I have a revolutionary idea. It will help our economy, enable our children to learn and provide cultural input into our profit-obsessed society. Soap operas.
No, no. Before you cooler-than-thou types dismiss the idea outright, hear me out.
Soap operas have a strong historical link to our instant gratification culture. Introduced in 1949 to network television they quickly became the genre of choice for adult entertainment (surpassed, sadly enough, by reality TV with the advent of Survivor).
Yet, soap operas continue to be a cultural institution. They provide insight into morality; define healthy and unhealthy decision-making processes; and enable us to ascertain the important aspects of life.
And soap operas are not simply a female phenomena. Men in the British Aisles are mad about Corrie Street and Emmerdale. Pub talk usually rotates around footie scores and whether or not the local Rover's tart is sly enough to sleep with her best-mate's man. In Africa, soap operas are being used by peace movements and development strategists to impart lessons and provide alternatives to cultural practices that are sexist and out-dated. As a result, these telenovels are ideal for nations within Africa where literacy rates surpass the 50% mark.
As a result of the success of morally scripted soap operas British producers are releasing a 20-part soap serial aimed at bringing the message of peace to war-torn Palestinians homes during this years Ramadan. The series, known as Shu Fi Ma Fi (aka: What's Up?) will be broadcast into Palestinian homes across the territories twice nightly six days a week during the holy fasting month; topics include drugs, espionage, intermarriage and domestic violence, while focusing on the central message of peace.
So, my question is: if these telenovels are so successful in other areas of the world, why not introduce them into our school system?
Morality based soap operas in the school system would benefit not only our children, but their parents. How? Well, a soap opera needs to be produced, directed, filmed; actors need to participate, lighting and props and stage-hands, including make-up and hair, need to be present. That's a lot of jobs and considering the state of our film industry these days, a lot of necessary jobs. Of course, the economic benefits don't stop there. Then there are the businesses that cater to film crews: caterers, permit offices (usually municipal gains), local restaurants, car rental agencies, cellphone providers and, at times, hotels. After that you've got the post-production side of business. Economically, then, producing soap operas would inject cash back into our economy. That keeps the fiscally-obsessed happy.
Then there are the cultural benefits. In an age where TV must compete with graphic novels, gaming and the over-flowing bar-room enticement of the Internet, a good, salicious soap opera might be the right tool for drawing an eager, younger audience. What child could turn away from the lesson of "thou shalt not kill" that was played out on Coronation Street in the winter of 2003 (Canadian broadcast) when Dickie, husband of Gail, kept trying to cover up his financial mess with murder and attempted murder! Or what about the lesson of forgive and forget when viewers watched Laura marry Luke after he raped her on General Hospital. The fact is all seven deadly sins can be hashed out on a soap, and, with a little ingenuitive script-writing, so can the seven heavenly virtues.
So my vote is to nix the quiet hour and stop the study period, instead all kids aged 10 and up should be required to watch a Canadian prepared and produced docu-drama and learn about our culture like everyone else.
For more information on the Palestinian soap opera go to:
http://washingtontimes.com/entertainment/20060919-100212-6315r.htm
For more information on the use of soap operas in war torn areas go to:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1456
http://www.usaid.gov/
http://www.tamilnation.org/conflictresolution/
Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Has the 'Ideological Taliban' Taken Over Canada?
Has the 'Ideological Taliban' Taken Over Canada?
-- headline from OhmyNews International, South Korea - 21 Sep 2006
The headline is in reference to Globe and Mail columnist, Jan Wong's statements regarding race and the recent shootings in Quebec.
While debates continue to rage (in print, radio and television -- though one questions if the office cooler is burning up) I thought I'd weigh in on the validity and weight of these comments.
Wong's statement was that the shootings that occured earlier this month at Dawson College in Montreal were carried out by a young man of Sikh heritage. Wong suggested that Kimveer's heritage was important, as it may provided the impetus for why Kimveer felt like such an outsider -- in otherwords Quebec society was intolerant of differing cultures. She suggested that, like everyone else who is not 100% French Canadian, Kimveer didn't feel wanted in his own society. She then supported her assertions with the fact that this was the third such slaughter in 17 years in a Quebec post-secondary institution. In 1989, Marc Lepine killed 14 women and wounded 13 others -- he was only half French Canadian; his mother was Algerian Muslim. In 1992, Valery Fabrikant, an engineering professor from Russia, shot four colleagues at Concordia University and wounded a fifth because he had been refused tenure.
As Wong stated: "To be sure, Mr. Lepine hated women, Mr. Fabrikant hated his engineering colleagues, and Mr. Gill hated everyone. But all of them had been marginalized in a society that valued 'pure laine.'" (The phrase, meaning "pure wool," is the Quebecois designation for undiluted French-Canadian ancestry.)
Now, I'd like to weigh in.
Despite media reports Quebec is not the only province to experience shootings and massacres related to alienated teens or young adults and directed at institutions. Yet, the reportage of such events leads us to believe that Quebec is the centre for such violence. As Wong suggested, if Quebec were the centre than perhaps sociologists should examine whether or not their significant reasons for such alienation and (subsequently) of such violent condemnation. But the media sets and defines its own parameters. The media decides which shootings/massacres/attacks are sensational enough to be included in "a list" or story. The reality is Canada has experienced its fair share of rage against society -- and not just in Quebec.
For example:
-- headline from OhmyNews International, South Korea - 21 Sep 2006
The headline is in reference to Globe and Mail columnist, Jan Wong's statements regarding race and the recent shootings in Quebec.
While debates continue to rage (in print, radio and television -- though one questions if the office cooler is burning up) I thought I'd weigh in on the validity and weight of these comments.
Wong's statement was that the shootings that occured earlier this month at Dawson College in Montreal were carried out by a young man of Sikh heritage. Wong suggested that Kimveer's heritage was important, as it may provided the impetus for why Kimveer felt like such an outsider -- in otherwords Quebec society was intolerant of differing cultures. She suggested that, like everyone else who is not 100% French Canadian, Kimveer didn't feel wanted in his own society. She then supported her assertions with the fact that this was the third such slaughter in 17 years in a Quebec post-secondary institution. In 1989, Marc Lepine killed 14 women and wounded 13 others -- he was only half French Canadian; his mother was Algerian Muslim. In 1992, Valery Fabrikant, an engineering professor from Russia, shot four colleagues at Concordia University and wounded a fifth because he had been refused tenure.
As Wong stated: "To be sure, Mr. Lepine hated women, Mr. Fabrikant hated his engineering colleagues, and Mr. Gill hated everyone. But all of them had been marginalized in a society that valued 'pure laine.'" (The phrase, meaning "pure wool," is the Quebecois designation for undiluted French-Canadian ancestry.)
Now, I'd like to weigh in.
Despite media reports Quebec is not the only province to experience shootings and massacres related to alienated teens or young adults and directed at institutions. Yet, the reportage of such events leads us to believe that Quebec is the centre for such violence. As Wong suggested, if Quebec were the centre than perhaps sociologists should examine whether or not their significant reasons for such alienation and (subsequently) of such violent condemnation. But the media sets and defines its own parameters. The media decides which shootings/massacres/attacks are sensational enough to be included in "a list" or story. The reality is Canada has experienced its fair share of rage against society -- and not just in Quebec.
For example:
- Oct. 21, 1975; Ontario, Canada: 18-year-old Robert Poulin opens fire on his class at St. Pius High School, killing one and wounding five before turning the gun on himself. Poulin had raped and stabbed his 17-year-old friend Kim Rabit to death prior to the incident. A book was written on the incident called Rape of the Normal Mind.
- April 28, 1999; Taber, Alberta: In both the first school shooting since Columbine and the first Canadian school shooting in over 10 years, Todd Cameron Smith brought a sawn-off .22 rifle to W.R Meyers High School and shot two students, killing one.
- April 20, 2000; Ottawa, Ontario: A year after the Columbine massacre, a student attacked and injured four students and a school clerk with a butcher knife at Carine Wilson High School in the suburb of Orleans.
- Sept. 14, 2006; Ottawa, Ontario: A 22 year old university law student fired a pellet gun at one of the buildings of the University of Ottawa in a drive-by shooting. He was quickly arrested at his home and was subsequently banned from the University. No one was injured.
The reality is that there are pockets all over Canada of disassociated and disaffected youths. These pockets exist because of societal pressures and they exist because of rights-of-passage (the growing up process we all undertake). To blame a province, such as Quebec, because they are cultural different from the rest of Canada is to incite a causal link that does not exist. The reality is Quebec's immigration numbers are higher than most provinces, so is their level of unemployment, and the disparity between the haves-and-have-nots. While we always try and examine the various sociological reasons for why people react violently to their lot in life, we continue to willingly forget the studied, proven and established correlational relationship between socio-economic factors and crime -- even sensational school shooting crimes. Over and over again disparity is cited as the primary unconscious motivator for crime and violence. And over and over again we (as journalists and as society) opt to examine and explain the situation based on every other reason but. Yes, there may be validity to what Wong stated -- but only if it is prefaced on the notion that Kimveer's angst was NOT because he was Sikh, but because he was a have-not member in what, he perceived, as a have society.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Rebel fighters will always exist as long as there is a fight to be fought
I'm Irish. Displaced and uprooted, but my roots and soul are Irish.
And if it's one thing I've learned carrying this historically-heavy cultural heritage it's that a person fighting for a cause is always going to persevere.
Now this can be a good thing.
The human rights movement, the environmental movements, the GLBTQ movement, the race movement and the womens movement all benefitted from this level of perseverence -- and often in the face of hate.
But causes do not always fit nicely into the boxes of good and bad. There are causes that have merit, but are too extreme. And causes that are extreme and have no merit. You get the picture.
As a result (and in the extreme) we find guerilla warfare becoming the primary method for resistence and activism with many groups -- the Irish being one of the first in the 20th century.
Now this lineage of resistors is important given Bush's continued plans to swell the insurgency within Iraq (and other targetted countries). Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld posed a question to the Pentagon: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created?
The answer is an unequivocal NO.
When people fight for a cause they are willing to die. When soldiers are sent over to protect their nation -- but as paid military personnel -- they are not infused with the same level of urgency and importance. Yes, Bush and his strategists have attempted to recreate the passion of a cause. They have ramped up the rhetoric; placed the country on high alert; used, abuse and misused the aspect of home-grown and international fear; and even asked Americans to spy on their neighbours. But the reality is the everyday North American does not feel the need to question their safety, security and lifestyle; the average American is far too removed from the ramifications of this war to really, passionately care about what happens in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other world insurgency fuelled with American armour and money.
The jihadists, however, are not in this position. This war is being fought on their territory. This war is being fought based on their history. This war is being fought to determine their future. Who wouldn't stand up to that. Now add in military discipline (martyrs) and arbitrary punishment (from US personnel) and you have the perfect recipe for the formation and creation of new and ever-replenishing supply of jihadists.
Yesterday the US government finally conceded that this may be the case. In a newly declassified report (the National Intelligence Estimate) definitely concluded that Bush's war on terrorism had failed. The answer to Rumsfeld's three-year old question was an unequivocal: No.
While the report did not argue Bush's declaration that the only way to defeat the terrorists is to keep unrelenting military pressure on them. But nowhere in the assessment is there evidence to support Mr. Bush’s confident-sounding assertion (made again this month in Atlanta) that “America is winning the war on terror.’’
Why? Because if a win means defeat and depletion of the enemy than America is far from winning. The IRA (pre and post political turn), the Chechnyan rebels, Tamil Tigers and various factions in South and Latin America (including Mexico's Zapatista movement -- though it's questionable whether they should be lumped in with militant resistors -- resistors, yes, but militant?) were all out numbered by their oppressors and all succeeded, to some degree, to gain a measure of autonomy. Why does Bush believe that his war will be the exception to the rule? Why do Bush and his hawkish strategists believe that bombing, imprisoning and killing the current insurgents will deplete a rebel's army and quash a growing sentiment?
Americans and other Western democrat citizens need to pose these questions to their elected officials AND they need to suggest a few possible answers: answers that don't include the improbable or the fantastic.
For more information on the American government report go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27assess.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
For possible alternative solutions to war go to:
http://www.alternativestowar.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0927-04.htm
And if it's one thing I've learned carrying this historically-heavy cultural heritage it's that a person fighting for a cause is always going to persevere.
Now this can be a good thing.
The human rights movement, the environmental movements, the GLBTQ movement, the race movement and the womens movement all benefitted from this level of perseverence -- and often in the face of hate.
But causes do not always fit nicely into the boxes of good and bad. There are causes that have merit, but are too extreme. And causes that are extreme and have no merit. You get the picture.
As a result (and in the extreme) we find guerilla warfare becoming the primary method for resistence and activism with many groups -- the Irish being one of the first in the 20th century.
Now this lineage of resistors is important given Bush's continued plans to swell the insurgency within Iraq (and other targetted countries). Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld posed a question to the Pentagon: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created?
The answer is an unequivocal NO.
When people fight for a cause they are willing to die. When soldiers are sent over to protect their nation -- but as paid military personnel -- they are not infused with the same level of urgency and importance. Yes, Bush and his strategists have attempted to recreate the passion of a cause. They have ramped up the rhetoric; placed the country on high alert; used, abuse and misused the aspect of home-grown and international fear; and even asked Americans to spy on their neighbours. But the reality is the everyday North American does not feel the need to question their safety, security and lifestyle; the average American is far too removed from the ramifications of this war to really, passionately care about what happens in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other world insurgency fuelled with American armour and money.
The jihadists, however, are not in this position. This war is being fought on their territory. This war is being fought based on their history. This war is being fought to determine their future. Who wouldn't stand up to that. Now add in military discipline (martyrs) and arbitrary punishment (from US personnel) and you have the perfect recipe for the formation and creation of new and ever-replenishing supply of jihadists.
Yesterday the US government finally conceded that this may be the case. In a newly declassified report (the National Intelligence Estimate) definitely concluded that Bush's war on terrorism had failed. The answer to Rumsfeld's three-year old question was an unequivocal: No.
While the report did not argue Bush's declaration that the only way to defeat the terrorists is to keep unrelenting military pressure on them. But nowhere in the assessment is there evidence to support Mr. Bush’s confident-sounding assertion (made again this month in Atlanta) that “America is winning the war on terror.’’
