Archive | Conscience RSS feed for this section

Maternal death rates in the Globe and Mail

12 May
With thanks to Mary, Queen of Thoughts, I give you this image from Monday’s Globe and Mail:
After talking to MQoT (one of my BFFs IRL!!!), I want to add a bit to her commentary. (Only to extend, not to contradict.)
First, as she and I discussed, it’s mind-boggling to use only two colour gradations here. I realize that this map comes from a G&M special issue dealing with Africa, and so it makes sense to foreground issues of African maternal health. I also realize that there are some substantial debates going on at present about the inclusion of contraception and abortion in the current G8 initiative. The G&M has historically been a Liberal-identified paper, so it makes sense that they’d foreground this highly partisan issue at this point.
By using only two colour gradations, this map gives the impression that Africa is much, much worse off than all of the rest of the world (with the apparent exceptions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, if I’m reading this right).
Let’s contrast this to some other representations. First, I’ll include this diagram from ChartsBin (click for an interactive version):
This diagram uses progressive gradations of colour. It still shows that the maternal mortality rates in most of Africa are really elevated, but it also shows that there are elevated rates in parts of South America and southeast Asia that aren’t accounted for in the G&M version. The WHO site includes a less attractively nuanced colour scale, but gives a similar impression.

Again, by setting the numbers differently — and, crucially, by including multiple gradations of colour — this map makes it clear that there are regions of Africa that are comparable to regions of South America and Asia in terms of maternal mortality. It also shows that Canada, Australia, and Western Europe have lower maternal mortality rates, clarifying that these areas are substantially more privileged than much of the world. And it makes a distinction between countries with higher rates of maternal mortality. Setting the threshold for BRIGHT RED at 300 deaths per 100 000 live births makes it impossible to see that there are big differences between regions and countries in the continent.

But — perhaps that’s the point. Africa is still the continent that we love to talk about in terms of sweeping generalizations that efface the substantial differences between its regions and nations, as many have pointed out. It is indeed the only continent that it’s still acceptable to discuss in sweepingly generalized terms. While the G&M “special issue” on Africa might be well intentioned — and I haven’t read the print version, so won’t venture a guess on that — the basic effect of a diagram like this one is to reinforce the popularly imagined version of the continent as a unified, uniformly Othered place of disaster and suffering. There are major social justice and humanitarian issues to be considered in relation to the continent, and I’m willing to concede that many of those are out of proportion to what’s experienced in the rest of the world. I object, however, to the Globe’s sensationalized, uncritical depiction of the continent. If their goal was to explore a serious humanitarian issue with attention to economic, geopolitical, and cultural issues, they’ve failed. If their goal was to make Sub-Saharan Africa look like a pool of blood, however, I guess they’ve hit the mark.

Instruments and Ideology

26 Apr

My sister had some pictures taken recently for an album release — and gosh, if they aren’t adorable! Let’s take the one, for example.


She’s happy, delightfully signalling her Eastern Canadianness with her galoshes, and standing on iconic Haligonian territory (even if she’s blocking the view of the clock tower). Yet when I was giving her feedback on the pictures, I said, “ooh, Julia, don’t use that one!”. Not because I don’t like the picture — but because she’s in fact holding a cello. In the others, she’s holding her usual instrument, a guitar.


Now, in my fairly professional estimation, Julia is a much better guitarist than she is cellist, and she’s certainly a more serious guitarist than cellist. For that reason, it seems more honest for her to pose with the guitar. But that’s not why I had this reaction. It’s because she’s not a real cellist.

We talked about this, and the conversation was handily archived by Gmail. (What follows is edited to remove the parts where I told her that she’s a terrific guitarist, on the whole making it sound like I’m a jerk.)

