The Zach Bell Show

By the way, before I write this post, I feel it prudent to point out that coming back to blog was perhaps one of the most unpleasant internet related experiences since being told to google the word tubgirl. Go ahead, try it if you have a child sitting next to you that you want to have traumatized for life.  Anyhow, coming back to find well over 400 comments worth of spam (and that`s just what the filters didn’t catch) was kind of like…

Yeah…

So anyhow, after breaking my neck in a triple rollover in the oil patch, I decided to take a drastic approach to my career by just flat out changing it.  After a few weeks worth of work back in the patch, I moved on and went to selling cars.  I actually did very well with that aside from being stressed out all the time but then was suddenly offered a job by a friend of mine in trucking.  What can I say, I couldn’t responsibly refuse and now, I’m back to trying to get a truck on the road so I can get to work trucking.

I always seem to pick the best times to enter into a self reliant gig.  when i started hauling gravel, it was in the midst of a recession and owner operators all around me in that chosen field were losing their shirts.  Naturally, I lost mine in large part because I just didn’t know enough about what I was doing.  Well, now that I know more, I have decided to get back in and doing different work but what should happen right about now?  A diesel fuel shortage of course.

This shortage has been created by a triple whammy of sorts.  first, we have been going through a switch of summer fuels to winter fuels which happens twice a year.  That’s of no great concern by itself as it’s pretty routine but this minor inconvenience has been compounded by two other problems.  First, a fire at a refinery in Regina saw the refinery cut back production by about 20 percent or so if memory serves.  Second, a shortage of  hydrogen sulphide at a major Suncor refinery has resulted in an inability to produce as much diesel as is required by demand.  This perfect storm has seen to it that most of Canada and many Northern States are now suffering from a major diesel shortage.

Aside from finding more hydrogen sulphide to solve this problem, a short term solution has been to bring diesel in from Alaska and as far away as Texas to shore up the dwindling supply.  This adds to the expense of fuel and also is very poor in terms of being even a short term solution to a fuel shortage.  Right now, Canadian truckers and equipment operators are having to deal with strict fuel rationing and run outs at several fuel stations.  even, if you plan ahead and call to ask if a station on your route has fuel, they might close the doors after hitting a daily cap or even just run out of fuel by the time you get there.  It’s a gamble right now and despite being in this situation, our political forces that be insist that we have little need for an increase in refining capacity.

When I was in the oil fields, there was one thing that always stuck in the back of my mind.  I mainly hauled oil into two different oil batteries.  One oil battery was near Blackfoot Alberta and the other about 20 minutes east of Lloydminster Alberta.  It was a rare event to not wait in line at either oil battery and one was so bad, that it was often referred to by oil haulers as a parking lot.  In one particularly bad case, I remember waiting for about 12 hours to get rid of a load of oil as I waited in line inching my truck along and it’s not as though there wasn’t oil waiting to be hauled, we just had nowhere to put it and so we ended up waiting at oil batteries too stuffed up to do anything.  You see, it’s not that we don’t have the oil, we obviously do.  What we lack is the refining and storage infrastructure and I would think that Saskatchewan has an empty field or two we could use for this kind of stuff.  A nice couple of big new refineries up here in Canada could probably easily outpace the aged refineries in the southern states.

Canada does not have an emergency fuel reserve supply system like the Americans do and frankly, I don’t think we need one of those because those reserves are often enough to keep a country going for a day or two so really…not much use.  What we do need though is an ability to overproduce from our current refining infrastructure so that when we do suffer a problem in our own domestic supply chain, we can have other refineries make up for the shortfall.  As it is right now, even after Suncor get’s its act together, it’ll still probably be another month before suppliers can stop rationing or modifying hours of operation for card lock fuel stations.

Finally, domestic bio-diesel production should certainly be considered at least for powering farm equipment as a measure to reduce the demand for other domestic diesel consumption.  It’s about damned time that we make even a baby step into the future on this issue and Saskatchewan is probably a great place to get it done.