Why? Because if a win means defeat and depletion of the enemy than America is far from winning. The IRA (pre and post political turn), the Chechnyan rebels, Tamil Tigers and various factions in South and Latin America (including Mexico's Zapatista movement -- though it's questionable whether they should be lumped in with militant resistors -- resistors, yes, but militant?) were all out numbered by their oppressors and all succeeded, to some degree, to gain a measure of autonomy. Why does Bush believe that his war will be the exception to the rule? Why do Bush and his hawkish strategists believe that bombing, imprisoning and killing the current insurgents will deplete a rebel's army and quash a growing sentiment?
Americans and other Western democrat citizens need to pose these questions to their elected officials AND they need to suggest a few possible answers: answers that don't include the improbable or the fantastic.
For more information on the American government report go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27assess.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
For possible alternative solutions to war go to:
http://www.alternativestowar.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0927-04.htm
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Green guide for educating children's play
Children's play.
It's an area of great debate and, over the last century, an area of significant changes. At one point children were considered mini-versions of adults; that soon gave way to the production capabilities of children; eventually that gave rise to the notion that children needed to be disciplined and commanded until such a time when they were adults; that eventually disappeared when psychologists began to espouse the notion that children needed to be supervised, guided and nurtured.
Now, children's play ranges from the completely inane to the entirely educational, and everything in-between. But regardless of the philosophy more and more teachers and child-care professionals are leaning towards to the notion that all child's play (and educational programs) need to incorporate a green component.
As such, teachers and educators are being offered a variety of tools and options for incorporating an ecological component in their classes. These tools translate into a set of principles (as created and compiled by Green Teacher magazine) that can provide direction and impetus for environmentally sensitive lessons.
http://www.greenteacher.com/index.html
For more information on Toronto's Green Guide go to: http://www.toronto.ca/greenguide/learning_green.htm
For more information on Ontario Centre for Sustainability go to:
http://www.web.net/~ocs/about.html
It's an area of great debate and, over the last century, an area of significant changes. At one point children were considered mini-versions of adults; that soon gave way to the production capabilities of children; eventually that gave rise to the notion that children needed to be disciplined and commanded until such a time when they were adults; that eventually disappeared when psychologists began to espouse the notion that children needed to be supervised, guided and nurtured.
Now, children's play ranges from the completely inane to the entirely educational, and everything in-between. But regardless of the philosophy more and more teachers and child-care professionals are leaning towards to the notion that all child's play (and educational programs) need to incorporate a green component.
As such, teachers and educators are being offered a variety of tools and options for incorporating an ecological component in their classes. These tools translate into a set of principles (as created and compiled by Green Teacher magazine) that can provide direction and impetus for environmentally sensitive lessons.
- Students should have opportunities to develop a personal connection with nature.We protect what we care about, and we care about what we know well. If students are encouraged to explore the natural world — to learn about local plants and animals, to observe and anticipate seasonal patterns, to get their feet wet in local rivers — they are more likely to develop a lifelong love of nature that will translate into a lifelong commitment to environmental stewardship.
- Education should emphasize our connections with other people and other species, and between human activities and planetary systems. We are connected to other people, other species, and other lands through the foods we eat, the clothes we wear, the items and materials we use every day, and our common reliance on a healthy environment. By gaining an understanding of this global interdependence, children become better equipped to make everyday choices that respect the rights of others and lessen their impact on the Earth’s life support systems.
- Education should help students move from awareness to knowledge to action. Even young children should have opportunities to take action to improve local environments. When students act on environmental problems, they begin to understand their complexity, to learn the critical thinking and negotiating skills needed to solve them, and to develop the practical competence that democratic societies require of their citizens. At the same time, educators have a responsibility not to burden children with catastrophic and complex environmental problems that are beyond their ability to help remedy — or, as environmental educator David Sobel has expressed it, there should be “no tragedies before fourth grade.”
- Learning should extend into the community. Community projects provide authentic “real-world” reference points for classroom studies and help students develop a sense of place and identity while learning the values and skills of responsible citizenship.
- Learning should be hands-on. The benefits of hands-on learning are widely acknowledged among educators and supported by findings in brain research. Learning is a function of experience, and the best education is one that is sensory-rich, emotionally engaging, and linked to the real world.
- Education should integrate subject disciplines. Environmental issues are complex and cannot be separated from social and economic issues. Addressing them requires knowledge and skills from all disciplines. Integrated learning programs, in which several subjects are taught simultaneously, often through field studies and community projects, help students develop a big-picture understanding and provide opportunities for authentic learning.
- Education should be future oriented. Students should have opportunities to envision the kind of world they would like to live in and to think realistically about incremental steps that might be taken to achieve it.
- Education should include media literacy. With constant exposure to mass media, our mental environments can become just as polluted as the natural environment. Media studies can help students learn to distinguish between fact and fiction in advertising, to recognize racial and gender stereotypes, and to consider the difference between needs and wants.
- Education should include traditional knowledge. Students should have opportunities to learn about traditional ways of life that are based on respect for nature and the sustainable use of resources. Across North America, many educators invite Native elders to share aboriginal perspectives on nature and ecology, exposing students to a worldview that recognizes the intrinsic value and interdependence of all living things.
- Teachers should be facilitators and co-learners. The teacher’s role is to facilitate inquiry and provide opportunities for learning, not to provide the “answers.” Teachers do not need to be experts to teach about the environment. The natural world is an open book that invites endless discovery by all. As co-learners alongside their students, teachers both model and share in the joy of learning.
http://www.greenteacher.com/index.html
For more information on Toronto's Green Guide go to: http://www.toronto.ca/greenguide/learning_green.htm
For more information on Ontario Centre for Sustainability go to:
http://www.web.net/~ocs/about.html
Monday, September 25, 2006
Organic flowers a blooming business
It's morning. You want coffee. And, while picking up your grande-bold-low-fat-no-foam latte you decide to splurge on a beautiful bunch of mixed flowers. Why not? With only a few bucks you now own a small slice of bright, colourful, fragrance.
But there are a lot of politics in that bouquet.
That bouquet represents the fight between local and agri-business; the battle between pesticide-use and organically grown; and the struggle between fair trade and corporate incentives.
There are a lot of politics in that bouquet.
That's because flower production and sales is a multi-billion dollar business that spreads across the globe. Bought the bouquet in your local grocery store? Chances are those flowers came from across the world, in a refridgerated freighter and then a cold-truck; they reached their destination, poly-sealed and pre-packed. And the price you paid is dictated by the major players in the industry -- the growers/producers/pickers and packers that represent multi-national corporations -- corporations that monopolize the industry.
The political aspect, then, is the revolt against the strictly profit motivated aim of these transborder multi-national flower producers.
In a 1997 report, by the US-based Environmental Working Group, commercially grown roses were found to contain up to 50 times the amount of cancer causing pesticides that are legally allowed in the food we eat.
While many environmentalists concede that these pesticides offer little danger to us -- the end consumer -- they do offer a very real and very dangerous hazard to the workers involved in the growing, picking, packing and shipping of these flowers.
For example, Columbia supplies 64% of America's cut roses. In order to keep this blooming business, the flower corporations use a multitude of pesticides -- most designed to enhance the rose and kill the bugs. Yet, this heavy reliance on pesticides has a direct and measurable impact on the flower workers -- unskilled labour composed, primarily, of women. In fact, two-thirds of Colombian flower workers experience headaches, nausea, impaired vision, rashes and asthma, according to the Pesticide Action Network of North America.
In reality, organic flowers don't look or smell any different from non-organic flowers. But they are better for the environment and organic flowers help promote socially just working conditions among local and international growers. Since few consumers realize that close to 70% of cut flowers sold in North America are grown overseas, where growing conditions are better, labor is cheaper and, Jarocki says, pesticide regulation is more lax, it is important for people to vote with their dollars.
As such, environmentalists and social justice activists urge consumers to think before they buy a bouquet. Rather than spending $10 on a mixed bunch of corporate fleurs, these activists are urging consumers to ask their flower suppliers the tougher questions -- are these organic flowers? Are these flowers locally produced? -- and when the answer is no: to walk away.
"People always say, 'You don't eat flowers.' But you don't want the flowers you're giving your mom to be produced on the backs of some Ecuadorean floral worker," explained Jeff Stephens of Scientific Certification Systems, a certifier of organic-flower producers in Emeryville, CA, in a USA Today interview last year.
And more and more consumers are making decisions based on environmental and socially just principles. In the US, alone, the sale of organic flowers topped $8 million in 2003 -- an estimated 52% increase over the previous year, according to the Organic Trade association.
For more information on organic flowers in Canada go to:
http://ecoflora.ca/Home.html
For online organic flowers go to:
http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=779
For more information organic flowers in the US go to:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-04-organic-flowers_x.htm
But there are a lot of politics in that bouquet.
That bouquet represents the fight between local and agri-business; the battle between pesticide-use and organically grown; and the struggle between fair trade and corporate incentives.
There are a lot of politics in that bouquet.
That's because flower production and sales is a multi-billion dollar business that spreads across the globe. Bought the bouquet in your local grocery store? Chances are those flowers came from across the world, in a refridgerated freighter and then a cold-truck; they reached their destination, poly-sealed and pre-packed. And the price you paid is dictated by the major players in the industry -- the growers/producers/pickers and packers that represent multi-national corporations -- corporations that monopolize the industry.
The political aspect, then, is the revolt against the strictly profit motivated aim of these transborder multi-national flower producers.
In a 1997 report, by the US-based Environmental Working Group, commercially grown roses were found to contain up to 50 times the amount of cancer causing pesticides that are legally allowed in the food we eat.
While many environmentalists concede that these pesticides offer little danger to us -- the end consumer -- they do offer a very real and very dangerous hazard to the workers involved in the growing, picking, packing and shipping of these flowers.
For example, Columbia supplies 64% of America's cut roses. In order to keep this blooming business, the flower corporations use a multitude of pesticides -- most designed to enhance the rose and kill the bugs. Yet, this heavy reliance on pesticides has a direct and measurable impact on the flower workers -- unskilled labour composed, primarily, of women. In fact, two-thirds of Colombian flower workers experience headaches, nausea, impaired vision, rashes and asthma, according to the Pesticide Action Network of North America.
In reality, organic flowers don't look or smell any different from non-organic flowers. But they are better for the environment and organic flowers help promote socially just working conditions among local and international growers. Since few consumers realize that close to 70% of cut flowers sold in North America are grown overseas, where growing conditions are better, labor is cheaper and, Jarocki says, pesticide regulation is more lax, it is important for people to vote with their dollars.
As such, environmentalists and social justice activists urge consumers to think before they buy a bouquet. Rather than spending $10 on a mixed bunch of corporate fleurs, these activists are urging consumers to ask their flower suppliers the tougher questions -- are these organic flowers? Are these flowers locally produced? -- and when the answer is no: to walk away.
"People always say, 'You don't eat flowers.' But you don't want the flowers you're giving your mom to be produced on the backs of some Ecuadorean floral worker," explained Jeff Stephens of Scientific Certification Systems, a certifier of organic-flower producers in Emeryville, CA, in a USA Today interview last year.
And more and more consumers are making decisions based on environmental and socially just principles. In the US, alone, the sale of organic flowers topped $8 million in 2003 -- an estimated 52% increase over the previous year, according to the Organic Trade association.
For more information on organic flowers in Canada go to:
http://ecoflora.ca/Home.html
For online organic flowers go to:
http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=779
For more information organic flowers in the US go to:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-04-organic-flowers_x.htm
Friday, September 22, 2006
Raising minimum wage is only the first step
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Next February, the McGuinty provincial Liberals will make good on their promise to raise Ontario's minimum wage to $8 per hour. Since their term in office, the McGuinty government has followed through in their committment to help the province's lowest income-earners (and most vulnerable). Considering the former Tory government, led by Mike Harris, had frozen minimum wage at a meagre sum of $6.85 per hour, this increase is welcome news to the working poor and to poverty groups across the province.
However, a Toronto Star editorial this past weekend aptly points out that if the government were to take into consideration rate of inflation, cost of living and the income earning potential of the working poor, minimum wage in Ontario should be set at a $15 per hour.
Unfortunately, this is where the business communities doom and gloom forecasts come in. Everytime a wage increase (or an energy cost increase, or a supplier cost increase, etc., etc.) occurs, corporations threaten to take their production, their wages and their business elsewhere. While any production increase (including wages) does result in a shift within the economic fabric of a region, it does not preclude a barren landscape, filled with roaming poor and long, weaving lines of shiftless, jobless oafs. In the 20th and 21st centuries, there are many countries within the Western democratic (read: neo-liberal) sphere demanding better wages and better terms for even non-union employees and these countries (and their citizens) continue to exist economically in unison with large business profits.
However, the reality is in North America there is always a loop hole. These days (as for the last decade or so) the greatest (and easiest) loop hole is the role of the contract worker. Rather than pay such a high minimum wage, many employers opt to contract out the work, in effect replacing full- or part-time employees with self-employed contractors, who are not covered by minimum wage laws.
And it is not just private corporations that are employing this tactic. More and more our own three-tier governmental system is relying upon the trend of contracting out work. It's a trend that worries anti-poverty activists. As such, they are calling for a new government-funded earned-income supplement. Their argument is that the supplement would increase the incomes of all working poor, not just those earning the minimum wage.
At present, the income supplement is a stop-gap method used by the federal government to help low-income seniors to make ends meet. However, anti-poverty activists are calling for the supplement to be implemented for all working poor under a pre-defined level of earning.
As the Daily Food Bank stated in a 2003 report: Our economy is highly dependent on low-wage and minimum wage jobs. Without office cleaners, food court workers, parking attendants, and hotel workers, for example, many of our key industries would be unable to function. And yet there is increasing evidence that these workers are unable to afford to live and work in our city. Ontario’s minimum wage has been frozen at $6.85 per hour since 1995. Since 1998, the average price of a two bedroom apartment in Toronto has increased by 18.9% to $1,047 per month. A minimum wage earner would have to work 118 hours per week to be able to afford an average apartment in Toronto.
While corporations are an essential component of the economic fabric of this nation, so are the low-income, unskilled labourers that fuel our behind-the-scenes lifestyles. As such, we need to examine how we treat these labourers and that examination cannot place the welfare of a corporation above the welfare of the most vulnerable within society.
