Let Us Eat Cake

Are We Headed for Another French Revolution?

I'm a big reader (in case you haven't guessed by my other site) and although I read a lot of different genres, I love historical fiction. Being the inquisitive mind that I am, what tends to happen is that I obsessively read fiction about a certain era, and then I start researching, because I want to know the truth, or just MORE.

A year or so ago, it was the Tudor era. Lately, it's been the French Revolution.

The more I read, and the more I research, the more it scares me.

A really quick, non-historian rundown of the French Revolution:

• Louis XVI (the 16th, for those with Roman numeral issues...) came to power in 1774. He was married to Marie Antoinette, of Austria, and together they had 4 children, two of whom died in early childhood.
• By the end of the 1780s, France was going through a very bad economic time, partly due to its participation in The Seven Years' War, and the American Revolutionary War.
• However, while the common people were struggling to survive, the aristocracy was living as if nothing had happened. Tales of royal excess were legendary, often focused -unfairly or not - on the Queen (we've all heard the "Let them eat cake" story, right?)
• VERY long story short, the people - lead by some lesser nobles (whose motives are more than likely questionable) - decided that they wouldn't take any more, and rebelled. After months of rebellion, The Palace of Versailles was attacked, and the Royal Family forced into a house arrest-type situation at a palace in Paris. They made a rather pathetic attempt to escape France, at which point they were locked down even further. As different factions fought for power in the new republic, the King and Queen - despite being stripped of any power - were considered a threat and were eventually executed. 
• As the rival factions continued their feuds, the "Reign of Terror" began and tens of thousands of people - both nobles and commoners - were executed, mostly by the newfangled guillotine. The unheaval led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, and went on for decades. 
• The "rebellion" depicted in Les Miserables actually took place in June, 1832 - nearly 40 years after the executions of Louis XVI and his Queen. During those years, as I mentioned, Napoleon was in charge for 11 years (1804-1815), and the monarchy came and went several times, ending for good in 1848. This all just goes to show that there were DECADES of upheaval before France's current political system was finally settled.
  

So, what's the point of all of this? Why does it scare me? Because the more I read about the French Revolution, the more it starts to sound eerily familiar.

No, we don't have a real monarchy anymore - not in the way that the French did - but instead of the "First Estate" we have "The 1%" (who, incidentally, pay almost no tax in many cases - similar to how the nobility in pre-revolutionary France paid no tax, while the commoners were highly taxed.) Instead of lesser nobles claiming to have the best interests of the people at heart, we have celebrities advocating not voting as a means of rebellion. Instead of the satirical pamphlets handed out on street corners, we have bloggers who can (although not all do) write whatever they want - whether it's true or not with no repercussions (and yes, I see the irony in this statement). Corporations continue to make higher and higher profits, while their workers struggle to figure out how to pay rent and buy food at the same time.

Think that I'm blowing the similarities out of proportion? In just a few hours yesterday, these two news stories appeared in my social media feeds (the Russell Brand video I linked to above has also been posted all over everywhere recently):

• McDonald's Tells Worker She Should Sign Up for Food Stamps
• Palaces-in-the-Making

Every day, there is more and more unrest. Every day there is more division between the "Royalists" (the conservatives) and the "Constitutionalists" (the liberals.) More and more people are wondering aloud how it is fair for the gap between wealthy and poor to keep getting wider. Median income - when adjusted for inflation - is actually LOWER than it was a decade ago. The government in Canada - oh, sorry, The Harper Government - claims that the number of people on Employment Insurance is going down, but they neglect to mention the number of people whose Employment Insurance runs out before they find work, or those forced to take part-time and/or low-wage work. In the US, people are forced out of their homes because of predatory lending practices, and people go bankrupt just trying to pay for life-saving medical treatment for themselves or their families. Meanwhile some CEOs are making 1000x the pay of their average employee.

No matter which "side" you're on, you have to admit that our society is broken. And people are getting angry. What frightens me is to think of the violence that can come of a large group of angry people. In the Women's March on Versailles (the event that led to the Royal Family fleeing their home) there were an estimated 6,000-10,000 people who attacked the palace, leaving death and destruction in their wake. Really, when you think about it, there have been VERY few major societal revolutions that didn't involve violence.

