Confessions of a Racist?

So, it looks like you know now. I'm a racist.

Apparently, that is!

Of course, to myself, I am not, in any way, racist. In fact, I would consider myself someone who strives for bettering the racial situation in society. I don't condone racism, and I would, of course, love to see it eradicated. I would love to see a dawning of a more perfect world, where no one is judged on the color of their skin. I would love all this, but my peer(s) believe me to be part of the problem.

Before the gist of my rambling begins, let me explain what inspired me to write this post after my rather long hiatus. You see, with this being the last summer break before my adult, university life begins, I decided to really exploit it. I spent little time at home, much to the dismay of some, and even tired myself out some days. I would go out, spend lots of time with friends and partake in very fun activities. I experienced many "firsts" this summer break, which is rather reasonable considering my age. Needless to say, this break expired very quickly, and I felt as though I hadn't caught up on nearly as much rest as I should have. That being said, I would rather feel like I did enough than as if I rested enough. Rest is for seniors. Plus, with the way I've organized my university schedule, I won't be missing out on much rest during the school year either, so I'll have time for recovery.

That is why this darling blog has suffered from a lack of words. I've just been tremendously busy. I expected to have a miserable summer break. One in which I would be cooped up and bored since my main friends had dispersed on various vacations, but it proved to be quite fun! And I still have a few things to do to top off my joy!

One of the sadder parts of my break has been watching my friends go away. Many of them, thanks to the academically rigorous mindset of my school, have chosen to go far away from Vancouver to study. 

It's a plan that doesn't make much sense to me. After all, you're always told that adapting to university life will be hard. Why make things even more difficult by forcing yourself to adapt to a new city and environment as well? My family is in Vancouver, my friends are in Vancouver (at least most of them are now), a decent university is in Vancouver, so it just doesn't make sense for me to leave. Then again, I'm not overly ambitious. But I digress.

Considering that I selected friends in high school who were, likewise, not overly ambitious (ok, that's an understatement, my friends were not ambitious at all), I didn't have to endure too much heartache from seeing people go. That is, because not many of them left. Only 3 people I care about have gone, or are soon to go. Their names are, in order of departure, Lucia, Steven and Nima.

Lucia is my therapist, who was discussed in my posts about my prom trip, and most specifically, the post "A Chat with my Therapist". I went to two sleepovers with Lucia and the same prom goers from the prom trip. Those only further cemented my adoration for Lucia. Then we have have Steven. Steven is one of the truest and kindest friends I ever found. He cared so deeply for me, and was so selfless around me that I began to feel as though he was the closest thing I would ever find to a soulmate. I felt as though every trouble he had was one of my own. Now I'm beginning to re-jerk my own tears, so I'll stop talking about him until I have to again. Finally, there's Nima. Nima has been a good friend to me since I started my new high school in grade 9. In grade 11, Nima began boarding school on Vancouver Island, but we kept so closely in touch that I never even noticed his absence too much. Moreover, with Vancouver Island being so close to Vancouver, Nima visited every long weekend and spent considerable time with me. He played guitar and I sang, and our relationship was very relaxed and hippy-ish.

We made a point of spending 3 whole days with Lucia before she walked through the departures gate at the airport to her new home of Mississauga. We celebrated her birthday by playing lazer tag, watching a movie and ending the night with a wonderfully authentic Japanese dinner and poker. I was unable to join the next day, but the girls spent it kayaking. And on the third day, the girls were treated to a fabulous (if I do say so myself) rooftop lunch and tour of downtown by yours truly. Then they treated me to a night of karaoke, which was made more fun by the lack of talent. (Note: the highest mark was 39/100). I saw Lucia off with a hug, an exchange of Skype addressess, and a promise of more fun to come for Christmas vacation. 

Yesterday, I went to see off Steven. It was one of the most heart-wrenching things I've ever had to do. Now, before you roll your eyes and laugh at the obvious inconsistencies amidst my hormone levels, note that I am a teenager. Of course I am prone to exaggeration and drama. 

I was not alone in my escorting of Steven to the airport. I was joined by two fellows from school. Between me and Steven's fond recollections, the two fellows would chime in. Okay, that's all a lie. The majority of our expedition was spent listening to me talk. I had a lot to say, as per usual. Steven and I restated, for the millionth time, our promise to write each other a letter per Friday. Can you tell why we get along so swimmingly?

We got to raiding a home decor store. Really, we just wanted to use their display chairs as seating. There we all began abusing the powers of social media. That morphed into chatting about something. That something led to me remembering a conversation I had once had with one of the present fellows. That conversation, which took place a number of months earlier while we were in school, ended very badly. That is how most conversations about "touchy" subjects end with this girl. She is somewhat of a hipster, but she tends to lose her cool incredibly fast. She is one of those people that considers herself a champion of everyone's rights. Feminists, minority groups, disabled people, she represents them all. And not just a mildly, no, she represents these groups passionately. She pours so much into her defenses of these people that she sometimes changes skin color. (I mean she blushes). It's awe-inducing. 

As our conversation changed course, we found ourselves discussing how beautiful it is for South-East Asian women to dye their hair blonde. I remembered that this girl once got very defensive when she showed me a photo of an Asian model, with blonde hair. Upon seeing the photo, I remarked "Oh, she's very pretty for an Asian girl!" This really struck a chord with her. How dare I say "...for an Asian girl"? I remembered our discussion and recalled how seemingly banal and stupid it was. I also recalled how in the right I was, so I took the opportunity of being surrounded by 3 Asians to pose the question once more. To clarify: Steven, and both of these girls were Asian.

I asked the group if saying "...for an Asian girl" was so offensive. Steven didn't speak on the subject, rather, he didn't have the chance to, because the girls' faces turned red with rage before I even finished my question.

Steven is generally laid back that's why I love him. He doesn't take things too seriously. And I do not recall him taking offence to anything I ever said. Perhaps that was because he loved me, perhaps it was because he didn't want to enter into debates with me and perhaps it was because he genuinely was not easily offended. I don't know, but I liked it. 

Anyways, the originally offended culprit stated that she didn't even want to discuss this again because it just got her so angry. But, once the other girl spoke up, the original girl couldn't resist retelling her problems with my words.

Saying that someone is pretty "for an Asian girl" constitutes the belief that the Caucasian race is superior to the Asian. By saying what I had said, I had cemented myself as a white-supremacist. I'll tell you, if that's the case, I'm the darkest white-supremacist ever, but hey, I guess the white Ku Klux Klan sheets will contrast nicely with my skin tone. But I digress.

Obviously I had no intention of saying that the Asian race was inferior to the White. I didn't believe that statement. But for some inexplicable reason, that is exactly what I had meant according to this girl. In her discourse, she explained that by saying what I had, I was practically saying that the ugliest White person is still more physically beautiful than the most aesthetically-pleasing Asian person. Again, not my intention at all. I'm not retarded. I am well-aware that there are plenty of very good-looking Asian people, many of whom look better than their white counterparts.

However, I won't lie: I do not find the Asian race as physically attractive as the White. Simple as that.

If you were to place your average Asian male beside your average White male, and then ask me which of the two I find more physically attractive, the chances are that I would point in the direction of the White man quite definitively. Of course, I don't need to mention that there are aberrations. If you were one of those geeky people, and you set up a simulation of the scenario I described above, you would certainly notice that I would sometimes pick the Asian person. But I do believe that that would be a rare-ish occurrence.

Upon explaining that to the two attacking girls, they seemed unmoved. The just continued bombarding me with their propaganda. I was a racist, and the fact that I would choose the White man more frequently than the Asian only made that point more crystal clear.

Then I brought up something else - Yellow Fever.

If you're young and cool, you'll know what I'm talking about. No, it's not the horrible acute, viral, mosquito-transmitted, hemorrhage-inducing disease. The Yellow Fever I'm talking about is the new dating trend. Basically, and I'm sure your deductive capabilities are strong enough to have figured this out by now, but just in case, I'll spell it out for you: White people who enjoy dating Asian people, for the most part, have Yellow Fever. It's mostly to do with men who date Asian women, but I think it works vice versa as well.

So I innocently asked if having Yellow Fever is a better thing. And, of course, the fury was reactivated and the girls released a resounding "no!" Yellow Fever was no good. But why? If I'm a racist for finding White people generally more attractive, why are the white people that find Asian people more attractive also bad? Well, here's the answer, and I suggest you sit down to take it in because it's profound: Those White people like Asians for all the wrong reasons. These girls know exactly what the White people are thinking, and they were kind enough to lay it out for me: White men believe that Asian women are submissive, and that's why the White men have Yellow Fever. It's not because they actually find Asian ladies more sexually attractive, it's plainly because women of their own race have been too liberated by the feminist movement to be submissive. This is where I cut the conversation off since it was beginning to go off on a tangent about why Asian women aren't submissive and why they need feminism - a contradictory argument in itself. Get it? If they aren't submissive, why would they need feminism?