It is commendable that the McGuinty government is following through on their committment to the working poor by raising the minimum wage -- the next step, however, is to ensure a base earning rate for all of Canada's low-income earners; a base rate that would provide all of Canada's workers with a standard of living befitting a first-world nation.
For more information on the Daily Food Bank findings go to: http://www.northyorkharvestfoodbank.com/Resource%20Centre/Research/can_people_afford_to_work_in_toronto.htm
For my blog on minimum wage go to: http://rkresponsibleliving.blogspot.com/2006/08/make-mine-minimum-wage.html
To read the Toronto Star editorial on minimum wage go to: http://www.thestar.com
Next February, the McGuinty provincial Liberals will make good on their promise to raise Ontario's minimum wage to $8 per hour. Since their term in office, the McGuinty government has followed through in their committment to help the province's lowest income-earners (and most vulnerable). Considering the former Tory government, led by Mike Harris, had frozen minimum wage at a meagre sum of $6.85 per hour, this increase is welcome news to the working poor and to poverty groups across the province.
However, a Toronto Star editorial this past weekend aptly points out that if the government were to take into consideration rate of inflation, cost of living and the income earning potential of the working poor, minimum wage in Ontario should be set at a $15 per hour.
Unfortunately, this is where the business communities doom and gloom forecasts come in. Everytime a wage increase (or an energy cost increase, or a supplier cost increase, etc., etc.) occurs, corporations threaten to take their production, their wages and their business elsewhere. While any production increase (including wages) does result in a shift within the economic fabric of a region, it does not preclude a barren landscape, filled with roaming poor and long, weaving lines of shiftless, jobless oafs. In the 20th and 21st centuries, there are many countries within the Western democratic (read: neo-liberal) sphere demanding better wages and better terms for even non-union employees and these countries (and their citizens) continue to exist economically in unison with large business profits.
However, the reality is in North America there is always a loop hole. These days (as for the last decade or so) the greatest (and easiest) loop hole is the role of the contract worker. Rather than pay such a high minimum wage, many employers opt to contract out the work, in effect replacing full- or part-time employees with self-employed contractors, who are not covered by minimum wage laws.
And it is not just private corporations that are employing this tactic. More and more our own three-tier governmental system is relying upon the trend of contracting out work. It's a trend that worries anti-poverty activists. As such, they are calling for a new government-funded earned-income supplement. Their argument is that the supplement would increase the incomes of all working poor, not just those earning the minimum wage.
At present, the income supplement is a stop-gap method used by the federal government to help low-income seniors to make ends meet. However, anti-poverty activists are calling for the supplement to be implemented for all working poor under a pre-defined level of earning.
As the Daily Food Bank stated in a 2003 report: Our economy is highly dependent on low-wage and minimum wage jobs. Without office cleaners, food court workers, parking attendants, and hotel workers, for example, many of our key industries would be unable to function. And yet there is increasing evidence that these workers are unable to afford to live and work in our city. Ontario’s minimum wage has been frozen at $6.85 per hour since 1995. Since 1998, the average price of a two bedroom apartment in Toronto has increased by 18.9% to $1,047 per month. A minimum wage earner would have to work 118 hours per week to be able to afford an average apartment in Toronto.
While corporations are an essential component of the economic fabric of this nation, so are the low-income, unskilled labourers that fuel our behind-the-scenes lifestyles. As such, we need to examine how we treat these labourers and that examination cannot place the welfare of a corporation above the welfare of the most vulnerable within society.
It is commendable that the McGuinty government is following through on their committment to the working poor by raising the minimum wage -- the next step, however, is to ensure a base earning rate for all of Canada's low-income earners; a base rate that would provide all of Canada's workers with a standard of living befitting a first-world nation.
For more information on the Daily Food Bank findings go to: http://www.northyorkharvestfoodbank.com/Resource%20Centre/Research/can_people_afford_to_work_in_toronto.htm
For my blog on minimum wage go to: http://rkresponsibleliving.blogspot.com/2006/08/make-mine-minimum-wage.html
To read the Toronto Star editorial on minimum wage go to: http://www.thestar.com
September 22 is International Car Free Day
NOTICE:
Today is International Car Free Day.
In Toronto meet artists, activists and social conveyers on Queen Street (downtown) at 9am to purchase YOUR parking spot. The morning movement encourages people to come downtown, purchase a parking ticket and then occupy the space for cultural, artistic or social endeavours.
Also, at 5:30pm meet the crew at Trinity Bellwoods Park where they will organize and launch a Car Free Day Parade. The parade takes place rain or shine.
Details of the day are as follows:
Park your bicycle on Yonge Street, North of Shuter Street and South of Dundas Street, and learn about alternative modes of transportations, health issues related to pollution, the new bicycle locker program, or just network and find out what you can do to save the planet at one of our environmental displays. You can also enjoy some great art, get a free bike tune up during the event, get your face painted, draw or blow bubbles in the play zone, challenge someone at basketball, show your moves in street hockey, watch some dancers and listen to live music from artists such as Matt Black, MJ, , The Monkey Bunch, White Gold Band Productions and more. This is an all ages event.
Today is International Car Free Day.
In Toronto meet artists, activists and social conveyers on Queen Street (downtown) at 9am to purchase YOUR parking spot. The morning movement encourages people to come downtown, purchase a parking ticket and then occupy the space for cultural, artistic or social endeavours.
Also, at 5:30pm meet the crew at Trinity Bellwoods Park where they will organize and launch a Car Free Day Parade. The parade takes place rain or shine.
Details of the day are as follows:
Park your bicycle on Yonge Street, North of Shuter Street and South of Dundas Street, and learn about alternative modes of transportations, health issues related to pollution, the new bicycle locker program, or just network and find out what you can do to save the planet at one of our environmental displays. You can also enjoy some great art, get a free bike tune up during the event, get your face painted, draw or blow bubbles in the play zone, challenge someone at basketball, show your moves in street hockey, watch some dancers and listen to live music from artists such as Matt Black, MJ, , The Monkey Bunch, White Gold Band Productions and more. This is an all ages event.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Parliament Hill is stuck in 1984
Apparently the calendars on Parliament Hill are set to 1984.
In a bold and highly fascist-laced move the current Canadian Federal government instigated the termination (and subsequent re-hire) of an outspoken geologist this week.
Andrew Okulitch, a 64-year-old scientist emeritus with the Geological Survey of Canada, was fired on Tuesady after bluntly refusing to abide by the newspeak initiated by the Harper regime.
The response was initiated after Okulitch, along with all other federal employees, were ordered to refer to the Stephen Harper Tory government as "Canada's new government". While many may have ignored (or silently abided by) this directive, Okulitch shot off an angry email stating the policy was "ridiculous and embarrassing'' and that he would not use "idiotic buzzwords coined by political hacks.'' That's when he was fired. The media (under) reported the situation and 24-hours later Okulitch was rehired.
While this may seem like a comedy of errors moment there is something far more insidious and disturbing about this situation; the fact that Okulitch was fired for not towing the proverbial line is upsetting enough -- apolitical federal employees should be exempt from retribution if they opt not to abide by political posturing -- however, it is the actions of the CURRENT federal government that is, by far, more disturbing.
Newspeak was a phrase coined by George Orwell in his revolutionary dystopian novel, 1984; the term was used to describe a method employed by the governing regime to reduce the number of words in the English language in order to eliminate ideas that were deemed dangerous and seditious. While Orwell's novel was fiction, the ideas that generated his masterpiece were not. He took the role of the British censors and outlined, for us, what this role could mean if left to run rampant without checks and balances. The fact is, the reduction of the English language cannot start by banning words -- overt censorship causes too much anger. However, the reduction of the English language and the control of cultural ideas starts with the restriction and enforcement of phrases.
The fact that the current federal Tory government would even issue such a directive implicitly lends support to the notion that language is an essential component to structuring and restructuring thoughts, attitudes and ideas.
A character in 1984 describes it succinctly: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought as we understand it now."
Now, of course, I can hear the rational and extremely individualistic portion of the crowd stating (or more like yelling) that this is simply a matter of logical proportions -- if people do not agree with the newspeak, they simply do not have to abide by it.
But there is more at play here. First: the Tory government issued a DIRECTIVE. A directive is an order -- a command. The order was an attempt to control or dictate a rather large segment of the population -- it demanded that they alter their communication in order to benefit the Party. Second: the Tory government is manipulating the institution of government. By demanding that government employees alter the way they communicate to the public, the Tory government is implicitly acknowledging that a) the institution is a powerful vehicle for advertisement of said thoughts, ideas and concepts and b) that these thoughts, ideas and concepts are integral to securing popular support.
For the linguist Edward Sapir, language is not only a vehicle for the expression of thoughts, perceptions, sentiments, and values characteristic of a community; it also represents a fundamental expression of social identity. Sapir said: "the mere fact of a common speech serves as a peculiar potent symbol of the social solidarity of those who speak the language." In short, language enables us, as a culture, to communicate ideas and concepts both literally and symbolically. The control of language, then, enables an institution to control the construction and use of these cultural symbols (a phenomena that has been documented throughout history -- just look at the Hitler regime, Pol Pot's rural revolution, Martin Luther King Jr. , Nelson Mandela or Ghandi's empowerment speeches or even the feminist thought and literature that has been produced in the last century).
For the Tory government to inexplicably demand that all federal employees use the Canadian version of Newspeak is a sad and dangerous testament to the state of OUR nation. Simply put the Tory government is NOT Canada's new government as this implies a change. And in the last nine months there has been little evidence of change in regimes.
For more information on the scientist's reinstatement go to:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/
For articles on the importance of language go to:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/070300-104.htm (Ralph Nader's article on the topic)
http://www.wsf.org.uk/docs/importance_of_language.doc
http://www.racismnoway.com.au/library/understanding/index-The.html
For articles/blogs etc. that cite the importance of language go to:
http://theoctillion.com/2006/08/importance-of-language-in-efforts-to.html
For more information on George Orwell go to:
http://www.newspeak.com/Newspeak.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
In a bold and highly fascist-laced move the current Canadian Federal government instigated the termination (and subsequent re-hire) of an outspoken geologist this week.
Andrew Okulitch, a 64-year-old scientist emeritus with the Geological Survey of Canada, was fired on Tuesady after bluntly refusing to abide by the newspeak initiated by the Harper regime.
The response was initiated after Okulitch, along with all other federal employees, were ordered to refer to the Stephen Harper Tory government as "Canada's new government". While many may have ignored (or silently abided by) this directive, Okulitch shot off an angry email stating the policy was "ridiculous and embarrassing'' and that he would not use "idiotic buzzwords coined by political hacks.'' That's when he was fired. The media (under) reported the situation and 24-hours later Okulitch was rehired.
While this may seem like a comedy of errors moment there is something far more insidious and disturbing about this situation; the fact that Okulitch was fired for not towing the proverbial line is upsetting enough -- apolitical federal employees should be exempt from retribution if they opt not to abide by political posturing -- however, it is the actions of the CURRENT federal government that is, by far, more disturbing.
Newspeak was a phrase coined by George Orwell in his revolutionary dystopian novel, 1984; the term was used to describe a method employed by the governing regime to reduce the number of words in the English language in order to eliminate ideas that were deemed dangerous and seditious. While Orwell's novel was fiction, the ideas that generated his masterpiece were not. He took the role of the British censors and outlined, for us, what this role could mean if left to run rampant without checks and balances. The fact is, the reduction of the English language cannot start by banning words -- overt censorship causes too much anger. However, the reduction of the English language and the control of cultural ideas starts with the restriction and enforcement of phrases.
The fact that the current federal Tory government would even issue such a directive implicitly lends support to the notion that language is an essential component to structuring and restructuring thoughts, attitudes and ideas.
A character in 1984 describes it succinctly: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought as we understand it now."
Now, of course, I can hear the rational and extremely individualistic portion of the crowd stating (or more like yelling) that this is simply a matter of logical proportions -- if people do not agree with the newspeak, they simply do not have to abide by it.
But there is more at play here. First: the Tory government issued a DIRECTIVE. A directive is an order -- a command. The order was an attempt to control or dictate a rather large segment of the population -- it demanded that they alter their communication in order to benefit the Party. Second: the Tory government is manipulating the institution of government. By demanding that government employees alter the way they communicate to the public, the Tory government is implicitly acknowledging that a) the institution is a powerful vehicle for advertisement of said thoughts, ideas and concepts and b) that these thoughts, ideas and concepts are integral to securing popular support.
For the linguist Edward Sapir, language is not only a vehicle for the expression of thoughts, perceptions, sentiments, and values characteristic of a community; it also represents a fundamental expression of social identity. Sapir said: "the mere fact of a common speech serves as a peculiar potent symbol of the social solidarity of those who speak the language." In short, language enables us, as a culture, to communicate ideas and concepts both literally and symbolically. The control of language, then, enables an institution to control the construction and use of these cultural symbols (a phenomena that has been documented throughout history -- just look at the Hitler regime, Pol Pot's rural revolution, Martin Luther King Jr. , Nelson Mandela or Ghandi's empowerment speeches or even the feminist thought and literature that has been produced in the last century).
For the Tory government to inexplicably demand that all federal employees use the Canadian version of Newspeak is a sad and dangerous testament to the state of OUR nation. Simply put the Tory government is NOT Canada's new government as this implies a change. And in the last nine months there has been little evidence of change in regimes.
For more information on the scientist's reinstatement go to:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/
For articles on the importance of language go to:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/070300-104.htm (Ralph Nader's article on the topic)
http://www.wsf.org.uk/docs/importance_of_language.doc
http://www.racismnoway.com.au/library/understanding/index-The.html
For articles/blogs etc. that cite the importance of language go to:
http://theoctillion.com/2006/08/importance-of-language-in-efforts-to.html
For more information on George Orwell go to:
http://www.newspeak.com/Newspeak.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Pope Benedict instigates move towards Clash of Civilizations
Samuel P. Huntington would be proud.
The Pope -- the bastion of Catholic insight and action -- has incited a religious war with comments he made recently during a speech in Germany.
Now his apologists defend his statements through outdated statements, such as: Turkey has no place in Europe, because Europe is the result of a Christian-based way of life.
