porn stars vs. soldiers

This is a difficult comparison because there are different ways of running an army and different ways of running an erotic shoot. So, for the case of a strong argument, I'll just try to compare these two assuming everything goes on as it should. I wonder who is more objectified, soldiers or women in pornography. 

I've chosen three criteria for objectification. 

1. Does the person have a choice in what they're doing?
   -The soldier, once they've singed up and are part of the reserves, cannot leave a mission. And is thus, in a in a sense, property of the army.
   -The actress on the other hand, is put under contracts for certain films, photo shoots etc. but not of the same length as the army and is thus still in control. 
   
   
2. Can the person profit from their actions?
   -The war fighter in this case does profit from his actions but the real profiteers are the ones that actually sent them to war for what ever reason. Unless it's a peace keeping/making mission whereas the people profiting are more likely to be in serious need and thus the mission is charitable.
   -The pornography actress doesn't profit to the same extent as the producers. Unless that person is working for herself (example: running her own website).
   
   
3. Is the person's sensibilities being suppressed in the goal of their body's utility?
   -The soldier is trained to kill and to be indistinguishable from their peers. This means that their emotions are not welcome leading to their being less human.
   -The porn star on the other hand, if she is not morally opposed to sexuality, isn't forced to suppress her sensibilities. In fact they are often celebrated for having unique character (and physical) traits.

In conclusion, they are both objectified because someone is profiting from their labour (just like most people in the work force). However, objectification is not a black or white dichotomy. We can clearly see that the soldier is more objectified than the porn star because of choice and sensibility. Seeing that we are all objectified, how much objectification should be accepted? 

one argument against private schools

I wrote a three point article last time and I feel that it might have been a bit too long just for a blog entry so I'll try making a shorter one this time. 

Fairness is a value I think we all aspire to... with the exception of private schools. How are private schools exactly fair to students who can't afford to attend them? These schools regularly promote how superior they are to public schools and for me it's more of a taunt. A showing off that, because one child's parents are of a different class, they get special treatment. 

Someone could say :"Hey, that kid's parents worked hard for that money so send her or him to this special school!". First off, that's not a given. Secondly that kid's parents worked hard. Not the actual child. That, is where we find unfairness in the school system as we know it.

CBC radio 1 IS good

Recently, with all the discussion about the validity of even having a public broadcaster, many people have been saying that CBC radio 1 isn't even good. I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on the subject, but I would like to think that I have a certain handle on what's good and what's not.

First off, there's nothing like CBC Radio 1. Here in Ottawa we have a pretty large amount of choice when it comes to music playing radio stations. That's not the case, however, for talk radio. We do have talking between songs, but how often is that talking really of substance? How often is the talking over enthusiastic banter fill in the gap between over-repeated songs? Radio 1 is the only choice for us fans of a good conversation.

Adding to this programme's strength in communication, there is no other choice than CBC when it comes to smart content. I have learnt so much about simple things at home, my community, culture, what's going on in the city, about my province, about my country, about the world at large and more just by lending my ears. I get so interested that some mornings, I end up rushing out the door to catch the bus because I got too absorbed by their content.

It doesn't stop there either. I've heard people complain about the call in shows.  Simply said, the main argument is that the call in shows have a lot of lame people talking over the phone ranting and being irrelevant. I disagree. The people calling, I find are often very interesting and almost always have something good to add to the conversation. But most importantly, they strengthen the bonds between us. A lot of us don't get to hear from people from a different social group than our own, and so we lose good perspective. If ever anything, we should have more call in shows.

There's no replacement for radio 1. The argument saying that a private broadcasting would corrupt the content is strong but in this FIRST BLOG ENTRY, I simply tempt to defend the content we already have against those who would undervalue it's greatness.