Unkie Herb

I recently had an interesting argument with my father.

He wondered at the disproportionate number of women in the Canadian Parliament (Congress). Of 308 representatives, or members, only 65 are women. That amounts to just over 21 percent of the seats, which (according to Wikipedia) ranks Canada 45th in the world in terms of lower house female representation. The US Congress is at 16.6 percent, with 90 women in office; 74 in the House, 16 in the Senate.

My dad’s logic was that since only a small portion of House members are women, women’s interests are not being properly represented by our government.

Does this make sense? Is it impossible for someone, even a politician, to see beyond their own perspective?

Naturally (him being my father) I disagreed. Not that more women in government isn’t a good thing, but I don’t think men are necessarily unable to appreciate women’s interests (where they differ).

While I will never fully understand the institutionalized sexism that occurs in our society - in terms of directly experiencing it - I can appreciate its existence and try to make changes. Men everywhere, thanks to our historical (and continuing) lack of respect, owe it to society to open our minds and understand other perspectives.

The same argument can be made about ethnic representation. A small portion of Canadians (13%) identify themselves as minorities yet an even slimmer percentage of House members would also do so. The population of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, is now over half visible minorities. Yet of 44 City Councillors only 3 represent this.

Yet, both in Toronto and Canada overall, the government does a fairly good job of representing ethnic minorities, women and other groups. This despite the fact that power continues to be concentrated with men of European origin.

What this illustrates to me is the effectiveness with which democracy can operate. Even with a bunch of old white guys running the show, they are unable to ignore the interests of demographics even without belonging to them. They are forced to learn new perspectives or else they don’t get elected. Many recent immigrants to Canada have come from places without effective democracy (China, Vietnam, Pakistan) and, out of appreciation for the value of the system, are very active citizens.

Returning to the female representation point, one can find instances where high levels of female representation doesn’t result in gender equality. My favourite resource, the Economist, argues that Argentina’s more evenly proportioned government is doing little for its women.

The point I’m making here is not that we shouldn’t have a demographically accurate government, but rather that one isn’t necessary for equality amongst different groups. Policy is shaped through compromise, discussion and, yes, the wire-walk of self-preservation. The women in our government, despite being only a fifth of total members, tend to punch above their weight.

Even groups with little or no direct representation are taken into consideration. While only a few prominent Canadian politicians are homosexuals, gay marriage remains a legal option in Canada.

Share This

Time Magazine, in it’s infinite wisdom, has named Russian President Vladimir Putin as it’s 2007 Person of the Year. Now I’m going to do my best to look at this objectively, as my criticisms of Putin (see here, here and here) have been, well, somewhat one sided.

First of all, I’ve never regarded Time Magazine as much of a pure journalistic source. They have the despicable habit of printing stories that promote other brands owned by their parent company, AOL-Time-Warner. The latest issue, for example, features a story about Will Smith’s I Am Legend, a Warner film. Time, in all honesty, is as much a promotional tool as it is a newspaper. I’ve always regarded it as the Readers Digest of news magazines.

That said, it is a respected magazine worldwide and its Person of the Year “award” is generally taken seriously. As such, I have read the Time article as well as their column justifying their selection. A few things have come to mind.

I’ll begin with Time’s defensive explanation of their decision:

TIME’s Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership.

When I read this, I found myself nodding. Putin does represent this selection making process. His power over Russia is nearly absolute and Russia’s power on the world is severely underestimated by the general public.

Looking back over the last few choices, however, and I find myself doubting Time’s sincerity. Last year the winner was “You” as in me and everyone else who uses and contributes to the Internet. Wow. Previously, we had Bono and the Gates family for their humanitarian work, two years earlier (in 2003) it was The American Soldier. Between them, in ‘04, was my main man Dubya. While Bush definitely represents the same global leadership traits as Putin (right down to the sacrifice of freedoms to advance his deeply felt mission), how do American Soldiers or internet users fit in? Surely US troops, for all their noble sacrifice, are followers in the world game. Am I wrong?

All of this makes me think that Time’s annual selection is based on one thing: selling magazines. By making this selection they have turned me, a critic, into a reader. Granted I read the articles online, but readership is readership. As well, they have managed to secure a rare treat - an exclusive interview with Putin. The multinational that is AOL-Time-Warner now has some serious connections in a country where who you know is the only thing that matters.

Despite all this, Putin is indeed a man who demands respect and receives it. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t in awe of the man. What he has done for Russia’s stability cannot be denied and I applaud his work in this regard. What I cannot abide, however, is his Machiavellian approach to achieving it. His disregard for his own people is deplorable. He is and will continue to be an obstacle to global humanitarian efforts. His use of his UN veto on issues such as Burma and North Korea is vexing. As well, the possibility of outright aggression cannot be ignored - he’s already invaded Chechnya and installed a puppet government.

Yet Time’s justification, if taken at face value, still rings true. Looking further back at other winners, however, a sense of foreshadowing emerges.

