Archive for News commentary

Toronto mayoral race loses its only woman

Sarah Thomson dropped out of the Toronto mayoral race on Tuesday, throwing her support behind George Smitherman in an attempt to stop current front-runner Rob Ford.

Thomson held an early morning news conference at her campaign headquarters where she made the announcement, saying:

(Ford is) going to basically destroy transit, he doesn’t care about the social issues that George Smitherman cares about, there’s so many reasons … these reasons are very important to the long-term future of Toronto.

Some will applaud Thomson’s move, considering she was trailing in the polls and was not likely to win.

Sarah answers the question, Smitherman draws a blank

Sarah Thomson dropped out of the Toronto mayoral race to endorse George Smitherman.

However, there’s no doubt that others will see this as another blow to women in politics — losing the only woman who was considered one of the five front-runners will no doubt cause some people concern.

As a woman, I never really got behind Thomson because she was a woman — it’s not how I vote. This being Thomson’s first attempt at politics, it’s also hard for me to get behind her as a genuine candidate (who can forget the kerfuffle when she used her magazine, the Women’s Post, to announce her candidacy?)

The question really boils down to this: Can a woman really run Canada’s biggest city?

Well, they did before amalgamation, but since 1998, both of Toronto’s mayors have been men (Mel Lastman and David Miller). Has the city grown and changed enough that a woman would be unable to handle the portfolio?

Not necessarily.

Was Thomson that woman?

I don’t think so.

Sarah Thomson is a successful business woman, much like Belinda Stronach and others who have entered politics before. But I think she failed to really get the public’s trust before throwing her hat into a big, political job (much like Stronach when she ran for the leadership of the Conservative party).

In order to get a woman elected as mayor in Toronto, I think that woman has to be a councillor and prove herself to the electorate before trying to become mayor of Toronto.

And while even that does not guarantee anything (just look at former mayor Barbara Hall’s failed bid against David Miller in 2003 and former councillor Jane Pitfield’s failed bid in 2007), I think it’s something that will come with time.

It just wasn’t the right time and Sarah Thomson was not the right woman.

(Photo courtesy of Sarah Thomson’s flickr account. See more of her photos here.)

Quitters aren’t heroes

Update: Gawker reporters there is no Jenny. My original post remains below.

It’s been quite a week for dramatic exits when it comes to quitting your job.

First, JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater decided he had enough after being hit on the head with some luggage and being yelled at by passengers. He quit his job by yelling obscenities over the airplane intercom, followed by deploying the plane’s emergency slide, grabbing a beer and taking off.

And became an Internet hero.

Then on Tuesday, “girl quit” and “dry erase” became two of Twitter’s top-trending topics thanks to the girl who allegedly quit her job via messages written on a dry erase board about her boss which she allegedly emailed to the entire company (I saw alleged, because this is the Internet, so you never know).

And now she has been crowned the Internet’s latest hero.

In the span of 24 hours, the discussion has gone beyond whether the flight attendant was right to quit the way he did (the Star‘s Jim Byers argues that airline passengers are too entitled nowadays). Instead, what we should be discussing is whether either of these “heroes” should have done what they did.

Resignation letters are so 2009.

When Conan O’Brien decided to leave the Tonight Show instead of have it pushed back, he went on a parade of anti-NBC comments for his final shows. The network ignored it, and Conan was a hero to the common man.

But everyone seemed to remember that “normal” people shouldn’t do such things when it comes to leaving their jobs. For one, a lot of industries are small nowadays and word gets around. And you never know when you might need a reference from that horrendous employer you trash-talked before.

Which brings us to the great Quit-gate of 2010.

Why are these people heroes? Slater took a beer from the plane and took off driving. Which is a crime. (Slater was later arrested for criminal mischief and reckless endangerment). As for Dry Erase Girl? We don’t even know her name — so at least she’s being smart about that but her pictures are all over the Internet, and the Internet never forgets.

Behaviour like this should not be rewarded. We should not be commenting about how great these people are because of these Internet memes. The flight attendant will likely never work in the airline industry again (even if he wanted to). Both him and Dry Erase Girl will have to overcome being these Internet memes when it comes to getting a new job.

Sure, we all want to stick it to the man. And so when we see someone else do it, we’re automatically in their camp. But there are limits when it comes to real life.

What both of these cases illustrate is just how selfish the human race has become. Am I defending the actions of the airline passengers that contributed to Slater’s tantrum? Not totally, but I’d be willing to wager the one who hit him in the head with their luggage didn’t mean to. And the ones who yelled at him are also illustrating how selfish we are as a society nowadays.

As for Dry Erase Girl? Work is called work for a reason. If she felt she was being sexually harassed at work for the way she looked, then there are avenues for that. Making a jackass of your boss to the world wide web is crossing a line and is (almost) no better than what he (allegedly) did to her.