Julia: I actually will be playing cello on the album, and strangely I have been getting lots of cred on my cello lately. Did you know since being the only cellist at the ECMAs I have played on 4 studio albums with cello? (though, to be fair, one was [ex-boyfriend's] band)
me: wha?
That’s… weird to me!
Julia: Its weird to me too. (cello) I am mediocre, and not classical at all but… people love it! And fretless playing by ear? Is EASY and amazing on an instrument tuned in fifths.
me: See, I’ve just never thought of you as a serious cellist
and some snooty part of me is like, “JULIA, STOP DOING THAT”.
If that makes sense :P
Which… I am going to admit it doesn’t
me: Apparently I am invested in high art values
and think that people shouldn’t be non-serious players of string instruments.
haha
Julia: ME TOO! I am happy to hear you say that. People get angry at me for being shy/tentative or angry at being called a cellist… but I always say “HAVE YOU HEARD CELLISTS?” I do not have their discipline or technique.
me: haha
OH THANK GOD
I am so relieved to hear YOU say THAT
And… must point out that we have internalized the same values :p
Julia: But I think.. in some ways for other people it is really refreshing and sounds… inventive and weird that I play cello like a guitar or percussively? But I often when coerced to play shall say I am an abomination to the art in some ways..

So — what is this all about? If Julia were to pick up, say, a ukelele or a zither after years of playing the guitar, no doubt I’d think that was fine. If she had pictures taken of herself and a hammered dulcimer I’d probably say, “that’s weird”, but would have no such intense “JULIA STOP DOING THAT” reaction. And all of this, I have to admit, is because the cello is to me a “serious” instrument, one that should not be played by those who don’t have proper conservatory discipline and technique. There’s room for extended techniques, or pop cello, or jazz cello in this formulation — as long as you’ve got the conservatory training first, and are choosing to set it aside. To be a guitarist who plays the cello “like a guitar or percussively”, well, that can’t be a musical activity of real value. It’s an affront to an instrument with a long and storied past, and an affront to all of those conservatory cellists who spend five hours a day thickening the coffee-bean shaped callouses on their thumbs.

Or — is it? I almost viscerally believe what I’ve just written. But who’s to say that only those with a particular kind of training are ‘authorized’ to make music on a particular instrument? Would I have this kind of reaction to unschooled performance on an instrument that didn’t so strongly signify the Western High Art tradition? And would I have this reaction at all if I hadn’t spent the last ten years in university music departments?

I raise these questions because I think of myself, on the whole, as being quite critical of the ideologies that underlie our attitudes about music. I spend a lot of time digging through these ideologies, and I do a lot of work to distance myself from them. But apparently, my investment in the cello as a Serious Instrument cannot quite be undone by critical analysis, or even by a picture of my much-adored youngest sister looking much-adorable with a cello she plays like a guitar.

Now, the endpoint of this thinking in this case is, probably, me giving Julia a scolding for not practicing her scales or bowings (a scolding that she’d shrug off, because she is used to me being scoldy). But imagine how this could play out if I weren’t her mostly benevolent, if crotchety, older sister — if, say, I were a non-benevolent and very crotchety orchestra director, and my objection weren’t to a lack of particular training, but to the absurdity of a woman playing the cello. (What kind of woman, after all, would want to play an instrument that’s held between the legs?) Or — what if my objection were to people of colour playing orchestral instruments, in general?

Well — I’d be in really fucking esteemed company, apparently. I’d be just about set to take over the Vienna Philharmonic.

And here’s the point.

If you’re hung up on who is making the sounds, instead of on the sounds themselves — and we are never hearing only the sounds themselves — you’ll probably miss some real aesthetic delights. More importantly, if you don’t interrogate your ideas about who “should” be making particular sounds, you will shut entire demographics out of particular kinds of music making. That, it shouldn’t need to be said, is absolutely not okay. And that, as anybody who’s taken a music history survey should know, is how it’s always been.

I’m shocked to realize that I have such a deeply held sense of propriety in relation to an instrument I’ve never played. (Especially since I’ve delighted in INTENTIONAL breaches of propriety on instruments I do play…) And so I make an incremental step forward, and admit that my dear sister might well be making tremendous, unorthodox noises with her cello — even if she’s not a ‘cellist’. (Giv’er!)

The Week in Evil (27/3/10)

27 Mar

So much evil… where to begin?

1) Oh, here. While being sentenced for two rapes committed on the York University campus in 2007, Daniel Katsnelson declared that he “hopes some day the victim will be able to take away something positive from this, as he has,” and “suggested that now maybe she will know to keep her doors locked”. Which brings us to this clever list, and also very clearly to this — though obviously not to this.

