RK'S RESPONSIBLE LIVING

Aboriginals Fail High School

2008-10-28T11:33:00.004-04:00

A sad indictment indeed.

A recent report by the C.D. Howe Institute simply reiterates what we all know: we failed to accomodate the needs of a marginalized society (Aboriginals) and we should do something about that.

What is most depressing, however, is that the solution certainly did not require a professor, university money or a study to develop: create schools that intimately relate Aboriginals to their school curriculum and are modelled after school districts that achieve good results.

Yet, saying how ridiculous it is to study this sad state of affairs does not negate the reports findings. It does not negate the sad facts:

Among Aboriginals living on-reserve, high-school completion rates are disastrous in Manitoba, at 28%, Alberta at 32% and Saskatchewan at 38%.
Off-reserve, the completion rates are worst in the Northwest Territories at 46%, Manitoba at 63% and Alberta at 64%.
By comparison, for non-aboriginals, completion rates range from a national high of 91% in British Columbia to a low of 84% in Newfoundland.

Professor Richards, the author of the report, argues for creating Aboriginal-run school authorities that are able to operate on-reserve schools – independent of individual band councils. Off-reserve, provinces should build on the practices of school districts that achieve good results.

The report is available at: http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Backgrounder_116.pdf

Open Letter: Merrell Take Back Your Outdoor Image!

2008-10-27T14:24:00.008-04:00

Last summer my partner and I had the opportunity to paddle and wonder through the world's oldest old growth pine forest (fortunately located in Northern Ontario -- near Temagomi).

Due to the trip, and based on my stellar recommendations, Mark bought a pair of Merrell sandals. I had waxed on about how comfortable, durable and sturdy my sandals were and he, a believer in paying for quality, had no problem forking over the $100+ for the footwear.

The outcome was less than desirable. Not only did we need to perform an emergency repair on BOTH sandals (if we had ignored these repairs Mark would have been unable to wear them as they would have literally fell off his feet), we also were absolutely astounded by Merrell's lack of concern or attention to our ordeal.

In July of last year -- while preparing for our West Coast (Pacific Rim) Trail trip and, faced with purchasing new sandals, Mark and I sat down and composed a letter of concern and complaint to Merrell.

Now, we certainly did not expect them to stop production lines, bolt to our abode and solicit our design brilliance...but at the very least we did expect some acknowledgement to our concerns and compliants.

Nothing.

Not even a "thanks for writing" form letter.

So, it is to my absolute dismay that I am removing Merrell from our outdoor gear purchases. I find it simply unacceptable for a company to entice purchasers with equipment touted for one use, only to ignore complaints if this equipment does not live up to these standards. It leaves me questioning: What other defects will I run into...out in the wild...when I'd like to take comfort in the idea that one CAN purchase quality products.

As such, I am posting our letter of complaint as an OPEN LETTER to Merrell...asking them to reexamine their values and ideals and return to their roots as a producer of outdoor goods that CARE about their clients' experiences.

OPEN LETTER:
July 29, 2008

To whom it may concern:

I am quite disheartened at the lack of response from your corporate office, with regards to an online letter/compliant I filed at the beginning of July.

My partner and I are weekend warriors. We work hard all week and look forward to our nature retreats. Last year we vacationed in a beautiful section of Northern Ontario – where Canada boasts the oldest pine growth in the world.

During that vacation my partner – a very able and athletic man – asked me to recommend a sandal manufacturer. Over the years I have used (and abused) Merrell with very little discomfort or dissatisfaction. With that in mind, I confidently recommended a pair of Merrell sandals (model/type enclosed).

To our dismay the sandals absolutely and completely fell apart during our trip. The Velcro – a silly addition to active sandals – lost all ability to grip and, by day three, we found ourselves cutting line in order to create makeshift sewing kits. We ended up having to reinforce the heel straps on the sandals, on both sides (and on both sandals). With three more nights of hiking and portaging we were truly and utterly discouraged by the experience.

As a result, we are no longer 100% comfortable with Merrell equipment. Considering we are about to leave for our Pacific Trail hike (at the end of August), I think this is a shame. As a Canadian couple, who enjoys the outdoors and the purchasing good quality Canadian products, it’s a shame we can no longer rely on a brand I once had no trouble promoting.

Even worse, is that my compliant went completely unacknowledged. No courtesy email, no letter and no follow-up phone call.

This prompts me to continue my proactive consumer stance – happy to promote products I am pleased with…and just as happy to publicly and openly dismiss products that I am not pleased with.

I would hope that in the future Merrell would have the decency to acknowledge and address a consumer complaint.

Sincerely,

Romana King

The Top MOM -- Built Her Business On Green Values and Lots of Love

2008-10-21T11:54:00.004-04:00

OK,

I'm not one for the hype of press releases, but I thought this was a press release on a notable topic, particularly when you consider that the job that is most taxking, more tiring, yet most rewarding is being a parent. Of course, the only thing harder is being a parent AND an entrepeneur!

A few months ago I had the opportunity to talk to April MacKinnon, president of Nurtured Products for Parenting Inc. An east-coaster and a mom, April had built a successful online cloth diaper (and other natural products) business. Before starting Nurtured Products for Parenting, April had a hard time finding products that followed her value system (human and earth friendly products and practices). Her response was to source out the products she needed; develop and create a business; now she's been awarded the award of Atlantic Canada's Mom Entrepreneur of the Year based on consumer votes (Media was provided by Roger's publication: Today's Parent).

For more information on this aspiring mom and business person read below.
For a peak into the cloth diapers debate go to: CBC Article on Cloth Diapers, by Romana King>

“NURTURED PRODUCTS FOR PARENTING NAMED ATLANTIC CANADA’S MOM ENTREPRENEUR OF THE YEAR”
October 21, 2008 (Dartmouth, NS.) - Atlantic Provincial consumers have spoken in unison and they have shouted praise for the Dartmouth based online company Nurtured Products for Parenting Inc. Nurtured Products for Parenting is an online company aimed at educating and providing families with environmentally sustainable products that are unique, functional, stylish, and beautiful.

Nurtured Products for Parenting was one of hundreds of “Mom-owned” companies vying for the title of “Mom Entrepreneur of the Year”, the 2nd annual nation-wide competition hosted by SavvyMom Media. The competition named a grand-prize national winner and 4 provincial regional winners; with Nurtured Products talking the title for PEI, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick regions.

“I am thrilled that Nurtured has won the Atlantic Regional competition.” Says April MacKinnon, President of Nurtured Products for Parenting Inc. “Community building is a major aspect of what we do, and being an online retailer means that we can reach many more people both regionally and nationally.”

The regional prize includes a cash prize of $2000 for investment in the business; a T-Fal kitchen including 2 slice toaster Avante Deluxe, Elegance kettle and 2 Professional thermo-spot Frying pans (valued at $300); a Canon 5"x7" Photo Album Kit valued at $20 and a Press package courtesy of Foundation Studio valued at $125.
About Nurtured Products for Parenting Inc.

Founded by April MacKinnon in 2006, Nurtured Products for Parenting is a Canadian home-based, mother-operated online business located in Halifax (Dartmouth), Nova Scotia. Nurtured Products for Parenting is dedicated to educating and providing families with environmentally sustainable product choices that are unique, functional, stylish, and beautiful. For more information about Nurtured Products for Parenting please visit www.nurtured.ca.

CONTACT: April MacKinnon, President, Nurtured Products for Parenting Inc.
(902) 405-4367 | www.nurtured.ca

Green Numbers: The Inspiring Stats

2008-10-10T07:32:00.005-04:00

Want to read something inspiring? How about a few stats on how green, social and ethical issues are being implemented in corporate Canada (and global multinationals) every day?

Here's a few inspiring stats:

What are 88% of companies willing to try?
Nearly nine in 10 companies are currently undertaking carbon offsetting activities or would consider offsetting in the future, according to a survey of carbon management trends.
What can increase a company's value by 80%?
Tackling climate change could boost company value in six sectors worth a total of $7 trillion, according to a new report by the Carbon Trust.
What has the possibility of cutting CO2 by 20%
PLENTY magazineTom Casten, founder of Recycled Energy Development (RED) posits the US can cut 20% of its CO2 emissions if companies capture the wasted heat from their industrial processes and turn it into electricity. The idea of capturing wasted heat-–particularly the steam that billows from industrial stacks—and converting it into energy is again gaining buzz.
Who is expecting 160% ROI on climate spending?
Cleaning products giant JohnsonDiversey has joined the U.S. EPA's Climate Savers program, pledging $19 million toward emissions reduction efforts that the company expects will save $31 million over the next five years.

Interest peaked? Want a few more stats? Go to: By The Numbers

Food Banks Call Out In Hard Economic Times...Like Now

2008-10-09T07:10:00.003-04:00

Open letter from
Katharine Schmidt, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Food Banks:

One month ago, a CBC/Environics poll found that37% of Canadians were worried about being able to make ends meet. Thedisturbing developments of the past week in the world's financial markets haveshown that they had good reason to worry.

The Canadian Association of Food Banks is very concerned that the currenteconomic crisis could lead to an increase in hunger and food bank use inCanada. As a national network of charitable food programs, we have reason tobe concerned during a weak economy. Food banks face an increase of people inneed of assistance, combined with a decline in donations of food and funds asindividual and corporate donors are forced to tighten their discretionarybudgets.

We are particularly concerned about two groups in particular: seniors,and working people with a precarious hold on the labour market. Seniors, whomake up a small but significant proportion of people assisted by food banks,may be facing drastic reductions in the value of their nest eggs. Workingpeople face job losses as businesses struggle with slackening demand, and withfinding the credit necessary to maintain their operations.

More than 720,000 people in Canada are assisted by food banks everymonth, and 2.7 million live in households where hunger is a daily anddistressing reality. The past 10 years have seen unprecedented economic healthin Canada overall, with GDP rising and unemployment declining. Nevertheless,food bank use was 8.4% higher in 2007 than it was in 1997.

As it is, downturns in Canada's manufacturing and forestry sectors havekept food banks busy, particularly in hard-hit areas like Windsor, ThunderBay, northern Quebec and western Alberta. According to recently-releasedStatistics Canada data, 247,000 manufacturing jobs were lost between 2004 and2007. In the past year alone, employment in the forestry sector has plummetedby 15%. And hunger is not limited to households in regions that have seeneconomic downturns. Though we hear about the thriving energy and resourcedevelopment sectors in our western provinces, many in the west are being leftbehind. Economic growth has brought with it rising costs of housing, gas,heating oil and food. It is too often the case that those who have moved westto find prosperity quickly discover that their most pressing need is to find afood bank.

After several years of economic growth, it is now crystal clear that arising tide does not lift all boats. On a daily basis, Canadians struggle withhunger. This problem has been plaguing our country for almost three decades.To properly address it, we need federal party leaders to provide visionaryleadership, focused into a realistic, long-term, actionable national povertyreduction strategy. Though it touches many, hunger is too often a problem thatgoes unvoiced. Our leaders must face up to the problem and join the search forsolutions.

(About the Canadian Association of Food Banks: CAFB is a national charitableorganization representing the food bank community across Canada. Over 720,000people access food banks each month - 39% are children. CAFB conductsresearch, engages in public education and advocates for public policy changeto eliminate the causes of hunger in Canada. In 2007, the CAFB acquired andshared 8 million pounds of food industry donations through its National FoodSharing System for hungry Canadians.)

Public Bike System

2008-06-17T08:17:00.002-04:00

Pay per use bike system might actually take off!

Montreal launched the first North American Public Bike System, in an effort to fight increasing (and absurd) urban-core traffic.

While other bike share programs across the continent employ a member/owner system, the Public Bike System operates much like a car-sharing company with users paying for the priviledge

The system includes bikes, technical platforms, bike docks, pay stations and proprietary
software that runs it all. The design of the physical components of the system was entrusted to
world-renowned industrial designer Michel Dallaire. The bikes feature clean lines and a sleek look that is carried over to other system components. The bikes are also notable for their sturdiness and safety. The system employs cutting-edge technologies to their best advantage: the entire system is solar-powered and uses wireless communication. All the components are modular and require no permanent installation. With no need for external energy sources, stations can be installed in virtually any location without incurring expensive infrastructure work. Stations can be set up in a matter of minutes, leaving no trace of their presence once they are removed.

User-friendly, the system requires only an access card or credit card with no intermediaries.

For more info go to: http://www.publicbikesystem.com/

It's Good to Be Green, Says Nortel CEO

2008-04-22T11:43:00.002-04:00

Going Green is Good for Business, says Nortel CEO

It is imperative that businesses quickly recognize the need for environmentally sound behaviors and match these with good business practices, said Mike Zafirovski said today at FORTUNE's first-ever GREEN Conference in Pasadena, Calif.

The Nortel president and CEO participated in the conference as part of the Canadian company’s ongoing commitment to create products and services that make it possible for enterprises and service providers to be more energy efficient while reducing their carbon footprint. This commitment includes elements of Nortel's data portfolio, which is recognized by The Tolly Group, an independent IT validation service, as the industry's greenest – helping to reduce energy consumption by as much as 50%.

"The integration of environmental responsibility into corporate business models is not only the right thing to do but a necessity for business success," Zafirovski said. "As a businessman, my perspective always starts with a mandate to enhance shareholder value. But even with this as my focus, I strongly believe the time is right for business and society to get together to address today's environmental problems."

On the Eve of Earth Day, I have a Challenge for You! (52 weeks to a better bank account by going green)

2008-04-21T10:48:00.005-04:00

We know the press is all over Earth Day.
How could they miss it?

In the last three decades environmentalism has gone from a loonie leftie concept to mainstream common sense...and rightly so.

Long before recycling became the norm my ma used to take her empty containers to the health food store and re-use the plastic bins, rather than buy a new tub. She was raised on an Irish farm, which is the equivalent of saying that nothing went to waste...how could it with eight children to feed, not including the livestock. (I was also stunned to learn that the store owner at the now-closed St. Clair and Bathurst health food store actually remembered my ma, 20 years later, and recognized me after I spent only five minutes in the store looling for spelt spread...now THAT'S a community relationship!).

Still, my ma instilled in my brother and I a respect for the planet and a respect for the dollar.

Now a new book by money-guru David Bach is out and it professes to appeal to the green capitalist in all of us.

Only half way through (and it's an easy, easy read) and I believe the man might be on to something.

Not that it is revolutionary or new...but it can and does appeal to EVERYONE...not just the environmentalist.

It's a way of respecting our resources, while respecting our earnings...of course...it's right up my alley...because it's underlying message is about responsibility.

Saying this, Mr. Bach has not done all his homework (for example, tip #5 suggests switching to bio-diesel. The problem with this is corn-based ethanol, which is what most of North American bio-diesel is made from, is extremely harmful to the environment...not the fuel itself but the production, shipment and destruction the increasing corn crops are having on the planet, the food supply and the irrigation systems in North America...more on that later). He does, however, provide some good, solid options.

In the next 52 weeks, I will share one option a week....one good option that I glean from either Bach's book or from other tried, tested and true experts. It will be a chance for us to either adopt, change or remove an expensive and wasteful practice from our life and a chance to slowly integrate cost-saving measures that make us more responsible for the rest of our lives.

That first option will start tomorrow on Earth Day.

The rest of the time, I will continue to offer insights and opinions on all matters affecting responsible living: from green initiatives, sad human rights situations, addictions and tools and examples of responsible living in the world today.

And if you have a tip, insight or suggestion, share it...we could all use a little humility by learning to listen.

Power to the People: Viral Campaigns and the Beijing Olympics

2008-04-11T08:58:00.006-04:00

Who says the people don't have power?

A marketing firm released a press release today 'warning' Olympic sponsors about the potentially high cost of sponsoring the Beijing Olympics due to the proliference, "impact and dominance of consumer driven, viral campaigns and their ability to affect global consumer behaviours."

Tony Chapman, Founder and CEO of Capital C, one of Canada's leading marketing firms, cautioned Canadian marketers to carefully consider the dangers in fulfilling their Beijing Olympic marketing programs due to the dissatisfaction of activist groups and disheartened individuals -- (all with access to the democratic medium of the internet, I might add).

Chapman states that "the Tibet controversy currently interrupting the torch journey is inspiring a reaction of global proportions. It is becoming deafening as it is digitally enabled and swirls around the world, collecting images, commentary, evidence and an ever growing community of supporters. Conversations which started with Tibet and Darfur will cross over to China's environmental record, its treatment of workers, its foreign policy and every other cause imaginable, ultimately becoming an unstoppable force impenetrable by spin doctors, brand managers, or even the most elaborate marketing campaigns."

Chapman, in his marketing wisdom, goes on to say that the reaction to China and the "viral phenomenon" surrounding demonstrate to global brands that the rules have shifted from mass media (where they were in charge), to social media (where the consumer is in charge). "This is an environment where consumer behaviour will not be based on immediate needs, but upon moral and ethical criteria. Consumers are now demanding more than great taste; they are demanding corporate integrity. Today, how a corporation behaves towards its employees, community and planet, and with whom they associate are the new benchmarks for decision making."

Buyer be warned.

Corporate heads take heed.

As Margaret Mead so cleverly stated:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

CARBON BOMB! More Clean Air Please (and please stop stomping on my forest)

2008-04-10T16:19:00.006-04:00

Who needs fresh air?

Based on neo-liberal philosophy, even air is a commodity. All this fear-mongering about air pollution and global warming simply means that somebody is going to make money off of the problem somehow...

Unfortunately, the money making is usually what causes the dilemma in the first place...and while I am sure there is money to be made in the creation of atmospheric bubbles (personalized, or fun for the whole town), I somehow don't see that as justification for screwing up our air supply, now.

What am I getting at?

An expert panel, commissioned by Greenpeace, launched their findings in a report today regarding the logging industry in the Boreal forest (this is old growth folks, and plenty of it in our own backyard).

The panel stated that:
Logging in Canada's Boreal Forest is exacerbating global warming by releasing greenhouse gases and reducing carbon storage. It also makes the forest more susceptible to global warming impacts like wildfires and insect outbreaks, which in turn release more greenhouse gases.

Now, here's the kicker:
if this vicious circle is left unchecked, it could culminate in a massive and sudden release of greenhouse gases referred to as "the carbon bomb."

At present Canada's Boreal Forest stores 186 billion tonnes of carbon -- this is equivalent to 27 times the world's annual fossil fuel emissions.

The report concludes that intact areas of the Boreal Forest should be made
off-limits to logging and other industrial activity-particularly in its
biologically rich southern regions- to curb this dangerous cycle.

Elizabeth Nelson, a researcher at the University of Toronto and co-author
of the report, cautions that logging continues to cause greenhouse gas
emissions long after the trees are gone. "Over two-thirds of the carbon stored
in the Boreal Forest is found in its soils. When the forest cover is removed,
the soil decays, releasing additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over
the following months, years, and even decades," she said.

To make matters worse, intact areas of the Boreal Forest resist and recover from fires, insect outbreaks, and other impacts better than fragmented areas. These areas also give trees, plants, and wildlife the best chances of migrating, adapting, and
surviving in a changing climate.

Other key findings from the expert-reviewed report:

Logging removes roughly 36 million tonnes of aboveground carbon from
Canada's Boreal Forest each year-more carbon than is emitted each year
by all the passenger vehicles in Canada combined.
The area of North American Boreal burned by forest fires doubled
between 1970 and 1990. As forest fires become larger, more frequent,
and more intense, more and more carbon dioxide is being released into
the atmosphere.
Logging accelerates permafrost melt. When permafrost melts carbon
dioxide and methane-a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon
dioxide-are released into the atmosphere. Intact forest cover may delay
this melt for decades or even centuries.

What can you do?

Write to your work's paper provider -- demand paper harvested from non-old-growth resources (Cascades, a Quebec-based manufacturer is good for this, although Domtar and Grand & Toy also offer propriety recycled products that do not use old-growth).

Reduce what you print (or use old print-outs as scrap).

Write to your MP, demand that legislation be passed to protect our forests (and lungs and future!).

Log on and sign the Greenpeace petition (also look out for local petitions...tables set up in eco-friendly stores with organizations working very hard to protect the Boreal).

Write the companies personally. Tell them you refuse to accept the ramifications of their profits and list ways you will avoid their products.

Start small. Think Big. Take action.

Slap on Charity and We are Good to Go!

2008-04-09T09:13:00.003-04:00

Charity.

Slap that word in front of something, anything, and suddenly the task, the event, the 'expedition' is acceptable.

As my ma would say: Hogwash.

Take for example the latest gimmick by a boot company (name with held in order NOT to provide free advertisement) that sponsored Paul Hubner (and family!) to "ski both the South and North Pole in ONE season!"

Of course, Mr. Hubner was sponsored by the boot company in an effort to prove their boots are 'polar' worthy.

I presume, then, that the melting of the icecaps at the North Pole has completely escaped both Mr. Hubner and his handlers and the polar-boot company. How else could they justify flying Hubner, his family and the film crew (and all their paraphenalia) to the Poles in an effort to capture the gimmick on film?

In a world filled with technological advancements (such as labs that can mimic even the most extreme of weather conditions) it seems highly irresponsible for Hubner and his sponsors to pursue this ad tactic. Unless of course the charity they plan to donate to is "Build Earth's Bubble and Save the Human Parasite"?

Somehow, though, I don't think youth groups across North America, some of the recipients of the money raised, plan on constructing a breathable membrane dome.

Oh, wait...Hubner's advertorial money will also go to: Polar Bears International -- an organization that attempts to teach people about global warming (one major culprit: human transportation, in particular, air travel) and how this environmental crisis is pushing and pulling the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic, and further increasing the risk of polar bear extinction. Let's hope that money raised for the charity can offset the damage done by the Hubner-Boot Ad entourage.