How did I reign the conversation back in? Simply, I asked the girls the very sophisticated question: What's the big deal?

So what if I don't find Asians more or equally attractive? Why is that such a horribly racist thing to say? I know that you've likely been indoctrinated, as have these girls, with the belief that statements like mine come from a high-and-mighty position from a white-privileged person. But step away from whatever has been drilled into your mind and take the time to give this issue some sober second thought. Just think.

If you walk into an art gallery and tell your friends "I generally don't like Picasso's works. For some reason, cubism just never appealed to me." No one looks at you and calls you a "piece of arrogant shit". People accept that. Aesthetically, you don't find the distinct features of cubism pleasing, and nobody sends you a barrage of insults for that. Why? Because it's just fine for Picasso to not float your boat. If you add on more to your original art critique and say "On the other hand, I love Dali's work; I find it immensely pleasing." No one will call you a bad person for finding Dali's paintings better than Picasso's. It is perfectly acceptable for you to feel that way.

What makes people so much different than art? When you judge the physical beauty of another person, you are using the same sensory functions as when you judge a canvas at the gallery. So why is it bad to not find one certain race as attractive as the other? You're not saying that that race is inferior, you're not saying that they're worse that you, you're not saying anything negative. The only thing that you're saying is that the distinct and typical features of that particular race are not eye-candy for you. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.

I think that there is also a subconscious factor that needs to be taken into account during this debate. I'm not sure what it's called, or if it even has a name, but I'll do my best to explain it: Imagine you're a kid in a white family. Your mom and pop are both white, your brother and sister are white, and you are white, too. You live in a predominantly white neighborhood, and most of the people that you see during your daily routine are white. You wake up, and you see your family. You see yourself in the mirror. You go to school or work and see your peers. What does that do to you? Your subconscious makes a note that white is normal. You feel most comfortable and most normal among the white people you've grown up around and amidst. They don't seem foreign to you.

Now, you can move to a place with many people of a different race, and you can accept them, come to enjoy their company and however many more positive things. And you can ask yourself if you find them attractive, and the answer may vary, but if the answer is no, that doesn't make you a racist, does it? You could simply not be used to their distinct appearance, and it could appear to be "foreign" to you. After all, you had really only known one race prior to your move.

So, when my offended friend extended her rant, after I said that my eyes were normal, to including that there is no such thing as "normal", she was wrong again. There most definitely is such a thing as normal, it just happens to vary from person to person. In certain cultures it is completely normal to slurp your food, in others it isn't. In certain places it is just fine to avoid eye contact, in others it isn't. What I would propose alternatively to my friend is that, because the definition of "normal" varies so much from individual to individual, she become accepting to all, or most, definitions, so long as they aren't harmful in some way. And, I think that I have effectively demonstrated that saying a certain thing is "normal" is alright, and should not be considered hurtful.

But, just to reiterate, if Steven called his eyes "normal" and implied that mine were abnormal, I wouldn't be hurt at all. I'd completely understand his stance considering the circumstances under which he was raised.

In my high school, Mandarin was the "normal" language. You heard more Mandarin when you passed through the halls at lunch than you did English. In fact, when I heard too much English on some days, I got a sort of strange, uneasy feeling, as though something wasn't quite right. The same feeling would be present if I walked through the halls and saw a lot of white people. I was perfectly used to standing out as "the tall white girl". In some other school, this definition of normality could be completely different, but that wouldn't make either definition incorrect.

By now, you've made a decision of your own. In your eyes, that question mark that ends the title of this post has evaporated. You either think that I am a racist or you don't, and either opinion is your prerogative to have.

As I was sitting in my sociology class a few days ago, the professor, a raging feminazi, brought up how women weren't on banknotes in the USA. My thought was "who gives a fuck?", but that was starkly opposed by the reaction of the majority of the class. Some girl sitting next to me turned to me to say "Oh my gosh! That just makes me so mad!" I, unmoved by her reaction, simply turned my head and smiled, as to acknowledge her statement. But the girl on my other side was profoundly affected by the statement. She responded to the first girl in question and said "I know, me too! Just to think what women have been through!" Her statement prompted the woman sitting in front of me to join the group therapy by saying "It's like it'll never end! Our struggle for equality just seems impossible!" The first girl responded to her by saying "Oh yeah, and it must be especially hard for you being a black woman." The girl nodded. And that is when something I can never forget happened.

The boy sitting beside the black girl in front of me spoke. He said "I know I'm speaking from a point of total white male privilege, but I can totally sympathize. What men have done to women throughout history is so appalling."

Well, what can I say? I utterly pity him. That poor boy feels like he has to introduce himself into a conversation with "I know I have white male privilege..." As though his opinion is easily voided otherwise. Well, what can I say?

I just wonder if that boy feels like he would be racist if he didn't introduce himself like that. I don't think that would deem him ignorant or racist, but I wouldn't be surprised if the feminazis around me disagreed.

I don't feel like a racist. A lot of my friends are Asian. Steven is a boy I adore and he's Asian. My current boyfriend is Asian. So, I obviously don't have any underlying prejudices or hates against the Asian race, or any race for that matter. But because of my statements on things I've observed, I'm still apparently a racist. How does that happen?

A Response to Facebook

Well, the time has come. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but it's just been one post too many for me to handle. So please, feminists, over-sensitive people, and others who have taken the liberty of polluting my feed with anti-this, anti-that articles, listen to me for once:

Everyday, I get on Facebook to complete a variety of activities. From the stupid things, like watching cat videos, to the more serious, like preparing presentations, Facebook has it all. But hold your horses, Mark Zuckerburg. Before you proclaim me your favorite Facebook user of the year, hear me out: I can no longer complete these tasks uninterrupted. In order to get to an article of interest, I am forced to scroll past, and therefore skim through, all of the terribly annoying posts from the -frankly- hyper-sensitive folks. I'm talking about the people who make it their life goal to scour the vast space, known as the "Internet", for any crumbs of potential scandal. These are the people who seem to have nothing better to do than busy themselves with sharing "their" opinions with the world.

Why is "their" in quotations? Well, because the posts they share are rarely their own thoughts. They are, for the most part, pieces of ideology that have been drilled into them from an early age. This ideology is one that makes them practically impossible to communicate with. Why? Because their views are so stubborn, that they refuse to accept any critique on them. Don't get me wrong, I hate being critiqued. I despise it. I cannot bear criticism. And so you know what? I don't dish out anything on social media. I don't force people to read anything by placing it in front of them. If asked, I will gladly contribute and talk and provide my stance, but I won't distastefully put it in front of your eyes so that it is near impossible to avoid it.  I won't shove my agenda down your throat. Until you shove it down mine, that is.

There are a lot of lazy people out there who aren't fond of actually taking action. They rather prefer to have the ability to claim that they have taken action by posting and sharing articles on facebook. You haven't. Sorry, I hate to break it to you, but unless you're famous, your sharing of an article explaining the offensiveness of wearing another culture's dress as a Halloween costume is pointless. Now to clarify, yes, that is the article that sent me over the edge. Or rather, it was the storm of articles posted by that same person all having to do with skewed moral principles.

This person posted an article about some obviously dumb girl wearing a Native American tribe leader's head gear as a Halloween costume. How offensive! Really? I don't think so. Honestly, I can't tell why it's such a touchy subject for people. I think it's because of the over-sensitivity of the North American people. If someone wore some traditional Serbian dress for Halloween, not only would I not be insulted, I'd be flattered. Relax. The fact is that that philosophy only drives cultures further apart. If we look at people as "us" and "them", and don't let them artfully (reminder that art is in the eye of the beholder) express what is "ours", then how can we ever truly come together?

Further, the costume was sexualized. Oh my gosh. Sex? How could she? Here's two things: It's that woman's body. If she chooses to sexualize it, who are we to judge her? The same people that support the woman's right to choose what to do with the fetus in her body, do not support the woman's right to choose what amount of clothing she should wear. How's that make sense? We don't know her, we don't know what kind of person she is, and thereby, we should not give ourselves the right to judge her. Second, we seem to have little problem when men sexualize themselves. Feminists and non-feminists alike see no problem when someone like, say, Drake takes a half-naked photo and posts it. No one complains. They don't tell Drake that he is so stupidly sexualizing himself. Why? Why don't we help Drake? Or Justin Bieber? Or some other male?

I mean, if you're going to be liberal and whatnot, then be truly liberal. Don't just be a media regurgitating machine, because, well, the media already does that.

Now, during this rampage of posts, the girl also posted a meme which said "How to get out of the friendzone: Pull out your dick, tell her 'you're gonna learn today'", along with the caption "what happened to consent?" Do we need to say that this meme is disgusting? You don't need to be Einstein to figure that one out.