So what does that mean for us? The "Occupy" movement was essentially a peaceful protest. Will people continue to utilize peaceful resistance, or are we looking at a future of angry violence? It seems that those in power have no interest in changing the status quo: corporations are intent on continuing their pursuit of profit for the few at the expense of the many; housing prices are becoming completely unsustainable; there is little in the way of job stability for anyone; people are now considered a disposable commodity (AKA "collateral damage".)

What continues to amaze and sadden me is how the economic issues plaguing us are causing those of us in "the 99%" to turn on each other. We say that younger generations have a sense of entitlement, and no work ethic; we say that the Baby Boomers refuse to give up power and revel in the failures of their own children. We blame everyone but those who are truly to blame.

Before you ask, at this point, no, I don't have a solution. Most of what needs to be done will never happen voluntarily under the current "nobility." They - or maybe we - have succeeded in creating such a gap between our factions that instead of working together, we just create barriers to prevent any real progress. I'm just trying to point out what I'm seeing, and where I'm afraid we're heading, and hoping that someone will be able to come up with a solution before it's too late.

I'm Baaaaa-aaaaack...

Yeah, kind of disappeared for a while there, didn't I? Nothing sinister, I've just been focusing on my "author" blog over at Cynthia Hill Books. But lately I've had a whole lot of opinions that I didn't necessarily want to get into over there, and it's been frustrating. Not to mention, as I've learned more about blogging, and sponsored posts and reviews, etc, I wanted to do more of that sort of thing, but again, unless it has something to do with books, or pop culture, I didn't feel comfortable with it over there.

So, here I am. I'm going to have to do some renovations, probably, and may even eventually move to a self-hosted site if I can manage to keep up with two blogs, and still do some of my fiction writing. But for now, there's a post that I've been dying to write for a while now, and I'm hoping to put it up in the next few days, so stay tuned!

Newtown: How can this not be the time?

I've been told in the past that, as a Canadian, I shouldn't have any opinion on American politics. However, anyone who knows me knows that it's not like me to keep my opinions to myself, and I'm not about to start now. Not now.

I heard about the shooting earlier in the day, but it didn't really register with me at first. I was at work, trying to get ready for an office Christmas party, of all things. After lunch, I left the office briefly to run a couple of errands. It was then that I saw a television news report, and realized the magnitude of what had transpired in Newtown, Connecticut.

Later that afternoon, on Twitter, almost all of the posts related to the shootings. They came in three varieties: shock and horror, dismay at brands who were continuing self-promotion at a time when people were only interested in grieving, and people saying, "Now is not the time to talk about gun control."

If not now, when?

Memories fade quickly. Right now, we are all grieving, but as our lives return to "normal", and we go back to our Christmas preparations, what about the parents who will have presents remaining unopened? After the Colorado theatre shootings it was also "too soon" to talk about gun laws, and the conversation never happened. How many more people have to die before it's the right time?

"But the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms!" you say.

As a friend of mine so eloquently put it earlier: "Fuck the Second Amendment." My right to send my children to school and have them come home safely trumps your right to own a semi-automatic.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

This is my all-time favourite gun argument. Especially when they couple it with "Guns kill people like spoons made (insert name of obese celebrity here) fat." You know what I say to that? Spoons serve a purpose other than as an instrument of death. Give me one purpose of a gun other than to kill - just one - and I will give up my argument against gun control.

Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of "Gun Owners of America", had this to say:

Gun control advocates have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to ensure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to ensure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.

So there you have it: the answer to gun crime is more guns. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Heck, if EVERYONE had a gun - even little children - no one would ever shoot anyone! Maybe gun training should come right after potty training?

This Christmas, 26 families and their friends, will be in mourning. So many other children have had their innocence taken away far too young. How can this possibly not be the time to talk about gun control?

Five Reasons That "Every Man for Himself" Doesn't Work

1. Not every person is capable of being a CEO or executive.

We are not all born with equal opportunities in this life. Anyone who tells you that is either lying or trying to sell you something (probably a right-wing philosophy). It may sound cruel, but in reality, it's true. Every mother may think that her child is a genius, but in the end, we all have differing levels of intelligence. Not everyone is smart enough to run a company, or operate on another person's brain. For some people, running a deep fryer, or working in some other low-paying job is the best that they are capable of. Are you one of the ones who is extremely intelligent? Fantastic. Guess what? It's as much of a fluke of nature as it is that you were born in a first world country, rather than a dictator-run, third world country constantly hit by natural disasters. Consider yourself lucky and have some compassion for those who weren't born with your gifts.