Mayor Miller's Hand-gun Ban Necessary

2008-04-08T09:00:00.001-04:00

If I was to ever go hunting -- and that's a *BIG* if, considering I don't eat meat -- I highly doubt my weapon of choice would be a handgun.

For hunting, handguns are just not practical unless, of course, the game you are hunting is human.

While gun proponents have developed a litany of reasons why handguns should not be banned, I have yet to hear a reasonable, rational reason.

Yes, I empathize with gun collectors -- passionate collecting can and does occr, but I doubt that any of these true collectors are clamouring for one of the mass-produced, relatively new weapons that do little, but cause havoc.

Don't give me "freedom of association" crap. You love to shoot them -- then develop clubs where you can not only shoot the tool, but KEEP the tool. There is NO reason why you should have to take that contraption home. Period. Particularly with the plethora of non-lethal (theoretically) tools available to the general public for self-protection.

So, the recent announcment by Toronto's Mayor, David Miller, certainly met *my* approval.

The campaign's centre-piece is an online petition posted on the City's
website (goto: www.toronto.ca/handgunban).

This allows Canadians, coast to coast to add their name to a call for a Canada-wide handgun ban. (For those so inclined to canvas neighbourhoods and workplaces, a print-friendly version of the petition is also available on the website).

Mayor Miller launched this campaign by saying: "Handguns are designed for one purpose and that is to kill people and have no place in our society. Statistics show that in jurisdictions with gun bans, supply is limited and shootings are less common.

Miller will "personally deliver" the petition to Parliament Hill in June.

Want to read more??

Goto:
Globe and Mail Globe
The Star Star
Canadian Business Canadian Business
National Post (contrarian angle) National Post

Sports Fans Jump on Carbon Credits for Beijing Olympics (even if the torch does stay out)

2008-04-05T09:01:00.002-04:00

Despite what you might think about the Beijing Olympics, the fact that one of the world's biggest polluters is hosting the "Green" Olympics has not escaped the attention of many a cynical critic.

Yet, rather than focus on this, I would like to draw your attention to notion that shame really does work to change behaviour.

For about two decades a well-known North American travel company has offered the sports enthusiast the ultimate trip: flight, accomodation, sporting event and extras all under one umbrella. You can well imagine Olympics are a boon for this type of company. This year, however, this company (who shall remain nameless, so I am not accused of promotion or slander) is offering another perk: 40,000 lbs of TerraPass carbon offset credits.

I am not saying this company is worthy of shame (that requires analysis by credentials that I do not hold) -- what I am saying is that this company is responding to theories within behaviourial finances -- go where the market is...and the market is fickle.

At the moment green is in. Everything and anything that can attach their name to green, sustainable or ethical initiatives are doing so in droves. This change in corporate behaviour highlights all the important work environmentalists have done over the last four decades; it also highlights the importance of critical mass.

If we get enough people concerned about a topic (whether it's taxes, air pollution, pesticides on our lawn, or the latest violent flick) and business will try to capitalize on that interest.

I am not saying this a negative aspect of our 'free'-market economy.

What I am saying is that it is a predictable aspect of our economy (and an aspect activists and corporations have coopted for years).

Still, there is a powerful aspect to a groundswell movement -- millions of people supporting just one cause. It's even more amazing when those people are not the average activist, protestor, supporter or believer of socio-economic and environmental issues -- and, let's face it, most sports enthusiasts are not. Yet, a vast majority of these enthusiasts who will brave the wrath of supporting the Chinese Olympics are doing so in a more proactive manner (even if there is an argument that carbon off-setting is a greenwash)...and that means that years of shaming and blaming have come out to provide alternatives to our actions. That's growth...and I'm all over that

Animal Cruelty Punished; Now We Need Human Desperation Addressed

2008-04-04T08:35:00.001-04:00

We knew for at least a decade that a strong correlation existed between animal cruelty and violent criminal acts.

Reports, studies, journal pieces and news articles have been written on the topic.

Statistics and numbers have been recorded.

Finally, after a decade of prompting Ontario finally elected a government willing to create stiffer penalties for animal cruelty.

This is not just a moral victory for animal activists, but also for those who lobby for stiffer penalties agains perpetrators of domestic abuse as well as the victims of violence across North America.

To put it bluntly (and factually):

61% of surveyed Ontario women who had left their abusive partners stated that their partners had brutalized or killed a pet (results from a 1998 survey conducted by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).
By contrast, only 16.7% of households with no history of domestic reported threats or actual harm to a pet.

According to the American Veterinarian Association there are three ways that animal abuse and human violence are linked:

1. Abusers use animals to influence or harm people: demonstrate dominance or control, inflict punishment or to retaliate against the abused (or vice versa - punish the person for the acts of the animal), and through silence, isolation and threats.

2. Abused children show a propensity towards becoming animal abusers
(Multiple studies have shown that children who grow up in an environment of animal abuse are more likely to be involved in animal abuse and human violence as they grow up. Young children growing up in an environment of abuse may become desensitized, and come to see violence as the norm. They may also learn that one way to demonstrate you have power or control is to abuse a creature that is weaker than you. Children in households with emotional or physical abuse between partners may vent or "act out" their resulting emotions, often through cruelty to animals.)

3. Animal abuse may predict adult violence
(People who abused pets as children are far more likely to commit murder or other violent crimes as they become adults. In fact, one of the most reliable predictors of adult violence is committing animal abuse as a child.)

With that in mind, Rick Bartolucci, minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, announcement, to amend the OSPCA act to make it mandatory for veterinarians to report suspected cases of animal abuse (with protection for veterinarians when the report is made in good faith) was widely and openly welcomed by vets across Ontario.

Now, for the disbelievers, I would like to offer the following rather scary facts:

Between October 1997 and May 1998 (seven months) school shootings across America left 12 dead and 44 wounded (in four schools).

Prior to these school shootings:

Kip Kinkel decapitated cats, dissected live squirrels and blew up cows
Andrew Golden shot dogs before he turned his guns on his classmates
Luke Woodham beat and burned his own dog, Sparkle, describing his dog's painful and tortured death as a "thing of true beauty"
Michael Carneal threw a cat into a bonfire

Youth offenders are not the only ones to display cruelty to animals prior to violent criminal acts. Russell Weston Jr., the man awaiting trial for shooting two Capitol Hill police officers, shot his father's cats before his assault on the Capitol.
And there are many, many more cases like these.

Whether an animal lover or a dispassionate bystander, the correlation between animal violence and disturbed, often brutally violent behaviour is undeniable.

McGuinty's decision to stiffen the penalties for those caught abusing animals is the first step, but more needs be done. That's because animal abuse does not occur in isolation. Often animal abuse takes place in a complex net of disturbed family relations. For example, animal abuse is frequently found in families where there also is child abuse and domestic violence. Children in these disturbed families who witness the abuse of family companion animals are more likely to abuse animals; in addition, children who commit animal cruelty are more likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults.

As such, we, in Ontario, need to applaud McGuinty and his government for finally creating stiffer laws against these offenders...but we also need to press for rehabilitation and help for those that display these behaviours. The reality is that most convicted felons will, eventually, return into society. By identifying candidates -- through their convictions -- we can provide rehabilitation and, hopefully, reintegration.

In the end we want the abuse to stop...and the best way to do that is remove that which disturbs.

Junkie or Pundit -- U.S. Candidates (in their own words) on Enviro Issues

2008-04-03T12:01:00.001-04:00

Political pundit or power junkie?
These are some of the questions the League of Conservation Voters attempt to answer through the lens of sustainability/environmentalism.

By examining each of the three leading candidates (Clinton, McCain and Obama) the League helps voters help themselves and the planet.

Think of Justice League...only without the shields and capes.

For more information go to:
Senator Clinton's rating: CLINTON on the ENVIRO
Senator McCain's rating: McCAIN on the ENVIRO
Senator Obama's rating: OBAMA on the ENVIRO

SALUTE TO LOCAL ACTIVISTS

2007-06-06T08:16:00.000-04:00

This Saturday June 9, 2007, MAYOR DAVID MILLER will open the annual Centre for Social Justice Awards at Toronto City Hall.

The Social Justice Awards recognizes those who devote their time and energy to the pursuit of social justice. These awards encourage youth and young adults to take action to improve their communities. The awards celebrate those who work for social change, provide services to disadvantage members of our society and help newcomers in their difficult transition to a new life in Toronto.

The 2007 Social Justice Awards will recognize the following individuals in these categories:
 Youth Award (age 12-19) -Clayton Thomas
 Young Adult Award (age 20-29)- Rebecca Beayn
 Neighbourhood Organizing Award -Myriam Canas-Mendes
 Outstanding Achievement Award - The Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada
 Life-time Achievement Award - John Rae

Come and join us for an afternoon of celebration with the Mayor and local distinguished activists who are working toward social change and social justice.

Sad truth about the big "C"

2007-05-02T08:50:00.000-04:00

Four years ago I underwent the most painful and traumatic period of my life. Four days after my father was diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer, he squeezed our hands, gasped his last breathe and died in a Calgary hospital. He was 59 years old.

This morning I awoke to be greeted with a detailed, personalized account of a cousin's battle with cancer. I have never met this cousin, in fact I am not even sure how she fits into the family tree -- but I am included on the list as a member of the King family, with origins in Liverpool, England.

The sad reality is my cousin Joanne is a statistic. A sad and devastating statistic.

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, at least 2,000 Canadians between 20 and 44 will die from cancer in 2007. Another 15,000 will be diagnosed with cancer. This statistic is shocking as the disease was, once, commonly associated with the aging process. Now, however, cancer is no longer an elderly disease. Now it is the disease of our times -- a rapid growth in cellular structure that produces terminal results.

For my cousin Barry and his wife Joanne, it is the death of a mother, a wife and a friend. For my immediate family it was the loss of a father, a caregiver and a peacemaker. For many others it is the physical destruction of family units and structures.

What is even more shocking is that almost two-thirds of all diagnosed cancer in young adults (people aged 20 to 44) occurs in women, according to the Canadian Cancer Society. Two-thirds! The higher rate is due to gender-related differences -- as women are far more prone to breast cancer and are susceptible to cervical cancer.

According to a report from the Canadian Cancer Society: "If cancers of the breast, cervix,ovary and uterus are excluded for women and cancer of the testis for men, the number of incident cancers and the incidence rate are slightly higher for men (33,033 and 53.8 per 100,000, respectively) than for women (31,380 and 49.3 per 100,000, respectively)."

While the statistics are shocking, it is the emotional upheaval and aftermath that is truly shameful. To lose a mother or lover so young often appears an injustice...and the anger and rage that can accompany such a loss can often be debillitating.

However, with four years of distance between me and the loss of my father I can safely say that life does go on. While my heart and thoughts are will my cousin and his wife, while I can empathize and appreciate the tragedy and loss they are about to experience...I also know that all we can do is make the best of what we have.

My prayers are will you. Wherever you are.

Peter's Principle & Murphy's Law, but what about Dr. Miles' Rule?

2007-04-18T08:23:00.000-04:00

Does everyone know the Dr. Miles rule?

Oh sure, mention the Peter Principle or Murphy's Law and anyone can throw in an anecdote or two regarding these universal maxims. But what about the Dr. Miles Rule?

OK, for those non-legal beagles (in otherwords, for most of us) Dr. Miles was the manufacturer who, 96 years ago, sought to fix retail prices (of its patent medicines). The result was an antitrust ruling that was intended to promote competition by barring manufacturers from telling retailers the lowest prices at which they can sell products. In otherwords, Dr. Miles helped shape the 20th-century marketplace by giving rise to the manufacturer's suggested retail price, or MSRP.

So what?

Well, in late March US Supreme Court Justices were split on whether or not to overturn the 96-year-old antitrust ruling -- a decision that could once again shape the marketplace.

The rule has come under increasing attack in recent years, with critics charging that the century-old ruling was too rigid to take into account current market factors - including the perceived problem of "free-rider" discount retailers, who piggyback on the advertising, promotion and informed sales force of other merchants selling the same product.

Again, so what?

When we try to live a principled life -- a Responsible Life based on principles of honesty, integrity, respect and commitment -- then we need to be aware of the constantly changing state of life and culture. While the Dr. Miles Rule may have been an essential way to contribute and help capitalism grow*, it may now be a tool that hinders this system from adapting to the current market.

Like business, we must be constantly vigilant about what rules or policies now impede our growth process, rather than aid our growth. Take for example a common rule: no dating in the office environment. This is a simple rule that is highly beneficial and, for the most part, easy to follow. However, what if you meet, befriend and develop a close friendship with a special person in the office. I am not talking a surge of lust that lasts for months (or maybe even years -- depending on how prone to fantasy you are;) but the kind of relationship that takes into consideration hobbies, values, interests and personality traits. The kind of friendship you can live without, but choose to nurture and grow. Should your rule apply? Or should you throw caution to the wind and take a chance?

The fact is rules are created in an effort to protect and nurture one aspect of life we value over another. In the office rule -- mentioned above -- the rule not to date in the office environs is prefaced on the decision to put professional status and growth above personal growth, in that environment. The same applies for all other rules, including the legally known Dr. Miles Rule in antitrust law. We are all aware that the marketplace is changing and evolving and as a result we need to examine whether or not the rules our forefathers created are still applicable and necessary.

This process of query, analysis and revision helps us as individuals and as a society grow and evolve.

*NOTE: This blog does not endorse or criticize North America's choice to support capitalism. The blog simply acknowledges that the current economic and legal decisions are made based on the philosophy that this economic system is the initial and only choice of Western Neo-Liberal Democracies.

Reduce the Juice

2007-04-16T08:50:00.000-04:00

A friend might scoff at these remarks I am about to make. Why? Because I could be considered a power-hog.

I run a desktop, radio and fan while working. In the kitchen classical plays on the dial (so my plants and cat get at least some attention, even if not from me). I continually run a single light bulb (artificial light to keep my plants alive) and am notorious for leaving a room with the lights still on.

But, I am learning.

The fact is climate change (and the growing problems associated with this global dilemma) are becoming more and more of a personal cause for many Canadians that it is becoming fashionable to admit, and then retrain, our old ways of operating.

In the Community of Shelburne, in southern Ontario, a team of high school students took the issue to the streets. This group of conscientious kids went door-to-door with an energy conservation education program that aimed to:

*Raises awareness of energy use in relation to climate change
*Encouraged people to reduce electricity use by 5%
*Created a model program for energy education for rural communities

The 327 Shelburne homeowners were given a brief survey and then asked to pledge a reduction in their electricity usage through nine specific actions (ranging from replacing an old appliance with an Energy Star appliance to hanging clothes outside to dry). Almost 80% of the homeowners took the pledge.

In another, distinctly different community, a program called the Brahms Energy Saving Team (BEST), hired and trained six tenants from an ethno-racially diverse tenant building that housed over 800 people. These six tenants were trained as community education and outreach workers (or Animators).

These Animators helped design and deliver an energy education program that engaged their fellow tenants in their primary language (working in the four most commonly spoken languages – English, Farsi, Somali, and Tamil) and in culturally appropriate ways.

Animators spoke individually with tenants in the buildings to raise awareness and distributed multilingual education materials that focused on simple things tenants can do to save energy. Tenants also received complementary compact fluorescent light bulbs and powerbars.

Toronto Community Housing supported the project by installing new appliances, including 400 new energy efficient fridges and stoves in apartments with older appliances and refurbishing all of the in-suite radiators.

These two programs highlight just some of the many ways that we, as individuals, can act and make a significant contribution in cutting our impact on this Earth.

For me, personally, the change has begun. The radio companion only plays when I am physically not in my office or home. The plants only get the artificial sun on gray days or for a 12-hour segment of time -- and ONLY with an energy efficient flourescent. The computer is turned to standby and all printers and accessories are shut off until needed. And I know "close the light" whenever I leave a room. It may not seem like much, but niether did the increasing individual consumption and use that spiralled from zero to abuse in the last 100 years.

For more information on how you can get involved go to:
Energy Reduction Tips

Where did she go?

2007-04-11T08:32:00.000-04:00

Is that the question foremost in your mind?

OK. Is it perhaps the initial query you have after logging on to RK's Responsible Living blog?

No doubt you may have noticed that the blog has been neglected as of late. Not to worry, however, as the blog will be back with a bigger bang for the buck on Monday April 16, 2007.

Until then...examine the news, query the source, and always, always read at least three sources.

Romana

Turn up the HEAT

2007-03-26T09:18:00.000-04:00

Pick up a paper, magazine or book and you are bound to run across at least one debate on the potential causes of Global Warming. In a new book by George Monbiot, the debate of how is surpassed by the need to act. Rather than answering the typical questions of cause and effect, Monbiot focuses on what do we do to stop it -- the most pressing question out there.

From the outset, Monbiot makes it very clear: He is not looking for a complete revision of our lifestyle. Quite appropriately he argues that as an affluent society, we will not buy into a complete overhaul of our lifestyle. He does, however, believe there are actions and solutions that can be incorporated into our creature comforts that can (and do) have a significant impact on this global issue.

A few of the areas that can enact these necessary changes are outlined in Heat, including:
*improving (dramatically!) the way we construct buildings, which includes (but is not limited to:)
*the mix of renewable and non-renewable sources must be used to supply
energy to these buildings (rather than relying solely on non-renewable)
*reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the retail and cement industries by 90%
*necessary and radical changes to land transportation (changes that do not significantly effect mobility for our affluent society)
*(this is a big one) a significant reduction of air travel. Period. He argues that airline travel is a major greenhouse gas contributor and, given available methods, there is no satisfactory way of reducing these emissions in a significant way

While Monbiot is emphatic about these changes, he is also determined to instill an attitude of possibilities. Rather than simply focus on the urgency of the situation, he focuses on the immediacy of the potential solutions. He prefaces this by explaining the problem and then setting an effective action deadline (for curbing global wamring) at 2030. Monbiot suggests that 90% or all greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 90% by 2030 -- a goal he stresses IS possible if we take action (action he outlines as the least difficult and least painful in terms of altering our creature comforts lifestyle).

One point that Monbiot stresses that is of particular importance is the inability for voluntary change to inact the necessary reduction in emisssions. He, rightly, argues, that while strict government regulation is considered "unfashionable" it is absolute essential if we want to achieve the necessary changes. He emphasizes that while regulations by governments are considered prohibitive they can, in fact, maximize freedoms of citizens by developing more inclusive, more accessible and more attainable ideals and cultures. He believes that the combination of our current capalist-based culture and government regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can work because "by and large, whatever our beliefs may be, we consume as much as our incomes allow."

Monbiot's point on regulation also contradicts the current focus on new technology solutions -- a contradiction that is essential if we are to move away from the idea that a new solution will fix on old problem. In fact, Monbiot criticizes both sides of this spectrum -- from the green-technophiles who examine newer methods for these problems (without actually ever implementing a solution) and the pessimisic end of the world proponents who use this global dilemma as proof of the end of the world.

The fact is, Monbiot does not intend to make friends and align himself with potential allies. His primary focus, in this book, is to "to prompt you not to lament our governments' failures to introduce the measures required to tackle climate change, but to force them to reverse their policies, by joining what must become the world's most powerful political movement."

While there is a great deal of information on global warming on the market today, Monbiot's, HEAT, offers a compelling, action-oriented approach to the dilemma. And that is the irony. While his prescription for greenhouse gas emission is simple and effective, it has a snow-ball's chance in hell (a cliche that is closer to reality than we care to admit) of being inacted. In a culture of individualism, big business and fewer and fewer governmental regulations, Monbiot's perception of the problem, and (almost) painless prescription just does not have a chance. Pity, I certainly like a good snow storm -- just not in July.

For more information click HEAT

(Monbiot's HEAT is due out on April 1, 2007)

Reduce, Reduce, Reduce -- the three R's and the hemorrhaging bank account

2007-03-14T08:16:00.000-04:00

"People first, then money, then things."

This is the catchphrase of a contemporary, famous and female personal finance expert from Chicago.

And it is a catchphrase that reminds us of the importance of priorities.

A catchphrase that needs to be invoked by more and more Canadians -- particularly in the time of uncertain inflationary markets and slowly creeping, but still inticingly low interest rates.

The fact is, Canada is a nation in debt. Put aside governmental spending and we begin to see how detrimental this non-frugal spending spree really is -- and it is to the point where the average Canadian family owes more than it earns.

How do we know this? From statistics gathered on personal debt, interest owed on credit cards and interest paid on mortgage credit.

In 1984:

*Canadians owed roughly $187 billion in personal debt
*We paid $6 billion in consumer credit (typically credit cards and lines of credit)
*We paid $14 billion on mortgage credit
*Total interest on consumer credit and mortgage credit totalled $20.6 billion

In 2004:
*We owe more than $801 billion
*We paid $22 billion on consumer credit
*We paid $34 billion in interest on mortgage credit
*Total interest consumer credit and mortgage credit was set at $56.6 billion

Source: Statistics Canada

What's worse is that we cannot pay for our high-cost living! Personal bankruptcies are near record highs. The result of this spend now pay later philosophy is that by 2003, for the first time ever, the average Canadian household owed more than its annual take-home pay.

The fact is, we have seemed to have lost the discipline of buy only what you can afford. The discipline of planning for a rainy day has disappeared and the desire for gear, gadgets and big ticket items has replaced responsible spending.

In a Maclean's article last year, senior economist at CIBC World Markets Toronto, Benjamin Tal explains that "As a society we have become addicted to low interest rates. That means as consumers we're much more vulnerable to an economic shock, like a sudden rise in interest rates, a recession or a job loss. Many of us are now living paycheque to paycheque."

Now back to Orman's powerful catchphrase: People first, then money, then things.

It appears the paraphernalia is clouding our perspective.