2) Similar theme, but it gets a bit more horrifying here. Bibi Aisha, a young Afghan woman, was married at 10 to a man who kept her in a stable until she began menstruating at 12. She was jailed when she tried to escape, and upon release returned to her husband’s family (by her father) — who cut off her nose and ears as punishment for ‘shaming’ the family. Donations to fund reconstructive surgery and other assistance can be made here.

3) And last, I’ll point to allegations by Inuit that the RCMP slaughtered up to 20 000 sled dogs in Nunavut, northern Québec, and Labrador between 1950 and 1980. If you want to erode your belief in the decency of Canadians, read the comments. Mixed in with the statements of outrage (the kind that maybe make you hope that humans are not such wicked beasts after all), we find these gems:

“I think RCMP went to Nunavik, saw how the dogs were treated and the condition they were in and thought they were doing the right thing by putting them down.”

“My father was an officer in the north at this time. The citizens were warned to fence their dogs and keep them on leashes when out walking. The reason being the dogs were attacking people and killing people. The dog cull protected the community.”

“my father shot my dog and i want money too.“

So — in other words — an mass animal slaughter that was part and parcel of a colonialist cultural genocide was, of course, carried out for the good of the colonized. And my goodness, if only they wouldn’t whine so much about it. We can pretend that these aren’t the sentiments underlying comments like these, but we’d quite simply be lying to ourselves.

Now: take all of that anger — I stirred it up on purpose, people — and do something good with it.

CSIS, Khadr, Human Rights — and an aside about health care.

24 Jul

As reported by the CBC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee has released a report indicating that CSIS violated Omar Khadr’s human rights by not taking his age into account when he was interrogated at Guantanamo Bay. (He was sixteen at the time, and as video evidence shows, broke down crying for his mother while being questioned.)

Further, as reported by Kathleen Petty of CBC on The House, SIRC’s report indicates that “CSIS cannot carry out its mandate solely from an intelligence-gathering perspective. They have to take things like human rights into account.”

I’m not going to comment on this in depth, but I’d like to say — thank goodness. It remains to be seen whether or not CSIS will develop a proper protocol for dealing with youth in the future, but the declaration by SIRC that human rights have to take precedence over gathering information fits quite precisely with what I like to imagine to be Canadian values.

And, on that note, an aside about health care. Today, I decided that I wanted a specialist opinion about a (definitely not urgent) health issue. So, being in the US and having good insurance through my student-employee union, I checked the directory for my insurance provider, and booked an appointment. In about two weeks, I’ll be seeing a specialist (with a subspecialty, even), and paying about $10 out of pocket.

So, for a few minutes, I thought — maybe this is better than the care I’d receive in Canada. Back home, I’d certainly be waiting longer for this doctor, and being in a smaller area I’d like not be able to find a doctor with this particular subspecialty. I wouldn’t be able to decide on my own, either, that I wanted this issue double-checked, and then to make my appointment.

But then I thought, you know, I would gladly sacrifice those benefits to be sure that I was in a system where other people are getting looked after. I’d quite happily wait a few more weeks or months to be seen (with no likely health consequences). I’d quite happily consult with my GP about a referral. And all of that is, quite simply, because that’s the way I think things should work.

So, at the risk of playing Smug Canadian (a game I try to avoid), I’ll point out that this too is part of what I imagine to be Canadian values. Just as I’d choose to protect human rights over ‘intelligence gathering’, I’d choose to be part of a national collective that protects the basic healthcare needs of everybody over the convenience of those privileged to have good coverage. That’s not to say that the Canadian system is perfect — because it isn’t, of course. But the principle behind the system is, well, the right one.

Aieee! Have I gone patriotic?

Fat kids and self-esteem

15 Jul

The Globe and Mail is reporting that overweight children suffer from anxiety as early as six years of age. I have no doubt that this is true — but I’m going to object to the framing of the results in the report. Let’s take this, for example:

Furthermore, as these children progressed from kindergarten to Grade 3, their negative feelings grew more pronounced, lead researcher Sara Gable says.

“They actually get worse, so you think about the mental health implications of that,” says Dr. Gable, an associate professor of human development and family studies. “It just adds to the body of research that we already have telling us the cost of the lifestyle problems apparent in the U.S. population.”

