Food Allergy Accommodation: When Is It Enough?

Food allergies are a considerably more talked about ailment these days.  There are a number of reasons why; people are more aware of their own dietary restrictions, specialized menus like gluten and lactose free are frequently advertised at restaurants, numerous high profile law suits have been settled in the last few years due to accidental cross contamination, and schools, airlines and other institution have adopted allergen-free policies.

Certainly it is wise to be educated about food allergens, especially if you suffer from them, and it's a must for anyone in the food service industry.  Everyone deserves a safe place to eat.  But when does accommodation become excessive?  Is it reasonable to expect a school or airline to prohibit any and all foods that are known allergens?

The answer might be simple at first, but lets consider all of the items that are common food allergens.

The most widely known one is peanuts of course (And further on, tree nuts in general).  This includes peanut butter, raw nuts such as almonds, many types of candy bars, pesto or thai sauce, etc.  You will find most companies and schools have policies prohibiting these types of foods, as it is probably the most common allergen, and a potentially fatal one for people that have anaphylactic reactions.

The other most common food allergens include dairy, gluten, eggs, and shellfish.  

It is rare that you will find anywhere in Canada that bans all of these foods, as it covers almost everything in the basic Canadian diet.  No bread for sandwiches, no yogurt or cheese, no omelettes or breakfast items, no shrimp for salads... the list goes on and on.

So when do we draw the line at accommodation?

Recently, a Hamilton, Ontario woman decided to find out where that line was.  Or perhaps to move the line in the sand a little further in her preferred direction.

Lynne Glover is the mother of 6 year old Elodie Glover, a cute blonde haired little girl who attends Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Elementary School.  Elodie is severely allergic to both egg and dairy.  So much so that she has gone into anaphylactic attacks numerous times in the last year.

Lynne was proactive, and spoke with the school board about their food policies, and the school board attempted to be accommodating.  They sent home letters to the parents of the other school children letting them know of Elodie's severe condition.  They replaced pizza day in the cafeteria with Roma Pizza (a non dairy pizza).  They even went so far as to suspend the school's milk program for all of the students to accommodate Elodie.

Unfortunately for Lynne Glover, this was not enough.  The other children were allowed to bring their regular lunches to school, with the exception of peanuts. Holy Name of Jesus already had a peanut ban in place, as many other children were affected by nut allergies.  The children are permitted to eat their lunches at their own desks.  Lynne was terrified of Elodie coming into contact with another child's lunch, so again she went back to the school board asking for something to be done.

The school board reiterated all of the changes they had already made on Elodie's behalf.  Additionally, the school's allergen policy states that schools "cannot guarantee an allergen-free environment", but will make "every reasonable effort" to reduce the risk of exposure for affected children.  The school offered to allow Elodie to eat her lunch in a different room.  Lynne refused, claiming they were segregating her daughter.  

Eventually the school board finally resigned from the conversation, at a loss for what else to do.  They could not tell all the other parents of the school that their children were not allowed to bring any milk products to school, as it is a Canadian staple.  Additionally, the Canada Food Guide and Health Canada already state that children do not get enough dairy in their daily diets.  How do you tell Mr. & Mrs. Smith that Johnny is not allowed to have a cheese sandwich, or yogurt, or a carton of milk in his lunch?  And what do you replace it with?

Lynne was less than pleased.  In addition to removing Elodie from the school, she also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, claiming the school was being discriminatory against Elodie for not accommodating her further.  The school board won't comment on cases before judgement, so they have not released a public statement.

So when is enough enough?  Is Lynne correct and the school board should have done more to protect her daughter?  Or is Lynne being unreasonable expecting an entire school to sacrifice their dietary programs for the sake of one student?

Rainn's Christmas Message

So you may have noticed that I took some time off from blogging the last three months.

I decided that I needed a bit of rest from the blogging, and felt especially after the death of Jack Layton that some introspection was in order.

I spent most of my time focusing on photography, and meeting new people. It is easy for us to lose sight of some things that are very important when we spend so much time on the web. Granted we communicate with others through email or social networking, but none of it can replace good old fashioned human interaction.

