This nincompoop from New Zealand was, for some unfathomable reason, allowed to spew his horrible message in a newspaper. While it would be most emotionally satisfying to vent at length about what’s wrong with his arguments, I would instead like to focus on something he mentions in passing, at the very end: The assertion that multiculturalism leads to violence.

I find it quite surprising that such a view can be widespread, but sadly it is. So many countries, including the usually progressive ones of Europe, are having huge problems dealing with immigration.

This is certainly not new. So long at there have been immigrants there have been people who hated them. It just boggles the mind that such is still the case in the 21st century.

Last night I saw a good friend who has been abroad for a while. He is a Croat, and I am a Serb. I’m pretty sure that that means we should try to kill each other on sight. Instead, we reflected on the burden of ethnic guilt and the bipolar nature of the search for ethnic identity. I’d never had such a conversation before, and I was amazed to hear someone else feeling the same way I do. Our people (yes, our people, not our peoples) have a gruesome history, one which we would rather not associate with. And yet, being a Serb or a Croat is not like being Serbian or Croatian – it’s not a citizenship that one can renounce. In some way, our flesh and blood belongs to these ethnic groups. But why? Who decided that?

The question of the significance of ethnic identity is probably one that I will ask myself for the rest of my life, but that’s not the point. The point is that, in the end, my friend and I are just two human beings, who ash themselves the same questions.

I should count my lucky stars for living in Toronto, an island of… I don’t know exactly what to call it, sanity? Isn’t it amazing that I can sit at a table with a member of a “different ethnic group” and share these feelings, and see how we feel the same way?

I would like to think that this is what multiculturalism leads to.

I am sitting here, munching on my breakfast of cereal flakes. No milk, no yogurt.

Why? Well, I’ve realized that eating my breakfast at work saves me a lot of time in the morning, time that I can redirect towards the cause of sleep (I couldn’t call asleep until 2 last night, so every additional minute this morning was particularly appreciated). I fill a container with cereal and go.

This morning I arrived at the office to see that we are out of milk. Disaster! I can’t even go out to buy some, because I am the only one in, and I must stay dutifully at my desk in order the guard the premises from the hoards to petty criminals waiting to get in and steal our laptops.

I noticed a cup of blueberry yogurt in the fridge. Assuming that no one would miss it all that much, I took it out and began walking to my desk to pour it over my cereal.

But I couldn’t.

As I walked down the hall I began to read the ingredients on the package. Actually, that’s not true, I didn’t actually read them because the only way the manufacturers could fit the names of the several dozen ingredients – most with names well over ten letters long – onto the package, was to make the type miniscule.

I felt sick to my stomach. The jar of yogurt that is in my fridge at home has exactly two ingredients listed on it: whole milk, bacterial cultures. The cup I was holding in my hand contained many things, but no yogurt.

I am completely socked at what we’ve allowed corporations to tell us we should eat. I am shocked that anyone would eat what was in that cup.

Like most religious people, I am occasionally guilty of lulling myself into to feeling that my religion is perfect.

Of course, I could try to generate some convoluted argument in order to prove that it is. Such an argument would likely involve redefining the terms of the debate (the surest way to win any battle of rhetoric!). To wit: My religion is perfect insofar as we are talking about MY religion, the extremely narrow and unique definition of Hinduism as practiced by Vega Janic. In my Hinduism, everyone is kind and compassionate and polite. Everybody minds their own business, except for when it comes to caring for those in need.

This line of thinking, however, is obviously vain and narcissistic. It boils down to “The world would be better if everyone were more like me (or at least like what I imagine I am like, which may or may not be accurate – though I like to think it’s more accurate than inaccurate).”

It’s probably for my own good (though not so much the good of the world) that I then come across things like this.

Extremism exists in every religion. Indeed, you could argue that it is the natural consequence of living in the modern era. Technology has opened our eyes and our minds. I’m not the most pro-technology person in the world, but I’m certainly aware of what it has done for us. Where once young people were confused by their feelings and tried to repress them, they can now go online and discover “Oh, I’m gay! What’s more, in some parts of the world, that’s not such a big deal. Why not here too?” Women can communicate with their sisters from around the world and learn “Hmm, in some places when a man rapes a woman, it’s HE that goes to jail. Maybe we can use some of that here.” Some of these discoveries aren’t even so profound. Sometimes it’s just as simple as “Maybe I can be myself, and the sky won’t fall.”

Then there are those who are petrified by others thinking this way. The people on the above-linked message board who are throwing in their support for anti-secularism are, I suspect, of such a sort.

Do not mistake me: In events where Hindus are marginalized by other groups, we need to stand up in protest. No one is free unless everyone is free.