2. If everyone was a CEO/doctor/lawyer, who would serve them their fancy lunches or drive their airport limo?

The world is simply not set up for everyone to be in a position of power and influence. SOMEONE needs to be on the base of the pyramid. They may not be the ones who run things, but they are the ones who keep things running. You can't have a successful factory without the people on the shop floor, running the machines.

3. Working hard doesn't necessarily equal monetary rewards.

"You have no idea how hard a CEO works." Yeah, I've heard that one before. I have worked for senior executives for years. I know the insane hours that they put in. But what about the parent working two minimum wage jobs, 60-80hrs per week, just to pay rent & buy food? What about labourers working outdoors in freezing cold temperatures in winter, and broiling hot in summer? Don't they deserve seven-figure salaries, too?

4. No one NEEDS millions of dollars.

This is admittedly a bit of hyperbole on my part: there are, in fact, people who need, for whatever reason (I'm thinking of medical care, but I'm sure there are other reasons) millions of dollars to survive. These people are not the ones about whom I'm speaking. The average person - or even the average family - does not need millions of dollars to survive. I actually sat down and thought about it once, and if I were to win $5,000,000, taken care of properly, my family could probably survive on that for the rest of our lives, easily, with a comfortable house, food to eat, and a nice vacation every year. I get that people have different priorities, and if you work hard, you should be able to have a new sports car, or a boat, or an emu farm, if that's what you really want. I also know that someone making millions of dollars per year can have all of that, and still afford to pay a "high" tax rate - you know, more than 10-15% - without suffering. Suffering is choosing which meals you're going to eat this week, because you haven't got enough to buy groceries for three meals a day. Suffering is NOT only having one live-in nanny for your two kids.

5. It's just not nice.

Yeah, this isn't a logical argument. I get that. But the truth is, I will just never understand the idea that it's okay to say, "my family and I are okay, so screw everyone else."  I hate hearing people make the assumption that everyone who is struggling is a "welfare bum" or is too lazy to help themselves. God forbid that those people ever go through a hard time beyond their control.

Sometimes, a bit of human compassion can go a long way.

It's Not About Free Speech

I'm sick of hearing the name "Chick-Fil-A" (stupid name, by the way, but not really the point.)

I want to shut up about it. I really do.

But I can't.

I can't sit here and watch you post pictures of yourself gleefully eating chicken sandwiches and waffle fries, or posting about how long the line ups were yesterday for "National Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" as if this were something to celebrate.

Because hate is not something to celebrate.

"It's not about hate! It's about free speech!"

Dan Cathy has the right to say whatever he wants. I have the right to think he's a bigoted idiot, and move on, but it's not so simple.

Chick-Fil-A has donated MILLIONS of dollars to the "Family Research Council" and "The Marriage and Family Foundation." These organizations not only support the criminalization of homosexuality in the United States, but they go do "missionary" work in other countries, giving support to laws there that would strengthen laws against homosexuality. Including punishment by DEATH. They support organizations like Exodus International who provide "pray away the gay" counselling (I use that term in the MOST ironic sense) that only does NOT work, but it further shames people for simply being who they are - the person that God created them to be.

In the US, it is still legal in 29 states to fire someone solely for being homosexual - and I'm making a totally uneducated guess here that most Chick-Fil-A restaurants are in states where this is true. Still think that CFA has never fired anyone for being gay? They probably did, but it never got any publicity because it was totally legal.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you how this impacts all of my gay friends and family. It doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if I had never met a single GBLT person in my life. It's about being a decent person, and not reducing a fellow human being to a "less than." It's not okay to discriminate on the basis of the colour of someone's skin, or their gender, so why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of whom they love?

It's not about chicken. I'm Canadian, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never set foot in CFA. It's not about free speech. It's about right and wrong. And hate, however you dress it up ("Love the sinner, hate the sin" anyone?), is wrong.

It Was Supposed to Be the Unsinkable Station...

WHAT A DAY!

I mean seriously: this is the kind of stuff that only happens to me.