I did some small projects through my real life work to help fund raise for Habitat for Humanity, I also took a short time off in September to go to Las Vegas, and will hopefully be there again in January or early February to finish off my long awaited project; The Ultimate Guide to The Las Vegas Strip.

As Christmas approaches, I am reminded of the things that I am thankful for in my life, such as my friends, the roof over my head, the fact that I have gainful employment, and my personal freedom and liberties.

These same things that I am so thankful for also remind me that I have an obligation. I am obligated to ensure that I am a good friend. I am obligated to do my best at work. I am obligated to look after my health, so that I can be an effective friend and worker. I am obligated to help others less fortunate than I.

I am also obligated to do my part to steer (or in some cases fight) the government when it is not acting in the best interests of Canadians.

The last item is key. Our government shapes our lives and our futures. It impacts people not only in Canada, but in any number of nations that we do business with, give aid to, have war or peacekeeping efforts in.

Unfortunately, our government has been a bit like a masquerade ball lately. Everyone is in disguise, motives are not clear, and you never know if the person you are speaking with is true or false.

I also recognize that I am one person. There will be no Federal election on the immediate horizon, so I can not change things simply with my vote. So I will continue to discuss the hot button issues here on my blog. I promise to look at things as unbiased as possible (I am human after all). I promise to tell only the truth, and to report only accurate facts as I can find them out.

This Christmas, I encourage you to think about this great country we live in (or whatever country you may hail from, if not Canada). Take the facts in, and decide for yourself what Canada should be and where we should be headed. I encourage you to act! Find a way to effect change! Write letters to your Members of Parliament. Write letters to the editor of your local news paper. Start a blog! All of these things make a difference. Especially if enough of us do them.

The time for Canadians to be passive is gone. It is time to take the reins of our Nation and move forward!

Subscribe to Thoughts of Rainn

Jack Layton Dead At 61

The Honourable Jack Layton:

July 18, 1950 - August 22, 2011

It's a sad day for Canada today, as the nation mourns the passing of NDP leader Jack Layton.

Layton passed away early Sunday morning of cancer, though details about his latest fight with cancer have been kept quiet by his family.

Although Layton announced less than a month ago that he would be taking a leave of absence from his post as leader of the official opposition to focus on his battle with cancer, Layton's death came as a shock to many.

Mainly because over the last year in his public appearances, Layton appeared to be The Unstoppable Man.

Early in 2010, Layton announced that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He publicly vowed to beat the cancer and be back on track to resume his political duties when Parliament was back in session in the fall. And he was. Layton was very optimistic about his fight with prostate cancer, as he had beaten the same condition 17 years earlier.

When the 2011 election had been called for this past May, Layton was recovering from a broken hip he had suffered earlier in the year, and still relied heavily on his cane. When questioned by the media if he had the energy to lead his party through another election campaign, he all but laughed in their faces. Indeed, Layton arguably finished the election scrappier than ever, and propelled his party to Official opposition status for the first time in NDP history.

Through all of the health issues Layton struggled with in the last year, he never seemed to lose composure or confidence that they were minor roadblocks, and indeed, Layton seemed invincible.

Last month when Layton announced publicly that he would be taking the rest of the summer off to fight a bout of newly diagnosed (and unspecified to the public) cancer, Canadians across the country were shocked at his gaunt and frail appearance. But in true Jack fashion, he vowed he would be back for the fall sitting of Parliament. Truly, Canadians had no reason to believe otherwise, as nothing seemed to get in the way of Jack's interminable will.

But sadly, Jack's fight came to an end this weekend. He passed away peacefully at 4:45 am Sunday morning.

Whether or not you agreed with Jacks politics, no one can deny his tenacity and overwhelming desire to make Canada a better place. Jack believed in the power of the people, and that ordinary working citizens like you and me were the driving factor to make Canada a world force and a nation that could be home to anyone despite race, gender or wealth.

Jack's level of conviction set a gold standard for everyone to live up to, especially politicians. I hope others follow in his footsteps.

Subscribe to Thoughts of Rainn

Brian McPherson: Canadian Tire Money Mogul

This week, and Edmonton Man, Brian McPherson fulfilled a 15 year dream to purchase a lawn tractor entirely with Canadian Tire money.