In an interview with the New York Times, Orman explains that anyone can save money but because of their psychological hang ups they don't. Orman uses the stereotype of women as "birdbrains" when it comes to saving. She explains that women are very good at saving their money, but because of their psychological hang-ups, they give away their money to friends and family to the extent of harming themselves financially. Orman elaborates on this idea in another interview with NBC where she explains why she focuses on the psychological aspects of financial management (in her recent book). "I had to get into the minds and souls and hearts of women to say, 'Ladies, do you understand it? We're voluntarily committing financial suicide.'"

To be truthful our entire society is committing voluntary financial suicide; we are hemorraging at the bank, through the line of credit and bleeding from the credit cards and it is time to stop.

In order to lead a responsible life, one must, at some point, come to terms with the undeniable fact that gear and goods will not make us happy. While a new car, new washing machine or a new pair of shoes may elicit a temporary high, the only way to gain personal, inner and lasting satisfaction is through a disciplined and purposeful lifestyle -- a lifestyle that includes an acceptance that material goods are only one, surface aspect of life.

As such, and going into the Spring sales, we need to commit, as a nation, to examine our spending habits. In the reduce, reuse and recycle mantra the most mantra of the new religion (environmentalism) is reduce -- and that requires self awareness and commitment.

Eco-weddings -- book review and lifestyle challenge!

2007-03-12T04:31:00.000-04:00

Ladies and gents, the weather is getting warmer, the days are getting longer and for many rose-blushed brides-to-be the season of matrimony is upon us.

For those not quite in the know Spring is wedding planning season -- and why not? Who doesn't turn their attention to all things new and exciting when tulips are in bloom and basements are awash in ground-water flooding (snow melt, in case there are those who have spent their entire responsible life in a multi-floor condo complex).

And, right on cue, comes a new book to help even the most traditional weddings become clean, green environmental machines.

Now, I just want to say upfront: I did not buy this book. The book was offered as a review selection from Random House. With that admission up front, I feel quite comfortable in stating that this book truly is a great preliminary overview and introduction into thinking green about the whole wedding day. First, the book dismantles the notion that green weddings are part of the granola and patchouli crowd. It allows us the ability to imagine the big day in all its apparent, traditional glory without sacrificing our values.

For example, author Emily Elizabeth Anderson starts off by explaining the enormous financial impact the wedding industry has on our economy. This brief overview helps us, as consumers, understand that our economic vote really does have an impact in how the marital industry conducts itself. While many organic, ethical or sustainable options currently have a premium attached to them, the notion that green weddings are an exception, rather than the rule, does not need to persist. Just as organic food, once the luxury of the well-heeled or the green-thumbed, is now a staple in all good grocery stores in North America, so can green-wedding options become part of the norm. What Anderson does is help us a) see our power as consumers and b) help this power become a less-stressful reality with simple, universal and easy to use options.

For example, Anderson suggests methods for cutting the cost, while sticking with sustainable choices (her suggestions are in italics, my added rational is not):

*Using in-season flowers. This saves on price (out of season flowers must be exported and are at a premium) and certainly eliminates the massive environmental impact of shipping in non-local flowers.
*Eliminating the save-the-date card. This not only saves postage (think about 150 invites/cards at $0.52 a piece PLUS stationary cost!) but also many, many trees. While many people recycle these days, the fact is the reduce option (out of reduce, reuse and recycle) is the most effective sustainable option. Even with recycling, trees must be harvested and used to produce the paper and eventually this recycled paper must end up in landfill (wood-pulp paper can only be recycled 5 to 7 times before the fibres are too weak to make new products). A paperless option eliminates this entire cycle and helps keep waste to an absolute minimum.
*Don’t purchase items you will only use at the wedding; instead, invest in dresses, shoes, or glassware you will alter and reuse. This was a mantra my mother taught me many, many moons ago. In fact, my prom dress is STILL a staple in my cocktail attire (yes, yes, it is a classic cut and a powerfully sexy dress!) and a constant reminder that a well thought out purchase can be reused many times without losing its charm.
*Opt for ethical jewellery options - such as non-diamond based (or Canadian mined) jewellery and ethically mined gold adornments. This is, perhaps, one of the most powerful suggestions in the book -- because the stigma around the diamond is so strong in our culture. The fact is diamonds do have a nasty environmental and ethical history. Even with media awareness, the diamond industry is still on tenuous ethical grounds, given the poor working conditions and the continued guerrilla warfare that occurs in diamond-mining nations. As such, Anderson's suggestion to scrap the sparkly is akin to a revolutionary coup in wedding culture -- a suggestion whose time has come. I particularly appreciated her generalized and fairly apolitical insight into the difficulties of gold and diamond industry and her "this celebrity does it" examples.

And there are other, many, many other, suggestions found in the book.

Now, saying all this, I would be remiss to not offer two, albeit, minor criticisms about the book.

First, the book is a PRELIMINARY overview. For the rather affordable price (under $20) it is an excellent prepatory source for the happy couple-to-be. However, the exact sourcing out of sustainable options must still be done by bride and groom. Thankfully, however, the book does provide a plethora of online sources. Second, I found the discussion on honeymoon options rather juvenile. The fact is, one of the major sources of environmental damage is travel -- particularly global travel. Yet, many of Anderson's options included jetting off to some remote, green-tourist site without mention that getting to and fro is perhaps the most damaging aspect of the trip. Still, Anderson did offer questions to help people BEGIN the process of questioning their choices, even in the transportation aspect of wedding-day options, and this, to me, is the start of conscientious change.

All in all, out of four RRRR's I would give this book a three RRR rating.

Eco-Chic Weddings
Simple Tips to Plan an Environmentally Friendly, Socially Responsible, Affordable, and Stylish Celebration
Written by Emily Elizabeth Anderson
Category: Reference - Weddings
Format: Trade Paperback, 168 pages
Publisher: Hatherleigh Press
ISBN: 978-1-57826-240-3 (1-57826-240-2)

Pub Date: January 2, 2007
Price: $16.00

Femicide Documentary Highlights World Wide Problem

2007-03-09T07:54:00.000-05:00

While running out the door, I cannot resist (or ignore) the media attention on a new documentary regarding the killing of women in Guatemala.

Known as Femicide, these murders are all too common-place in a country whose culture does not value the life and contributions of women.

This is not uncommon. While the finger points at Guatemala, there are many, many, too many other countries worldwide that share this philosophy regarding the used an disposal of the 'softer' sex.

However, from what I gather this documentary is a fantastic glimpse into this patriarchal mindset -- which is why I wanted to make mention of the film.

For more information go to:
http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/189490

Women are People, Too

2007-03-08T09:12:00.000-05:00

As Aretha said: Sisters are Doing it for Themselves!

Go up to your mother, aunt, grandmother, sister, neigbhour, teacher or office worker and ask her: Are you a person?

The activity may seem absurd, but only 75 years ago, women were not considered persons in Canada, at least not under the law.

Although most Canadian women were given the right to vote by 1920, they were not considered “persons in matters of rights and privileges” under the British North American Act and could not be appointed to the Senate.

In 1927, Emily Murphy, one of Canada’s first female judges, got the support of four of her colleagues in an attempt to gain the right of “person” for women. Murphy and her supporters had been lobbying for almost ten years and their fight led Murphy, to take the issue to the top – first, to the Supreme Court of Canada, and then to the Privy Council in London, England.

This resulted in a ruling by the Privy Council – that overruled Canada’s Supreme Court – on October 18, 1929, that stated: “and to those who ask why the word ‘persons’ should include females, the answer is, why should it not?”

The case, known as the Persons Case, was a huge victory for women in Canada and paved the way towards equality in all aspects of our society. Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Irene Parlby became known as “the Famous Five” and became part of Canadian women’s history.

For more Canadian women history go to: www.4corners.ca

Canada's growing economic gap

2007-03-01T08:04:00.000-05:00

Canada is a prosperous nation. There is no doubt about that. Immigrants from all over the world apply to become residents and citizens continue to find new and interesting ways to express their love (and, at times, hate) for this great nation.

However, despite our civic pride, the fact remains:

"Canada’s income gap is growing: In 2004, the richest 10% of families earned 82 times more than the poorest 10% – almost triple the ratio of 1976, when they earned 31 times more. In after-tax terms the gap is at a 30-year high."

This declaration comes from a new report by the Ottawa-based Center for Policy Alternatives -- a progressive think-tank that commissioned Statistics Canada to examine and analyze income and labour hours for all Canadians.

Unfortunately, those working intimately with social justice issues are not surprised. The fact that the statistics show the increasing disparity between the socio-economic is simply a confirmation of what we have known for quite a long time.

While I cannot speak for anyone else, I will state that I am not inherently against the capitalist system or the pursuit of a better economic life. I truly believe that if this is the sole aim for specific people, than they should have a right to pursue this goal. However, the report released today also states:

"Work is not enough: All but the richest 10% of families are working more weeks and hours in the paid workforce (200 hours more on average since 1996) yet only the richest 10% saw a significant increase in their earnings – 30%."

Now, after qualifying my stance, it must be said that any pursuit for a better economic life MUST hinge upon the notion that working longer and harder gets you further. This new report quantifiably proves that this simply is not the case.

Hence, there must be other factors at play. In essence, then, we as Canadians need to examine the structure of our society and our nation. Are there economic barriers to those in the lowest income brackets? Are there priviledges -- both economic and social -- that protect the upper echelon of society and prevent other socio-economic groups from participating and benefitting from our rich nation-state?

While capitalism may be our chosen economic system, rampant free-market reign is NOT. As such, I do not believe the right to pursue the highly individualistic goal of economic wealth should surpass the necessity to take care of all members of society. We need to examine the way we have structured our labour, economic and social system. Perhaps start with a few simple, attainable goals -- such as a standard Living Wage implemented across the country. This would move us one step towards a more prosperous society, which, in the end, benefits all.

To read the full report click HERE.

Tired of burning my bra - I want REAL equality

2007-02-28T00:25:00.000-05:00

The first women to vote in Canada cast their ballots 89 years ago. It was a federal election and the right was extended only to women of British descent.

It would take another 42 years – the year 1960 – before all women, including Aboriginal women, would be granted the right to vote in provincial and federal elections.

Now, 90 years after the first concession of equal status in our democracy, women are still under-represented and, often, unrepresented in Canadian politics.

According to the World Economic Forum, a Geneva based independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world, women still earn 64% less than their male counterparts and only make up 21% of the federal legislature.

Many parents want the best for their children and that includes the right and ability to be treated equitably and fairly in our democratic nation. Yet the reality is that women are not afforded the same opportunities as men – and even when they are, women are not treated as equals (as wage disparity with attest). As such, we must examine this disparity and ask ourselves: what message are we sending our children?

The fact is the gender gap -- unequal access to resources between women and men – does exist. Worse, it continues to divide our country in almost every way.

A study released in 2006 by the World Economic Forum examined 115 countries in terms of the level of equality between men and women. This study ranked Canada 14th, however it also criticized Canada’s inconsistent performance in political empowerment and the health and survival of our nation’s women.

Sadly, this report also found that no country has yet managed to eliminate the gender gap. Those that have succeeded best in narrowing the gap are the Nordic countries – Sweden at the top of the list with only 20% disparity between wage, education, political participation, and health and welfare between men and women.

While political equality appears to be attainable – any women can run for public office or choose to pursue a chosen career path – the reality is limitations continue to exist because of the gender gap.

And most of us know why the political gender gap started. Women were once considered the property of men. Women were denied the right to vote, the right to run for office, and the right to own property of their own. In addition minority women and aboriginal women were denied basic personhood. A testament to that is that well into the 1970s many women still required a husband’s signature in order to obtain a credit card and many women were denied the right to wear slacks to the office well into 1990s.

So, the question we must ask, is why does the gender gap persist today?

THE REASONS:

1. Gender roles.
Gender roles teach boys and girls, men and women ways that women and men differ. These subtle and overt lessons provide us myths about what each gender is capable and/or allowed to do – limitations devised solely on the concept of perceptions about gender. Over time our culture (women and men) internalize these messages, such as: “people like me are not good in positions of power.” A sad example of this internalized set of cultural myths that dominates are society and creates narrow gender definitions is North America’s inability and unwillingness to elect a women as the leader of a nation. In a CBS poll, people were asked if the USA was ready for a female president. From the responses, men, not women, were more likely to say yes!

2. Cultural norms.
Cultural norms are the established roles and routines we all abide by – they include what is appropriate or inappropriate for each gender and these standards are held in place by persistent and consistent behaviour patterns. For example, in a household where both partners work, the women is still responsible for the majority of household tasks, including cleaning, cooking and child-rearing. This inability to create a more equitable cultural norm – and its subsequent restraint on a woman’s time, energy and resources, helps explain why men far surpass women in the best-paid, high-level jobs. Add to this the fact that women now surpass the number of men enrolled in post-secondary schooling and the power and destruction of cultural norms takes become prevalent.

3. Sexist policies.
Many of our policies and laws hinder or hurt the poorest segment of our population. Consider first that minimum wage does not equate to a Living Wage. Then, consider that women make up two-thirds of the minimum wage earners in Canada. Now, taken these two facts, consider that a single mother of two working full-time in Canada and earning minimum wage must work at least 80 hours per week, every single week, just to reach the poverty line (according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a Winnipeg-based social-policy think-tank) and we begin to see that sexist policies persist within our nation.

4. Media representation.
This mechanism is particularly prevalent given our adherence to cultural norms and stereotypes (aka: gender roles). Why then does inequality continue to persist? For example, men three times more likely than women to play the lead in a television show. Women are more likely to be portrayed as victims, and women's lead characters are almost always younger and more stereotypically "beautiful" than male leads. In addition, the press treatment of real women continues the sexist pattern: Press stories about female politicians and business leaders are far more likely to include mention of hairstyles, shoes and shopping, while press coverage of male leaders is more likely to focus solely on substantive issues.

To assume that we are not impacted by the gender gap is to deny the history that precedes our current society. The reality is we continue to exist in a nation that actively allows gender inequality. As such, it is our duty to begin to examine our own thoughts and beliefs and to begin to teach ourselves, our families and our communities that there is another, better way. In the end, we are participate in a democratic society and we are only as strong as our weakest link – that means that by increasing capacity and opportunity and allowing us all to grasp the roles and responsibilities of an informed citizenry enables us to build a stronger, better, more vibrant society.

ACTIVITIES YOU CAN DO:

1) Examine the roles you believe men and women should follow. For example, list a variety of professions and then honestly answer which gender is “supposed” to pursue that occupation.

2) Examine what messages you hold (hear, see, etc.) that describe what is “feminine” and what is “masculine.” Now find examples that go against your beliefs – find women that have been elected as leaders of nations, or men that have taken on domestic roles successfully (hint: go to the Food Network or the Home and Garden station from your local cable provider).

3) Take a favourite magazine, newspaper or online publication and examine whether or not women help to shape the news. Determine who is telling the story and whether or not they are relying on preconceived notions of gender.

4) To further this media examination go to the Center for Media Literacy and conduct a gender survey on your local newspaper, magazine or online publication (Click HERE for link to the Gender Survey)

5) Discuss the impact of language on your gender beliefs. Examine what professions use gender in their classification or description. Then examine how you perceive the profession and its ability to offer both genders equal opportunity.

6) Now look critically at how women and men present themselves in the political and corporate arenas. Are there marked differences? What are those differences? Are they based on preconceived perceptions, or not? Then answer these three questions:
• How is women’s leadership different from men’s leadership? Do you think men and women focus on similar issues?
• What is the "glass ceiling"? How does it keep women from achieving personal and professional goals?
• Is it likely that the U.S. will have a female president in the near future? In your lifetime? Why?

(This article first appeared on www.4corners.ca)

Green Oscars (not gold statues)

2007-02-26T08:52:00.000-05:00

Last night: The Oscars. Even if you are not a fan...you know the hype on the 79th annual 'best-in-film' awards showcase. Of course, the perception, the reality and the impact of the Oscars can be debated from now until next year, but the reality is the show IS a showcase and not just for fashion and film. Many of the celebrities -- aware of the sheer number of eyes glued to the screen -- also make subtle and not so subtle statements and this year the common theme was it's cool to be green.

For that reason, I offer a breakdown of the pioneer celebrities. The veterans of principled living in a glamorous industry (both Oscar-inspired and other).

ROBERT REDFORD: 30 years on board of Natural Resources Defense Council, founder of Sundance Preserve, winner of 1993 Earth Day award, 1987 United Nations Global 500 award. In April 2007, launches weekly three-hour slot called "The Green," dedicated entirely to the environment, on his Sundance TV channel.

LEONARDO DICAPRIO: started the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation in 1998 to promote environmental issues, drives a hybrid car, currently writing and producing a feature length documentary on global warming called "11th Hour."

BRAD PITT: co-creator of design competition to build 20 affordable, reduced energy, environmentally friendly homes in New Orleans.

STING: founder in 1989 of Rainforest Foundation to protect rain forests and their indigenous peoples.

HARRISON FORD: vice chairman of Conservation International, has a Central American ant named after him, won the Global Environmental Citizen Award in 2002.

DAVE MATTHEWS BAND: offsets CO2 emissions produced by their multi-city tours by funding projects such as tree plantings and wind turbine construction.

AL GORE: former U.S. vice president whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was Oscar-nominated, also nominated for 2007 Nobel Peace prize.

PIERCE BROSNAN: focuses on marine mammal and wetland protection, headlined Natural Resources Defense Council campaign against effects of Navy sonar on whales, awarded 1997 Green Cross International Environmental Leadership Award.

CATE BLANCHETT: plans to equip Sydney Theater Company building with solar panels, rainwater collection systems to make it completely eco-friendly. Sydney home is fully powered by solar energy, donates to Forest Guardians.

EDWARD NORTON: launched the BP Solar Neighbors Program in 2003 which matches each celebrity purchase of a solar energy home system with a solar installation in a low-income family home in Los Angeles.

DARYL HANNAH: arrested in June 2006 for staging a 23-day tree sit-in during a bid to preserve an urban community garden in Los Angeles, traveled across America in 2005 in a biofuel car, home is entirely off-grid.

RICHARD BRANSON: Virgin Group chairman, a former global warming skeptic, who in September 2006 pledged to spend all profits from his airline and rail businesses (estimated $3 billion over 10 years) on investments in biofuel research and projects to tackle emissions.

ALANIS MORISSETTE: given 2003 Environmental Media Association Missions in Music Award; campaigns against oil drilling in Alaska; has solar panels on home.

KT TUNSTALL: ran her US tour bus on biodiesel fuel, performed at eco-friendly "Golden Green" at the 2007 Golden Globe awards in Los Angeles.

JOSH HARTNETT, ORLANDO BLOOM, MAROON 5, KT TUNSTALL: promoting 2007 Global Cool initiative to cut carbon emissions by encouraging people to turn off TVs, mobile-phone chargers and other energy-draining gadgets.

JAMIE OLIVER: celebrity chef, plans to power his Cornwall, England, restaurant by wind turbines.

NEIL YOUNG: 2004 North American tour fueled entirely with biodiesel.

WILLIE NELSON: singer, co-partner in the Willie Nelson Biodiesel Company.

BARENAKED LADIES: run their tour buses and trucks on biodiesel fuel.

Not to be left out are the celebrities that opt for hybrid cars (rather than gas-guzzling limos or hummers): Alanis Morissette, Bill Maher, Billy Joel, Cameron Diaz, Carole King, Charlize Theron, Danny DeVito, David Duchovny, Jackson Browne, Julia Roberts Kirsten Dunst, Larry David, Patricia Arquette, Ted Danson, Tom Hanks, Will Ferrell and Woody Harrelson.

Plastic bags: the burden of our consumer lifestyle

2007-02-21T07:40:00.000-05:00

I have a pet peeve.
And 5-cents is not going to cure it.

For those who have purchased items at NOFrills, MEC, Big Carrot or other fine establishments know that select (but all too few) retailers in Canada are attempting to dissuade customers from using plastic by charging a bag-tax. In the GTA that "tax" is 5-cents.

Yet, there are some inherent problems. The retailers involved in the ban-the-bag campaign (official or otherwise) voluntarily do so. This means that the majority of retailers in Canada have not yet adopted a dissuasion method of weening consumers off plastic bag dependence. That said, most consumers are not even aware of the impact this tiny, flexible and limited-usefullness product truly has on the environment. As a result, the attempt to reduce plastic bag use and consumption has been sporadic and limited in Canada, at best.

Compare this to Ireland. In 2002, this country of 7+ million simply imposed a plastic ban tax -- each bag used and consumed would cost a consumer 0.15Euros, the equivalent of almost $0.25!! The result? Plastic bag usage dropped by 90%!

This prompts me to consider: should we not simply legislate a change, rather than waiting for a groundswell regarding the plastic bag?

Consider, the facts: the standard plastic bag may take between 500 and 1000 years to decompose (such figures are only estimates because plastics have not existed for long enough for the precise decomposition time to be measured). Add this to the fact that when one tonne of plastic bags is reused or recycled, the energy equivalent of 11 barrels of oil are saved.

At present only a handfull of countries or districts have imposed a plastic ban (typically a large enough tax imposed on consumers at all retail locations for the use of plastic bags). The Plastic Ban list currently includes: Bhutan, France, Bombay (India), Coles Bay (Tasmania), Ireland, San Francisco (USA), South Africa and Scotland. However, despite the handfull of bans, the impact has been enormous.