So, since she needs an answer, let me help her with that one: Nothing happened. Consent is still a thing. Chill out. Asking that is like asking "what happened to consent?" after one depraved psycho rapes a woman. Nothing has happened to consent in general. There are always going to be rapists and creeps and losers and idiots. And they will post this stuff. Does that now mean that every man feels the same way? Gosh, I sure hope not. If so, it means that I have been very lucky to survive everyday at my co-ed high school unscathed by ultra-aggressive maniac-males. It's stupid to post that, for lack of a better word. Why? Because the purpose is non-existent. No really, you tell me what the purpose of posting that is? Is it to reflect the general male mentality? If it is, that gives a purpose, but certainly not an accurate one. 

The final post was one about the importance of sex-ed. Ok, fine. I have nothing against that. Sure, give us that video. I'll take it. It's propaganda, nonetheless. However, I will be slightly more accepting of that on the basis that sex-ed is not as ludicrous a notion as all men being crazy rapists or as being a super insensitive douche when wearing a different culture's outfit as a Halloween costume. 

Because, in the end, is it really the other party that is insensitive, or is it possibly you that is over-sensitive?

How Unfair: Part 1.

Here's the fact. I intended this post to not be novel-length, but then I started writing and, well, things changed. So, I am forced to publish in parts.

Learning is wonderful. Sometimes learning inspires and ignites. Sometimes, however, learning infuriates and upsets. Today, for me personally, the latter happened.

I recall fond memories of the summer days that my grandmother, mother and I used to spend walking the streets of Vancouver searching for diamonds in the rough at garage and yard sales. I was very young at the time and, being that style was not much of an issue, most of my wardrobe was purchased from second-hand stores, or garage sales. These pre-loved items were great. They were cheap, and they were in excellent condition. As a bonus, we got to meet new people, and I got to learn the art of bargaining, as well as the value of money.

I remember how my mom would chat with the vendors about the items she desired. She would negotiate the price, and if the vendor agreed (which they did, in most cases), my mom would take a load off their hands. They wouldn't have to deal with this unwanted item anymore; it wouldn't have to continue collecting cobwebs in their attic. They would make a few dollars, and scoring the deal would make my mom's day. Moreover, scoring the deal would clothe me. 

No, no, we were never even remotely close to being poor. It wasn't like my mom needed to search for garage sales, so that she could afford to put food on the table, but it was a bonus. In a city as expensive as Vancouver,  every penny counts. For some buying a $500 coat isn't feasible; for some, it just isn't morally right. Sure, my mom could afford to dish out $500 for a herring bone coat, but it didn't make any sense to do that. Why would you pay $500 for a coat at the store, when you could pay ten times less for the exact same coat at someone's yard sale? The coat is definitely not worth $500 dollars. The chances are that it was made in a developing country, by underpaid workers. The chances are that the materials used to make the coat are plain, common, fairly inexpensive materials. And the chances are that the only reason that that coat is $500 is because there is some snazzy brand-name company wanting to churn in a huge profit. So why pay that much yourself? Why fund those big corporations?

But that isn't the only issue. There are a lot of people out there that aren't as fortunate as me. They do need to find a coat for cheap, or risk freezing, or starving if they do dish out the cash for the coat. That's what is so good about garage sales - they make it a little easier to have money for clothing and shelter and food.

"But what about the Salvation Army?"

Well, here's the fact: I've been to both thrift stores and garage sales. Though the prices are cheap at thrift stores, they cannot be compared with garage sales. Garage sales are things that people want to get rid of, not because they are tattered and torn, but simply because they are no longer interested in them. To do this, these people will accept just about any price you put forth. And that's another benefit! Unlike thrift stores, where prices are set in stone, garage sales offer the option of bargaining. It's really good. You can find treasures at garage sales! From designer garments to antiques - there is just about everything.

But it isn't only the buyers that benefit - it's the sellers too! Most of the time, the sellers are seniors, who are trying to sustain on their miserable pensions. A lot of time, the vendors are homeless, or nearly-homeless people. These are people that need money desperately. They aren't going to get the money from the government because the government has either failed them, or has provided them with some minuscule life support. They need to watch every cent. Their livelihoods depend on it. 

Over the year(s), my sister, mother and I have accumulated a number of garments that we no longer need. My sister and I have outgrown pants and shirts. Some fads have passed, making certain items no longer fashionable. My mother has discovered some clothes in the pits of her closet that she has only worn once; things that she has no intention of wearing again. Most summers, which is the time that we usually buy new clothes and discard old ones, we head on over to the local donation bin and feed it a suitcase full of good clothing. That's not very fun, though.

So this summer, my mom suggested the idea of a garage sale. My sister was very excited. The prospect of earning money in a fun way was appealing. So that is what we decided to do.

We collected a bunch of clothes, filled two suitcases with them and rolled them over to Denman street. Everything was in good condition. My sister was jumping with joy at the prospect of making some money through selling her own old clothes when she began unloading the suitcases. When we go to donate the clothes, she is usually reluctant to give too much of her stuff, but when you throw in the thought of making a profit, well, things change. Her young entrepreneurial spirits get worked up.

We had unloaded the suitcases and were sitting at our sale. My mom decided to go buy some coffees for the three of us. That is when it happened.

An old man approached my sister and I. I thought that he was there to buy something, instead he asked us if anyone had been by our sale yet. 

Fat-aganda: Part 1 - On the Chubby Side

First and foremost I would like to give you a brief description of my body: I am 177cm tall. I am 53kg. I am borderline underweight, I lack muscle, and when I hunch my back over, I look sickly. My BMI is around 18. I look skinny, and I am skinny. This is how I have been for the majority of my life.

When I was younger, I was chubby. This was, for the most part, thanks to my grandma. My parents made a point of feeding me organic, local and healthy food. My grandma however, was, and continues to be, a palate pleaser. My parents had to work, so they left me with my grandma every day for the first few years of my life, before I started school. My grandma fed me copious amounts of schnitzels and fries for lunch and provided me with a jumbo croissant brimming with nutella for dessert. Her food was delicious. I never ever got tired of it, and I never ever minded my expanding waistline. I really enjoyed food.

Eventually, my mom requested that my grandma stop feeding me trans fat and refined sugar on a daily basis. She asked that she use her cooking abilities to make me some more decent food. My grandma didn't want to disappoint my salviating mouth, so she continued, as any grandmother would, attempting to make her granddaughter happy.

You would think that my problems would end once I started school, right? Wrong. They didn't end.

My grandma lived close to my elementary school, and much to my enjoyment, brought me my nutella croissant every recess. In addition to the lunch and snacks my mom prepared for me, my grandma added a little kick of tastiness to my food every day. Sometimes, I would accidently tell my mom that I consumed 2 or 3 nutella croissants at school, and my mom would become infuriated and order me to not accept them. Naturally, I would not heed her advice and I would gladly accept my grandma's treats. Whenever I was reluctant to binge on nutella my grandma would question my health, as if to imply that only ill persons could reject an overflowing nutella, butter, and flour combination. That being said, I rarely rejected.

At least this all holds true until grade 3.

In grade three, our class went on a field trip to the local outdoor pool. It was a beautiful day and everyone was elated to be splashing around and whacking each other with foam noodles. At one point during the fun, I got out of the pool to tan myself to a crisp on my towel. My friend followed.

She suggested that we buy fries at the concession stand. We did and we walked back to our towels to munch on our delicious fries.

Both of us sat up to eat. They were good fries; every grease-covered morsel seemed better than the last. We were too busy gobbling up the fries to chat, but eventually the fries disappeared. Then my friend made a remark. She pointed at my stomach and said "ha! You got a face!"

I looked down and noticed 4 uniform rolls of lard sitting atop my belly. They were perfect. I laughed along with the rest of my classmates, but I wasn't laughing actually. I contemplated the girls statement. She didn't have any fat rolls, so that gave her the right to tell me. There were fatter kids than me in the class, but did that justify my fatness?

I went home that night and opted out of dinner. The next day, my grandma brought me a croissant to school, I firmly rejected it.

The last time I had been told I was fat was when I was 4. I was in a gym with my dad and a guy told me that I looked like a "pregnant grandma" with my belly. What kinda asshole says that to a little kid? But I didn't pay him much mind.

I went on trip after trip to San Diego and carelessly and happily frolicked on the beach. My baby beer belly was of no concern, but in grade three that all changed.

Obviously, my eating habits couldn't change overnight. I still ate the occasional nutella croissant. In fact, I once hallucinated a Mr. Peanut type croissant dancing in front of me and begging me to eat him. But slowly, my eating habits changed. Very sadly, once I lost my baby beer belly, I got sucked into the vortex of reaching further. I was no longer content with being average. I wanted to be envied, moreover I wanted to deny people the right to ever negatively judge my appearance again, and being skinnier was one way to do this.