McPherson, 29, had been saving Canadian Tire money for 15 years, since he bought a hockey stick at the iconic Canadian retailer as a teen-ager. At that time, McPherson had received 10 cents in Canadian Tire money for his purchase, and a dream was born.

"I thought it'd be a good idea to save up all the money, and buy what at the time was the most expensive thing in the store, which was a riding lawn mower." said McPherson.

And so save he did. For 15 years, McPherson saved the Canadian Tire money from purchases on gas, household items, and well, anything else one can buy at Canadian Tire.

So a few weeks back, the McPherson family knew they were getting close to hitting their goal, and decided to count their dollars and cents. Sure enough, they had $1053 in Canadian Tire money. They bundled the money and took it to the store in a brief case.

Several local news outlets showed McPherson using his new lawn tractor on his yard. It's not a yard that really needs a lawn tractor, and McPherson does already own a standard push mower. When asked why he didn't choose to buy something else with the money, McPherson thought that would be ridiculous.

"This is one of those things that you set the goal (when you're a kid) and told your friends and family about what you were saving this ridiculous amount of Canadian Tire money for."

The Canadian Tire store manager, Bruce Duvander said he has worked for the company for 20 years, and only ever seen a similar amount of money redeemed once before.

_____________

_____________

Canadian Tire Money Fun Facts:

- Originally introduced in 1958

- The man's face on the front of the notes are a fictional character named "Sandy McTire"

- Over the last 50 years, there have been at least 19 different denominations of Canadian Tire money in circulation. Several of the denominations have been discontinued.

- Was at one time considered a form of legal tender for users of the Canadian E-Bay website, if the seller was willing to accept it.

- In 2004, several customers using an ATM machine at a CIBC branch in Moncton, New Brunswick were dispensed no less than 11 bills of Canadian Tire money instead of actual currency. The bank compensated the customers accordingly.

- In the mid 1990's, a German man was caught with $11,000,000 of counterfeit Canadian Tire money. The fakes were recovered before he was able to fly to Canada to redeem them.

Subscribe to Thoughts of Rainn

Fish Pedicures Banned By BC Health Authority

The BC Health Authority has done an apparent about-face on a decision it made last year, to allow spa owner Dixie Simpson to offer "fish pedicures".

Fish pedicures are a popular procedure in which clients place their feet in pools of water containing Garra Rufa rish. The fish are similar in size to minnows. They do not have teeth, but gulp up dead skin cells off the customer's feet.

The practise was first popularized in Turkey, as a means of alleviating the symptoms of psoriasis and eczema. In more recent years, it has become a popular feature in spas world wide, including France, Japan and the UK.

Dixie Simpson first began offering the service in her spa in Duncan, BC last year. She says she contacted the health authority to ensure everything was above board. The health authority gave her the go ahead.

But, in the last few weeks, the BC Health Authority has changed their mind, stating that the practise is not sanitary, despite the fact that Dixie uses UV filtration systems. The health authority feels there are potential chances for bacterial infections to be passed on from one customer to another, and so, they have since classified the Garra Rufa fish as "tools" of the spa owner. Under BC law, any "tools" used in a spa must be sterilized between customers.

Obviously, since they are live fish, it is impossible to sterilize them without killing them.

Dixie says that she will have no choice but to shut down if she can't use her fish for foot therapy.

The actual real risk is patients is low if not negligible. Why not just insist that the spa operators have customers read and sign a waiver stating the risks and reducing the liability of the spa owner?

Frankly, if your not allowed to dip your feet in a pool with harmless fish that can be found in spas around the world, one has to question the amount of government control being exorcised.

Will and Kate Make Me A Liar (And They Don't Have To "Suck It")

Alright, alright! So obviously, yesterday I wrote a post about the major insult to the City of Calgary, as Prince William and Kate Middleton would not don the white hats that they received upon arriving to Calgary.

As a recap for those of you who don't know, or didn't read my last post, receiving a "white hat" as they are called, is one of the city's highest honours for elite VIP'S or local heroes that have performed extraordinary feats of goodwill or bravery.

