It is interesting to note that there is a discussion among certain professional folk regarding the use (and abuse) of the words addiction and dependence.
According to the dictionary, addiction is a term that refers to the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma. At the same time, dependence is defined as the state of being psychologically or physiologically dependent on a drug after a prolonged period of use.
Obviously the terms have been used interchangeably -- both imply a reliance upon substances (or conditions) that cause a psychological and physical habit, yet, according to professionals, there is a difference. The rationale for determining and defining the difference is ever more present as our baby-boomer population ages. With age comes chronic conditions, which, can often mean pain and pain treatment. It is this condition that has prompted the medical and research professionals to determine and define the difference between dependence and addiction -- as pain maintenance often requires narcotics.
However, even as the professionals debate, other organizations are proactive in defining addiction and dependence. According to the American Pain Society, The American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine, there is a distinct difference between these two terms. Their consensus provides an alternative definition to these states (that clarifies the ambiguous definition provided in medical bible: the DSM).
Hence, the definition for addiction, according to the above bodies is:
a primary, chronic, neurobiological disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.
Whereas, the definition of physical dependence is:
a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug-class specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist.
While definitions cannot help the person suffering from addiction (or dependence) they can help the professionals that come in contact with these individuals. A better understanding of the condition can lead to a better understanding of how to treat the condition -- and this allows us not to assume that the treatment for addicts is as simple as the treatment for dependents.
For more information on the debate on terms go to:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/11/2014-a
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Buses of Believers call for closure on School of Assassins
"It is not power that corrupts, but fear" -- Aung San Suu Kyi, parent & Nobel Prize winner (resister to military dictatorship)
The term power is corrupted. For too long it has been associated with the negative --power corrupts; power to manipulate; power to control; power to own. Yet, power is not negative or positive, rather, it is a tool; a mechanism that can be used for unhealthy or healthy ends, depending on the person who weilds the power.
Why is this important? Because there is a long lineage of power used to overthrow the centries-old dictates of war and violence. Non-violence is an oft-maligned, oft-dismissed concept. A concept that is not given enough credit in our schools and intentionally overlooked in our societal aims. Non-violence, in its truest form, requires a processing within and a rejection of criticism, judgement and separation without.
While I may not be a religious person, I have often admired the fortitude and persistence of theological denominations in bringing a more peaceful perspective to life on Earth. As such, the blog this morning is in relation to non-violence, power and the Anglican Church.
This November a group of young Canadian Anglicans will be among those participating in a pilgrimage to the US Army School of the Americas (SOA). Originating in Toronto, the pilgrimage will include stops to various justice-seeking Christian communities before culminating at the gates of the SOA in Fort Benning, Georgia. The intention of the pilgrimage is to call for the closure of the SOA (now technically known as The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation -- WHISC).
The WHISC is a combat training school for Latin American soldiers. In the 59 years of the school's history, the SOA (dubbed the "School of Assassins") has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. While the efforts of the school do not fall in line with the precepts of the Anglican Church, the primary reason for shutting down the school is because these American-trained-graduates of the SOA have been known to use their skills to wage a war against their own people. As many who follow Latin American politics know, the targets of the SOA graduates include: educators, union organizers, clergy and religious workers, student leaders, and others working for the rights of the poor, who have been tortured, raped, assassinated, “disappeared,” massacred, and forced into refuge. Needless to say the work of the SOA helps to undermine human rights and propogates the necessity for violence.
Last year, the Student Christion Movement of Canada and the North America Region of the World Student Christian Federation (the two organizations responsible for the SOA pilgrimage) were able to coordinate a pilgrimage that placed 19,000 people in front of the Fort Benning gates. This year they expect more. The SOA non-violence wake to call for the closure of the School of Assassins will leave Toronto on November 16. These buses of believers (both Anglican and supporters of non-violence) will trek 1065 miles for their cause.
For more information contact: Rob Shearer, PWRDF Youth Initiative Staff Email: youth@pwrdf.org. Or call Rob at: 416 924-9199 x 366
As Mother Theresa said: Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
The term power is corrupted. For too long it has been associated with the negative --power corrupts; power to manipulate; power to control; power to own. Yet, power is not negative or positive, rather, it is a tool; a mechanism that can be used for unhealthy or healthy ends, depending on the person who weilds the power.
Why is this important? Because there is a long lineage of power used to overthrow the centries-old dictates of war and violence. Non-violence is an oft-maligned, oft-dismissed concept. A concept that is not given enough credit in our schools and intentionally overlooked in our societal aims. Non-violence, in its truest form, requires a processing within and a rejection of criticism, judgement and separation without.
While I may not be a religious person, I have often admired the fortitude and persistence of theological denominations in bringing a more peaceful perspective to life on Earth. As such, the blog this morning is in relation to non-violence, power and the Anglican Church.
This November a group of young Canadian Anglicans will be among those participating in a pilgrimage to the US Army School of the Americas (SOA). Originating in Toronto, the pilgrimage will include stops to various justice-seeking Christian communities before culminating at the gates of the SOA in Fort Benning, Georgia. The intention of the pilgrimage is to call for the closure of the SOA (now technically known as The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation -- WHISC).
The WHISC is a combat training school for Latin American soldiers. In the 59 years of the school's history, the SOA (dubbed the "School of Assassins") has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. While the efforts of the school do not fall in line with the precepts of the Anglican Church, the primary reason for shutting down the school is because these American-trained-graduates of the SOA have been known to use their skills to wage a war against their own people. As many who follow Latin American politics know, the targets of the SOA graduates include: educators, union organizers, clergy and religious workers, student leaders, and others working for the rights of the poor, who have been tortured, raped, assassinated, “disappeared,” massacred, and forced into refuge. Needless to say the work of the SOA helps to undermine human rights and propogates the necessity for violence.
Last year, the Student Christion Movement of Canada and the North America Region of the World Student Christian Federation (the two organizations responsible for the SOA pilgrimage) were able to coordinate a pilgrimage that placed 19,000 people in front of the Fort Benning gates. This year they expect more. The SOA non-violence wake to call for the closure of the School of Assassins will leave Toronto on November 16. These buses of believers (both Anglican and supporters of non-violence) will trek 1065 miles for their cause.
For more information contact: Rob Shearer, PWRDF Youth Initiative Staff Email: youth@pwrdf.org. Or call Rob at: 416 924-9199 x 366
As Mother Theresa said: Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Wonder Woman reminds me of MY strength
In the 20th century there were few female role models that embodied strength, independence, beauty and brains. In fact, the prototypical icon would eventually be created by a husband and wife team in the early 1940s -- a working relationship that was uncommon, then, but would essentially provide the impetus for the ultimate, albeit fictional, superheroine.
Wonder Woman was first introduced in DC Comics by William Moulton Marston and wife Elizabeth Holloway Marston. She first appeared in All Star Comics #8 in December 1941 and was one of the first (and most famous) comic book uber-women; her defining role would be immortalized when she became a founding member of the Justice League.
And she was my hero.
In fact, I remember the first Halloween that I was given an opportunity to pick my character/costume. Up until then, I had simply chosen the flavour of the day -- a ghost, a ballerina, a Greek princess (please don't ask!). Then, at age seven, I turned. Earlier that year I had been introduced to comics -- a black hole for our literary house, but a boon for my visually starved mind. I spent hours in comic book stores and even more time becoming acquainted with the histories of various characters. While Captain America and Superman dominated the first-view racks, my fascination was drawn to quieter, more complex characters -- characters such as the brazen and bold, the sexy and sassy Wonder Woman.
As a fictional role model, Wonder Woman was the ultimate conception of an empowered, independent female. She was tough yet compassionate, intelligent and strong, and she had an overblown sense of justice that I found compelling and fascinating.
Of course, my introduction to Wonder Woman would leave an indelible mark on my early psyche. As a teenager I thought tough meant standing up and out (hell, Wonder Woman DID wear a one-piece body-piece with boobs out to here and legs up to there!); I also thought it meant that justice reigned supreme. While I didn't quite appreciate the softer side of feminity at the time, I would eventually grow into that realm of womanhood -- and again, return to the role model of the uber-woman.
I am not the only one. A charity event in Portland, Oregan is also returning to the tough-as-nails female protector. Raphael House and Bradley-Angel House are hosting the Wonder Woman Day on Sunday Oct. 29. The free all-ages event will include a trio of comic book artists signing Wonder Woman comics and special art prints, as well as a silent art auction with over 100 of the world's top artists contributing original art. The funds will go towards the advocacy and aid programs the shelters currently offer.
The fact is as a woman there are fewer role models both then and now. While famous woman continue to exist very few clearly do not rely on men for protection, guidance or aid. While I do not advocate the abolition of community or a lack of reliance among one other to fight and solve problems and issues, I do advocate the use of role-models to help us appreciate our innate strengths. In a world where women continue to make up 80% of the poverty stricken, these role models are more necessary now than ever before.
For that reason, I will be dedicating my Sunday to Wonder Woman.
I ask you to do the same.
Your actions do not have to grand or extreme -- but on Sunday take some time out and do at least ONE activity that epitimizes what it means to YOU to be a strong, dedicated feminist.
Lord knows, we certainly need more of those.
Wonder Woman was first introduced in DC Comics by William Moulton Marston and wife Elizabeth Holloway Marston. She first appeared in All Star Comics #8 in December 1941 and was one of the first (and most famous) comic book uber-women; her defining role would be immortalized when she became a founding member of the Justice League.
And she was my hero.
In fact, I remember the first Halloween that I was given an opportunity to pick my character/costume. Up until then, I had simply chosen the flavour of the day -- a ghost, a ballerina, a Greek princess (please don't ask!). Then, at age seven, I turned. Earlier that year I had been introduced to comics -- a black hole for our literary house, but a boon for my visually starved mind. I spent hours in comic book stores and even more time becoming acquainted with the histories of various characters. While Captain America and Superman dominated the first-view racks, my fascination was drawn to quieter, more complex characters -- characters such as the brazen and bold, the sexy and sassy Wonder Woman.
As a fictional role model, Wonder Woman was the ultimate conception of an empowered, independent female. She was tough yet compassionate, intelligent and strong, and she had an overblown sense of justice that I found compelling and fascinating.
Of course, my introduction to Wonder Woman would leave an indelible mark on my early psyche. As a teenager I thought tough meant standing up and out (hell, Wonder Woman DID wear a one-piece body-piece with boobs out to here and legs up to there!); I also thought it meant that justice reigned supreme. While I didn't quite appreciate the softer side of feminity at the time, I would eventually grow into that realm of womanhood -- and again, return to the role model of the uber-woman.
I am not the only one. A charity event in Portland, Oregan is also returning to the tough-as-nails female protector. Raphael House and Bradley-Angel House are hosting the Wonder Woman Day on Sunday Oct. 29. The free all-ages event will include a trio of comic book artists signing Wonder Woman comics and special art prints, as well as a silent art auction with over 100 of the world's top artists contributing original art. The funds will go towards the advocacy and aid programs the shelters currently offer.
The fact is as a woman there are fewer role models both then and now. While famous woman continue to exist very few clearly do not rely on men for protection, guidance or aid. While I do not advocate the abolition of community or a lack of reliance among one other to fight and solve problems and issues, I do advocate the use of role-models to help us appreciate our innate strengths. In a world where women continue to make up 80% of the poverty stricken, these role models are more necessary now than ever before.
For that reason, I will be dedicating my Sunday to Wonder Woman.
I ask you to do the same.
Your actions do not have to grand or extreme -- but on Sunday take some time out and do at least ONE activity that epitimizes what it means to YOU to be a strong, dedicated feminist.
Lord knows, we certainly need more of those.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Water cooler exercises
There are times in our life where we become acutely aware of how we are perceived.
A mate of mine realized this when he was travelling through India over a decade ago. Originally he had been birthed in Karachi, Pakistan, but had spent 20+ years in Canada (starting from when he was a child). As such, he had grown up in Canadian culture, with Canadian values and a Canadian perspective. This perspective, then, included an innate belief that regardless of race, colour, creed (or another identifier) we are all equal under the law. Unfortunately, this sentiment was not shared by the Indian authorities. As tensions were rising between the old rivals of Pakistan and India, my mate quickly found himself in an Indian jail. According to Indian governmnent perspective he was Pakistan, regardless of his lack of affiliation with his place of birth. Even as he languished in the gritty jails of New Delhi, he believed he would be "rescued" as a Canadian. However, he found that it took days -- and a lot of convincing by two causasian travelling mates -- to convince the Canadian and then the Indian authorities that he was not a terrorist.
What my mate experienced was the disparate gap between perception and stereotypes. His experience left him stunned and hurt (as it should). He later became a legal professional.
The sad fact is our heuristics can hurt (rather than help) in how we deal with people. This scenario has never been more evident than how we are currently dealing with people of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent (particularly people whose dress self-identifies them as an alternative religion than Judao-Christian culture).
As such, I have a task for all you little social justice advocates. It's a simple task -- one that will not require legal action, or public display. Yet, the action is an essential component in breaking down the barriers that stand between us, our perceptions, and our steretypes.
The task is this: look within and acknowledge the stereotypes that YOU live by. Not the expectations you have of yourself based on your desires...but rather the expectations and beliefs you hold of yourself based on history and culture.
The fact is that in order to break down the limiting (and often hurtful) heuristics that dominate our culture and attitudes today, we need to begin challenging them -- and what better place to begin than within.
Since stereotypes are learned attitudes that have significant impact on our behavior -- learned attitudes that we develop from a variety of sources including television, books, music, our peers, families, etc. -- we need to acknowledge these generalizations we hold. NOTE: These generalizations can be positive or negative, but both can have negative consequences for the person or people being stereotyped.
The fact is, whenever we stereotype someone, we are ignoring them as an individual and lumping the whole group together as “they are all like that.” Stereotypes can be very difficult to change. Stereotypes happen when we judge people from our own frame of reference or our own cultural expectations about how people should look, behave, talk, etc. This can cause misunderstandings (on both sides) and misjudgments.
So here is your task for today: during a quiet moment (perhaps when you get that second or third cup of coffee) take a moment and acknowledge: what beliefs did I learn about myself based on television? Books? Music? Art? Now, go a little deeper and acknowledge what lessons you learned about yourself based on school curriculum (or lack thereof). Now pick a person in your place of work and do the same exercise. Don't worry about censoring your thoughts -- no one will know what comes up...this is YOUR exercise, your thoughts, your attempt to correct a lifetime of preconceptions.
And that's it.
The fact is, if we are ever to overcome stereotypes, we must first acknowledge that we are impacted by them -- both externally and internally. And since I cannot change the external it's time for all of us to take internal responsibility.
NOTE: I would love to know the results of this exercise. If you feel comfortable, drop me a line and let me know: what did you learn? Were there any shocking revelations? And, most importantly, did you see the heuristics that limit yourself and others?