The clear implication is that negative feelings and poor self-esteem are a natural consequence of a ‘lifestyle problem’ — rather than the result of others’ reactions to one’s body, or of messages that one receives about one’s body. That is, fat kids have it coming, right? The bullying and social exclusion that these kids experience is simply the natural, predictable result of piggish, lazy living. A critical reading of Dr. Gable’s next comment further suggests that this is her stance:

Overweight girls were especially affected by their heavy stature, Dr. Gable adds. Bigger girls had trouble getting along with their peers and exhibited other negative behaviours that emerged after kindergarten, including a lack of self control.

If overweight girls are “especially affected by their heavy stature”, could it be because they are constrained yet more than boys by social norms about physical attractiveness? Could it be, perhaps, that we continue to value girls according to how they look — and that perhaps being chronically devalued because of ‘heavy stature’ simply hurts? The vague reference to “lack of self control” suggests a tired association between fat and behavior, and also seems to correlate fat with undisciplined, and therefore unfeminine, conduct.

These results doesn’t say to me that kids need to be put on diets: they say to me that fat prejudice starts incredibly early, and that it has the power to erode the sense of self of the young and vulnerable. They say to me that we need to stop looking at fat as a definitive marker of a ‘lifestyle problem’, and start focusing instead on the more complex business of talking about good health practices at any size. And they say to me that we have a collective responsibility to treat people with decency even if they’re fat.

In the interest of disclosure: I was a fat kid, and I’m a fat woman. And of course I struggle with self esteem. But I stand firm on this point: if you devalue me because of my size, that’s your failing, not mine. There is no natural relationship between size and self-esteem. This relationship is most transparently something that we construct in day-to-day interaction, in our media, in our culture. And while I’m all for research that explores this relationship, I am straight-up angry to see it reported as yet another reason to scold the hefty.

On that note: you know what’s really lazy? Demanding that other people change their bodies to fit your aesthetic, rather than reframing your own perception. You know what’s really a problem of self-control? Treating people — especially children — in a way that reinforces their low status, because it delights you to be so wonderfully superior. Give me the choice, and I’ll own the sin of a big round belly or a wide lumpy ass over the sin of narrow-minded cruelty any day.

Margaret Wente on coffee cups and plastic bags

15 Nov

Margaret Wente has written a column for the Globe and Mail in which she criticizes Toronto’s recycling plans as “not based on economics, or feasibility, or anything that resembles common sense, but on the simple belief that the more we recycle, the faster we will go to Heaven.” Her major objection is to a proposal that would have retailers give a twenty-cent credit to customers who use reusable coffee cups. Saying that “[i]t never occurred to [her] that choosing a coffee cup for my double-double is an ethical decision”, Wente goes on to argue:

I have now spent many hours researching this matter on your behalf, and I have found entire websites, engineering reports, and university student subcommittees devoted to the environmental impact of coffee cups. The classic of the genre seems to be a study called Reusable and Disposable Cups: An Energy-Based Evaluation, by former chemistry professor Martin B. Hocking, who, I am proud to say, comes from our own University of Victoria.

To perform a proper lifecycle analysis of coffee cups, Prof. Hocking began by calculating the embodied energy (MJ) in each type of cup. Not surprisingly, he found that it takes a great deal more energy to manufacture a reusable ceramic cup than it does to manufacture any kind of disposable cup. For every paper coffee cup you use, you’d have to reuse your ceramic mug at least 39 times to break even, energy-wise (assuming that you wash it once in a while). For every polystyrene cup, you’d have to use your mug a whopping 1,006 times to break even.

I trust that clears things up.

Well, no, not really. First, it’s not so unreasonable to expect to reuse a ceramic mug 39 times. That’s a little over a month of once-daily use. Using the same mug 1006 times seems a bit less likely — but then, that’s less than three years of once-daily use. Shouldn’t a ceramic mug last for three years? Further, the numbers that Wente gives address only the energy costs of production. Recycling and waste disposal both use additional energy. I’d like to see some numbers that take into account the differences at both ends of use. And of course, there are other issues to be considered: landfill space, pollution from production, etc.