The couple received the white hats from the Mayor, Naheed Nenshi yesterday. It was reported by most major Canadian news outlets (ie CBC & CTV) that the Royal Couple wouldn't don their hats. Not even for a photo op. This was confirmed by video footage released by both news outlets.

So, I then went on a rampage of what a terrible insult this was to Calgary and it's citizens. (And I stand by that... not wearing the hat, at least for a photo op IS an insult.)

I posted my blog entry with a smug sense of self satisfaction. I think mainly because I uh... told the Duke... and, uh... maybe the Duchess... um... to "go suck it!".

So then, a few hours later, I was watching the local news update on TV, and low and behold, there was Will and Kate, seen EVERYWHERE in public, wearing their white hats.

Umm. Oops.

Now, suspiciously, this happened a few hours after they had received the white hats. And conveniently, after rechecking both CTV and CBC's websites, stories mentioning the Royals refusing to wear the white hats seemingly disappeared, with no explanation or further discussion on the topic.

So, I contemplated retracting my statement last night, but had got busy and thought I would do so today.

HMMM. In retrospect, I wish I had done this task last night. There were SEVERAL vicious emails in my inbox accusing me of spreading inflammatory lies about the Royals. There were also emails calling me names because I told members of the Royal Family to "suck it!" (which I actually think is rather ironic).

So. I have nothing against supporters of the Royals. And let me be the first to say that I am sorry to any who have taken personal offence. Similarly, I apologize directly to the Duke and Duchess for my comments, and wish them the best. (Though I am still confused as to why you did not don your hats for a photo op when you received them? Any explanation would be great, thanks).

William And Kate Can Suck It!

The media of Canada has been in a rabid-dog-like frenzy for the last week as Prince William and Kate Middleton have been touring Canada.

Great. Wonderful for them. They seem to be a nice young couple and I wish them the best.

I personally am not a "Royal Watcher" as they are called. To me they are people like everyone else. But, I do respect the history of our nation that is attached to the British Monarchy.

That being said, as a Canadian, and more specifically, a Calgarian, I was actually insulted by William and Kate this afternoon.

As is tradition in Calgary, William and Kate were being "White Hatted" upon their arrival to our fair city today. Being "White Hatted" means that you are invited to a special ceremony wherein you are welcomed to Calgary by receiving a top of the line, exclusive and expensive hand crafted white cowboy hat. It is important to note that this honour is specifically reserved for super important VIP'S or exceptional heros within our city. Only a handful of people each year receive a white hat.

While I normally would have been in favour of giving the Royals a white hat, I was dismayed and somewhat angry to find that they would not wear it.

Of course, no one expects them to wear it all day, or outside of the ceremony, but at least have the decency to put it on for a single photo op. Doing so would show respect for our people and our customs. Refusing to do so is an insult.

I understand that the Royals are given souvenirs or keepsakes from hundreds of people and organizations over the course of a year, and making a choice not to don all articles. However, that being said, it is not as though they were given shirts, or footwear or some cumbersome piece of clothing. It's a hat. If there is some sort of Royal rule that says it is undignified for members of the Royal family to be seen wearing such an article in public, that is fine too - just don't accept the honour!

Accepting the honour and refusing to don the hat is an insult to the city, its citizens, and the people who take pride in the meaning of the gift! Shame on the Royals! William and Kate can suck it!

Patriot Games: A Canadian Election For A New Generation

Oh, it's on, baby.

So last Friday, (March 25th) the Conservative's minority government was toppled when a confidence motion tabled by the opposition parties found the ruling conservatives in contempt of parliament.

The Look Of Contempt: Stephen Harper

This is intriguing for two reasons.

First, since the beginning of March, it was widely assumed that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be forced to dissolve the parliament, but it was assumed that the motion of confidence that would be the downfall of the ruling government would be the Conservative's proposed budget. Not a decision that the government was in contempt of parliament.

Secondly, it's important because never through all of the political scandals or outrageous diatribes of the 144 years of parliament in Canada, has a ruling party found to be in contempt.