I'm sorry, did anyone check the religious convictions of those in the Scandanavian countries? Or what about the religious make-up of France or Belgium or even Germany? These are countries where the majority have opted for a secular way of life -- and those that do have faith are not all Christian based.
And to add fuel to the fire, the great (new) German Pope not only dug at the centuries old wound between Islam and Catholicism, but also defiled those that follow Protestism.
Huntington would be proud, as Pope Benedict has done more for his theory on the clash of civilizations than any inter or intra-state war this century. Rather than acknowledge an evolving morality -- one that enables people to worship, or not, whatever God they choose -- Pope Benedict is creating a hierarchy of faith. Catholicism first, of course, and then all other Christian denominations. All others are infidels with inferior moralities.
The sweet irony is that all faiths embroiled in this mess are monotheistic. All believe in One God; all have common history, common ground (peace, justice and love as principles) and all believe in the morality and responsibility of man. Too bad Pope Benedict does not.
For more information on Clash of Civilations and Samuel P. Huntington go to:
http://rkresponsibleliving.blogspot.com/2006/09/bushs-state-of-union-disarray.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
For more information on the Pope contraversy go to:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20443124-1702,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/europe/19pope.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800992.html
The Pope -- the bastion of Catholic insight and action -- has incited a religious war with comments he made recently during a speech in Germany.
Now his apologists defend his statements through outdated statements, such as: Turkey has no place in Europe, because Europe is the result of a Christian-based way of life.
I'm sorry, did anyone check the religious convictions of those in the Scandanavian countries? Or what about the religious make-up of France or Belgium or even Germany? These are countries where the majority have opted for a secular way of life -- and those that do have faith are not all Christian based.
And to add fuel to the fire, the great (new) German Pope not only dug at the centuries old wound between Islam and Catholicism, but also defiled those that follow Protestism.
Huntington would be proud, as Pope Benedict has done more for his theory on the clash of civilizations than any inter or intra-state war this century. Rather than acknowledge an evolving morality -- one that enables people to worship, or not, whatever God they choose -- Pope Benedict is creating a hierarchy of faith. Catholicism first, of course, and then all other Christian denominations. All others are infidels with inferior moralities.
The sweet irony is that all faiths embroiled in this mess are monotheistic. All believe in One God; all have common history, common ground (peace, justice and love as principles) and all believe in the morality and responsibility of man. Too bad Pope Benedict does not.
For more information on Clash of Civilations and Samuel P. Huntington go to:
http://rkresponsibleliving.blogspot.com/2006/09/bushs-state-of-union-disarray.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
For more information on the Pope contraversy go to:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20443124-1702,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/europe/19pope.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800992.html
Airline travel tax will be used for AIDS treatment
Five nations are standing up for people across the world living with AIDS. And not just standing up, but backing up and, literally, putting money where their mouths (and butts) are.
In an announcement today at the United Nations, France, Brazil, Britain, Norway and Chile will commit to raising at least $300 million by next year, mostly through taxes on airline tickets. The money will help pay for the treatment of children with AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In all, the five countries predict that this new infusion of cash will pay for the treatment of, at least, 100,000 children with AIDS, another 100,000 people who have become resistent to antiretroviral AIDS drugs, the treatment of 150,000 children with TB and the treatment of 28-million infected with malaria.
In a New York Times quote, Jean Dussourd, a French official responsible for coordinating the project, said, “We would not permit thousands of children to die in the United States and France. Why should we allow that in Asia and Africa?”
All five donor countries promised that this new aid will be in addition to other poverty financing.
For more information on the airline tax to help pay for AIDS treatment go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/19health.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/18/news/france.php
For information on a new deadly strain of TB go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091400740.html
In an announcement today at the United Nations, France, Brazil, Britain, Norway and Chile will commit to raising at least $300 million by next year, mostly through taxes on airline tickets. The money will help pay for the treatment of children with AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In all, the five countries predict that this new infusion of cash will pay for the treatment of, at least, 100,000 children with AIDS, another 100,000 people who have become resistent to antiretroviral AIDS drugs, the treatment of 150,000 children with TB and the treatment of 28-million infected with malaria.
In a New York Times quote, Jean Dussourd, a French official responsible for coordinating the project, said, “We would not permit thousands of children to die in the United States and France. Why should we allow that in Asia and Africa?”
All five donor countries promised that this new aid will be in addition to other poverty financing.
For more information on the airline tax to help pay for AIDS treatment go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/19health.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/18/news/france.php
For information on a new deadly strain of TB go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091400740.html
Monday, September 18, 2006
The politics of difference: the power of heuristics, schemas and stereotypes
Heuristics. Schemas. Stereotypes. Prejudices. Beliefs.
Decades ago, Ernest Crawley, a British anthropologist, stated that language that differs only slightly from current terminology allows us to separate ourselves from others by a "taboo of personal isolation." Crawley was attempting to define what he observed as the dangers of difference. He purported that each individual believes themselves to be surrounded by invisible dangers. In modern days this often translates into loss of job, home, relationship, lifestyle. Crawley states that from this perspective we, then, attach danger to the strange and unknown -- an attachment that extends into human relations. His assertion is that any differences between individuals become consistent reminders of fear and suspicion (that arise from the unknown).
This theory of differences is not simply espoused by a turn of the century British anthropologist. The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud, also wrote in depth on what he described as the narcissism of minor differences. His definition was an attempt to explain how groups of people, similar in all observable ways, find differences in order to distinguish themselves and their group (psychologically this affords them a sense of protection).
While both men spoke of the power and importance of differientation at the turn of the 20th century, their observations are poignant today. In a world marked by violent conflict and with intra and inter-state wars on the rise, more and more theorists are attempting to understand the motivation (or at least the justification) for human rights violations and increased bloody actions.
The sad fact is narcissism of difference explains an awful lot. For example, in Group Psychology, Freud wrote that "closely related races keep one another at arm’s length; the South German can not endure the North German, the Englishman casts every kind of aspersion on the Scot, the Spaniard despises the Portugese. We are no longer astonished that greater differences should lead to almost insuperable repugnance, such as the Gallic people feel for the German, the Aryan for the Semite, and the white races for the colored."
In otherwords when obvious differences (race, colour, sex, religion, language) are not present, other differences (religion, beliefs, history, culture) are used to denote differences among groups of people.
This matched with the ever-present belief that we are in danger (particularly of the unknown and the unknowable) and we begin to subscribe and follow the trajectory of the narcissism of difference.
The rhetoric of Prime Minister Harper, the emotionally trite appeals of President Bush, even the ardent pleas of Osama bin Laden all support the notion of an us vs. them mentality -- the differences we construct.
The us: Western, liberal-market, democratically nullified people that live in a Judeo-Christian society (even if our personal religious choices are different).
Them: Typically darker in complexion, Muslims, violent-worshipping Jihadists that are fighting for warlord territory and personal economic ownership.
The reality: the vast majority of people within both cultures share the belief in a monotheistic God (though how that belief is practiced does differ); willing to die, or at least, support their leaders to choose the martyrs that will give their lives for "the cause" (In Canada, alone, a soldier is six times more likely to be maimed or killed in Afghanistan than an American soldier in Iraq); all these cultures perceive a lack -- lack of resources, lack of power, lack of the other's ability to judicially and fairly govern; all of these cultures live in fear of the unknown.
While I am not a religious person, I do appreciate the strength people derive from their beliefs. What astounds me, however, is that this strength is not been drawn from the faith that each and every religion demands from their followers, but, rather, from the justification that "our way" is the "right way".
We are living in a world riddled with narcissistic deference.
We are living in a world with over-simplified differences and disproportionately emphasized unknowable fears.
If we are to find any peace, it will not be through the demand for submission, but rather, through the acknowledgement of faith.
Like living in a row house, we must have faith that are neighbour will not do anything to jeopardize their own home -- thereby jeopardizing all homes.
Decades ago, Ernest Crawley, a British anthropologist, stated that language that differs only slightly from current terminology allows us to separate ourselves from others by a "taboo of personal isolation." Crawley was attempting to define what he observed as the dangers of difference. He purported that each individual believes themselves to be surrounded by invisible dangers. In modern days this often translates into loss of job, home, relationship, lifestyle. Crawley states that from this perspective we, then, attach danger to the strange and unknown -- an attachment that extends into human relations. His assertion is that any differences between individuals become consistent reminders of fear and suspicion (that arise from the unknown).
This theory of differences is not simply espoused by a turn of the century British anthropologist. The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud, also wrote in depth on what he described as the narcissism of minor differences. His definition was an attempt to explain how groups of people, similar in all observable ways, find differences in order to distinguish themselves and their group (psychologically this affords them a sense of protection).
While both men spoke of the power and importance of differientation at the turn of the 20th century, their observations are poignant today. In a world marked by violent conflict and with intra and inter-state wars on the rise, more and more theorists are attempting to understand the motivation (or at least the justification) for human rights violations and increased bloody actions.
The sad fact is narcissism of difference explains an awful lot. For example, in Group Psychology, Freud wrote that "closely related races keep one another at arm’s length; the South German can not endure the North German, the Englishman casts every kind of aspersion on the Scot, the Spaniard despises the Portugese. We are no longer astonished that greater differences should lead to almost insuperable repugnance, such as the Gallic people feel for the German, the Aryan for the Semite, and the white races for the colored."
In otherwords when obvious differences (race, colour, sex, religion, language) are not present, other differences (religion, beliefs, history, culture) are used to denote differences among groups of people.
This matched with the ever-present belief that we are in danger (particularly of the unknown and the unknowable) and we begin to subscribe and follow the trajectory of the narcissism of difference.
The rhetoric of Prime Minister Harper, the emotionally trite appeals of President Bush, even the ardent pleas of Osama bin Laden all support the notion of an us vs. them mentality -- the differences we construct.
The us: Western, liberal-market, democratically nullified people that live in a Judeo-Christian society (even if our personal religious choices are different).
Them: Typically darker in complexion, Muslims, violent-worshipping Jihadists that are fighting for warlord territory and personal economic ownership.
The reality: the vast majority of people within both cultures share the belief in a monotheistic God (though how that belief is practiced does differ); willing to die, or at least, support their leaders to choose the martyrs that will give their lives for "the cause" (In Canada, alone, a soldier is six times more likely to be maimed or killed in Afghanistan than an American soldier in Iraq); all these cultures perceive a lack -- lack of resources, lack of power, lack of the other's ability to judicially and fairly govern; all of these cultures live in fear of the unknown.
While I am not a religious person, I do appreciate the strength people derive from their beliefs. What astounds me, however, is that this strength is not been drawn from the faith that each and every religion demands from their followers, but, rather, from the justification that "our way" is the "right way".
We are living in a world riddled with narcissistic deference.
We are living in a world with over-simplified differences and disproportionately emphasized unknowable fears.
If we are to find any peace, it will not be through the demand for submission, but rather, through the acknowledgement of faith.
Like living in a row house, we must have faith that are neighbour will not do anything to jeopardize their own home -- thereby jeopardizing all homes.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Culture of violence needs to be replaced
You may get tired of the extensive reportage and analysis on the recent Montreal massacre -- there is always a certain segment of readers/viewers/surfers who do.
Yet, this recent violent event is an essential window into the psyche of an individual and how our culture can and may play a role. As horrific as the events were on Tuesday, the event forces us to examine how we react and respond to life (both responses coming from very different places) and it prompts examination of our individual and collective beliefs.
For that reason, I too, am re-examining this horrible event, through the lense of personal and collective accountability.
First is the oft-mentioned belief that media sensationalizes stories like the Dawson College massacre. This is true, to an extent. The fact that a camera person refused to offer privacy to a victim of the shooting, despite her pleading requests, shows how there are occassions when media is more concerned with getting a picture/story, then they are in telling the tale. Saying that, it should be pointed out that a vast majority of media outlets and personnel do not engage in this obtrusive behaviour; most simply ask questions and find people willing to participate in the sharing of the story. However, it does raise a point: even media has a role to play in this type of extremist situation.
If a person, such as Kimveer, decides to take his angst and rage out in a such a violent manner, it is the media's responsibility to not immortalize and glamorize this person. Like the original Montreal massacre, where a sexist gunmen lined 29 women up and gunned them down, Kimveer's actions should not go down in the annals of reportage as HIS action. Rather, this irrational act should be remembered for what it is: a violent, irrational act committed by a disturbed person. By remembering and recalling the names of these individuals we immortalize them and glamorize their actions -- and this perpetuates a cycle.
An anecdotal precursor to this glamorization of violent, infamy, is the reportage of suicides. Decades ago newspapers and other media were politely asked by medical professonals not to report suicides. The rational was based on collected statistics that showed provided a correlational relationship between the reportage of suicide and a dramatic increase in suicide attempts (and successes).
So in a day and age when people are frustrated, want relief AND are obsessed with being special and remembered why wouldn't the same correlations occur with violent events? The Columbine massacre prompted a series of copycat rampages that lasted for two years after the initial event. Then Canadian teens weighed into the fray. Taber, Alberta, squirmishes in Vancouver and Toronto and now Montreal, Quebec.
In a culture obsessed with being a "somebody" (usually dictated by popularity, fame or fortune) we are providing the avenue and the vehicle for angst-ridden, emotional disturbed people to act out and achieve their goals.
We cannot ban the counter-culture mediums by which kids and young adults communicate with -- that's like the attempt to suppress rock n' roll in the 50s. All that happens is that the medium breaks free! Rather, we can take responsibility as a society for how we display such brutal acts of apathetic detachment.
This leads into my notion that socio-economic factors do play a role in actions taken by individuals like Kimveer. When we live in a culture that ideoligizes war, we cannot expect little ramifications.
The fact that Kimveer's guns were both legal and registered only highlights the necessity for our culture to reexamine our values, as opposed to simply attempting to cover up this examination with legislation and punitive justice. The gun registry would not have prevented Tuesday's massacre. Now, all opinions aside on the gun registry, this fact highlights the need for us as a society to reexamine and reintroduce a culture of community, rather than a culture of violence.
This can be done easily by introducing an education system that is built upon the notion of peace and community -- rather than a culture of war. When examined these two different perspectives provide two different approaches to how we teach historica, sociological and humanities-based classes.
