...and by late night, I mean 9:58.
It feels late. The days start between 5:45 and 6:15am, not counting the night feedings. So I think my circadian rhythm is a bit off.
It's been awhile. Life gets away on you I guess. That's the whole reason we started the blog, to try and keep perspective amid the daily clutter, but alas...
Is anyone else not fully enjoying the weather?
Maybe it's my worry wart tendency but it's freaking me out. I will qualify this with the admition that I have done zero research on the topic and hope that the nagging worry is totally unfounded. Still, I don't feel like it supposed to be 30 degrees in early May in Saskatchewan. I felt the same way riding my bike in early December with just a light jacket. Hearing about flash floods in the southern US and crazy blizzards in the Maritimes at the same time just makes me uneasy. Then there's the fires.
I'm sure there may be reasonable, meteorological explanations for each of these individual weather phenomenon and I'm sure there have been periods of time in the past when extreme conditions have occurred. It just feels like lately the extremes are becoming more the norm than the exception. Once in 50 or 100 year events are happening every few years.
Perhaps our 24 news cycles and global awareness are just making it seem like these events are increasing in frequency. I hope so because personally, every time I hear a weather forecast bragging about how we are breaking yet another temperature record, I cringe.
Does anyone have any reliable evidence to prove these worries are just that.....? Worries.
Does anyone have any evidence that we are in deep trouble and should start connecting Mother Nature's disastrous dots?
Either way, I know blogging does nothing productive regardless of the reality of the situation. It's just been on my mind and my two year old doesn't have much to contribute on the subject.
It's 10:15 now. I am up way past my bedtime.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
it takes a village
It takes a village...
I found myself flippantly spouting this phrase in the Costco parking lot the other day. I was trying to unload my giant packages of granola bars, cucumbers, (and the real reason for my visit) mini chocolate bars for "Halloween." The already onerous task was complicated by my two girls under two in tow. A nice lady came up and offered to take my cart back for me. I had already received a few other nice gestures on the shopping trip and as someone who doesn't accept help well I was feeling humbled yet grateful. "Thanks. I guess it really does take a village." I quipped as she walked away.
"It takes a village to raise a child."
I've heard the African proverb plenty of times before but it really rings true now. My mom and sister both live out of country and Josh and I find ourselves leaning on a myriad of people for help. In the weeks following the birth of our youngest on Labour Day I was overwhelmed by the support. People we only casually see, neighbours, friends from church, all bringing by gifts and food. It was such a blessing. Apart from the odd offer to return a cart, the outpouring of help after a new baby is maybe the closest thing I've seen to the African proverb ringing true in our western society. As our kids get older we draw further into our nuclear family homes. As a mom, I saddle myself with the burdens of household chores, and parenting responsibilities despite my exhaustion. It's almost like the more tired I am, the more I can martyr myself and feel like I'm doing a good job. Not to say spending time with your kids is a burden but it can feel like it sometimes when you're all alone, especially in the middle of a Saskatchewan winter.
How does any of that tie into our Eco-blog? The one I have neglected to write in since our second was born last month.... It's amazing how adding one more tiny person to a household can add so much to overall consumption. I am buying more, throwing away more, wasting more, driving more, taking the easy route. Basically I am shame spiralling about my environmental impact as a mother of two.
When our first daughter was born I used cloth diapers for about 9 months. Now I order fancy diapers online that claim to be ethically sourced and environmentally friendly but every time I look at the huge pile of them accumulating in our back alley bin I feel a pang of guilt.
I know some super moms who have way more than two kids who do nothing but cloth diaper. They say to achieve change, you have to want something more than what you already have. I want a cleaner world for my girls, but in the moment I guess my actions say....I really want more sleep and less laundry.
Then there's my trip to Costco. I have been trying to support local businesses in my area. It falls in line with my beliefs to prop up the little guy and try to build an economy with diverse options not run my a few massive players. But I woke up one day craving those giant cake muffins they have at the Costco bakery and next thing you know I've spent $100.
I guess what I'm trying to articulate is.... I haven't given up. I have just suffered a few setbacks. In the past we have ordered from Local and Fresh. They deliver locally sourced food right to your door. Also wouldn't it be great to bring back Happy Nappies? It was a cloth diaper service run in Regina by Sask Abilities. They would come pickup used diapers and bring clean ones. There are great people offering services that allow you to have it both ways, be a bit lazy and still less wasteful.
Underlying it all, there's the old proverb. The decisions we make for our families aren't in a vacuum. Choices about food and diapers seem trivial but they impact the world. Then there's the issue of how I model myself for my kids. That will help shape what kind of global citizens they become. Josh read this whole article about the environmental impacts of how many kids we choose to have. It's got us thinking about the whole.... "do we try for a third?" debate. That's a topic for another day. The arguments on both sides are really interesting. It is obviously also a sensitive and personal issue. That's the interesting thing about families though. It is a personal decision, and the whole village is waiting to see how it turns out.
I found myself flippantly spouting this phrase in the Costco parking lot the other day. I was trying to unload my giant packages of granola bars, cucumbers, (and the real reason for my visit) mini chocolate bars for "Halloween." The already onerous task was complicated by my two girls under two in tow. A nice lady came up and offered to take my cart back for me. I had already received a few other nice gestures on the shopping trip and as someone who doesn't accept help well I was feeling humbled yet grateful. "Thanks. I guess it really does take a village." I quipped as she walked away.