There were several reasons why the Conservative Government had been found in contempt. Firstly, there was the matter of 65 new F35 fighter jets that the government announced it would purchase for a reported $9 billion ($18 billion once a maintenance agreement was signed). The purchase announcement was made in July of 2010, but recently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer went public with his estimation of nearly double the cost to a whopping $30 billion.

Needless to say, this caused a frenzy on Parliament Hill, with the opposition parties attacking the Conservatives like rabid dogs on a lame rabbit. The opposition demanded to see numbers on paper, and their requests were repeatedly rebuffed. At the same time, it had been implied that the government was similarly down playing the expected costs of tax cuts being proposed for big corporations.

The second and more bizarre catalyst was the inquiry into International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda's document tampering scandal.

Bev Oda: Document Doctor

In 2009, a church based aid group known as Karios applied for renewal of it's international development grant. Oda stated publicly that the decision was actually made by the Canadian International Development Agency. However, upon digging up documents on the matter, it was discovered that the CIDA actually signed a note recommending the approval of the grant. And, that the note in question had actually been altered when the word "not" had been manually written before the word "approved".

Bev Oda later admitted in front of a committee that she had been the one who ordered the alteration of the document (if not altered it herself). And of course, no sooner had the admission left Oda's lips, were opposition MP's calling for her head to roll down the aisle of the House of Commons.

Predictably, after the committee wrapped up on Oda's case, the information that had been gathered on the F-35 fighter jets and the corporate tax cuts were all wrapped into one bundle of government-toppling joy. The final bow that had been attached to the bundle was the fact that the Liberal party intentionally stalled on voting on the Conservatives proposed budget, so they could bask in the glory of toppling the government on charges of contempt, rather than the budget.

And so, on March 26th, 2011, Stephen Harper was forced to seek the Governor General's approval to dissolve parliament, and presto! Election in May. So far from what we have seen, all of this political manoeuvring and scandal will just be the tip of the iceberg.

4G Phone? That's What YOU Think.

Think that new 4G smart phone you just bought for an exorbitant amount of money is the latest and greatest in download speeds? You're dead wrong.

For the last few months Sprint, Verizon & T-Mobile has been advertising the power of 4G speed on their networks as the new breakthrough in mobile technology. Telus also followed suit here in Canada, and today it was leaked that Bell Mobility will jump on the 4G advertising bandwagon.

But does anyone really know what the difference is between 3G and 4G connectivity speeds? Apparently there isn't one.

The International Telecommunications Union initially defined 4G as a reference to Long Term Evolution mobile standards (LTE for short). LTE meant a new version of wireless technology that could potentially offer speeds of 100 Mbps. So far, no commercial wireless network on the planet has deployed such a technology. And, as far as I know, no wireless communications company has even managed to develop such a technology that would work in a stable fashion on a consumer level.

The initial definition of LTE (100 Mbps) is considerably faster than the HSPA networks that are currently used by Bell, Telus & Rogers. Their HSPA networks generally tops out at 7.2 Mbps. Even improved HSPA networks known as HSPA+ only reach top speeds of 21 Mbps.

So if Bell, Telus & Rogers all top out at 7.2 Mbps, how can they possibly call themselves 4G?

In December, the International Telecommunications Union have changed the criteria or definition of 3G and 4G. Now 100 Mbps speed is no longer a definition of 4G. 4G is now considered any technology that shows a "substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities" over existing 3G networks.

As an example, Bell Mobility now refers to 3G as being any speeds slower than 3Mbps. And, since Bell's network can theoretically offer speeds up to 7.2 Mbps, (which IS a significant improvement over 3Mbps) presto! Bell is now a 4G network!

So the interesting part to watch for is how this will play out in the long term. Since all the 3G phones currently on the Bell and Telus network should theoretically be able to use the max network speed of 7.2Mbps (which can be less depending on location or network traffic), will Bell issue "4G" phones that operate in the same way so that everyone still has a phone that works at the same speed, (which would allow them to simply market their entire network as the latest and greatest 4G network) or will they attempt to choke bandwidth to keep existing 3G phones slower to encourage customers to upgrade to new 4G marketed handsets?