A mate of mine realized this when he was travelling through India over a decade ago. Originally he had been birthed in Karachi, Pakistan, but had spent 20+ years in Canada (starting from when he was a child). As such, he had grown up in Canadian culture, with Canadian values and a Canadian perspective. This perspective, then, included an innate belief that regardless of race, colour, creed (or another identifier) we are all equal under the law. Unfortunately, this sentiment was not shared by the Indian authorities. As tensions were rising between the old rivals of Pakistan and India, my mate quickly found himself in an Indian jail. According to Indian governmnent perspective he was Pakistan, regardless of his lack of affiliation with his place of birth. Even as he languished in the gritty jails of New Delhi, he believed he would be "rescued" as a Canadian. However, he found that it took days -- and a lot of convincing by two causasian travelling mates -- to convince the Canadian and then the Indian authorities that he was not a terrorist.
What my mate experienced was the disparate gap between perception and stereotypes. His experience left him stunned and hurt (as it should). He later became a legal professional.
The sad fact is our heuristics can hurt (rather than help) in how we deal with people. This scenario has never been more evident than how we are currently dealing with people of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent (particularly people whose dress self-identifies them as an alternative religion than Judao-Christian culture).
As such, I have a task for all you little social justice advocates. It's a simple task -- one that will not require legal action, or public display. Yet, the action is an essential component in breaking down the barriers that stand between us, our perceptions, and our steretypes.
The task is this: look within and acknowledge the stereotypes that YOU live by. Not the expectations you have of yourself based on your desires...but rather the expectations and beliefs you hold of yourself based on history and culture.
The fact is that in order to break down the limiting (and often hurtful) heuristics that dominate our culture and attitudes today, we need to begin challenging them -- and what better place to begin than within.
Since stereotypes are learned attitudes that have significant impact on our behavior -- learned attitudes that we develop from a variety of sources including television, books, music, our peers, families, etc. -- we need to acknowledge these generalizations we hold. NOTE: These generalizations can be positive or negative, but both can have negative consequences for the person or people being stereotyped.
The fact is, whenever we stereotype someone, we are ignoring them as an individual and lumping the whole group together as “they are all like that.” Stereotypes can be very difficult to change. Stereotypes happen when we judge people from our own frame of reference or our own cultural expectations about how people should look, behave, talk, etc. This can cause misunderstandings (on both sides) and misjudgments.
So here is your task for today: during a quiet moment (perhaps when you get that second or third cup of coffee) take a moment and acknowledge: what beliefs did I learn about myself based on television? Books? Music? Art? Now, go a little deeper and acknowledge what lessons you learned about yourself based on school curriculum (or lack thereof). Now pick a person in your place of work and do the same exercise. Don't worry about censoring your thoughts -- no one will know what comes up...this is YOUR exercise, your thoughts, your attempt to correct a lifetime of preconceptions.
And that's it.
The fact is, if we are ever to overcome stereotypes, we must first acknowledge that we are impacted by them -- both externally and internally. And since I cannot change the external it's time for all of us to take internal responsibility.
NOTE: I would love to know the results of this exercise. If you feel comfortable, drop me a line and let me know: what did you learn? Were there any shocking revelations? And, most importantly, did you see the heuristics that limit yourself and others?
Monday, October 23, 2006
Art at Resistence; Resistence as Art -- the 2006 Toronto Arcfest: Social Justice in Art
As a blogger who tries to keep abreast of socially just issues, I would be remiss if I didn't start off the week with a little plug for Arcfest -- Toronto's Social Justice Arts Festival.
The show runs from Oct. 22 to Oct. 29 and features over 100 artists in 25 events exploring local social justice issues. The venues are in Queen West, Parkdale, and other spots across Toronto; in true social justice fashion, the festival includes a diverse program of seasoned and emerging artists, panel discussions, speakers, workshops, and artist-community collaborations.
The full schedule for the event can be found at: http://www.arcfest.org/2006/schedule/date
While the schedule does not list events for Monday Oct. 23 (considered Black Monday by theatre folk) there are events all week. For example, tomorrow (Tues. Oct. 24) check out:
1) Resistance as Art; 6pm; Lennox Contemporary Gallery; Free; Through painting, sculpture, book arts, and other media, this exhibition examines legacies of colonization, issues of land rights, prison and incarceration, and classism.
2) Art as Resistance; 7:30pm; SPIN Gallery; By donation; Artists look at issues related to race, gender, and sexuality in this multi media exhibition.
3) Festival Opening; 7pm | SPIN Gallery | Suggested donation: $10; The festival kicks off with a key note address by Drew Hayden Taylor followed by a spoken word performance by The Fusilli project and dancehall rock by d'bi.young and the dubbin.revolushun.gangstars.
By the end of the week check out the workshops on offer. The FREE workshops include:
1) Forum Theatre Workshop; Saturday October 28th 2:30 pm – 4:30 pm; Parkdale Library Downstairs, 1303 Queen St West. Forum theatre is a form of community based education that is used for community building, conflict resolution and a way for a community to identify and examine social problems of importance.
2) Roots, Culture and Beats: Breakdancing For All; Sunday, Oct. 29th 2:00 pm - 4:00pm; Parkdale Library Downstairs, 1303 Queen St West. Callin’ all hip-hop loving, street-dance groupies, closeted b-girls and b-boys and true funk-adoring fans – old school and young – for a two hour workshop that explores the moves, beats, art and culture of breakdancing.
3) The Right Spin: The Art, Politics and Business of Deejaying in the City;
Sunday, October 29th 1:00 pm - 3:00pm; Queen West Arts Centre, 100a Ossington Ave (2 blocks north of Queen). Music transcends language and a good dj does more than just spin to the crowd. ARCfest presents a two-hour deejaying workshop for the politically savvy.
4)Responding: A Performance Art Workshop Exploring Issues Faced by Refugees; Saturday, October 28, 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm; Parkdale Library Downstairs, 1303 Queen St West. Responding is a workshop exploring refugee issues through performance art.
Sign up go to:
http://www.arcfest.org/2006/workshops
The show runs from Oct. 22 to Oct. 29 and features over 100 artists in 25 events exploring local social justice issues. The venues are in Queen West, Parkdale, and other spots across Toronto; in true social justice fashion, the festival includes a diverse program of seasoned and emerging artists, panel discussions, speakers, workshops, and artist-community collaborations.
The full schedule for the event can be found at: http://www.arcfest.org/2006/schedule/date
While the schedule does not list events for Monday Oct. 23 (considered Black Monday by theatre folk) there are events all week. For example, tomorrow (Tues. Oct. 24) check out:
1) Resistance as Art; 6pm; Lennox Contemporary Gallery; Free; Through painting, sculpture, book arts, and other media, this exhibition examines legacies of colonization, issues of land rights, prison and incarceration, and classism.
2) Art as Resistance; 7:30pm; SPIN Gallery; By donation; Artists look at issues related to race, gender, and sexuality in this multi media exhibition.
3) Festival Opening; 7pm | SPIN Gallery | Suggested donation: $10; The festival kicks off with a key note address by Drew Hayden Taylor followed by a spoken word performance by The Fusilli project and dancehall rock by d'bi.young and the dubbin.revolushun.gangstars.
By the end of the week check out the workshops on offer. The FREE workshops include:
1) Forum Theatre Workshop; Saturday October 28th 2:30 pm – 4:30 pm; Parkdale Library Downstairs, 1303 Queen St West. Forum theatre is a form of community based education that is used for community building, conflict resolution and a way for a community to identify and examine social problems of importance.
2) Roots, Culture and Beats: Breakdancing For All; Sunday, Oct. 29th 2:00 pm - 4:00pm; Parkdale Library Downstairs, 1303 Queen St West. Callin’ all hip-hop loving, street-dance groupies, closeted b-girls and b-boys and true funk-adoring fans – old school and young – for a two hour workshop that explores the moves, beats, art and culture of breakdancing.
3) The Right Spin: The Art, Politics and Business of Deejaying in the City;
Sunday, October 29th 1:00 pm - 3:00pm; Queen West Arts Centre, 100a Ossington Ave (2 blocks north of Queen). Music transcends language and a good dj does more than just spin to the crowd. ARCfest presents a two-hour deejaying workshop for the politically savvy.
4)Responding: A Performance Art Workshop Exploring Issues Faced by Refugees; Saturday, October 28, 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm; Parkdale Library Downstairs, 1303 Queen St West. Responding is a workshop exploring refugee issues through performance art.
Sign up go to:
http://www.arcfest.org/2006/workshops
Friday, October 20, 2006
Burning the weed
The Viet-cong had a system of underground tunnels; the Germans blitzkrieged their way to dominance; and Pol Pot indoctrinated a nation. Every nation and dictator has their way of usurping the opposition and the Afghan insurgents are no different.
I reprint a story from Reuters (below) that offers an explanation as to why our troops cannot (or will not!) find the current Afghani insurgents. Also take a look at thelink to the b-roll footage of a British journalist reporting on the drug burning initiatives of UK troops. Both remind us that where there is smoke...there should be munchies.
OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of marijuana plants 10 feet tall.
General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.
"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices. ... And as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa, Canada.
"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.
Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.
"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those [forests] did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hiller said dryly.
One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."
http://www.guzer.com/videos/stoned_reporter.php
I reprint a story from Reuters (below) that offers an explanation as to why our troops cannot (or will not!) find the current Afghani insurgents. Also take a look at thelink to the b-roll footage of a British journalist reporting on the drug burning initiatives of UK troops. Both remind us that where there is smoke...there should be munchies.
OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of marijuana plants 10 feet tall.
General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.
"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices. ... And as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa, Canada.
"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.
Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.
"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those [forests] did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hiller said dryly.
One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."
http://www.guzer.com/videos/stoned_reporter.php
Thursday, October 19, 2006
All people need to become feminists
In recent weeks the media focused on the violent acts of a few individuals -- all of them young men. Though these violent acts appeared random and arbitrary, a common theme existed: they were all angry, young men who chose to exert their dissatisfaction with (insert reason here) by enacting violence an another. And these are the very same men that injure and kill women through domestic and other forms of violence.
So why care? There are shelters, police programs and non-governmental programs -- I ask again: why care?
Because 51% of women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence. The scary fact is that these statistics, taken from StatCan, are over a decade old. The scary fact is the trend persists. In fact, close to 60% of these women have experienced more than one violent incident.
More statistics include:
*62% of the victims who reported being sexually assaulted were under age 18 (taken from a 1998 survey)
*In 2000, women made up the vast majority of victims of sexual assault -- 86%, and other types of sexual offences (78%).
*80% of sexual assaults occur at home
*49% occur in broad daylight
*In 80% of cases reported to police, the victims knew the abuser -- about 10% were assaulted by a friend, 41% were assaulted by an acquaintance, 28% were assaulted by a family member, the remaining 20% were assaulted by a stranger.
*82% of women seeking accommodation at a shelter were escaping abuse
*about 1 in 10 women seeking accommodation in a shelter are repeat visitors with over five stints per year in shelters
*the largest portion of women staying in shelters (just over one-third) are between 25 and 34 years old.
Violence against women persists and will continue to do so until violent men (and I pick my words carefully) are dealt with -- openly, publically and rationally. The punitive system we currently have does nothing to help rehabilitate a violent offender -- particulary one that receives a rather light sentence for assaulting a partner or spouse. The criminal system does not deem this offence to be serious enough to warrant tougher sentences or alternative treatment. Rather, the criminal system is reactive rather than proactive. It waits until the damage is done (death, dismemberment, etc) before treating the abuser. There is another option. We could become proactive in dealing with these issues. Since violence often escalates, we could provide rehabilitative services to offenders as opposed to light-weight punitive sentences.
As women, we can also become educated in the problem. One way to do this is to read. Another way is to engage. This is the impetus behind this week's Week Without Violence - held by YMCA's across the continent. The week-long awareness campaign is aimed at women, for women, in an effort to talk about, deal with and attempt to solve the persistent violence against women that continues to exist within our society.
One event worth noting is this Saturday's The Power of Being a Girl Conference!. This is a free event, running from 10am to 4pm at the YWCA Girls Centre and is intended to help educate and empower girls between the ages of 14 and 17. Workshops include: D.I.Y Spa, Law and Order, Fact/Fiction, Yo Gal Relax & Yoga, So You think You Can Dance?, Sex in the City, The "F" Word, Project Personality, CSI:Net. Lunch, snacks and funk goody bags included!
To register go to: abc@ywcatoronto.
*For an excellent article on the importance of feminism and the necessity with dealing with male violence go to:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-09-21/news_story3.php
*For more information on sexual assault statistics go to:
http://www.metrac.org/
*For more information on shelter statistics go to:
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/
pdfs/Transition%20Home%20Survey%201999-2000%20Fact
%20Sheets%20English.pdf
So why care? There are shelters, police programs and non-governmental programs -- I ask again: why care?
Because 51% of women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence. The scary fact is that these statistics, taken from StatCan, are over a decade old. The scary fact is the trend persists. In fact, close to 60% of these women have experienced more than one violent incident.
More statistics include:
*62% of the victims who reported being sexually assaulted were under age 18 (taken from a 1998 survey)
*In 2000, women made up the vast majority of victims of sexual assault -- 86%, and other types of sexual offences (78%).
*80% of sexual assaults occur at home
*49% occur in broad daylight
*In 80% of cases reported to police, the victims knew the abuser -- about 10% were assaulted by a friend, 41% were assaulted by an acquaintance, 28% were assaulted by a family member, the remaining 20% were assaulted by a stranger.
*82% of women seeking accommodation at a shelter were escaping abuse
*about 1 in 10 women seeking accommodation in a shelter are repeat visitors with over five stints per year in shelters
*the largest portion of women staying in shelters (just over one-third) are between 25 and 34 years old.
Violence against women persists and will continue to do so until violent men (and I pick my words carefully) are dealt with -- openly, publically and rationally. The punitive system we currently have does nothing to help rehabilitate a violent offender -- particulary one that receives a rather light sentence for assaulting a partner or spouse. The criminal system does not deem this offence to be serious enough to warrant tougher sentences or alternative treatment. Rather, the criminal system is reactive rather than proactive. It waits until the damage is done (death, dismemberment, etc) before treating the abuser. There is another option. We could become proactive in dealing with these issues. Since violence often escalates, we could provide rehabilitative services to offenders as opposed to light-weight punitive sentences.
As women, we can also become educated in the problem. One way to do this is to read. Another way is to engage. This is the impetus behind this week's Week Without Violence - held by YMCA's across the continent. The week-long awareness campaign is aimed at women, for women, in an effort to talk about, deal with and attempt to solve the persistent violence against women that continues to exist within our society.