For example:

In the marine environment plastic bag litter is lethal, killing at least 100,000 birds, whales, seals and turtles every year. After an animal is killed by plastic bags its body decomposes and the plastic is released back into the environment where it can kill again.
On land, plastic bag litter can block drains and trap birds. They also kill livestock.
Plastic bags are not free to consumers – in Australia and New Zealand plastic bags add A$173 million a year to grocery bills (cost to produce and use the bag)
The amount of petroleum used to make one plastic bag would drive a car about 115 metres. The 6.9 billion plastic check-out bags we use every year is enough to drive a car 800 million kilometres or nearly 20,000 times around the world.
At least 16 million plastic bags end up as litter on our beaches, streets and parks.
Not all litter is deliberate. 47% of wind borne litter escaping from landfills is plastic – much of this is plastic bags.
Roughly5% of plastic bags are currently being recycled

As a result, I do believe that all levels of the Canadian government should examine the great plastic-bag debate. While businesses do fear impositions on their customers, a nation-wide bag-tax would level the playing field and allow all retailers an opportunity to decrease the plastic bag dependence. Right now, the ad-hoc volunteer approach is just not working. Despite decades of education and knowledge, people still use and depend on the plastic bag. It's time to ween off of this product and, despite good-will, it's time to do this using legislation.

So, I am asking everyone to ban-the-bag. Refuse to use plastic bags. Lobby your local councillor, MP and MPP to examine and implement district, provincial and federal bag-taxes. Do your part.

Addiction is not an excuse

2007-02-20T09:23:00.000-05:00

James Pacenza says his problems began after a dramatic and trying stint in Vietnam in 1969. That was not the year of love for Pacenza. Instead, allegedly suffering from post traumatic disorder, the Vietnam veteran came home and found solace in Internet chat rooms.

However, he alleges that, eventually, the stress of a being a vet led him to an a sex addiction and that led to an addiction to Internet adult chat rooms.

Why is all this important? Because Pacenza was recently fired from IBM for visiting these types of chat rooms during company hours. Pacenza's lawyer is blaming the sex addiction (due to the trauma of war) on Pacenza's use of the chat rooms; Pacenza's lawyer also alleges that the termination of his client has little to do with the charges and more to do with the man's age (Pacenza is 58 now, he was caught in the chat rooms at 55-years-of-age, after 19 years of employment with IBM. He would have been eligible for retirement at 56).

OK-- that's the run down.
Now, here's my take.

Listen, there are companies that consistently abuse the labour laws and skirt morality. Companies like Wal-Mart are known for bending the rules (hiring part-timers to work full time hours so they don't have to pay benefits; terminating employees before they reach retirement age, etc. etc.) -- IBM is not one of these companies.

That said, I want to also profer a little opinion on this notion of addiction, trauma and responsiblity.

First: addiction exists. It manifests in all forms and destroys the life of the sufferer and the lives touched by the sufferer.

Second: trauma CAN lead to addiction -- but is not a prerequisite.

Third: the only way out of addiction is to take responsibility.

Pacenza may truly be a sex addict. He may truly feel a compulsion and an obsession that drives him to seek out the fulfillment of that desire. This desire is far different than the love or lust one feels when attraction occurs. Rather, it a compulsive need to reduce angst and abate fears.

Saying this, however, I cannot be sympathetic for Pacenza. I do feel for him in terms of the devestation his addiction has wrought on his life. However, to legally hold the employer responsible for one's own disease is limited at best (in this circumstance -- there are MANY occasions where an employer IS responsible for the health of a worker). I say this, because, our society is very well versed on addiction of all sorts. Alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling problems dominate the debate, but other forms of this disease (and it is a disease) do seep through in media reports. As such, Pacenza would have access to information that would allow him to seek help. Now, my guess, having worked in large corporations before, is that IBM has a rather comprehensive program to deal with addictions. As such, Pacenza has access to the help.

Herein lies the difficulty. See, addiction is marked by a person's denial of the problem. Why would Pacenza ADMIT to himself or anyone else he has a problem, IF the disease has not yet cost him. Now, put an addict in a position where they must come face to face with their disease...and THEN they wake up. This is what happened to Pacenza. He lost his job due to his addiction and NOW he is willing to admit he has a problem. In otherwords, if he had not have lost his job (due to his own actions) he would not be seeking help.

So, the first step in responsibility requires that a person admit and accept that a situation exists. Only through honest appraisal can one come to terms with the enormity and the powerlessness that exists in the addictive state. Unfortunately, this admittance often comes only from major upsets.

Pacenza is an addict. A true addict. He acts to quell feelings he dislikes. He acts externally to change his internal state. Then, when caught in his own web, he cries foul and denies his own responsibility for his actions.

I empathize with Pacenza. I do not agree. I think the termination of his employment was a blessing. For if he truly is an addict, the admission of a problem is the first step.

Conservatives bow to the law -- and a toothless tiger (finally) takes a bite

2007-02-16T09:11:00.000-05:00

Apparently Canadians will not be skipping to the bank come June.

Reuters (and others) reported that Canada's minority Conservative government backed away from legal confrontation by promising to obey a law obliging it to lay out how Ottawa will meet targets for cuts to greenhouse gas emissions dictated by the Kyoto protocol.

This, only a day after Prime Minister Harper and his merry band had promised to ignore the measure (citing a poorly constructed law...what is that old idiom about a poor workman who blames his tools?)

Apparently the media is saying that:

The environment -- a topic the opposition sees as the Conservatives' weak spot -- is set to be a key issue in the next federal election, which some political observers and insiders say could be called in the next few months.
The House of Commons adopted the bill on Wednesday in the latest clash over green issues between opposition legislators and the minority government, which says Canada cannot meet its Kyoto targets.

Woa...apparently even toothless tigers (Harper's phrase when criticizing the opposition bill because it did not provide economic incentives to off set the agony of meeting Kyoto targets) have bite.

I love my Canada.

Read more at here

In June you COULD sue the government over Kyoto!

2007-02-15T09:20:00.000-05:00

I may just eat my words.

While dining with friends over the weekend I made a few statements regarding the lack of change in the Liberal party. The comments were premised on the notion that while Stephane Dion MAY (and I stress may) be more concerned about Canada's environmental impact and sustainability inititiatives, I did not believe that the party, as a whole, had changed. Not even an iota.

Well, blow me over.

I woke up this morning to the headlines of standing ovations and critical applause.

Apparently, the opposition (Liberals, Bloq and NDP), had managed to pass Bill C-288 -- a bill that demands the minority Conservative government to MEET KYOTO TARGETS.

Not only that but the Bill (now considered legislative law) would force Environment Minister John Baird to present a climate change plan within 60 days, providing a map for Canada to meet Kyoto's greenhouse gas reduction targets. The treaty calls for emission levels at 6 per cent below 1990 levels – a drastic reduction from current levels.

Wait, it gets better.

Within 90 day so the bill's passage, the federal cabinet is required to set out regulations on the petroleum and auto sectors, and other polluters -- targets that force them to meet Kyoto targets.

Now, this is where it gets better.

IF no action is taken, individual Canadians, environmental groups, lawyers – anyone – could take the federal government to court for contradicting the requirements of the law -- so says Montreal Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, the sponsor of the private member's bill.

Apparently, however, the Conservatives are having none of it. Despite the passage of the Bill (and despite the desire of Canadians to back parties with environmental policies) the Conservatives have given every indication they plan to ignore the bill!

Their rational is that Kyoto targets are impossible to meet.

WOA! That means that as early as June we may actually see class action lawsuits against the minority Conservative government for failing in their duties as leaders of the country.

Wow.

However, those lawsuits may never see the inside of a courtroom. It appears that the Conservatives are banking on an election, as opposed to staying the course, in an effort to gain more support from the Canadian public. Buses, planes (and maybe the more environmentally friendly transportation option, trains) are being booked and prepped for as early as March for, what many political analysts see as, a Spring election.

You have to love the tedious battleground of Canadian politics. Just when you least expect it things get really interesting!

For more information on the bill go to: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070214.wkyoto0214/BNStory/National/home

Couch Surfing hits cyber community

2007-02-14T09:35:00.000-05:00

The weather outside is frightful, but the monitor glows
delightful.

Right, so the weather is more than a little on the nasty-Great-White-North side. For that reason, I keep this post rather light. However, despite its rather irrevant attitude, I wanted to alert people to this pseudo-service because it exemplifies a) the power of the Internet to connect, b) the generosity of people, c) the ability of values and honour to rise above.

Log on to www.couchsurfing.com and then poke around.

You will notice that, as a potential traveller, you have the option of surfing a stranger's couch in some far-flung location. And, yes, it IS legit! People do this all the time; now, however, it's not a knock on the door with a vague verbal introduction from a long, lost friend, it is a cyber-handshake and an address of an Internet buddy.

Check it out...as you dream of sunnier climbs.

Fourth R

2007-02-12T09:40:00.000-05:00

This will be a very short post today.

It's simply to add in one more R to the three R's of green practice. At present our consumption model is (attempting) to model itself as:
reduce
reuse
recycle.

I would like to throw in another: recover.

This is the R that allows for the reuse of recycled materials.

And it is essential in a society that constructs obsolete products.

The ideal, of course, would be to remove the fourth R and simply recreate sustainable, and long-lasting products...but that would require a Q in the equation: Quality.

China continues to open borders.

2007-02-09T08:20:00.000-05:00

It appears free-market proponents may have been right.

Back up. Read that sentence again. Yes, you got it...I said free market and right.

Now, I have absolutely nothing against the market forces. I think competition and desire can be strong motivators, however, I have always questioned the wisdom of using such forces in the face of overwhelming human rights abuses and cultural differences.

Perhaps my fears will be allayed. Perhaps.

This week, China's government made yet another move towards opening up the country. While the "opening" was only to allow foreign travel agents to set up shop in the expansive and largely rural country, it was, nonetheless, an opening of the borders. Quite literally.

As of July 1, foreign travel agencies will be permitted to set up branch offices nationwide. The move is part of China's commitment as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Up until now, the government had restricted all foreign movement into the country which prhobited travel agents from setting up anywhere in China (although, some exceptions were made in: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Xi'an).

While, it does not always work this way, it certainly does appear that the almighty dollar really is prompting China to open its borders. Obviously, as a person that cares more about human rights than monetary gain, the fear is that the push for a version of communism-inspired free-market-economy may eclipse the need to change and alter their human right's record. May. However, I also believe that with a free market comes responsibility and examination. By embracing a more open market, the Chinese government are also opening up their policies to criticism. This world stage, then, will do more in changing the much-maligned human rights record China is currently known for, then any plea or petition presented outside a closed door.

I guess, travel really does bring the world closer.

Make mine a Living Wage -- evidence from Los Angeles

2007-02-08T07:38:00.000-05:00

A week or so ago I read a headline on the commuter paper of record in Toronto (METRO) that simply made the fallacious connection that living wages destroy jobs.

I bring this up now, despite the provincial and federal government's refusal to raise Canada's minimum wage.

Now, even as I write this sentence, I know it is important to clarify. Minimum wage is under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, the McGuinty Liberals have professed to support the goal of a $10 an hour minimum wage but can't promise that we'll get there soon. To his credit, however, the current minimum wage increase (from $7.75 to $8 at the beginning of February) is the fourth increase in the provincial minimum wage since the McGuinty Liberals took office in 2003.

But a provincial government's commitment to a living wage does not justify a wage increase. What justifies the increase is statistical analysis.

In the USA, where the same arguments are taking place regarding living wages, analysis is now being done on the impact of living wage increases.

One study is out of LA - the venerable California destination that is home to disparity and large population shifts.

The study, titled Examining the Evidence, was conducted by David Fairris (Department of Economis at the University of California Riverside), David Runsten (North American Integration and Development Center, University of California Los Angeles), Carolina Briones (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy), and Jessica Goodheart
(Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy).

The study is introduced as the "most definitive analysis of a living wage law’s impact on workers and employers. It provides important new insights on the effects of living wage policies, which have been adopted by more than 120 local governments
around the country."

It continues by providing a bit of history on living wage:

Living wage laws set wage and benefit standards for companies that do business with the government, such as service contractors, as a means to improve the quality of contracted jobs and increase the standard of living for low-income workers.
The first living wage law was passed in Baltimore in 1994. Over the past 11 years, many of the largest cities in the country, including New York, Boston, San Francisco and Chicago, have passed living wage laws, as have scores of smaller cities.
In 1997, Los Angeles became one of the first major cities to pass a living wage law. The ordinance currently (as of 2004–2005) requires firms to pay either $10.03 per hour, or $8.78 with a $1.25 per hour contribution to health benefits, and to provide 12 paid days and 10 unpaid days off per year.

Despite the grumblings of business and the concern of free-market advocates, this study found:

* The Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance has increased pay for an estimated 10,000 jobs, with minimal reductions in employment.
* The number of jobs where pay was increased is among the largest in the nation, after New York and San Francisco.
* Although the living wage has not prompted firms to set up health benefits plans, some firms have improved their existing plans or extended coverage to more workers, affecting 2,200 jobs.
* Most workers affected by the living wage are poor or low-income.
* Most firms affected by the law have adapted to the living wage without eliminating jobs. Employment reductions amounted to one percent of all affected jobs, or an estimated 112 jobs.
* Employers have recovered some of the increased costs of the living wage through reductions in labor turnover and absenteeism.
* Firms have adapted to the remaining costs in a variety of ways, including
cutting fringe benefits and overtime, hiring more highly trained workers,
cutting profits and passing on costs to the city or to the public.
* While workers and their families have experienced measurable gains from the
living wage, a significant minority still lacks health benefits and relies on government assistance.

I highlight the report findings as, I believe, they provide strong and ample evidence that the fears proferred by living wage critics do not, in practice, occur. In fact, a living wage appears to offer multiple benefits. Not only are the working poor provided a better standard of living, but the absentee and turnover rate of these low-paying jobs appears to be reduced and the standards of employee treatment (and employer treatment) is increased. The evidence, then, is that the job reductions produced by living wage increases are vastly minimal, at best. The majority of workers (and companies) appear to benefit from a living wage.

Just a little food for thought, particularly in the face of fear-mongering headlines.

To read more on the study go to:
http://www.losangeleslivingwagestudy.org/

If I were Prime Minister

2007-02-06T13:05:00.000-05:00

What would you do if you were Prime Minister?

Seriously. You complain about the high cost of living in this country; the lack of opportunities; or, perhaps, the lack of initiative from our elected officials.

Well, now is the time to GET ACTIVE.

Dust off those camcorders and take 30 seconds to tell the nation what YOU would do if you were Prime Minister.

This is the call to action David Suzuki (and his foundation) made at the end of January. Their rational: They love Canada. They love the people of Canada. They love the geography, the weather and the opportunities Canada offers. Now, David is setting off on a cross-country tour to talk to every day Canadians about the environment.

Throughout the month of February he and his crew will be stopping in more than 40 communities from St. John’s to Victoria. And this is not a book or publicity tour. This is an opportunity to converse.

No matter what our political bent is, we all depend on a clean environment. Headlines over the last decade have highlighted that water, food and air -- when not taken care of -- can kill. Even in Canada.

So, David is asking us to take the power back - to make an effort to make a difference and change the direction our country is heading (despite recent rhetoric from all sides of the Capital Hill). Dubbed the "Prime Minister Tour", David is asking what YOU, the everyday working Joe (Joanne) would do if YOU were Prime Minister?

Learn more about the If YOU were Prime Minister tour at www.davidsuzuki.org.

If that wasn't enough, check out the Christian Science Monitor article on how Science LAGS behind the global warming issue facing global governments today.

The reality is the "debate" (ie: does global warming exist? and are humans a contributor?) was not put to rest until a Friday report, released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a UN group), linked humans to global warming. In otherwords: yes, the Earth is heating up and, yes, we humans are a factor in that warming. From a body of rather conservative, logical folks it was a damning indictment.

Yet, even as governments world wide continue to catch up to the environmental bandwagon the very scientists, journalists and experts on global warming are complaining that scientific analysis is too slow. Perhaps the EU were appropriate in adopting the precautionary principle. The fact that we WAIT for analysis to show a negative impact before legislating significant changes is not only foolish, it is reproachable.

We all require clean air, food and water and global warming threatens that. Period.

For more on the Christian Science Monitor article go to:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0207/p03s02-sten.html

Peace Channel to launch in 2008

2007-02-06T09:29:00.000-05:00

There are those that accuse our current callous behaviour on the prepondance of violence on television.

How could we care about genocide and war in a country far away when we were raised on a diet of violence?

In fact, numerous studies show there are negative impacts of early-childhoood exposure to violence. According to meta-analysis of psychological studies, children are affected in three ways:

*Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
*Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
*Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive ways toward others (imitation)

Accordingly, these studies also show that the average North American child will watch approximately 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old).

According to studies by George Gerbner, at the University of Pennsylvania, this translates into 20 violent acts each hour in a children's show! (This study also confirmed that children who watch a lot of television are more likely to think that the world is a mean and dangerous place).

Given the prevalence of the negative affects of violence it should be a shock to hear that, for the first time, a channel dedicted to Peace is being launched.

Social activist and musician Bob Geldof is the brains behind the venture. Yesterday he announced that he will help launch a global TV and net channel which will aim at promoting world peace. He agreed to work on the idea under the title, Peace Channel, with internet firm Ten Alps Digital.

Under the terms of the agreement the company will develop proposals for a worldwide broadband channel, complete with video clips and social networking functions.Among other things the channel will look to encourage the West to help the poorer nations in an entertaining way. It is scheduled to launch next year.

For more information on the impact of violence on children go to:
http://www.abelard.org/tv/tv.htm

For more information on Peace Channel go to:
http://www.tenalpsdigital.com/?ctid=532&edid=658

The City of Love acknowledges the Global Crisis

2007-02-02T15:35:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday evening officials at the Eiffel Tower extinguished the famous structure's necklace of lights for five minutes.

The decision to darken the Tower was to call attention to the issue of energy usage on the eve of a major report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (released on Friday -- 8:30am Paris time).

The Panel, which was formed in 1988, is comprised of over 2,500 scientists from 130 countries. Friday's report is the first of four that the Panel will deliver this year and it lays the groundwork for debate.

No longer are we debating about whether or not global warming IS occuring (it is); or about whether or not humans have a role (we do). Rather, the report, offered by such a large body of experts who have been described as conservative in nature, has allowed the debate to move from the if stage, to the who stage to the what stage -- what can and should be done.

Thank heavens...because a few more degrees, and we'll be debating about who has the right to clean, potable, and scarce water.

For more discussion on the impact and debate on the report go to:

Science Blogs

3R's

2007-02-02T00:42:00.000-05:00

The end of the week (for most). No one really cares at the end of the week. Not unless it's mind-numbing or brain-stumping...the two extremes.

For that reason, I'm going to keep this fairly light today. Offer only a tidbit; some food for thought; a few possible solutions, and then we can all go home.

So, to start this day, lets just recall the lessons we learned in school (or work, or home, or at the daycare centre, grocery store or gym). I am talking about the 3R's: reduce, reuse and recycle (I'd like to through a fourth one in there, respect, but this is a principle rather than an action, so we'll leave it out for now).

The fact is we consume everyday. Coffee in the morning, snack at lunch, dinner, and the every day, every week and every month essentials (and goodies...can't forget the consumer goodies). As such, many of our purchasing decisions become wrote; we stop thinking about them; stop making the connections between manufacture, purchase, use and discard -- all of which have an impact on my economy, my environment and our lives.

Given all of this, I propose a little task. It doesn't have to be too tedious, don't assume you have to apply as much energy into this as figuring out dinner, or developing that work proposal, but enough to remind oneself that each purchase is a vote (for the product, for the company's values, for the principles that surround that industry).

Take, for example, plastic. It's a liberating substance. No really! It allows automotive manufacturer's to create lighter, hence, more fuel efficient cars (that's good for the environment AND the pocket book!); plastic has also offered more accessibility and choice in consumer goods. But plastic, as a substance, is made of a scarce (and much fought after) resource -- petroleum. As such, we should always be conscientious about our purchase, consumption and disposal of plastic products. While this type of thinking can be done with ANY product, I would like to offer a few suggestions for plastic products that follow the REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE mantra.

1) The Plastic Bag -- When possible use refillable glass or tin containers (weigh them before you add the product) and buy in bulk (less packaging). Also when grocery shopping take your own cloth or canvas bags (or take a backpack or tote bag). Re-use veggie/fruit plastic bags (rinse them out if you are concerned about bacteria).
2) Detergent Squeeze Bottle (aka: dish soap) -- use the empty bottle to water plants, fill a steam iron or spot clean a floor (using a natural disinfectant, such as vinegar). Or, leave some of the soapy residue, fill it with water, and store it in your car to be used to wash the windows (rather than the dirty gas station water).
3) Yogurt/Margarine/Cottage Cheese containers -- reuse these to purchase items at bulk food stores or for storing and freezing leftovers. Or use them to pack salads, or dry goods for "brown bag" lunches.
4) Onion (mesh) plastic bags -- Use them as a dishscrubber (tied around a soap bar). If that does not appeal to you, then use these plastic mesh bags to make an air freshener. Just bake apple and orange peels on a cookie sheet at 200 degrees F for four to five hours (or until thoroughly dried). Mix the dried peels with whole cloves, nutmeg and bits of cinnamon sticks. Then wrap this aromatic mixture in the plastic netting and tie off!

Ok, there's a few of my suggestions.
What are your 3R tips?

Do Good vs. Feel Good

2007-02-01T08:41:00.000-05:00

Green Marketing.

In the 21st century the term is synonymous with right living (or responsible living) and the use and prevalence of these labels and descriptions has risen exponentially in the last decade. But the question remains -- are these labels representative of actual change (products and services that are actually better for the environment?) or are they a marketing ploy to distinguish and market goods and services to appeal to certain values held by consumers? In other words are eco-labels a Do Good mechanism or a Feel Good mechanism.

