The Manning Networking Conference Agenda: March 11-13
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
Ann Coulter in Canada with Ezra Levant: March 23, 2010
Dr. Smath as she was known to her subordinates (to her face), or Her Reigning Majesty Queen Jen of Perfection (behind her back), knew this was going to be her morning. Not only had the Panroy contract been dealt with yesterday (to the immense satisfaction of the Minister who was able to put out a smug press release on the subject of environmental responsibility) but she had finally found a way to get rid of her number one problem.
Marty just rubbed her the wrong way.
“He's irresponsible.” she complained to her administrative assistant.
“He's a bum,” she said to her domestic partner, “Or rather he would be if that wasn't disrespectful to homeless persons.”
“There's this guy at the office, I've sent him for three rounds of diversity training and it hasn't changed anything.” she breathed deeply as she tried to relax in her therapist's office. Marty was almost singlehandedly responsible for her being in the therapist's office in the first place. “And two rounds of sensitivity training.” she added later.
The topic of Marty's diversity training was a sore one for Jen. The last one in particular had been the hardest. It might have been easier if Jen's domestic partner (she would never use the patriarcal and oppressive term husband) Hal didn't run the program and Jen didn't sit in on it to monitor her employees' progress. That was mistake number one, and two, three, six, and 359. Maybe if she hadn't seen it all it wouldn't have galled her so much.
Marty just couldn't seem to get it.
It started with the Icebreaker, when everyone had to say their name and preform a gesture. Like hopping around or waving. Marty didn't help the atmosphere at all when he burst out laughing and said, “Man, are you serious? Is this lame or what?” It went downhill when he was asked to make his gesture and he mimed shooting a gun. A few hysterical woman started shrieking at that point.
“Why can't I tell the chick who answers the phones that she looks cute in her new dress?” The entire room went into a collective shudder. Hal pursed his lips in a way that made Marty shudder.
“It is harassment.” Hal intoned with the air of a harassed robot. Marty found himself inexorably reminded of C3PO. A joke about the subject rose in his mind but he didn't have time to make it. Hal continued, trying to explain why this was harassment, that it was inappropriate, that it was objectifying and demeaning to the woman.
“But,” countered Marty with an air of finality, “They like it.”
“It wasn't supposed to be like this.” Jennifer had said that to herself a thousand times if she had said it once. Standing in front of the full length mirror in her room, aggressively brushing her shoulder-length hair, putting on the perfectly tailored suit, adding the conservative watch. She had cultivated the business woman ideal for so long that she never felt dressed on the weekends. Somehow it seemed an indecency to wear casual clothing, worse in it's own way than going naked. At least that could have some redeeming “liberation” attached to it. It was one of the reasons she had insisted they give up the idea of a cottage.
Dr. Smath spent long periods of time at her desk dreaming about firing Marty. She had always been a union girl. Many late nights in college had been spent studying the works of great union activists and apologists. Had even helped out in a few union strikes. Now, inexplicably she was entering a mid-life crisis, wondering whether she had perhaps been wrong all along, wondering if perhaps employers should have the right to fire employees just because they didn't like them. Wondering if there were any conceivable grounds in the civil service rule book for firing Marty. There weren't, she knew. She had gone over it several dozen times before.
The fact that he was shaking her long and devoutly held beliefs didn't improve her attitude.
Jennifer Smath, was in a good mood this morning though. If she wasn't a highly successful career woman she would have skipped across the room towards her nemesis. As it was she just threw a little more self confidence and purposful pep into her stride. Marty shrank internally, trouble was coming down the line and it was almost certainly going to land smack on his desk. As usual he decided to brazen it out. As usual, he made the wrong decision.
“Good morning Mr. Stuart.” The smile on her face might have looked professionally detached to an innocent and casual observer. Marty being neither and having a well developed psychosis about Dr. Smath in a good mood, something along the beware of Greeks bearing gifts thing, immediately jumped to the conclusion that she could only be that jocular if she was about to fire him. He jumped to his feet, got tangled in the legs of his swivel chair and lurched toward her is a manner that led Jen (who also had a well developed psychosis, about Marty) to assume that he was either going to attack or kiss her. She jumped back with unusual dexterity and Marty caught himself on the edge of the desk, managing to remain in a semi-upright position.
“Um, ah uh”, he garbled for a few moments before regaining what he considered control, “Well, well, well my dear Mistress of the Department what news have we? What hapless bit of paperwork am I to deface today?”
Jen froze, remembering too late that he was still going to be in the building for the next two hours, and dismissed whatever still remained of her breezy attitude.
“Nothing bad I hope,” she said with a smile that even the innocent and casual observer couldn't have mistaken for a friendly one, “You've been reassigned to an amazing new position.”