This morning I happily went on my way to working thinking, "It's Friday!" I got off the GO Train at Union Station, walked on through to the TTC and was about to get the subway up to my office, when I realized I didn't have my wallet. I went through my bag about 4 times, but it was NOT in there. I started to panic. I called my husband at home, who, although annoyed with me for panicking, calmed me down somewhat and agreed to call The Real Canadian Superstore where I had stopped the night before for a few groceries. Sure enough, I had left my wallet there, some EXTREMELY kind person had turned it in, and they had it. Phew.

However, I was still in downtown Toronto, an hour's train ride from home, with no cash, no cards, and no ID. Great. Obviously I couldn't hop the subway up to work. I was going to have to walk to my office, then figure out what to do from there.

But here's the thing: it was POURING rain. Like, not happy little April showers that somehow ended up waiting until June 1st, but a torrential downpour. Great. This is why my 11-year-old daughter is in my good books today: before I left, when I left the umbrellas for her and her sister, she told me, "Well at least wear a coat with a hood." I was DAMNED thankful for that hood while I was walking 25 minutes or so up University Avenue.

I got to work, where one of my coworkers kindly loaned me $20 until Monday, and although I was still having that uneasy "I don't have my wallet" feeling, I was much better.

Then came the news after lunch that the TTC portion of Union Station had flooded, and the subways were closed from Osgoode to Bloor - so essentially most of the downtown loop. I was going to have to walk back down. Ugh. (I normally do walk in the afternoon, but not in weather like that!) I was very happy when I got out of my office and found out that the rain had stopped momentarily, but WOW, there were a LOT of people on the streets, not to mention news vans, police cars, and a screeching fire truck that I still don't know where was headed. I was SO glad to get on the train and start heading for home tonight!

But, since I've been home, I've been looking at the photos and videos of the flood. Wow!

I've also been loving the memes that I've been seeing tonight. Some of them are absolutely hilarious.

Nuh nah, nuh nah.. nuh nah nuh nah nuh nah...

Rose and Jack try to escape Union Station: "I'll never let go!" "I'm the King of the Subway!"

And my absolute favourite:

Mayor Rob trying to help disperse the water!

I should mention that I don't know what geniuses created these, so I can't give credit, but whomever you are, you're brilliant!

How I Became the Font of Ben Mulroney Knowledge



Photo Credit: @BenMulroney1976

 Two years ago, I did a series on this blog entitled "The 30 Days of Ben Mulroney." It was a tongue-in-cheek look at Canada's favourite political son/entertainment reporter, and it was kind of a poke at my good friend, Sam (AKA The Pop Culture Addict). For 30 days in March and April, 2010, I posted all kinds of fun facts about CTV's Golden Boy. I honestly figured no one was paying attention. I was pretty sure my friends were rolling their eyes at me (I'm still pretty sure that they were.)

After the 30 days were over, I really didn't think about it again for a long time. Because really, who spends their days thinking about Ben Mulroney? (Except maybe Ben Mulroney.) Then I noticed that despite the fact that I had all but abandoned this blog, barely posting on it in recent memory, I was still getting hits on the site. I was curious to know what people were looking for, and I was shocked at the answer: Ben Mulroney.

It was vaguely amusing to watch the stats, and see just how many people were interested in his wedding photo. It kind of tickled me in the secret places to know that I had become the "go-to" blogger for all things Ben.

Today, though, I noticed a major upswing in the hits on my blog, and sadly they weren't reading my article about the 10 Things Lindsay Lohan Should Do While Filming in Toronto (which is really too bad, because I think it's some of my finer work!) They were LOOKING FOR BEN MULRONEY! What the heck?!?

Then I realized: Ben Mulroney co-hosted "Live with Kelly" this morning. More than half of the hits came from the US, and at least a few of them were from searches for "Who is Ben Mulroney?"

Ben has invaded the US. God help them all. It's not bad enough that they're plagued with Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum: they need Ben, too?

I'm only kidding, I swear. Despite my good friend's rancor, I harbor no bitter feelings towards Ben. He's doing his thang as the kids say. All of my kidding is done with an affectionate virtual pat on the head.

In the meantime, if you've come across this blog searching for answers to the age old question: "Who is Ben Mulroney?" I'll direct you here where all of the answers lie. Good luck, and God speed!