The idea behind eco-labeling is that these certifications verify that a product/service meets specific standards. These labels, then, represent third party validation -- an apparently objective method of determining whether or not a product or service is green. All labels (with the exception of food and hazardous material labels) are voluntary as all certification processes have been created and are administered by private enterprises (at least in North America).

For example, any structure built in North America can volunarily apply for a LEED rating system classification. This system is based on a point system that allows builders (etc.) to tally up the number of environmentally friendly products/methods that were incorporated into the construction of that building. On the surface it appears that a LEED rating would prompt builders into executing more sustainable methods of construction. But that is not the reality. As a privately owned and operated classification system (that is now widely used and accepted across North America) the LEED system weights each construction decision equally.

What does this mean? It means a designer could opt to use concrete (a product that can be the best environmental choice in certain conditions) in order to create better lighting conditions (bounced light means less light energy is required to illuminate a room -- this cuts down on energy required, which, obviously, is also a more sustainable approach to construction). However this choice would not be rewarded under the LEED system. However, a designer who opted to add in ceiling tiles (classified as MORE environmentally friendly than other ceiling tiles) would be given a point under the LEED system. Even though the LEED system is an effort to produce more sustainable buildings, the very nature of its point system means that more sustainable construction decisions are often neglected for less sustainable decisions that will offer more points (thereby classifying the building as more environmentally friendly).

Can you see the conundrum?

While eco-labeling arose due to consumer demand, there are major flaws in these systems. As privately run classification systems there is no set, national standards that must be followed, no conclusive buy-in to the system (they are all voluntary) and there is no true objectivity in setting the standards (as seen by the skewed point system that defines LEED).

As such, consumers are being sold a bill of Feel Good, rather than being offered truly constructed and produced goods and services that Do Good.

This is not to say there are not truly sustainable products and services availabe on the market. However, there is a distinct difference between environmentally friendly and green marketing -- a difference more consumers need to be made aware of.

Carbon offsets and the 100th monkey syndrome

2007-01-24T08:56:00.000-05:00

Carbon offsets.

You've heard the hype; then the criticism. So, what is it and, in a nutshell, is it any good?

A carbon offset is the process that allows organizations or individuals to compensate all or part of the carbon dioxide (C02) emissions by either reducing those emissions or paying for the priviledge to produce the emissions by paying for another to absorb those emissions. The hope is that these transactions will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. The goal is to combat the very real, very dangerous global warming crisis.

The carbon offset process garnered a lot of press as of late, due to increased interest in this process of accountability. Now, there are organizations all over the world involved in the buying and selling of carbon offsets to individuals and organizations who want to compensate for climate impacts (due to air travel and other activities). One organization declared that an individual one-way plane trip from Toronto to Vancouver would cost a consumer as little as $15 extra in order to offset the carbon dioxide produced by their option to travel by air.

At first, environmental advocates and groups applauded the efforts of companies and individuals in attempting to become "carbon neutral".

However, with more press comes more criticism. Now, environmentalists are (and have) criticised carbon offsets as a distraction from essential reductions in fossil fuel use, and forestry offset projects have been met with heavy criticism, drawing the benefits into question.

Now, there is little doubt that the larger issues, as highlighted by carbon offset critics, must be addressed. A tree foresty project that does not contribute to carbon offsetting could be a waste of resources and a continued (and disproportionate) dependency on fossil fuels in the developed world will do more harm than good regardless of all the good intentions from carbon offset and other green programs.

However, we cannot write off this program entirely, and for one major reason: accountability.

The fact is in our global village and instant-communication society most of us are so far removed from the impact of our choices that are level of accountability has diminished greatly. The very fact that people continue to purchase goods produced in countries that are on record as human rights' abusers shows this level of (willing?) ignorance. Enter the carbon offset programs. This scheme enables people to reacquaint themself to the consequences of their decisions. It allows a person to take responsibility for opting to live, work and play in the manner they decide.

The fact is, the terms responsibility and accountability are often seen as killjoys. They are terms bantered about in relation to finance and legality and are often ignored (at least subconsciously) in our day to day activities -- or at least, so we think. Yet, responsibility and accountability are the cornerstones of our democratic (read: free) society. As a nation built upon free choice and market decisions we are afforded the opportunities to make informed decisions -- and any decision, informed or not, is subject to consequences.

The carbon offset programs (as limited as they are) are re-introducing the notion of consequence into our decision making process. By accepting the reality -- that there are consequences to every decision -- we can accept potential harm reduction, or solution-based options.

Think of it this way: if you were to go to the top of the CN Tower and jump off, would you deny the consequences of gravity? No. The fact that we live in a developed (hence rich) country affords us certain options that others may not have. While, some would have us guilt our way into oblivious ignorance the carbon offset pioneers are trying to awaken us to potential. Rather than deny a lifestyle they are asking us to accept the consequences of that lifestyle.

For those criticizing the offset program, may I remind you that this attachment between choice and consequence has long been missed by the average consumer. In a day where goods are plentiful and conditions of production easily hidden, it is important to once again make that connection. While the offset program does not address the greater issue (the over use and abuse of fossil fuels) it DOES get us thinking about the consequences. And everyone knows...critical mass comes from each one of us taking the time out to think and change.

Corn Cob Bob on hunger strike!

2007-01-23T08:52:00.000-05:00

Corn Cob Bob may die.

Irrespective of his own health, the scrawny, veggie-dude decided to risk life (and limb?) to take a stand.

It appears the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association mascot is taking this stand because Telecastor Canada -- the nation's advertising watchdog -- attempted to thwart an advertisement that aired a clip of Prime Minister Harper making a campaign promise. According to Telecastor Canada the clip of the PM could not be used without his permission. According to Kory Teneycke, the Renewable Fuels Association executive director, Telecastor evnentually approved the advertisement, which focuses on the Conservative party's promise to require 5% biofuel content in gasoline, but said it would yank it if the Conservatives filed a complaint.

This is ridiculous! Since when do Canadians (including individuals, corporations and organizations) need permission to use publid domain material? The very fact that Harper declared his party's intent publically puts this material in the public domain. If, then, the clip helps emphasis a) the importance of such a decision, b) the promise of our currently elected members of parliament, then it is open season!

While one could appreciate any apprehension if a statement or clip was taken out of context, this does not appear to be the case. As a result the Canadian Renewable Fuels Associaton denounced the decision as stifling its freedom of speech. In turn, it announced that its mascot, Corn Cob Bob, would go on hunger strike. While the water-only diet for Bob the Cob may be a tongue-in-cheek response to Telecastor's obvious interference, Teneycke said the decision is due to the serious implications.

Tenecyke believes that Telecastor's willingness to pull an ad campaign with a Harper clip has implications across the country. He believes that by preventing public display and use of campaign promises by our politicians it, effectively, gives these same politicians a veto over their statements.

The fact is media (of all sorts -- whether it is theoretically objective or decidedly biased) should be allowed to hold all our leaders accountable. One way to do this is to offer evidence of promises and failures. The Renewable Fuels Association saw an opportunity to do just this and decided to act. The fact that a watchdog organization almost tried to quash the event bodes poorly on the future of free speech in this country.

For more words on this issue go to:

http://www.devonrowcliffe.ca/blog/?p=236
http://churchofwhatshappeningnow.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-bloody-outrage.html
http://domesticfuel.com/?p=1032

Keep the gore-hore out of my news

2007-01-22T09:02:00.000-05:00

Newsmakers always defend their choices to report horrific events in great detail on the public's desire for the more grotesque aspects of a story.

However a study for the UBC School of Journalism's Feminist Media project may show that this circular logic is, in fact, fallacious.

The study, conducted by the Mustel Group, found that 52% of the 806 adults surveyed (by telephone) said they were interested in media coverage of the case. The study also showed that most B.C. residents believe news organizations should refrain from reporting salacious details of Robert Pickton's murder trial, while one in five say the media have reported "too much" about the case already.

What is interesting is that the poll showed that of those surveyed about the media's coverage of the Pickton trial, three-quarters (75%) believed the media had responded responsibly in covering the case. However 56% of the same respondants believe the media should restrict violent and sexually explicit details that arise at the trial, compared with 37% who believe the public should know as much detail as possible. The remaining 7% did not know.

The interesting component of this study is that there is at least half of those participating in the consumption of media are, in fact, not clamouring for the ghastly details. This should fore-warn media outlets -- perhaps it is not the sensational aspects of a trial, situation or case that draws half their readers, but, perhaps other aspects of journalism, such as insight, analysis, story-telling and, hopefully, alternative perspectives and solutions.

Good point to be aware of in a day and age where media of all types must compete for loyal listeners, readers and viewers.

Mickey D's does ethical bean juice

2007-01-08T08:58:00.000-05:00

Who says pressure doesn't pay off?

Advocates of ethical business will be raising a cup of fair trade coffee this week after a decision by McDonalds'UK to purchase, serve and (essentially) promote ethically sourced coffee.

Steve Easterbrook, president of McDonald's UK, said in an interview with The Independent, that the coffee deal would "transform the market for sustainably grown coffee in the UK."

You better believe it will.

The fact is protests, pressure and persistence really do pay off when it comes to pushing the market towards sustainable and socially just practices. How do we know this? Through decisions made by corporations, such as McDonald's UK. While anti-globalists may not cheer this decision, those that weight fair trade and sustainable living (over and above loss of culture) will be putting another notch in their belt due to this recent decision. And with good reason. Since the 1950s -- when the term human rights became a standard phrase in domestic and international affairs -- the notion of ethical decision making has grown and blossomed. While the majority of multinational corporations still have a long way to go in aligning their economic practices with social justice, the gap does decrease when larger, more prominent (and arguably a large influence on the market type) businesses, such as McDonald's publically acknowledges the importance of social justice by changing their corporate policy.

While we may not all rush out to purchase a cup of "careful this is hot" brew at Micky-D's -- we can rest assured that a multinational has, in some small way, confirmed that market economies can be aligned with social justice values.

Government needs to be proactive in protecting our health

2007-01-04T08:46:00.000-05:00

Lead poisoning.

A few decades ago, in North America, we began to recognize the necessity to reduce exposure to lead. The result was a phasing out of lead-based gasoline and lead-based paint -- two substances that, at the time, continued to use the heavy metal in the production of its product. The reason was lead increased the health problems of those exposed to consumer products that contained the heavy metal.

However, it appears that the attributes that once made lead attractive (easy workability, low melting point and corrosion resistance) have once again made it the metal du jour for cheap trinkets and jewelery -- particularly pieces worn and abused by young girls.

Herein lies the problem. The fact is that outside of occupational hazards the majority of lead poisoning occurs in children under age twelve. The main sources of poisoning are from ingestion of lead. This ingestion used to occur when contaminated soil (from leaded gasoline) was prevelant or when lead dust or chips from deteriorating lead-based paints were present. While restrictions and laws have been inacted in order to deal with these potential lead poisoning sources (in most American states, landlords and those selling such houses are required to inform the potential residents of the danger of lead poisoning in older houses due to paint chipping etc.) the fact is our governments are slow moving in dealing with the overall use of lead in consumer products.

Enter the developing market. In an effort to cash in on the North American consumerism cash cow, many developing nations are finding easier, cheaper and faster alternative ingrediants for consumer products. As such, lead has been reintroduced into consumer products in everything from make-up, jewelery and cheap, trinket toys.

In a story in the Globe & Mail today, Health Canada came out with a warning that several children's necklaces (and other trinkets) had to be recalled from two retailers due to high lead levels.

Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, is not surprised. "Lead jewellery is as plentiful as pennies because there are no regulations regarding the use of lead."

Cooper explains that the only regulation the Canadian government has erected is to prohibit the use of lead in children's jewellery -- children being anyone under the age of 15. The problem is, Cooper explains, nobody makes an age distinction when purchasing costume jewellery. So jewellery with lead can be sold to anyone despite the restrictions. Cooper is appalled that the rational behind the Canadian government's last decision not to regulate lead in consumer based products -- including jewellery -- was due to the "unfair economic impact it would have on costume jewellery." Cooper is insistent that in order to reduce the exposure and the subsequent health risks due to lead poisoning, the Canadian government MUST enact strict regulations regarding the sale of domestic and international consumer products that contain lead.

While these regulations are not yet forthcoming, Health Canada is asking Claire's and Ardene stores to remove various items that contained lead. Health Canada's rationale is the risk of lead poisoning to children if they chew or suck on the items, or if they swallow them.

For further information, consumers can contact the Health Canada product safety office at 1-866-662-0666.

For more information on lead poisoning go to:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/5/429-a

Community is the key

2007-01-03T00:18:00.000-05:00

It's the year of 007...and I'm about to throw around pop-culture psycho-babble like it actually matters. Thing is, I think it really does.

Now, I'm not one for self-help. I don't read Chicken Soups for any soul, nor to do I peruse the people from different planets (Mars or Venus), but a few years ago I did stumble upon a rather interesting book. It was by an American psychiatrist that had spent much of his formative professional years in service to the American military. From this experience (and from his own incite) he began to formulate a philosophy that focuses upon the necessity for the truthful development of love and community.

Community is an oft-abused word. In many cases it is used to create divisions, to define differences and, at times, to condemn segments of people. Yet, in modern times, no one concept or word has ever been so present in our day-to-day lives. Community dominates our work life, our home life and even our entertainment hours (what community are you a part of while surfing on this, here, inter-web???).

Yet, despite the pervasive nature of this aspect of humanity, community is often misunderstood and ill-defined. It is at this point that the self-help wisdom of Scott Peck enters the picture. According to Peck, any group that wishes to become a community must undertake a communal journey that involves four stages:

*pseudocommunity -- where "niceness" reigns
*chaos -- when the emotional skeletons of individuals and segments crawl out of the closet
*emptiness -- a time of quiet and transition
*true community -- marked both by deep honesty and deep caring

Peck outlines this concept (and the subject) in his 1987 book, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace (Simon and Schuster). In this, and any of th other Peck bestsellers, he mixes his poignant incite with examples and rational explanations as to why it is so important for us -- as the human race -- to develop and nurture community.

Regardless of whether you agree with Peck's description or not, the fact remains that in this day and age of division and strife, community has become an important and necessary aspect for peace and sustainability. Community defines who we are, what rights we are entitled to and what protections we can expect. Community also helps us grow and develop as individuals -- allowing all the little punk-rockers a chance to rebel, even as the suits choose to conform.

The problem is too many people ignore the integral part of community that demands honesty, open-mindedness and willingness. These principles (these traits) allow people -- all people -- to move from a state of insufferable "niceness" (where everyone gets along and no one is really real -- just think of the past holiday season:), to the chaotic stages of changing boundaries, perspectives and expectations, to a sense of loss (that comes from not getting OUR way), to the final stage of appreciation, acceptance and (dare I say it) respect.

Because in the end, there can be no community without respect and respect can only be attained through persistence and growth -- NOT through forcing person(s) to conform to our own (limited) standards.

So, why, in the year of 007, do I say all of this? Because now, more than ever, we need to stop glossing over the idea of community. We need to stop assuming that any community we belong to, participate in, or affiliate with MUST conform to every principle and value we hold. Despite how great we all believe our values to be (and how right, how righteous, and how rational) our perspectives and our views are these beliefs are not superior to anyone else's beliefs. Period.

That means we, all of we, have to make a decision to deal with the uncomfortable feelings that occur when we grow and learn as a community -- when we push the boundaries, question the status quo and then opt for the straight and narrow. Because in the end community is about love and acceptance, both for ourselves and for others.

I resolve....One Day at a Time

2007-01-02T08:20:00.000-05:00

Is it just me or is it getting harder to make New Year's resolutions? Gone are the days when simple self-improvement sufficed. Now, in a media-rich and information savvy culture our resolutions take on a new timber. We look outwards (and perhaps upwards) and realized that personal development, although noble, can lack a global perspective. How can losing weight help decrease the gap between the haves and have-nots? How can making our own lunches help with species extinction or global warming? So, perhaps we need to look past the guilted-into-action strategies and focus on something else? But what?

M. Ryan Hess, author of the Ten Minute Activist: Easy Ways to Take Back the Planet, advises us to address this dilemma by thinking small. Using this strategy Hess, along with a five-member Mission Collective, has published a rather small (pocket-sized) book that outlines 150 ideas to "take life down a notch -- and take ten for the planet."

While books like these can often read as meditations (or sermons -- depending on your perspective) they can offer the impetous for people ready and willing to make changes but unaware of how to go about the shift. A few of the suggestions are so commonplace -- such as properly inflating your tires, or planting a tree -- that they almost appear ridiculously simple; however, by reframing them as part of a conscious resolution, a deliberate action to become a socially conscious activist, Hess and his crew helps to get every day, ordinary people to re-examine how small acts can add up to large results.

Whether it's this book or another, the hope us that each person's reinvigorated activism will become a habit -- something good for you and the planet that you can do everyday.

So before you make the list; before you resolve to better your health, your appearance or your bank account; scan the options and examine the impact. It is possible to help yourself, your planet and your global community one small action at a time.

Books to look out for:
1) Michael Norton's: 365 Ways to Change the World: How to Make a Difference -- One Day at a Time (also go online to www.365act.com)
2) M. Ryan Hess: The Ten Minute Activist: Easy Ways to Take Back the Planet
3) Christof Mauch: Shades of Green: Environment Activism Around the Globe
4) Michael R. Stevenson: Everyday Activism; A Handbook for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People and their Allies": A handbook for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People and their Allies

A green goal and removal of a stole -- it's all about the game of footie

2006-12-15T08:38:00.000-05:00

Well, it's happened. Even the iconic FIFA organization is now marked by environmental social strife. Not that the world's pre-eminant soccer organization is upset with changes (in fact, it's not even responsible for the changes). Yet, the recent grumblings of Iranian women and the recent pledges by the South African government is cause for pause in the mighty footie realm.

So, what do I mean?

A recent petition demands that FIFA president, Mr Joseph S. Blatter, put pressure on the Iranian government to allow women into the stadium to watch the world's most international sport. The petition states that women are currently banned from participating (as observors) in Iran's participation in FIFA games -- and this exclusion prevents them from enjoying the inclusion of a culturally relevant past-time.

At present (and as any good theoretically a-political organization would do) FIFA is not weighing in on the debate. Rather, it is stepping back and taking the "we don't influence" politics approach -- an approach that simply does not exist in today's climate.

And speaking of climate -- while FIFA may be reluctant to engage in politics with the Iranian government it cannot avoid this aspect of international sports when dealing with the South African government.

In 2010 South Africa will host the FIFA Soccer World Cup -- an event that draws the attention of billions from all over the world. As a result the South African government has pledged to raise awareness (and standards) on water and energy conservation -- in an effort to green the game.

"We are committed to ensuring that South Africa learns from the Green Goal experience which vastly reduced the environmental impact of the 2006 World Cup in Germany," said Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk.

Hmmm, footie really is political -- whether the FIFA realize this or not.

For more information on the Iranian petition go to:
http://www.petitiononline.com/FIFAban/petition.html

For more information on FIFA go to:
http://access.fifa.com/en/article/0,0000,110908,00.html

For more information on South Africa's pledge for a green World Cup go to:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200612140740.html

Wal-Mart and Christian values go head to head in holiday season

2006-12-14T07:46:00.000-05:00

Oh dear! It appears that Wal-Mart is acting in an un-Christian-like manner, or so say 130 pastors south of the border.

In an effort to draw attention to the low employment standards at the international mega-store, these 130 pastors formed a union-backed lobby group known as WakeUpWalMart.com. This newly formed organization sent a letter asking Wal-Mart's chief executive officer, Lee Scott, to provide higher standards to Wal-Mart employees and their families. The lobby group also released a new television ad featuring Pastor Joe Phelps of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, asking, "Would Jesus shop at Wal-Mart? Should you?" The pastor continues by asking, "can we continue to shop at Wal-Mart without insulting God?" He goes on to list allegations that Wal-Mart has violated child labor laws and engaged in gender-based discrimination and says half the company's 1.3 million U.S. employees aren't covered under the company health plan. The ad is set to run in 43 media markets.

In response to the advertisement Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar said the United ad and its supporters are backing negative attacks while Wal-Mart is creating jobs.

"The fact is, union leadership is wasting millions of its members' dollars on a failing campaign against a company that is good for working families," Tovar said.

Of course, the un-Christian like employment practices of Wal-Mart cannot stop the buying blitz scheduled for next week. The mega-store announced yesterday that last-minute holiday shoppers will get a chance to shop at Wal-Mart Canada round the clock. While the books show it's an effort to boost the retail giant's year-end sales, the move affects 51 select stores across the nation starting on Monday. The round-the-clock sale will last until Dec. 24 -- a Sunday, ironically enough.

For more information go to:
http://wakeupwalmart.com/
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2006/12/13/walmart-shopping.html

Lego my bagel -- online petition targetting Dempsters

2006-12-13T09:16:00.000-05:00

Hello mates,

It's time again to take the ol' mouse and click with your conscience.

On Metro Morning (CBC) this morning, two young women are calling on Canadians to reduce packaging -- their target (an example only) is a new product by Dempsters.

The new product is a bagel wrapped in hard packaging with diner-style sachets of peanut butter and a plastic knife (all individually wrapped) -- and all of this is triple-wrapped.

Talk about obsessive packaging (and an extraordinary waste). Talk about the rise and rise and rise of our solid waste ( -- wait! Didn't Toronto already go through an ordeal regarding solid waste...did we not learn that disposal is a problem and that reduce, reuse and recycle is essential?).

As a result Amy Nugent and Morwenna White have taken up the fight to reduce packaging. They have started an online petition calling on the government to implement standards and regulations regarding packaging. Their argument (and it is valid) is that voluntary regulation DOES NOT work. Period. And that is true. There are a variety of examples all across the consumer-minefield.

They are also asking people to mail their Dempster bagel back the president of the company. The address is listed on the first layer of packaging.