CULTURE OF WAR AND CULTURE OF PEACE AND NON-VIOLENCE VIOLENCE
Belief in power that is based on force Education for a culture of peace
Having an enemy Tolerance, solidarity and international
understanding
Authoritarian governance Democratic participation
Secrecy and propaganda Free flow of information
Armament Disarmament
Exploitation of people Human rights
Exploitation of nature Sustainable development
Male domination Equality of women and men
If we are to address the actions of extremists that lead to Columbine, USA. Taber, Alberta and Montreal, Quebec, we will need to address our cultural reliance upon violence and conflict. And then, we will need to act.
For those that demand individual responsibility, I agree. Every individual has a choice and a chance. Every individual is offered a set of tools that they may draw from.
What I am suggesting, is to reexamine the tools we, as a culture, provide. Rather than focusing on winning, success, fame, fortune, reward, we need to offer our children, teens and young adults an opportunity to develop another set of tools. By taking collective action to establish a culture that values constructive confrontation, peacebuilding and community, we establish a foundation to provide people with alternatives to violent conflict. If an alternative is provided, it can, and will influence the behaviour of a society.
Yes, we can demonize Kimveer; create a profile of one man you was unstable enough to act inappropriately.
Or we can accept that we, as a society, help contribute to his instability. While he, alone, is responsible for his final decisions, we as a society are responsible for providing the options.
We need new options.
We need a culture of peacebuilding.
Yet, this recent violent event is an essential window into the psyche of an individual and how our culture can and may play a role. As horrific as the events were on Tuesday, the event forces us to examine how we react and respond to life (both responses coming from very different places) and it prompts examination of our individual and collective beliefs.
For that reason, I too, am re-examining this horrible event, through the lense of personal and collective accountability.
First is the oft-mentioned belief that media sensationalizes stories like the Dawson College massacre. This is true, to an extent. The fact that a camera person refused to offer privacy to a victim of the shooting, despite her pleading requests, shows how there are occassions when media is more concerned with getting a picture/story, then they are in telling the tale. Saying that, it should be pointed out that a vast majority of media outlets and personnel do not engage in this obtrusive behaviour; most simply ask questions and find people willing to participate in the sharing of the story. However, it does raise a point: even media has a role to play in this type of extremist situation.
If a person, such as Kimveer, decides to take his angst and rage out in a such a violent manner, it is the media's responsibility to not immortalize and glamorize this person. Like the original Montreal massacre, where a sexist gunmen lined 29 women up and gunned them down, Kimveer's actions should not go down in the annals of reportage as HIS action. Rather, this irrational act should be remembered for what it is: a violent, irrational act committed by a disturbed person. By remembering and recalling the names of these individuals we immortalize them and glamorize their actions -- and this perpetuates a cycle.
An anecdotal precursor to this glamorization of violent, infamy, is the reportage of suicides. Decades ago newspapers and other media were politely asked by medical professonals not to report suicides. The rational was based on collected statistics that showed provided a correlational relationship between the reportage of suicide and a dramatic increase in suicide attempts (and successes).
So in a day and age when people are frustrated, want relief AND are obsessed with being special and remembered why wouldn't the same correlations occur with violent events? The Columbine massacre prompted a series of copycat rampages that lasted for two years after the initial event. Then Canadian teens weighed into the fray. Taber, Alberta, squirmishes in Vancouver and Toronto and now Montreal, Quebec.
In a culture obsessed with being a "somebody" (usually dictated by popularity, fame or fortune) we are providing the avenue and the vehicle for angst-ridden, emotional disturbed people to act out and achieve their goals.
We cannot ban the counter-culture mediums by which kids and young adults communicate with -- that's like the attempt to suppress rock n' roll in the 50s. All that happens is that the medium breaks free! Rather, we can take responsibility as a society for how we display such brutal acts of apathetic detachment.
This leads into my notion that socio-economic factors do play a role in actions taken by individuals like Kimveer. When we live in a culture that ideoligizes war, we cannot expect little ramifications.
The fact that Kimveer's guns were both legal and registered only highlights the necessity for our culture to reexamine our values, as opposed to simply attempting to cover up this examination with legislation and punitive justice. The gun registry would not have prevented Tuesday's massacre. Now, all opinions aside on the gun registry, this fact highlights the need for us as a society to reexamine and reintroduce a culture of community, rather than a culture of violence.
This can be done easily by introducing an education system that is built upon the notion of peace and community -- rather than a culture of war. When examined these two different perspectives provide two different approaches to how we teach historica, sociological and humanities-based classes.
CULTURE OF WAR AND CULTURE OF PEACE AND NON-VIOLENCE VIOLENCE
Belief in power that is based on force Education for a culture of peace
Having an enemy Tolerance, solidarity and international
understanding
Authoritarian governance Democratic participation
Secrecy and propaganda Free flow of information
Armament Disarmament
Exploitation of people Human rights
Exploitation of nature Sustainable development
Male domination Equality of women and men
If we are to address the actions of extremists that lead to Columbine, USA. Taber, Alberta and Montreal, Quebec, we will need to address our cultural reliance upon violence and conflict. And then, we will need to act.
For those that demand individual responsibility, I agree. Every individual has a choice and a chance. Every individual is offered a set of tools that they may draw from.
What I am suggesting, is to reexamine the tools we, as a culture, provide. Rather than focusing on winning, success, fame, fortune, reward, we need to offer our children, teens and young adults an opportunity to develop another set of tools. By taking collective action to establish a culture that values constructive confrontation, peacebuilding and community, we establish a foundation to provide people with alternatives to violent conflict. If an alternative is provided, it can, and will influence the behaviour of a society.
Yes, we can demonize Kimveer; create a profile of one man you was unstable enough to act inappropriately.
Or we can accept that we, as a society, help contribute to his instability. While he, alone, is responsible for his final decisions, we as a society are responsible for providing the options.
We need new options.
We need a culture of peacebuilding.
15-minutes of fame in second Montreal massacre
Warhol's 15-minutes of fame has gone eerily awry.
The second Montreal massacre in less than 20 years was shockingly played out on TV, radio, and webpages yesterday as a trench-coat clad 25-year-old gunmen walked into a downtown college campus and randomly began shooting.
Unlike the previous massacre (where the gunmen -- name withheld intentionally -- targetted women with his rage) yesterday's shooting is still steeped in ambiguity and uncertainty. Even more chilling is the lack of communication about his deeds. Only two hours before he was shot dead by police, young Kimveer had posted a message on his regularly visited www.vampirefreaks.com site -- there was no mention of what he was about to do and no mention of any motivation for his actions. I'm sorry but "Life Sucks...work sucks...we all have to die sometime" only conveys a sense of futility; it does not provide definitive insight into why someone would take this sense of futility out on another individual.
First, I am going to acknowledge that in the next few days (and perhaps weeks) there will be a lot of talk about the influence of video games. Given the fact that Toronto experienced a horrendous accident because of the apparent influence of video games (see below for link to story) it does not take a leap of faith to appreciate how quickly people are going to start blaming these games -- games that have taken on a new and far-reaching importance among teenagers and young adults.
This type of condemnation of one of society's leisurely pursuits is not unknown. In the 80s we blamed Dungeons and Dragons -- a role-playing game that, apparently, prompted some youth to act out their fantasy worlds and kill their mates. In the 70s it was good ol' heavy metal -- play the record backwards and the kids were given Satanic messages. In the 60s it was art, music, liberal lifestyle and the proliferation of non-corporate sponsored media. The list goes on -- well past the 20th century.
That is not to say that I do not believe a medium can have an impact on still-growing minds (or even on minds, hell EVERYONE is influenced by the media, old or young). Yet, teenagers and young adults -- regardless of how definitive and defiant they may be -- are still trying to find their feet in this world. As such, they are still developing and growing and are still overly influenced by the medium that surrounds them. While the vast majority often act out this angst in semi-respectable ways (get drunk, get laid, grow out of the lifestyle), there are a few who take it to an extreme. Kimveer is one of these extremists. The artists that live on the fringe of our society are another. While both seek some sort of immortality through their actions, it is Kimveer's actions that prove shocking and are, unfortunately, glorified.
How many days will the media devote to expressing every detail of this massacre? How many photos will we see of Kimveer posing with his guns? How many editorials, opinion pieces and columns will wax on about the possible motivations behind this act (this posting included).
In reality, though, if Kimveer's aim was to become notorious -- he succeeded. In otherwords, he HAS achieved his 15-minutes of fame -- the very 15-minutes that has become a national obsession.
If we are to tackle this problem of disassociation from reality and responsibility; if we are to handle the extremists and the disenfranchised, we will have to stop blaming the toys. Like heavy metal and D&D, video games are just an avenue for expression. While you can slap caveats and warnings and even limitations on such a product, these actions will not prevent the dissemination or the influence this medium currently has on young adults today. And, rest assured, as soon as you do figure out a way to 'control-the-flow' there will be another, fresher medium that has caught the attention of teens today.
The reality is we cannot stop the need for young adults to produce a counter-culture movement -- it's a right of passage. Nor should we penalize the majority for the potential volatility of a slim minority (that's tyranny of the minority, or in otherwords censorship). However, we can start to actually address the underlying societal factors that have been raging for decades (some would say for centuries). While no one likes to hear it, there are significant socio-economic factors that help produce this level of apathy, dissociation and irresponsibility.
Yet, in a society obsessed with causes we are quick to dismiss correlations -- so despite the body of research that shows a correlation between crime (such as the violent crime that occured in Montreal yesterday) and socio-economic factors, we choose to focus on more tangible remunstrances, looking for objects rather than situations to fault.
Unfortunately, the study of human interaction is rarely mapped out in causes -- it is an inexact science. As such, if we were to address this obsession to be rich and famous (to be a 'somebody') we would, indeed, be addresssing the primary motivation for such horrendous acts AND we would need to address the underlying socio-economic factors that prompt such a fantastical way of dealing with life.
In the end, I leave you with this anecdote. A girlfriend of mine is an architect in a nationally recognized, well-respected firm. After spending countless years in school, thousands of hours on training and a decade on building her career she is appalled with the attitude of the new graduates her firm is hiring. She describes these new hires as self-indulgant, indignant laggards who expect a great deal, while offering very little. Of course, these 20-somethings do not have this perspective. Rather, they believe that the world owes them and that the potential for partner or CEO must be achievable within five years or there is no point in putting in the time and energy at that job/firm. While this may seem extreme, it is not. My architect friend, like many of my other 30+ friends, are experiencing the self-possessed 'gimme' attitude of a generation that has grown up on Paris Hilton, Hillary Duff and Marie & Katie Olsen (to name but a few). They have grown up believing that an attitude of 'better-than' really does get you a bigger piece of the pie and that the she who screams loudest is heard best is the optimal way to achieve your goals. Yes, this may be a ridiculous attitude and it may not be far off from any other attitude of any other 'next' generation. The difference being, though, is thar our current technology now affords the disenfranchized with the means to maim. As such, dealing with the issues that prompts the dissassociation is no longer ideal it is essential.
We may never know why Kimveer shot 12 people yesterday. We may never know why he chose to shoot (and be shot) at police rather than surrendering his weapons yesterday. The problem now is not to react to the extremism, but to deal with the overwhelming causal factors that helps to lay the foundation for such extreme behaviour. We may never be able to eradicate the violent and desperate feelings from our society, but we can certainly try.
For more information on the Need for Speed video game crash in Toronto this past January go to: http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=cd1d1928-d102-4a8e-aa9a-ffa0bc013dad
For more information on the second Montreal massacre go to any Canadian news portal.
The second Montreal massacre in less than 20 years was shockingly played out on TV, radio, and webpages yesterday as a trench-coat clad 25-year-old gunmen walked into a downtown college campus and randomly began shooting.
Unlike the previous massacre (where the gunmen -- name withheld intentionally -- targetted women with his rage) yesterday's shooting is still steeped in ambiguity and uncertainty. Even more chilling is the lack of communication about his deeds. Only two hours before he was shot dead by police, young Kimveer had posted a message on his regularly visited www.vampirefreaks.com site -- there was no mention of what he was about to do and no mention of any motivation for his actions. I'm sorry but "Life Sucks...work sucks...we all have to die sometime" only conveys a sense of futility; it does not provide definitive insight into why someone would take this sense of futility out on another individual.
First, I am going to acknowledge that in the next few days (and perhaps weeks) there will be a lot of talk about the influence of video games. Given the fact that Toronto experienced a horrendous accident because of the apparent influence of video games (see below for link to story) it does not take a leap of faith to appreciate how quickly people are going to start blaming these games -- games that have taken on a new and far-reaching importance among teenagers and young adults.
This type of condemnation of one of society's leisurely pursuits is not unknown. In the 80s we blamed Dungeons and Dragons -- a role-playing game that, apparently, prompted some youth to act out their fantasy worlds and kill their mates. In the 70s it was good ol' heavy metal -- play the record backwards and the kids were given Satanic messages. In the 60s it was art, music, liberal lifestyle and the proliferation of non-corporate sponsored media. The list goes on -- well past the 20th century.
That is not to say that I do not believe a medium can have an impact on still-growing minds (or even on minds, hell EVERYONE is influenced by the media, old or young). Yet, teenagers and young adults -- regardless of how definitive and defiant they may be -- are still trying to find their feet in this world. As such, they are still developing and growing and are still overly influenced by the medium that surrounds them. While the vast majority often act out this angst in semi-respectable ways (get drunk, get laid, grow out of the lifestyle), there are a few who take it to an extreme. Kimveer is one of these extremists. The artists that live on the fringe of our society are another. While both seek some sort of immortality through their actions, it is Kimveer's actions that prove shocking and are, unfortunately, glorified.
How many days will the media devote to expressing every detail of this massacre? How many photos will we see of Kimveer posing with his guns? How many editorials, opinion pieces and columns will wax on about the possible motivations behind this act (this posting included).
In reality, though, if Kimveer's aim was to become notorious -- he succeeded. In otherwords, he HAS achieved his 15-minutes of fame -- the very 15-minutes that has become a national obsession.
If we are to tackle this problem of disassociation from reality and responsibility; if we are to handle the extremists and the disenfranchised, we will have to stop blaming the toys. Like heavy metal and D&D, video games are just an avenue for expression. While you can slap caveats and warnings and even limitations on such a product, these actions will not prevent the dissemination or the influence this medium currently has on young adults today. And, rest assured, as soon as you do figure out a way to 'control-the-flow' there will be another, fresher medium that has caught the attention of teens today.