One event worth noting is this Saturday's The Power of Being a Girl Conference!. This is a free event, running from 10am to 4pm at the YWCA Girls Centre and is intended to help educate and empower girls between the ages of 14 and 17. Workshops include: D.I.Y Spa, Law and Order, Fact/Fiction, Yo Gal Relax & Yoga, So You think You Can Dance?, Sex in the City, The "F" Word, Project Personality, CSI:Net. Lunch, snacks and funk goody bags included!
To register go to: abc@ywcatoronto.
*For an excellent article on the importance of feminism and the necessity with dealing with male violence go to:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-09-21/news_story3.php
*For more information on sexual assault statistics go to:
http://www.metrac.org/
*For more information on shelter statistics go to:
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/
pdfs/Transition%20Home%20Survey%201999-2000%20Fact
%20Sheets%20English.pdf
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
We need to rethink our prison system -- QUICKLY
We have a problem.
No, it's not going to effect your no-foam-double-latte this morning, nor will it have a direct impact on your work day (be it a corporate, entrepreneurial, or a home-based responsibilities) -- but we do have a problem. And because of our reluctance to deal with it a decade ago, it is getting worse.
The problem is the sheer number of women that are now being incarcerated.
I know: you do the crime, you do the time. Yes, I do agree with the necessity of taking responsibility for one's actions; I also believe that our actions can be directly and disproportionately impacted by our socio-economic needs.
In November 1996 the Canadian government published the four-thousand-page, $58 million Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP 1996), a report that reviewed and made recommendations about a wide range of social and economic issues related to Canada's Aboriginal peoples. The Globe and Mail's John Gray, summarized the conditions of natives in Canada: "an endless circle of disadvantage--family violence, educational failure, poverty, ill health, violence" (Gray 1997).
Now, a decade later, Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, blamed aboriginal over-representation in the prison system on poverty, poor education, unemployment, dismal living commissions, alcoholism and violence in aboriginal communities.
Metis National Council President, Clément Chartier agreed saying in a recent press release that, "For years we have witnessed our men and women filling Canadian jails. We believe this is a direct correlation to the fact poverty and unemployment rates in our Métis communities have reached staggering proportions."
A 2004 CSC Research report found approximately 68% of the federal
Aboriginal offender population are First Nations, 34% are Métis and 4% are
Inuit.
Compare this to the proportion of the population made up by Aboriginals: at present, Aboriginals represent less than 2.7% of the country's population, yet, they make up nearly 18.5% of federal prison numbers. Statistics are even more dire for native women, who comprise 32% of all females in federal custody. The startling fact is, if current trends continue 25% of aboriginal Canadians could be incarcerated in less than a decade.
Canada's prison watchdog blasted the federal government on Monday for discriminating against aboriginal prisoners by putting a disproportionate number in maximum-security penitentiaries and segregation, keeping them jailed longer, and failing to provide proper programs to help them survive when they leave.
"The general picture is one of institutionalized discrimination," said Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada.
The fact is that despite the wide-ranging and damning Royal Report tabled in 1996, we as a country have done little to halt the "the endless circle of disadvantage" that Aboriginals and other socio-economically disadvantaged people find themselves in. Rather than institutionalized and societal change, we have relied on the quick incarceration fix -- rather than deal with our irrational fears (crime continues to decrease, yet our fear of crime continues to increase) we have chosen to ignore our part and lock up the perceived problem.
Don't believe me? Then examine the number of criminals currently incarcerated that were living below the poverty line before their conviction.
Snapshot data from Statistics Canada indicates that 47% of Aboriginal youth in custody lived in families that received social assistance. This, then, lends creedance to the notion that the central factor of the higher incarceration rates among Aboriginal people is poverty. Throw on top of this the large number of incarcerated Aboriginal youth with substance abuse problems. Approximately 57% of Aboriginal youth had a confirmed problem and an additional 24% had a suspected problem with alcohol and/or drugs. Substance abuse has been well documented as a correlate of criminal behaviour among youth (Dawkins, 1997; Huizinga & Jakob-Chien, 1998; Latimer, Kleinknecht, Hung & Gabor, 2003). Previous research has also demonstrated a clear link between alcohol or drug abuse and violent crime (Fergusson, Lynskey & Horwood, 1996; Watts & Wright, 1990), which is associated with more serious sentences. And this cycle starts early. Again, Statistics Canada Snapshot data indicates that 39% of Aboriginal youth were involved with child protection agencies. Recent research into the correlates of delinquency found that negative parenting (e.g., inconsistent parenting, low levels of supervision, harsh discipline) was significantly correlated with criminal behaviour among youth (Latimer, Kleinknecht, Hung & Gabor, 2003). Involvement with child protection agencies is a good indication that a youth has experienced negative parenting.
To lock up a criminal as a method of demanding responsibility for one's actions should be the intent of incarceration. Since the convicted will eventually re-enter society, it is hoped that this method of attempting to teach responsibility will enable a person to re-examine their life and determine a better course of action (a course that helps them become productive, rather than destructive, members of society). However, this is not the case. More often than not our penal system has become a holding and breeding ground for more and more criminal behaviour. Rather than learning, growing and changing, convicted felons become entrenched in institutionalized life and criminal behaviour. Part of the problem is the perceived disparity between "them" and "us" -- a disparity that is marked by economics, but also by opportunities and advantages.
As such, and due to the shocking statistics that are emerging this week, we need to, as a society, re-examine our use and abuse of the penal system. If we really are an inclusive society we also must become a tolerant society -- a society that holds people (criminals) accountable, yet provides opportunities for change.
We can start in the most diseffected communities; the reserves and small towns that are home to the relatively small Canadian Aboriginal population. By injecting time, money and expertise we may be able to create vibrant, responsive and inclusive communities that provide alternatives to criminal behaviour. If not, we are looking at a nation of incarcerated minorities -- a situation that can only be compared to intolerant regimes.
No, it's not going to effect your no-foam-double-latte this morning, nor will it have a direct impact on your work day (be it a corporate, entrepreneurial, or a home-based responsibilities) -- but we do have a problem. And because of our reluctance to deal with it a decade ago, it is getting worse.
The problem is the sheer number of women that are now being incarcerated.
I know: you do the crime, you do the time. Yes, I do agree with the necessity of taking responsibility for one's actions; I also believe that our actions can be directly and disproportionately impacted by our socio-economic needs.
In November 1996 the Canadian government published the four-thousand-page, $58 million Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP 1996), a report that reviewed and made recommendations about a wide range of social and economic issues related to Canada's Aboriginal peoples. The Globe and Mail's John Gray, summarized the conditions of natives in Canada: "an endless circle of disadvantage--family violence, educational failure, poverty, ill health, violence" (Gray 1997).
Now, a decade later, Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, blamed aboriginal over-representation in the prison system on poverty, poor education, unemployment, dismal living commissions, alcoholism and violence in aboriginal communities.
Metis National Council President, Clément Chartier agreed saying in a recent press release that, "For years we have witnessed our men and women filling Canadian jails. We believe this is a direct correlation to the fact poverty and unemployment rates in our Métis communities have reached staggering proportions."
A 2004 CSC Research report found approximately 68% of the federal
Aboriginal offender population are First Nations, 34% are Métis and 4% are
Inuit.
Compare this to the proportion of the population made up by Aboriginals: at present, Aboriginals represent less than 2.7% of the country's population, yet, they make up nearly 18.5% of federal prison numbers. Statistics are even more dire for native women, who comprise 32% of all females in federal custody. The startling fact is, if current trends continue 25% of aboriginal Canadians could be incarcerated in less than a decade.
Canada's prison watchdog blasted the federal government on Monday for discriminating against aboriginal prisoners by putting a disproportionate number in maximum-security penitentiaries and segregation, keeping them jailed longer, and failing to provide proper programs to help them survive when they leave.
"The general picture is one of institutionalized discrimination," said Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada.
The fact is that despite the wide-ranging and damning Royal Report tabled in 1996, we as a country have done little to halt the "the endless circle of disadvantage" that Aboriginals and other socio-economically disadvantaged people find themselves in. Rather than institutionalized and societal change, we have relied on the quick incarceration fix -- rather than deal with our irrational fears (crime continues to decrease, yet our fear of crime continues to increase) we have chosen to ignore our part and lock up the perceived problem.
Don't believe me? Then examine the number of criminals currently incarcerated that were living below the poverty line before their conviction.
Snapshot data from Statistics Canada indicates that 47% of Aboriginal youth in custody lived in families that received social assistance. This, then, lends creedance to the notion that the central factor of the higher incarceration rates among Aboriginal people is poverty. Throw on top of this the large number of incarcerated Aboriginal youth with substance abuse problems. Approximately 57% of Aboriginal youth had a confirmed problem and an additional 24% had a suspected problem with alcohol and/or drugs. Substance abuse has been well documented as a correlate of criminal behaviour among youth (Dawkins, 1997; Huizinga & Jakob-Chien, 1998; Latimer, Kleinknecht, Hung & Gabor, 2003). Previous research has also demonstrated a clear link between alcohol or drug abuse and violent crime (Fergusson, Lynskey & Horwood, 1996; Watts & Wright, 1990), which is associated with more serious sentences. And this cycle starts early. Again, Statistics Canada Snapshot data indicates that 39% of Aboriginal youth were involved with child protection agencies. Recent research into the correlates of delinquency found that negative parenting (e.g., inconsistent parenting, low levels of supervision, harsh discipline) was significantly correlated with criminal behaviour among youth (Latimer, Kleinknecht, Hung & Gabor, 2003). Involvement with child protection agencies is a good indication that a youth has experienced negative parenting.
To lock up a criminal as a method of demanding responsibility for one's actions should be the intent of incarceration. Since the convicted will eventually re-enter society, it is hoped that this method of attempting to teach responsibility will enable a person to re-examine their life and determine a better course of action (a course that helps them become productive, rather than destructive, members of society). However, this is not the case. More often than not our penal system has become a holding and breeding ground for more and more criminal behaviour. Rather than learning, growing and changing, convicted felons become entrenched in institutionalized life and criminal behaviour. Part of the problem is the perceived disparity between "them" and "us" -- a disparity that is marked by economics, but also by opportunities and advantages.
As such, and due to the shocking statistics that are emerging this week, we need to, as a society, re-examine our use and abuse of the penal system. If we really are an inclusive society we also must become a tolerant society -- a society that holds people (criminals) accountable, yet provides opportunities for change.
We can start in the most diseffected communities; the reserves and small towns that are home to the relatively small Canadian Aboriginal population. By injecting time, money and expertise we may be able to create vibrant, responsive and inclusive communities that provide alternatives to criminal behaviour. If not, we are looking at a nation of incarcerated minorities -- a situation that can only be compared to intolerant regimes.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Lego my ammo - the arms trade, North Korea and the brink of war
North Korea 2006: A nuclear nation that "wants" peace but is not afraid of war.
People...we may actually be on the brink of a more traditional war -- a war between nations; a war between leaders; a war between long-range and long-term weapons of mass destruction.
The rhetoric has already started: the North Koreans are saying that the recently announced UN sanctions are merely a smoke screen for the desires of the United States. This subtefuge is necessary, say the North Koreans, because the States don't want anyone to know that their real motivation is to rid the world of Jong's specific style of socialism.
The United States (through the mouthpiece of Condoleezza Rice) keeps pushing the point that this tiny Asian nation has defied the internationally community, not once but twice in last two months (by setting announcing and then following through on the testing of nuclear weapons). She argues that the actions of Jong II antagonizes the international community, particularly when this once-media-shy-dictator suggests the possibility of more tests in the near future, despite the recent threat of economic sanctions.
At present, the current sanctions, announced by the United Nations, prohibits trade with North Korea in illicit materials, weapons and luxury items. However, Rice is on a mission to extend those sanctions into all economic facats of life.
However, her comments a few days ago, suggest that despite the unified front (at the UN), the international community is not aligned in how to deal with North Korea's actions -- or, for that matter, whether or not to deal with North Korea's actions.
"Every country in the region must share the burdens as well as the benefits of our common security," Rice said in comments aimed at China and South Korea, the two largest trading partners with North Korea. Rice continued by calling on nations to "collectively isolate" North Korea, adding that it "cannot destabilize the international system and then expect to exploit elaborate financial networks built for peaceful commerce."
There is truth to this. A lot of truth. North Korea is attempting to take the quick and dirty route to becoming a major player on the international stage. Consequences be damned. But what consequences? As long as South Korea and China continue to financially support and interact with this isolated nation, we, the leader's and citizens in other nation's around the world, have little recourse. Or do we?
A recent story comes to mind regarding China's decision to create labour unions. At the time multi-national corporations were up-in-arms (no pun intended) about the possibility of lost revenue. Here is where major trade nations (namely, those in the first world) can step in. By providing financial incentives to corporations that choose to support China's burgeoning Human Rights initiatives, we can also provide alternative economic resources to this large Asian trade partner -- this, then, enables us to make legitimate demands on China to halt all trade with Jong's rogue nation. (As Greg commented yesterday, while sanctions FEEL ineffectual, an economic action is really the only legitimate action a sovereign nation can take against another sovereign nation. Anything more and we begin to entice the angst and ire of other nation's over motives and desires).
Another aspect of this entire situation (as aptly pointed out in a comment yesterday by K-Dough) is China's closed-lipped refusal to limit the economic flow across it's large border with North Korea. While we can chastize the Chinese for directly impacting the war machine of the rogue nation (since this economic flow does not restrict the trade of weapons), we must take into consideration the reality of the weapons trade.
According to the World Policy Institute, there is "no single policy more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation."
Yes, China engages in this trade. Yes, they have companies and factories and an economic benefit from this trade that is separate from the trade conducted by the United States -- however it is the hypocrisy of the US that set this dynamic up.
As the World Policy Institute report continues to state: "Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition allies in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these alleged benefits often come at a high price. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries."
The fact is human rights activists, peace advocates and sustainable business practitioners have called on the US to ammend, correct and restrict the trade of weapons. However, the ability to make massive amounts of money in an internationally liberal market is too tempting -- and as such, other countries, like China, eager to emerge as a powerful international player are also jumping on board this quick and easy money maker. This is one of the major reasons why China has not explicitly agreed to monitor and restrict the trade to North Korea -- if it did, it would have to give up a lucrative cash cow.
Unfortunately, the result always plays out to the lowest level of power. The common man in all nations are the ones that bear this brunt of hypocrisy. Whether it is the soldier that dies defending the rhetoric of any nation, the shopkeeper whose business fails because of lack of supplies; a skilled/unskilled labourer who was once employed in these suspect industries; a stock owner who loses their shirt in a reformed industry -- the final damage to any decision falls on the common man.