By grade 5, I was already in a whirlwind of diets and weight loss programs. I would skip meals, I would feel sick and I would obsessively measure my waist and hip circumferences, all in the name of beauty.

My parents hated it. My grandma too. After all, I was still young, and still developing; crazy deprivations like the ones I was experimenting with could mess with my growth and health. Being stubborn, I ignored everyone and stuck to my guns. One of my friends told me that I seemed to be pushing into the extremes, but not even his cautionary words could stop me. I cut carbs, I cut fat and I cut everything else.

My habits continued for a long time. In grade 9, I saw myself as very fat. I started compulsively measuring my bust, waist and hips. Soon, I stopped eating breakfast and dinner. I survived on one meal a day and continued like this until a doctor told me to consider putting on a few pounds. It was hard, but slowly, I got some weight back and felt a whole lot better. I wasn't tired or groggy - I was fine. Eventually, I got a more realistic perspective on things. I realized I wasn't fat. It took a while for my eyes to adapt, but they did. I finally understood that my physical feeling was more important than my physical appearance. That being said, I think that my physical appearance was better after I put on a few kilos...

Right now, I'm still skinny; skinnier than my peers. But I am very healthy feeling.

Now, you would think that after this unfortunate happening, I would support fat-aganda - but I don't.

Welfare: Fair or not?

This is badly written, but bare with me because I am enraged.

As I was stalking a former debate partner of mine on ask.fm, I noticed a extremely long answer. It was the size of one of my typical essays. Compared to regular answers on ask.fm this one was beyond over-the-top. Most questions are a few words, and most answers follow suit, but this one stood out like a sore thumb.

As I zoomed in closer on my phone, I realized realized that there was actually a continuation of the answer on another question. Ask.fm had actually stopped working for the boy who was typing outrageously, at a rapid pace. It had become necessary for him to continue his answer/rant on another question. I'll be perfectly honest - it is very hard to achieve the character cap in an ask.fm answer. But he had managed that and then some. But why should I keep describing the essay to you when you could take a look for yourself!

Naturally, you may not have enough time to read through it all, or you may not want to, so I'll provide my summary of his statement.

Basically, he was asked for an opinion of global warming, if he thinks it's real and what some possible repercussions could be. Now rather than answering that with a simple "yes/no" and going on to briefly discuss the consequences, this boy took the time and effort to rant about the question. Obviously, one cannot write so much about global warming itself unless they are an expert (which I am quite sure he isn't), so he naturally went off on a tangent. And that tangent is what created an unsilenceable urge within me to respond to him the best way I know how - a blog post.

Quickly, let me mention the Nordic countries. You know, the most developed countries in the world? They have the best education systems, are the least corrupt and the most progressive. They are welfare states. But I'll get into that a little later.

His tangent began very soon after he addressed the point at hand and it was majorly about the problem of welfare. It did bring up nuclear Armageddon and space exploration among other things, but it focused majorly on the need for a dictatorship, the need for abolishing welfare and the dire need for being judgemental. At least that is what I got from it. And before I start taking apart his thinking one step at a time, let me remind him publicly that I am owed a hi-five!

Most of the time, I wouldn't pay attention to a rich, entitled douche who stupidly rants about his treacherous life, but in this case, for the simple fact that I like the guy somewhat despite everything, I am inclined to respond.

I won't address the point of nuclear Armageddon. I am honestly not informed enough on the subject and don't care enough to talk about it.

So let's move onto space exploration, and very possibly, the only matter I agree with him on. Space exploration probably is futile. My reasoning differ slightly from his however. I think it would be a little hard to move the world to Mars or whatever, whereas he thinks a retard is going to drop his pet rock on the life control panel, but that's minuscule. It would be very hard to make it independent - I'll give you that, Thomas.

And finally, the good stuff! Firstly, the term "landwhales": that is pure gold. I am completely serious here. I recently watched that British anchor talk about Kelly Clarkson being fat and it made me laugh a lot! I will admit that, if she had used the term "landwhale", I would have laughed even more! So that was great. Would the landwhales have problems with getting to the moon? I doubt it - I would think that such an advanced machine would probably be able to easily accomdate fatties. But nonetheless, McDonald-consuming, flabby fatties talking about "skinny privilege" does annoy me. I mean, you don't get fat unless you are careless and lazy (medical conditions excluded), but that whole thing is for another post. I won't go off on a tangent like my former partner.

Arctic petrol without the suing? Have you completely lost your mind? A system of checks and balances is the building block of any successful thing. So let's talk about why a dictatorship is ineffective. Oh I don't know? Could it be because liberties are oppressed? Let me put it this way: if a dictatorship were in place, where I was the dictator, comments like Thomas's would be prohibited. Not only would I take down his complaint, I would send my men to Thomas's door and I'd have him and his family exiled to a concentration camp, disguised as a remote island. So that wouldn't be very nice. 

But here's the second part: Throughout history, dictatorships have never worked. At some point or another, a revolution takes place and the government is overthrown. Yugoslavia, the UK, Czechoslovakia and so on. How do you like them statistics? Reasons may vary, sure, but the fact stands that they don't work. But back to the arctic petrol. 

If a spill were to happen, and no one were there to criticize and make sure that such a spill does not happen, it would be pretty much equivalent to dropping a small nuclear bomb on that part of the ocean. (Ok, not that bad, but still.) If people didn't criticize the government, they could do whatever they wanted, like export oil from the arctic, which I may add would probably have horrid repercussions on global relations, and lead us into devastation. 

So, some "butthead" sues the government and puts off oil drilling for a few years even, and what is SO bad about that?

Okay, I'm not sure what that whole thing about invasion of group A to group B is, but I'll interpret it as best as I can.

Why should we pay for roads in less developed places? So that they can indeed develop. Because, think about it: If we make those roads, they can do things and share them, helping all of us. How would you feel if you didn't build the roads and then that remote community discovered a cure for cancer, and then you, the dictator, got cancer? You'd be like "Hey, give me some of that cure, I don't want to wither and die a slow, painful death." And they'd be like "Hey, remember when we wanted roads and you said no? Maybe if we had those we could export our cure and you could get it, but now you won't. Too bad." And naturally you'd be like "No, I'll send my private jet to get some from you, so you won't need the roads - don't worry about it!"And you know what any self-respecting group of folks would say? "We would rather be dead ourselves then give you that cure you need!"

Poor dictator.

Moral of the story: transportation is the most fundamental thing in society. Build roads if you want to live and better everyone. A road will pay for itself eventually. 

Survival of the fittest? Uh, yeah, it's not fair to the less advanced, but we aren't in some video game where the guy with the mega-bronze-annihilator-shield can take down the guy with the biodegradable-peace-shield. There's a reason why men have, for the most part, ceased in having sex with as many women as possible in order to have the widest clan. It's because that's no way to live. 

Oh, your grandchildren will have problems supporting the "freeloaders", eh? What if your privileged grandchildren aren't so privileged and they become the freeloaders? Would it be fun to watch them disintegrate because you fought loudly to not pay for welfare?

Yes. You're money should be going to that landwhale that can't find a job, know why? Because it is your fault that she cannot do so. You, as a dictator, made it so that only those who win the lottery of birth can get a decent education. Those landwhales, who cannot afford to be properly educated, they can't get a job and end up sucking up your dollars. So how about this: instead of just having your money and tax dollars go to your Aryan children's education, have them go to everybody -including the landwhales'- educations. That way, you'll spare your children from having to pay the welfare of that fattie.

The sad thing is that I am only just arriving to what the most appalling part of your essay is. This sentence: "The government should totally be in control of who gets to do what. 

For example, which families get to [have] kids, and which people get to study what, or who gets access to technology".

That is pathetic, for lack of a better word. How entitled can a person feel? How would you decide who gets to have kids? By financial income? Maybe my rich husband is a psycho and, despite his cash, he's going to rape my children and beat me, therefore creating a few new dependant individuals. Either dependant on welfare or anti-depressants or something else. How would you determine who gets access to technology? You don't like that I criticize you, so you take my Internet away, so that I become stupider, more complacent and unable to criticize you. And how do you determine who can study what? Maybe you think that a person will be better at science, so you force them to study medicine, but as a result, you lose an incredible potential author. But maybe nothing is getting through your skull. Maybe you truly are the most ignorant person out there. 

We aren't all equal, but we are all born equal, and it is our government's job to make sure that we all have equal opportunity. The fact is that when you have to save someone from death, you probably aren't going to know them well. And you'll save randomly, as opposed to taking your time and weighing the pros and cons of saving either person. You cannot be so cold and heartless - it's inhuman.

Judging people is indeed necessary, but by their personalities, not by their social standings. I'll skip the rest of the judging.

