money can buy you love

Long-time readers of the blog may remember my dalliance into the world of international finance through Kiva. My first project was to support a young, single cattle breeder in Azerbaijan named Natik.

It's been a while since I wrote about Natik but I got an update today and things are progressing well. The loan was for $800 and Natik has repaid 75% of the loan and appears to be ahead of schedule on his loan repayment. However things are looking up for Natik generally.

I recieved the following journal update by email today:

This young man before was single. He is very thankful to Kiva for the loan. He improved his business. Before he raised the calves but now he raises the sheep. Now he has a lot of sheep. Having improved his business he married. He is very happy and is very thankful for all his success to Kiva.

Yes Natik has gotten married now that his business has improved - it appears money can buy you love, in Azerbaijan at least. I'm sure this is just the result of translation or poor English, but all kidding aside, I'm quite proud of Natik. I'm not sure what happened to the cows, but he now has a thriving sheep business and the start of a family. It all started with a group of people donating $25 online, it's pretty amazing.

Here's the most recent photo from his operation:

the face of an organization

Okay, for today's entry you will need to read a couple of posts from the little sister's blog. I know most of you are regular readers of her blog, but just in place, read these posts:

Post One
Post Two

Alright, you've read them, good. Now here's my two cents.

I would agree that a broad sweeping policy that would apply to all employees of the CBC was ridiculous and I'm glad they changed it. I'm still not sure that they have it right, but it's getting closer. However, from my background in PR, I will fully defend CBC's decision to try to bring in some control.

The CBC like all other media has moved from simply a team of reporters to a mix of reporters, columnists, and personalities. It used to be reporters would report the news and hosts would read the news. Now, reporters interview other reporters, opinions are regularly given, and reporters (and I know many will disagree) put their own 'spin' on the story. The CBC heavily markets their lead reporters and columnists. We constantly see their faces in commercials, and have come to associate them with the CBC.

Now if some of these "stars" of the CBC were to have their own blogs, people would not make the distinction between the views and opinions they hold as individuals, and the views and opinions they offer on the CBC. It's fair for the CBC to want to protect their reputation from comments made by employees that people won't distinguish as not being from the CBC.

I would hold official "spokespeople" to the same standard. For several organizations, I was the main spokesperson as the face of the organization. I was always very cautious when I was "out and about" not to throw around my views recognizing that people may not make the distinction between my view and the organization's view.

The joy right now is that I don't represent any one organization, so I'm free to say what I want on my blog without a disclaimer.

bjorn again?

Recently I've had two visits from Stockholm, Sweden here to the blog. After the first visit, I figured it was a bit of a fluke, they found the blog by mistake, or by hitting the "next blog" function on the site. After a return visit a week later, I realize it may not have been an accident.

Although there are any number of rational explanations for this, I am convinced that Bjorn from ABBA visited the blog. It's only natural, given the genius that is ABBA has often been a focus of conversation here at grantednull.

So, just in case Bjorn returns again, I wanted to find a way to express how I feel, but in their genius, he and Benny had already taken the words right out of my mouth.

me and the suffragettes

For the second fall in a row there's an election going on and I don't get to vote. Unfortunately, to most people this wouldn't really be a matter of great concern, but to a political junkie like me it's just wrong.

After months of speculation, and to no one's surprise, the Saskatchewan Premier called a provincial election this week. Coming quick on the heels of Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, this fall has been a robust election year, let alone speculation of a pending federal election ($10 it won't happen this fall).

It kills me not to be able to vote, and the usual response from most people, is "you've been here long enough, you can vote". That's true, but I (and Revenue Canada) don't consider me a resident of Saskatchewan. I like to think I'm here in the prairies for a good time, but not a long time.

If it was just these things, maybe I could vote, but its hard to justify voting here in Saskatchewan next month, when earlier this month I voted in the general election in the Northwest Territories.

It was a tough choice, considering at the moment Saskatchewan probably has more direct control over my life, but I felt it was important to vote in the NWT. In what is the quintessential act of Canadian politics, sometimes it's not as important as who you vote for, as the satisfaction of voting against somebody else.

So while a provincial election rages on around me, I will sit back, relax and have some tea with the other modern day, vote-deprived mobile suffragettes.

my memory eludes me

Recently, it was prom here at the little law school on the prairie. "Prom" as we like to call it was the first year formal. Traditionally the first years had to throw a banquet in honour of the upper years in return for not being subject to initiation. Now, the LSA runs it and it's just a big dress-up, booze-up right before the thanksgiving long weekend. Prom is known (much like St. Paddy's Day and the end of the year) as one of the big scandalous evenings of the year.

Last year, my personal scandalous behaviour was grabbing a male classmate's ass. In my own defence, it was in context. He was asking for a recommended line of action, I offered my suggestion and gave an example. True, this proved to be mild by the standards I set later in the year, but at the time, one month in, it was scandalous. The next day, on the phone we all compared our scandals and sagas from the night before.

A year later, prom has occurred and we meet for mid-day breakfast the next day to debrief the scandals and the sagas of the night before. After revelations from a classmate of their scandal, I proudly proclaim how I was not too drunk and was scandal free. It's funny how the human brain works.

Over the next week bits and pieces come out from formal, and I learn of other's scandalous behaviour and continue to look down from the moral high ground. I first became concerned when I didn't remember scandalous behaviour done "to me" rather than "by me" - such as a cowboy-style lap dance on a park bench by the guy belonging to the aforementioned ass. The fact that I didn't remember this was concerning in that maybe I was drunker than I thought.

However, if that was the worst that happened, I was still safely standing on firm ground, despite a few blank spots in my memory of the evening. That all ended last night. A week of feeling proud of myself, of proclamations of good behaviour beyond reproach all came crashing down around me.

After class last night, a number of us went out for drinks. Somehow the conversation turned to inappropriate behaviour and the importance of context. I jumped in and said at least when I grabbed [Name withheld to protect the innocent]'s ass, it was in context. The cowboy-lap dancer whose name is being withheld pipes up and says "It was last year, but not this year." My heart sank at these words.

"What do you mean this year?" It appears late in the evening (however pre-lap dance) I am told I grabbed the same ass again this year under the excuse of "It's not formal until I grab your ass". I say I am "told" because I really don't remember this happening (although it's starting to come back to me I think), but it does sound like something I would say.

Maybe our brains wipe these things out in an attempt to protect ourselves, however it's of no use unless we can block it out of other people's heads as well.