So, where do we go from here? Again, the activists have led the way. We need to actively monitor and control the arms trade -- place restrictive limits, rules and conditions that ALL nations and ALL mult-national corporations must follow. We must tighten our belts, as our wallets shrink, due to these restrictions -- because unless you are a socially responsible investor, YOUR retirement savings IS wrapped up in the arms trade. We must, as citizens, demand that OUR leaders practice sustainable trade practices. If we demand a new set of policies from China in how they economically deal with a rogue nation, like North Korea, we cannot, then, demand that they NOT move forward with economic, political and social decisions to better their employment and trade policies.
In otherwords, we need to decide if our safety as a person, a nation and as a world is more important than whether or not we can make more money in an under-regulated, under-reported industry of arms trade.
As for North Korea -- the ball is rolling. There is a new Japanese leader; there is a US administration content on trite reasons and conditions for international exchanges; and we have close to six billion people worldwide that can stand up and make a demand for peace. The North Korean situation is not going to go away -- but our reactions to the situation do not have to escalate into full-blown war. We can avoid retalitory actions, but we need to be cognisant of how other factors (other decisions) play into this exchange. As scientists pointed out at the turn of the last century: when a butterfly flaps its wings in one corner of the world, a tsunami is created in another. None of us live in isolation -- not even Jong II.
For more information on the World Policy Institute arms report go to:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html
People...we may actually be on the brink of a more traditional war -- a war between nations; a war between leaders; a war between long-range and long-term weapons of mass destruction.
The rhetoric has already started: the North Koreans are saying that the recently announced UN sanctions are merely a smoke screen for the desires of the United States. This subtefuge is necessary, say the North Koreans, because the States don't want anyone to know that their real motivation is to rid the world of Jong's specific style of socialism.
The United States (through the mouthpiece of Condoleezza Rice) keeps pushing the point that this tiny Asian nation has defied the internationally community, not once but twice in last two months (by setting announcing and then following through on the testing of nuclear weapons). She argues that the actions of Jong II antagonizes the international community, particularly when this once-media-shy-dictator suggests the possibility of more tests in the near future, despite the recent threat of economic sanctions.
At present, the current sanctions, announced by the United Nations, prohibits trade with North Korea in illicit materials, weapons and luxury items. However, Rice is on a mission to extend those sanctions into all economic facats of life.
However, her comments a few days ago, suggest that despite the unified front (at the UN), the international community is not aligned in how to deal with North Korea's actions -- or, for that matter, whether or not to deal with North Korea's actions.
"Every country in the region must share the burdens as well as the benefits of our common security," Rice said in comments aimed at China and South Korea, the two largest trading partners with North Korea. Rice continued by calling on nations to "collectively isolate" North Korea, adding that it "cannot destabilize the international system and then expect to exploit elaborate financial networks built for peaceful commerce."
There is truth to this. A lot of truth. North Korea is attempting to take the quick and dirty route to becoming a major player on the international stage. Consequences be damned. But what consequences? As long as South Korea and China continue to financially support and interact with this isolated nation, we, the leader's and citizens in other nation's around the world, have little recourse. Or do we?
A recent story comes to mind regarding China's decision to create labour unions. At the time multi-national corporations were up-in-arms (no pun intended) about the possibility of lost revenue. Here is where major trade nations (namely, those in the first world) can step in. By providing financial incentives to corporations that choose to support China's burgeoning Human Rights initiatives, we can also provide alternative economic resources to this large Asian trade partner -- this, then, enables us to make legitimate demands on China to halt all trade with Jong's rogue nation. (As Greg commented yesterday, while sanctions FEEL ineffectual, an economic action is really the only legitimate action a sovereign nation can take against another sovereign nation. Anything more and we begin to entice the angst and ire of other nation's over motives and desires).
Another aspect of this entire situation (as aptly pointed out in a comment yesterday by K-Dough) is China's closed-lipped refusal to limit the economic flow across it's large border with North Korea. While we can chastize the Chinese for directly impacting the war machine of the rogue nation (since this economic flow does not restrict the trade of weapons), we must take into consideration the reality of the weapons trade.
According to the World Policy Institute, there is "no single policy more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation."
Yes, China engages in this trade. Yes, they have companies and factories and an economic benefit from this trade that is separate from the trade conducted by the United States -- however it is the hypocrisy of the US that set this dynamic up.
As the World Policy Institute report continues to state: "Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition allies in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these alleged benefits often come at a high price. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries."
The fact is human rights activists, peace advocates and sustainable business practitioners have called on the US to ammend, correct and restrict the trade of weapons. However, the ability to make massive amounts of money in an internationally liberal market is too tempting -- and as such, other countries, like China, eager to emerge as a powerful international player are also jumping on board this quick and easy money maker. This is one of the major reasons why China has not explicitly agreed to monitor and restrict the trade to North Korea -- if it did, it would have to give up a lucrative cash cow.
Unfortunately, the result always plays out to the lowest level of power. The common man in all nations are the ones that bear this brunt of hypocrisy. Whether it is the soldier that dies defending the rhetoric of any nation, the shopkeeper whose business fails because of lack of supplies; a skilled/unskilled labourer who was once employed in these suspect industries; a stock owner who loses their shirt in a reformed industry -- the final damage to any decision falls on the common man.
So, where do we go from here? Again, the activists have led the way. We need to actively monitor and control the arms trade -- place restrictive limits, rules and conditions that ALL nations and ALL mult-national corporations must follow. We must tighten our belts, as our wallets shrink, due to these restrictions -- because unless you are a socially responsible investor, YOUR retirement savings IS wrapped up in the arms trade. We must, as citizens, demand that OUR leaders practice sustainable trade practices. If we demand a new set of policies from China in how they economically deal with a rogue nation, like North Korea, we cannot, then, demand that they NOT move forward with economic, political and social decisions to better their employment and trade policies.
In otherwords, we need to decide if our safety as a person, a nation and as a world is more important than whether or not we can make more money in an under-regulated, under-reported industry of arms trade.
As for North Korea -- the ball is rolling. There is a new Japanese leader; there is a US administration content on trite reasons and conditions for international exchanges; and we have close to six billion people worldwide that can stand up and make a demand for peace. The North Korean situation is not going to go away -- but our reactions to the situation do not have to escalate into full-blown war. We can avoid retalitory actions, but we need to be cognisant of how other factors (other decisions) play into this exchange. As scientists pointed out at the turn of the last century: when a butterfly flaps its wings in one corner of the world, a tsunami is created in another. None of us live in isolation -- not even Jong II.
For more information on the World Policy Institute arms report go to:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html
Monday, October 16, 2006
Public declaration & private diplomacy in an era of rogue dictators
It appears the world is settled on the type of action it condones towards North Korea.
Though the tiny, insular nation, that shares a large border with China, reportedly set off nuclear tests last week, a vote for sanctions was not taken in the United Nations until this past Saturday. While no one person, group or nation would admit it, the delayed response (and the public acknowledgement that North Korea had, in fact, set off nuclear weapons) is the balance between private and public diplomacy.
Since the public posturing of nations (including USA, China, Japan and North and South Korea) is to demand retribution from this rogue nation, it is the private diplomacy that is essential in dealing with such sensitive issues -- a diplomacy that could not occur without the space provided by ambiguity.
For that reason, it was essential that the official stance of each UN-member country not be made public until each of these UN-member countries had a chance to sit in their backrooms -- demanding, conceding and negotiating a resolution to North Korea's bold attempt to become a primary player in international politics.
While not the official reason -- this is why the UN and its member-nations (including China) took days to decide on the unified action. This is why their were rumours and reports that China, Japan and South Korea may not back the sanctions against North Korea. And this is why the UN resolution for economic sanctions was not passed for at least 72 hours after the fall-out of North Korea's nuclear testing.
The sad irony is this is not the first time the world has been pushed to the brink due to nuclear weapons. Who can forget the tense days and nights during the Cuban missile crisis? Or what about the volatile courtship between Pakistan and India that resulted in a nuclear race.
The sad fact is as long as one nation holds the ultimate destructive weapon (the nuclear bomb) all nations -- that want to play in the big leagues -- will be tempted to participate in the ownership of that destructive power. The scary fact is that not all of these nations are led by leaders that want the best for their citizens.
While the dangerous power play between North Korea and the world has caused division amongst UN-member nations -- the unified decision, made on Saturday, is an effort to try and curb both the sad and the scary fact; it is an effort to punish Kim Jong II (the North Korean leader) for wanting to become a major world player and it is an attempt to curb the ambitions of a dictator that appears unconcerned and apathetic to the consequences his actions may have on his citizens.
In the next week or so, we will begin to see whether or not the private diplomacy that is frantically taking place in the backrooms and boardrooms of our nations will in fact lend credence to the public declarations and sanctions that were decided over the weekend.
Though the tiny, insular nation, that shares a large border with China, reportedly set off nuclear tests last week, a vote for sanctions was not taken in the United Nations until this past Saturday. While no one person, group or nation would admit it, the delayed response (and the public acknowledgement that North Korea had, in fact, set off nuclear weapons) is the balance between private and public diplomacy.
Since the public posturing of nations (including USA, China, Japan and North and South Korea) is to demand retribution from this rogue nation, it is the private diplomacy that is essential in dealing with such sensitive issues -- a diplomacy that could not occur without the space provided by ambiguity.
For that reason, it was essential that the official stance of each UN-member country not be made public until each of these UN-member countries had a chance to sit in their backrooms -- demanding, conceding and negotiating a resolution to North Korea's bold attempt to become a primary player in international politics.
While not the official reason -- this is why the UN and its member-nations (including China) took days to decide on the unified action. This is why their were rumours and reports that China, Japan and South Korea may not back the sanctions against North Korea. And this is why the UN resolution for economic sanctions was not passed for at least 72 hours after the fall-out of North Korea's nuclear testing.
The sad irony is this is not the first time the world has been pushed to the brink due to nuclear weapons. Who can forget the tense days and nights during the Cuban missile crisis? Or what about the volatile courtship between Pakistan and India that resulted in a nuclear race.
The sad fact is as long as one nation holds the ultimate destructive weapon (the nuclear bomb) all nations -- that want to play in the big leagues -- will be tempted to participate in the ownership of that destructive power. The scary fact is that not all of these nations are led by leaders that want the best for their citizens.
While the dangerous power play between North Korea and the world has caused division amongst UN-member nations -- the unified decision, made on Saturday, is an effort to try and curb both the sad and the scary fact; it is an effort to punish Kim Jong II (the North Korean leader) for wanting to become a major world player and it is an attempt to curb the ambitions of a dictator that appears unconcerned and apathetic to the consequences his actions may have on his citizens.
In the next week or so, we will begin to see whether or not the private diplomacy that is frantically taking place in the backrooms and boardrooms of our nations will in fact lend credence to the public declarations and sanctions that were decided over the weekend.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Optimist's vindication as China proposes labour laws
The glass is half full or half empty.
When it comes to Human Rights -- realists don't make a difference. You are either an optimist or a pessimist. The reason? Realists accept the status qua and assume that any change will be too insignificant to make a difference; pessimists expect no or little change, while optimists continue to hope, work and expect to solidify these rights for all of humanity.
So, why bring this up? Because China just announced that it is passing a law that would allow labour unions to organize and participate in this Asian giant's market; their (stated) rationale: to protect worker rights.
This is a miracle. And it an optimist's vindication.
As little as a decade ago a good deal of people bemoaned the impact of human rights activism. Their arguments hinged upon nations -- such as China -- that had refused to embrace these universal truths. And any gains the activist league made, critics denounced by citing continued abuses and atrocities in these suspect nations.
But as any good optimist will tell you: Hope is not faith with evidence; Hope is faith despite the evidence.
Evidence showed that since the 1980s (when China first introduced market forces into its economy) the Asian giant has been more interested in economic evolution then in human rights. As such, the country nurtured the conditions that enabled sweatshops and illegal factories to flourish -- working conditions that time and again proved to be harmful to workers health and safety.
This new law, however, would change all of that. It would protect worker's in all factories -- including foreign-owned factories. And it acknowledges -- again -- that human rights is an essential component to quality of life, standard of living and a universal truth.
While critics continue to poke holes (analysts warn that it will be hard to enforce the law in such a large country) optimists are celebrating. Though the law is far from perfect, and though sub-standard human rights conditions continue to exist in China, this law is a step towards solidifying the need to treat people with respect and dignity. The law is also a testamont -- that despite the apparently slow pace, leaders (economic and political) ARE listening to the demands of the people.
For China, a major reason for the new law is to curb the exponential growth that is occuring in the country at the moment. While the government is pleased with the growth, Chinese officials are aware that such growth can cause massive disparity, which leads to social unrest, crime and deconstruction of community. So, their solution is to secure rights for all.
The absolute irony, however, is the protest of foreign corporations who do business in China. Rather than applaud the officials of a country infamous for human rights abuses (and rather than trumpet the success of neo-liberal markets in opening up China's door to enable changes -- such as labour laws -- to take place) these corporations are threatening to take their business elsewhere (read: no laws to get in the way of profits).
Despite the obvious hypocrisy of foreign corporations, and despite the despair offered by realists and pessimists, the announcement by Chinese officials to enact labour laws is a powerful reminder: We do not get to dictate the results, but we do get to act and if we act with integrity, for integrity, eventually things start to happen.
For more information on the proposed Chinese labour law go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13sweat.html?
ei=5070&en=114dc0b42e050b6b&ex=1161403200&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1160743610-e20kv0agl4KVJL6Fhp/NlQ
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8283
When it comes to Human Rights -- realists don't make a difference. You are either an optimist or a pessimist. The reason? Realists accept the status qua and assume that any change will be too insignificant to make a difference; pessimists expect no or little change, while optimists continue to hope, work and expect to solidify these rights for all of humanity.
So, why bring this up? Because China just announced that it is passing a law that would allow labour unions to organize and participate in this Asian giant's market; their (stated) rationale: to protect worker rights.
This is a miracle. And it an optimist's vindication.
As little as a decade ago a good deal of people bemoaned the impact of human rights activism. Their arguments hinged upon nations -- such as China -- that had refused to embrace these universal truths. And any gains the activist league made, critics denounced by citing continued abuses and atrocities in these suspect nations.
But as any good optimist will tell you: Hope is not faith with evidence; Hope is faith despite the evidence.
Evidence showed that since the 1980s (when China first introduced market forces into its economy) the Asian giant has been more interested in economic evolution then in human rights. As such, the country nurtured the conditions that enabled sweatshops and illegal factories to flourish -- working conditions that time and again proved to be harmful to workers health and safety.
This new law, however, would change all of that. It would protect worker's in all factories -- including foreign-owned factories. And it acknowledges -- again -- that human rights is an essential component to quality of life, standard of living and a universal truth.
While critics continue to poke holes (analysts warn that it will be hard to enforce the law in such a large country) optimists are celebrating. Though the law is far from perfect, and though sub-standard human rights conditions continue to exist in China, this law is a step towards solidifying the need to treat people with respect and dignity. The law is also a testamont -- that despite the apparently slow pace, leaders (economic and political) ARE listening to the demands of the people.
