Virtuous Consumer

Written to my local morning news channel today:

I was watching this morning when your "Virtuous Consumer" came on air with "green" baby products.

I want to tell you first that the term "virtuous consumer" is at best a misnomer, and more likely deliberately deceptive. It's offensive. Consumption is the problem, it is not a virtue. It is also region-specific: while we in the West consume, the rest of the planet starves.

Second, the idea of the segment really IS offensive. it's irresponsible journalism to indicate to the general population not only that consumption is a virtue, but that these products actually help the environment. You're lying to your viewers. You imply that phosphate free detergent for the thousands of baby clothes they own or buying a few glass bottles will help. It won't. What would have helped most is not having the baby in the first place.

What's worse, you foster a false sense of responsibility in your viewers: If I buy these products, they think, I will be helping. I'm not preaching from some ascetic moral high ground here. I consume as well. But at least I have the decency to feel guilty about it, and to take steps to reduce consumption, rather than painting a thin green veneer on my selfish activities so I can feel smug about them. Green consumption is still consumption, and doesn't help the broader problem of resource depletion.

I'd like to see A Channel, and CTV more broadly, adopt a far more responsible attitude toward resource depletion and the environmental crisis. I shan't hold my breath.

Respond to this how you wish. I don't seriously expect you to pull the segment (or any of the other "green" product placements you do), to change the name or to start advocating for less stuff for all of us (I'm sure your sponsors would love that). Dismiss me as a crackpot or a crank, or an "eco-terrorist". I don't care how you react. It'd take more than one regional morning show to make a difference anyway.

I just thought you ought to know that at least one person sees through it, and cares enough to point it out.

I'll let you know how/if they respond.

Offshore Oil

A few months ago, I was talking to a friend of mine about the impending oil and climate crises, and he kind of went off on me. He's still apologising, though it's completely unnecessary, because I understand where he's coming from. He yelled at me for scaring people into action. I think he actually yelled at me because he's scared, but that's just a little armchair psychology, and it's nicer than saying he's an asshole.

But shit like this scares me, too. And so I spread it. And scare other people. Hopefully enough of them figure out that we're right fucked, but there's stuff that can be done. We don't have to fry, we don't have to starve, and we don't have to drown. And yes, I want to save people, and that's kind of anthrocentric, but I just can't get too scared for the death of coral. It's hard to motivate me.

So I read a week or two ago that McCain is not only promising a spectacularly numbfuck gas tax holiday (which would not significantly reduce the price, and if it did, would actually make things worse), but he thinks that offshore drilling is the shit. Not shit, but the shit, as in cool. And what's worse, he knows that won't help, either:

But drilling for more oil in the United States will not lower the price of gas in the short term -- even McCain admitted as much when he said on Monday, "I don't see an immediate relief, [but] the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Bush's own Department of Energy concluded in 2004 that the long-term impact of lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling on oil prices would be "insignificant." The only way that expanded drilling, offshore and in ANWR, could make a difference at the pump is if global production of oil started significantly outpacing the growth of global demand. Which would probably require that Saudi Arabia crank open the spigot and China, India, and the rest of the world's rapidly emerging economies start to lose their enormous thirst.

Feel free to make dismayed noises. It doesn't help, though.

The article posits that this is a remarkably (and I mean remarkably) cynical ploy to garner votes (trading the end of the world for a few ballots), and here's the rub:

Suppose that McCain's strategy works. Suppose voters in enough swing states decide that the pain of high gas prices is so great that they will go with the candidate who is promising them the easy way out -- the gas tax holiday and offshore drilling and a nuclear power plant in every pot. What will that tell us about the American ability to suck it up and face down the challenges of the future?

Easy. It will tell us that we've lost the battle before we've hardly begun to fight. It will tell us that the environment is toast. We will have established that we, the citizens of the richest and most powerful country on the earth, are unwilling to pay the price necessary for embarking on a long-term ecologically sustainable path for existence on the planet. If $4 gasoline is enough incentive to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, then $10-a-gallon gasoline will inspire even more drastic consequences. We will drill for every drop of oil, we will dig up every ounce of coal, we will sacrifice every environmental regulation, because we just can't take the heat. And then we'll fry.

Aren't I a cheery bugger?

MacKay

This is a week old, but I'm behind. Live with it.

Afghanistan must clean up corruption: MacKay
WINNIPEG -- Canada's defence minister says the Afghan government must eliminate the corruption that threatens to undermine the good work being done by Canadian soldiers and their allies.

