Big girls can cry too
Hillary Clinton’s emotionalism won.
Many thought that her moment of honestly, when her voice quivered on the campaign trail just hours before the New Hampshire primary voting, might be her undoing; and that the male-controlled media (a self-awareness and a bias either unacknowledged or repressed) jumped all over Hillary was not surprising: she was being “weak,” an emotional woman, an estrogen-fuelled “wife,” a victim, a guilt-player — that was “the story.” If it was a man, her emotionalism would be called passion — or it wouldn’t be major news at all. Remember, Hillary’s voice cracked, she didn’t cry.
Apparently, it is okay for George W. Bush to tear up. Ronald Reagan did it many times in a wistful stare-out-the-window way. It was okay for Bill Clinton to emote — he did it all the time. Sometimes with Bill it was a confection — bullshit. But most of the time old Bill meant it.
President Bill Clinton is arguably one of the most successful campaigners and politicians in history, and he did it by wearing his heart on his sleeve. But, because Hillary is a woman, she is not allowed to do it that way without appearing weak. As a woman if you are too strong you are condemned as an ice-Queen (or that “b word”); and if you are too nice, or just emotionally honest, then you are condemned again for being “too much of a woman” — whatever that means.
The position as president is, psychologically, generally perceived in paternalistic tones, according to Dalhousie University professor Jacqueline Warwick. Perhaps that is why Ronald Reagan remains so deified in many political circles — he seemed the most obvious as a father figure and Reagan spoke with a reassuring physicality that exuded paternalistic authority.
Hillary is like voting for your mother, according to many Democrats in the primary process.
Hillary supporters however, realizing she needed help, got out the vote.
It worked for Bill. It worked for Hillary. Thy name is Clinton: brains, heart, compassion and passion.
Maybe there is something to this thing called democracy after all — despite the boy’s club.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Pot smoker VS Restaurant Owner
Hey Ted & Andrew,
Heard both of your interviews on Maritime Morning this week.
You have my support, if it helps, in your fight against this ridiculous suit against you regarding the pot smoking outside your entrance.
This case is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT and WILL set a precedent that will affect ALL of us, business and private property owners alike.
I don’t believe you will be ruled against, as the precedent CANNOT be set to allow pot smokers, or other prescription drug users to simply use their medications in any way they wish. There MUST be limits and regulations set, and because the government, “typically” I might add, to this point has seen fit to step aside and let the “little guys” fight it out, I don’t believe your feet should be the feet held to the fire over this.
So many nightmarish example scenarios come to mind…..
There are those out there who are on pain medications such as Codeine and Oxycontin, etc. If they choose to crush them up and snort them outside the entrance of any public place, would that be an infringement on their human rights? I don’t believe there’s a law against snorting your prescription pills. It may not be advised, but there’s no law that I am aware of. Would the Human Rights Commission be willing to go to bat for the guy who wants to snort his Oxycontin because it gives him a quicker high and more intense pain relief than the usual oral ingestion?
And what about insulin users? Would the Human Rights Commission or the Courts for that matter, rule in favor of a patron sitting down on the sidewalk outside the entrance of a business and injecting him or herself with meds?
And what about the jobs that require you CANNOT test positive for any amount of illicit drugs in your body. Do these businesses need to allow legalized pot smokers to work for them? What happens to the guy standing outside on break while the pot card carrier lights up a big fattie and blows it in his face? Guy B isn’t really “smoking” it. Would that be an acceptable excuse come random drug test time and the boss wants to know why you’ve got it in your system? And back to Guy A (pot card carrier guy): Is it discrimination if they do not allow it? There’s a reason why employees are drug tested randomly, and if pot card carriers don’t fall under the same rules as other employees, then what end are we coming to? My God! Even in sports (Olympics specifically) they do not allow cough syrup for crying out loud because it does effect the body, but pot whiffed into the face of a child going into a restaurant for a hamburger and fries with the family is okay?
If the local pot card carrier comes down my street and regularly stands or sits on the public sidewalk in front of my home to spark up, who is the victim if I ask him to leave? My kids? Me? No, the pot smoker, at least according to Human Rights!
What if you are on a bus or in a cab or a subway car? The pot card carrier decides to “HOT BOX” the place. None of us…kids, old folks, pregnant mothers, business people…. have any choice but to intake his “medication” along with him?
What is this country really coming to if the courts rule in favor of this guy? Do rational minds not prevail anymore? Does the HRC so need a mission within this great country that they need to fall back on these “beyond belief” suits against contributing individuals in order to keep their jobs? This patron of your restaurant has no idea what human rights are! Send him over to China with his little packet of MaryJane and see how they agree with his argument. We’ll see how he understands human rights then.
As I said earlier, I don’t even believe you will lose this battle. It simply CANNOT happen. I DO believe this guy is simply trying to give you the hardest time possible just so he can be an *ss. It’s not his dime he’s paying to fight against you. It’s MINE and I’m ticked off about it. If he wins he’s in the money and “HA! In your face”. If he loses, so what. He’ll forget about it in five minutes anyway. So in the end, he’s got nothing to lose. If he loses, I do hope he’s held accountable to pay the court fees. My tax $$$ could sooooo be going toward something so much more important than this guy’s attempt at Easy Street.
Things like assisting Canadian poverty-stricken children (..yes, they DO exist in this country everyone!! Hello??), homelessness, Aboriginal issues, violence against women and children, etc.
Thanks,
Valerie Stone
Nova Scotia