For the online petition go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/PKGREG/petition.html

Green travel getting a new boost from airlines

2006-12-12T08:58:00.000-05:00

Travel.
It's fun; it's exciting; it's alluring; yet, to the mean green in all of us, it's a conundrum.

Travelling requires the use of carbon fuels, which, we all know, is a main contributer to green house gases and global warming. Unfortunately, the worst offender of this output is airline travel.

Yet, we live in a global world -- a world where families really do exist on either side of the pond and relaxation time really does include an escape to sun and surf.

So, how, then, can a green consumer make friendlier choices when it comes to travel -- in particular air travel?

According to PlanetSave (a web portal with green ideas for everyday living) we do have options. While the environment is not the main impetus for changing airline policy, the rising cost of oil (and the subsequent shrinking profit margin) IS enough to cause airlines all over the world to re-examine their methods of operation.

As such, PlanetSave believes that airlines have founder simple and safe ways to reduce their fuel burn, and thus their emissions. Solutions, such as winglets added to the aircraft, or flying more direct routes at energy-efficiency altitudes and speeds are methods being adopted by a large number of airlines. As is the eliminatino of excess weight and the use of electric vehicles for ground crew operations.

While all airlines are jumping on the efficiency wagon, PlanetSave does state that Asian and European airlines often have more advanced green programs than their American counterparts (but this is changing thanks to rising oil prices and savvy consumers like yourself). As such, PlanetSave singles out British Airways as a leader in this field of green-travel choices.

The stalwart of luxury travel, British Airways advocates an emissions trading scheme in the industry and has established carbon offsetting and sustainable-tourism initiatives. In the USA, JetBlue is potentially the greenest airline because of its newer, more fuel-efficient fleet and its in-flight recycling and waste-management programs. PlanetSave also gives kudos to American Airlines, Singapore Airlines, and several more for their in-flight recycling programs.

In the end, though, savvy, green travellers can opt for more sustainable choices by taking a few tips:

*Opt for direct flights instead of multiple stops—take-offs and landings are a major source of CO2 emissions.
*Choose an airline with fewer delays while the plane waits for a gate upon arrival, if possible. Planes burn excess fuel while waiting.
*Become a frequent flyer on an airline with a newer, more fuel-efficient fleet such as JetBlue, Singapore Airlines, or Virgin Atlantic.
*Consider purchasing carbon offset credits for the miles you fly.

Sign, sign, everywhere signs...

2006-12-08T08:28:00.000-05:00

Today will be a short post.

It's just an alert for anyone interested or involved in cycling or climate change. There is a petition (online) asking the current Conservative government to put both issues front and forward by endorsing cycling across Canada.

To read the petition or get active go to:

http://www.gopetition.com/online/10170.html

Community meals means communion with commonality -- and that's the best sauce for hunger

2006-12-07T07:47:00.000-05:00

We all know where any good party ends up: in the kitchen.

The kitchen is a hub -- it's the source of sustenance; a source of warmth and an easy place to find good icebreakers (let's face it, when pushed for conversation, nothing breaks the ice better than a discussion of food and wine).

So, it is with this in mind that I offer you two choices for community kitchen dinners this Friday night.

Community dinners (and subsequently community kitchens) are popping up all across Canada, yet, they are not a new notion. In fact, they are a return to values that were once prevalent in community-oriented cultures -- cultures that, in North America, have been usurped by the cult-of-the-individual. So, in a world of marketing and unauthentic experiences, community dinners are providing urban and rural dwellers with an opportunity to break bread with their extended community.

In Toronto, this Friday, there are two community dinners. The first is the long-standing tradition of Dufferin Grove Park. This community dinner attracts a wide variety of people from all across the neighbourhood (and beyond); as one community member stated, the dinner has helped to rejuvenate the community. For as little as $6 a plate ($5 if you bring your own plate) a person can look forward to a meal filled with locally produced food (purchased from the Farmer's Market held in the same park year round, every Thursday) and prepared onsite in the wood ovens. The second option is across town in Corktown. Again, the neighbours gather and for $5 a person can expect a home-cooked meal and chit-chat with people from every socio-economic and political background (including apolitical!).

Given our anonymous urban lives, these community dinners offer us all a chance to reach out and connect with the very people that deliver our papers, cut our lawns, teach our children and invest our money. They are a meeting point -- as food always is -- that does not rely on labels and schemas, but rather on nurturing and communion. And we could all use a little more communion.

Bring your plate (sustainability matters) and see you there!

Women is the N&*$er of the world -- Part 2

2006-12-06T08:35:00.000-05:00

Today, I want to provide you a few lists, a bit of perspective and, perhaps, the possibility of change.

The reason? Seventeen years ago one man turned a gun on himself but not before killing 14 women and injuring 13 others at the École Polytechnique de Montréal.

While countless stories will provide his name, background, socio-economic and cultural status as well as intimate details of his suicide note and warped rational for his killing spree, I will refrain from doing this. Instead, I offer you the names of the dead. The direct victims of one man's violent, patriarchial attitudes towards women; one man's example of the desire for dominance and control over the "other half"; one example of the pervasive and prevalent attitude that women are secondary to men -- an attitude that continues to exist around the world.

People Killed
Geneviève Bergeron (b. 1968), civil engineering student.
Hélène Colgan (b. 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Nathalie Croteau (b. 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Barbara Daigneault (b. 1967) mechanical engineering student.
Anne-Marie Edward (b. 1968), chemical engineering student.
Maud Haviernick (b. 1960), materials engineering student.
Maryse Laganière (b. 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique's finance department.
Maryse Leclair (b. 1966), materials engineering student.
Anne-Marie Lemay (b. 1967), mechanical engineering student.
Sonia Pelletier (b. 1961), mechanical engineering student.
Michèle Richard (b. 1968), materials engineering student.
Annie St-Arneault (b. 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Annie Turcotte (b. 1969), materials engineering student.
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (b. 1958), nursing student.

Now, take a moment. Read the list again. And sit with it. Sit with the knowledge that these women were innocent victims of one man's rage. Sit and reflect on the fact that they were punished, not for what they did, but for who they were. Now reflect on the fact that most of us, at least once in our life, will experience this unjustified and unwarranted hate directed at us - to some degree and on some level.

Done?

Good. Now remember how YOU felt when persecuted for being who you were. Recall the anger, the fear, the anguish and the confusion.

Got it?

Then take this into your day. Regardless of who you come across remember that prejudice, of any type, can and does kill. There is no rationalization that can justify hate and violence -- whether it is towards women, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, Christians, Jews, the list goes on. Yet, the only way we can truly break the cycle of us vs. them (differientation that leads to prejudice and hate) is to break down our own barriers and walls. Have courage. Persist. We will get through this.

Of course, for those more practically inclined, there are other actions that can and should be done. One such action is to support the Dec. 10th Campaign.

This campaign calls on all people (and organizations/corporations/institutions) to support the status of women in Canada -- a status, they report, which is seriously threatened. For more information of the Dec. 10th Campaign desires and rationale please scroll below to the declaration.

Finally, please examine the following list. It is the tally of all the women that died this year due to men on women violence in the GTA. The names are varied. The consequences are different. The reason is the same.

Women and Their Children Killed in the GTA in 2006
Yasmin Ashareh, 20
Seema Badhan, 19
Rose Boroja, 54
Colleen Bradley, 59
Kamlesh Dhingra, 58
Audrey Gates, 80
Wendy LaFleche, 41
Victoria LaFleche, 7
Jesse LaFleche, 3
Shao-Sang Liang, 38
Vivian Yuen-Yee Chau, 3
Ian Chau, five months
Dale Cheryl Mapstone, 29
Malena Morales, 31
Meherun Nessa, 35
Natalie Novak, 20
Rosa Peterman, 57
Gwendolyn Pilgrim, 35
Thayalini Subramaniam, 31
Malini Thayakumar, 36
Neruuya Thayakumar, 14
Gnanalakshmi Raman, 29

For more information on the Dec. 10th Campaign go to:
http://www.criaw-icref.ca/index_e.htm

For more information on the Dec. 6th Fund go to:
http://www.dec6fund.ca/what.htm

For more information on supporting the movement to end violence against women go to:
http://www.whiteribbon.ca/

Statement for the December 10th Campaign
For Women’s Equality and Human Rights
On December 10th, International Human Rights Day, Canada will mark the 25th anniversary of its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Instead of celebrating this historical milestone, women in Canada are mobilizing to ensure that governments honour and respect their international and domestic human rights commitments. This is because over several months now, the federal government has acted in ways that deny most women’s realities, undermine women’s access to justice, and abandon its own obligation to advance women’s human rights in Canada.

Reality Denied

In 2006, the federal government made a number of important changes affecting women’s equality rights. These include a 40% cut to Status of Women Canada and the elimination of twelve regional Status of Women Canada offices. These measures signal a profound rejection of the realities of women’s lives. The justifications for these measures by Minister Beverley Oda are that women are strong, already equal, and don’t need these critical policy and legal supports. Although we acknowledge that women in Canada have won formal equality rights, we know that much more work must be done to make these equality rights a reality for all women in Canada. One indicator of this is women’s wages. On average, women still earn 71 cents on the male dollar, making Canada 38th in the world in terms of the wage gap ratio. Racialized and Aboriginal women earn significantly less. Their average annual income, respectively, is $16, 621 and $ 13,300. Further, even though 70% of mothers are in the paid work force, Canada still does not have in place a national child care program. According to the Toronto Community Foundation, over 10,000 children are on a waiting list for subsidized child care spaces in Toronto alone.

Access Denied

Access to justice is now denied to women on many fronts. In the last year, the federal government abolished the funding for the national child care program, decided not to adopt an improved federal pay equity law, eliminated all funds for the Court Challenges Program, removed the goal of equality from the mandate of the Women’s Program at Status of Women Canada, and prohibited the use of federal funds to engage in advocacy at any level of government, lobbying and most research. Other policy decisions have also contributed to denying women’s access to equality and their rights. Among these are the cuts to literacy programs, the lack of support for women and men who are homeless, the refusal to respect the Kyoto Protocol, the decisions to renege on the Kelowna Accord as well as Canada’s obstruction of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Equality Denied

Instead of promoting women’s equality, the federal government is severely hindering: women’s capacity to organize, advocate and lobby. They won’t support women’s equality in the workplace and have limited women’s rights to challenge discrimination before the courts. Canada’s democratic safeguards are indeed being eroded and our internationally acclaimed human rights legacy is seriously in jeopardy.

Respect Your Commitment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper

We, the undersigned, urge Prime Minister Harper to respect his own election commitment to uphold women’s equality and human rights in Canada. During the 2006 election campaign, Mr. Harper stated:

“If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women in Canada." (January 18, 2006).

Prime Minister Harper is not respecting this commitment. The government’s approach jeopardizes the historic efforts by Canada to achieve women’s full equality, and disregards women’s human rights here at home. Rather than uphold his commitment to the women in Canada, the Prime Minister has in fact ignored the experience of millions of women in order to justify his government’s actions.

On December 10, we call on the federal Government to:

• Reverse its policy decisions on childcare, pay equity, the Court Challenges Program, Status of Women Canada, and the Women’s program..

• Respect the CEDAW Committee recommendations, by improving the living conditions and respecting the human rights of Aboriginal women, effectively addressing violence against women and women’s poverty, improving maternity and parental benefits, funding civil legal aid, changing immigration laws to respect the rights of live-in caregivers and ensuring a more equitable participation of women in the political institutions.

Women in Canada, because we are strong, determined and passionate, can and will not accept an erosion of their hard won and still fragile equality rights. Women are not living in poverty, as mothers, care-givers or elders, because they are weak or lack self-confidence. They do not choose to become the victims of violence at the hands of partners, family members or strangers. They do not wish to have their children taken from them because of a lack of access to safe and affordable housing. They have not chosen to be under-represented in Canada’s political life, or to be underpaid in countless workplaces across the country. Women, women’s organizations and our allies have chosen, however, to come together to call upon this government to reverse course and promote a collective respect for women’s equality and human rights.
Sincerely,

 Aboriginal Women’s Community-Based Studies Initiative
 Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne
 Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
 Canadian Council of Muslim Women
 Canadian Federation of Students
 Canadian Federation of University Women
 Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
 Canadian Labour Congress
 Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women
 Canadian Union of Public Employees
 Canadian Women's Community Economic Development Council
 Canadian Women’s Foundation
 Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
 DAWN Ontario
 Fédération des femmes du Québec
 Feminists for Just and Equitable Public Policy
 MATCH International
 National Association of Women and the Law
 National Council of Women of Canada
 New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women
 Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses
 Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador
 Public Service Alliance of Canada
 Regroupement provincial des maisons d'hébergement et de transition pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale
 Transition House Association of Nova Scotia
 Women’s Inter-Church Council of Canada
 Women’s Space
 YWCA Canada

Corporate responsibility is the new black

2006-12-05T09:04:00.000-05:00

A few years ago only a couple of hundred multinationals were concerned enough with corporate responsibility to include this aspect of their conduct in annual reports.

This year analysts expect close to 2,000 such reports.

Bluntly put: this is exponential growth.

Andrew Brengle, senior analyst with Boston based KLD Research & Analytics, says that only 15 to 20 percent of these reports will be worth reading. He believes that only this small fraction of reports are thorough and comprehensive enough to provide a clear overview of corporate responsibility.

But the fact remains, more and more businesses realize the importance of ethical and responsible corporate decision-making. In otherwords responsibility and full disclosure is actually good business sense (que the choir, I feel a allehuai moment coming on!).

More and more businesses are attempting to communicate with employees and stakeholders through full disclosure. This move towards transperancy, then, forces companies to examine their decisions; this, in turn, provides impetus for making more responsible, ethical and sustainable decisions.

While Brengle may be right -- that the majority of these reports are simply surface attempts to appear responsible -- the fact still remains: consumers demanded, corporations responded; we care about the process not just about the outcome.

For more information on Brengle and the plethora of corporate responsibility reports go to:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1204/p25s01-wmgn.html

Ten years later the electric car is reborn

2006-12-04T08:43:00.000-05:00

Ten years ago there was a cheaper, quieter, greener and more efficient alternative to the gas-combustable engine.

But we don't really know about it and we don't drive it because ten years ago the major car manufacturers, in conjunction with oil companies, governmental agencies and other lobbiests, set out to destroy the potential of this alternative transportation source.

That was 1996. This is 2006. This week, General Motors announced it is ready to launch a plug-in version of its upcoming two-mode hybrid model: the Saturn VUE Green Line. A plug-in version -- aka: electric car (or, at least, some variation of it).

In 1996, GM fought deep and dirty to destroy the electric car.

In 2006, the Big Three member announced its corporate intentions to expand its alternative fuel options.

So, what happened?

War happened. As did worldwide political unrest. Terrorism happened. As did socialization of the USA's fourth largest oil provider. Awareness happened. As did the momentum and belief in the decades of correlational proof on the human element of global warming.

In otherwords the GM (and perhaps other automakers) are living in a different world than 10 years ago.

In otherwords GM (and other automakers) can no longer make economic decisions based on short-term gain (five, ten, fifteen years is but a blip in a larger life-span). Instead, these major inhibitors and accelerators of transportation industry change have come to realize that to circle the proverbial wagons is to orchestrate one's own demise.

Though good ol' GM should be applauded for being the first major automaker to commit to producing a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle the sense of irony is a bit thick. At least, though, large corps are good foot-in-the-mouth swallowers. GM and other large corporations know that corporate image makeovers and PR games are all part and parcel of doing business in a global economy. So, applause the announcement, in my eyes, should be kept for other, not so large players in this realm.

In my view, applause for GM's decision to create and offer consumer accessible alternatives to the gas-combustable engine should be kept for people like Chris Paine and Jessie Deeter -- the writer/director and producer of Who Killed the Electric Car (an expose on the intentional death of an greener alternative to gas-powered cars in America).

Applause should also be kept for the thousands of Greenpeace activists, supporters and corporate personnel who have consistently drawn the public's attention to environmental issues such as global warming.

Applause should be kept for David Suzuki and all the people involved in his foundation that have kept up the barrage of news, views and data to support the need for a societal shift in how we think, act and feel about the Earth and its resources.

And applause should be kept for all those people, across the globe, that CHOOSE to ride their bike to work, take public transit, refuse to use plastic bags, continue to buy bulk (rather than fancy packaging) and opt for the admittedly rougher, but certainly far greener option of recycled personal hygiene paper products.

These are the true heros -- for without them, major automakers, such as GM, would not be in a position to realize public sentiment and corporate image is far more powerful than a small man with a big stick in an unstable oil-producing country half-way across the world.

For more information on Who Killed the Electric Car go to:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html

For more information on GM's announcement go to:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061110/AUTO01/611100327/1148

For more information on criticism on Who Killed the Electric Car go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

Canada misses top ten in Gender Equality

2006-11-22T09:21:00.000-05:00

Is it a surprise? Nordic Europe is the guiding light in gender equality. This is a region of the world that places quality of life and standard of life far above economic interests -- or perhaps they appreciate the fact that economic interest is always taken care of when we take care of our own.

Rather than focus on lowering taxes (the financial base with which to offer national programs and establish equalization plans) these countries focus on developing and nurturing all segments of their population. The result? Well, the obvious result, right now, is their high ranking in the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report. The longer-term, less-obvious results deal with a higher standard of living than North America, a stronger social network than most Western democracies and an economic system that is based on educating it's population not lowering taxes for businesses.

To put it bluntly: Nordic Europe tops the list for gender equality out of 115 countries in the world. That's no small feat. The countries boast the
world's best maternity leave, the best political participation rates and an education system in which women now outnumber men.

The World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2006 named Sweden as the world's most progressive country when it comes to quality of the sexes, followed by Norway, Finland and Iceland.

Ranking the countries according to economic participation and opportunity, education, political empowerment and health and survival, Canada came in 13th and the United States ranked 29th. The small Middle East nation of Yemen came last in the global list.

Going green with Green Day

2006-11-20T09:12:00.000-05:00

Punk rock is more than a fashion statement. While 'hawks, studs and pins became the visual symbol of the anti-status-quo, the rants and raves were the ideological rational for the less-than-angry music style. Enter pop-punk. This was the feel good, boppy punk that dominated the 90s. It started with Green Day and exploded with replica bands (namely: Blink 192, Sum 41, etc. etc). While these bands paid homage to punk roots, they borrowed the light and fluffy attitudes of pop to make the music more accessible to everyday kids (not just the angst-ridden trench-coat crowd).

But this is life -- and art, like life, comes full circle. Even as Green Day toured Canada on the 1998 Edgefest tour (and, yes, I was there...for each and every show) the kids from California were beginning to understand the power and prevalence of punk -- anti-authority, anti-corporate, socially relavent punk.

Now, in the 21st century the band that launched a musical style is turning back to its punk-rock roots. It started with the release of their last album, and was recently supported by their decision to promote clean and green.

In a press statement, release yesterday, Green Day announced their partnership with Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to urge young music fans to demand clean, renewable energy solutions. The rockers hope their latest cause will help break America's "dangerous dependence on oil".

Frontman Billie Joe Armstrong stated: "This campaign is about channelling the power of millions into something positive and powerful. People are sick of our oil addiction and feel like nobody is doing anything about it. The solutions are there, the support is there, but the leadership is not."

OK -- so the whole idea of formal partnership and corporate messaging goes against the pure-punk attitude of grassroots and underground; and so the call for positive solutions is a little different than the angry demand for destruction and dismantling of society and its values -- but the sentiment (to change the status quo) is as punk as you can get. Green is the new anti-corporate and punk is the ideal medium to get kids on board.

For more information on the Green Day initiative go to:
www.GreenDayNRDC.com

Volunteer your time -- and your car -- for Universal Housing

2006-11-17T09:17:00.000-05:00

Got a car? Want to help the housing movement?
The National Housing Day group is holding a car rally on Nov. 22 and asking for volunteers to show up and raise a the roof -- so to speak.

The car rally will be held on Wednesday Nov. 22 at Sunnyside Park (on Lakeshore Blvd.). It starts at 10:30am (when cars will be decorated) and the procession of cars will start at 11am.

At present there are 25 vehicles confirmed, with pledges/promises from another 25. However, the National Housing group wants to build a caravan of at least 50 cars to parade around downtown Toronto, in an effort to raise awareness on housing issues.

To endorse the event send an email to: nhd_endorsement@hotmail.com
To register call TDRC at: 416-599-8372 or email us at tdrc@tdrc.net.

Sponsors of this event include CAW, TDRC and the TO Appeal For Federal Funding for Homelessness (SCPI $). Other endorsers are welcome.

All the information you need for this event is on the TDRC website,
www.tdrc.net/carrally.htm

A man, a memorial, a lesson in life

2006-11-15T08:43:00.000-05:00

A few days late, but a worthwhile story to share.

This past weekend I had an opportunity to attend a life-affirming event -- an event that reminded me of the importance of passion; the fortitude of confidence; and the power of love.

It was a memorial.

At first glance, the memorial was to a man that had spent his entire life defending and supporting Canadian arts. This, in itself, deserves accolades. Canada is not often considered a passionate, drum-beating nation. We rarely cheer on our talent and seldom support our creative forces. Yet, despite this collective apathy a few champions do emerge -- Sid Adilman was definitely one of these champions. Even as the hippie-sixties were raging, Sid was busy pounding away the prose on Canadian artistic endeavours. As an entertainment reporter and columnist for numerous publications (but particularly the Toronto Star) he had the opportunity and the foresight to search out our Great White Northern identity in all artistic ventures. As such, he helped launch and define Canadian comedy, dance, music and broadcast. A feat that did not, and could not, go unnoticed.

But, despite the public acknowledgement of Sid's passion and persistence, another aspect of this quirky, delightful man emerged.