Good on you, Pete. You're right. A corrupt government is not one we want to support. Except we installed the motherfuckers.

MacKay said Canada is playing an "enabling" role in Afghanistan, assisting the government and its military in rebuilding the country and defeating the
Taliban.

What I like best about it is that MacKay seems to have no idea how loaded a word "enabling" is.

Morgentaler

On Canada Day, Dr. Henry Morgentaler was inducted into the Order of Canada, which is the highest order that can be bestowed on a civilain. The latin motto of the order is desiderantes meliorem patriam, meaning "they desire a better country." Created in 1967, the order was established to recognize the lifetime contributions made by Canadians who made a major difference to Canada, as well as the efforts made by non-Canadians who have made the world better by their actions. (Source: Wikipedia)

Morgentaler is one of the most controversial figures in the last quarter century of Canadian history, having been the man essentially responsible for the legalization of abortion in this country. His actions got our abortion laws struck down, and no new laws have been put in place since.

Funny little story. My oldest niece was born "out of wedlock". The first time my grandfather met his first great-grandchild, the first words out of his mouth were, "Here's one Morgentaler didn't get."

How fucked up is that?

I think he deserves the honour. I'm not alone. The Toronto Star and Sun Media's Connie Woodcock (one of the more sensible columnists for that organization) both come out in support of the choice. And while there's much moaning and gnashing of teeth among religous people, the fact stands that he got the honour, and he does deserve it.

I'll tell you why. Not because I respect a woman's right to her body, although I do. The problem is here that you could argue that another person's rights are being infringed upon, and so her rights end, blah, blah, blah. The personhood of the foetus is not for me to decide, and I don't care. Further, I suggest it's largely irrelvant, since people are animals and we have no problem killing other animals (and even eating other species' foetuses).

It's also not because any objections to abortion are religious. I could see the rationale for saying that it's unethical in strictly humanist terms. I'd disagree, but I can see the argument, and even understand it. Taking care of the most vulnerable members of the society, blah, blah, blah.

And having a daughter myself, the whole situation gets rather gooey in my thinking: not only because I can't imagine having aborted her, but also because she'll likely get pregnant sometime in her life, and she may choose to end it.

Quite simply, I recognize that the whole deal is rather tricky and emotional, and I refuse to choose even for myself (unless I'm forced to), and so there's no fucking way I'll force my opinions on someone else.

But here's why Morgentaler deserves this honour. Women get abortions anyway. Legal, illegal, first, second or third trimester, safe, unsafe, coat hangers, bleach or unlicensed surgeons. Women abort unwanted or untenable pregnancies. Morgentaler made it possible for women in Canada to get safe abortions. That's it. End of story.

In fact, in countries where abortions are available legally, abortion rates do not climb at all (and seem to drop slightly), simply because contraception is also available. What does change is the incidence of death due to botched procedures. And that this fact is ignored by those who would deny women the right to abort pregnancies shows you that their purpose is not to protect life, but to subjugate women. They're liars, they're bigots, and they're backward.

So congrats, Dr. Morgentaler. And thank you.

Bulgaria

Just a quickie.

Any idea why religious nuts have such a hard on for gay people?

Bulgarian extremists attack gay parade with rocks
4 days ago

SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) — Extremists throwing rocks, bottles and gasoline bombs have attacked the Bulgarian capital's first gay pride parade.

Police say they prevented the extremists from harming the 150 or so people in the procession through Sofia. No serious injuries have been reported.

Police say they detained about 60 people for harassing the parade participants.

Gays face widespread hostility in Bulgaria and opposition to Saturday's parade has been fierce. The far-right Bulgarian National Union had called for "open resistance" to the gay pride parade with a campaign featuring posters that say: "Be Intolerant, Be Normal."

Bulgaria's influential Orthodox Church said the march should be banned as it undermines the country's Christian traditions.

What's with these people?

Hooliganism

I'm behind on virtually everything, since I took some time off to work, and then to recuperate. Plus, it was Canada Day, and there was beer to be drunk, so while I posted, I did not read anything. As a consequence, my reader was pretty full this morning, and much of it is old news.

Same with this, an article by Austin Cline on About.com:

Reasons for atheism vary as do how atheists approach religion or theism. One very common response to claims about gods and the supernatural, though, is "we're atheists because you can't support your claims about gods existing." The
primary burden of proof (or support) lies with those alleging that some sort of "god" exists. In the absence of any evidence or successful arguments, some resort to hand-waving and diversionary tactics which give the appearance of "sophisticated" and "deep" thinking, but which is meaningless unless and until there is good reason to think that the foundation of all that thinking — a god — exists.