For China, a major reason for the new law is to curb the exponential growth that is occuring in the country at the moment. While the government is pleased with the growth, Chinese officials are aware that such growth can cause massive disparity, which leads to social unrest, crime and deconstruction of community. So, their solution is to secure rights for all.
The absolute irony, however, is the protest of foreign corporations who do business in China. Rather than applaud the officials of a country infamous for human rights abuses (and rather than trumpet the success of neo-liberal markets in opening up China's door to enable changes -- such as labour laws -- to take place) these corporations are threatening to take their business elsewhere (read: no laws to get in the way of profits).
Despite the obvious hypocrisy of foreign corporations, and despite the despair offered by realists and pessimists, the announcement by Chinese officials to enact labour laws is a powerful reminder: We do not get to dictate the results, but we do get to act and if we act with integrity, for integrity, eventually things start to happen.
For more information on the proposed Chinese labour law go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13sweat.html?
ei=5070&en=114dc0b42e050b6b&ex=1161403200&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1160743610-e20kv0agl4KVJL6Fhp/NlQ
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8283
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Let go of my choco
Release the organic, veal-fed cocoa beans from captivity.
That's the plea for today.
Release the damn cocoa beans.
Cocoa beans are the precursor of chocolote -- the delectable confectionary whose market share reached an estimated value of $73.2 billion in 2001, a 21 percent increase since 1996, according to the International Cocoa Organization.
While not a staple food source, cocoa is big business. Sixty percent of all chocolate is still consumed in the first world nations of the USA and the European Union -- regions that represent only 20 percent of the world's population.
Yet, despite the delectable taste of dark, milk, white, and fruit-filled chocolate, people in the industry are suffering from our first world addiction to cheap goods.
Robin Romano, a photographer and human rights advocate, set out to document the lives of child slaves involved in cocoa production in the Ivory Coast. Their suffering, he says, should give people pause when purchasing candy bars.
According to Romano, one child slave from the Ivory Coast stated: “Tell them, when they're eating chocolate, they're eating my flesh.”
Romano, who took photographs of child slaves during two trips to Ivory Coast during the past several years, said the problem of child labor is deeply rooted in the global economic system.
“I believe in globalization and capitalism, but in its current form, globalization is grossly mismanaged,” he said. “What I saw broke my heart and made me weep.”
He said the story of child labor in the cocoa fields involves corrupt African governments, U.S. and European governments, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and transnational organizations.
“There is not a developed country that is without sin in this area,” Romano said, noting that Africa has suffered from globalization.
According to Romano, one million West African children toil in the chocolate fields. In a nation crippled by poverty and illiteracy, the children are lured by the promise of salaries and other benefits. Yet, once at the cocoa farms, the children are overworked, underfed, abused, and often crippled. At night, they are kept hostage by guards. They face brutal treatment, even death, if they try to escape.
Bama Athreya, executive director of the International Labour Rights Fund, said in an interview with the Independent, that "Nestlé has carelessly bought cocoa from plantations that use child slave labour." A charge Nestlé’s chief executive, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, rejected despite his acknowledgement that, "Children are working in the Ivory Coast, without a doubt."
As a result Athreya and Romano are urging consumers to take a stand against child labor by raising the issue with elected officials, and buying – and encouraging others to buy – fair trade products.
Fair trade sets a minimum price for commodities such as cocoa, he said, based on an amount that people in the producing countries can live on.
“Fair trade is making lives better for farmers,” he said, and “has the potential to be a turning point in the way the world economy works.”
For those requiring additional (personal) reasons, the WWF strongly urges consumers to avoid non-organic, non-fair trade chocolate based on the high levels of Lindane --an organochlorine pesticide that is linked with breast cancer. The pesticide is banned in Europe but still used in some cocoa-producing countries that is linked with breast cancer and can be found in factory-farmed cocoa.
So, we, here on the great Inter-Web, are asking consumers to boycott the Crunchies, the Wunderbars, the KitKats and the Dairy Milks. Instead, head to your local health food store, or grocery chain and vote for fair business practices by buying organic, fair-trade chocolate.
It's time the veal-fed cocoa bean was let loose in the neo-liberal jungle.
That's the plea for today.
Release the damn cocoa beans.
Cocoa beans are the precursor of chocolote -- the delectable confectionary whose market share reached an estimated value of $73.2 billion in 2001, a 21 percent increase since 1996, according to the International Cocoa Organization.
While not a staple food source, cocoa is big business. Sixty percent of all chocolate is still consumed in the first world nations of the USA and the European Union -- regions that represent only 20 percent of the world's population.
Yet, despite the delectable taste of dark, milk, white, and fruit-filled chocolate, people in the industry are suffering from our first world addiction to cheap goods.
Robin Romano, a photographer and human rights advocate, set out to document the lives of child slaves involved in cocoa production in the Ivory Coast. Their suffering, he says, should give people pause when purchasing candy bars.
According to Romano, one child slave from the Ivory Coast stated: “Tell them, when they're eating chocolate, they're eating my flesh.”
Romano, who took photographs of child slaves during two trips to Ivory Coast during the past several years, said the problem of child labor is deeply rooted in the global economic system.
“I believe in globalization and capitalism, but in its current form, globalization is grossly mismanaged,” he said. “What I saw broke my heart and made me weep.”
He said the story of child labor in the cocoa fields involves corrupt African governments, U.S. and European governments, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and transnational organizations.
“There is not a developed country that is without sin in this area,” Romano said, noting that Africa has suffered from globalization.
According to Romano, one million West African children toil in the chocolate fields. In a nation crippled by poverty and illiteracy, the children are lured by the promise of salaries and other benefits. Yet, once at the cocoa farms, the children are overworked, underfed, abused, and often crippled. At night, they are kept hostage by guards. They face brutal treatment, even death, if they try to escape.
Bama Athreya, executive director of the International Labour Rights Fund, said in an interview with the Independent, that "Nestlé has carelessly bought cocoa from plantations that use child slave labour." A charge Nestlé’s chief executive, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, rejected despite his acknowledgement that, "Children are working in the Ivory Coast, without a doubt."
As a result Athreya and Romano are urging consumers to take a stand against child labor by raising the issue with elected officials, and buying – and encouraging others to buy – fair trade products.
Fair trade sets a minimum price for commodities such as cocoa, he said, based on an amount that people in the producing countries can live on.
“Fair trade is making lives better for farmers,” he said, and “has the potential to be a turning point in the way the world economy works.”
For those requiring additional (personal) reasons, the WWF strongly urges consumers to avoid non-organic, non-fair trade chocolate based on the high levels of Lindane --an organochlorine pesticide that is linked with breast cancer. The pesticide is banned in Europe but still used in some cocoa-producing countries that is linked with breast cancer and can be found in factory-farmed cocoa.
So, we, here on the great Inter-Web, are asking consumers to boycott the Crunchies, the Wunderbars, the KitKats and the Dairy Milks. Instead, head to your local health food store, or grocery chain and vote for fair business practices by buying organic, fair-trade chocolate.
It's time the veal-fed cocoa bean was let loose in the neo-liberal jungle.
Hey buddy: can you spare a square?
Our tushies need to toughen up!
While soft, plushy, 16-ply TP is a favourite among North American well-to-do's, the fact is our addiction to plush pile is killing the planet one square at a time. And it's time to put a stop to it.
In a report released today by the WWF, tissue and toilet paper manufacturers were given a failing grade regarding environmental policy and sustainable practices. The main point of contention was that major paper product manufacturers were not doing enough to: a)prove their timber comes from sustainable sources, b)prevent illegal logging, c)deal with land rights conflicts.
The report specifically called upon consumers to boycott the "wasteful trend" toward luxury toilet paper (and other hygiene products). Instead, the WWF urged consumers to seek out products with higher recycled content. (The report also mentioned that "extra-white" paper products should also be avoided as the extensive bleaching process was harmful to the environment).
While the report did not mention specific manufacturers by name (except when assigning an environmental score), other sources state one paper-hygiene company to avoid is Kimberly-Clark. Considered the largest tissue-products company in the world, Kimberly-Clark amasses sales in 150 countries around the world (3/4 of the world's official nations buy TP from this company). Unfortunately Kimberly-Clark failed the WWF test with an environmental score below 50 percent.
The reason for the continued pressure on tissue-product practices is that, according to the World Resources Institute, almost 80 percent of the world's original forests have been degraded or completely destroyed. Much of the loss of these ancient forests is due to human industrial uses such as logging for wood and paper products; clearing for agricultural land; and oil, gas, and hydroelectric development. (NOTE: Canada's Boreal forest represents 25 percent of the world's remaining ancient forests.)
The importance of these forests is not lost on scientists and agronominists. The world's ancient forests maintain environmental systems that are essential for life on Earth. They influence weather by controlling rainfall and evaporation of water from soil. They help stabilize the world's climate by storing large amounts of carbon that would otherwise contribute to climate change. These forests also are home to around two-thirds of the world's land-based species of plants and animals. They are also home to millions of forest-based communities and people who depend on them for their survival — economically and spiritually.
As a result, consumers concerned with saving our forests -- sparing a tree one square at a time -- can avoid products by larger paper-product manufacturers. For example, Kimberly-Clark brands include: Kleenex Facial Tissues, Scott Toilet Paper and Paper Towels, Cottonelle Toilet Paper, and Viva Paper Towels.
For the more pro-active people among us go to your university, high school, governmental building, or large business and demand to know where they obtain their paper products. In North America, only about 1/5 of the pulp that Kimberly-Clark uses for its disposable tissue products comes from recycled sources, and most of that goes into the products that go to large institutions, not consumers.
In 2004, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council set their sights on Kimberly-Clark's practice of sacrificing virgin forests at the Altar of Blowing and Wiping, particularly as the practice applies to Canada's ancient Boreal forests. The goal of their "Kleercut" campaign is to get consumers involved in pressuring Kimberly-Clark to stop this unnecessary, wasteful practice.
For a list of paper products to buy and avoid go to:
http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/gtissue.asp
http://www.greenpeace.ca/tissue/download/guide_en.pdf
#search='best%20recycled%20paper%20products%20in%20canada'
To read the WWF report go to:
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=82120
To read more about the Greenpeace Kleercut campaign go to:
http://www.kleercut.net/en/
To send an email to Kimberly-Clark protesting their unsustainable practices go to:
http://kleercut.net/en/sendtokc?PHPSESSID=97125610a81364d1ae6b9add7b2b2cc4
To read more about the Boreal Forests go to:
http://www.forestethics.org/article.php?list=type&type=18
While soft, plushy, 16-ply TP is a favourite among North American well-to-do's, the fact is our addiction to plush pile is killing the planet one square at a time. And it's time to put a stop to it.
In a report released today by the WWF, tissue and toilet paper manufacturers were given a failing grade regarding environmental policy and sustainable practices. The main point of contention was that major paper product manufacturers were not doing enough to: a)prove their timber comes from sustainable sources, b)prevent illegal logging, c)deal with land rights conflicts.
The report specifically called upon consumers to boycott the "wasteful trend" toward luxury toilet paper (and other hygiene products). Instead, the WWF urged consumers to seek out products with higher recycled content. (The report also mentioned that "extra-white" paper products should also be avoided as the extensive bleaching process was harmful to the environment).
While the report did not mention specific manufacturers by name (except when assigning an environmental score), other sources state one paper-hygiene company to avoid is Kimberly-Clark. Considered the largest tissue-products company in the world, Kimberly-Clark amasses sales in 150 countries around the world (3/4 of the world's official nations buy TP from this company). Unfortunately Kimberly-Clark failed the WWF test with an environmental score below 50 percent.
The reason for the continued pressure on tissue-product practices is that, according to the World Resources Institute, almost 80 percent of the world's original forests have been degraded or completely destroyed. Much of the loss of these ancient forests is due to human industrial uses such as logging for wood and paper products; clearing for agricultural land; and oil, gas, and hydroelectric development. (NOTE: Canada's Boreal forest represents 25 percent of the world's remaining ancient forests.)
The importance of these forests is not lost on scientists and agronominists. The world's ancient forests maintain environmental systems that are essential for life on Earth. They influence weather by controlling rainfall and evaporation of water from soil. They help stabilize the world's climate by storing large amounts of carbon that would otherwise contribute to climate change. These forests also are home to around two-thirds of the world's land-based species of plants and animals. They are also home to millions of forest-based communities and people who depend on them for their survival — economically and spiritually.
As a result, consumers concerned with saving our forests -- sparing a tree one square at a time -- can avoid products by larger paper-product manufacturers. For example, Kimberly-Clark brands include: Kleenex Facial Tissues, Scott Toilet Paper and Paper Towels, Cottonelle Toilet Paper, and Viva Paper Towels.
For the more pro-active people among us go to your university, high school, governmental building, or large business and demand to know where they obtain their paper products. In North America, only about 1/5 of the pulp that Kimberly-Clark uses for its disposable tissue products comes from recycled sources, and most of that goes into the products that go to large institutions, not consumers.
In 2004, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council set their sights on Kimberly-Clark's practice of sacrificing virgin forests at the Altar of Blowing and Wiping, particularly as the practice applies to Canada's ancient Boreal forests. The goal of their "Kleercut" campaign is to get consumers involved in pressuring Kimberly-Clark to stop this unnecessary, wasteful practice.
For a list of paper products to buy and avoid go to:
http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/gtissue.asp
http://www.greenpeace.ca/tissue/download/guide_en.pdf
#search='best%20recycled%20paper%20products%20in%20canada'
To read the WWF report go to:
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=82120
To read more about the Greenpeace Kleercut campaign go to:
http://www.kleercut.net/en/
To send an email to Kimberly-Clark protesting their unsustainable practices go to:
http://kleercut.net/en/sendtokc?PHPSESSID=97125610a81364d1ae6b9add7b2b2cc4
To read more about the Boreal Forests go to:
http://www.forestethics.org/article.php?list=type&type=18
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Natural and organic: studies show it is not a marketing ploy; reality shows it is not fail-safe
It appears that the organic farming process has become the sacrificial lamb of the natural food movement in recent days.
Due to a recent spate of stories regarding the contamination of organics, along with various stories questioning the nutritional superiority of organics, the pristine image of natural food is being questioned by consumers, media and officials, alike.
What prompted this line of questioning was the death of one woman and the hospitilization of at least 29 others (in America and Canada) due to deadly E.coli bacteria found in organic spinach. Days before the spinach contamination became public, several California kids were hospitilized due to permanent kidney failure from the same virulent strain of E. coli after consuming raw, un-pasteurized milk. Add this to the large sticker prices slapped on organic and natural food items and people have begun to second guess the benefits of organic food matter.