Yesterday, I dressed in one of my snappiest suits, did up my hair, threw on a smile and following the direction of my lovely gal, headed on down to the Saskatoon Farmer’s Market where Saskatoon’s very own slut-walk was about to be staged.  Why was I happy as all hell to be marching along side people holding signs such as “If you want to fuck me, ask first” or “This slut was born to walk!”  Well, maybe a little background first.

At a York University, speaking to a small group of Students, Toronto police Const. Michael Sanguinetti spoke the following words during a routine safety talk.

”I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized,”

Perhaps he should have thought a little harder on why he wasn’t supposed to say that.  While some people have stood up in defence of this sentiment, I remain vehemently opposed even after reading all of the sober second thought applied to this statement.  While I understand that some people may agree with the sentiment, I certainly do not and this is why I participated in Saskatoon’s slut-walk.

So why do I think that the sentiment expressed above is disappointing, why would I go so far as to attend a march to scream and yell to express my viewpoint?  I mean, couldn’t there be some sense to the notion that if you dress in a manner that is sexually suggestive that you should expect some kind of sexual contact even if you don’t want it?  Hmm…when you type it out it seems even more idiotic.  I mean, I’m sorry but my god I can’t even figure out how to play devil’s advocate on this one.

Even when I was showing my muscles off, I had nothin' on this guy!

When I was younger and in shape, I did take to dressing in a way that I figured would show off my best attributes.  Tight fitting t-shirt to show off the chest, chain around the neck to draw more attention to aforementioned top-booty, jeans and a kickin’ belt….you know, all that stuff that I figured would help me scream out “I’M ONE SEXY SON OF A BIOTCH!”  Did that mean I was actively soliciting sexual contact between me and anyone that happened to come within eye shot of me?  Certainly not and I don’t think it at all abnormal to consider that women dressed provocatively may not be after sexual advances.  In fact, I think it a completely childish way to think about sex.

Maybe this could be explained differently.

When I dressed to impress, (impress hormones mainly) it was in the hopes that whoever I found attractive would find me attractive as well.  It was in the hopes that when I approached some one with a desire to…mingle…that they would be able to look at me and think of something other than whether or not it would be possible to produce a profitable documentary on the life and times of local hobos.  I still like to dress in a way that makes me look good, appealing and sexy but that doesn’t mean I’m looking for sex around every corner or that I am even expecting come-ons from every one that sees me.  It simply means that I’m trying to look good because I like to be judged positively when I initially come into contact with some one.  Sometimes I may dress in a way that could see people assume I’m more down to earth or maybe I just want to limit my interactions with people.  Whatever the case, I dress how I like and this seems entirely reasonable because I’m a guy.  It mystifies me that this standard some how can not be applied to women.

So this brings me back to how childish I think the assumption that women are “asking for it” is.  Maybe I’m way off here but it seems flat out juvenile to me that some one could ever say that, because a woman dresses in a sexy manner, she should expect sexual contact even if she doesn’t want it.  isn’t this akin to saying that we should totally just expect rape to happen and that it’s some how justified?  It doesn’t seem all that dissimilar to me.

The origines of many an arsonist

When I was 14, I had a lot of pent up wants.  I mean, my god that was one heck of a difficult time but it was rather plain and obvious to me that no matter my desires, it wasn’t ok for me to jump some one in the halls at high school or anywhere else if I wasn’t invited to do so…and damn did I ever want an invite.  If I could understand that at 14, why do so many adults seem to think it’s some how reasonable that women are victimized when they dress in a way that they prefer to dress?  Actually, this seems less and less juvenile now that I think about it (I controlled myself just fine when I was a juvenile after all) and just plain sickening.  If at 14 I could grasp that people aren’t supposed to be subjected to sexual attacks simply because the attacker wanted to do what they did, why is it some how just a fact of life that some grown adults can’t grasp the same notion?