In 1938 a man had taken an unstable, down-trodden former world power and inspired it. He had the massive support of his people, and after free elections set himself up as supreme leader. He reinvigorated his country’s economy and its citizens. In that year, he was selected Time’s Person of the Year.

His name was Adolf Hitler.

Share This

Here’s the link to Avaaz.org’s petition, which will be delivered to the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, calling for him to stop blocking the world’s efforts to apply binding emissions targets on developed nations.

Sign it here.

Whether or not you’re Canadian, you can add your voice to the outcry against the Canadian government. After all, the imaginary lines we’ve drawn in the dirt are meaningless in the face of global environmental disasters.

Share This

The odds are so stacked against Garry Kasparov that he won’t even bother running. And this from the guy who battled IBM’s famous supercomputer, Deep Blue, in epic chess matches.

Such is the state of Russian democracy.

It’s an unfortunate development, but ultimately a meaningless one. Nothing short of death will stop Vladimir Putin’s hand selected presidential candidate, Dmrity Medvedev, from assuming the top job next spring. The power that Putin carries with Russia’s people is immense, and his endorsement of Medvedev ensures his election.

Somewhat confusingly, however, Putin is using his vast powers to impede the opposition. In the recent parliamentary elections widespread accusations of electoral fraud were reported. His party would have won that election even without cheating, and yet cheat they did - stirring up international attention and outcry. It all seemed unnecessary then, as it does now.

In order to run for President, Kasparov needs to be nominated by a group of peers in a collective meeting. The Kremlin, knowing this, has pressured auditorium landlords into not renting space to Kasparov’s supporters. With no venue to conduct the meeting, and with the deadline for nominations passing today, Kasparov, who has until now led the anti-Putin camp, announced he would not be running.

Again, Putin cheats his opposition despite their impotence. Allowing Kasparov to run would have maintained the illusion that Russia is a democratic country without jeopardizing Medvedev’s chances of victory. Yet Putin took no chances and stifled his critics once again.

Putin, using his control of Russia’s media and police, (often violently) suppresses all opposition. His approval rating is usually put between sixty and eighty per cent, thanks in part to the strength of the Russian economy. Much like in Canada, the global commodities boom is the main force stoking the flames of growth. As long as oil prices stay high, Putin is unstoppable and, except for a small but vocal opposition, his people applaud him.

Soon we will see Putin in the roll of Prime Minister (which has no term limits, as does the Presidency) and his old buddy Medvedev as President. The political landscape will be changed, but only superficially.

“Kirill Rogov, a political analyst, points out that elections, which in a democratic society act as a mechanism for rotating power, have in Russia become a mechanism for preserving it.” - from here.

Share This

Some brilliantly simple stuff from an organization that has taken activism to a new level.

Avaaz means voice or song in several different languages, including Hindi, Turkish, Bosnian and Persian. The word was appropriated by the organization to imply not only global harmony, but also the expression of that inclusiveness.

What’s so different about Avaaz.org versus other activist groups?

Firstly, they have moved beyond the notion that each cause deserves its own collective. By defining themselves broadly as “a community of global citizens who take action on the major issues facing the world today,” they are able to mobilize on multiple fronts even on short notice. The sort of people concerned about climate change are also concerned with Musharaff’s state of emergency in Pakistan, the Burmese regime’s continuing violent suppression of freedom and other causes. By maintaining one membership and mailing list, they are able to connect and educate across issues.

As well, they have begun with wide yet simple ambitions. Avaaz.org aims “to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people — and not just political elites and unaccountable corporations — shape global decisions.” The idea here is to give voice to citizens. They involve people around the globe through the internet, organizing petitions on a variety of topics.

Finally, they make their presence felt. On October 15th a delegation from Avaaz.org, including Burmese monks, delivered a petition signed by over 750,000 people to Prime Minister Gordon Brown calling for him to take the issue to the UN and China. Just last weekend, they staged a virtual march within the Bali Climate Change compound. They were the only activist group given permission to stage a rally within the compound, and they managed over 500,000 signatures from over 190 countries.

Avaaz.org is one group that seems to be bridging the gap between general apathy and the growing concern that human rights, the environment, and poverty are not being dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

Engagement, awareness and discussion are essential to change. Kudos.

On a similar topic: Canada, the US and Japan continue to sabotage the talks in Bali. Sign the petition here to voice your disgust.

Share This

In a fascinating (and detailed) account of global food markets, The Economist argues that American ethanol subsidies are responsible for the biggest leap in world food prices since the mid-70’s. Global meat consumption, on the rise hand-in-hand with growing income levels, isn’t helping.

The British newspaper has been critical of Bush’s corn based ethanol aid program since it was expanded two years ago. While the idea is a noble one - pay farmers to grow corn and have it refined into a gasoline additive to reduce emissions - it is economically unsound. Instead of exporting the corn around the world to feed animals and people (the US is the world’s largest food exporter) for cheap, it is now being funneled into American cars. Brazil, on the other hand, derives its ethanol from a cheaper, greener, faster growing crop: sugar cane. Bush, wanting to keep the American farming lobby happy, smacked a huge tariff on ethanol imports which effectively derailed any plans to bring in Brazilian fuel.