There is an old saying "Caveat Emptor". Or in English "let the buyer beware". I don't think there is any other product that this warning is most suited for than Telecomm Services.

WikiLeaks Ally Takes Down Visa, Mastercard

An organization calling itself "Anonymous" has publicly sided with WikiLeaks, and claimed responsibility for a cyberattack on both Visa and Mastercard today.

Both sites in Canada and the US were inaccessible for most of the day.

The attack is supposed to be a form of retribution for both Visa and Mastercard cutting off service with WikiLeaks, which effectively cut off donations to the controversial website.

Mastercard Canada spokesmen have said that the attack has not affected any credit card transactions.

Anonymous has called the attacks "Operation Payback". Early wednesday, Anonymous led media outlets to a video posted on YouTube which explained the objectives of the attacks.

Anonymous released a statement in which they said: "While we don't have much of an affiliation with WikiLeaks, we fight for the same reasons. We want transparency and we counter censorship... This is why we intend to utilize our resources to raise awareness, attack those against, and support those who are helping lead our world to freedom and democracy."

The US government has put intense pressure on both the business community and political world to condemn and cut ties with WikiLeaks. Earlier this week, Amazon.com cut ties with WikiLeaks, which was using Amazon.com's servers, due to political pressure from Washington to do so.

Washington has also put pressure on France to shut down mirror websites that are hosting WikiLeaks information in the stead of WikiLeaks own webpages being shut down. Currently the French government has been stalled by their court system while trying to comply.

WikiLeaks first garnered attention in the spring when it posted a US military video which showed US troops in Iraq shooting down two unarmed Reuters journalists. The video was apparently taken by US army helicopters.

Since that video, WikiLeaks has published nearly half a million classified US documents from Iraq and Afghanistan. WikiLeaks feels the public has a basic right to know what their Military and Governments are doing.

I understand that governments have a right to secrecy when it comes to armed forces potentially being in danger, and can understand why the US has reservations to seeing these documents in the public. However, I do feel the public has the right to know if their governments or military forces are doing unsavory things, intentional or not. This includes incidents of Friendly Fire, such as the Reuters journalists or other hidden agendas that may infringe on anyone's basic human rights or freedoms.

Censorship is a dangerous concept, and governments would do well to remember that one way or another in some point in time, the truth ALWAYS comes out.

U.S. Issues Travel Alert For Europe

The US government today issued a warning for American traveler to be vigilant while in any European state.

The US government sites intel about al-Qaeda potentially launching a terrorist attack somewhere in Europe, similar to the Mumbai shootings that took place in 2008.

While the US government did not specify a particular region within Europe, the British authorities said Germany or France may be likely targets.

Following in the footsteps of the US and UK, Canada also issued a warning for Canadian travelers to be extra cautious while traveling.

While I am not making light of a potentially dangerous situation, I have to question the value of issuing a travel warning for the entire continent of Europe.

I think the warning was excessively broad, and will instill more fear than vigilance. Additionally, in our global economy, we need to be cautious about issuing frivolous warnings that can effect national economies (ie, national tourism). Europe is a large place and there is more international travel within Europe than anywhere else on the planet.

Blanket warnings can often cause more harm than good by scaring potential tourists away from locations which may be perfectly safe, such as Greece or Switzerland. Similarly, both Canada and the US are vast nations. If there were to be a potential security threat in say, Vancouver or Los Angeles, there could be far reaching consequences if other national governments were to issue travel advisories for all of Canada and the US.

So, to international travelers, I say this: You should always be vigilant while traveling regardless of potential security threats. There are always chances of theft, assault, or worse no matter where one goes. General caution should always be used, but do not let fear rule your life.

Also, as a note, no matter where you go or when, it is always good to register with a local embassy or with the Register of Canadians Abroad service. They can be invaluable services in cases of civil unrest, such as the recent riots in France or in cases of natural disaster such as the earthquake it Haiti. It is always good to have a line of communication available.

Happy & Safe Travels

Orgy of Excess

The Liberal party today made headlines in no doubt every news publication in Canada today by calling the expenses of the G8/G20 summit in Toronto & The Muskokas an "Orgy of Excess".