"It takes a village to raise a child."
I've heard the African proverb plenty of times before but it really rings true now. My mom and sister both live out of country and Josh and I find ourselves leaning on a myriad of people for help. In the weeks following the birth of our youngest on Labour Day I was overwhelmed by the support. People we only casually see, neighbours, friends from church, all bringing by gifts and food. It was such a blessing. Apart from the odd offer to return a cart, the outpouring of help after a new baby is maybe the closest thing I've seen to the African proverb ringing true in our western society. As our kids get older we draw further into our nuclear family homes. As a mom, I saddle myself with the burdens of household chores, and parenting responsibilities despite my exhaustion. It's almost like the more tired I am, the more I can martyr myself and feel like I'm doing a good job. Not to say spending time with your kids is a burden but it can feel like it sometimes when you're all alone, especially in the middle of a Saskatchewan winter.
How does any of that tie into our Eco-blog? The one I have neglected to write in since our second was born last month.... It's amazing how adding one more tiny person to a household can add so much to overall consumption. I am buying more, throwing away more, wasting more, driving more, taking the easy route. Basically I am shame spiralling about my environmental impact as a mother of two.
When our first daughter was born I used cloth diapers for about 9 months. Now I order fancy diapers online that claim to be ethically sourced and environmentally friendly but every time I look at the huge pile of them accumulating in our back alley bin I feel a pang of guilt.
I know some super moms who have way more than two kids who do nothing but cloth diaper. They say to achieve change, you have to want something more than what you already have. I want a cleaner world for my girls, but in the moment I guess my actions say....I really want more sleep and less laundry.
Then there's my trip to Costco. I have been trying to support local businesses in my area. It falls in line with my beliefs to prop up the little guy and try to build an economy with diverse options not run my a few massive players. But I woke up one day craving those giant cake muffins they have at the Costco bakery and next thing you know I've spent $100.
I guess what I'm trying to articulate is.... I haven't given up. I have just suffered a few setbacks. In the past we have ordered from Local and Fresh. They deliver locally sourced food right to your door. Also wouldn't it be great to bring back Happy Nappies? It was a cloth diaper service run in Regina by Sask Abilities. They would come pickup used diapers and bring clean ones. There are great people offering services that allow you to have it both ways, be a bit lazy and still less wasteful.
Underlying it all, there's the old proverb. The decisions we make for our families aren't in a vacuum. Choices about food and diapers seem trivial but they impact the world. Then there's the issue of how I model myself for my kids. That will help shape what kind of global citizens they become. Josh read this whole article about the environmental impacts of how many kids we choose to have. It's got us thinking about the whole.... "do we try for a third?" debate. That's a topic for another day. The arguments on both sides are really interesting. It is obviously also a sensitive and personal issue. That's the interesting thing about families though. It is a personal decision, and the whole village is waiting to see how it turns out.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Why I am Pro-life and NOT voting Conservative
In January 2007 I landed my first Canadian teaching job at my alma mater Notre Dame in Wilcox, SK. There I would live a dream of teaching Christian Ethics to young people. While I was preparing to teach a class dedicated to the subject of morality I remember reading a section of the text book called "A Seamless Garment: having a consistent pro-life ethic." While I don't remember the specifics of that section, I do remember its gist: being pro-life doesn't mean that you are just anti-abortion or against euthanasia. It means that from the womb to the tomb, you are a person who defends and advocates for life. This means that you would be equally against capital punishment, war and any economic policies that would seeks to exploit the poor and concentrate wealth into the hands of the few. And with Pope Francis' new encyclical on ecology, I would dare say that this brand of pro-life would also apply to defending and advocating for all of Creation.
Promoted by American Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, inspiration for the "seamless garment" came from the Gospel crucifixion account where Roman soldiers decided to cast lots (ancient dice tossing) over Jesus' robe instead of tearing it into pieces. Bernardin took this story and applied it as a metaphor for having a consistent pro-life Christian morality. The idea was that, while certain things may be more important than others, all issues that threaten human life are interwoven and Christians must take them all seriously.
My concern is that, while abortion is a significant piece on that seamless garment of life, it has been ripped off of the robe to the exclusion to all other assaults on life. Christian Right wing organizations such as Canada Family Action exploit this garment shredding by telling voters to "Do [their] part to make sure [Canada] remains a nation that supports life" by voting Conservative. I find this really confusing when on their pamphlets they make it clear that the Conservative Party, "Will not initiate legislation on abortion." (See attached picture at the bottom for full table that Canada Family Action released; doesn't include Green party position which fully supports a woman's right to choose but allow individual MPs to make personal decision based upon their consciences and their constituents)
Personal story: In 1998 I marched down a Washington D.C. main street towards the Capitol. In my hands were small wooden sticks extending out from a miniature casket representing one of the 30 years that abortion was legal in the U.S. I said nothing during the march, just walked in humble reflection thinking about the great mass of lives lost through abortion. At one point I was yelled and screamed at by pro-choice mobs demonstrating on the sides of the streets. I was only 19 years old. A couple of years later I learned that abortion was not just an issue "out there" but something that had taken place within my own family. Believe me, abortion is not an issue that I have not thought about or have taken lightly.