Wente also objects to actions dedicated to reducing the use of plastic bags, on similar grounds:

Everybody likes to point to Ireland, which slapped a hefty tax on plastic shopping bags a few years ago. Voila! People practically stopped using them. But then they started buying plastic doggie poop bags and plastic kitchen bags and plastic wastebasket bags to replace all the plastic shopping bags they had formerly recycled.

Here’s the thing: I don’t use plastic liners in my garbage baskets, except for the large bin in the kitchen. They’re actually not necessary. (The dog issue is different, but I don’t have a dog). So the argument about shifting around waste doesn’t really make sense for me. I also *like* my reusable bags better. They hold more, and they have sturdier, more comfortable handles. Of course, I notice this difference because I carry them myself when I walk back home from the supermarket, or sling them on the handlebars of my bike. I’m betting that Wente still throws her plastic bags in the trunk of her much-loved SUV.

I don’t want to make this a virtue contest. Wente is probably correct that plastic shopping bags are not going to push us over some kind of ecological tipping point. But the bigger issue, the one she overlooks because it’s the thing she really doesn’t want to confront, is the issue of attitude. Why on earth should we defend our ‘right’ to generate more waste than we really need to? Superficially, Wente is defending single-use coffee cups and plastic bags; dig a bit deeper into this argument, though, and you’ll find that she’s defending her right to overconsume. Focusing on individual bits of garbage might allow us to justify a wasteful lifestyle. Considering a really different lifestyle, however, makes ours (mine included) seem simply absurd.

My grandmothers would never have thought twice about reusing anything reusable. My mother, for instance, tells me of her mother making aprons out of flour sacks. Why? Simply because you wouldn’t waste a perfectly good flour sack if you’d grown up in pre-Confederation Newfoundland. I remember my father’s mother reusing Red Rose tea bags through cup after cup, because it was the economical thing to do. (I also believe that she never bought a car she couldn’t pay for outright — on a teacher’s pension.) Perhaps instead of defending our ‘right’ to generate garbage, we could start questioning why we allow ourselves to look at unnecessary waste as anything but a mistake. Perhaps rather than splitting hairs about whether or not we use more energy by buying a ceramic mug than a paper one, we might simply accept that it’s decadent, and a bit obscene, not to make the best possible use of everything that we’re lucky enough to have.

*********
Of course, my current irritation with Margaret Wente might have something to do with her recent column about “savages”.

Near the end of a long social studies unit about the Miq’Maq, my sixth-grade teacher used that word, too. She only let it slip once that whole year, and mumbled it a bit — but I can still remember her glimmer of satisfaction, and her apparent relief. I have no doubt that she’d been saving that slur for weeks.

Does it surprise you, hearing that, that my sixth-grade teacher was a truly awful woman? She was nasty and smug and more than a bit stupid, though somehow able to keep a lot of people on her side. The sliver of hate that pushed through to the surface in that mumbled slur was an absolutely integral part of this woman’s nasty, smug stupidity. It was not some coincidental bit of ignorance.

Even though a full fifteen years have passed since the sixth grade, I still wish that I’d spoken up in that moment, instead of swallowing my discomfort — so I’ll speak up now. Wente’s column doesn’t have the bluntness of a simple slur. It pretends to be reasonable, and it pretends to rest on fact. But — it doesn’t. It simply asserts something that Wente believed before she started her research, and pretends to back it up with some selectively gathered bits of information. (Two of the authors that the cites have since written in to object to her characterization of their work.) It also assumes an unsettling degree of intellectual authority, and rests on an incredibly uncritical appraisal of value and reason and truth. Today’s column, not coincidentally, does the same thing.

Perhaps the ugliest utterances are also the most revealing.

Protecting Marriage on YouTube

8 Nov

It is, of course, much to my dismay that California voted in favour of Proposition Eight. It’s only since the election, however, that I’ve become aware of some of the materials posted by the “Yes” campaign — and I think they are instructive in understanding the real basis for objections to legislating same-sex marriage.

I have often said that I simply don’t understand the argument about same-sex marriage as a threat to ‘traditional’ marriage. On some level, I assumed that this whole debate was about something metaphysical, some fear that if you let the gays into the Magic House of Procreative Marriage, they’ll spread Sin Spores and everyone will get dirty. That kind of anxiety never made sense to me, and it left me feeling simply confused about the whole debate.