Why should we not spend more money on the people who are paying the taxes? Simply because they can manage. All citizens are comrades, they are like brothers, and we are all human. If you can thrive on your salary, why would you want more? Is it perhaps because you are a douche? If you can help your neighbour, why wouldn't you? Why do you need, no, why do you want more and more and more? That's what this consumeristic, capitalistic system has done to you. Made you completely oblivious to the needs of the others. And it is that is the worst thing possible - a lack of empathy. 

I'm not trying to preach here. And Thomas will be the first to agree that I am not over-sensitive, but some things are senseless and need to be brought to light. If everybody thought-process was like Thomas's, then where would the world be? Would we progress? Likely not. And it is because our fundamental goal as a society must be progression that we must strike down absurdities like the ones that escaped my friend's mind. School starts tomorrow, and I'll be disappointed if I don't hear a response from you, Thomas.

An Enhanced Analysis of Enhanced Interrogations

Happy New Year!

It's been a while since my last post and I apologize for that. But to come back in style, I have decided to write a nice article on torture!

There's been a lot of talk lately about torture and human rights. Justly so, considering that a few days ago, the US Senate released a report on "Enhanced Interrogation Tactics". Yes, enhanced indeed. Before I get into my thoughts, let me quickly propose a change to an out-of-date term that is bound to come up a lot in this post - "terrorism". I think it should be coined as "Aggrandized Goal Achievement Strategy" (AGAS). How does that sound? Pretty good, right? Anyways, if you are yet to discover the magnificence of rectal feeding, rectal rehydration and waterboarding, I suggest you set some time aside this holiday season to do so - it's sure to be fun for the whole family! But that's not my job… No, I'm not here to shed light on specific torture methods - that's the US Senate's job. I'm simply here to discuss America's essential role on the global stage.

The United States has, since as long as my youthful existence can remember, been the most major player on the global stage. They have had a lot of control, in a lot of the world's decisions. They have went on countless "humanitarian missions", they have imposed regimes on sovereign states and they have acted the way neo-fascists with little opposition would.

Their methods for intel collection have long been known - just never verified - until now!

Regardless, let's discuss the fairness of the situations:

If you have the right to sing to your neighbor, then isn't it only just that your neighbor have the right to sing to you? If the US has a right to use legal loopholes like Guantanamo for their benefit and a right to play God in decisions about the treatment of other humans, why shouldn't other places? Why is it such a grave situation when an American ex-navy seal is beheaded by ISIS while on humanitarian work in Syria, but not when a group of many Syrians are forced to endure elephant sized tubes filled with mushy falafel and hummus, up their assholes, literally. (Generally, this is the part where I would apologize for my unladylike language. However, in this specific case, I feel like you have no one to blame for your nightmares but the US Government.) Not to defend the terrorists, who are terrorists in most part because they are brown, but those American soldiers and newly-reformed humanitarian workers are no saints.

But OK, let's not dwell on that, ask yourself this: why is the US government forgiven for all their infractions, when they rarely turn a blind eye to offenders? Is that fair?

Yes! Why of course it is! I mean, it's not like we're talking about some third world, little rectum of the world country, right? We're talking about America the brave, the glorious. The country which has the right to do as it pleases in the world. So of course they can do whatever they want! I mean, it's not like they were torturing anyone, you know? They were simply enhancing their interrogation techniques for the greater good. So what if they decide what is in the world's best interest? They are America! Right? What if they play the most major, most unethically deserved role on the global stage? They are America! Right?

No, let's come back down to planet earth for a second and ask ourselves this: How would the US react if they found out that the AGAS users were using enhanced interrogation on captured US soldiers? They would have a spasm. Obama would get out there and say something about how there will be no place to hide for the AGASists. Dick Cheney, who has said that he would approve the torture - I mean enhanced interrogation - in heartbeat because they prevented another mass casualty event against the US, would probably have a fit. Dick would spit on the Obama regime for not taking a tough enough stance and condemn the people who were  responsible. Did I just say "people"? Oh, those people would probably be dead, beheaded, murdered, gone and face down in a ditch with no teeth, a smashed-in skull, no fingernails, no record of existence, and no other identifying features whatsoever. But people are no biggie, especially to a faction as big as the US government. People are just people. Individuals, or inconspicuous dust flying around in the atmosphere.

But, imagine that these people were part of something bigger - government! I think that this government -if the US wasn't already caressing it with its perverse paws- would immediately be liquidated. Either physically ("BANG BANG YOU'RE DEAD!") or from the inside, via putting in place a puppet government.

It's happened before and it will happen again.

It's like when Iran started developing enriching uranium and the US freaked out. But that's a whole different story.

The US reacted to this situation the same way they reacted to the spying scandal that Snowden brought out. They brushed it off. I mean, the US doesn't even feel a need to justify it's actions anymore. It has become utterly immune to international law and it knows it. Lucky them.

My poor, crappy little country of descendance is being forced to put aside its values and rights to free speech and free thought in order to enter into European Union, which is a failure by the way, but America - they can spy on whoever it wants, it can invade any country it wants and not worry about repercussions. They never get forced into changing their ways. You know why? Because you cannot break the rules, if you make them, right?

Now I'm just ranting. Honestly, I've been shaking out of rage for the majority of the time I have been penning this post. In reality, I know that this post probably isn't going to make a lot of sense. The anger will probably take over, causing me to write one big, senseless rant. But I'm ok with that, I'm prepared for that, actually. So let's move aside from my self-pity and rambling, into some talk about the fabulous electoral options -in light of the recent scandals- for the American people.

Democrats or Republicans?

I used to think that the Democrats were better than the Republicans. I used to think that the Democrats had a little more humanity than the Republicans, but throughout the recent scandals, I've discovered that the Democrats are no better than the Republicans, they are just better at hiding the truth than the Republicans. The Republicans make it part of their whole stance to represent the hillbilly patriot of America. You know what I mean, right? The type of person who doesn't care about the people, only themselves. The kind of person who likes to hang the confederate flag on their trailer. The kind of person who deep fries their Thanksgiving turkey in 5 minutes in an enormous oil barrel. The kind who likes to shoot up a bunch of empty beer cans in camo and stand their ground when a black kid wanders past their house. The Republicans are loud and they are proud of their stance.

The Democrats are basically the same, minus the loud and proud thing. (Now you say "Oh no they're not!" And I say:) If they weren't, then wouldn't the gun laws in the States undergo some sort of reform? Wouldn't Obama have an answer less sleezy than "we are not tapping your phone and we will not be tapping your phone" when the German Chancellor asks him about whether or not he had been spying on her previously? Wouldn't something be done about the police brutality against the colored kids south of the border? Wouldn't enhanced interrogations be prohibited? Uh, yeah, they pretty much would, or at least, they'd be well on their way.

Now I know what you're thinking: the democrats had no clue that this (Enhanced Interrogations) was going on right under their noses. No, poor little, oblivious Democrats. Innocent and naive; believing that the world is fundamentally good. Poor little minority house leader Nancy Pelosi. She had no idea that these types of obvious human rights trampling-s were going on under her nose. Oops! My bad! What I meant to say was that she had condoned the actions! Not just for a little bit of time, but for 14 years worth of it! And according to Jose Rodriguez, a not-so-secret agent man from the lovely CIA, she never objected to it. Not once. Pathetic.

So are the Democrats so much better? Nah, they're just better at concealing certain things. Is that good? Morally, no. Business-wise, yes!

So do the American people have a choice when they go to the polls? Not really; sucks for them.
Regardless, should we get back to the major theme that I promised I would talk about at the start of this post? Of course! America's essential role on the global stage:

The US's role in the world is to act as a watchdog of sorts, but unlike your regular watchdog, who barks when something seems out of place, the US bites. They invade. They attack. How, is questionable, but the biting part isn't. This persistent and unequivocal biting has created a world in which such a large animosity exists against the US that they themselves must live in fear. Had the US not gone on frequent moral crusades, they would not have to fear being attacked, and hence, not have to use enhanced interrogations.

They propagate, to their very own people, that they have to defend their blessed land against the evils around it. That they have to protect the land from a insurgent force. And that they are justified in using any means possible. What they fail to explain to their people is why other countries are not constantly living "under threat of a mass casualty" (that's how Dick put it, not me). Actually, maybe not! Maybe they do explain to their people why they are the forsaken ones. Because they are the only good ones.

In a sea of evil, America glimmers, glorious as ever.

They are the only ones smart enough to take preemptive actions, they are the proactive ones. And their people blindly believe them. They don't question why the US is going into yet another humanitarian mission. They just see it as the right thing to do. They don't ask why toppling a sovereign state's government is unfair, they just chant "AMERICA!" at the top of their lungs. They have been conditioned to love their country's actions, so much so that basic humane values do not matter. (Or at least, they have the wrong values instilled upon them). So much so that the most fundamental value of any civilized society "Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you", is completely ignored.