Following the lead of both Catholic and Evangelical churches that I attended, I continued my zeal for pro-life activism. And then, in 2006, as part of my teaching degree, I decided to teach for a year in Kampala, Uganda. It would be a year where I would begin to learn how complicated and unjust the world's political and economic systems were. 2006 was also the last time that I would vote Conservative. Part of the reason I voted Blue was because I thought that the party would actually take some action on abortion.
It was during the brief reign of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2004 that Stephen Harper made his position on abortion known: "I've been clear. A Conservative government led by me will not be tabling abortion legislation. It will not be sponsoring an abortion referendum..."
Harper said his own views on abortion fall somewhere "in-between the two extremes," and that he would oppose any bill limiting provincial funding to abortion services, again asserting that this is a health matter and under provincial jurisdiction. (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-plans-to-change-abortion-laws-harper-1.466847 for full article)
These are clearly the words of a leader who has no desire to make abortion a high priority issue. And so it really frustrates me when Christians say that they are voting Conservative because it is a pro-life party. Individual Conservative MPs can say all they want about being pro-life, but at the end of the day Harper will not allow them to do anything to change abortion laws in Canada (see National Post story).
Now, I'm not saying that I have the same stance as I did in 2006 on abortion. In fact, I probably agree more now with Harper's stance and even more so with Elizabeth May, also a Christian (http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/an-activist-an-anglican-a-political-leader), who believes that all life is sacred and that abortion needs to be an option for those women in difficult positions where there seems to be no other way out. May says that, instead of reactive solutions, we should be looking at the root causes: "What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place?"
I can get behind legislation that would help create these type of preventative strategies and programs. And I also appreciate a leader who is seeking to create dialogue on a difficult issue rather than muzzle the consciences of those within her party.
Weaving the abortion fabric back into the seamless garment as a whole will help us see that high abortion rates are a symptom, much like capital punishment, stricter jail sentences, tougher immigration laws, increased military campaigns, poverty, exploitation of both Aboriginal and Third World peoples, and environmental degradation. While they are unique, all of these issues are inextricably linked to the fundamental human vices of greed and selfishness. And without a doubt, the greatest feeder of these evils is an unfettered capitalist system which instructs us to compete and consume, no matter what the cost.
In a recent speech that he gave at the World Meeting of Popular Movements in Bolivia, Pope Francis spoke to the evil of an unbridled market which, rather than serving humanity, make us servants of money:
In referring to the injustices that all people, and especially the poor, face Francis says: "These are not isolated issues. I wonder whether we can see that these destructive realities are part of a system which has become global. Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?"
He continues:
"The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home."
(full article at http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-speech-at-world-meeting-of-popular-mo)
And so, if Canadians continue to desire such an economic system where there are clear winners and losers then by all means, vote for Stephen Harper. But before you do, consider what the Pope is saying (and I'm not saying he is telling us who to vote for but what values to support): the most anti-life movement right now is the unfettered global capitalist system in which Harper, and some other parties, live, breath and move. And when it comes to abortion, I would ask this: Which party is going to effectively address the root causes of abortion, which include poverty, education access and domestic support (a recent study found that 69 % of abortions in the US are chosen by women who live below the poverty line)? This, my friends, is the most pro-life party.
In case you missed my main point here it is: when it comes to the specific issue of abortion, even though certain parties are pro-choice, their social and economic policies will create a Canada in which fewer abortions take place. And as a pro-life person, is not the point to save more humans? Given the choice of a government that cloaks anti-family policies in pro-life rhetoric or one that has a pro-choice stance and encourages social programs that help the struggling mothers who are more prone to choose abortion—the typical abortion patient these days is a twenty-something single mother of colour (see Abortion Demographics article)—I would take the party that is actually reducing the amount of abortions, not abortion access.
And when it comes to "seamless garment of life" that I referred to earlier which encompasses justice, war, poverty, and the environment, the Conservatives record is quite poor. In a recent article entitled "The Conservative Vision of Social Justice" former Conservative MP Monte Solberg admits that, when it comes to governing, the Cons have it "half-right."
"While almost any Conservative Member of Parliament could provide you with a credible argument for the Conservative Party’s approach to reducing taxes or getting tough on crime, I would wager that almost none could justify the current ambiguous approach the government takes to spending half its budget in addressing social problems," writes Solberg.
In other words, while they have thrown money at social programs, Solberg admits that the Conservatives, and other governing parties, have done a poor job in effectively addressing issues such as addiction and homelessness.
Solberg says he saw this first hand when, as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, he confessed to "having very little idea" of the effectiveness of government funding to the Salvation Army to get people off the streets.
Solberg identifies the financial costs of social breakdowns of things like families, educational underachievement and crime as issues that are never raised for serious discussion in Canada.
Tackling such issues preventatively, rather then consequentially (think Harper's 86% increased prison costs since he came to power), could save a lot of money, not to mention all of the social and emotional costs for Canadians.
Solberg concludes: "if the Conservative Party is serious about reducing the size of government, lowering taxes and improving productivity, the most obvious place to begin is to address Canada’s social ills more effectively."