Then I watched this clip. It’s predictably manipulative, in a lot of ways. The description of Jan and Tom and their family is an almost-amusing construct of the ‘normal’ family: they own a minivan, they have a dog, Jan cooks while Tom mows the lawn, and they sure do love their gay neighbours. (Though, G-d forbid, not too much!) The general tone of the ad is calm, and the language clearly tries to be neutral, creating the impression that these arguments against gay marriage are reasonable, and not based on blind hatred. Of course, they talk about homosexuality as a ‘lifestyle choice’, suggest that ‘strong families’ need a heterosexual nucleus, and talk about tolerance of homosexuality (as if it’s something to tolerate?). If you’re in the habit of reading this kind of language, you’ll catch the nastiness under these euphemisms — but perhaps not otherwise.

What I find instructive about this ad is not so much its strategies of manipulation, however, but the concrete objections that it voices in relation to gay marriage. First, they express concern about ‘teaching gay marriage’ in public schools; second, they suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage is likely to result in government interference in churches, who they suggest might be forced to perform same-sex marriages. I have to read these objections as showing, in part, a desire to maintain institutionalized discrimination.

Rather than simply labelling these objections as discriminatory, though, I want to understand them. The issue of government interference in the church is a clear extension of the conservative tendency to limit (or pretend to limit) the scope of government in general. This objection creates a bit of a feedback loop, of course. It declares a desire to maintain the separation of church and state — but it wants to maintain that division by passing legislation that is in keeping with conservative Christian values. I can acknowledge that an individual congregation should have the right to determine its own collective values, and I quite agree that the state should have limited control over religious practices in general. But can’t this objection be addressed by simply affirming the separation of church and state? If there is a provision that allows same-sex couples to be married in town hall, or in progressive churches, but still allows individual congregations to refuse to perform ceremonies — well, that objection loses all validity, and we’re back to the Sin Spores argument. (As I understand it, Canadian legislation still leaves this choice up to individual churches, and our society hasn’t crumbled.)

It’s the argument about ‘teaching homosexuality’ in schools that I find to be most revealing. Instinctively, I find this argument to be absurd. As I see it, there is literally no possibility that reading King and King is going to change the sexual orientation of a single second-grader. What it might do is make a child with same-sex parents feel a bit less excluded — or, better yet, mean that when one of these kids hits high school and comes out (comes out anyway, to be clear), he or she will be a little less afraid, and a little less abused and persecuted by his or her peers. To me, that sounds like a good result.

Thinking about this issue a bit further, I asked — why would a person be so concerned about what their children see and hear? Why not trust that your child will develop the skills to sort out right from wrong on their own terms, and with your guidance?

My best guess is this: if you accept the authority of religious doctrine without question, then perhaps you believe that’s the only position a person can take in relation to authority, or in relation to information itself. Your concern then becomes teaching your children not to question authority, not to struggle to reconcile their beliefs and values and opinions with what they encounter in the world, but instead with controlling the authority to which your children are exposed.

I feel like this interpretation has given my some new insight — though I’m not sure quite where it leads me. It does, at least, remind me how happy I am to have been raised as I was, to understand doubt and questioning as part of real faith.

(Christian to Christians: if the Spirit is alive, shouldn’t we let Him move? And if God is love, isn’t He there when two people declare it?)

Harper, Carbon, and the G8

9 Jul

The CBC site is reporting the following:

As the Group of Eight summit wrapped up in northern Japan on Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it’s a “mathematical certainty” that developing countries will bear the brunt of the work in lowering global greenhouse gas emissions.

His comments to reporters in the resort town of Toyako came as several developing countries reportedly balked at climate change targets proposed by the G8 countries the previous day.

The major industrial countries represented by the G8 set a goal Tuesday to halve emissions that contribute to global warming by 2050, though no international baseline year was set and the plan lacked midterm goals.

Harper said that by 2050, developed nations will likely account for no more than 20 per cent of global carbon emissions.

“So, when we say we need participation by developing countries, this is not a philosophical position. This is a mathematical certainty,” he told Canadian reporters at a news conference Wednesday.

“You can’t get a 50 per cent cut from 20 per cent of emissions.”

1) Developed countries have spent a couple of centuries “developing” while emitting massive amounts of carbon. It’s why we have the technology and industry we do today.