At least, that's how my rabid mind sees it. (A very brief explanation, indeed.)

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. I have met some Americans with progressive minds. Americans who did not lovingly embrace the rape committed by their government on other countries. Good people, with good values. It's just that, somehow, unfortunately, they seem to be chronically outnumbered by their hillbilly counterparts. Actually, I think that American people, as individuals, are a riot. They're a lot of fun to be around and they're funny (keep in mind that I am speaking from my incredibly vast 16 years of knowledge). They are a lot less politically correct than their neighbours up north - a quality in my eyes. They are a lot less bounded by societal rules in some aspects, hence not fake-smiling for prolonged periods, it's just that government is just not one of them. In fact, one of the few people, whose opinions and thoughts my egocentric self ever put merit on and admired, was American. He's only a year older than me, but he's very smart.
(I met him in elementary and he knew a whole lot more than anyone else about anything else. And he was not a cynic, though everyone did consider him to be, he was a just a misfit. People didn't like his whole approach because, simply put, he didn't like to smile about everything, as they did. Regardless, he was very nice to me, perhaps nicer than I deserved, but I learned a lot from him. It's too bad that I don't get to talk to him much anymore, it was one of the downsides of switching schools.)

So, what have I tried to convey today? That the real AGASists may not be the ones who are brown and wear ghutras, they may just be the ones on humanitarian missions. If random "suspected" brown people can be captured and subjected to enhanced interrogations, what is so different about an ISIL member capturing an American? Both parties simply want to do that which they see as best for their respective country. Each party is messing with the other.

Did the US blow up countless schools full of children in the middle east while fighting the "war on terror"? And did they suffer no consequences whatsoever for their actions?

Yes, yes they did. But keep in mind that they are untouchable.

Moreover, when this scandal about torture came to light, isn't it true that it only received about a few days of news coverage before it stopped getting air time, whereas the beheading of an American  by ISIL received nearly a month?

Yes, yes it is. But keep in mind that white, American lives are always worth more than the lives of anyone else.

Unwise

Three years ago, when I was in grade 8, I witnessed a boy win the student election at my school by giving a speech about turtles. Like all the other candidates, he got up on stage and recited a carefully written speech about turtles entering the salt water of the beach from their sandy birthplace. He then made the correlation, the connection, the metaphor that all of us kids are turtles entering the ocean that is high school. As he spoke, he trembled and shook the way a leaf does when hit by a raindrop. He stammered and stuttered the way a toddler does when lying to his mother about stealing cookies from the cookie jar. Sweat dripped from his forehead the way juice drips from a rotisserie chicken. His speaking skills were inadequate to say the least, and he was petrified, yet he went on to win the grade 8 presidential election. His win was purely based on his creatively themed speech. His charisma, his thoughts, his future actions were not addressed in the slightest in his speech. Not one of my peers cared about what that boy was going to do to bring change to our school, nobody cared about how he would improve our grade's position in school decision making and nobody cared about what kind of person, and more importantly leader, that boy would make. The only thing that that group of 13-year-olds cared about was the hilarity of their peer's speech. 

I'll give credit where credit is due however. That boy earned his win because he knew how to appeal to a group of his peers. He was clever. He knew that any young adults would enjoy his funny speech. He knew that any adolescent child would rather listen to a guy talk about cute turtles and make them laugh, rather than listen to a boring speech of someone's vision for a better future - and I commend him for that.
This little anecdote is what brings me to my point: the legal voting age.
I have read countless articles written by children of my own age boasting the benefits of allowing those under 18 to vote. I have even read articles by adults insisting that children are capable of making a serious choice in an election. Some of my peers have gone so far as to say that they feel that all children, as of age 16, should and would be excited to vote and inform themselves about politics. I, however, disagree, and with each pro-lowering-the-voting-age paper I read, I feel a sense of immaturity, rebellion and even disgust.
I am repulsed by the Napoleonic attitude of my generation and their absolute certainty in their decisions.
Feelings aside, I would like to bring forward a series of arguments as to why children of my own age should not be able to participate in one of society's most important and defining functions - elections.
From the story I described above, one can conclude that children have an issue separating entertainment from reality; a problem which can encourage a party to alter the focuses of their campaign.
Well, okay, maybe not change everything, but definitely some things. It is undeniable; parties would have to endeavour to gain the votes of the young. Surely, they would attempt to create a campaign based majorly in social media, as that is what we youth spend most of our free time on. Surely, they would attempt to make a profound and thought-provoking campaign, but the question remains: what would they do after their mature campaign failed? Would they allow the youth's votes to go to waste? Would they change their campaign to appeal to the masses of the youth, hence risking the revocation of older peoples' votes? Or, would all those children's votes become the votes of their parents?
Regardless of your opinion, I'd like to provide another example:
During a debate with one of my peers on the subject, I was faced with a question: "You and I are perfectly capable of making an informed vote, so is it not arrogant and wrong of you to assume that the rest of the kids here can't?" An excellent question, which I believe I answered with an equally excellent response. I figured that words could simply not express and disprove my peer's theory as well as an example could. Considering the fact that we were in school on our lunch break, it was very easy for me to pull aside a child to use as my example. A sandy-haired, pale and muscle-less boy was in the middle of his enormous sub sandwich when I pulled him aside and asked "If you could vote in the next election, which party would you vote for?" After a series of "umms", "whats" and "uhhs", his response was exactly what could've been expected from the average adolescent boy. "The Awesome Party". I responded by inquiring about what was important to him. "Video games" was the ideal response to cement my point to my peer.
The sad truth is that that boy represents the masses of my generation. Despite the fact that I have met a multitude of clever, witty, smart and well-informed children my own age, I met far more who are dumb. So, to those that argue that not allowing youth to vote deprives them of expanding their horizons, getting involved in their community and expressing themselves, I disagree. I think that disallowing youth to vote actually prevents all the stupidity that could come out of my age-range.
And let me just pre-emptively address an issue which is sure to arise: Allowing 16 year olds to vote, is not going to encourage them to get involved in politics. We see this through history in countless like-examples.
Lastly, my opinion changes on a whim. I have a different view on a different subject on a near daily basis. Take my future, for example. I am never sure what I want to do after high school. I feel like I have a general idea, but nothing concrete. So should someone like me truly be able to vote - only to make a decision I could regret the next day?
So, why the long post about why kids shouldn't be allowed to vote? Because of the boy who won the student election? No. Was it a big deal? No, being the grade representative of the youngest high school grade does not change the course of humanity, nor does it have a tremendous impact on a student's life. The truth is that teachers and administrators continue to make the majority of the important decisions. Student council is more a way of providing false hope and assurance to children that they indeed are equal to the rest of society. But what that speech was, was a testament to the immaturity and the incapability of youths to make serious decisions.

The Girl at the Pool - Part 10

I woke up on a terrible Monday to get ready for school. Luckily, I had gone to bed early and was well-rested. I put on my debating skirt, -boy, are skirts ever uncomfortable- my black pantyhose and my debate face on. I knew that talking to Mr. Forman would not be easy, so I had to be prepared. The previous night,  I had talked to my true friend and she had agreed to come with me to talk to Mr. Forman, as he had sent her an email requesting to see her as well. When I got to school, I began ranting about the issue to my girlfriend. I don't think that she was listening. She's heard me rant about so many things, so many times that I'm sure that she has a mechanism to go deaf each time I start ranting.

My classes weren't going well, all I could think of was what I would say to Mr. Forman. I was stressed,  but nonetheless, I kept a straight face. Over lunch, I saw my true friend, and she told me to not go off on a whim about the freedom to expression/speech. She told me to basically just say that I was wrong. As the gangstas would put it: "AWWWW, HELL NO!" There was no way in hell that I was going to accept guilt. I had done no wrong, and of that, I was sure.

My true friend came to my last block class to pick me up. We walked down the hall and arrived at the room. Mr. Forman was sitting there and he greeted both of us with a really nice "hey girls!" Then we got into what had happened. He asked if I understood his problem. I said no, because I honestly didn't. I couldn't believe it when he told me that his issue wasn't the emails, it wasn't my actual post, but rather that it was the comment that I had left about his "forcing". My mind flooded in disbelief. I honestly thought that he had some problems. A grown man was nit-picking over one word, telling me that he didn't force me.

I said, "okay, but then what would you call it?"

His answer was "nothing, your outburst was out of line, and apologizing was the right thing to do."

"Okay, I understand that it was out of line, but I still don't see why I shouldn't have used the word 'force', what else could I have called it?" I demanded.

"It wasn't force because it was the right thing to do, no matter what you think it was right, and I'm right. I'm done." He said, as he stammered out the door.

Wow, right? In between this issue, he had stated that he hadn't received the emails from the wretched woman until last night, and that he was upset by them. When I asked him what he intended to do, he simply responded that he wanted to forget about it. So why wasn't I allowed to forget about my outburst? Why was I FORCED to apologize for my statements? Most importantly, why was this woman getting a free pass?