Well said Mr. Solberg. Thank you for your honest exposition of Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative party's biggest weakness: It's lack of compassion.
Promoted by American Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, inspiration for the "seamless garment" came from the Gospel crucifixion account where Roman soldiers decided to cast lots (ancient dice tossing) over Jesus' robe instead of tearing it into pieces. Bernardin took this story and applied it as a metaphor for having a consistent pro-life Christian morality. The idea was that, while certain things may be more important than others, all issues that threaten human life are interwoven and Christians must take them all seriously.
My concern is that, while abortion is a significant piece on that seamless garment of life, it has been ripped off of the robe to the exclusion to all other assaults on life. Christian Right wing organizations such as Canada Family Action exploit this garment shredding by telling voters to "Do [their] part to make sure [Canada] remains a nation that supports life" by voting Conservative. I find this really confusing when on their pamphlets they make it clear that the Conservative Party, "Will not initiate legislation on abortion." (See attached picture at the bottom for full table that Canada Family Action released; doesn't include Green party position which fully supports a woman's right to choose but allow individual MPs to make personal decision based upon their consciences and their constituents)
Personal story: In 1998 I marched down a Washington D.C. main street towards the Capitol. In my hands were small wooden sticks extending out from a miniature casket representing one of the 30 years that abortion was legal in the U.S. I said nothing during the march, just walked in humble reflection thinking about the great mass of lives lost through abortion. At one point I was yelled and screamed at by pro-choice mobs demonstrating on the sides of the streets. I was only 19 years old. A couple of years later I learned that abortion was not just an issue "out there" but something that had taken place within my own family. Believe me, abortion is not an issue that I have not thought about or have taken lightly.
Following the lead of both Catholic and Evangelical churches that I attended, I continued my zeal for pro-life activism. And then, in 2006, as part of my teaching degree, I decided to teach for a year in Kampala, Uganda. It would be a year where I would begin to learn how complicated and unjust the world's political and economic systems were. 2006 was also the last time that I would vote Conservative. Part of the reason I voted Blue was because I thought that the party would actually take some action on abortion.
It was during the brief reign of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2004 that Stephen Harper made his position on abortion known: "I've been clear. A Conservative government led by me will not be tabling abortion legislation. It will not be sponsoring an abortion referendum..."
Harper said his own views on abortion fall somewhere "in-between the two extremes," and that he would oppose any bill limiting provincial funding to abortion services, again asserting that this is a health matter and under provincial jurisdiction. (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-plans-to-change-abortion-laws-harper-1.466847 for full article)
These are clearly the words of a leader who has no desire to make abortion a high priority issue. And so it really frustrates me when Christians say that they are voting Conservative because it is a pro-life party. Individual Conservative MPs can say all they want about being pro-life, but at the end of the day Harper will not allow them to do anything to change abortion laws in Canada (see National Post story).
Now, I'm not saying that I have the same stance as I did in 2006 on abortion. In fact, I probably agree more now with Harper's stance and even more so with Elizabeth May, also a Christian (http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/an-activist-an-anglican-a-political-leader), who believes that all life is sacred and that abortion needs to be an option for those women in difficult positions where there seems to be no other way out. May says that, instead of reactive solutions, we should be looking at the root causes: "What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place?"
I can get behind legislation that would help create these type of preventative strategies and programs. And I also appreciate a leader who is seeking to create dialogue on a difficult issue rather than muzzle the consciences of those within her party.
Weaving the abortion fabric back into the seamless garment as a whole will help us see that high abortion rates are a symptom, much like capital punishment, stricter jail sentences, tougher immigration laws, increased military campaigns, poverty, exploitation of both Aboriginal and Third World peoples, and environmental degradation. While they are unique, all of these issues are inextricably linked to the fundamental human vices of greed and selfishness. And without a doubt, the greatest feeder of these evils is an unfettered capitalist system which instructs us to compete and consume, no matter what the cost.
In a recent speech that he gave at the World Meeting of Popular Movements in Bolivia, Pope Francis spoke to the evil of an unbridled market which, rather than serving humanity, make us servants of money:
In referring to the injustices that all people, and especially the poor, face Francis says: "These are not isolated issues. I wonder whether we can see that these destructive realities are part of a system which has become global. Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?"
He continues:
"The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home."
(full article at http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-speech-at-world-meeting-of-popular-mo)
And so, if Canadians continue to desire such an economic system where there are clear winners and losers then by all means, vote for Stephen Harper. But before you do, consider what the Pope is saying (and I'm not saying he is telling us who to vote for but what values to support): the most anti-life movement right now is the unfettered global capitalist system in which Harper, and some other parties, live, breath and move. And when it comes to abortion, I would ask this: Which party is going to effectively address the root causes of abortion, which include poverty, education access and domestic support (a recent study found that 69 % of abortions in the US are chosen by women who live below the poverty line)? This, my friends, is the most pro-life party.
In case you missed my main point here it is: when it comes to the specific issue of abortion, even though certain parties are pro-choice, their social and economic policies will create a Canada in which fewer abortions take place. And as a pro-life person, is not the point to save more humans? Given the choice of a government that cloaks anti-family policies in pro-life rhetoric or one that has a pro-choice stance and encourages social programs that help the struggling mothers who are more prone to choose abortion—the typical abortion patient these days is a twenty-something single mother of colour (see Abortion Demographics article)—I would take the party that is actually reducing the amount of abortions, not abortion access.