Marty continued to look like a victim of a particularly sadistic concentration camp where they torture victims until they assume a ghastly facade of cheerfulness. On another morning he might have been able to handle Smath and her “good news” but this wasn't it.
“You have been assigned to field work.” Jen plunged ahead, abandoning cheer for clipped efficiency. “You will report to R-'s office in 15 minutes where you will be issued a vehicle. You are to inspect and monitor our various environmental inspectors as they conduct their work.” Jen turned on her heel and started to stride away briskly leaving Marty in shock. Too soon he recovered and sprinted after her.
“Wait, wait, wait”, he babbled. “You mean go, like where, and do what?”
Jen looked at him the beady eye of irritation not softened by her internal jubilation at having scored a hit.
“You will be going with environmental inspectors as they work to make sure that they are doing a good job.” she explained flatly.
“In the country?” Marty frothed. “As in rural? As in, like, nature?”
“Yes,” said Jen now smiling sweetly. “Yes.”
"Ms. Balcilek refers to reading material assigned later in the semester that made derogatory remarks about Turkish people and Turkey as a nation. In particular, she referred to the articles “Shall Armenia Perish” by Henry Morgenthau (the “Morgenthau Article”) which makes derogatory references to Turks calling them “unspeakable Turks”, “lower class Turks”, and other such references. She also refers to “another biased article by Miller and Miller” that was included in the Course curricula."...On October 24, Ms. Bakilek alleges that during a lecture (the “October 24 Class”), Dr. Jhangiani made eye contact with her and stated that the Morgenthau article “was excellent”....Ms. Balcilek submits that the Morgenthau Article, in particular, and an article by Miller and Miller amounts to discrimination by way of publication under the Code.I don't know exactly what the Miller and Miller article was but I did find through Google search that there is a book called "Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide" by a Miller and Miller. Editorial review here.
"Next the women would be sorted out. Agents of the Turk officers picked the youngest and fairest for their masters' harems. Next the civil officials had their pick, and then the remainder either were sold for one medjidi-a silver coin valued at about 80 cents-or were driven forth to be seized by the lower class Turks and Kurds."Somehow it seems much less... hateful when you realize that Morgenthau was using the phrase to contrast them with upper class Turks.
Dr. Jhangiani provides an explanation for the educative role served by the Morgenthau Article first published in 1920. He admits that he may have made a comment that the Morgenthau Article was a good representation of attitudes held by a segment of the population at that time. He denies making any negative comments about Turkish people or Turkey as a nation. Dr. Jhangiani deposes that the Course and its reading list was modelled after a very similar course he took at the University of British Columbia called the Psychological Aspects of Genocide;So hate speech aside maybe it didn't all happen anyway.
"The articles complained of, the Morgenthau Article published in 1920, and the reference to the Miller and Miller article were included in a course that sought to understand human psychology in circumstances of genocide. In the context of a Course which critically analyses historical events of genocide, the use of historical articles to demonstrate principles or concepts would not constitute a violation of s. 7 of the Code. Considering all of the material filed, I conclude that Ms. Balcilek’s complaint under s. 7(1)(a) or (b) has no reasonable prospect of success. Her complaint under s. 7(1) of the Code is dismissed."Whew.
Ms. Balcilek alleges that upon notification of Dr. Jhangiani’s complaint, she was hesitant to attend the Course because she feared for her physical safety.We can only hope she didn't text too much of that stuff around to her friends at the university.
She alleges that he made inconsistent comments about her writing and reacted “offensively” when she asked him is he was having trouble following her writing because her English was too sophisticated. (bolds mine)All right, so without making any unfounded judgments about motive here can anyone think of a reason why a student might ask a professor if their "English was too sophisticated" for them? Anyone? Anyone?
"[38] The essence of this aspect of the claim of the applicant is that he was labelled as a pedophile by school administration, and that this is a disability under the Code. The applicant further states that in repeatedly raising these issues with him the respondents violated the Code. The applicant states that if the employer was concerned that the applicant was a pedophile they should have offered him counselling or sent him for an assessment.Whether or not it constitutes a disability? Surely it could not have been that hard to say it does not constitute a disability. I'm not saying the tribunal believes it is a disability but they are spending quite a bit of time discussing whether the respondents perceived him as being a pedophile. (language that relates to disability)
[39] I do not accept the applicant’s analysis. The concerns of the respondent were legitimate and they raised them with the respondent in the appropriate way. The seriousness of the concern was clearly raised and the reasons for it articulated. Their concerns were reduced to writing. Moreover the respondents asked the applicant on at least one occasion if there were any underlying issues that they should be aware of, that might explain why the applicant appeared unable to modify his behaviour.