Sid was a romantic. Not just in love -- although a cross-cultural, transborder love affair with a Japanese woman he proposed to only a week after meeting, certainly proves his charm -- but also in life. He experienced joy and delight in the events and areas most Canadians take for granted. He delighted in food, in Canadian east-coast hospitality and never lost his way as a devoted, loving and supportive husband and father. This was the man we came to know during the two-hour memorial. This was the man sons Mio and Nobu had lost and wife Toshiko would mourn. This is the man whose life was dedicated to art, culture and the nurture of the creative.

Toskiko, Nobu, Mio -- my heart goes out to you for your loss. Thank you for sharing your husband and father with us. While we knew him as a prolific writer and the great defender of Canadian culture, you knew him as the man who loved to live. For this, alone, the man is worth remembering.

For more information please see:
http://www.nobu.ca/
http://thestar.blogs.com/azerb/2006/10/sid_adilman.html
http://blog.canadianjournalist.ca/blog/_archives/2006/10/15/2418635.html
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/story.html?id=a7051994-b01f-43f1-b69f-df47c421c77c&k=36558
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117952017.html?categoryid=25&cs=1

Shit is acceptable on national TV news

2006-11-09T08:42:00.000-05:00

Apparently, in the United States, s%&t is news.

In an FCC ruling yesterday, the S-word was deemed acceptable as long as the the TV program even faintly resembled a news show.

The Federal Communications Commission reversed it's previous decision after reviewing and judging that a Survivor:Vanuatu contestant's use of the obscenity during an interview on a December 2004 episode of The Early Show on CBS was, in fact, acceptable. The contestant used a vulgar term for "smooth talker" to describe a fellow contestant.

Apparently the morning fluff-news show is news-worthy enough to allow a liberal tongue. Thank God...can you imagine trying to describe the city's best french toast without the use of powerful verbal descriptives!

Still, the reality is our vocabularly is inching closer and closer to devolution. For example, did you know that the simple term abandon was once represented by three descriptors: anforlætan; forlætan; ofgiefan -- all from Old English and none of them in continued use?

While the FCC ruling can be deemed an effort to reflect a more liberal attitude, it borders on linguicide. The approval on the use of vulgarities is more than a reflection of our liberal society; it is a reflection of our linguistic laziness. As a lazy culture we rely, too often, on four-letter vulgarities to describe a plethora of situations -- and this reliance on boorish words means that other, more refined descriptors are forgotten and dismissed.

As the Vocabula Review states: A society is generally as lax as its language.

While the FCC prides itself on being the moral last word for broadcast acceptability in the United States (and that, in itself, says a lot), I choose to ignore Big Brother's acceptance and condemnation of my verbally descriptive world. Instead, I will try and reform this particularly unpleasant potty-mouth of mine -- and that should take more than a few regulations and rules from a bureaucratic watch dog.

For an amusing take on vocabularly loss (and reclamation) go to:
http://vocabreclaim.blogspot.com/

For the full USA Today article on the FCC ruling go to:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-11-07-indecency-usat_x.htm

US elections and the advent of Death City

2006-11-08T10:55:00.000-05:00

I was going to blog about the massive amounts of electoral porn we experienced last night.

Yes, south of the border was awash in elections, results, speeches and promises -- enough to titillate even the most jaded political junkies.

But the day is getting on and my desire to re-hash the thrills and chills of a democrate win are beginning to fade.

Instead, I wanted to offer a link to a new site based on a new horror. Most of us are too young to remember the impact of Orson Wells' War of the Worlds. At that time radio WAS the medium. Wells' -- a consummate writer -- engaged the public with a sci-fi horror that caused panic and disturbances all over North America. How thrilling!

Today, the Internet is the medium. Considered the source for news, views and research, the Internet offers us a glimpse into the real, the imagined and the in-between. Enter: the Death City.

A new, serialized writing project, Death City offers us a glimpse into the horrors and realities that could occur if a plague were to befall us.

Take a look: www.death-city.blogspot.com

Holy city? or Homo city? Israel stands up and out despite protests

2006-11-06T09:02:00.000-05:00

"This is not a homo-city; this is a holy city."

So decried an orthodox cleric over the decision made by Jerusalem's attorney general to allow a gay pride parade through the streets of the revered city.

Has the irony sunk in yet?

There is no doubt that the city is steeped in historical meaning. Jews viewed the city as a holy place more than 3,000 years ago; Muslims trace their lineage back to former Jerusalem residents and consider one temple in the city as the third holiest site in the world; while, Christians continue to see this place as a the city where Jesus was crucified. Yet the common bond among all religions and people is that Jerusalem (along with Israel, as a whole) was populated and has evolved under a cloud of hate and prejudice.

The very fact that Israel exists is because the world turned its back on a group of people because of their life practices. Now, the same is happening inside the walls of one of the world's holiest cities.

Rather than honour the notion of "love thy neighbour" fights and protests have erupted all over the city to protest the planned gay pride parade.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported over the weekend that: Dozens of fervently Orthodox Jews in Mea She’arim rioted at the news that the parade was to proceed, blocking off the city’s Shabbat Square with burning trash cans...The [attorney general's] approval [of the parade] caused a violent riot from hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews which left policemen wounded and saw the arrest of 30 people.

Just over 70 years ago the country was founded to protect ethnicity and religious convictions. Now, the very residents that have benefited from this foundation of love and tolerance are condemning people -- because they disagree with their love and companionship lifestyle.

Thank god for the rule of law.

Despite the close-minded actions of a the minority orthodox and fundamentalist religious groups in Israel, the country's attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, approved the twice-delayed parade in support of "freedom of expression". While religious leaders in the country may not condone the expression of the LGBTQ community it is clear that the country is still (thankfully) ruled by law (based on the very human rights Jews demanded almost a century ago).

While ultra-conservative views will never be changed, it is possible to equip a society and a culture with the facets of tolerance (and, hopefully, acceptance). This can only be done when equality and the freedom to express one's lifestyle choices is protected by for all under the law. While the Israeli government may be getting flak for its decision to proceed with the country's gay pride parade, I applaud their efforts to truly create an inclusive and tolerant society.

After all, that's why Israel, the nation, was first formed.

Oxfam and Starbucks: Head to Head with a mug of jo'

2006-11-01T08:34:00.000-05:00

It's multi-national non-profit VS. multi-national corporation -- each vying to control the coffee; each vying for a piece of Ethiopia's growing coffee trade.

Last week Oxfam and Starbucks went head to head (via press releases) regarding Ethiopia's bid to trademark coffee names. Oxfam accused Starbucks of urging the National Coffee Association (a trade association for the US coffee industry) to oppose the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the "Sidamo," "Harar" and "Yirgacheffe" names. Starbucks countered with statistical evidence of its support for Ethiopian coffee farmers; the conglomerate noted that it favors a certification program as a better means to "protect geographically descriptive terms and ensure they represent quality products." Oxfam's response: Starbucks, stop being "disingenuous" and acknowledge your role in opposing the trademark application.

Now this is highstakes Corporate Responsibility in action. Starbucks built its brand and its image on socially responsible business practices. It was one of the first (and still one of the few) corporations to offer part-time employees health benefits; Starbucks markets its coffee based on better business practices (practices they determine and they enforce) and it pumps hundreds of thousands back into the community continent wide. Corporate responsibility is an important aspect of the Starbucks brand-image.

Enter Oxfam.

Oxfam is a confederation of 13 organizations that work together in more than 100 countries. Their mandate is to "increase worldwide public understanding that economic and social justice are crucial to sustainable development." That purpose is motivated by the fact that Oxfam wants to make equity the same priority as economic growth. From this rubrik, Oxfam has taken up the Ethiopian fight for rights and ownership. According to the non-profit, if Ethiopia secures the rights to the coffee names than the economically repressed country would capture more value from the trade -- this is because Ethiopia would have more control over the use of their names in the market, which enables farmers to receive a greater share of the retail price. Oxfam suggests that this shift (giving Ethiopia the trade name rights) would provide the Ethiopian coffee industry and its farmers an estimated $88 million (USD) extra per year.

The very public fight between Oxfam and Starbucks is reminiscent of earlier exchanges the two multi-nationals had over Fair Trade. A few years ago Oxfam and activists criticized Starbucks for insufficient support of Fair Trade. At that time, Starbucks pointed out that it was the largest purveyor of Fair Trade in the USA. At that time, Starbucks also stated that the primary factor holding it back from only using Fair Trade coffee was lack of supply. The coffee conglomerate also pointed to its numerous policies and actions in social and environmental standards to plantations that are not covered by Fair Trade standards.

The rhetoric, facts and opinions are rampant on both sides -- as this is confrontational activism. Rather than collaboration, Oxfam (and partners) have chosen to attack Starbucks. While questions still exist (such as, how will the patent ownership actually help Ethiopian farmers) they are being ignored in favour of positioning.

Corporate responsibility is important -- not only for the purposes of branding and image, but in terms of developing and fostering worldwide equity. However, corporate responsibility is still immersed in the school of confrontation -- a school that we know all too well (just look at any election, anywhere). This style of activism often ignores poignant and important questions in favour of quick and snappy sound bites. As such, facts get lost and lines are drawn and little is done to find a solution.

Regardless of your opinion on Starbucks, this mega-coffee-brand is the Wal-Mart of coffee companies in North America. As such, their buying power is an economic force in the coffee industry -- a worldwide industry that accounts for six-million tonnes of picked beans every year. If we are to create an equitable solution (that benefits farmers, companies and consumers) we will need to include Starbucks and other coffee companies in the debate. Oxfam's tactic of shaming is an old tactic and a good tactic, but in the end, it's good old fashioned discussion and compromise that will result in a responsible and equitable solution.

Until then, make mine a dark, Grande. Fair Trade, of course.

For more information on Oxfam's position on Ethiopian trademarked coffee go to:
http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr061026_starbucks

For more information on Starbuck's position go to:
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=714

Addicted? or Dependent? You decide...

2006-10-31T09:23:00.000-05:00

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

Buses of Believers call for closure on School of Assassins

2006-10-26T08:39:00.000-04:00

"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.

Wonder Woman reminds me of MY strength

2006-10-25T08:28:00.000-04:00

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.

Water cooler exercises

2006-10-24T07:48:00.000-04:00

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?

Art at Resistence; Resistence as Art -- the 2006 Toronto Arcfest: Social Justice in Art

2006-10-23T07:29:00.000-04:00

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

Burning the weed

2006-10-20T07:54:00.001-04:00

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

All people need to become feminists

2006-10-19T09:58:00.000-04:00

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

We need to rethink our prison system -- QUICKLY

2006-10-18T08:53:00.000-04:00

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.

Lego my ammo - the arms trade, North Korea and the brink of war

2006-10-17T08:05:00.000-04:00

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

Public declaration & private diplomacy in an era of rogue dictators

2006-10-16T08:04:00.000-04:00

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.

Optimist's vindication as China proposes labour laws

2006-10-13T09:02:00.000-04:00

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

Let go of my choco

2006-10-11T21:08:00.001-04:00

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.

Hey buddy: can you spare a square?

2006-10-11T02:38:00.000-04:00

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

Natural and organic: studies show it is not a marketing ploy; reality shows it is not fail-safe

2006-10-10T07:59:00.000-04:00

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

Green living and the design dilemma

2006-10-06T09:55:00.000-04:00

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/

Tories pull the plug on authentic pluralism with rumours of a duplicitat religious freedoms act

2006-10-05T08:36:00.000-04:00

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.

I want to know all about drugs

2006-10-04T08:33:00.000-04:00

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

School shootings, instantaneous culture and the necessity for Nap Time

2006-10-03T03:05:00.000-04:00

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.

Polygamy is too fun to keep to oneself

2006-10-03T02:36:00.000-04:00

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

Engaging community with art takes more - Nuit Blanche to the rescue

2006-10-01T23:36:00.000-04:00

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

We need soap operas in our classrooms

2006-09-29T00:20:00.000-04:00

I have a revolutionary idea. It will help our economy, enable our children to learn and provide cultural input into our profit-obsessed society. Soap operas.

No, no. Before you cooler-than-thou types dismiss the idea outright, hear me out.

Soap operas have a strong historical link to our instant gratification culture. Introduced in 1949 to network television they quickly became the genre of choice for adult entertainment (surpassed, sadly enough, by reality TV with the advent of Survivor).

Yet, soap operas continue to be a cultural institution. They provide insight into morality; define healthy and unhealthy decision-making processes; and enable us to ascertain the important aspects of life.

And soap operas are not simply a female phenomena. Men in the British Aisles are mad about Corrie Street and Emmerdale. Pub talk usually rotates around footie scores and whether or not the local Rover's tart is sly enough to sleep with her best-mate's man. In Africa, soap operas are being used by peace movements and development strategists to impart lessons and provide alternatives to cultural practices that are sexist and out-dated. As a result, these telenovels are ideal for nations within Africa where literacy rates surpass the 50% mark.

As a result of the success of morally scripted soap operas British producers are releasing a 20-part soap serial aimed at bringing the message of peace to war-torn Palestinians homes during this years Ramadan. The series, known as Shu Fi Ma Fi (aka: What's Up?) will be broadcast into Palestinian homes across the territories twice nightly six days a week during the holy fasting month; topics include drugs, espionage, intermarriage and domestic violence, while focusing on the central message of peace.

So, my question is: if these telenovels are so successful in other areas of the world, why not introduce them into our school system?

Morality based soap operas in the school system would benefit not only our children, but their parents. How? Well, a soap opera needs to be produced, directed, filmed; actors need to participate, lighting and props and stage-hands, including make-up and hair, need to be present. That's a lot of jobs and considering the state of our film industry these days, a lot of necessary jobs. Of course, the economic benefits don't stop there. Then there are the businesses that cater to film crews: caterers, permit offices (usually municipal gains), local restaurants, car rental agencies, cellphone providers and, at times, hotels. After that you've got the post-production side of business. Economically, then, producing soap operas would inject cash back into our economy. That keeps the fiscally-obsessed happy.

Then there are the cultural benefits. In an age where TV must compete with graphic novels, gaming and the over-flowing bar-room enticement of the Internet, a good, salicious soap opera might be the right tool for drawing an eager, younger audience. What child could turn away from the lesson of "thou shalt not kill" that was played out on Coronation Street in the winter of 2003 (Canadian broadcast) when Dickie, husband of Gail, kept trying to cover up his financial mess with murder and attempted murder! Or what about the lesson of forgive and forget when viewers watched Laura marry Luke after he raped her on General Hospital. The fact is all seven deadly sins can be hashed out on a soap, and, with a little ingenuitive script-writing, so can the seven heavenly virtues.

So my vote is to nix the quiet hour and stop the study period, instead all kids aged 10 and up should be required to watch a Canadian prepared and produced docu-drama and learn about our culture like everyone else.

For more information on the Palestinian soap opera go to:
http://washingtontimes.com/entertainment/20060919-100212-6315r.htm

For more information on the use of soap operas in war torn areas go to:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1456
http://www.usaid.gov/
http://www.tamilnation.org/conflictresolution/

Has the 'Ideological Taliban' Taken Over Canada?

2006-09-28T09:18:00.000-04:00

Has the 'Ideological Taliban' Taken Over Canada?
-- headline from OhmyNews International, South Korea - 21 Sep 2006

The headline is in reference to Globe and Mail columnist, Jan Wong's statements regarding race and the recent shootings in Quebec.

While debates continue to rage (in print, radio and television -- though one questions if the office cooler is burning up) I thought I'd weigh in on the validity and weight of these comments.

Wong's statement was that the shootings that occured earlier this month at Dawson College in Montreal were carried out by a young man of Sikh heritage. Wong suggested that Kimveer's heritage was important, as it may provided the impetus for why Kimveer felt like such an outsider -- in otherwords Quebec society was intolerant of differing cultures. She suggested that, like everyone else who is not 100% French Canadian, Kimveer didn't feel wanted in his own society. She then supported her assertions with the fact that this was the third such slaughter in 17 years in a Quebec post-secondary institution. In 1989, Marc Lepine killed 14 women and wounded 13 others -- he was only half French Canadian; his mother was Algerian Muslim. In 1992, Valery Fabrikant, an engineering professor from Russia, shot four colleagues at Concordia University and wounded a fifth because he had been refused tenure.

As Wong stated: "To be sure, Mr. Lepine hated women, Mr. Fabrikant hated his engineering colleagues, and Mr. Gill hated everyone. But all of them had been marginalized in a society that valued 'pure laine.'" (The phrase, meaning "pure wool," is the Quebecois designation for undiluted French-Canadian ancestry.)

Now, I'd like to weigh in.

Despite media reports Quebec is not the only province to experience shootings and massacres related to alienated teens or young adults and directed at institutions. Yet, the reportage of such events leads us to believe that Quebec is the centre for such violence. As Wong suggested, if Quebec were the centre than perhaps sociologists should examine whether or not their significant reasons for such alienation and (subsequently) of such violent condemnation. But the media sets and defines its own parameters. The media decides which shootings/massacres/attacks are sensational enough to be included in "a list" or story. The reality is Canada has experienced its fair share of rage against society -- and not just in Quebec.

For example:

Oct. 21, 1975; Ontario, Canada: 18-year-old Robert Poulin opens fire on his class at St. Pius High School, killing one and wounding five before turning the gun on himself. Poulin had raped and stabbed his 17-year-old friend Kim Rabit to death prior to the incident. A book was written on the incident called Rape of the Normal Mind.
April 28, 1999; Taber, Alberta: In both the first school shooting since Columbine and the first Canadian school shooting in over 10 years, Todd Cameron Smith brought a sawn-off .22 rifle to W.R Meyers High School and shot two students, killing one.
April 20, 2000; Ottawa, Ontario: A year after the Columbine massacre, a student attacked and injured four students and a school clerk with a butcher knife at Carine Wilson High School in the suburb of Orleans.
Sept. 14, 2006; Ottawa, Ontario: A 22 year old university law student fired a pellet gun at one of the buildings of the University of Ottawa in a drive-by shooting. He was quickly arrested at his home and was subsequently banned from the University. No one was injured.

The reality is that there are pockets all over Canada of disassociated and disaffected youths. These pockets exist because of societal pressures and they exist because of rights-of-passage (the growing up process we all undertake). To blame a province, such as Quebec, because they are cultural different from the rest of Canada is to incite a causal link that does not exist. The reality is Quebec's immigration numbers are higher than most provinces, so is their level of unemployment, and the disparity between the haves-and-have-nots. While we always try and examine the various sociological reasons for why people react violently to their lot in life, we continue to willingly forget the studied, proven and established correlational relationship between socio-economic factors and crime -- even sensational school shooting crimes. Over and over again disparity is cited as the primary unconscious motivator for crime and violence. And over and over again we (as journalists and as society) opt to examine and explain the situation based on every other reason but. Yes, there may be validity to what Wong stated -- but only if it is prefaced on the notion that Kimveer's angst was NOT because he was Sikh, but because he was a have-not member in what, he perceived, as a have society.

Rebel fighters will always exist as long as there is a fight to be fought

2006-09-27T09:11:00.000-04:00

I'm Irish. Displaced and uprooted, but my roots and soul are Irish.

And if it's one thing I've learned carrying this historically-heavy cultural heritage it's that a person fighting for a cause is always going to persevere.

Now this can be a good thing.

The human rights movement, the environmental movements, the GLBTQ movement, the race movement and the womens movement all benefitted from this level of perseverence -- and often in the face of hate.

But causes do not always fit nicely into the boxes of good and bad. There are causes that have merit, but are too extreme. And causes that are extreme and have no merit. You get the picture.

As a result (and in the extreme) we find guerilla warfare becoming the primary method for resistence and activism with many groups -- the Irish being one of the first in the 20th century.

Now this lineage of resistors is important given Bush's continued plans to swell the insurgency within Iraq (and other targetted countries). Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld posed a question to the Pentagon: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created?

The answer is an unequivocal NO.

When people fight for a cause they are willing to die. When soldiers are sent over to protect their nation -- but as paid military personnel -- they are not infused with the same level of urgency and importance. Yes, Bush and his strategists have attempted to recreate the passion of a cause. They have ramped up the rhetoric; placed the country on high alert; used, abuse and misused the aspect of home-grown and international fear; and even asked Americans to spy on their neighbours. But the reality is the everyday North American does not feel the need to question their safety, security and lifestyle; the average American is far too removed from the ramifications of this war to really, passionately care about what happens in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other world insurgency fuelled with American armour and money.

The jihadists, however, are not in this position. This war is being fought on their territory. This war is being fought based on their history. This war is being fought to determine their future. Who wouldn't stand up to that. Now add in military discipline (martyrs) and arbitrary punishment (from US personnel) and you have the perfect recipe for the formation and creation of new and ever-replenishing supply of jihadists.

Yesterday the US government finally conceded that this may be the case. In a newly declassified report (the National Intelligence Estimate) definitely concluded that Bush's war on terrorism had failed. The answer to Rumsfeld's three-year old question was an unequivocal: No.
While the report did not argue Bush's declaration that the only way to defeat the terrorists is to keep unrelenting military pressure on them. But nowhere in the assessment is there evidence to support Mr. Bush’s confident-sounding assertion (made again this month in Atlanta) that “America is winning the war on terror.’’

Why? Because if a win means defeat and depletion of the enemy than America is far from winning. The IRA (pre and post political turn), the Chechnyan rebels, Tamil Tigers and various factions in South and Latin America (including Mexico's Zapatista movement -- though it's questionable whether they should be lumped in with militant resistors -- resistors, yes, but militant?) were all out numbered by their oppressors and all succeeded, to some degree, to gain a measure of autonomy. Why does Bush believe that his war will be the exception to the rule? Why do Bush and his hawkish strategists believe that bombing, imprisoning and killing the current insurgents will deplete a rebel's army and quash a growing sentiment?