And when it comes to "seamless garment of life" that I referred to earlier which encompasses justice, war, poverty, and the environment, the Conservatives record is quite poor. In a recent article entitled "The Conservative Vision of Social Justice" former Conservative MP Monte Solberg admits that, when it comes to governing, the Cons have it "half-right."
"While almost any Conservative Member of Parliament could provide you with a credible argument for the Conservative Party’s approach to reducing taxes or getting tough on crime, I would wager that almost none could justify the current ambiguous approach the government takes to spending half its budget in addressing social problems," writes Solberg.
In other words, while they have thrown money at social programs, Solberg admits that the Conservatives, and other governing parties, have done a poor job in effectively addressing issues such as addiction and homelessness.
Solberg says he saw this first hand when, as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, he confessed to "having very little idea" of the effectiveness of government funding to the Salvation Army to get people off the streets.
Solberg identifies the financial costs of social breakdowns of things like families, educational underachievement and crime as issues that are never raised for serious discussion in Canada.
Tackling such issues preventatively, rather then consequentially (think Harper's 86% increased prison costs since he came to power), could save a lot of money, not to mention all of the social and emotional costs for Canadians.
Solberg concludes: "if the Conservative Party is serious about reducing the size of government, lowering taxes and improving productivity, the most obvious place to begin is to address Canada’s social ills more effectively."
Well said Mr. Solberg. Thank you for your honest exposition of Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative party's biggest weakness: It's lack of compassion.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Perpetual Economic Adoration
"Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money."
-Alanis Obomsawin, Abenaki Canadian filmmaker (b. 1932)
You can’t worship two gods at once. Loving one god, you’ll end up hating the other. Adoration of one feeds contempt for the other. You can’t worship God and Money both.
-Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 6:24 The Message
No doubt many of you recognize the above two quotes. I can remember seeing the above one on posters decorating elementary classroom walls when I was a kid. It wasn't until tonight that I did a bit of digging and discovered it originated with a First Nations filmmaker named Alanis Obomsawin. She is well known for producing Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, about the 1990 siege at Oka, Quebec. While that is true, I bet her above quote has reached thousands of more people than her films. What I currently find most interesting about the quote you find in classrooms is not what's in it, but what it leaves out—you know, the part about Canada being so rich in resources, yet so eager to consume itself.
Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency.
I wonder if this quote alone would describe the current economic lust which front running federal election candidates are now stirring up in voters. I say candidates because I don't think that pandering to our current obsession with the economy belongs to only one party. As evidenced in The Globe and Mail debate this evening, the economy is the NUMBER ONE political issue for Canadians. Call me crazy, call me late for lunch, but in-between the "He's not perfect, but he'll take care of the economy" TV ads I've been asking some dreadful questions: what the hell is the economy? and why is it so important?
At its most basic level the word economy comes from the Greek for household management, or as my old football coach would say, "taking care of your area." This is a cute definition if you're talking about a family taking care of its household affairs in ancient Greece, but, as with most loaded terms, the word has taken on a much different meaning today. One of the founders of market capitalism, John Maynard Keynes admitted that capitalist theory is based upon avarice (extreme greed) and usury (charging interest on loans), both vices that are condemned in all human wisdom traditions. His hope is that we could use human greed to kickstart our economies and then hopefully restrain ourselves so that we would not "sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance."
If this is confusing to you, think about how it would apply in our happy little household in ancient Greece. Everyone would be happy as long as they all were extremely greedy and took whatever they wanted without a care for other family members. Still not make sense? Good. Because it doesn't. And neither does the economic system that we are living under today. Within such a system, there is always winners and losers. The biggest winners in our current capitalist system? Western, White, straight, educated, middle to upper-class men (yes, I know I am guilty). Losers include any opposites to the above list AND, because this is an eco-blog, the bio-sphere with inhabitants of all life forms.
Not a very good system by which to manage our common household, is it? But the problem is, we are immersed in it. This economic system is like a religion to us. Like religious fundamentalists, many of us our very uncomfortable with any criticism of our current economic system. Jesus warned us: Money has indeed, become our God.
In Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, a book that is even more relevant today than it was in 1975, E.F. Schumacher writes
Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be "uneconomic" you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper.
And what is our current definition of "uneconomic?" Schumacher continues:
something is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in terms of money... This means that an activity can be economic although it plays hell with the environment, and that a competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves the environment, will be uneconomic.
Similarly,
It would be "uneconomic" for a wealthy seller to reduce his prices to poor customers merely because they are in need, or for a wealthy buyer to pay an extra price merely because the supplier is poor. Equally, it would be "uneconomic" for a buyer to give preference to home-produced goods if imported goods are cheaper.
Again, who are the losers in these exchanges: poor people—both producers and consumers; local and small businesses (farms, trades, etc.) that can't compete with the lower prices of corporations that outsource labour and purchase cheaper raw materials; and finally, a planet which absorb copious amounts of CO2 because of all the global transportation of goods.
If I've lost you at this point, I don't blame you. This blog has kind of turned into a rant. That's okay. For the past week I've had this angst building up within me as I've heard more and more jargon about "the economy." I guess I knew I had to write it out after the debate this evening.