Privacy

Privacy is always an interesting matter to discuss. It has a number of variables which need to be taken into account in order for it to be attainable and existent. Surprisingly, today I will not be taking a legal standpoint on the matter, rather a moral one. I know, it's rare, but I have morality too. As a side note however, legally, law-abiding citizens have a right to privacy. As long as they remain law-abiding they are free to do what they wish in their own homes.

So what is my view on privacy? To what moral extent is one obligated to provide privacy for another? That is the question which I will be trying to answer today, as it has recently come up in my life. In which context has it come up? Well, I'd rather not say (actually I would, but it's complicated). I will be trying to do my best to eloquently describe the matter without giving too much away, so beware, it may sound choppy.

SOURCE: ulovesomethingmore.com

Firstly, I'd like to say that I hate being told what to do very much. This post is perhaps written a little out of spite, so take it with a grain of salt. 

As a blogger, I take it upon myself to release information which I learn. I focus and dedicate my blog to critiquing subjects which are of interest to me. I feel that, as a journalist, it is my job to release the information I learn from my sources without any regret. I owe it to my readers to provide the most upfront, direct and fact-based pieces of writing. To do this, I disregard the privacy of subjects many times. Of course, I do this to a certain extent, i.e. not blatantly naming names. Obviously, I take many liberties as well. Many times, I do not ask for consent before publishing because I do not need to. It is my right to post what I wish, as long as I don't give away who it is I am speaking of. That is why no names are named. 

A prime example of a post in which I took the liberty of posting without regard for privacy is Don't Kill the Messenger. I found out very some very delicate information on a very delicate subject. In fact, my sources disclosed information to me on a subject which was being -and still is being- investigated by the police. I gave away as much as I could without getting myself in trouble. Now, did I trample over the privacy rights of the people involved? Perhaps, but I don't feel guilty. Am I bad person for it? I think not. Firstly, no one can pin-point who the involved people are based on my post; they can only assume. Secondly, I didn't personally know any of the parties involved and I was left outside of the "loop" by them- I was simply a bystander in the matter and did what I see as my job. (Finding a source, getting information and letting my readers know.)

Now, do I blame the people involved in the Vancouver Taddler incident for not running to me to give me the "scoop" on the story. Absolutely not, I would behave the same way. Not only did I not request the information from them, but I also did not know those people. I would, quite frankly, be a little creeped out if the writer of Vancouver Taddler -whose name has still not been released, and thus  cannot be released by me- came to me to give me her story. I'm not that popular.  

This is where my problem arises. If I was good friends with the writer of Vancouver Taddler and asked her for some information on the blog, I'd expect her to give it to me as part of the obvious loyalty and trust, which is part of a healthy friendship. Since I am her friend, I would then ask her if she would be kind enough to let me publish the information on my blog. If she said no, I would not publish the information, for the simple fact that my friend comes before my blog. If she said yes, then I would go ahead and publish it. 

I'd expect that my friend has enough trust in me that she is willing to confide her secret in me. In my mind that is how friendships work. 

What would I do if my friend refused to tell me her secret? I'd even accept that. I would understand the fact that she has some trust issues. There is really only one scenario in which I wouldn't respect my friend's wish of privacy and that would be if I wasn't treated like a friend. Basically, as long as I was treated the same as rest of my peers, I would respect her wishes. Most friendships see the friends treating each other better that the rest of their peers, but I don't require that, I just require being on the same level as everybody else. However, my goodness in the situation should not go for granted - even I have standards/limits which should not be tested.
Here is what I am trying to say: if my friend never told anyone their secret - that'd be fine. If my friend on the other hand, told a mere aquanitance their secret and kept me out of the loop completely, then I would be offended. This is the point at which I feel that I have a right to posting what I see fit about that "friend". If the reason is still not clear enough, let me help:
If my friend turned me into a bystander on the matter, then that is how I'd behave. The point where I become less sacred than some other child in the school, is the breaking point. This is the point where that friend's privacy is no longer of concern to me. That is when I become a Zoe Barnes.
In my journalistic eyes, privacy is only attainable to a certain degree. A degree, which depends greatly on the way you are treated. Privacy exists with those you are close with and should be adhered to. Privacy is not a worry when you are simply reporting on a matter, which you are not directly correlated in. Privacy can only exist when the subject of your reporting keeps you informed, and you aren't forced to use confidential sources to get the information you want. When that subject decides that you are unfit to know their secrets, but someone else is, then you are perfectly entitled to say/write what you wish from your own sources.
I love blogging, but I love the people who are close to me more. When those people betray me, there is no justification. I then turn to my second love - blogging - and treat the person the way they treated me - as a stranger. These people then have no right to be upset with me, for it is their fault. They have no right to demand that I not blog about them, for it is morally wrong. Am I jealous? Perhaps, but I think that as a friend I have earned the right to know some things. That is all. 

The Girl at the Pool - Part 9

My cursor was headed for the "pokes" button, I poked back all the people that had poked me. As soon as I was done, I was off back to the newsfeed, with every intention of logging off. Something stopped me, a comment from my old coach at my old school. She was telling me that she was dealing with the issue, and that I have no reason to write a response. She understood my anger, but cautioned me against writing the email. Though I am not sure of the exact timeline, I believe that my ex-partner private messaged me to say that I was putting my debating career in jeopardy, if I were to send this letter. I expected him to say this, so I didn't think anything of it. I thought however, that my old coach would be more supportive and she wasn't. I don't blame her, in fact, she may be right. Okay, okay, credits to my ex-partner too.

Alright, I obviously had to explain the circumstances to them fully. So I did, and I added that I was forced to apologize by Mr. Forman, and I implied that he needed to do something about it, just like my old coach had done for her school. Look, he made me apologize for something that was actually fairly justified, but was he going to do anything about this crazy woman who was making unjustified, false allegations against my ex-partner and I? I didn't know yet, it was already around midnight, and I didn't expect any sort of answer from him until morning. I went to bed that night with a clear conscience.

I woke up in the morning, and had a really good breakfast. I gobbled it down, despite the fact that I wasn't hungry. Then, I proceeded to logging onto Facebook. I was interested in seeing if Mr. Forman had responded or not. Surely enough, there it was; a scalding, scorching, rage-filled comment from him. He told me that my comment was "out of line" and that he hadn't "forced" me to apologize, but that that was the right thing to do! I was in utter shock. I mean, I know that he isn't an English teacher, but still, is he unaware of the meaning of the word "force"?

First of all, I don't believe that my post, or comment, was out of line. I simply responded to a person's comment with clarification for why I would need to write a response to this tournament director. Secondly, I was indeed forced to apologize. Maybe I'm retarded, but from what I know "forcing" is when you make someone do something against their will. I apologized to that woman because Mr. Forman requested it of me, not because I felt like it. Mr. Forman forced me to apologize. Regardless of whether or not apologizing was the right thing to do, I didn't want to do it, hence I was forced. Also in his comment, Mr. Forman told me that he would speak to me after the weekend about the remarks I made. I was excited. I loved getting in trouble when I was right!

The Girl at the Pool - Part 8

The debates were finished, I was happy, and off to the awards ceremony. Hopefully I wouldn't make another scene. My ex-partner was sure that he hadn't made it to Provincials, but I was sure that he had.  20 kids were going to pass. They announced the novices first. Now, it was time for the juniors. The senior results had already been announced and they weren't pretty. This served as no comfort.

"Number 18, from University Hill..." Oh my, I had just barely made it!

"...Emily!" Oh my goodness! Oh my goodness! Oh my goodness! My fantastic partner had moved onto to Provincials! I was so happy!

"Number 15, from Eric Hamber…" Oh my! I knew that my ex-partner was only being hard on himself!  He had made it!

"…[My ex-partner's partner]" Good job! Even better, now my ex-parnter would definitely be on the list and higher up.

"Number 14, from University Hill…" Okay, as much as I'd like to seem humble, I wasn't. I knew that it was me!

"...Nat Mico!" I freaked out, and danced as if I had been possessed by the devil. Also, I knew that because my ex-partner was better than me, he'd for sure get through to Provincials.

The numbers kept progressing to no avail. My ex-partner had not made it through. I was heavily depressed for the rest of the night.

I arrived home that night, to a congratulations from my father. I logged onto Facebook. My true friend from the start of the this story had posted a congrats to all, and misspelled my name in the process. I commented on her post, explaining how to spell my name. Then my ex-partner chimed in and copy/pasted a comment, in which I had explained how to spell my name to him. Then when my true friend was getting annoyed, my ex-partner posted another comment, only this time in Serbian. In translation, it meant "the language is hard". My true friend was freaking out and telling us "evil little grade 10s" to "get off her post". Anyway, my partner went on to make more Serbian comments, which he would later delete for God knows what reason, and my true friend told us to "stop flirting". Okay, we weren't flirting. Up until a few days ago, I had thought that my partner was asexual - not necessarily a bad thing. Disregarding my anecdotes, let's move on to my next point.