So let’s nip this in the bud before it really gets ridiculous. End the quitting memes. Please. My Twitter feed appreciates it.

(Photo courtesy of Sighthound on Flickr. See more of his photos in his photostream.)

The Not-So Secret Life of Bristol Palin

Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are off again.

Don’t worry if you didn’t even know the two were on again — they got back together and split up faster than Ross or Rachel have on Friends.

I once thought it was impossible to make the story of a knocked up 17-year-old girl whose mother was running for vice-president of the United States for the Republican Party any sadder, but apparently there is. It’s the saga that is Levi and Bristol.

In 2008 when her pregnancy came out, I felt sad for poor Bristol. Sad that she had to suffer the weight of being pregnant before marriage in the public eye. Sad that she would never be able to raise that baby in peace — the press would hound her for years. And even sadder that now she was to marry the boy who knocked her up (after all, the marriage likely wasn’t because she wanted to, as much as she needed to accept the marriage as punishment for what she did).

But then Levi went all fame hungry, and Bristol played the teen single mom card. A few weeks ago, I read an interview with her in People magazine where she talked about how being a mom was, you know, like, hard, which made me find it hard to believe that Levi was the only one hungry for fame.

Really Bristol, you can go away now.

After all, Sarah Palin did not win the election and she resigned as governor of Alaska, so really there is no need for her daughter to still be making headlines by giving interviews. There is no need for Bristol to do an anti-teen pregnancy PSA. Or to be guesting on The Secret Life of the American Teenager (warning extremely BAD acting on that link — click on your own peril). Or charging at least $15,000 for public speaking engagement — I’m sorry what wisdom does Bristol possess that I would want, or need, to spend tens of thousands of dollars to hear?

Once upon a time, I felt bad for Bristol Palin. But not anymore. She may have been thrust into the media spotlight at a time when most teenage girls would rather not face the world, but now she demands it.

When her and Levi got re-engaged, the couple spilled all the deets to US Weekly (for the low price tag of $10,000 — I can’t imagine why anyone would think it was just a publicity stunt):

“I really thought we were over,” Levi tells Us Weekly. “So when I went, I had no hope. I think we both just started talking — and then we took Tripp for a walk.”

Says Bristol, “When he left that night, we didn’t hug or kiss, but I was thinking how different it was. He texted me: ‘I miss you. I love you. I want to be with you again’ … I was in shock.”

Gag.

And then this week, who gets the “exclusive” it’s over deets? People magazine, come on down:

And just like that, they were off again. “It’s over. I broke up with him,” Bristol Palin tells PEOPLE exclusively of her second try at an engagement to Levi Johnston, father of her 19-month-old son Tripp.

Palin, 19, says the relationship soured on July 14, the very same day they announced their marriage intentions to the world. Palin says he told her that evening he might have fathered a baby with another teenage girl.

This is worse than Days of our Lives.

The only person I feel sorry for in this whole charade is Baby Tripp who did nothing to deserve any of this. It would be one thing if Bristol and Levi were fighting over their son, but instead it appears the two of them are trying to outdo one another on extending their 15 minutes of fame.

Give me a break.

What we all should do is ignore all the forthcoming “news” from Bristol Palin and Levon Johnston. If you wouldn’t care about the intimate workings of the teenage couple down the street, then please, don’t care about these two. Don’t feed into their need to be famous.

Because there’s a baby involved in all of this. And one would hope he will grow up to be a wonderful person.

Even if his parents are limelight-loving, money-grabbing, publicity-seekers.

(Photo of Bristol Palin from chrisdat on Flickr. Check out more photos in chrisdat’s photostream).

Are we really just skanks?

Twitter’s been hopping today due to the current MacLean’s cover story: “Outraged Moms, Trashy Daughters” (not available online yet UPDATE: Five days after the online furor began, MacLean’s has finally posted the article). The cover is of a straight-laced mother looking all disapproving as her halter top-wearing daughter swings her arms in the air (dancing?).

I got to read the article today because my magazine happened to come in the mail. The article’s content is really nothing new (see Mean Girls from 2004, any of the teen comedies from the ’90s).

Some harp on MacLean’s for doing these anti-teenage girl articles all the time, but what do you expect from a national news magazine that is really targeted toward men? Of course they’re going to write articles which scare fathers even more about their teenage daughter’s whereabouts. I’ve been a subscriber for almost a year and flip through an issue in less than a half an hour, there is usually little for me there (and I’m not even your typical “woman”).

Remember when this Britney Spears cover was considered risque? That's, like, so 1999.

All that being said, I do think this MacLean’s article has a little weight behind it. Aren’t all teens and early twenty-somethings showing more of their sexuality earlier? (And I don’t just mean to their mother’s generation, but even to my generation — which is not that far ahead of them.) Aren’t girls encouraged to be more sexual? To dress in more revealing clothes? And aren’t these stereotypes reinforced for these girls everywhere — on billboards, television and the Internet ad naseum?