Some of you may be fairly criticizing me for my lack of solutions. I agree. I am hoping in a future blog to write about an economic/political theory that I have been learning about recently. It is called distributionism and, from what I've learned at this point, it provides kind of an economic "third-way" somewhere between global capitalism and stuffy socialism that seems to be much more democratic.
Cheers...
-Alanis Obomsawin, Abenaki Canadian filmmaker (b. 1932)
You can’t worship two gods at once. Loving one god, you’ll end up hating the other. Adoration of one feeds contempt for the other. You can’t worship God and Money both.
-Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 6:24 The Message
No doubt many of you recognize the above two quotes. I can remember seeing the above one on posters decorating elementary classroom walls when I was a kid. It wasn't until tonight that I did a bit of digging and discovered it originated with a First Nations filmmaker named Alanis Obomsawin. She is well known for producing Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, about the 1990 siege at Oka, Quebec. While that is true, I bet her above quote has reached thousands of more people than her films. What I currently find most interesting about the quote you find in classrooms is not what's in it, but what it leaves out—you know, the part about Canada being so rich in resources, yet so eager to consume itself.
Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency.
I wonder if this quote alone would describe the current economic lust which front running federal election candidates are now stirring up in voters. I say candidates because I don't think that pandering to our current obsession with the economy belongs to only one party. As evidenced in The Globe and Mail debate this evening, the economy is the NUMBER ONE political issue for Canadians. Call me crazy, call me late for lunch, but in-between the "He's not perfect, but he'll take care of the economy" TV ads I've been asking some dreadful questions: what the hell is the economy? and why is it so important?
At its most basic level the word economy comes from the Greek for household management, or as my old football coach would say, "taking care of your area." This is a cute definition if you're talking about a family taking care of its household affairs in ancient Greece, but, as with most loaded terms, the word has taken on a much different meaning today. One of the founders of market capitalism, John Maynard Keynes admitted that capitalist theory is based upon avarice (extreme greed) and usury (charging interest on loans), both vices that are condemned in all human wisdom traditions. His hope is that we could use human greed to kickstart our economies and then hopefully restrain ourselves so that we would not "sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance."
If this is confusing to you, think about how it would apply in our happy little household in ancient Greece. Everyone would be happy as long as they all were extremely greedy and took whatever they wanted without a care for other family members. Still not make sense? Good. Because it doesn't. And neither does the economic system that we are living under today. Within such a system, there is always winners and losers. The biggest winners in our current capitalist system? Western, White, straight, educated, middle to upper-class men (yes, I know I am guilty). Losers include any opposites to the above list AND, because this is an eco-blog, the bio-sphere with inhabitants of all life forms.
Not a very good system by which to manage our common household, is it? But the problem is, we are immersed in it. This economic system is like a religion to us. Like religious fundamentalists, many of us our very uncomfortable with any criticism of our current economic system. Jesus warned us: Money has indeed, become our God.
In Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, a book that is even more relevant today than it was in 1975, E.F. Schumacher writes
Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be "uneconomic" you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper.
And what is our current definition of "uneconomic?" Schumacher continues:
something is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in terms of money... This means that an activity can be economic although it plays hell with the environment, and that a competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves the environment, will be uneconomic.
Similarly,
It would be "uneconomic" for a wealthy seller to reduce his prices to poor customers merely because they are in need, or for a wealthy buyer to pay an extra price merely because the supplier is poor. Equally, it would be "uneconomic" for a buyer to give preference to home-produced goods if imported goods are cheaper.
Again, who are the losers in these exchanges: poor people—both producers and consumers; local and small businesses (farms, trades, etc.) that can't compete with the lower prices of corporations that outsource labour and purchase cheaper raw materials; and finally, a planet which absorb copious amounts of CO2 because of all the global transportation of goods.
If I've lost you at this point, I don't blame you. This blog has kind of turned into a rant. That's okay. For the past week I've had this angst building up within me as I've heard more and more jargon about "the economy." I guess I knew I had to write it out after the debate this evening.
Some of you may be fairly criticizing me for my lack of solutions. I agree. I am hoping in a future blog to write about an economic/political theory that I have been learning about recently. It is called distributionism and, from what I've learned at this point, it provides kind of an economic "third-way" somewhere between global capitalism and stuffy socialism that seems to be much more democratic.
Cheers...
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Luckily the grapes were delicious
The other day we were supposed to have some people over to play Settlers of Catan. It was our anniversary and Josh loves Settler so I figured I would be the best wife ever and host an epic game in honour of our three years together. Guests means snacks so Clare and I went to Safeway to buy treats. I had gathered a pretty awesome assortment when I made my way to the self checkout.
As I rang through items I was shocked by one purchase in particular.
Organic grapes= $12.89
Excuse me!?!? Assuming I had made some kind of rookie error as a non-professional checkout girl I inquired with staff.
"this can't be the right price."
"No that's right. Grapes are expensive when they're not on sale."
At Dairy Queen I could get two burgers, two orders of fries, two medium drinks and two ice cream sundaes for less that this measly bag of grapes. How is that possible? What does that say about our society and options available for low income families?