However, in order to appreciate any benefit organic and natural food items have, it is important to understand what these labels entail. The organic label is not just for fruits and vegetables. There's now organic milk, organic cheese and organic butter. There are even organic processed foods - including cereals, pastas and even corn chips. And organic is no longer confined to specialty shops or remote counters in supermarkets. Organic can be found in the larger super-market chains and even in smaller mom-n-pop corner stores. In fact, organic beef production in Canada has increased by 30 percent and the industry is now worth nearly $350 million annually.
So, what does this pricey organic label mean? If you believe it means pesticide-free, you are wrong. Even organic farmers and breeders will state that pesticides are so prevalent in our environment (air and soil) that no crop or feed can be designated as totally free of synthetic chemicals. Organic, then, simply means that the producers do not intentionally use any chemical product in the growth and/or production of the food item. Also, organic is not synonymous with free-range or natural. Just because a product is labelled natural does not mean it is organic.
Most conventional farmers fertilize their food crops with chemical fertilizer, and put their livestock manure on feed crops like corn (that is also fertilized with chemical fertilizer). Organic farmers reject chemical fertilizer. Instead, they compost raw cattle manure for some weeks; this process kills dangerous organisms that could contaminate the food. Most of the time it works. Sometimes it doesn't -- as witnessed by the tragic events spurred by the contaminated spinach and milk. The sad fact is organic farming, like traditional farming, must pay particular attention in dealing with bacteria -- only organic farmers do not have chemicals to aid in this process.
Perhaps because of this and other stories regarding the questionable benefits of organics, a few media sources have begun to do their own research. Global National News health reporter, Jennifer Tryon, tested both organic and regular beef to determine if the high price for organic was worth the cost to consumers.
Using the University of Guelph laboratories, Tryon tested the cuts of beef for pesticides, antibiotics and other chemical residues. Tests showed that neither the organic nor the conventional meat had enough residues to show on standard government tests.
However, before you dismiss organic as another marketing hype, pay heed to the numerous studies that do identify organic food as a better nutritional source. For example, a study released in 2003 in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society, showed that organically grown food was higher in cancer-fighting chemicals than conventionally grown foods. Specifically, the study stated that fruits and veggies grown organically show significantly higher levels of
cancer-fighting antioxidants than conventionally grown foods, according to a
new study of corn, strawberries and marionberries. The research suggests
that pesticides and herbicides actually thwart the production of phenolics --
chemicals that act as a plant's natural defense and also happen to be good
for our health. Fertilizers, however, seem to boost the levels of
anti-cancer compounds.
Other studies support the notion that organic food matter does hold superior nutritional benefits. This year, for example, a US research team from Emory University in Atlanta found that by analyzing the urine samples of children aged three to 11, they could determine who ate organic food material and who did not. The children that were fed on an organic diet did not contain metabolites of two common pesticides: malathion and chlorpyrifos. Those that did not eat organic foods did contian the chemicals. More importantly, when the test group of children returned to their regular diet, the levels of these pesticide metabolites increased sharply. Another study out of Britian analyzed government nutrition data on meat and dairy products from the 1930s and from 2002; this analysis included mineral content of milk, cheese and beef and showed a marked decline, by as much as 70 percent, during this period.
While agricultural farmers (and their advocates) on either side of the divide continue to debate the validity and safety of organic, it is important to remember that the safety of our food is not always in the growing, but also in the preparing and serving. Often, the contaminants that can cause us the most harm, can be most efficiently eliminated through proper handling and preparation of the food material.
As for the people seriously injured by the virulent and deadly E.coli found in unpastuerized milk and bagged spinach -- my heart goes out to you; it is a shame that your health and welfare have become the microscope with which we examine our agricultural supply; however, this examination is necessary if we want to gain a greater appreciation and understanding of what it takes to go from field to table.
For more information on the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry article go to:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/polyphenolics031203.cfm
For more information on the US and UK studies on organics from 2006 go to:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0304-03.htm
For more information on Global National News' report on the price of organic beef go to: http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html
?id=27fc0e28-5943-44cb-b0b7-2c185f64dc1c
For criticism of organics go to:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1006/1006organic.htm
Due to a recent spate of stories regarding the contamination of organics, along with various stories questioning the nutritional superiority of organics, the pristine image of natural food is being questioned by consumers, media and officials, alike.
What prompted this line of questioning was the death of one woman and the hospitilization of at least 29 others (in America and Canada) due to deadly E.coli bacteria found in organic spinach. Days before the spinach contamination became public, several California kids were hospitilized due to permanent kidney failure from the same virulent strain of E. coli after consuming raw, un-pasteurized milk. Add this to the large sticker prices slapped on organic and natural food items and people have begun to second guess the benefits of organic food matter.
However, in order to appreciate any benefit organic and natural food items have, it is important to understand what these labels entail. The organic label is not just for fruits and vegetables. There's now organic milk, organic cheese and organic butter. There are even organic processed foods - including cereals, pastas and even corn chips. And organic is no longer confined to specialty shops or remote counters in supermarkets. Organic can be found in the larger super-market chains and even in smaller mom-n-pop corner stores. In fact, organic beef production in Canada has increased by 30 percent and the industry is now worth nearly $350 million annually.
So, what does this pricey organic label mean? If you believe it means pesticide-free, you are wrong. Even organic farmers and breeders will state that pesticides are so prevalent in our environment (air and soil) that no crop or feed can be designated as totally free of synthetic chemicals. Organic, then, simply means that the producers do not intentionally use any chemical product in the growth and/or production of the food item. Also, organic is not synonymous with free-range or natural. Just because a product is labelled natural does not mean it is organic.
Most conventional farmers fertilize their food crops with chemical fertilizer, and put their livestock manure on feed crops like corn (that is also fertilized with chemical fertilizer). Organic farmers reject chemical fertilizer. Instead, they compost raw cattle manure for some weeks; this process kills dangerous organisms that could contaminate the food. Most of the time it works. Sometimes it doesn't -- as witnessed by the tragic events spurred by the contaminated spinach and milk. The sad fact is organic farming, like traditional farming, must pay particular attention in dealing with bacteria -- only organic farmers do not have chemicals to aid in this process.
Perhaps because of this and other stories regarding the questionable benefits of organics, a few media sources have begun to do their own research. Global National News health reporter, Jennifer Tryon, tested both organic and regular beef to determine if the high price for organic was worth the cost to consumers.
Using the University of Guelph laboratories, Tryon tested the cuts of beef for pesticides, antibiotics and other chemical residues. Tests showed that neither the organic nor the conventional meat had enough residues to show on standard government tests.
However, before you dismiss organic as another marketing hype, pay heed to the numerous studies that do identify organic food as a better nutritional source. For example, a study released in 2003 in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society, showed that organically grown food was higher in cancer-fighting chemicals than conventionally grown foods. Specifically, the study stated that fruits and veggies grown organically show significantly higher levels of
cancer-fighting antioxidants than conventionally grown foods, according to a
new study of corn, strawberries and marionberries. The research suggests
that pesticides and herbicides actually thwart the production of phenolics --
chemicals that act as a plant's natural defense and also happen to be good
for our health. Fertilizers, however, seem to boost the levels of
anti-cancer compounds.
Other studies support the notion that organic food matter does hold superior nutritional benefits. This year, for example, a US research team from Emory University in Atlanta found that by analyzing the urine samples of children aged three to 11, they could determine who ate organic food material and who did not. The children that were fed on an organic diet did not contain metabolites of two common pesticides: malathion and chlorpyrifos. Those that did not eat organic foods did contian the chemicals. More importantly, when the test group of children returned to their regular diet, the levels of these pesticide metabolites increased sharply. Another study out of Britian analyzed government nutrition data on meat and dairy products from the 1930s and from 2002; this analysis included mineral content of milk, cheese and beef and showed a marked decline, by as much as 70 percent, during this period.
While agricultural farmers (and their advocates) on either side of the divide continue to debate the validity and safety of organic, it is important to remember that the safety of our food is not always in the growing, but also in the preparing and serving. Often, the contaminants that can cause us the most harm, can be most efficiently eliminated through proper handling and preparation of the food material.
As for the people seriously injured by the virulent and deadly E.coli found in unpastuerized milk and bagged spinach -- my heart goes out to you; it is a shame that your health and welfare have become the microscope with which we examine our agricultural supply; however, this examination is necessary if we want to gain a greater appreciation and understanding of what it takes to go from field to table.
For more information on the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry article go to:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/polyphenolics031203.cfm
For more information on the US and UK studies on organics from 2006 go to:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0304-03.htm
For more information on Global National News' report on the price of organic beef go to: http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html
?id=27fc0e28-5943-44cb-b0b7-2c185f64dc1c
For criticism of organics go to:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1006/1006organic.htm
Friday, October 06, 2006
Green living and the design dilemma
Green living isn't a trend; it's a societal shift towards responsible living.
And more and more North Americans are embracing this shift -- making energy saving and environmental ramifications an integral part of their lifestyle decision-making.
Now, style-gurus are coming out to promote this not-so-new attitude toward sustainability. More and more interior designers are starting their environmentally friendly with style options to give homeowners a chic choice when being responsible.
As such, more and more how-to tips offer homeowners options for eco-chic rooms. These options include alternative choices for paint, flooring, window treatments, furniture and lighting.
Self-professed environmental lifestyle expert Danny Seo, who's written a series of books on the topic called "Simply Green", compiled a list of simple suggestions for decorators. These suggestions include:
PAINT: Chose a low VOC paint. VOCs are "volatile organic compounds" — the only bad "organic" you should avoid. (The higher the VOC the stronger the paint odour). As such, companies like Benjamin Moore are producing low VOC paint called ECOSPEC. It's virtually odorless and can be tinted almost any color.
FLOORING: For the wine lovers (and environmentalists) the best flooring option is a cork floor; cork is an ecological and durable choice. And there are a number of reasons for this choice. The first is that cork is slowly becoming an usused resource as wine makers turn to plastic, rather than cork, to top their products. With this decreased demand for cork, the cork forests -- where cork material is stripped from the trees without killing them, making it a sustainable choice -- are being clear cut for farmland. So, choosing a cork floor provides the homeowner a durable, sound-proofing choice and helps save the cork forests.
WINDOW TREATMENTS: Rather than drapes or plastic blinds, Seo suggests bamboo blinds. The choice is eco-friendly because it's not wood -- and most wood products employ clear cutting methods. Instead, bamboo is a fast-growing grass that can be made into wood-like products. Not only is this natural material highly durable, but,right now, it's very vogue.
FURNITURE: Choose furniture that promotes sustainable harvesting (harvested from tree plantations, rather than clear cutting rain forests).
LIGHTING: Light bulbs have advanced over the years and the compact flourescent bulbs (funny shaped) are ideal for reduced energy expenditure by 10% and still provide suitable indoor lighting. A cheap option that allows a homeowner to use these lights is to conceal the bulbs behind a lamp or shade -- and the cheapest option for a wide variety it Ikea. Also, don't forget to take your used compact flourescents light bulbs with you when you shop -- Ikea will recycle them for you.
To find out more about Danny Seo go to:
http://www.dannyseo.com/
And more and more North Americans are embracing this shift -- making energy saving and environmental ramifications an integral part of their lifestyle decision-making.
Now, style-gurus are coming out to promote this not-so-new attitude toward sustainability. More and more interior designers are starting their environmentally friendly with style options to give homeowners a chic choice when being responsible.
As such, more and more how-to tips offer homeowners options for eco-chic rooms. These options include alternative choices for paint, flooring, window treatments, furniture and lighting.
Self-professed environmental lifestyle expert Danny Seo, who's written a series of books on the topic called "Simply Green", compiled a list of simple suggestions for decorators. These suggestions include:
PAINT: Chose a low VOC paint. VOCs are "volatile organic compounds" — the only bad "organic" you should avoid. (The higher the VOC the stronger the paint odour). As such, companies like Benjamin Moore are producing low VOC paint called ECOSPEC. It's virtually odorless and can be tinted almost any color.
FLOORING: For the wine lovers (and environmentalists) the best flooring option is a cork floor; cork is an ecological and durable choice. And there are a number of reasons for this choice. The first is that cork is slowly becoming an usused resource as wine makers turn to plastic, rather than cork, to top their products. With this decreased demand for cork, the cork forests -- where cork material is stripped from the trees without killing them, making it a sustainable choice -- are being clear cut for farmland. So, choosing a cork floor provides the homeowner a durable, sound-proofing choice and helps save the cork forests.
WINDOW TREATMENTS: Rather than drapes or plastic blinds, Seo suggests bamboo blinds. The choice is eco-friendly because it's not wood -- and most wood products employ clear cutting methods. Instead, bamboo is a fast-growing grass that can be made into wood-like products. Not only is this natural material highly durable, but,right now, it's very vogue.
FURNITURE: Choose furniture that promotes sustainable harvesting (harvested from tree plantations, rather than clear cutting rain forests).
LIGHTING: Light bulbs have advanced over the years and the compact flourescent bulbs (funny shaped) are ideal for reduced energy expenditure by 10% and still provide suitable indoor lighting. A cheap option that allows a homeowner to use these lights is to conceal the bulbs behind a lamp or shade -- and the cheapest option for a wide variety it Ikea. Also, don't forget to take your used compact flourescents light bulbs with you when you shop -- Ikea will recycle them for you.
To find out more about Danny Seo go to:
http://www.dannyseo.com/
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Tories pull the plug on authentic pluralism with rumours of a duplicitat religious freedoms act
Their electoral platform called for it. Their supporters clamoured for it. The opposition (Just Jack Layton and what's his-Liberal) warned about it. And now, the Harper government has done it. They've found a way to oppose the nation's democratic majority and call into question the law allowing same-sex marriages.
And how? How would a government go against the will of the majority and against the law of the land? Like any good conservative government, the Harper regime opted to swing the argument from human rights for homosexuals (and LGBTQ) to human rights for religious folk.
Enter the proposed defence of religions act. While the Tories have floated this idea in offline discussions for about a month, it became apparent that it was a go when Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed, in a news report, that the religions act would be proposed to help protect opponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
The act comes on the heels of much debate regarding whether or not civil servants, with religious convictions, should be forced to perform same-sex marital unions. According to Brenda Cossman, a constitutional expert at the University of Toronto, the federal government cannot extend extra protection to public officials who refuse to perform gay marriages because the solemnization is a provincial responsibility.''They just don't have the legislative power,'' said Cossman in a canada.com interview. ''It's some way to try to placate the more social conservative elements of the party with a strategy that just is not going to fly.''
Cossman added the Supreme Court of Canada already confirmed, in a 2004 legal opinion, that marriage ceremonies are the responsibility of the provinces.