As the developing world catches up in terms of technology and industry, how is it that we now get to blame them for the state of the environment?

The ruling class will always try to maintain its status. That’s part of what this is about: plain and simple, economic imbalance works for the developed world, and we collectively want to maintain it.

2) Way to shirk your responsibility, Harper. Regardless of what’s going on in other nations, it’s still incumbent upon Canada to do better. We’ve made commitments to reducing carbon emissions. If you’re short-sighted, you might be focused on the economic undesirability of making such a change.

But, hell, I don’t really know about economics. That’s not what I do. Sometimes, though, you just have to do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do — not because you see a concrete long-term benefit for yourself, and people like you. I’d like to see a national leader who understands that.

Gas and Cable

30 Jun

It looks like gas prices have finally started having an impact on cute little white girls in Utah. Thank goodness; I thought we’d have to wait a long, long time before this issue started getting sufficient media coverage.

Okay, seriously now. Two little girls from Utah, who cannot spell “money” or indeed “cable”, are upset because their parents have cut off their cable TV to pay for gas. I’m thinking, long term, these kids are going to be better off. Perhaps they can spend their Hannah Montana time taking the bus to the library.

In fact, part of me feels that a lot of good things are going to come from rising gas prices. Anything that makes people take public transit or bike rather than driving — well, that’s a good result. And, if we’re going to be honest, rising gas prices are the only thing that’s going to make the average North American consumer make those changes.

Good effects aside, though, I’m more than a bit concerned about this situation. Here, two cases in point:

1) My airfare to get home for Christmas this year will be approximately $200 more than it was last year.
2) A pound of tofu at Trader Joe’s is $0.50 more expensive than it was a year ago. Or, I’m pretty sure it is. And I’m guessing that much of this increase is the result of increasing transport costs.

As a graduate student, I feel these economic pinches pretty acutely — or, at least, cumulatively. I can, however, bear them pretty easily. For me, a few extra dollars each week at the grocery store is something I notice, but — since I’m shopping for one — can absorb pretty easily, and still buy fresh produce and tasty Greek yogurts. $200 extra a couple of times a year to visit my family hurts a bit more, but for now, I can handle it.

The thing is: I’m in a pretty good position. I have a low income, but my future earning potential is reasonable, and I certainly come from a comparatively advantaged background. I have no dependents, so I’m typically cooking for one — and because of my Newfie heritage, I’m well-schooled in running a good and frugal kitchen. Thanks, Grandma!

I’ll also add that I’m already making, as a matter of course, most of the ‘sacrifices’ that people are talking about as a result of rising fuel prices. First, I don’t have a car. I also split my heating costs three ways with my roommates, keep the thermostat at 60º as much as I can stand it, and refuse to run the air conditioner. (I actually took it out of my house.) When I do laundry, not kidding, I use a hand-crank machine and spin dryer. So — effectively, there’s not much on which I can cut back.

If, with all of these advantages, I’m still noticing meaningful economic changes, the story to be told is not mine, and not the story of privileged white girls from Utah giving up something they (probably) shouldn’t have anyway because of gas prices. The story is about food and energy costs hitting people who can’t be hit any more. That’s been getting some coverage, I know, but it’s where the real crisis is coming, and it’s time we took heed.

On the whole: enough, ENOUGH whining about having to make negligible lifestyle changes. You shouldn’t be driving everywhere anyway. You shouldn’t be so invested in cable TV that you take to the streets in protest. You shouldn’t be beside yourself about the cost of leisure travel.

Be indignant for the people who need it.

And perhaps, be indignant about the state of the market. Be indignant that people in positions of power have realized that people will buy very nearly as much fuel at $140 a barrel as they did at $90 a barrel — and that they’ve simply decided to charge $140. Be indignant that these same people have wielded their money and power for decades to ensure that we would have few viable options to fossil fuel, when this time came.

A reductio ad absurdum, yes, but not an unsubstantial part of the question. The end result will be predictable: the very rich will get richer; the moderate privilege of us in the middle will shrink; the really poor will suffer abonimably.

How do we live with this? If the poor are still with us, it’s because we need them, some more than others. It’s an ugly admission, but as I type it, I realize that it doesn’t weigh on my conscience nearly enough.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.