1- Go to your nearest grocery store and purchase a 2L of milk of your choice (soy, 2%, skim)
2- Go to a public place with lots of people
3- While fully clothed dump the entire 2L of milk over your head
Congratulations you have just completed "milking".

Image

Yes this is a thing, and it's starting to become quite popular for some reason. It started with some university students in England simply because they thought it was funny. Their video has become viral and their story can be found on almost any news network website. Since their "ing" has hit the online world other people around the world have already started sharing their videos of taking part in milking. I suggest you all keep lots of milk in your homes because if picks up speed like everything else, stores won't be able to keep milk on their shelves.

Girl Fight

Image

Equality.

Women have been fighting for this for an eternity; the war to be looked at as an equal human being has not been lost, but whether or not it has been won is all your point of view. I can appreciate the strides women have made; for the most part we are not expected to be barefoot in the kitchen anymore and are now viewed as a viable source for the work force. The ability to choose the fate of our bodies and actively engage with society through things like voting has not been forgotten by myself. Unfortunately the idea that we now stand tall among men needs to be reconsidered, not only by the women of today but by young men who could potentially take part in maintaining the glass ceiling. 

Although there are many areas where women can experience forms of discrimination, a very prevalent problem that has been researched thoroughly, yet has still not been solved is sexism in the work place. In almost every job women are experiencing income disparity and a lack of mobility within their careers. Not only this, but specific jobs that were once respectably held by men and are now mostly held by women have lost their significance and are undervalued by society. Being a secretary back when men ruled the work force was a highly reputable career, now a days women in this position are seen as coffee pourers with not much to offer. 

One of the latest news worthy stories is the ability women are given to participate in active duty. Women only make up 14-15% of the military force today and few of these positions allow them to be deployed. Like most things the opinion on the matter is drastically different depending on who you're talking to. 

The marines announced in April of this year that they would begin training more women for combat, and that they are actively looking for more women strictly for active duty positions. This statement was quickly followed by their concerns of women's abilities out in the field, things like their strength and the opposition they will be met with by their men colleagues in combat.

In november of this year it was announced that The American Civil Liberties union has filed against the ban that keeps women from being deployed. Stating that even though some progress has been made to mend the unjust preference of men in combat, women are still unable to achieve their potential. 

Yes, I agree that women and men are completely different creatures. Not only physically but mentally, we deal with and solve problems through very different methods. Since when does the whole "opposites attract" theory not apply anymore? Surely a lot of opportunities can come from these differences, for the most part having different views can provide better problem solving and efficiency. Women for the most part do not stand up against men physically, but this does not mean they can not be very strong. If women thought for a moment they would be unable to physically do something, they would back out by their own decision, but to just ban them on the assumption they can not preform is ridiculous. 

Any human being willing to potentially give their life in order to protect their loved ones and their country should be allowed to do so. There are probably many men that would never want to enter into combat and yet they would be preferred over women willing and able to do so.   

Women, I'm sure you could think of times when you were unable to achieve what you wanted do to a male preference in the world. Men, I'm sure you could think of women whom you love that are experiencing the same. It's not something to account all our losses to or whine about, instead it is something to continually recognize so that equality can continue to grow.  

    

     

What Does Obama Mean for Canada?

What Does Obama Mean for Canada?

                                          copyright: google/image/static.flickr.com

            Now that the American election is over, it’s time to start thinking about ourselves. Many Americans were torn between Obama and Romney; in the end it was Obama narrowly escaping with the victory. But enough about the U.S, what does this election mean for Canadians? According to the polls Canadians generally approve of Obama’s reelection. It could see a boost in both the Canadian economy as well as the American’s. With plans for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline seemingly back on track, it seems not far off, hopefully. There are no guarantees that this will happen, but it looks a lot more probable then it did prior to the election. Ten months ago Obama shot down production plans for the XL pipeline due to environmental concerns. It seems that Obama has decided the economic crisis may be more critical then that of the environment. Climate change was not a hot button issue during the campaign, and it remains that way today. The economic crisis remains at the forefront of every ones concerns. Although our climate should be right near the top of the list it simply does not create jobs or economic growth, which both Americans and Canadians are in desperate need of. 

                                          copyright: google/image/geograph.org.uk

            If the Keystone project were to go through it would mean thousands of jobs for Canadians and an economic boost. Securing this project would create a growth in our oil exports to the United States because they would rely less on other foreign imports. Although the Canadian economy is in stronger position then that of the Americans, it would be financially beneficial for both countries to seriously consider this project.

            

A Matter of Survival

A Matter of Survival

                                copyright: google/image/fotopedia.com

The U.S has seen its fair share of economic hardships over this past year. Now they are forced to deal with Hurricane Sandy. As people are simply trying to stay alive, many economists are already predicting the effects it will have on an already struggling economy. It is still too early to tell but some are predicting at least 20 billion dollars in damages. Ten states in U.S have already declared a state of emergency and it appears it is only going to get worse. It’s hard to consider cost factor as the storm continues to rage on but it’s in the back of everyone’s mind.

Over the past few years Americans have watched their AAA credit rating diminish and their economy fall off the wagon. It is becoming apparent that the question may not be how much will it cost, but can U.S survive another economic beating. The American government, already trillions of dollars in debt, appears to be falling ever deeper into the hole. China owns over 800 billion dollars of American debt and the U.S pays 50 billion annually in interest alone. Point being, the U.S may not have the funds to escape this most recent economic adversity.