Critics of the proposed religious freedoms act, including some Conservative MP's, denounce the act saying that it would trample on provincial jurisdiction and mimic existing constitutional protection for religious freedom by allowing officials to refuse to perform gay marriages, protect the free speech of anti-gay religious leaders and organizations that refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.
While, Mike Storeshaw, a spokesman for Toews, cautioned yesterday that no final decision was made on the proposal he declined to confirm any details. Meanwhile Toews and Harper dismissed questions during the legislative question period regarding the proposed act.
Still, Harper and his cabinet are more than aware that they face failure in an upcoming vote in Parliament on whether to re-open the debate over same-sex marriage. The religious protection proposal is believed to be a consolation prize to the opponents of the recently passed law that allows for same-sex marriages.
''We've got example after example across the country of religious people being prosecuted by courts and human rights commissions because there is no protection,'' said Brian Rushfeldt, of the Campaign Life Coalition in a CanWest interview. ''I think there definitely has to be strong legislation at the federal level but it has to be followed up at the provincial level as well because of the jurisdictional issue.''
Yet, provinces -- aware of the conflict between rights -- already took steps to ensure that religious freedoms are not squashed as the law of the land attempts to equalize all its citizens.
In Ontario, steps were already taken to address the issue by passing a law that exempts religious officials from performing marriage ceremonies if it violates their religious beliefs.
Laurie Arron, spokesman for the group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, said opponents of gay marriage are trying to make it seem that the country is rife with public officials who are facing human rights complaints for refusing to marry gays and lesbians, when that is simply not the case.
While in Canada human rights is a shared jurisdictional issue between Ottawa and the provinces -- it is a universal right for all citizens. As such, the proposed new religious freedom act by the current Tory government is one more step towards entrenching religious freedoms (and control) over the rights, freedoms and equality (under the law) of Canada's 'other'.
NOTE:
Philosophers debate over the difference between authentic pluralism and convergence pluralism. According to Harper and his religious right supporters, Canada is a nation of convergence despite the failure of Germany, France and the United States to achieve a peaceful pluralistic convergence -- where all disparate entities act more and more alike until you are left with the melding pot of the same. While the Tory government refuses to acknowledge and accept this, there is another (common sense) option: authentic pluralism.
Authentic pluralism is premised on the fact that pluralism is evolutionary and continual. Hence, there is never an end state, never a state of rest. That's because authentic pluralism attempts to change and grow based on the population. As culture and society and the mix of all changes, so does the shape, form and behaviour of pluralism. While this is a far more ambiguous state (rather than the tried and true static state of controlled knowledge and action that is proposed by much of the religious right), authentic pluralism offers Canadians an option to include and protect the rights and freedoms of all its citizens -- as EQUAL under the law. But it takes work. And vision. Both of which we sorely lack from our leaders.
And how? How would a government go against the will of the majority and against the law of the land? Like any good conservative government, the Harper regime opted to swing the argument from human rights for homosexuals (and LGBTQ) to human rights for religious folk.
Enter the proposed defence of religions act. While the Tories have floated this idea in offline discussions for about a month, it became apparent that it was a go when Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed, in a news report, that the religions act would be proposed to help protect opponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
The act comes on the heels of much debate regarding whether or not civil servants, with religious convictions, should be forced to perform same-sex marital unions. According to Brenda Cossman, a constitutional expert at the University of Toronto, the federal government cannot extend extra protection to public officials who refuse to perform gay marriages because the solemnization is a provincial responsibility.''They just don't have the legislative power,'' said Cossman in a canada.com interview. ''It's some way to try to placate the more social conservative elements of the party with a strategy that just is not going to fly.''
Cossman added the Supreme Court of Canada already confirmed, in a 2004 legal opinion, that marriage ceremonies are the responsibility of the provinces.
Critics of the proposed religious freedoms act, including some Conservative MP's, denounce the act saying that it would trample on provincial jurisdiction and mimic existing constitutional protection for religious freedom by allowing officials to refuse to perform gay marriages, protect the free speech of anti-gay religious leaders and organizations that refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.
While, Mike Storeshaw, a spokesman for Toews, cautioned yesterday that no final decision was made on the proposal he declined to confirm any details. Meanwhile Toews and Harper dismissed questions during the legislative question period regarding the proposed act.
Still, Harper and his cabinet are more than aware that they face failure in an upcoming vote in Parliament on whether to re-open the debate over same-sex marriage. The religious protection proposal is believed to be a consolation prize to the opponents of the recently passed law that allows for same-sex marriages.
''We've got example after example across the country of religious people being prosecuted by courts and human rights commissions because there is no protection,'' said Brian Rushfeldt, of the Campaign Life Coalition in a CanWest interview. ''I think there definitely has to be strong legislation at the federal level but it has to be followed up at the provincial level as well because of the jurisdictional issue.''
Yet, provinces -- aware of the conflict between rights -- already took steps to ensure that religious freedoms are not squashed as the law of the land attempts to equalize all its citizens.
In Ontario, steps were already taken to address the issue by passing a law that exempts religious officials from performing marriage ceremonies if it violates their religious beliefs.
Laurie Arron, spokesman for the group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, said opponents of gay marriage are trying to make it seem that the country is rife with public officials who are facing human rights complaints for refusing to marry gays and lesbians, when that is simply not the case.
While in Canada human rights is a shared jurisdictional issue between Ottawa and the provinces -- it is a universal right for all citizens. As such, the proposed new religious freedom act by the current Tory government is one more step towards entrenching religious freedoms (and control) over the rights, freedoms and equality (under the law) of Canada's 'other'.
NOTE:
Philosophers debate over the difference between authentic pluralism and convergence pluralism. According to Harper and his religious right supporters, Canada is a nation of convergence despite the failure of Germany, France and the United States to achieve a peaceful pluralistic convergence -- where all disparate entities act more and more alike until you are left with the melding pot of the same. While the Tory government refuses to acknowledge and accept this, there is another (common sense) option: authentic pluralism.
Authentic pluralism is premised on the fact that pluralism is evolutionary and continual. Hence, there is never an end state, never a state of rest. That's because authentic pluralism attempts to change and grow based on the population. As culture and society and the mix of all changes, so does the shape, form and behaviour of pluralism. While this is a far more ambiguous state (rather than the tried and true static state of controlled knowledge and action that is proposed by much of the religious right), authentic pluralism offers Canadians an option to include and protect the rights and freedoms of all its citizens -- as EQUAL under the law. But it takes work. And vision. Both of which we sorely lack from our leaders.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
I want to know all about drugs
The corporate strangle-hold on government regulation of pharmaceuticals must stop.
A recent admission by Bayer A.G. that it withheld data from the US FDA, suggesting that a heart-surgery drug is dangerous, is simply not acceptable. It is ridiculous that pharmaceutical companies have the option to withhold (read: hide) studies that do not provide favourable results of their drugs. Few other industries have the flexibility to tailor the perception and evidence of their brand (without breaking the law). Few other industries can pick and choose what evidence they can release to the public without breaking the law. The fact that Bayer is chalking this up to a "mistake on the company's part" only strengthens the need for full disclosure of all pharmaceutical studies.
Time and time again, when cases arise of pharmaceutical companies withholding unfavourable study results, the evidence eventually shows that these multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporations choose to hide the results. Often this is done by dismissing the study because it is produced by a third-party (a contractor) -- providing the pharmaceutical company time to discount the study's evidence. Often, the results only come out because of whistleblower activity.
For Bayer, right now, the drug in question is Trasylol (which has long been used in heart surgery to reduce blood loss and the need for transfusions), but last year US-based pharmaceutical Merck lost a Texas court case when the judge awarded a widow $253-million after her husband died of a heart attack as a result of taking the painkiller Vioxx. (The award was later reduced to $26-million, but Merck continues to face thousands of similar court cases over Vioxx). The year before that GlaxoSmithKline had difficulties when the New York attorney-general, Eliot Spitzer, accused it of suppressing negative results from trials on the use of its antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) in children. The drug was never licensed for use in children, but doctors often prescribed it "off label".
The fact is pharmaceutical companies are not required, by law, to fully disclose the results of all studies. The fact is doctors are then left with a body of results that always provides favourable results for medication, regardless of whether or not these results are skewed through omission of results. The fact is, as patients, we need to demand that more regulation be created in order to protect us from the malpractice of pharmaceutical companies.
I am not alone in this sentiment.
Even Peter Goodfellow, the head of the discovery wing of the GSK, the world's second largest pharmaceutical company, believes that the pharmaceutical industry faces a huge challenge. While he describes the challenge as one of perception, I would describe the challenge as one of ethics. When large corporations stand to lose tens-of-millions of dollars on a drug because one of out four studies provide unfavourable results than there is a strong temptation (tempered with rational explanations) that the unfavourable results should be rejected.
While Goodfellow calls for full disclosure from all involved (pharmaceutical companies, doctors and academics), I place the sole responsibility on government. It is the government that needs to step in and set some firm ground rules for disclosure. It is the government that needs to enforce those ground rules. Why? Because, theoretically, the government is the people's representative and as the people's representative it is responsible for protecting the people.
Over the years there has been much debate over this issue. Natural health practitioners and victims have come out strongly in favour of non-pharmaceutical options, while the medical profession continues to support the use of medication. While I do not advocate either extreme, I do believe that full disclosure would go a long way to appeasing both sides. Full disclosure of all results for all medications would provide the medical and scholarly industries the ability to truly assess a medication -- and it would provide skeptics the option to accept or deny medication based on its merits, not on the practice of the industry. In the long run, this would go a long way to helping people...and in the end that's why the pharmaceutical industry was first established.
For more information on Bayer's recent trouble go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/opinion/04wed3.html?th&emc=th
For more information on drug trials and suppression go to:
http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2004/
september/procyshyn.asp
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/162/2/212.pdf#search=
%22pharmaceutical%20companies%20withhold%20evidence%22
A recent admission by Bayer A.G. that it withheld data from the US FDA, suggesting that a heart-surgery drug is dangerous, is simply not acceptable. It is ridiculous that pharmaceutical companies have the option to withhold (read: hide) studies that do not provide favourable results of their drugs. Few other industries have the flexibility to tailor the perception and evidence of their brand (without breaking the law). Few other industries can pick and choose what evidence they can release to the public without breaking the law. The fact that Bayer is chalking this up to a "mistake on the company's part" only strengthens the need for full disclosure of all pharmaceutical studies.
Time and time again, when cases arise of pharmaceutical companies withholding unfavourable study results, the evidence eventually shows that these multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporations choose to hide the results. Often this is done by dismissing the study because it is produced by a third-party (a contractor) -- providing the pharmaceutical company time to discount the study's evidence. Often, the results only come out because of whistleblower activity.
For Bayer, right now, the drug in question is Trasylol (which has long been used in heart surgery to reduce blood loss and the need for transfusions), but last year US-based pharmaceutical Merck lost a Texas court case when the judge awarded a widow $253-million after her husband died of a heart attack as a result of taking the painkiller Vioxx. (The award was later reduced to $26-million, but Merck continues to face thousands of similar court cases over Vioxx). The year before that GlaxoSmithKline had difficulties when the New York attorney-general, Eliot Spitzer, accused it of suppressing negative results from trials on the use of its antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) in children. The drug was never licensed for use in children, but doctors often prescribed it "off label".
The fact is pharmaceutical companies are not required, by law, to fully disclose the results of all studies. The fact is doctors are then left with a body of results that always provides favourable results for medication, regardless of whether or not these results are skewed through omission of results. The fact is, as patients, we need to demand that more regulation be created in order to protect us from the malpractice of pharmaceutical companies.
I am not alone in this sentiment.
Even Peter Goodfellow, the head of the discovery wing of the GSK, the world's second largest pharmaceutical company, believes that the pharmaceutical industry faces a huge challenge. While he describes the challenge as one of perception, I would describe the challenge as one of ethics. When large corporations stand to lose tens-of-millions of dollars on a drug because one of out four studies provide unfavourable results than there is a strong temptation (tempered with rational explanations) that the unfavourable results should be rejected.
While Goodfellow calls for full disclosure from all involved (pharmaceutical companies, doctors and academics), I place the sole responsibility on government. It is the government that needs to step in and set some firm ground rules for disclosure. It is the government that needs to enforce those ground rules. Why? Because, theoretically, the government is the people's representative and as the people's representative it is responsible for protecting the people.
Over the years there has been much debate over this issue. Natural health practitioners and victims have come out strongly in favour of non-pharmaceutical options, while the medical profession continues to support the use of medication. While I do not advocate either extreme, I do believe that full disclosure would go a long way to appeasing both sides. Full disclosure of all results for all medications would provide the medical and scholarly industries the ability to truly assess a medication -- and it would provide skeptics the option to accept or deny medication based on its merits, not on the practice of the industry. In the long run, this would go a long way to helping people...and in the end that's why the pharmaceutical industry was first established.
For more information on Bayer's recent trouble go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/opinion/04wed3.html?th&emc=th
For more information on drug trials and suppression go to:
http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2004/
september/procyshyn.asp
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/162/2/212.pdf#search=
%22pharmaceutical%20companies%20withhold%20evidence%22
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
School shootings, instantaneous culture and the necessity for Nap Time
We are a culture obsessed with the instantaneous.
Feel bad: do something to change it.
Lonely: go online.
Horny: go out to the lamp-post.
Ignored: get rich and famous.
Rejected/alienated/angry: buy a gun, use it and achieve instant notoriety.
The common denominator is: I don't like how I feel; so I fix it...now.
The fact is the youth of even a few decades ago were not exposed to as much entertainment-driven violence as the youth of today. And this, coupled with the fear-based stories and the psycho-babble rationales of the media, and you have a recipe for disaster. In the last 14 days that disaster transpired into four school shootings -- three in the United States and one in Canada.
Of course article after article after article waxes on about the reasons, the motives the impetus behind the mass murders. They dive into the blog-rolls, the childhood secrets, the nocturnal habits -- all in an effort to paint the fearful picture of a person that lost the plot.
As such, the horror of such an act is amplified by media attention -- and media attention is dictated by consumer habits. The more we watch -- to 'understand' what happened -- the more we feed into the voyeuristic notion that "them" shooters are completely disassociated from "us" people.
Reality check.
Almost all of us have experienced rage. Seering, tormenting, see-red rage. And, sadly enough, many of us have acted out on this rage. The fact that the vast majority of us do not premeditate our rageful outbursts is, indeed, a hopeful sign, but it does not exempt us from the impetus...the desire...the justified need to violently react. And yet, we sit at our teles; we watch the images of the killers, the images of the slain and we shake our heads, while sitting comfortably in our homes shame, shame, shaming our way into smug, self-contented satisfaction.
Yes, it is absolutely horrendous what is happening. Yet, given the fact that constructed timelines of all North American shootings start only a decade ago, we cannot ignore that our society, our culture must, in some way, be held responsible.