[40] There is no indication that the applicant is a pedophile and absolutely no suggestion that anyone involved thought that the applicant was a pedophile or that he was likely to engage, or ever had engaged, in any inappropriate sexual behaviour with any of the children with whom he had contact. The personal respondent was quite clear that he did not believe that the applicant was a pedophile or was involved in any inappropriate relationships with the children. He testified that if he had any such concerns he would have acted quite differently. He would, he stated, have called the children’s aid society and the police, and he would have removed the applicant from the school pending the investigation. There is no basis for concluding that the respondents perceived that the applicant was a person with pedophilia, whether or not that constitutes a disability within the meaning of the Code."
Progressive Christianity believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts designed to introduce the radical nature of the adult Jesus....
Progressive Christianity doesn’t overlook Jesus’ life and rush to his death. Rather it sees the radical hospitality he offered to the poor, the despised, women, children, and the sick, and says: ‘this is the essence of God’. His death was a consequence of the offensive nature of that hospitality and his resurrection a symbolic vindication.
....Some of us have two questions. Why would the Romans care about some really nice guy in a really obscure portion of the Empire? I’m not that versed in Roman history but I don’t think the Romans executed people simply because they hung out with low-lifes...... And Now... Idiots
-------------------------------
Could Mary and Joseph even get into Bethlehem today? Their donkey would undoubtedly be stopped, examined for explosives, and probably turned away because of its subversive cargo. Today Mary would likely give birth in another cave beyond the city and outside the wall, once again forbidden home and the shelter of family. Yet that very wall is an enduring reminder of human fear and the frantic quest for safety, not unlike Mary and Joseph’s search for shelter.
For pure, unadulterated stupidity coupled with mind-blowing offensiveness, I can’t remember ever reading anything better. Frank Griswold needed entire sermons to be as idiotic and insulting as that one, single paragraph.
Kate? If Mary and Joseph, who were both Jews last time I checked, approached Bethlehem today, who would be the ones stopping them? Who would examine their donkey for explosives? Who would end up turning them away and forbidding them “home and the shelter of family?”
You guessed it. Close to the Edge
“27. Professing salvation in Christ is not a matter of competing with other religious traditions with the imperative of converting one another. Each tradition brings its own understanding of the goal of human life to the interreligious conversation. Christians bring their particular profession of confidence in God’s intentions as they are seen in and through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
..... because we Christians have a lot to learn from people who flatly deny what we say we believe.
That, Leo, my man, is what is known as dynamiting your own argument. Blowed Up Real Good
------------------------------
Have fun and do read the entire posts at MCJ. They are nice Anglicans (I think they are Anglicans anyway).She told the audience that she wants “to follow the Jesus who descended into hell, the one who turned hell upside down looking for Judas. I want to follow the Jesus who went to the graveyard and invited Lazarus back into life … who was willing to be taught by a foreign woman that he was supposed to give her good news, too. And I want to follow the Jesus who hung out with the wrong people, and challenged ‘the right people’ to re-examine their categories,” she said.
First off, it’s nice to know that the Presiding Bishop believes in Hell, if, in fact, she does. Since this thing was in Dallas, she could have been tailoring her message for her audience......
She described Jesus’ ministry of “restoration at the personal and community level … about healing the soul and the soul of nations. It is a sacrament of God as trinity, God as relationship, God as community in God’s own self. It is also a mark of God’s yearning for more relationship … of the divinely abundant and more life-giving sort. That’s what I understand what grace is all about — it is the creative energy of God that makes more of itself.”
What are you looking at me for? I don’t have the slightest idea what’s she’s talking about and I’m pretty sure she doesn’t either.....And what’s a Schori personal appearance these days without a shout-out to Gaia?
Other challenges include discovery of “the green savior,” she said, referring to honoring the environment, as well as rejecting violence against all creation..... Improv
...All at once you step on something soft. You feel it with your foot. Even through your shoe you have the sense of something unusual, something marked by a special `give.' It is a foreignness upon the pavement. Instinct pulls your foot away in an awkward little movement. You look down and see...a tiny naked body, its arms and legs flung apart, its head thrown back, its mouth agape, its face serious. A bird, you think, fallen from its nest. But there is no nest here on 73rd Street, no bird so big. It is rubber, then. A model, a...joke. Yes, that's it, a joke. And you bend to see. Because you must. And it is no joke. Such a gray softness can be but one thing. It is a baby, and dead. You cover your mouth, your eyes. You are fixed. Horror has found its chink and crawled in, and you will never be the same as you were...
The fact that I link to a site is in no way to be seen as an endorsement of the site, author, or content. Link at your own risk. I am not responsible for any hate-language, offensive remarks, bigotry, intolerance, error, heresy, emotionally distressing content, misleading information, or anything else in any of the material I link to.You link to it, you read it, it's not my problem.
If you sustain any damage, distress (emotional or physical), loss of reputation or income, earthquakes, famines, floods, or if your dog dies as a result of using this website, you used it at your own risk and so I am not responsible.
Rebekah