I am not going to defend or attack the expenses of the summits, as I think each Canadian needs to make that decision for themselves.

But what is it about the term "orgy" that generates so much interest in the media, and indeed, with average Canadian readers?

Dictionary.com defines the term as:

1. wild, drunken or licentious festivity or revelry.

2. any actions or proceedings marked by unbridled indulgence of passions.

3. Informal. A boisterous, rowdy party.

While there are a few different definitions, they are all rather similar, and do not leave a lot of room for duplicity in meaning.

However, none of the three terms are overtly provocative. Yet, somehow, throughout the centuries, the term has always held it's connotations of being lewd or dirty.

The particularly lewd connotations stem from the ancient Greek civilization. Specifically in the way certain gods were worshipped. I suspect, the acts of worshipping in this fashion was considered inappropriate with the adoption of Christianity.

Yet even thousands of years later, the term is looked upon as being provocative and even shocking in nature, and thus, is used rarely. This allows the user of the term to be noticed, and considered to be making a rather harsh observation.

It works not only in politics, but with everyday conversation as well. For example, if an online reviewer of televisions, who probably writes reviews on dozens of TVs each year were to state that the new Sony Bravia television was "An Orgy to the Senses", one could guarantee that it would likely be the most viewed or discussed product all year.

So if it is such a powerful term, why exactly is it used so rarely?

I think because no matter how often the term would be used, it would always have that slightly childish, negative slant. Even if the word were to be only used in a positive way (as in the above example). Eventually, the person or publication frequently using the term would be viewed as the dirty uncle wearing a trench coat while reading adult magazines at the gas station.

While it can be a fun and poignant term, use it wisely! It is a powerful word.

Rainn

Man Pleasures Himself in Wal-Mart Toy Dept

Ok, So this was just too bizarre not to post.

The picture you see is an actual mug shot of 28 year old William Tyler Black. Black allegedly went into his local Florida Wal-Mart, grabbed the latest Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. He then took the magazine into the Toy Department and pleasured himself to completion. The article further alleges that when he had finished, um, playing with HIS toy, that he wiped his hands on a child's toy which was on a nearby shelf.

Police have levied a series of charges on Black.

While I agree that the man needs help and SHOULD be arrested, I think the last charge of Battery On A Child may be reaching for straws. Police felt that the charge was reasonable, as they concluded it was possible that a child may have come into contact "with the fluid on the toy".

In any case, I guess Wal-Mart really DOES have everything.

Carleton University; Department of Idiocy

So the Student's Union at Ottawa's Carleton University, have decided to stop supporting Cystic Fibrosis with their annual 'Shinerama' fundraiser, "has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men." (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/25/ot-081125-shinerama.html).

The entire student union, sans 1 representative decided to vote against the charity, and to find a new recipient for their fundraising dollars.

The Shinerama drive, where students spend a week shining shoes or cars for donations, has been an institution at Carleton for nearly 25 years.

While I am all for being racially and gender inclusive, it seems to me using politics to choose a charity is rather despicable.  The last time I checked, Cystic Fibrosis was a fatal genetic disease, for which their is currently no cure.  But I guess it's alright to cut them off from funding, because, you know, they are mainly all just white men.

HELLO?  Am I the only one that sees the idiocy in this line of thinking?

According to the student council motion that passed this week, orientation week "strives to be inclusive" and "all orientees and volunteers should feel like their fundraising efforts will serve their diverse communities."

I fail to see the logic in this statement.  Does this mean that I should not feel that raising money for breast cancer research is not serving my community, because I am not a woman?  Should I feel that my community is not being served by people who fundraise for sickle cell anemia since it affects mainly black women, and I am not black nor a woman?

I sincerely hope that the students of Carleton who disagree with this policy demand changes in their student union representation, and continue to raise money without official support from their University.  

I feel badly for these students, as it is likely they will be considered guilty of idiocy, purely by association to their student council.

I can only hope that the Cystic Fibrosis foundation will receive additional donations from people who were outraged by this callous decision.

Remember that a disease causes heartache for everyone regardless of the victims appearance.  

Keep Giving.

Rainn