So, this is all why I am proud to have marched in Saskatoon’s slutwalk.  The sign I carried read “COSENT IS SEXY” and spoke very loudly to my way of thinking about all this.  Consent is after all very sexy when you’re asking to have sex with some one; rape is not.  Consent is a carry over of our desires and a mutual point of contact between two people.  Rape is an invasion of a person in the most direct manner of thinking possible.  It should be clear that this issue speaks not to human sexuality specifically but much more directly to the notion that women and men both should be able to feel entirely secure in the security of their person.  Some one should be able to walk naked down the street secure in the knowledge that they will not be attacked because no matter what you may think of a person doing such a thing, attacking them and violating their rights as a human beings is still wrong.

Finally, I wanted to respond directly to some comments as posted on the CBC’s website.  The CBC ran a story about slutwalk in Saskatoon and the comments were absolutely incredible to me.  Some really stuck out at me and I think they merit some type of commentary.

Always ready said:

The statement by the police constable wasn’t to shift blame or to say that the perpetrators are justified – he was simply giving honest well intended advice.
‘Don’t dress to arouse men and be surprised when it works’.

I’m sure the people that advertise their car stereo equipment in the windows of their car are told the same thing – don’t display what you have – sombody might want it.

It may have been well intended but what’s that old saying?  The road to hell is paved with well intentions?

As I mentioned above, in my past, I dressed well to impress people I wanted to be attracted to me.  That didn’t for a second mean that I dressed to signal to all people that I was looking for unwanted advances.  The comment is right on at least one count though.  We shouldn’t be surprised when sexually attractive people who dress well attract other people.  We should however be disgusted when those people attracted to sexy people violate the rights of those people by making unwanted sexual contact with them.

RU4Real9 said the following.

YOU….
Wear expensive jewelry, you could get mugged.
Look at someone too long, you could get into a fight.
Say something wrong to someone, you could get into a fight.
Drink too much, you could get into an accident or kill someone.
Leave your doors at home/car unlocked, you could get broken into.
Walk/ride in a bad area of the city, you could get attacked, stabbed or shot.
Wear colors of a gang, you could get attacked
Yell at a bad driver, you could get road raged.
Get drunk act like an idiot, you get labeled as an idiot.
Get drunk and pass out, you could get taken advantage of by a jerk.
Wear classy clothing, you will be thought of as a classy person
Wear provocative, sleazy clothing; you will be thought of as a tramp and wanting some

RU4Real9 Included the following in her comment as well at the very end.

Everyone must take responsibity for their actions and quit blaming others, as your actions could get yourself into a predicament you can’t get out of .

Is it just me or does that seem kind of contradictory?  It really does seem to me that this is blaming the victim for being attacked.  I take note that the comment includes gang colours.  When I lived in Winnipeg, I found out that much of my wardrobe was not to be worn on the street in a certain area of town because I would have gotten attacked as a gang member but I certainly didn’t think it was right.  I didn’t think “I shouldn’t wear these cloths” but rather “I should be able to wear these clothes if I want to.  This is totally unfair!” and perhaps that should be the default attitude more often that it is.

AJBinEC posted:

If you make a habit out of leaving your car unlocked and running while going to liquor stores in dodgy areas it will probably be stolen eventually. That certainly doesn’t mean that the thief is justified in stealing your car. It does, however, mean that you’re a fool, and the police would rightly tell you that when you reported your car stolen.

Here’s the thing, our bodies are always locked.  No one has default permission to enter and no matter how attractive the body looks, it’s still only owned and operated by one person and one person only.  Actually, while some may think that the anecdote is rather good, I think it’s a rather inadequate one.  It’s more like parking a very fancy and expensive car in a bad part of town and leaving it locked and on display.  Whatever the case, whether you left it locked or not, it’s not your fault that it gets stolen and as the victim, you shouldn’t be left to feel as though it was or that you may be mocked and ridiculed when you report the crime to the police.

ovdaslived said:

A little common sense is required. I don’t tuck dollar bills into my belt when I’m walking around Mexico.