The reality is we cannot stop the need for young adults to produce a counter-culture movement -- it's a right of passage. Nor should we penalize the majority for the potential volatility of a slim minority (that's tyranny of the minority, or in otherwords censorship). However, we can start to actually address the underlying societal factors that have been raging for decades (some would say for centuries). While no one likes to hear it, there are significant socio-economic factors that help produce this level of apathy, dissociation and irresponsibility.
Yet, in a society obsessed with causes we are quick to dismiss correlations -- so despite the body of research that shows a correlation between crime (such as the violent crime that occured in Montreal yesterday) and socio-economic factors, we choose to focus on more tangible remunstrances, looking for objects rather than situations to fault.
Unfortunately, the study of human interaction is rarely mapped out in causes -- it is an inexact science. As such, if we were to address this obsession to be rich and famous (to be a 'somebody') we would, indeed, be addresssing the primary motivation for such horrendous acts AND we would need to address the underlying socio-economic factors that prompt such a fantastical way of dealing with life.
In the end, I leave you with this anecdote. A girlfriend of mine is an architect in a nationally recognized, well-respected firm. After spending countless years in school, thousands of hours on training and a decade on building her career she is appalled with the attitude of the new graduates her firm is hiring. She describes these new hires as self-indulgant, indignant laggards who expect a great deal, while offering very little. Of course, these 20-somethings do not have this perspective. Rather, they believe that the world owes them and that the potential for partner or CEO must be achievable within five years or there is no point in putting in the time and energy at that job/firm. While this may seem extreme, it is not. My architect friend, like many of my other 30+ friends, are experiencing the self-possessed 'gimme' attitude of a generation that has grown up on Paris Hilton, Hillary Duff and Marie & Katie Olsen (to name but a few). They have grown up believing that an attitude of 'better-than' really does get you a bigger piece of the pie and that the she who screams loudest is heard best is the optimal way to achieve your goals. Yes, this may be a ridiculous attitude and it may not be far off from any other attitude of any other 'next' generation. The difference being, though, is thar our current technology now affords the disenfranchized with the means to maim. As such, dealing with the issues that prompts the dissassociation is no longer ideal it is essential.
We may never know why Kimveer shot 12 people yesterday. We may never know why he chose to shoot (and be shot) at police rather than surrendering his weapons yesterday. The problem now is not to react to the extremism, but to deal with the overwhelming causal factors that helps to lay the foundation for such extreme behaviour. We may never be able to eradicate the violent and desperate feelings from our society, but we can certainly try.
For more information on the Need for Speed video game crash in Toronto this past January go to: http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=cd1d1928-d102-4a8e-aa9a-ffa0bc013dad
For more information on the second Montreal massacre go to any Canadian news portal.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Bush's State of the Union = Disarray
Today, there will be a large proportion of rants and raves dedicated to Bush's State of the Nation speech, given yesterday during prime-time.
And with good reason. While debates still rage as to whether Bush really is in control (and whether or not he's a strategic genius) the speech does provide further insight into an administration hell-bent on justifying past and current actions.
As a result, President Bush spent at least one-fifth of his address justifying the safety of the United States on the "success" of the war in Iraq. While his arguments continue to be trite sound-bites, he, once again, relied on his link of the current Iraqi siege to the battle between civilizations.
"It is a struggle for civilisation. We are fighting to maintain a way of life enjoyed by free nations."
It is a line that political scientists, theorists and analyists have dismissed for years. The fact is the argument was put forth by Samuel Huntington over a decade ago. While the argument, at the time, was a fresh(er) perspective on the global problem of insurgencies and civil wars, it was found to be based on faulty logic and inaccurate historical data. Huntington, himself, conceded that there were holes in his theory (though, he did defend the theory as sound, despite not being able to account for the inconsistencies).
The main theory behind Huntington's argument was that geopolitics (ie: world politics) revolved around cultures not nation-states. As such, geographical borders were arbitrary and irrelevant and as a result there is an increase in inter and intra-state wars. Huntington argued that the main civilizations (comprised of: Islam, Hindu, Western and Sinic cultures) would battle until a victor was established.
Now, Bush is using this logic and rhetoric to justify America's war on Iraq. According to Bush, we are in a state of uncertainty and danger because the 'other-side' is still fighting for supremecy. Unless this 'other' is tamed and suppressed the American people will never be safe. As a result he used a good portion of his speech to convince a growing skeptical population that the was in Iraq was part of that civilizational war on al-Queda.
"I'm often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat... and after 9/11 Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take," Mr Bush said. "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."
The sad fact is the world is not safer with Saddam ousted from power. While a portion of the Kurds (and even Iraqi's) may have benefitted from Hussein's removal from militant office, the rest of the world has suffered.
According to Peter Singer of the Brookings Institute: "In the five years since 9/11, we've had two major ground wars, spent over a trillion dollars, and suffered more than 20,000 American casualties to prevent [a] repeat."
Not only is America sending soldiers to their death, they are also contributing to the CREATED culture of opportunism and hate.
Singer continues by saying: "The 9/11 attacks have created a new prism of global affairs, a tension between a state and a religion that plays out on an international level as never before. Now, nearly 90% of [people] in Muslim states view the U.S. as the primary security threat to their country. Around 60% have said in polls that weakening the Muslim world was a primary objective of the United States. At the same time, the number of Americans who have a negative view of the religion of Islam itself has grown each year since the 9/11 attacks, to now constitute nearly half of the American body politic. We are in the midst of a building schism driven by themes of hurt, fear, and suspicion that feeds both the forces of terrorism and our own resulting insecurity."
The reality is we cannot control another man's thoughts, deeds and actions; what we can control is our response (rather than our reaction). To attempt to re-educate (indoctrinate) an entire nation has already failed in the 20th century -- for examples see the collapse of Stalinistic communism in the USSR, China's economic rebellion, Northern Ireland's persistence for independence, Pol Pot's failure to recreate rural Cambodia, Sri Lanka's continued civil war among the Sinhalese and Tamils, America's war on booze along with the McCarthy Red Scare and, finally, the removal and re-education of First Nation's youth in Canada. All of these situations had some component of indoctrination. All of them (and more) failed miserably with long-lasting and powerful effects.
In the final analysis, Bush probably believes the rational he espouses. Considering what Einstein -- arguably the greatest mind of the 20th century -- had to say -- "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war" -- it would be wise for Bush to begin seeking guidance from those outside his strategic alliance. However, for all intents and purposes Bush's speech clearly shows that he has no intention of backing down, or, in otherwords: bullshit baffles brains.
As such, I leave you with another of Einstein's pithy quotes:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
For more information on Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations go to Wikipedia and search using his name: www.wikipedia.org
For more information on a summit held in Washington DC over the past weekend to bridge the divide between America and Islam go to: http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/singer20060907.htm
For more information on Bush's speech go to CBC:
www.cbc.ca
And with good reason. While debates still rage as to whether Bush really is in control (and whether or not he's a strategic genius) the speech does provide further insight into an administration hell-bent on justifying past and current actions.
As a result, President Bush spent at least one-fifth of his address justifying the safety of the United States on the "success" of the war in Iraq. While his arguments continue to be trite sound-bites, he, once again, relied on his link of the current Iraqi siege to the battle between civilizations.
"It is a struggle for civilisation. We are fighting to maintain a way of life enjoyed by free nations."
It is a line that political scientists, theorists and analyists have dismissed for years. The fact is the argument was put forth by Samuel Huntington over a decade ago. While the argument, at the time, was a fresh(er) perspective on the global problem of insurgencies and civil wars, it was found to be based on faulty logic and inaccurate historical data. Huntington, himself, conceded that there were holes in his theory (though, he did defend the theory as sound, despite not being able to account for the inconsistencies).
The main theory behind Huntington's argument was that geopolitics (ie: world politics) revolved around cultures not nation-states. As such, geographical borders were arbitrary and irrelevant and as a result there is an increase in inter and intra-state wars. Huntington argued that the main civilizations (comprised of: Islam, Hindu, Western and Sinic cultures) would battle until a victor was established.
Now, Bush is using this logic and rhetoric to justify America's war on Iraq. According to Bush, we are in a state of uncertainty and danger because the 'other-side' is still fighting for supremecy. Unless this 'other' is tamed and suppressed the American people will never be safe. As a result he used a good portion of his speech to convince a growing skeptical population that the was in Iraq was part of that civilizational war on al-Queda.
"I'm often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat... and after 9/11 Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take," Mr Bush said. "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."
The sad fact is the world is not safer with Saddam ousted from power. While a portion of the Kurds (and even Iraqi's) may have benefitted from Hussein's removal from militant office, the rest of the world has suffered.
According to Peter Singer of the Brookings Institute: "In the five years since 9/11, we've had two major ground wars, spent over a trillion dollars, and suffered more than 20,000 American casualties to prevent [a] repeat."
Not only is America sending soldiers to their death, they are also contributing to the CREATED culture of opportunism and hate.
Singer continues by saying: "The 9/11 attacks have created a new prism of global affairs, a tension between a state and a religion that plays out on an international level as never before. Now, nearly 90% of [people] in Muslim states view the U.S. as the primary security threat to their country. Around 60% have said in polls that weakening the Muslim world was a primary objective of the United States. At the same time, the number of Americans who have a negative view of the religion of Islam itself has grown each year since the 9/11 attacks, to now constitute nearly half of the American body politic. We are in the midst of a building schism driven by themes of hurt, fear, and suspicion that feeds both the forces of terrorism and our own resulting insecurity."
The reality is we cannot control another man's thoughts, deeds and actions; what we can control is our response (rather than our reaction). To attempt to re-educate (indoctrinate) an entire nation has already failed in the 20th century -- for examples see the collapse of Stalinistic communism in the USSR, China's economic rebellion, Northern Ireland's persistence for independence, Pol Pot's failure to recreate rural Cambodia, Sri Lanka's continued civil war among the Sinhalese and Tamils, America's war on booze along with the McCarthy Red Scare and, finally, the removal and re-education of First Nation's youth in Canada. All of these situations had some component of indoctrination. All of them (and more) failed miserably with long-lasting and powerful effects.
In the final analysis, Bush probably believes the rational he espouses. Considering what Einstein -- arguably the greatest mind of the 20th century -- had to say -- "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war" -- it would be wise for Bush to begin seeking guidance from those outside his strategic alliance. However, for all intents and purposes Bush's speech clearly shows that he has no intention of backing down, or, in otherwords: bullshit baffles brains.
As such, I leave you with another of Einstein's pithy quotes:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
For more information on Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations go to Wikipedia and search using his name: www.wikipedia.org
For more information on a summit held in Washington DC over the past weekend to bridge the divide between America and Islam go to: http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/singer20060907.htm
For more information on Bush's speech go to CBC:
www.cbc.ca
Monday, September 11, 2006
Post 9/11 and the uncertainty of it all
Five years ago today, The Toronto Star headline read: AMERICA UNDER ATTACK.
Regardless of all the other situations, occurences and deviances occuring in the world today, September 11 -- 9/11 -- will, forever, be a significant day for North Americans.
And when the dust had settled and the clean-up of one the worst terrorist attacks on North American soil came to a close the statistics were shocking:
Regardless of all the other situations, occurences and deviances occuring in the world today, September 11 -- 9/11 -- will, forever, be a significant day for North Americans.
And when the dust had settled and the clean-up of one the worst terrorist attacks on North American soil came to a close the statistics were shocking:
- Actual time when attacks took place: 8:46 a.m. and 9:02 a.m.
- Time the burning towers stood: 56 minutes and 102 minutes.
- Time they took to fall: 12 seconds.
- Total number killed in attacks (official figure as of 9/5/02): 2,819
- Number of firefighters and paramedics killed: 343
- Number of NYPD officers: 23
- Number of Port Authority police officers: 37
- Number of WTC companies that lost people: 60
- Number of employees who died in Tower One: 1,402
- Number of employees who died in Tower Two: 614
- Number of employees lost at Cantor Fitzgerald: 658
- Number of U.S. troops killed in Operation Enduring Freedom: 22
- Number of nations whose citizens were killed in attacks: 115
- Ratio of men to women who died: 3:1
- Age of the greatest number who died: between 35 and 39
- Bodies found "intact": 289
- Body parts found: 19,858
- Number of families who got no remains: 1,717
- Estimated units of blood donated to the New York Blood Center: 36,000
- Total units of donated blood actually used: 258
- Number of people who lost a spouse or partner in the attacks: 1,609
- Estimated number of children who lost a parent: 3,051
- Percentage of Americans who knew someone hurt or killed in the attacks: 20%
- FDNY retirements, January–July 2002: 661
- Number of funerals attended by Rudy Giuliani in 2001: 200
- Number of FDNY vehicles destroyed: 98
- Tons of debris removed from site: 1,506,124
- Days fires continued to burn after the attack: 99
- Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100
- Days the New York Stock Exchange was closed: 6
- Point drop in the Dow Jones industrial average when the NYSE reopened: 684.81
- Days after 9/11 that the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan: 26
- Total number of hate crimes reported to the Council on American-Islamic Relations nationwide since 9/11: 1,714
- Economic loss to New York in month following the attacks: $105 billion
- Estimated cost of cleanup: $600 million
- Total FEMA money spent on the emergency: $970 million
- Estimated amount donated to 9/11 charities: $1.4 billion
- Estimated amount of insurance paid worldwide related to 9/11: $40.2 billion
- Estimated amount of money needed to overhaul lower-Manhattan subways: $7.5 billion
- Amount of money recently granted by U.S. government to overhaul lower-Manhattan subways: $4.55 billion
- Estimated amount of money raised for funds dedicated to NYPD and FDNY families: $500 million
- Number of mentions of 9/11 at the Oscars: 26
- Estimated number of New Yorkers suffering from post-traumatic-stress disorder as a result of 9/11: 422,000
While the numbers may be overwhelming, the reality is that a collective period of grief and mourning is still taking place. This does not usurp or supplant the individual griefing that each direct and indirect victim has had to endure, but this collective grief provided justification for certain actions and responses by the US (and others) to domestic issues and international affairs.
So what do current actions have to do with grief? Noted author and expert on death and grief, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, identifies five stages of grief:
Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
Anger (why is this happening to me?)
Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
Depression (I don't care anymore)
Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)
As such, I am willing to predict that the great George W. Bush is, himself, stuck in the bargaining stage of grief; this matched with his position and power, has helped a nation stall in the non-linear collective process of grieving.
In order to appreciate this statement, let's examine what has happened, from an emotional state, since 9/11.
Initially people were stunned. The images of the two planes crashing into the towers, and the images of people jumping to their deaths were indelible reminders of the horrors of those first few moments on September 11, 2001 and a symbol of what was to come. Most of us spent at least a day, if not a few weeks in the first stage of denial. We were shocked that such a horrific, well-orchestrated attack could happen on our home turf. We were horrified that such an attack could kill so many and initiate such an incredibly painful fall-out process (health, financially, psychologically).
Then came anger. Day 26, Bush Jr. and his boys got on the horses and rode in with the cavalry. Their war cry was literally revenge: find the man who is primarily responsible and we will be victorious. The fact that no one can overcome death and that victory over the perpetrator is but a small consolation prize in the grander scheme is completely ignored. Denial helps us to delay the inevitable -- it allows us to ignore reality. So months are spent bombing and rebuilding; bombing and rebuilding. Five years later, the US, Canada and other nations that have built their reputation on peacebuilding are feeling the fall-out of the Afghani's grief process. And the cycle continues.
Now, we are no longer in denial. Things have changed. Lives of all North Americans have changed dramatically. For some this translates into longer delays at the airport; for others it meant a loss in their stock portfolio; for others it meant a spike in insurance premiums and still for others there were very direct impacts of having lost and buried a loved one or, now, nursing a loved one through a 9/11 incurred injury. Once the denial and anger stage has left, we approach bargaining. In America this bargaining has taken on a life of its own.
Promises are made: if this person is caught and punished, we will be safe; if this person is removed from power, we will be safe; if these people are held into account, others will not follow; if this country is proven to be wrong, others will acknowledge and justify our course of action. Yet, all of these statements (and many more) are simply moments of bargaining. They are deals with life (if you're an atheist or agnostic) or pleas with *God* (if you are spiritual or of ANY religious practice -- God is simply a grammatical word used to describe something greater than us). They are the promises we make to ourselves when something goes awry.
But these promises will never fill the hold we feel. They will never replace a loved one; they will never give us back our sense of security; they will never end the hatred that is felt towards Westernized countries. Never. I am sure of that (a rummage through history also provides ample evidence of this assertion and I would be happy to discuss this with ANYONE who does not believe this truth).
So, in order for all of us in North America to truly start feeling safe in our own country, we have to allow ourselves to experience the grief -- not simply for the losses incurred on 9/11, but also for all the losses directly attributable to the actions taken during the bargaining phase AND the very real loss that our lives have changed. Period.
Just a century ago Generals realized they no longer lived in a world dominated by close-range fighting tactics. They switched to long range missiles. Now, we are living in a world where two fighting forces meet on a predetermined battlefield. The practicalities of violent conflict have changed, and along with that change must come an acceptance (born by grief...because no one likes change, and everyone mourns a loss, any kind of loss).
If we were to actually do this -- collectively mourn our loss -- then we may actually see the absurdity of having armed 'peacekeepers' in Afghanistan rather than aidworkers; then we may see that we, as real or imagined enemies in Iraq, will never be able to properly rebuild in a country where we are mistrusted and mistreated. Only then may we, collectivey, appreciate that in order to find a permanent, lasting, peaceful solution, we need to stop looking at the security of the past and start looking at the potential of the future.
In the end (and there is always an end) grief and its stages are about accepting the uncertainty of it all.
For more 9/11 statistics go to: http://www.newyorkmetro.com
For more description on Kubler-Ross' stages of grief go to: http://www.cancersurvivors.org/Coping/end%20term/stages.htm
Friday, September 08, 2006
Crack-black-berrie: the addiction of choice for all corporate climbers
I have a friend. We'll call him Brant. Brant has a Blackberrie -- an older model, nothing too fancy, but a Blackberrie nonetheless. Recently (as in a day or two before my birthday in August) I had the opportunity to speak with Brant. I was in Toronto on my cell phone; he was in backwoods Ontario...on his Blackberrie.
I relate this story for two reasons. One: to demonstrate how powerful our ability to connect is these days. Two: to display the absurdity of this connection (who takes their Blackberrie camping????)
Now the absurdity is beginning to spiral out of control -- American-style.
We all know that Americans have a penchant for litigation. Spill a cup of scalding hot coffee - sue the company. Find a fake finger in your fries, sue the company.
Now, academics in the US are anticipating another slew of corporate lawsuits, this time regarding the Blackberrie.
In a New York Sun article, published yesterday, a management expert from Rutger's School of Business predicted that a soon-to-be-published study will prompt a wave of protest and litigation as disgruntled workers realize how fed-up they with their digital personal assistants.
The root cause: technology addiction.
This management expert also predicted that this phenomena could cost corporate America millions of dollars.
"If companies develop a culture in which people are expected to be available 24 hours a day, then they should be prepared for the physical and psychological consequences," Rutger's management expert, Gayle Porter said. "Addicts exhibit extreme behavior and have no control over themselves. So a corporation handing someone a BlackBerry on his first day of work could be seen as enabling, even accelerating, a serious addiction to technology."
Good Lord.
Does that mean we should sue the corner-store attendant for distribution of scratch-n-wins? Or fine the casino owners, blackjack dealers and roulette spinners for making the gambling addict more accessible to their drug of choice? I know, why don't we close down all the liquor stores, smoke shops and, while we're at it, the busty n' lusty sex stores -- they spread nothing but vice and fixation.
I do believe that workaholism is a serious issue. I lived with one: it is a serious issue. However, holding corporations to account for behaviour that we must take responsibility for is just one more way of not taking responsibility.
Yes, addiction exists. And yes, people need help, which can come in the form of complete abstinence. In this sense, I believe corporate America (Canada, etc.) needs to take into consideration that certain people should have the option to opt out -- to choose alternative methods for communication and functionality. And this option works. My father, bless his soul, was a very hard-working, very well-respected man. He spent his career communicating large concepts and ensuring that all sides were on the same page. He spent his career working hard -- often surpassing the regular 9 to 5 day that is required of some. However, he also spent his career avoiding the technology of entrapment. He "lost" two cellphones. Broke five pagers and actually had the nerve to take in a laptop whose keyboard was completely destroyed (truth be told, my father wanted to watch the cat have a bit of fun). The fact is, my father communicated on time, on schedule, and, when necessary, on demand without the aid of 24/7 technology. The reason: he was responsible. He knew when he needed to step up and he didn't need a little gadget to prompt or remind him.
So, while we thumb-text our way into technology dependence, I think I will sit back, put my cell phone on vibrate and follow the way of my father.
For more information on the crack-berrie phenomenom go to:
http://www.nysun.com/article/39212
I relate this story for two reasons. One: to demonstrate how powerful our ability to connect is these days. Two: to display the absurdity of this connection (who takes their Blackberrie camping????)
Now the absurdity is beginning to spiral out of control -- American-style.
We all know that Americans have a penchant for litigation. Spill a cup of scalding hot coffee - sue the company. Find a fake finger in your fries, sue the company.
Now, academics in the US are anticipating another slew of corporate lawsuits, this time regarding the Blackberrie.
In a New York Sun article, published yesterday, a management expert from Rutger's School of Business predicted that a soon-to-be-published study will prompt a wave of protest and litigation as disgruntled workers realize how fed-up they with their digital personal assistants.
The root cause: technology addiction.
This management expert also predicted that this phenomena could cost corporate America millions of dollars.
"If companies develop a culture in which people are expected to be available 24 hours a day, then they should be prepared for the physical and psychological consequences," Rutger's management expert, Gayle Porter said. "Addicts exhibit extreme behavior and have no control over themselves. So a corporation handing someone a BlackBerry on his first day of work could be seen as enabling, even accelerating, a serious addiction to technology."
Good Lord.
Does that mean we should sue the corner-store attendant for distribution of scratch-n-wins? Or fine the casino owners, blackjack dealers and roulette spinners for making the gambling addict more accessible to their drug of choice? I know, why don't we close down all the liquor stores, smoke shops and, while we're at it, the busty n' lusty sex stores -- they spread nothing but vice and fixation.
I do believe that workaholism is a serious issue. I lived with one: it is a serious issue. However, holding corporations to account for behaviour that we must take responsibility for is just one more way of not taking responsibility.
Yes, addiction exists. And yes, people need help, which can come in the form of complete abstinence. In this sense, I believe corporate America (Canada, etc.) needs to take into consideration that certain people should have the option to opt out -- to choose alternative methods for communication and functionality. And this option works. My father, bless his soul, was a very hard-working, very well-respected man. He spent his career communicating large concepts and ensuring that all sides were on the same page. He spent his career working hard -- often surpassing the regular 9 to 5 day that is required of some. However, he also spent his career avoiding the technology of entrapment. He "lost" two cellphones. Broke five pagers and actually had the nerve to take in a laptop whose keyboard was completely destroyed (truth be told, my father wanted to watch the cat have a bit of fun). The fact is, my father communicated on time, on schedule, and, when necessary, on demand without the aid of 24/7 technology. The reason: he was responsible. He knew when he needed to step up and he didn't need a little gadget to prompt or remind him.
So, while we thumb-text our way into technology dependence, I think I will sit back, put my cell phone on vibrate and follow the way of my father.
For more information on the crack-berrie phenomenom go to:
http://www.nysun.com/article/39212
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Veg-Heads Unite for One Weekend
Be prepared.
This weekend, veg-heads from across the nation will converge on our lakefront to take in Toronto's 22nd Annual Food Fair.
First, may I commend the organizers for NOT sticking the world international into the show. It always feels somewhat juvenile when Toronto conventions/conferences/trade shows throw in that word -- as if we are playing: my city is bigger than your city tussle match.
Second, this is actually a rather large fair that attracts a rather diverse crowd.
Now, a cynic would simply see this as an opportunity for veg-heads all across (southeastern) North America to converge and wax on about how superior they are to the "regular" pork-scoffing eaters; a way to affirm our superiority, as they munch on tofu and eat vegan ice cream.
The reality, however, is that many of the visitors are part-time non-meat eaters. People who are trying -- for moral, ethical or health reasons -- to rid their diet of animal flesh.
This fair offers this "on the fence" crowd, along with the self-committed vegetarians and vegans, an opportunity to celebrate their alternative.
Joking aside, this is not a display of superiority, but rather an invitation for examination.
And it comes at a rather poignant time. Author Eric Schlosser, of Fast Food Nation fame, is once again examining (naye -- attacking) the fast-food industry. He's got a new book, Chew On This, aimed at deprogramming kids from their burger, fries and Coke compulsion. He's also got a screenplay adaptation of his original book coming out -- a fictionalized account of the facts presented in his Fast Food Nation book.
While Schlosser's examination is a rather ephemeral examination of our culture and our food habits, the Vegetarian Food Fair is a practical method of self-examination and respectful action. Both are essential.
If we are ever to deal with the growing Western problems surrounding food (including food disorders, body image, obesity, resource abuse and consumption and excess) we may, then, get an opportunity to have a real impact on the other 80% of the world that doesn't wallow in such luxuries.
Enjoy your bean and beet burger...it's mmmm-mmmm good.
Toronto's Vegetarian Food Fair will be held THIS weekend (September 8, 9 and 10, 2006) at York Quay Centre, Harbourfront Centre in Toronto, Canada. The hours of the fair are:
Friday, Sept. 8 — 4 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Saturday, Sept. 9 — 11 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Sunday, Sept. 10 — 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
And admission is free.
For more information on the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair go to:
http://www.veg.ca/foodfair/
For more information on Schlosser's book go to:
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2006/08/31/philpott/index.html
For an article on Schlosser go to:
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/08/10/meal/
This weekend, veg-heads from across the nation will converge on our lakefront to take in Toronto's 22nd Annual Food Fair.
First, may I commend the organizers for NOT sticking the world international into the show. It always feels somewhat juvenile when Toronto conventions/conferences/trade shows throw in that word -- as if we are playing: my city is bigger than your city tussle match.
Second, this is actually a rather large fair that attracts a rather diverse crowd.
Now, a cynic would simply see this as an opportunity for veg-heads all across (southeastern) North America to converge and wax on about how superior they are to the "regular" pork-scoffing eaters; a way to affirm our superiority, as they munch on tofu and eat vegan ice cream.
The reality, however, is that many of the visitors are part-time non-meat eaters. People who are trying -- for moral, ethical or health reasons -- to rid their diet of animal flesh.
This fair offers this "on the fence" crowd, along with the self-committed vegetarians and vegans, an opportunity to celebrate their alternative.
Joking aside, this is not a display of superiority, but rather an invitation for examination.
And it comes at a rather poignant time. Author Eric Schlosser, of Fast Food Nation fame, is once again examining (naye -- attacking) the fast-food industry. He's got a new book, Chew On This, aimed at deprogramming kids from their burger, fries and Coke compulsion. He's also got a screenplay adaptation of his original book coming out -- a fictionalized account of the facts presented in his Fast Food Nation book.
While Schlosser's examination is a rather ephemeral examination of our culture and our food habits, the Vegetarian Food Fair is a practical method of self-examination and respectful action. Both are essential.
If we are ever to deal with the growing Western problems surrounding food (including food disorders, body image, obesity, resource abuse and consumption and excess) we may, then, get an opportunity to have a real impact on the other 80% of the world that doesn't wallow in such luxuries.
Enjoy your bean and beet burger...it's mmmm-mmmm good.
Toronto's Vegetarian Food Fair will be held THIS weekend (September 8, 9 and 10, 2006) at York Quay Centre, Harbourfront Centre in Toronto, Canada. The hours of the fair are:
Friday, Sept. 8 — 4 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Saturday, Sept. 9 — 11 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Sunday, Sept. 10 — 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
And admission is free.
For more information on the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair go to:
http://www.veg.ca/foodfair/
For more information on Schlosser's book go to:
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2006/08/31/philpott/index.html
For an article on Schlosser go to:
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/08/10/meal/
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Discombobulated reader gains ground
One aspect about news and commentary that is frustrating is that, on the whole, the business often overlooks updates and revisits of previously discussed issues.
