Not sure if this is a “Fun” link but it captures something I’ve been thinking about a lot since our most recent trip to Cuba.

Not sure if this is a “Fun” link but it captures something I’ve been thinking about a lot since our most recent trip to Cuba.

Privilege is a special right, or advantage available only to a particular person or group of people. The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to social class,[1] race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and disability. Two common examples would be having access to a higher education and housing.
Probably like a lot of people who first start hearing about “privilege“, I initially resisted the idea.
While not quite as blind to the benefits that you get in our society simply because of your skin colour or education or socio-economic status as Saskatchewan’s Premier, I was still hesitant to admit quite how much advantage I had because of those things.
But it’s an ongoing process to understand this and sometimes insight can be found in the most unlikely places.
“Making A Murderer” is a documentary series on NetFlix that’s getting a huge amount of buzz right now. In 1o one-hour episodes, it tells the story of Steven Avery, a working class man with a low IQ in rural Wisconsin, wrongly convicted of a sexual assault then exonerated after serving 18 years of his sentence. (And that’s just the first episode!)
Then, in a shocking twist, Avery is once again charged with a major crime, this one a homicide (conveniently, just as he’s looking to get a big settlement about his earlier false arrest), and the rest of the show becomes a True Life crime show detailing the investigation, trial and related events.
A lot of the buzz comes from viewers debating whether Avery is guilty of the murder or not (and if not, what may have actually happened.)
(Personally, I think Avery’s clearly innocent but am always skeptical of bias, even in a documentary, and realise I won’t have the same information that the jury had and/or that the filmmakers may have had an agenda.)
Beyond the back and forth “did he do it?” debates, I think what’s even more fascinating is the insight the show provides into the uphill battles that those without education or money or status or who simply don’t fit in with their local community can face when people in authority decide they don’t like you, that you’re beneath them and that they are (possibly) willing to do anything up to and including planting evidence against you with little risk to themselves of any repercussions.
Shea and I have probably never binge-watched any show like we just watched this one – ripping through all 10 episodes in a few short days. If you haven’t seen it, I’d recommend you check it out.
Reddit has a sub-Reddit for the show with tonnes more links and commentary.
“Lazarus” – David Bowie
David Bowie, one of the most influential, durable and creative musicians of the past half century, died today. He released his final album only a couple days ago on his 69th birthday then passed away after living with cancer for 18 months.
One of the songs on his new album, “Lazarus” takes on even deeper meaning when you realise Bowie wrote it and created the video knowing the end was near.
Here’s some randomness about one of the best artists of the last half century…
Shea took this video to try to capture just how beautiful, calm and clear the water was near our hotel on our second last day in Cuba…
This is very different experience to what we had a week ago in an all-inclusive resort targeted at tourists. (Warning: Some may find the photos in the link disturbing. Others may find them delicious!) 😉
Actually, maybe not that different…

You can even see the two scrapes on my shins detailed in yesterday’s post! 😉
A recent Saskatchewan arbitration decision which found that it’s a violation of workers’ rights to be safe and free of harassment to be required to wear name tags with their full name is timely given a couple recent events…
First, in my end of year mega-post, I mentioned in Question #31 about “My Personal Fashion Sense” that RPL staff had finally been mandated to wear identification badges though these say “Staff” or “Supervisor” rather than ones that had our full or even just our first names on them.
In that answer, I mentioned this issue was probably more divisive than it needed to be. That was in reference to my personal belief that there shouldn’t be an issue (for the most part) with staff being identifiable as staff – either by a “Staff” ID tag or a uniform or wearing something with the organization’s logo or whatever.
At the same time, I would have an issue with any request for staff to wear name tags with their full names and would even be opposed to first names on tags because, in a female dominated workplace where we regularly interact with strangers of all states of mind, even giving a stranger for your first name can lead to harassment and worse. (As I said, we don’t even wear name tags and I’ve witnessed and even interceded in some pretty creepy interactions.)
The second conversation was just the other day when I helped a co-worker of Shea’s (who I’ve never met but who knows I work at the library) at my branch. She related this to Shea by saying “I think your husband helped me at the library today but I wasn’t sure – he didn’t have a name tag on.” (My response? “If she thought I was your husband, she could’ve also asked!”) 😉
Final thought. I first saw the story about this arbitration decision posted on Facebook by CUPE National. In the comments, one woman said “I don’t understand why people can’t use their full names and take responsibility for their actions?”
I really debated posting a reply to point out that, just as with on Facebook where you also have to use your full name (like the woman did in her comment), that leads to a situation where a single Google search could reveal…
All of that with a *single* Google search of the person’s name which led to a single news story. I didn’t bother going even one step further to see if I could track down anything else about her – home address, phone number, salary (as many publicly funded institutions disclose and which I am also *very* opposed to as a practice because of the privacy and safety implications) and who knows what else is out there?
I’m not even a particularly skilled hacker – someone with more skills could probably get into all kinds of information people consider private and secure – email accounts, banking, other password protected sites.
*That* is why this is about so much more than “taking responsibility” (which in reality means you’re just giving customers/clients/patrons an unfair upper-hand and power position by knowing your full name.)