Finding my focus in a sea of cranky

Today I had a hard time deciding what to focus on.

First thing this morning, there was the Vatican, busily dissing Amnesty International for their endorsement of a policy that stands by girls' and women's right to be free from threat, coercion or force when exercising their sexual and reproductive rights; that is, to back their right to have an abortion, if a girl's been raped or if the pregnancy endangers her health. The Vatican, of course, feels that even this limited access to abortion - a provision that follows the use of mass rape as a political weapon - is intolerable. They have denounced AI and called on Catholics worldwide to boycott the organization.

So there was that.

And then around lunchtime, there was the CTV.ca report on a Chatelaine survey of "Canadian women" (oh the homogeneity...), with the screaming headline: "One in Five Canadian Women Has Cheated."

+sigh+

I guess I'm not surprised that any of the other, less prurient survey findings did not make the heading. Like the fact that there's huge solidarity between women (48%) on what the most important issue of our time is (the environment). Or that 80% would rather become CEO of a major company, than getting famous on Canadian Idol. But CTV is right: woman-as-duplicitous-slut (and its implied counterpart: victimized man) is much more interesting.

But tonight's "moment" takes the cake because I was so very surprised by the source - and being surprised like that secretly delights me to no end. While watching a segment of the latest and greatest of evening game shows, Power of 10, the host - Drew Carey - asks the contestant, "what percentage of Americans do not want women in the Armed Forces to go into combat?"

After much hemming and hawing and audience-polling, Drew goads the player a bit, tossing out the following tasty bite, delivered with (what I imagine must have been) an unintended, delicious, building sarcasm: "would you want your daughter to fight in combat? i mean, a woman might say she'd want the right to fight, but she wouldn't want her daughter to fight. Or a husband wouldn't want his wife to get hurt. People in America have this real phobia about women being hurt. Unless it's in a slasher movie. Then we think it's great."

I never thought Drew Carey would be one to ease my crankies. But today he did. And for that, I thank him.

Mission: Earth

As this is already the third entry on this baby-blog, I feel I've been remiss about making some sort of "mission statement" about its purpose or content or direction. When writing papers, though, I usually write my best introductions last, which leaves me in a bit of a bind... So for now, I'll say that I'm using this blog for the very obvious task of practicing the art of telling stories - an activity in which I'll be engaged in my professional life for the next year.

...Speaking of mission statements and story-telling and telling stories about mission statements, I just wrote my complaining email to Amazon.ca, who have decided to revoke my *Super Saver Free Shipping* after they gibbled-up my order of two books, being unable to find one of them:

"Although we'd expected to be able to send this item to you, we've since found it's not available from any of our sources at this time. We realize this is disappointing news to receive, and we apologize for any inconvenience we've caused you."

That's nice 'n' all. But after viewing my revised order online, I discovered that they've reinstated the $5.90 shipping charge from which I'd been exempted for having ordered more than $39 worth of books. I know it's only $6 and there a lot bigger things to get excited about. But for today, this was it. It's the principle, people. That represents $6 worth of a new book I am supposed to have. Not shipping. Book. They screwed-up, not me - and so I decided to unleash my Furious Anger about the shipping charge to the customer service department. And while writing my venomous e-plaint, I found a little gem on the Amazon.ca website, which I quoted back at them. If you can believe it, their stated mission is to be "Earth's most customer-centric company".

EARTH'S.

Wow.

I'm suddenly struck by just how big I'll need to think when scripting my own mandate...

******************
Update: Today I received an apology-laden email from my customer service representative at Amazon.ca. I get my free shipping! yay!

Not a small thing

Confession time: I usually have the tv on in the background during the day while I work - the sound of other people's voices murmuring in the background drowns out the ones in my head is comforting. As a result, I ended up watching part of an episode of Guiding Light - one of those "serious" soaps that takes itself seriously...serious like when they insert clips of the actors rebuilding homes in New Orleans and talking about "what THEIR Light is"... which is to say that there is not a lesbian-army, nurse-monkey, pseudo-she/male blackmailing killer to be found in GL's storylines (oh Passions, how I'll miss you when you're gone).

So, while it might seem like a small thing to some, I was quite amazed to see that GL has embarked on a serious, surprisingly well-played (so far) storyline where the hunky young stud has fallen for a non-twig woman - plus-size "Ashley" demonstrates common-sense and self-confidence when it comes to "Coop's" admission of love... by not getting all gratitudey, weepy-eyed and weak-in-the-knees - and instead sends him packing, after pointing out that he actually seems quite freaked-out by his feelings for her - because "loving large" was something he had fought...and only eventually "came to accept."

Have I said well-played?

Apparently, Caitlin Van Zandt (who previously appeared on The Sopranos) was originally hired to provide comic relief from the "serious" stories with "serious" characters [quel surprise]. Van Zandt, though, proved very popular with audiences and has been signed to a contract with the show. With this storyline (whether they like it or not), GL is tackling the last bastion of socially accepted overt discrimination in North American society: size-ism.

Seriously, I may have to tune in again to see how this thing plays out...

Not the first time we've seen this happen:

Surgeon banned for sexually touching sedated woman

The Quebec College of Physicians has banned a Montreal surgeon from practising for 10 years, finding him guilty of sexually touching a young woman while she was sedated.

It the second time Dr. Marc Bissonnette, 52, has lost his licence because of sexual misconduct.

In the 1990s he was suspended for 40 months for having sexual intercourse with a patient who was sedated during a breast-implant operation.

When he returned to work, he was allowed to perform surgery only in the presence of a nurse.

But, in December 2002, Bissonnette called an 18-year-old patient at her home and told her he would do the surgery at his private clinic, which was closed for the holidays, according to the college's 29-page ruling released Thursday.

During the surgery on the woman's hand, Bissonnette touched her in a sexual manner while she was sedated, the report says.

It says he also opened a door to the room where the woman was dressing after her surgery.

When he filed his report on the surgery, Bissonnette did not include the information that he had administered certain sedatives, the college says.

Bissonnette told the college that only now does he realize that calling the woman at home, and urging her to come to his clinic, put her in an uncomfortable position.

He said he was acting only in the best interests of the woman, and he is appealing the decision.

_________

First: WHAT?!

Second: Why hasn't this scum been prosecuted for rape and sexual assault?

Third: Why is the media reporting one woman's rape as "having sexual intercourse" while she was knocked-out on sedatives administered by him?

Fourth: And can you imagine being the nurse assigned to "watch" the doctor-rapist during surgery, to ensure he didn't sexually assault another woman? Seriously? THAT'S the answer?

Clearly this guy has entered sexual predator territory: after taking advantage of his authority and another person's extreme vulnerability by raping her while under anesthetic, he premeditatedly lured a second person into an isolated environment where he could render her defenseless and sexually assault her unimpeded. In what world does this get you a mere 10 year ban on your chosen profession? Does the Quebec College of Physicians think he'll be too old to perpetrate assault when he's by the time he's 62? Note to QCP: the women are UNCONSCIOUS. Therefore, he doesn't have to physically overwhelm them to assault and/or rape them! Get a freaking clue.