Not only will this cost the United States billions of dollars in damages, the economy will undoubtedly see a decline. Retailers will be hit hard as people will not have the means to shop. Although some industries (grocery) will most likely see an increase in sales and profit, most will feel negative effects. An economy that has been in long-term “slump” is in dire need of as much spending as possible. Overall, this disaster will see people spending less and therefore hurting an already suffering economy.

Only time will tell if the U.S can bounce back from yet another natural disaster. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina cost the United States over 100 billion and most would agree that they have never truly recovered. Could Hurricane Sandy be the “knockout punch” for the United States? 

This just in: Politicians are crooked... oh wait, that's not news

I'd like to compare two different conversations that involve asking for a raise, and let's see if you can spot the differences:

Conversation #1
Me:     Hi Boss, can I have a raise?
Boss:   No.
Me:     Oh, okay. Guess I'll get back to work.

Conversation #2Politician #1:  Hey, can I have a raise?
Politician #1:  Why yes, sure I can! How much would I like?
Politician #1:  I'm thinking around $12,000?
Politician #1:  Sounds reasonable to me! But let's spin it so it doesn't sound like a raise.
Politician #1:  What raise? <wink wink>

No, that's not a typo. Alberta politicians are once again deciding for themselves if and how much of a raise they will be getting.  I won't get into all the specifics of it, as they make it a little confusing, but the gist is that the taxpayer will be giving Alberta MLAs over $23,000 next year for their RRSP contribution, double what it is currently.

A big part of their defense is that they need good pay and benefits to attract the best people for the job.  What a load of you-know-what.  Have they ever met a teacher?  Teachers are the people who educate and shape the minds of our future, and they don't get paid half of what politicians make.  The reason we still have good teachers?  Because they aren't in it for the money, they do it because they want to make a difference!  I believe that if we actually lower the salaries of politicians, we will get more people running for office because they feel they can do some good.  As it stands, only people with money can afford to run for politics and win, and to them it becomes an investment.

"Hmmm, I could spend $50,000 on a campaign, get some of my rich friends to kick in some bucks, and I'll make over $150,000 per year plus some kick-ass benefits! That's more than 300% return on my investment, why didn't I do this sooner?"

The problem with the system seems obvious.  I say we cut their salaries and attract some people for office who actually want to do some work and effect change for the better in society, rather than trying to line their own wallets and pad their bank accounts.  If anyone has any doubts, look at Naheed Nenshi as an example, because not that long ago, he was a teacher himself and look what he has accomplished already.

Character Vs Competence

Two Ways to Lead

With the American federal election less than a week away I've decided to compare Obama and Romney. Not by examining their platforms or political views, but instead by looking at the way they present themselves personally as a leader. There are several different ways to be a leader. From leading by example, to being a voice that others can rally around. When it comes to politics I've found there are two specific kinds of leaders than are most common. The first is a leader who uses charisma and character to relate and inspire the public. The second is a more robotic calming figure, who seems in control and professional.

Photo Retrieved from http://www.geografi-tjek.dk/foto.aspx?id=858

The first example we will look at is the competent and robotic style of Governor Mitt Romney.  Let's face it Mitt Romney is pretty boring. There is essentially nothing about him that makes a person want to watch him. A high level business executive, it is almost as if he has been groomed for this job his entire life. Imagine the stereotypically president from movies and it is easy to picture Romney. He doesn't posses any qualities that make him relatable to the public. Which causes him to appear distant from the concerns of the general public. This style is not all bad however, as it conveys a professional demeanour. This gives the public a feeling of and individual in control. A characteristic sought after for a leader of an entire nation. This style has won many times before, just look at our friend Mr. Harper. There's a boring guy who won based on his platform and his profesional look. This type of candidate uses a low risk strategy to attempt to win. This may be low risk but it doesn't have the potential for the reward that other styles provide.  

Photo Retrieved from http://thewhizzer.blogspot.ca

Barack Obama is an opposing style to that of Romney. In the sense that he is relatable to the public, he conveys an everymen image. For example he is a documented sports fan, characteristic like this make him appear more relatable to the general public. Obama himself carries a more interesting demeanour than his counterpart. He has a charisma about him that makes him likeable. Even his speeches appear more interesting as his delivery comes with a certain flare that I just don't see when Romney delivers a speech. This isn't to suggest Obama gives wild and exuberant speeches with no level of professionalism. It does however appear that his speeches are less calculated and I find this more appealing to listen too. The strategy to use a candidate's personality to market him to the public can be very effective. Although this may not be the most popular example, let's take a moment to examine Hitler. Hitler used his charisma and his strong belief to gain support. Do we honestly believe that if Hitler delivered his speeches in a slow monotone style he could have gained the support he did. I for one have high doubts. Charisma however effective does have the potential to blow up. It is a much riskier style that can cause a candidate to look unstable or a little crazy, or just not be taking seriously.

I believe Barack Obama has done an excellent job using his charisma in balance with professionalism to produce an ideal style of candidate.  Strictly speaking from a style standpoint and excluding the actual issues, I feel that Mitt Romney's lack of personality and relatability will hurt him in the upcoming elections. I may have a bias for Obama based on the fact that I agree with him on more of his platform ideas than those of Romney, but it is clear these two candidates have opposing styles and I believe Obama's is more desirable.