I do not presume to exonerate the shooters. Had they not died in their violent acts, I would be the first clamouring to bring them to justice. But I do not think that our banal attempts at psychoanalyzing why these specific individuals are, alone, psychotic, is going to help the situation. While each person is responsible for their individual actions we cannot presume that society and culture do not influence us (or them) -- to assume that it does not buys into the great American facade of individualism.
And that is why I started this statement with the notion that we are a culture obsessed with the instantaneous. Rather than sit with feelings of fear, anger, alienation or rage, we are taught to go out there and DO SOMETHING: Make a mark; make a difference; take a stand; make a statement; be an individual.
And this concept of individualization (be different, be noticed = be respected) is big business. How many corporations market their product based on its edginess? How many fashion trends (such as tattoos) have become mainstream (and yes, I just got a second one). How many bands, artists, writers, and marketing campaigns have tried to stand out from the crowd by being the best, brightest and most unique?
Over and over again, our culture markets the notion of instantaneous. Over and over again, we buy into it. Whether its "live war footage", fad diets, get-rich quick schemes or quick-fix pain elixirs (vodka comes to mind) the common denominator is to replace humanity with commonality...only market it as different.
As such, I have a radical, and rather serious suggestion: Nap time.
While you may have scoffed at my soap opera suggestion, I implore you to consider the nap time option.
Just think of it. When we were children we would get cranky. We could either act out this anger on our closest enemy (formerly a friend, but moods change so quickly on the daycare floor) or we took a nap. Usually the second option was imposed, but you get the point. So what happened? We awoke refreshed. We no longer wanted to hit our friend (no longer our enemy) and, instead, went about our tasks for that day (sandcastles, building blocks, blanket forts, whatever).
Fast forward to the teen years. What if we imposed nap time on the teens? First, it would pry them away from the computer/iPod/video console for at least an hour. Second, it would force them to stay present in a state of dis-ease -- who really wants to give up a mind-numbing activity in order to deal with mundane reality? Then, it would teach them to relax (can't sleep without relaxing) and if they didn't relax, the imposed nap time would force them to lie quietly, without the option of a quick fix for the way they feel. The same process would apply to adults only the nap time would have to be regulated and structured so that business could persist without the chaos of arbitrary snoozes. Still, you get the point.
So, yes, I am horrified by the events that took place in Pennslyvania this week and Montreal last week. As K-Dough put it: my soul hurts.
But I'm also horrified that we do so little self-reflection as a society that we are unwilling to take responsibility for what we do, as a collective, that helps to perpetuate these violent acts.
While nap time would not absolve the past crimes, or solve future rage-filled outbursts, it may enable us to become a more reflective, contemplative and not-so-instaneous society. And that, that fundamental change, will go a long way in preventing another shooting.
Feel bad: do something to change it.
Lonely: go online.
Horny: go out to the lamp-post.
Ignored: get rich and famous.
Rejected/alienated/angry: buy a gun, use it and achieve instant notoriety.
The common denominator is: I don't like how I feel; so I fix it...now.
The fact is the youth of even a few decades ago were not exposed to as much entertainment-driven violence as the youth of today. And this, coupled with the fear-based stories and the psycho-babble rationales of the media, and you have a recipe for disaster. In the last 14 days that disaster transpired into four school shootings -- three in the United States and one in Canada.
Of course article after article after article waxes on about the reasons, the motives the impetus behind the mass murders. They dive into the blog-rolls, the childhood secrets, the nocturnal habits -- all in an effort to paint the fearful picture of a person that lost the plot.
As such, the horror of such an act is amplified by media attention -- and media attention is dictated by consumer habits. The more we watch -- to 'understand' what happened -- the more we feed into the voyeuristic notion that "them" shooters are completely disassociated from "us" people.
Reality check.
Almost all of us have experienced rage. Seering, tormenting, see-red rage. And, sadly enough, many of us have acted out on this rage. The fact that the vast majority of us do not premeditate our rageful outbursts is, indeed, a hopeful sign, but it does not exempt us from the impetus...the desire...the justified need to violently react. And yet, we sit at our teles; we watch the images of the killers, the images of the slain and we shake our heads, while sitting comfortably in our homes shame, shame, shaming our way into smug, self-contented satisfaction.
Yes, it is absolutely horrendous what is happening. Yet, given the fact that constructed timelines of all North American shootings start only a decade ago, we cannot ignore that our society, our culture must, in some way, be held responsible.
I do not presume to exonerate the shooters. Had they not died in their violent acts, I would be the first clamouring to bring them to justice. But I do not think that our banal attempts at psychoanalyzing why these specific individuals are, alone, psychotic, is going to help the situation. While each person is responsible for their individual actions we cannot presume that society and culture do not influence us (or them) -- to assume that it does not buys into the great American facade of individualism.
And that is why I started this statement with the notion that we are a culture obsessed with the instantaneous. Rather than sit with feelings of fear, anger, alienation or rage, we are taught to go out there and DO SOMETHING: Make a mark; make a difference; take a stand; make a statement; be an individual.
And this concept of individualization (be different, be noticed = be respected) is big business. How many corporations market their product based on its edginess? How many fashion trends (such as tattoos) have become mainstream (and yes, I just got a second one). How many bands, artists, writers, and marketing campaigns have tried to stand out from the crowd by being the best, brightest and most unique?
Over and over again, our culture markets the notion of instantaneous. Over and over again, we buy into it. Whether its "live war footage", fad diets, get-rich quick schemes or quick-fix pain elixirs (vodka comes to mind) the common denominator is to replace humanity with commonality...only market it as different.
As such, I have a radical, and rather serious suggestion: Nap time.
While you may have scoffed at my soap opera suggestion, I implore you to consider the nap time option.
Just think of it. When we were children we would get cranky. We could either act out this anger on our closest enemy (formerly a friend, but moods change so quickly on the daycare floor) or we took a nap. Usually the second option was imposed, but you get the point. So what happened? We awoke refreshed. We no longer wanted to hit our friend (no longer our enemy) and, instead, went about our tasks for that day (sandcastles, building blocks, blanket forts, whatever).
Fast forward to the teen years. What if we imposed nap time on the teens? First, it would pry them away from the computer/iPod/video console for at least an hour. Second, it would force them to stay present in a state of dis-ease -- who really wants to give up a mind-numbing activity in order to deal with mundane reality? Then, it would teach them to relax (can't sleep without relaxing) and if they didn't relax, the imposed nap time would force them to lie quietly, without the option of a quick fix for the way they feel. The same process would apply to adults only the nap time would have to be regulated and structured so that business could persist without the chaos of arbitrary snoozes. Still, you get the point.
So, yes, I am horrified by the events that took place in Pennslyvania this week and Montreal last week. As K-Dough put it: my soul hurts.
But I'm also horrified that we do so little self-reflection as a society that we are unwilling to take responsibility for what we do, as a collective, that helps to perpetuate these violent acts.
While nap time would not absolve the past crimes, or solve future rage-filled outbursts, it may enable us to become a more reflective, contemplative and not-so-instaneous society. And that, that fundamental change, will go a long way in preventing another shooting.
Polygamy is too fun to keep to oneself
Interested in polygamy? Same-sex marriage? Or perhaps you look further afield at national security?
Check out Michelle Mann's debut on iChannel this Wednesday night when she and her guests will discuss the price of our current state of national security, and the ramifications of court rulings on same-sex marriage and polygamy cases.
For channel guides go to:
http://www.ichannel.ca/V26_subscribe.php
Check out Michelle Mann's debut on iChannel this Wednesday night when she and her guests will discuss the price of our current state of national security, and the ramifications of court rulings on same-sex marriage and polygamy cases.
For channel guides go to:
http://www.ichannel.ca/V26_subscribe.php
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Engaging community with art takes more - Nuit Blanche to the rescue
Whatever we engage in becomes engaging.
This is not a particularly profound thought. In fact, it's quite linear and quite logical. Yet, it is a statement that more than applies to art and how we experience art -- as individuals, as a community and as a culture and a society.
I had the occasion last week to discuss the sad reality that Toronto's art scene is not self-sustaining. To qualify: this does not mean there is no community. In fact, there are strong localized artistic communities and, at times, these communities cross over to support other avenues and genres. But, for most Canadian artists, their success depends on recognition outside our borders (the exception being Quebec, whose language helps insulate the culture, which then provides a medium for artists to express and grow in a self-sustaining, nurturing environment).
Enter Nuit Blanche.
While I was not in Toronto to personally witness this event, accounts from friends attest that Nuit Blanche was the first exciting, encompassing and thoroughly community arts driven event to happen in Toronto since the 1960s (the time of free love and music in hippie-Yorkville). The event provided people an opportunity to walk around and take in art -- not simply in a gallery setting (though a variety of galleries, including UofT's Hart House, participated) but on the street, in the parks and in community centres. The event was an opportunity for art and community to intermingle -- to engage.
The reality is what we engage in DOES become engaging even if someone 'official' doesn't call it art (doesn't call it important). There are many that would question the integrity and validity of a mythical world created around the imaginary sport of wrestle-bowling (Bowl-brawl), but for 25 or so people on Saturday night this fantasy became reality through a guided walking tour of the life of Toronto-based Bowl-brawlers.
By all accounts Nuit Blanche was a success. Not only did it get people of Toronto out of their beds at 2am, 3am and 4am for art, it allowed us to commune and engage...to become a part of the experience. By wandering the streets of downtown Toronto, by opening the doors of homes, and restaurants and clubs and galleries, people disengaged from the safety of their confines (their private walls) and became a part of something public and whole.
The fact that art has always provided a medium and an avenue to illicit memories and emotion, to test boundaries, to provide solidarity and to entertain is not lost on many of us. But what is lost is the sense of community -- the idea that anybody, regardless of taste, education and status, can enjoy art. Nuit Blanche reminded us of that. It tore down the boundaries between art and audience and allowed all to engage in the process. It provided the impetus for viewer to become a part of the art -- enabling those superficial boundaries of creator and audience to morph into creator and participant.
The art community in Toronto sorely needed Nuit Blanche, as did the culture of Toronto. This event not only provided artists an avenue to express, but it provided the city a chance to explore. It allowed us all to engage.
But what, you may ask, does this have to do with responsible living? Everything. If the motor of our society is economics, than the heart and soul of our collective culture is art, in all its forms. Yet, in almost all Canadian provinces (with the notable exception being Quebec) our artists cannot find a base with which to support and sustain their creativity. Not that we do not have a wealth of talent among our borders -- we just don't have a wealth of people willing to invest time, money and energy into supporting the various scenes. Nuit Blanche was an opportunity for artists and viewers to break that cycle. It provided an opportunity to engage and participate -- and as a result created a small pocket of self-sustained, community-engaged art and culture. Let's hope we can carry this initiave forward; let's hope we can take the art out down from the gallery walls, and out of the grungy basements so that all may become involved: spiritually, economically and emotionally.
Kudos to the organizers! I'm sorry I missed the experience first hand.
NOTE: Unfortunately, while the night was a success it did little to change the (current) prevailing attitude toward art and artists at City Hall. Even as the Nuit Blanche final touches were being decided on Saturday, a city decision signalled the demise of a the Abell Street artist dwelling.
For more on this story go to:
http://www.thestar.com/ and search: Sep. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM, reporter: MURRAY WHYTE
This is not a particularly profound thought. In fact, it's quite linear and quite logical. Yet, it is a statement that more than applies to art and how we experience art -- as individuals, as a community and as a culture and a society.
I had the occasion last week to discuss the sad reality that Toronto's art scene is not self-sustaining. To qualify: this does not mean there is no community. In fact, there are strong localized artistic communities and, at times, these communities cross over to support other avenues and genres. But, for most Canadian artists, their success depends on recognition outside our borders (the exception being Quebec, whose language helps insulate the culture, which then provides a medium for artists to express and grow in a self-sustaining, nurturing environment).
Enter Nuit Blanche.
While I was not in Toronto to personally witness this event, accounts from friends attest that Nuit Blanche was the first exciting, encompassing and thoroughly community arts driven event to happen in Toronto since the 1960s (the time of free love and music in hippie-Yorkville). The event provided people an opportunity to walk around and take in art -- not simply in a gallery setting (though a variety of galleries, including UofT's Hart House, participated) but on the street, in the parks and in community centres. The event was an opportunity for art and community to intermingle -- to engage.
The reality is what we engage in DOES become engaging even if someone 'official' doesn't call it art (doesn't call it important). There are many that would question the integrity and validity of a mythical world created around the imaginary sport of wrestle-bowling (Bowl-brawl), but for 25 or so people on Saturday night this fantasy became reality through a guided walking tour of the life of Toronto-based Bowl-brawlers.
By all accounts Nuit Blanche was a success. Not only did it get people of Toronto out of their beds at 2am, 3am and 4am for art, it allowed us to commune and engage...to become a part of the experience. By wandering the streets of downtown Toronto, by opening the doors of homes, and restaurants and clubs and galleries, people disengaged from the safety of their confines (their private walls) and became a part of something public and whole.
The fact that art has always provided a medium and an avenue to illicit memories and emotion, to test boundaries, to provide solidarity and to entertain is not lost on many of us. But what is lost is the sense of community -- the idea that anybody, regardless of taste, education and status, can enjoy art. Nuit Blanche reminded us of that. It tore down the boundaries between art and audience and allowed all to engage in the process. It provided the impetus for viewer to become a part of the art -- enabling those superficial boundaries of creator and audience to morph into creator and participant.
The art community in Toronto sorely needed Nuit Blanche, as did the culture of Toronto. This event not only provided artists an avenue to express, but it provided the city a chance to explore. It allowed us all to engage.
But what, you may ask, does this have to do with responsible living? Everything. If the motor of our society is economics, than the heart and soul of our collective culture is art, in all its forms. Yet, in almost all Canadian provinces (with the notable exception being Quebec) our artists cannot find a base with which to support and sustain their creativity. Not that we do not have a wealth of talent among our borders -- we just don't have a wealth of people willing to invest time, money and energy into supporting the various scenes. Nuit Blanche was an opportunity for artists and viewers to break that cycle. It provided an opportunity to engage and participate -- and as a result created a small pocket of self-sustained, community-engaged art and culture. Let's hope we can carry this initiave forward; let's hope we can take the art out down from the gallery walls, and out of the grungy basements so that all may become involved: spiritually, economically and emotionally.
Kudos to the organizers! I'm sorry I missed the experience first hand.
NOTE: Unfortunately, while the night was a success it did little to change the (current) prevailing attitude toward art and artists at City Hall. Even as the Nuit Blanche final touches were being decided on Saturday, a city decision signalled the demise of a the Abell Street artist dwelling.
For more on this story go to:
http://www.thestar.com/ and search: Sep. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM, reporter: MURRAY WHYTE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