Americans and other Western democrat citizens need to pose these questions to their elected officials AND they need to suggest a few possible answers: answers that don't include the improbable or the fantastic.

For more information on the American government report go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27assess.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

For possible alternative solutions to war go to:
http://www.alternativestowar.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0927-04.htm

Green guide for educating children's play

2006-09-26T08:19:00.000-04:00

Children's play.

It's an area of great debate and, over the last century, an area of significant changes. At one point children were considered mini-versions of adults; that soon gave way to the production capabilities of children; eventually that gave rise to the notion that children needed to be disciplined and commanded until such a time when they were adults; that eventually disappeared when psychologists began to espouse the notion that children needed to be supervised, guided and nurtured.

Now, children's play ranges from the completely inane to the entirely educational, and everything in-between. But regardless of the philosophy more and more teachers and child-care professionals are leaning towards to the notion that all child's play (and educational programs) need to incorporate a green component.

As such, teachers and educators are being offered a variety of tools and options for incorporating an ecological component in their classes. These tools translate into a set of principles (as created and compiled by Green Teacher magazine) that can provide direction and impetus for environmentally sensitive lessons.

Students should have opportunities to develop a personal connection with nature.We protect what we care about, and we care about what we know well. If students are encouraged to explore the natural world — to learn about local plants and animals, to observe and anticipate seasonal patterns, to get their feet wet in local rivers — they are more likely to develop a lifelong love of nature that will translate into a lifelong commitment to environmental stewardship.
Education should emphasize our connections with other people and other species, and between human activities and planetary systems. We are connected to other people, other species, and other lands through the foods we eat, the clothes we wear, the items and materials we use every day, and our common reliance on a healthy environment. By gaining an understanding of this global interdependence, children become better equipped to make everyday choices that respect the rights of others and lessen their impact on the Earth’s life support systems.
Education should help students move from awareness to knowledge to action. Even young children should have opportunities to take action to improve local environments. When students act on environmental problems, they begin to understand their complexity, to learn the critical thinking and negotiating skills needed to solve them, and to develop the practical competence that democratic societies require of their citizens. At the same time, educators have a responsibility not to burden children with catastrophic and complex environmental problems that are beyond their ability to help remedy — or, as environmental educator David Sobel has expressed it, there should be “no tragedies before fourth grade.”
Learning should extend into the community. Community projects provide authentic “real-world” reference points for classroom studies and help students develop a sense of place and identity while learning the values and skills of responsible citizenship.
Learning should be hands-on. The benefits of hands-on learning are widely acknowledged among educators and supported by findings in brain research. Learning is a function of experience, and the best education is one that is sensory-rich, emotionally engaging, and linked to the real world.
Education should integrate subject disciplines. Environmental issues are complex and cannot be separated from social and economic issues. Addressing them requires knowledge and skills from all disciplines. Integrated learning programs, in which several subjects are taught simultaneously, often through field studies and community projects, help students develop a big-picture understanding and provide opportunities for authentic learning.
Education should be future oriented. Students should have opportunities to envision the kind of world they would like to live in and to think realistically about incremental steps that might be taken to achieve it.
Education should include media literacy. With constant exposure to mass media, our mental environments can become just as polluted as the natural environment. Media studies can help students learn to distinguish between fact and fiction in advertising, to recognize racial and gender stereotypes, and to consider the difference between needs and wants.
Education should include traditional knowledge. Students should have opportunities to learn about traditional ways of life that are based on respect for nature and the sustainable use of resources. Across North America, many educators invite Native elders to share aboriginal perspectives on nature and ecology, exposing students to a worldview that recognizes the intrinsic value and interdependence of all living things.
Teachers should be facilitators and co-learners. The teacher’s role is to facilitate inquiry and provide opportunities for learning, not to provide the “answers.” Teachers do not need to be experts to teach about the environment. The natural world is an open book that invites endless discovery by all. As co-learners alongside their students, teachers both model and share in the joy of learning.

For more information on Green Teacher magazine go to:
http://www.greenteacher.com/index.html

For more information on Toronto's Green Guide go to: http://www.toronto.ca/greenguide/learning_green.htm

For more information on Ontario Centre for Sustainability go to:
http://www.web.net/~ocs/about.html

Organic flowers a blooming business

2006-09-25T08:10:00.000-04:00

It's morning. You want coffee. And, while picking up your grande-bold-low-fat-no-foam latte you decide to splurge on a beautiful bunch of mixed flowers. Why not? With only a few bucks you now own a small slice of bright, colourful, fragrance.

But there are a lot of politics in that bouquet.

That bouquet represents the fight between local and agri-business; the battle between pesticide-use and organically grown; and the struggle between fair trade and corporate incentives.

There are a lot of politics in that bouquet.

That's because flower production and sales is a multi-billion dollar business that spreads across the globe. Bought the bouquet in your local grocery store? Chances are those flowers came from across the world, in a refridgerated freighter and then a cold-truck; they reached their destination, poly-sealed and pre-packed. And the price you paid is dictated by the major players in the industry -- the growers/producers/pickers and packers that represent multi-national corporations -- corporations that monopolize the industry.

The political aspect, then, is the revolt against the strictly profit motivated aim of these transborder multi-national flower producers.

In a 1997 report, by the US-based Environmental Working Group, commercially grown roses were found to contain up to 50 times the amount of cancer causing pesticides that are legally allowed in the food we eat.

While many environmentalists concede that these pesticides offer little danger to us -- the end consumer -- they do offer a very real and very dangerous hazard to the workers involved in the growing, picking, packing and shipping of these flowers.

For example, Columbia supplies 64% of America's cut roses. In order to keep this blooming business, the flower corporations use a multitude of pesticides -- most designed to enhance the rose and kill the bugs. Yet, this heavy reliance on pesticides has a direct and measurable impact on the flower workers -- unskilled labour composed, primarily, of women. In fact, two-thirds of Colombian flower workers experience headaches, nausea, impaired vision, rashes and asthma, according to the Pesticide Action Network of North America.

In reality, organic flowers don't look or smell any different from non-organic flowers. But they are better for the environment and organic flowers help promote socially just working conditions among local and international growers. Since few consumers realize that close to 70% of cut flowers sold in North America are grown overseas, where growing conditions are better, labor is cheaper and, Jarocki says, pesticide regulation is more lax, it is important for people to vote with their dollars.

As such, environmentalists and social justice activists urge consumers to think before they buy a bouquet. Rather than spending $10 on a mixed bunch of corporate fleurs, these activists are urging consumers to ask their flower suppliers the tougher questions -- are these organic flowers? Are these flowers locally produced? -- and when the answer is no: to walk away.

"People always say, 'You don't eat flowers.' But you don't want the flowers you're giving your mom to be produced on the backs of some Ecuadorean floral worker," explained Jeff Stephens of Scientific Certification Systems, a certifier of organic-flower producers in Emeryville, CA, in a USA Today interview last year.

And more and more consumers are making decisions based on environmental and socially just principles. In the US, alone, the sale of organic flowers topped $8 million in 2003 -- an estimated 52% increase over the previous year, according to the Organic Trade association.

For more information on organic flowers in Canada go to:
http://ecoflora.ca/Home.html

For online organic flowers go to:
http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=779

For more information organic flowers in the US go to:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-04-organic-flowers_x.htm

Raising minimum wage is only the first step

2006-09-22T08:48:00.000-04:00

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Next February, the McGuinty provincial Liberals will make good on their promise to raise Ontario's minimum wage to $8 per hour. Since their term in office, the McGuinty government has followed through in their committment to help the province's lowest income-earners (and most vulnerable). Considering the former Tory government, led by Mike Harris, had frozen minimum wage at a meagre sum of $6.85 per hour, this increase is welcome news to the working poor and to poverty groups across the province.

However, a Toronto Star editorial this past weekend aptly points out that if the government were to take into consideration rate of inflation, cost of living and the income earning potential of the working poor, minimum wage in Ontario should be set at a $15 per hour.

Unfortunately, this is where the business communities doom and gloom forecasts come in. Everytime a wage increase (or an energy cost increase, or a supplier cost increase, etc., etc.) occurs, corporations threaten to take their production, their wages and their business elsewhere. While any production increase (including wages) does result in a shift within the economic fabric of a region, it does not preclude a barren landscape, filled with roaming poor and long, weaving lines of shiftless, jobless oafs. In the 20th and 21st centuries, there are many countries within the Western democratic (read: neo-liberal) sphere demanding better wages and better terms for even non-union employees and these countries (and their citizens) continue to exist economically in unison with large business profits.

However, the reality is in North America there is always a loop hole. These days (as for the last decade or so) the greatest (and easiest) loop hole is the role of the contract worker. Rather than pay such a high minimum wage, many employers opt to contract out the work, in effect replacing full- or part-time employees with self-employed contractors, who are not covered by minimum wage laws.

And it is not just private corporations that are employing this tactic. More and more our own three-tier governmental system is relying upon the trend of contracting out work. It's a trend that worries anti-poverty activists. As such, they are calling for a new government-funded earned-income supplement. Their argument is that the supplement would increase the incomes of all working poor, not just those earning the minimum wage.

At present, the income supplement is a stop-gap method used by the federal government to help low-income seniors to make ends meet. However, anti-poverty activists are calling for the supplement to be implemented for all working poor under a pre-defined level of earning.

As the Daily Food Bank stated in a 2003 report: Our economy is highly dependent on low-wage and minimum wage jobs. Without office cleaners, food court workers, parking attendants, and hotel workers, for example, many of our key industries would be unable to function. And yet there is increasing evidence that these workers are unable to afford to live and work in our city. Ontario’s minimum wage has been frozen at $6.85 per hour since 1995. Since 1998, the average price of a two bedroom apartment in Toronto has increased by 18.9% to $1,047 per month. A minimum wage earner would have to work 118 hours per week to be able to afford an average apartment in Toronto.

While corporations are an essential component of the economic fabric of this nation, so are the low-income, unskilled labourers that fuel our behind-the-scenes lifestyles. As such, we need to examine how we treat these labourers and that examination cannot place the welfare of a corporation above the welfare of the most vulnerable within society.

It is commendable that the McGuinty government is following through on their committment to the working poor by raising the minimum wage -- the next step, however, is to ensure a base earning rate for all of Canada's low-income earners; a base rate that would provide all of Canada's workers with a standard of living befitting a first-world nation.

For more information on the Daily Food Bank findings go to: http://www.northyorkharvestfoodbank.com/Resource%20Centre/Research/can_people_afford_to_work_in_toronto.htm

For my blog on minimum wage go to: http://rkresponsibleliving.blogspot.com/2006/08/make-mine-minimum-wage.html

To read the Toronto Star editorial on minimum wage go to: http://www.thestar.com

September 22 is International Car Free Day

2006-09-22T08:31:00.000-04:00

NOTICE:

Today is International Car Free Day.

In Toronto meet artists, activists and social conveyers on Queen Street (downtown) at 9am to purchase YOUR parking spot. The morning movement encourages people to come downtown, purchase a parking ticket and then occupy the space for cultural, artistic or social endeavours.

Also, at 5:30pm meet the crew at Trinity Bellwoods Park where they will organize and launch a Car Free Day Parade. The parade takes place rain or shine.

Details of the day are as follows:

Park your bicycle on Yonge Street, North of Shuter Street and South of Dundas Street, and learn about alternative modes of transportations, health issues related to pollution, the new bicycle locker program, or just network and find out what you can do to save the planet at one of our environmental displays. You can also enjoy some great art, get a free bike tune up during the event, get your face painted, draw or blow bubbles in the play zone, challenge someone at basketball, show your moves in street hockey, watch some dancers and listen to live music from artists such as Matt Black, MJ, , The Monkey Bunch, White Gold Band Productions and more. This is an all ages event.

Parliament Hill is stuck in 1984

2006-09-20T08:13:00.000-04:00

Apparently the calendars on Parliament Hill are set to 1984.

In a bold and highly fascist-laced move the current Canadian Federal government instigated the termination (and subsequent re-hire) of an outspoken geologist this week.

Andrew Okulitch, a 64-year-old scientist emeritus with the Geological Survey of Canada, was fired on Tuesady after bluntly refusing to abide by the newspeak initiated by the Harper regime.

The response was initiated after Okulitch, along with all other federal employees, were ordered to refer to the Stephen Harper Tory government as "Canada's new government". While many may have ignored (or silently abided by) this directive, Okulitch shot off an angry email stating the policy was "ridiculous and embarrassing'' and that he would not use "idiotic buzzwords coined by political hacks.'' That's when he was fired. The media (under) reported the situation and 24-hours later Okulitch was rehired.

While this may seem like a comedy of errors moment there is something far more insidious and disturbing about this situation; the fact that Okulitch was fired for not towing the proverbial line is upsetting enough -- apolitical federal employees should be exempt from retribution if they opt not to abide by political posturing -- however, it is the actions of the CURRENT federal government that is, by far, more disturbing.

Newspeak was a phrase coined by George Orwell in his revolutionary dystopian novel, 1984; the term was used to describe a method employed by the governing regime to reduce the number of words in the English language in order to eliminate ideas that were deemed dangerous and seditious. While Orwell's novel was fiction, the ideas that generated his masterpiece were not. He took the role of the British censors and outlined, for us, what this role could mean if left to run rampant without checks and balances. The fact is, the reduction of the English language cannot start by banning words -- overt censorship causes too much anger. However, the reduction of the English language and the control of cultural ideas starts with the restriction and enforcement of phrases.

The fact that the current federal Tory government would even issue such a directive implicitly lends support to the notion that language is an essential component to structuring and restructuring thoughts, attitudes and ideas.

A character in 1984 describes it succinctly: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought as we understand it now."

Now, of course, I can hear the rational and extremely individualistic portion of the crowd stating (or more like yelling) that this is simply a matter of logical proportions -- if people do not agree with the newspeak, they simply do not have to abide by it.

But there is more at play here. First: the Tory government issued a DIRECTIVE. A directive is an order -- a command. The order was an attempt to control or dictate a rather large segment of the population -- it demanded that they alter their communication in order to benefit the Party. Second: the Tory government is manipulating the institution of government. By demanding that government employees alter the way they communicate to the public, the Tory government is implicitly acknowledging that a) the institution is a powerful vehicle for advertisement of said thoughts, ideas and concepts and b) that these thoughts, ideas and concepts are integral to securing popular support.

For the linguist Edward Sapir, language is not only a vehicle for the expression of thoughts, perceptions, sentiments, and values characteristic of a community; it also represents a fundamental expression of social identity. Sapir said: "the mere fact of a common speech serves as a peculiar potent symbol of the social solidarity of those who speak the language." In short, language enables us, as a culture, to communicate ideas and concepts both literally and symbolically. The control of language, then, enables an institution to control the construction and use of these cultural symbols (a phenomena that has been documented throughout history -- just look at the Hitler regime, Pol Pot's rural revolution, Martin Luther King Jr. , Nelson Mandela or Ghandi's empowerment speeches or even the feminist thought and literature that has been produced in the last century).

For the Tory government to inexplicably demand that all federal employees use the Canadian version of Newspeak is a sad and dangerous testament to the state of OUR nation. Simply put the Tory government is NOT Canada's new government as this implies a change. And in the last nine months there has been little evidence of change in regimes.

For more information on the scientist's reinstatement go to:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/

For articles on the importance of language go to:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/070300-104.htm (Ralph Nader's article on the topic)
http://www.wsf.org.uk/docs/importance_of_language.doc
http://www.racismnoway.com.au/library/understanding/index-The.html

For articles/blogs etc. that cite the importance of language go to:
http://theoctillion.com/2006/08/importance-of-language-in-efforts-to.html

For more information on George Orwell go to:
http://www.newspeak.com/Newspeak.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

Pope Benedict instigates move towards Clash of Civilizations

2006-09-19T09:26:00.000-04:00

Samuel P. Huntington would be proud.

The Pope -- the bastion of Catholic insight and action -- has incited a religious war with comments he made recently during a speech in Germany.

Now his apologists defend his statements through outdated statements, such as: Turkey has no place in Europe, because Europe is the result of a Christian-based way of life.

I'm sorry, did anyone check the religious convictions of those in the Scandanavian countries? Or what about the religious make-up of France or Belgium or even Germany? These are countries where the majority have opted for a secular way of life -- and those that do have faith are not all Christian based.

And to add fuel to the fire, the great (new) German Pope not only dug at the centuries old wound between Islam and Catholicism, but also defiled those that follow Protestism.

Huntington would be proud, as Pope Benedict has done more for his theory on the clash of civilizations than any inter or intra-state war this century. Rather than acknowledge an evolving morality -- one that enables people to worship, or not, whatever God they choose -- Pope Benedict is creating a hierarchy of faith. Catholicism first, of course, and then all other Christian denominations. All others are infidels with inferior moralities.

The sweet irony is that all faiths embroiled in this mess are monotheistic. All believe in One God; all have common history, common ground (peace, justice and love as principles) and all believe in the morality and responsibility of man. Too bad Pope Benedict does not.

For more information on Clash of Civilations and Samuel P. Huntington go to:
http://rkresponsibleliving.blogspot.com/2006/09/bushs-state-of-union-disarray.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

For more information on the Pope contraversy go to:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20443124-1702,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/europe/19pope.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800992.html

Airline travel tax will be used for AIDS treatment

2006-09-19T09:04:00.000-04:00

Five nations are standing up for people across the world living with AIDS. And not just standing up, but backing up and, literally, putting money where their mouths (and butts) are.

In an announcement today at the United Nations, France, Brazil, Britain, Norway and Chile will commit to raising at least $300 million by next year, mostly through taxes on airline tickets. The money will help pay for the treatment of children with AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In all, the five countries predict that this new infusion of cash will pay for the treatment of, at least, 100,000 children with AIDS, another 100,000 people who have become resistent to antiretroviral AIDS drugs, the treatment of 150,000 children with TB and the treatment of 28-million infected with malaria.

In a New York Times quote, Jean Dussourd, a French official responsible for coordinating the project, said, “We would not permit thousands of children to die in the United States and France. Why should we allow that in Asia and Africa?”

All five donor countries promised that this new aid will be in addition to other poverty financing.

For more information on the airline tax to help pay for AIDS treatment go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/19health.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/18/news/france.php

For information on a new deadly strain of TB go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091400740.html

The politics of difference: the power of heuristics, schemas and stereotypes

2006-09-18T08:18:00.000-04:00

Heuristics. Schemas. Stereotypes. Prejudices. Beliefs.

Decades ago, Ernest Crawley, a British anthropologist, stated that language that differs only slightly from current terminology allows us to separate ourselves from others by a "taboo of personal isolation." Crawley was attempting to define what he observed as the dangers of difference. He purported that each individual believes themselves to be surrounded by invisible dangers. In modern days this often translates into loss of job, home, relationship, lifestyle. Crawley states that from this perspective we, then, attach danger to the strange and unknown -- an attachment that extends into human relations. His assertion is that any differences between individuals become consistent reminders of fear and suspicion (that arise from the unknown).

This theory of differences is not simply espoused by a turn of the century British anthropologist. The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud, also wrote in depth on what he described as the narcissism of minor differences. His definition was an attempt to explain how groups of people, similar in all observable ways, find differences in order to distinguish themselves and their group (psychologically this affords them a sense of protection).

While both men spoke of the power and importance of differientation at the turn of the 20th century, their observations are poignant today. In a world marked by violent conflict and with intra and inter-state wars on the rise, more and more theorists are attempting to understand the motivation (or at least the justification) for human rights violations and increased bloody actions.

The sad fact is narcissism of difference explains an awful lot. For example, in Group Psychology, Freud wrote that "closely related races keep one another at arm’s length; the South German can not endure the North German, the Englishman casts every kind of aspersion on the Scot, the Spaniard despises the Portugese. We are no longer astonished that greater differences should lead to almost insuperable repugnance, such as the Gallic people feel for the German, the Aryan for the Semite, and the white races for the colored."

In otherwords when obvious differences (race, colour, sex, religion, language) are not present, other differences (religion, beliefs, history, culture) are used to denote differences among groups of people.

This matched with the ever-present belief that we are in danger (particularly of the unknown and the unknowable) and we begin to subscribe and follow the trajectory of the narcissism of difference.

The rhetoric of Prime Minister Harper, the emotionally trite appeals of President Bush, even the ardent pleas of Osama bin Laden all support the notion of an us vs. them mentality -- the differences we construct.

The us: Western, liberal-market, democratically nullified people that live in a Judeo-Christian society (even if our personal religious choices are different).
Them: Typically darker in complexion, Muslims, violent-worshipping Jihadists that are fighting for warlord territory and personal economic ownership.

The reality: the vast majority of people within both cultures share the belief in a monotheistic God (though how that belief is practiced does differ); willing to die, or at least, support their leaders to choose the martyrs that will give their lives for "the cause" (In Canada, alone, a soldier is six times more likely to be maimed or killed in Afghanistan than an American soldier in Iraq); all these cultures perceive a lack -- lack of resources, lack of power, lack of the other's ability to judicially and fairly govern; all of these cultures live in fear of the unknown.

While I am not a religious person, I do appreciate the strength people derive from their beliefs. What astounds me, however, is that this strength is not been drawn from the faith that each and every religion demands from their followers, but, rather, from the justification that "our way" is the "right way".

We are living in a world riddled with narcissistic deference.
We are living in a world with over-simplified differences and disproportionately emphasized unknowable fears.

If we are to find any peace, it will not be through the demand for submission, but rather, through the acknowledgement of faith.

Like living in a row house, we must have faith that are neighbour will not do anything to jeopardize their own home -- thereby jeopardizing all homes.