It's hard enough to make healthy eating choices without factoring in prohibitive food costs. Josh can probably add some figures about evil subsidies here that are the cause of the current food situation. I don't have the facts to back up my outrage right now. Still, what can we do to eat well and not go broke?
Maybe worrying about it is a bad idea. When we made a pretend budget (which we never consult) Josh and I allocated a large portion of our monthly income to food. We agreed it is worth it to invest in good quality food. For awhile last year I was riding my bike down to Wascana Lake to pick up bi-weekly vegetable bins from Heliotrope. That was really great. I think I will start up again once I'm on maternity leave. The bins obviously aren't available in the winter.
Does anyone know of other affordable, local, healthy food options?
Then there's the question about the impact of eating grapes in Canada in the winter. Is it realistic and sustainable to expect we can eat whatever we want, whenever we want?
It's weird that so much of my life, and blogs posts, revolve around the grocery store. I like eating.
Also our tomatoes are almost ripe!!! The last carrot we pulled was microscopic and the broccoli is long gone. The kale has been eaten by some kind of bug but the beets look promising. Has anyone had success with urban garden peas? Ours have been sad two years in a row.
I heard this quote that reminds me of the environmental movement and gives me some hope for the future.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi
I think we're in the third stage.
Also, the expensive grapes were delicious.
As I rang through items I was shocked by one purchase in particular.
Organic grapes= $12.89
Excuse me!?!? Assuming I had made some kind of rookie error as a non-professional checkout girl I inquired with staff.
"this can't be the right price."
"No that's right. Grapes are expensive when they're not on sale."
At Dairy Queen I could get two burgers, two orders of fries, two medium drinks and two ice cream sundaes for less that this measly bag of grapes. How is that possible? What does that say about our society and options available for low income families?
It's hard enough to make healthy eating choices without factoring in prohibitive food costs. Josh can probably add some figures about evil subsidies here that are the cause of the current food situation. I don't have the facts to back up my outrage right now. Still, what can we do to eat well and not go broke?
Maybe worrying about it is a bad idea. When we made a pretend budget (which we never consult) Josh and I allocated a large portion of our monthly income to food. We agreed it is worth it to invest in good quality food. For awhile last year I was riding my bike down to Wascana Lake to pick up bi-weekly vegetable bins from Heliotrope. That was really great. I think I will start up again once I'm on maternity leave. The bins obviously aren't available in the winter.
Does anyone know of other affordable, local, healthy food options?
Then there's the question about the impact of eating grapes in Canada in the winter. Is it realistic and sustainable to expect we can eat whatever we want, whenever we want?
It's weird that so much of my life, and blogs posts, revolve around the grocery store. I like eating.
Also our tomatoes are almost ripe!!! The last carrot we pulled was microscopic and the broccoli is long gone. The kale has been eaten by some kind of bug but the beets look promising. Has anyone had success with urban garden peas? Ours have been sad two years in a row.
I heard this quote that reminds me of the environmental movement and gives me some hope for the future.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi
I think we're in the third stage.
Also, the expensive grapes were delicious.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Sweep it to... London Drugs??
Today while cleaning out my brother-in-law's garage I ran into a classic consumer conundrum: What to do with old stuff (electronics, wood, furniture, etc.)? Staring at all of the household items, the thought of putting them all in the large red LORAAS garbage can behind me just didn't sit well. Why? I guess it was just the thought of them sitting in a landfill that really bothered me. Or even worse, being shipped back to its birthplace in China where it can leach toxins into poor peoples waterways (for more on this watch the short doc Exporting Harm—https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDSWGV3jGek). Some of the items in the garage that I really didn't want to see go to a landfill were an old bicycle, a microwave, three computers, two vacuums, and a fan. I immediately called Sarcan, Saskatchewan's recycling organization, which has the tag line, "Sweep it to Sarcan." I really appreciated the friendly service that I got over the phone from a guy named Dwayne. Unfortunately, they could only recycle the computers. When I asked him about some of the other items, he suggested that I go to London Drugs. London Drugs! Really! Since when did they take-in recycling?! I decided to look into it and here is what I found out:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Doing+good+good+business/8294264/story.html
This is a story entitled "London Drugs Emerald Award 2013: Doing good is good for business" that I found in the Edmonton Journal. It talks about an electronic recycling program that London Drugs got on board with that has the basic premise, "If we can sell it to you, then we should be able to recycle it for you." Makes sense. What impressed me was that one London Drugs store in Edmonton had a 93% diversion rate for waste which also included the organics from staff lunches! It makes me wonder what our product diversion rate for waste is here at our house and, most of all, why the City of Regina collects garbage once a week and recycling only once a fortnight (if you don't know what this term means ask a Brit).
London Drugs sends all of its recycling to GEEP (http://www.geepglobal.com/) which has six Canadian locations, two of which are in Alberta (I'm guessing this is where Sask recycling goes). GEEPs mission is to encourage consumers and businesses to reuse whenever possible, with a near zero landfill goal.
A couple of things come to mind as I mull over this: First of all, think of how ridiculous it is that most of our e-stuff comes from China, only so that through planned obsolescence (for more on this see this 3-min portion of a great short film called "The Story of Stuff" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KLyYKJGk0), we can export it back to Chinese e-graveyards?! Like, are we really that inert that we would transfer our waste to dumps thousands of miles away? What is wrong with us? Sorry... Back to my point: I am happy to see that companies like LD recognize how stupid this is and are looking to, at the very least, break the e-waste export cycle.