But then you find someone who will declare, as on this message board, that “When Dharma is under attack by rogues of uncivilized barbarians, then the concept of Ahimsa becomes useless.” Or phrased more explicitly, when our religion is “threatened” by those whom we have judged by our standards, whatever those may be, to be uncivilized and barbarous, we can throw the principles of our religion out the window in order to crush those people.

DharamRakshak is certainly not the first person in history to make such a suggestion. Let’s just take a moment to remember that when people start making declarations such as his, peace is not what follows.

Having had four days to reflect, I would now like to share some final thoughts on our latest federal election.

To begin, some thoughts – yet again – on the electoral system. As illustrated in my last post, if we had a proportional electoral system, we would now have a very different Parliament. Yes, it would still be a Conservative minority, but a much weaker one. The NDP and Green Party would be much stronger, the Bloc much weaker (though I generally like the Bloc [except for the separatism thing], I do think that it’s inappropriate for a party with so little of the popular vote to get so much representation).

I don’t, however, think that a straight proportional system is the best choice. I do think there is a need for regional representation too, and that’s why I didn’t include the two independent MPs. When a riding elects an independent it means that the voters really know this person and truly believe that the candidate will fight for that riding in Parliament. They are not just blindly voting for a party.

I’m not saying that MMP is necessarily the way to go, though I do like it a lot. All I know for sure is that we need a dialogue to start, and we need our politicians – all of them – to get behind making the Canadian electoral system more democratic.

On a similar note, I think we should take a moment to think about how people think about Canadian politics.

We are not a two-party system, and thank goodness for that. We have some real choices, we have parties that have very different ideas about how the country should be run, and that is fantastic because Canadians have very different ideas about how the country should be run.

I am very disappointed to see that our journalists don’t seem to realize this. I could not believe my eyes when I read the Metro on Tuesday, and saw them describe the NDP and Greens as “bleeding” Liberal votes. Other newspapers were no better, using language like “stealing votes,” as if the other parties had done something wrong by winning votes.

Excuse me? So it’s my fault that the Conservatives won? If only I could have closed my eyes and thought of Canada and voted Liberal, things would have been different, but no, I had to go and have opinions about issues and voted for something other than the two allowed parties. This is disgusting. One of the reasons why I feel so strongly about the need for electoral reform is exactly this: I don’t want to spend my whole life voting against the Conservatives. I want to vote for a party, I want to believe in something. And I certainly don’t want to be made to feel like a traitor for expressing my opinions through my vote.

The cover of the Toronto Star on Thursday (I think it was Thursday, don’t quote me on that) showed a picture of Harper on one side and Dion on the other. Under Harper was the caption “the price of victory” and under Dion “the price of defeat.” Again, this is not a two party system. The Liberals didn’t loose, at least not any more than the NDP or Greens did. This wasn’t a race between two parties; Layton and May did not cause the Liberals to loose. To my recollection, no members of the NDP showed up at my house, held a gun to my head and told me to vote for Olivia Chow or else they would off my kitty. I, a citizen of this country, chose which party I felt represented my views, and I voted for them. Boo hoo for the Grits, but I am allowed to vote with my conscience. It is not my job to not-elect Steven Harper.

I don’t particularly like the idea of “winning” in politics either. The Conservatives didn’t “win:” They were given the privilege, by the Canadian electorate, of leading our 40th Parliament. They are our employees, our servants, and we have bestowed them with a great honour. I think we often forget that. We pay our MPs salaries, and if we don’t like the job they are doing, we need to tell them. Loudly.

But I digress.

I encourage everyone to write to his or her MP and to Harper himself, and let them know you care about electoral reform. Let them know you care about democracy.

We are all Canadians. Politics shouldn’t be about this guy beating that guy, about victory and defeat. We are all in this boat together, we all win or loose together. The election is over and done, and now that it is, it’s time to get on with the actual business of running a nation: And the only way to do that is through compromise, rational discourse, and compassion for our fellow citizens.

I would like to end by paraphrasing John Wayne: “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my [Prime Minister,] and I hope he does a good job.”

Iceland is having some troubles. I am rather upset that in one of the half-dozen or so countries that I would choose to live in, people can't withdraw money from their banks. How could such unethical banking practices have taken place in a country that I idealize so? It's scary, and I don't predict anything short of zombie-apocalypse.

On a brighter note, congratulations to Nambu, Kobayashi and Maskawa for their Nobel Prize in Physics! Yay!

Sometimes I really like Gilles Duceppe. Read this. It's like, Fuck yeah Gilles!
On the other hand, Jack Layton does on occasion disappoint me. We should shut down the tar sands, Michael Byers is spot on, and Jack mustn't be afraid to say so.