A longer term but no less significant effect has been the growth in developing countries. The recent explosive expansion of the Chinese and Indian economies has lifted millions out of poverty. As with most societies throughout history, this has resulted in a growing taste for meat. As I’m sure you’re aware, livestock make much less efficient use of land and grains than straightforward cereal farming. For every pound of pork produced on a pig farm, three pounds of grain goes in. Cattle farming is much worse: eight pounds of grain is needed to produce a single pound of beef.

That’s a lot of buns for a single burger. The more meat we eat, the more expensive all our food becomes.

Though what the future holds is based on speculation (and a change in governance in the US might have something to say), a long term and sustained food price increase is detrimental to most of the world’s citizens. Farmers as a group have something to gain, though most grow one or two crops and need to buy everything else.

The world’s poor - even the rural poor - will be hit the hardest. While us rich folk in North America and Europe spend a fifth or less of our monthly income on food, the poorest billion spend half or more of all they have feeding themselves. Food aid programs to starving nations will also suffer.

Solutions?

The US should cut down on partisan pandering and allow competitiveness in the ethanol trade.

You, as a consumer, can eat less meat. If global meat demand falls then more farmers will switch to the high priced grain crops like wheat and corn - producing more and lowering prices. As less of the grain is diverted to livestock a greater amount will be made directly into tortillas, noodles, bread and other foods. All of which are a much more efficient use of crops.

Feeding people is easy. You don’t have to be a vegetarian, you just have to cut down a little.

Share This

Mountain Equipment Co-Op, one of Canada’s biggest retailers of outdoor equipment, has pulled it’s Nalgene brand bottles off the shelves. The move comes amidst growing concern (such as my concern) surrounding bisphenol A, a chemical that mimics estrogen in the human body.

The chemical is claimed to be benign by the plastics industry, but American government tests have linked it to various health problems.

I feel slightly vindicated, even though my voice on the issue was just one of many. Still, to see a retailer take precautionary measures - even if self-preservation was a bigger motivator than altruism - such as these is somewhat inspiring.

Perhaps this is a sign that the petrochemical plastics industry, despite it’s insistence that the chemical is safe, is about to bow out to public pressure. After all, even if the chemical isn’t as dangerous as some tests have shown it is still a negative for their PR departments.

Once again I question whether or not this is the only chemical available that can produce these types of plastics. Is it not very possible that, as this chemical is derived from the oil refining process, they need a use for it to maximize profits? If it was a dangerous waste chemical instead of a universally useful one, oil companies would lose money on the refining process (and probably end up paying more to dispose of it properly).

Call me a cynic or a conspiracy theorist, but when government and independent tests show something to be dangerous and industry tests show it to be safe, I have a hard time with trust.

Don’t you?

So what is there to do? Unfortunately this stuff is in all sorts of consumer products, many of which package things you ingest - aluminum can linings, plastic bottles (including baby bottles [!]), dental sealant, sunglasses, etc. You could do yourself a favour by taking a stainless steel bottle instead of a plastic one, and feeding the little one out of glass jars and bottles instead of cans or plastics.

As far as Canadians are concerned, our health department (Health Canada) and the province of Ontario are both conducting independent government tests on the issue, so we should have some good strong conclusions to look at. Check the story here.

Share This

It was the top story on Al Jazeera’s Americas page. It was on the front page of today’s NY Times, The Guardian (UK), the LA Times, and the Taipei Times (Taiwan), just to name a few. It was prominent on the BBC, CNN and other global news networks. Everyone is talking about it.

Which is precisely the motivation for the act in the first place.

A troubled young man who had been disowned by his family, dumped by his girlfriend and fired from his job. He had an old rifle and nothing to lose. To gain, he had global notoriety and the means to teach all who rejected him a final lesson.

And after the tragic events in a mall in Omaha, he succeeded. The mainstream media is more than happy enough to oblige his wish to “be famous.” He now is.

Congratulations, I wonder when the next rampage will occur.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t cover these stories. What’s troubling is the amount of coverage that is devoted to the life and name and photo of the murderer. How we glorify these people into dark and sinister villains who deserve our pity. Perhaps they do, perhaps not. But what they don’t deserve is to have their name launched across the world for committing such a heinous act.

Suicides are rarely covered by media sources to avoid inspiring copycats.

Why do we invite copycat murderers?

Perhaps report on the event. On the time, the place, the circumstances. Report on the victims and how they are doing, how they are feeling. But leave the murderer out of it. Drop their name, their back story, their motivation.

When a young man expressly states his intention to kill so he can get famous, and the media uses it right in the headline, I’m pretty blown away. Way to go, guys, way to go.

Share This