Underverse writes (via Pharyngula):

Our scientists used to offer us more. They can again if we refuse to accept Hooliganism as an acceptable form of discourse about the world, and our place in it.

This is what the defense of theism and religion has been reduced to: it's "hooliganism" to demand evidence and proof, to dismiss empirical claims that lack any evidence or proof, and to publicly proclaim the vacuity of ideas for which people will nor provide evidence or proof. It might be regarded as pathetic that defenders of theism and religion have fallen so low, but was there really ever any other place to go? The absence of evidence and proof in their discourse has long been a problem. The irrelevancy of the hand-waving and linguistic acrobatics in "sophisticated" theology is recognized even by some theologians. Once outsiders started to put those two together and making a public case about it, there really aren't any other options available.

The topic is a good one, and it made me think, yet again, about the burden of proof that we place on theists (rightly so), and whether or not such a burden is reasonable (hear me out). As an aside, the comments are interesting, too. It doesn't take long for things to get ugly.

Skeptics point out that the burden of proof regarding any claim is on the one making the claim. If you say there's a god, it's up to you to prove it, not to me to prove you wrong. There are dozens of blogs on the topic all over the atheosphere. Find one. I don't feel like linking. This claim is reasonable: theists don't believe me if I say Wolverine is real, and the burden is on me to prove it. Perhaps a less "disrespectful" example is Thor, and he has the added advantage of also being a Marvel Hero.

The problem lies in the fact that atheists, while either making a negative claim or no claim at all, are in the minority. The vast majority of mankind believes in some sort of supernatural power, and so when we claim that there's no evidence, it seems to the theists that we are the ones making the claim that demands proof. In fact, in explaining my position once at a meeting, I pointed out that I hadn't seen any proof of god, and a surprisingly indignant woman retorted, "It's all proof."

I think I know what she meant, and that brings me to my second point. I see a natural world, and see nothing that requires the supernatural. She saw exactly the opposite. So once again, if I may belabour the point, we aren't even having the same fucking discussion. She believes in god, and finds proof all over the place. However, proof for a religious skeptic is a little more extreme than that. I'd need a burning bush, a sea parted or a plague of the death of the firstborn. She (and my wife) needs a cute baby. So our standards of proof are different.

Further, and I'm not 100% sure this even fits here, though it comes from the comments on Cline's article, the fact that god isn't obvious in many ways argues against their belief. They say that it's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist, because we haven't been all over the universe. It apparently never occurs to them that an obscure god hiding behind a nebula is not what they posit, but a big ass-kicker who intervenes on the planet regularly.

And finally, I've said it before, but religion isn't about proof. It's why theists don't understand us when we ask for it, and why what they offer is never good enough. It's also why proving what they believe would negate it and, in essence, make it worthless to them.

The debate is largely pointless. Either they get it or they don't and they don't seem to. It'd make more sense if any religion was at least internally consistent, but I haven't seen one that is. All that proves is that logic is clearly not in the game.

Happy Canada Day

Been a while, and for that I apologise.  I've been busy and sick, and then recuperating from being busy.  I work at a small art gallery and theatre, and on Friday/Saturday we had a 24 hour fundraiser.   I got 3 hours sleep.  It was fun, but, to quote somebody from virtually every action flick I've ever seen (with a particular nod to Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon), I'm getting too old for this shit.

A little over 141 years ago, the colonies that were to later become the Maritimes were having a get together to decide whether or not they wanted to band together and gain their independence from Mother Britain.  The talks were scheduled for to take place in Charlottetown, PEI, and the governors and parliaments were meeting to negotiate the terms of their cession from Britain.

Meanwhile, in Canada (what was to later become the provinces of Ontario and Quebec), the governors and parliament had gotten annoyed with each other yet again, and had annoyed the British yet again, and decided to check out things on the east coast to see what was happening.  They crashed the party, threw one of their own, and decided that they could form a new nation, called Canada.

The trick was that by then, the British had gotten sick of all the bitching and moaning that their various North American colonies had been up to, were probably relived that the US had formed and taken themselves out of the picture, and were ready to just give up on the whole North American adventure and focus on killing Indians.

So four British colonies, Canada East and Canada West (Quebec and Ontario), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick took their petition to London, and were granted independence (mostly) on July 1, 1867.  Nobody got shot, but everybody got drunk--It's the way Canadians have done things ever since.

So here's to my country: land of peace, order and good government, and a testament to the fact that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and that if you complain enough, no one has to die.

Except Natives.