Yesterday I had planned to post about our boyfriend Stephen, and his plan to "get tough on crime." But then I got tired and didn't feel like it. Besides, what could I possibly add that isn't obvious to everyone already: Longer jail times don't prevent crime - hell, the death penalty doesn't prevent crime. I wanted to ask Stephen to present me with a single study that suggested otherwise.

Look, I'm just as afraid of getting randomly shot on Younge St. as anyone else. It's probably worse being a woman, because I fear that I am more likely to be a victim of crime (I confess I don't know for a fact if this is true). But when academics who study the subject tell me "Longer jail time for criminals won't make you safer, the only way to stop crime is to address its causes: Poverty, low levels of education, domestic abuse," I tend to listen.

But not our buddy Stephen! Here's what CP24 is reporting:

Harper used the Saskatchewan stop to promise a crackdown on conditional sentences and house arrest. It was the second straight day of Conservative justice reform proposals that many criminologists say will increase prison costs and do nothing to deter crime.

"We're listening to ordinary people," Harper said in rebuttal to the body of academic research.

"Not people who work in ivory towers, but people who actually work on the street and deal with crime on a day-to-day basis."

Good work Harper. I bet Bob at the corner store knows how to fix crime better than some four-eyes in the Ivory Tower who studies the matter all day. What do "criminologists" with a "body of academic research" know?

I would like to being by quoting a person called Neil Butcher, residing in Brighton, who wrote this in response to this BBC article on creationism.

The media wrongly describes this as a debate between creationism and evolutionary theory. In fact, the debate is between creationism and the whole of science as we know it. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. For informed people to challenge accepted scientific orthodoxy on the basis of proper evidence is always healthy, but to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion.

Indeed, since the positions of many celestial bodies are based on basic triangulation, these distances being incorrect would discredit elementary geometry.

But that is only on the topic of "young-earth" creationism. As for creationism as whole, perhaps the notoriously politically-correct Europeans (and their Ministers of Education) should consider the following:

One aspect of the creationism/evolution debate that doesn't get enough play is the fact that it automatically favors the Judeo-Christian-Islamic worldview over all others. What about the rest of us religious nuts? What about the Vaishnavas who believe that the world we perceive is but one in an innumerable sequance of worlds, each created by Brahma, who sits upon the lotus flower which blooms, wilts and dies an innumerable number of times from Vishnu's belly button, Vishnu in turn himself coming into being and destroying himself countless times on the surface of the cosmic ocean? What about the Shaivas who say that all of that is true, except that the cause of Vishnu's rebirths is the cosmic dance of Shiva? What about the dozens of pre-modern Hindu views of the begining of the world which were not so lucky as to survive into the contemporary Vaishnava/Shaiva/Shakta religious division? What abbout the Buddhists who say that discussing the origin of the world is like a man shot with a poisoned arrow asking the name, occupation and hime village of the person who shot him before he will accept medicine? And what about those who will say that the world we see is hanging from the branches of Yggdrasil?

What about the religious atheists (like me) who think that all this talk of omnipotent, omniscient creator gods who give a damn about what we humans do is a ridiculous fairy tale that distracts from the real point of religion?

If Europeans are as hesitant to criticize religion for fear they might seem prejudiced, as the delightful Pat Condell insists, well then, me too! I want my world view taught to school children. Every person the the planet with an opinion on the matter send it in on a card and have it taught to school children. After all, the Pope's, Stephen Hawking's and my opinion are all of equal weight, right?

Take note! I just thought of a reason why having a President Palin might not be so bad:

This thought came to me while watching Matt Damon's interview in which he described his fears about a Palin presidency. Damon worried what skills Palin, a self-proclaimed hockey mom, might bring to a confrontation with Vladimir Putin.

Hang on! Vladimir Putin! Isn't that the guy who keeps being photographed topless, sunlight reflecting off of his muscular torso as he goes fishing in the Russian wilderness? The guy who recently shot a rampaging tiger that was about to devour a camera crew?

Who better than Palin to have a sit-down with Putin? She can invite him to Alaska to hunt wolves from airplanes, talk fishing and compare sporting rifles. Maybe after meeting in the Kremlin they can have a game of hockey.

I'm not kidding. Putin has gone out of his way to create the image of Macho Manly Man. Maybe having a politician who shares some of his interests, whom Putin can bond with, might not be so bad. After all, when the time comes for serious discussion, there will be handlers and diplomats out the wazoo making sure neither Putin nor Palin say anything stupid.