Which seems an odd way to think about it.  I think common sense would be great indeed…and conversely, I should make mention that while I have been in a few strip clubs, I’ve never jumped up on stage, tossed off my pants and went looking for anything with two legs and a heartbeat.  That seems rather common sense to me.  Common sense is best when it translates into something like “sexually assaulting some one is bad!”

“Real man” Harv33z posted:

If you want to be treated like a woman (respect ,courtesy etc) then dress and act like one. As for sexy well a glance, a sly smile can be far more sexy than clothing that reveals all because sexy is more about how you carry yourself than how much skin you show. Just a real mans opinion!!!!

I’m left rather bewildered.  We should be treated according to how we dress?   Fine, I can buy that up to a point seeing as I dress to illicit certain reactions sometimes but maybe this real man is missing the point.  Am I wrong in thinking that no matter how you dress, you shouldn’t be subjected to sexual assault?

And it goes on…

Look, here’s the bottom line.  People do seem to generally understand that no matter how some one is dressed, raping them isn’t ok but where the common sense understanding of the world gets a little more hazy is perhaps when people start to think of what a personal display may mean.

When I dressed attractively in years past, it was for everybody on varying levels.  For the people I passed on the street it was to show that I was attractive in my own ways.  For people who interacted with me, it was to show that I cared about my appearance and wanted to present myself in a way that would make a base impression (whatever that impression could have been) on them.  Depending on how I interacted with others, it was to show that I was attractive or even sexually desirable in my own ways.  Whatever the case, one outfit never necessarily was supposed to mean one thing to every one who saw me and for others, I imagine it is much the same.

In the end, it is my firm and staunch belief that if you’re out in public, at a friends, at work or in your own home, you should not have to fear being attacked for appearing a certain way.  No matter your appearance, you are still the sole owner and operator of your own body and it should always be that way.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of the hit television show South Park, now in it’s 15th season, can likely count a great deal of their success to being unafraid to tackle contentious issues through satire.  Parker and Stone ran into a great deal of disappointment when they attempted to have an episode of South Park contain an image of Muhammad, the Muslim prophet in April of 2010.  After terrorist attacks in Europe resulting from the publishing of cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, comedy Central decided to censor images of the prophet Muhammad much to the chagrin of Parker and Stone as well as a number of their loyal fans.  Seeing as the show had previously aired images of Muhammad in a comical context, it was a clear capitulation to fear and so many like myself have insisted that terrorists win in this case as they have successfully terrorized the media here and elsewhere.

So are Parker and Stone gutsy enough to attempt the subversion of their broadcasters?  Would they ever undermine the agenda of Comedy Central in their capitulation to fear by trying to sneak images of Muhammad into their episodes out of spite?

Well…who knows.  I caught the following when watching South Park’s second episode of their 15th season.  Am I reading too far into this or have Stone and Parker quietly thrown down another gauntlet to those that would so easily capitulate to the forces of fear and intimidation?

Is that a badly drawn image of the prophet Muhammad stuck on that bulletin board behind the boys?

Tough to say really.  How do you think we’re supposed to interpret this errant image of a bearded fellow wearing some type of head gear?

The 2011 general election in Canada drew to a close with a Majority Conservative government elected to office with 39.62% of the popular vote across the country.  While the political landscape has changed and we have finally ended up with a majority government, (to the relief of some and to the shock of others) some hay is predictably being made about how the vote demonstrates the inequity of our voting system.  It is true after all that a rather notable 60.38% of voters chose some one other than the Conservatives to govern them.  So isn’t this an unfair outcome?

No, not for this reason. Let me explain why.  This coming from an avowed hater of the Harper Conservatives by the way.