Being the lovely human I am, I got off my true friend's post, and proceeded to create my own. I wrote a brief post on the Debate club's closed group page. In this post, I thanked my partner, congratulated everyone, and all that other crap. However, there was one thing in my post, which I would find out would come back to "bite me on the butt". At the end of the post, I explained that I wouldn't be on Facebook for the rest of the night, for I would be formulating my response to the terrible tournament director of the previous tournament (not Regionals).

Crimea and the Referendum

On Sunday, after weeks of growing tension and threats, citizens of the Crimean peninsula voted overwhelmingly in favour of re-joining the Russian Federation. In fact, of the 82% of folks that came out to vote, over 96% wanted to join Russia. After the votes were counted people celebrated in the streets, holding up the Russian flag and chanting in support of Putin and Russia. This sounds like the idealistic beauty of democracy. We gave people what they had wanted for so long, in the fairest way possible, a vote. Somehow however, this democratic action was spat upon by the West and deemed unfair and unconstitutional. Most of the West actually said that they would never recognize the vote. Isn't this very disrespectful both to the Russians and to the Crimeans? It's sending a message of unacceptance and of double standards. 

Before I delve deeper into that subject, let me dispel a few myths which may make this article seem incorrect. 

Firstly, let's talk about why the West is choosing to ignore the results of the vote, considering that the West prides itself on being democratic and just. Well, firstly, the West feels that the vote was influenced by scary presence of Russian troops in Crimea. Secondly, they feel that there were certain technicalities -which were avoided by Russia- in the Ukrainian constitution, which make the vote invalid. Why are both of these reasons absolutely and absurdly and utterly wrong? Because (with regards to the first reason) if the voters truly were scared of the repercussions of voting against annexation due to military presence, would they come out to polling stations with Russian flags and later go out and hold a massive celebration in support of joining Russia? Probably not. It is absurd to think such a thing,  considering that the votes are private and one could easily vote against annexation without it ever being known that they were the ones who cast the ballot. 

If a voter is against Russian annexation and they are bullied into voting against their beliefs by troops, would that same voter enter the city centre carrying a Russian flag celebrating? No, that voter would sadly retreat to their home and weep over their ballot. Finally, if there was to be any intimidation from either side wouldn't it have come from the new self-appointed provisional government? The one who's Prime Minister said that separatists should beware of having "the ground burn beneath their feet"? 

As for the second reason, let's understand it at a deeper level. The Ukrainian constitution basically states  that a referendum cannot be held in only one part of the country. Any referendum held must be held throughout the country, or be approved by the federal government. Firstly, would a self-appointed, pro-West government approve a referendum to be held in only one part of the country like Crimea? No, of course not! A part of the country, which speaks predominantly Russian and has a population make-up which is predominantly ethnic Russian, is most likely going to vote to separate from Ukraine and go to Mother Russia. Secondly, there have been other situations, situations in which the West has supported crossing the constitution of a country to hold a referendum for independence. Kosovo, is one such example. 

Kosovo belonged to Serbia (and still does technically belong to Serbia, as it hasn't really achieved total autonomy). When Kosovo, a region with a ethnic Albanian majority, said that it wanted to break off from Serbia, despite it historically being the origin place of Serbs, the West (namely the US) supported the decision, and immediately accepted Kosovo as independent  Now, let's not forget that Serbia is a place that had a constitution too. They don't just let any province that feels like breaking off, break off. There are certain procedures necessary for a region to officially become autonomous. These procedures however, were completely ignored by the US. Why? Well because it was in the West's interests to have Kosovo separate from Serbia. Oops! Did I just say that?!?! I meant, because there were special reasons for Kosovo, such as the protruding conflict and civil war in the 90s etc.. 

Looking at Kosovo's example, we can see that the US had itself created a precedent for regions to break off and become autonomous, without ever having to consult the government to which the region belongs, and without paying any mind to that country's lawful constitution. So then why would Crimea not be able to join Russia and separate from the Ukraine? The circumstances are ravishingly similar to those of Kosovo. Crimea has an ethnic majority of Russians, Crimeans speak Russian and for the most part -judging from the vote- Crimeans support Russia. Why are the Crimeans unable to defy the constitution and wishes of their self-appointed government, to separate from the Ukraine? Beats me, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that this sounds like setting a huge double standard on the part of the US. 

To me, what's really funny is that when the Ukrainian nationalists walk out into the streets protest a democratically elected government and set buildings on fire, all in hopes of ousting a president who really made the right choice with regards to the EU**, they are applauded as expressing their freedom and standing up to corruption. When Yulia Tymoshenko, a woman who stole tons of money from the Ukrainian people, is released from jail, she is hailed as a brave hero. Her corruption and wrong-doings are conveniently forgotten. Could it perhaps be because she is a puppet of the West? When the self appointed new prime minister of Ukraine says that separatist leaders will have "the ground burn under their feet" it is not deemed an act of aggression, an act of intimidation or a suppression of democracy and freedom? Rather it is encouraged as a taking a tough stance for the right thing. Doesn't that statement seem eerily threatening? Doesn't it seem to set a huge double standard? 

When Putin says something even remotely threatening in defence of Russia, he is called an authoritarian and antagonized. When the pro-Russian minority exercises its right to free speech, they are quickly antagonized and silenced, because of any reason that can possibly arise, even if it means disregarding an already created precedent. This doesn't sound very fair to me. 

The funny thing is that these folks in Crimea, of whom 96% voted to join Russia, should have a right to state their wishes, as anyone else. If these anti-Russian, anti-Yanukovich protesters are recognized and applauded, why are these pro-Russian voters spat upon? Why is there right to expression suppressed? Why is their wish for democracy unrealized? This sounds terribly fascist and very wrongly undemocratic. But because the West is the side which is being undemocratic, everyone goes along with it and doesn't give it a second thought. The West is refusing to recognize this democratic referendum because it isn't good for them. They don't want to see Russia grow and increase their power on the world stage. They want Russia to fall off the face of the Earth, or at least for Putin to. Russia is big and scary, not one to back down and worst of all, Russia calls out BS, making the US look plain stupid. Putin is letting the US make statements which are so easily rebutted on his part that the US actually harms itself. (For further evidence of such rebuttals by Putin, please read the following article by RT. It demonstrates a bunch of things that Putin said during his address to the Parliament in response to claims made by the West.)

If I were a political advisor for the US government, I'd tell them to just shut up, because anything they say can and will be used against them in Putin's court. Putin is on the right side of history in this scenario and despite the West's best efforts to propagate Putin as a dictator, they will fail. No amount of sanctions and malicious words can stop Putin. It is quite shameful for the West to be suppressing this freedom of expression in such fashion. 

When Kerry told Putin that if he pulls his troops out of Crimea, Ukraine will change its constitution to protect the rights of ethnic Russian minorities, Putin calmly responded by asking Kerry how he can be so sure of that unless he is the one controlling Ukraine and its constitution, exposing the US and  exposing Ukraine's new unelected government as a puppet of the United States. When the vote in Crimea happened, people marched out into the streets to celebrate joining Russia - they were elated. So obviously they had wanted this for a long time, but had been denied, and are still being denied due to a "technicality in the constitution", or of course because the US is just scared.

Today, a decree was signed by Putin recognizing Crimea as Russia. During his address to parliament, he was greeted by a standing ovation, when he called Crimeans, Russians. The West is losing this battle and needs to back off. They need to stop constantly putting themselves into other folks business. This conflict is between the EU, the Ukraine and Russia, no one else. The EU isn't going to take steps against Russia because they rely on them. If the US allows itself on so many "humanitarian" missions around the world, ones in which the folks being "protected" aren't even mainly American, why then is Russia not allowed to go to a place on a humanitarian mission and protect folks who are mainly Russian? 

Up until it was discovered that the killed protesters in the anti-government protests were killed by Maidan snipers, it was propagated in the West that they had been killed by the Yanukovich regime. A obvious fallacy. How dare the new self-appointed government propagate that Yanukovich should be tried by the ICC! It is their people who are killing and framing others. The utter travesties that are revealed daily in this case, are just that - travesties. It needs to stop. 

Hands off Russia and their business!

**Yanukovich could've have either taken the dumb risk of joining the economically failing EU, an EU which hadn't even yet guaranteed acceptance for Ukraine, rather just made it a possibility. An EU which offered Ukraine 10 times less the money that Russia had. Or Yanukovich could've done as he had, and went with Ukraine's long time ally of Russia, which had offered Ukraine 10 times more money than the EU.