Secondly, think of all of the jobs that opening these kinds of facilities in Canada creates! I just don't understand how anybody can see that the green shift and the economy are enemies? But then again, these are likely the same people who believe in the carbon spewing merry go around of cheap goods from producer to consumer and back to producer. Alas... I am venting again.
To wrap up, I would like to say how encouraged I was with LD taking the microwave, fan and computers. I also want to give props to Western Cycle in Regina, who took a piece of junk bike in as part of program in which they fix them up and donate them to marginalized people. I also want to thank the Hillbilly Vac Shack for taking in the two vacuums. And lastly, I would like to thank Rodney Sidloski down at Help International outside of Weyburn (http://www.help-international.com/). Rodney taught me a lot about the concept of zero-sum waste and how even the word "waste" is often a misnomer for "resource".
P.S. The London Drugs recycling program is called the Green Deal (http://greendeal.ca/)
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Doing+good+good+business/8294264/story.html
This is a story entitled "London Drugs Emerald Award 2013: Doing good is good for business" that I found in the Edmonton Journal. It talks about an electronic recycling program that London Drugs got on board with that has the basic premise, "If we can sell it to you, then we should be able to recycle it for you." Makes sense. What impressed me was that one London Drugs store in Edmonton had a 93% diversion rate for waste which also included the organics from staff lunches! It makes me wonder what our product diversion rate for waste is here at our house and, most of all, why the City of Regina collects garbage once a week and recycling only once a fortnight (if you don't know what this term means ask a Brit).
London Drugs sends all of its recycling to GEEP (http://www.geepglobal.com/) which has six Canadian locations, two of which are in Alberta (I'm guessing this is where Sask recycling goes). GEEPs mission is to encourage consumers and businesses to reuse whenever possible, with a near zero landfill goal.
A couple of things come to mind as I mull over this: First of all, think of how ridiculous it is that most of our e-stuff comes from China, only so that through planned obsolescence (for more on this see this 3-min portion of a great short film called "The Story of Stuff" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KLyYKJGk0), we can export it back to Chinese e-graveyards?! Like, are we really that inert that we would transfer our waste to dumps thousands of miles away? What is wrong with us? Sorry... Back to my point: I am happy to see that companies like LD recognize how stupid this is and are looking to, at the very least, break the e-waste export cycle.
Secondly, think of all of the jobs that opening these kinds of facilities in Canada creates! I just don't understand how anybody can see that the green shift and the economy are enemies? But then again, these are likely the same people who believe in the carbon spewing merry go around of cheap goods from producer to consumer and back to producer. Alas... I am venting again.
To wrap up, I would like to say how encouraged I was with LD taking the microwave, fan and computers. I also want to give props to Western Cycle in Regina, who took a piece of junk bike in as part of program in which they fix them up and donate them to marginalized people. I also want to thank the Hillbilly Vac Shack for taking in the two vacuums. And lastly, I would like to thank Rodney Sidloski down at Help International outside of Weyburn (http://www.help-international.com/). Rodney taught me a lot about the concept of zero-sum waste and how even the word "waste" is often a misnomer for "resource".
P.S. The London Drugs recycling program is called the Green Deal (http://greendeal.ca/)
One of the vacuums that was Made in China
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Sorry ma'am
Last night I walked to the grocery store to buy late night snacks. I took a back alley route down south Albert St because I am slow and pregnant. On the way I was grossed out by how much garbage was lying on the ground. I found myself scanning the trash for things that could be recycled. On the way there I spotted a magazine and thought....I should pick that up and put it in that nearby recycling bin. Just as the idea crossed my mind a car drove by. I panicked not wanting to look weird and kept walking.
At the grocery store I came to the till and gave the cashier my reusable bag. She scanned my food items and placed them inside. I had also bought some conditioner.
Side bar... It took forever to decide on which one and I settled on a $7 bottle that says its sulphate free and 100% plant derived. Those labels are hard to understand sometimes.
Anyway, finally satisfied with my choice I went to the till and the cashier swiftly pulled out a plastic bag for the conditioner to put inside my reusable bag. I guess to stop possible contamination?
I yelled- "no! Please don't!"
It was much louder and more desperate sounding than intended but she was so quick. I wanted to stop her. I politely explained that I understood it was probably grocery protocol to have separate bags for meat or dairy or produce or soap but that I didn't care. "I'm only going a few blocks." I said. "I think I can manage with everything together."
She looked at me understandingly and said... "You really love the environment."
"It's just I already have a huge drawer of plastic bags I'm meaning to recycle and I keep forgetting." I tried to explains self further.
On my way back I picked up the magazine and put it in the blue bin.
I didn't even spill any conditioner on my food.
I swear I also have things that actually matter to talk about too. Josh and I have been talking a lot lately about investing in an electric car. That opens up a whole can of worms about where our power comes from and the need for solar panels. That brings up the talk about how we need an extra $50 thousand dollars....
For now though, josh is doing well with the well researched, "big idea" portion of the blog. I'm happy to fill in the gaps.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)