It is indeed apt to point out that a majority of people voted in opposition to our current governing party.  An election is after all a competition and your vote is going to one of the contestants over the others.  I myself voted against the Conservatives rather than for any particular party so I can sympathize when people point this out but when this card is played, I feel like a big assumption is being made and that is that all 60 some odd percent of the voters that voted other than Conservative wanted any one of the three opposing options to govern instead rather than wanting a specific one and only that specific one.  In other words, I don’t think it’s a credible assumption to say that some one who voted NDP would necessarily have been ok with seeing either the NDP, Liberal or Green Party candidate in their riding elected before the Conservative one.  It would very well have been that the NDP voter wanted their NDP candidate elected and only their NDP candidate.  The same could likely be said for any number of Liberal party or Green Party voters.

This in mind, let’s be a little more equitable in our discussion of this issue and find out just how many people could have been said to vote against the other options as well.

While it could possibly be said that indeed, 60.38% of voters didn’t want the Conservatives in office, what did they apparently think about the other options?  The Bloc Quebecois excluded here because they’re nutters.

Well, as it turns out, a rather notable 69.37% of voters apparently didn’t select Jack Layton and his New Democrats to lead the country.  That’s certainly a larger margin of rejection than was suffered by the Conservatives.  The Liberals of course did even worse, rejected (apparently) by a very clear 81.09% of the electorate.  Worse off still were Elizabeth May’s Green Party candidates, rejected by a resounding 96.09% of the voting public.

It’s clear here that a majority of Canadians did not select our prime minister’s party to lead them but clearly, it’s not fair to focus on this as a point of contention among the electorate.  It’s obvious that as well, much larger segments of the population rejected the other parties as well and though they may be all be ideologically similar in some ways indicating that potentially the electorate would have preferred a collaborative kind of governance from the three opposing options, this is hardly clear and certainly not a fair assumption to make on the behalf of millions of voters.

Again, this comes from an avowed hater of the Harper Conservatives but at the very least, I wish to be credible and consistent.

Ok ok, no that’s not happening. Health Canada will be, whether one likes it or not, a behemoth of bureaucracy in Canada for some time to come. However, if Canadian Conservatives are to be consistent with their demagoguery, it may not be unreasonable to wonder about the safety of Health Canada’s funds used for female reproductive health.

See, it wasn’t too long ago that Brad Trost, Conservative member of parliament and current Conservative election candidate in the Saskatoon-Humboldt riding dropped something of a bombshell. While speaking to a pro-life group in the province, Trost had said that their efforts played a major role in cutting grants made to the international arm of Planned Parenthood from the Canadian government. The organization was in talks with the feds and hadn’t been made aware of any rejection of their funding though I suppose now, they have been now since Trost’s comments were revealed.

The problem here is that safe abortion services are delivered via the government run health care system in Canada. We provide abortion services to Canadian women and the Tories have said on numerous occasions that they don’t want to re-open the abortion debate suggesting that they can accept the current situation as it stands along with the majority of Canadian society. This is inconsistent and very disturbingly so.

First, it should be understood that the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) allocates a very small percentage of it’s resources (far south of 5% if memory serves) to abortion services. the IPPF focuses far more on safe sex, STI testing and treatment, parenting skills and so on. In this regard, the IPPF, though it is a pro-choice organization is not marauding around the world sucking fetuses out of wombs left right and centre. In fact, I think their services around the world save countless lives in their promotion of reproductive health. So for the most disturbing kind of inconsistency, Canada’s Conservatives are moralizing through government power and doing so at the cost of those in the developing world.

Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, Canada provides abortion services to Women here. Canadian Conservatives have not opted to re-open the abortion debate here and as such, oversee the delivery of a number of abortions within our own system. On the one hand, Conservatives are saying that we can’t fund organizations like the IPPF because we don’t know if they’ll use the money for abortions in the third world but on the other hand, Health Canada receives finds that we absolutely know go to abortions from time to time.

Is this position not contemptuous of those less fortunate than those of us who live in Canada?

I’m not find of inconsistencies that make us look like hypocrites and Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada is doing exactly that. I’m not ashamed to be a Canadian by any means but I am rather ashamed of the twits we have running the joint.