While many reporters, editors and publishers would profess that this is niether intentional nor a problem, it has always been my belief that our inability to follow up on all but the most sensational stories leaves our informed lifes very discombobulated. We obtain pieces of a story but the pieces are just that: pieces. Snippets of an overall issue. Problems of an overall circumstance. As a result we feel overwhelmed and burdened by the responsibility of all the angst, pain, misery and work that is required (if one were to really try and make a difference).
Hence, as writers, reporters, informers and gate-keepers (bearing in mind that the Internet has now democratized this role) it is our responsibility to continually go back, to revisit, to update and, where possible, to celebrate.
As a result I've compiled a list of updates -- stories (by other sources) that either update, provide insight, or further explain the small cache of issues that have been presented in this blog.
Peruse at your leisure:
Coca-Cola boycott -- how a small non-profit by an ex-pat Indian started a global wave:
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/09/05/hoffman/
http://www.newstarget.com/020065.html
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=45378&cat=Business+News&more=%2Fnews%2Fmore-business-news.asp
http://www.countercurrents.org/gl-mesbahi130105.htm
Monsanto march into gene domination (or how the corporation is fairing with their introduction of genetically modified organisms):
http://www.foodconsumer.org/
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_41591.shtml
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=64178
Child labour news updates:
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=25762&n
_tit=Mangalore%3A+Union+Government+Amends+Child+Labour+Act
http://allafrica.com/stories/200609020111.html
http://www.7days.ae/2006/09/01/asian-child-labour-is-still-too-high.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1779857,0006.htm
http://in.today.reuters.com/ (search India)
Forbes boycott (sexist verbage used regarding women):
no update
Bottling water: the commodification of a natural resource:
http://winnipegsun.com/ (look at columnist: Lydia Lovric)
http://www.lefthook.org/Reviews/Yu012404.html (older source, but it provides insight into a book on this very topic BY Canadians)
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1734323.htm
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fe20060823sh.html
Living wage campaigns:
http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=5363685
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/41192/
Gays and Wal-not-so-s-Mart:
http://www.businessweek.com (search Walmart)
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17630.html (view from the other side)
Greening the airways (sustainable travel):
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=33877
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/travel/story/0,,1863666,00.html
http://travelvideo.tv/news/more.php?id=9528_0_1_0_M
http://www.gotravelinsurance.co.uk/public/news.asp?id=17594159
Art as activism:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20351851-16947,00.html
http://www.frieze.com/column_single.asp?c=338
http://www.sltrib.com/westvalley/ci_4267596
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause1sep01,0,2265260.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20060904/NEWS/109040023
(NOTE: sorry for the lateness of my post -- it appears technology took over. Blogger was experiencing...problems).
While many reporters, editors and publishers would profess that this is niether intentional nor a problem, it has always been my belief that our inability to follow up on all but the most sensational stories leaves our informed lifes very discombobulated. We obtain pieces of a story but the pieces are just that: pieces. Snippets of an overall issue. Problems of an overall circumstance. As a result we feel overwhelmed and burdened by the responsibility of all the angst, pain, misery and work that is required (if one were to really try and make a difference).
Hence, as writers, reporters, informers and gate-keepers (bearing in mind that the Internet has now democratized this role) it is our responsibility to continually go back, to revisit, to update and, where possible, to celebrate.
As a result I've compiled a list of updates -- stories (by other sources) that either update, provide insight, or further explain the small cache of issues that have been presented in this blog.
Peruse at your leisure:
Coca-Cola boycott -- how a small non-profit by an ex-pat Indian started a global wave:
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/09/05/hoffman/
http://www.newstarget.com/020065.html
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=45378&cat=Business+News&more=%2Fnews%2Fmore-business-news.asp
http://www.countercurrents.org/gl-mesbahi130105.htm
Monsanto march into gene domination (or how the corporation is fairing with their introduction of genetically modified organisms):
http://www.foodconsumer.org/
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_41591.shtml
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=64178
Child labour news updates:
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=25762&n
_tit=Mangalore%3A+Union+Government+Amends+Child+Labour+Act
http://allafrica.com/stories/200609020111.html
http://www.7days.ae/2006/09/01/asian-child-labour-is-still-too-high.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1779857,0006.htm
http://in.today.reuters.com/ (search India)
Forbes boycott (sexist verbage used regarding women):
no update
Bottling water: the commodification of a natural resource:
http://winnipegsun.com/ (look at columnist: Lydia Lovric)
http://www.lefthook.org/Reviews/Yu012404.html (older source, but it provides insight into a book on this very topic BY Canadians)
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1734323.htm
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fe20060823sh.html
Living wage campaigns:
http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=5363685
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/41192/
Gays and Wal-not-so-s-Mart:
http://www.businessweek.com (search Walmart)
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17630.html (view from the other side)
Greening the airways (sustainable travel):
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=33877
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/travel/story/0,,1863666,00.html
http://travelvideo.tv/news/more.php?id=9528_0_1_0_M
http://www.gotravelinsurance.co.uk/public/news.asp?id=17594159
Art as activism:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20351851-16947,00.html
http://www.frieze.com/column_single.asp?c=338
http://www.sltrib.com/westvalley/ci_4267596
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause1sep01,0,2265260.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20060904/NEWS/109040023
(NOTE: sorry for the lateness of my post -- it appears technology took over. Blogger was experiencing...problems).
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Attention all Gay Wal-Mart Shoppers
Oh, second blog of the day ONLY because this is priceless.
It appears that the uncertainty of US foreign policy and US domestic issues is prompting a few major corporations to start hedging their bets.
That means that Wal-Mart has opted for a collusion and illusion strategy.
On one hand the megalithic dollar-dropper spends 85% of its political donations on the Republican Party. The party known for pro-traditional (read: religious) family values that fights against the notion of expanding the definition of family and spouse from the myopic, patriarchially defined version of man and wife (notice the distinction -- person and property) to same-sex partnerships. Collusion.
On the other hand, Wal-only-too-s-Mart recently formed a partnership with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, a move the corporation calls "a very sincere effort to reach out to people who are a significant part of our customer base." Illusion.
Oh, I get it -- we'll take your money, but we won't support your politics.
While the gay and lesbian community is valuable for their ability to spend and consume, their importance and role, as defined by our societal customs and laws, are not vital enough to support and establish on equal footing.
This is the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
This is also the difference between politics and economics.
We'll take your money. But you don't have to like you.
Thankfully, Wal-not-so-s-Mart does not simply discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Their disdain for low-income workers and women (even in the role of spouse) is legendary.
So, I say good luck Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce! May you infiltrate from the inside out, rather than being co-opted into Wal-Mart's hedge your bets marketing ploy of illusion and collusion.
(FINAL NOTE: Wal-Mart WOULD not announce the partnership. Rather, it left that responsibility to NGLCC. Perhaps...because the monolithic retail giant realized that their important consumers on the Republican Right would probably not visit the NGLCC site).
For more information on the partnership between NGLCC and Wal-Mart go to:
http://www.nglcc.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/5735
For a great synopsis of why this deal is a ridiculous marketing ploy go to Peter Laarman's blog at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-laarman/will-gay-people-now-save-_b_27984.html
It appears that the uncertainty of US foreign policy and US domestic issues is prompting a few major corporations to start hedging their bets.
That means that Wal-Mart has opted for a collusion and illusion strategy.
On one hand the megalithic dollar-dropper spends 85% of its political donations on the Republican Party. The party known for pro-traditional (read: religious) family values that fights against the notion of expanding the definition of family and spouse from the myopic, patriarchially defined version of man and wife (notice the distinction -- person and property) to same-sex partnerships. Collusion.
On the other hand, Wal-only-too-s-Mart recently formed a partnership with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, a move the corporation calls "a very sincere effort to reach out to people who are a significant part of our customer base." Illusion.
Oh, I get it -- we'll take your money, but we won't support your politics.
While the gay and lesbian community is valuable for their ability to spend and consume, their importance and role, as defined by our societal customs and laws, are not vital enough to support and establish on equal footing.
This is the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
This is also the difference between politics and economics.
We'll take your money. But you don't have to like you.
Thankfully, Wal-not-so-s-Mart does not simply discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Their disdain for low-income workers and women (even in the role of spouse) is legendary.
So, I say good luck Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce! May you infiltrate from the inside out, rather than being co-opted into Wal-Mart's hedge your bets marketing ploy of illusion and collusion.
(FINAL NOTE: Wal-Mart WOULD not announce the partnership. Rather, it left that responsibility to NGLCC. Perhaps...because the monolithic retail giant realized that their important consumers on the Republican Right would probably not visit the NGLCC site).
For more information on the partnership between NGLCC and Wal-Mart go to:
http://www.nglcc.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/5735
For a great synopsis of why this deal is a ridiculous marketing ploy go to Peter Laarman's blog at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-laarman/will-gay-people-now-save-_b_27984.html
GMO seed: Beg for Forgiveness
There is an old adage that it is better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Apparently, Bayer CropScience (and other GMO firms, such as Monsento) strongly abide by this philosophy.
Bayer multi-corp has been hit with two more lawsuits (bringing the total to three) claiming that trace amounts of its genetically modified rice were found in rice storage bins in Arkansas and Missouri-- leading to the contamination of the US long grain rice supply (read: ENTIRE US long grain supply).
Yes -- that's the equation: do, don't ask; small amounts of GMO contaminent; entire supply of product contaminated.
The result: price of product drops dramatically (there are entire swaths of countries that absolutely refuse any contact with GMO); farmers suffer from current price drop; farmers must now pay for the priviledge of using patented rice (even though it wasn't an option they chose).
The sad reality is Bayer CropScience simply took a page out of Monsanto page book. Monsanto is the corporation Saskatchewan farmers are sueing (in a class action) regarding the potential contimation of wheat. Originally, Monsanto-produced GMO corn had infected a farmer's field -- which prompted the company to sue Percy Schmeiser for use of product without authorization. The sad reality is Percy Schmeiser never planted the modified seed. He simply had the misfortune of being in close proximity to Monsanto fields; this resulted in contamination, which ruined the fields owned and operated by Percy Schmeiser.
Final analysis: It's better to beg for forgiveness, and reap the rewards, as the punishment for such action a) does not deter such behaviour and, b) cannot outweigh the financial rewards (current, but in particular future) that will result in the dominance of a proprietary seed.
Hopefully, legal actions taken against Bayer CropScience will support the former legal decision against Monsanto -- that contimination is not the responsibility of the farmer and that we, as
For more information go to: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-08-29T184418Z_01_N29437472_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-FOOD-BAYER-RICE-DC.XML&from=business
For more information on Percy Schmeiser and Monsanto: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Apparently, Bayer CropScience (and other GMO firms, such as Monsento) strongly abide by this philosophy.
Bayer multi-corp has been hit with two more lawsuits (bringing the total to three) claiming that trace amounts of its genetically modified rice were found in rice storage bins in Arkansas and Missouri-- leading to the contamination of the US long grain rice supply (read: ENTIRE US long grain supply).
Yes -- that's the equation: do, don't ask; small amounts of GMO contaminent; entire supply of product contaminated.
The result: price of product drops dramatically (there are entire swaths of countries that absolutely refuse any contact with GMO); farmers suffer from current price drop; farmers must now pay for the priviledge of using patented rice (even though it wasn't an option they chose).
The sad reality is Bayer CropScience simply took a page out of Monsanto page book. Monsanto is the corporation Saskatchewan farmers are sueing (in a class action) regarding the potential contimation of wheat. Originally, Monsanto-produced GMO corn had infected a farmer's field -- which prompted the company to sue Percy Schmeiser for use of product without authorization. The sad reality is Percy Schmeiser never planted the modified seed. He simply had the misfortune of being in close proximity to Monsanto fields; this resulted in contamination, which ruined the fields owned and operated by Percy Schmeiser.
Final analysis: It's better to beg for forgiveness, and reap the rewards, as the punishment for such action a) does not deter such behaviour and, b) cannot outweigh the financial rewards (current, but in particular future) that will result in the dominance of a proprietary seed.
Hopefully, legal actions taken against Bayer CropScience will support the former legal decision against Monsanto -- that contimination is not the responsibility of the farmer and that we, as
For more information go to: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-08-29T184418Z_01_N29437472_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-FOOD-BAYER-RICE-DC.XML&from=business
For more information on Percy Schmeiser and Monsanto: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Friday, September 01, 2006
Greening Canada’s airways
It's not rocket science. Well, it is, but the impact of that science is fairly obvious. One of the largest contributors to air pollution is the use of airborne vehicles. Yet in this age of
global competition and cultural awareness, international and domestic travel is a luxury few of us are willing to give-up.
There is hope. In May of this year, Ecologo was launched, by Uniglobe Travel. This simple program allows passengers to invest in Green Flight credits when booking with Uniglobe Travel – a Canadian based travel agency. US-based Expedia is also offering travellers a green option. Expedia travellers can opt to pay a small fee to sponsor a measured, verified reduction in greehnouse gas emissions directly proportional to the emissions created by their plane flight.
Given that airfligh accounts for 13 percent of transportation-based emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming -- these new green ticket options enable air travellers to reduce the impact.
For more information on Expedia go to: http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=45862
For more information on UniGlobe go to: http://www.uniglobepacifictravel.com/site/viewhome.asp?aid=18878&sit=130&vty=ARTICLE&tid=12374&sessionid=
For more information on air pollution and air travel go to: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1988/6/88.06.06.x.html#h
global competition and cultural awareness, international and domestic travel is a luxury few of us are willing to give-up.
There is hope. In May of this year, Ecologo was launched, by Uniglobe Travel. This simple program allows passengers to invest in Green Flight credits when booking with Uniglobe Travel – a Canadian based travel agency. US-based Expedia is also offering travellers a green option. Expedia travellers can opt to pay a small fee to sponsor a measured, verified reduction in greehnouse gas emissions directly proportional to the emissions created by their plane flight.
Given that airfligh accounts for 13 percent of transportation-based emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming -- these new green ticket options enable air travellers to reduce the impact.
For more information on Expedia go to: http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=45862
For more information on UniGlobe go to: http://www.uniglobepacifictravel.com/site/viewhome.asp?aid=18878&sit=130&vty=ARTICLE&tid=12374&sessionid=
For more information on air pollution and air travel go to: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1988/6/88.06.06.x.html#h
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