If America's goal is to regain the respect of countries like France and Germany, Obama's their man. He has the kind of sophisticated, educated air that Europeans like. But if the goal is peaceful relations with Russia, a good-looking gun-loving chick with a journalism degree might be just the ticket.

Perhaps doomsday isn't just around the corner.

You see, this is what happens. The Canadian federal parties go and do something moronic like not want to let May into the debate, I intend to write about my feelings on this subject but get lazy for a few days, and before I know what's what the Canadian public are up in an uproar about this and the party leaders decide to pull their heads out of their bums. Now everything is hunky dory, and I have no political topics to comment on today.

So here are some other reflections:

1) I saw a man with tiger stripe tattoos on the subway this morning! His arms and neck were covered in furry stripes. Presumably, the rest of him was too. ZOMG!

2) After discussing the matter with the UN, NATO, OPEC and the Freemasons, we've come to an agreement where celebrities I would like to sleep with are no longer allowed to be gay. Anderson! Ger your ass back over to this side!

3) This website makes me feel better. However, I still indend to plan for the worst (and hope for the best).

The conversation went something like this:

Wei-Tom: There's a lot of prostitutes in my new neighborhood.
Me: That should make your dating life simpler.
Wei-Tom: Dum-pshh... All I have to do is pay lots of money.
James: You can get full service for $70.
Me: That's true. I read the adult classified at the back of NOW magazine, and I am shocked at how little some of those girls charge.
James: Why do you read the back of NOW?
Me: I think it's a barometer of our culture. Like, last February *everyone* was offering bare back blow jobs. And last month *everyone* was offering brown and golden showers.
Boss: Wei-Tom! There you are!
Me: Oh... That was embarrassing...

Comrades! I break my blogging silence to bring you this:

I am ever amazed at the ways that U of T finds to tell the student body to piss off. Yesterday I went to Hart House, to take advantage of my status as a recent graduate and receive a discounted gym membership. You see, as an alumni, they now worship the ground I walk on - and thus I get towel service. Yes, while students can sweat (both metaphorically and literally) all over the floors and no one will care, my sweat will now be sopped up by a pristine white towel, still warm from the dryer.

I indulged myself: Though I was well aware that this towel made me a member of the bourgeoisie, I draped it over my shoulder like a victory sash. I strutted through Hart House, knowing that my sweat was more valuable to the University than that of all 50 000 enrolled students.

Bwa ha ha!

Who doesn't love talking about American politics? I certainly enjoy nothing better than a hot cup of tea and a rant about what they are doing wrong this time. Here's what they are doing wrong:

Everyone is trying to be politically correct by asserting that Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy is irrelevant to Palin's potential presidency (I say presidency because if she and McCain win, it'll only be - what? three months ? - before John kicks it). In principle I agree. After all, were running for office I would certainly hope that people wouldn't judge me based on my family. The situation is somewhat different though, if your teenager is knocked up and you've been supporting abstinence-only sex-ed the whole time. I don't care that Bristol Palin is pregnant; so many girls her age are. What I don't understand is why her mother thinks that, even though abstinence-only didn't work for her family, it might work for someone else's. Wouldn't this be a great time to say something like "I support and love my daughter, but this experience has given me cause to re-evaluate my views on the content of state-funded sex education programs."?

Then again, changing your opinion based on available evidence is not a Republican value.

Today, in the course of one conversation, my father aged fifteen years.

So, it's been a while since I've posted anything. I was going to give you a nice rant about how scat is going to ruin society (and my predictions for the next big fetish) but the inspiration has left me. Instead, here's a random meme I stole!

What would you be if you could be...

A Vegetable - A tomato, the glue of gastronomy.
An Animal - Elephant
A Fruit - I am a fruit. But if I had to be another kind, I'd be a lychee: Sweet, juicy, but with a DEADLY PITT!!
A Colour - Aubergine.
A Household Object - A spork.
Article of Clothing - One of those thongs for men with a zipper in the front.
A Drink - A Starbucks Chai Latte. Warm, frothy and spicy...
A Famous Person - Einstein.
A Film Character - The Narcoleptic Argentinian from Moulin Rouge.
A Cartoon Character - Spongebob Squarepants.
A Car - A pickup truck or a cherry picker.
A City - Tokyo. Confusing, complicated and full of girls swimming in fish tanks.
A Country - Holland. Prostitution and euthanasia for all!
A Mythical Creature - Jesus. (Oh snap!)
A Chocolate Bar - Lindt 70% cacao - anything else, and you may as well be eating cat poop!
A Book - Chapter 10 for the Rg Veda.
A Sport - Speed skating or men's swimming. I think you all know why.
A Word - "Testicle"
One of your Family - Darian.
One of your Friends - Miranda. She seems to know what she's doing.