When I was a teenage girl, I wanted to dress older than I was. Not slutty, but I wanted to show off cleavage or my legs. Looking at my 28-year-old self in the mirror now compared to photographs of the teenage girl I was, now I can see that my body was not ready for any of that.

But nowadays, girls at 15, 16 dress like that. Little short skirts. Tank tops with boobs popping out everywhere. My last apartment was across the street from a high school, and every time I got stuck in the crowd with the kids as they came to and from school I thanked my lucky stars I was not in high school today — it’s too much work.

Britney was nothing compared to the ads for Gossip Girl.

All these girls look like the reality stars they claim that they know they’re not. They dress like the girls from The Hills or from Gossip Girl or 90210 whether they have the money or not. They say they know these girls’ lives are not real, as the MacLean’s article quotes 15-year-old Olivia on Snooki from Jersey Shore:

It’s so ridiculous, it’s funny. I don’t relate to that in my life at all. I wonder, ‘Why would you do that?’ But it’s enjoyable to watch.

Perhaps then it’s not that girls want to be like the images they see projected back at them, but rather they feel this is what they are expected to be.

I’m all for someone dressing the way they want. I’m not trying to censor these girls. But stories are also surfacing in the news that young women nowadays do not know how to properly dress for the workplace. Part of that is blamed on how offices have become extremely casual environments, but part of that is also blamed on what young women have seen on television and in movies as what passes for acceptable workplace dress — and showing cleavage is usually an office no-no.

When I was a teenager, I was bombarded by images of girls in magazines. That was my ideal. People would say they were concerned that us girls would get an eating disorder because we were trying to match up to the models in the magazines. I don’t think I’ve heard all that much about eating disorders with girls today, it’s all about their sexuality.

In my day, really the only way you were exposed to sex was through the talk at school (“everyone’s doing it”). But now, not only is everyone at school doing it, but you watch it constantly on primetime TV and in movies — sometimes quite graphically (nevermind the Mel Gibson tapes that were released a few weeks ago).

The MacLean’s article also touches on how 0ut of touch with feminism teenage girls are today. That’s been true since my generation, if not earlier (you could actually likely go back to our mother’s generation). We take for granted today what women in the 1960s and ’70s fought for. Feminists have been warning about this for decades. I don’t think any of this is an issue new to teenagers nowadays, they’re just following the commonplace of those that came before them.

Are our daughters trashy today? I think so. Should we be concerned? Yes, but I think we’ve come too far to reign things in at this point. All it comes down to is giving our daughters positive role models to look up to and trusting that even if she chooses to leave the house in that “outfit,” that she will make positive choices for herself. What someone looks like on the outside, is not necessarily who they are on the inside.

What do you think about this? Are girls today too slutty for their own good? Or is it just as it always has been — just an older generation lamenting the action of the younger generation?

A step in the right direction

On Monday, the Ontario government made a fantastic step at trying to break the habit of drinking and driving.

Basically, no matter what your license status (whether it be G1, G2 or a full G), if you are under the age of 21, you are not allowed to have any alcohol in your system at all or you could face a license suspension. Previously, it was just the G license holders who could have the legal amount of alcohol in their system.

From the Toronto Star:

Under Ontario’s graduated licensing system, all drivers are currently allowed to have small amounts of alcohol in their blood once they have earned a full “G” license.

But starting Sunday, drivers aged 21 and under who have been drinking will automatically lose their licenses for 24 hours and could face a fine up to $500 and have their license suspended for 30 days.

Anyone caught breaking the rule three times will have their license cancelled.

I applaud these rules. And think with this legislation, the government could even push forward even more and attempt to increase the amount of people who cannot drive with alcohol in their system.

Considering kids could not drink and drive with the way the Ontario licensing system was, this should not hamper them at all. If anything, being unable to drive with alcohol in my system for the four years I had my G1 and G2 got me into the habit of not getting behind the wheel after I had a drink.

Even today, I will have just one drink if I know I have to drive. My life is more important than a glass of booze.

Some kids that just turned 19 and hold their full G license will no doubt the angry about this move, but to the kids just getting their licenses today or currently holding a G1 or G2, the new law makes no difference. And that’s where the strength in this law is: Introduce it to the young drivers who don’t know any better, and haven’t formed bad habits. Bad habits are what kill people on the road.

If the government continues their crackdown on drinking and driving, Monday’s ban could be the start of a further ban. Whether an outright ban of drinking and driving for all drivers will come to fruition or even be possible remains to be seen.

But at least for today, the Ontario government has done something right.

Photo courtesy of jburns00 on Flickr. You can see more of his photos here.