On Innovation and Capitalism

So in theory the profit motive drives innovation. Too many taxes, it is said, diminishes innovation. (Never mind that entrepreneurship - particularly among women - benefits from a strong safety net.) The government is supposedly inefficient and, having no incentive, incapable of innovation; this is a common justification for the drive to privatization.

Because of private enterprise and the profit motive, society benefits from such innovations as deep-fried cola and the donut burger. And 20 bazillion varieties of toothpaste. Such innovation brings us choice, more of which is always good, right? Right?

Never mind that it might be causing decision fatigue:

No matter how rational and high-minded you try to be, you can’t make decision after decision without paying a biological price. It’s different from ordinary physical fatigue — you’re not consciously aware of being tired — but you’re low on mental energy. The more choices you make throughout the day, the harder each one becomes for your brain, and eventually it looks for shortcuts, usually in either of two very different ways. One shortcut is to become reckless: to act impulsively instead of expending the energy to first think through the consequences. (Sure, tweet that photo! What could go wrong?) The other shortcut is the ultimate energy saver: do nothing. Instead of agonizing over decisions, avoid any choice. Ducking a decision often creates bigger problems in the long run, but for the moment, it eases the mental strain. You start to resist any change, any potentially risky move — like releasing a prisoner who might commit a crime. So the fatigued judge on a parole board takes the easy way out, and the prisoner keeps doing time.

The ability to make meaningful choices, to exercise agency and control over one's work and life, does correlate with an increase in wellbeing. As do civil liberties and the ability to participate in the political process. Of course, if we are all too exhausted from deciding which of 100 television channels to watch, perhaps we are not able to be fully engaged with personal and civic choices.

Some of the best innovations have come from motives other than profit -- those inventions with necessity as their mother. Education, the arts, social innovation, nonprofits, open source are incredible producers of innovation (what if trendsetters went on strike?). Social innovation has given us libraries, microcredit, socialized health care, new ways of managing archival information. The profit motive gives us deep-fried butter-on-a-stick.

Terrorism as a Rational Act of Resistance

I'm tired of hearing people say that suicide bombing and other such acts of terrorism are irrational.

There are many ways to opine about suicide bombing: we can be morally opposed to the specific tactic, we can support it in theory but oppose it in practice, we can be opposed to the ideology behind it, we can support it in some circumstances and not others, we can armchair speculate about its effectiveness, etc.

But we cannot really say that it is an irrational tactic.

Resistance ranges from demonstrations, riots, general strikes, petitions, destruction of property or symbols, and "everyday forms of resistance" such as false compliance, theft, sabotage, foot dragging, popular discourse, etc. Acts of violent resistance are simply one other tactic, and potentially a powerful one, for the weak to influence the strong. As such, they are as rational as any other tactic. Irrational would mean there was no reason behind the act, that it was a senseless act of violence for no purpose. But terrorist acts do have an internal logic and reasoning behind them. There's enough work done in the political sciences and history to prove that. Indeed that is the only premise on which to base an effective strategy to stop terrorism.

So why can't they admit that? Why can't the politicians and pundits oppose an act of terrorism by declaring it a tragedy and a terrible crime, or even by standing in opposition to the ideology espoused by the perpetrators? Why do they call it irrational?

I suppose to say that terrorism is rational is to admit the terrorists aren't so completely different from us, that they aren't inhuman, stupid, or beast-like. Or perhaps admitting respect for one's "enemy" displays a lack of machismo. Or maybe it's just laziness.

There's a desire in politics and punditry for simplicity. That's why stereotypes seem to be everywhere - they are a nice convenient way of avoiding any sort of depth, complexity, heterogeneity, multiplicities, layers, standpoints - you know, reality. The Manichean world view of good v evil is easily mapped onto other binaries, like Civilized/Uncivilized, Freedom/The Commies, Moral/Immoral, HonestHardworkingAmericans/Evildoers, Us/The Terrorists, Rational/Irrational. So you only have to conjure one of these and all the others are assumed. So maybe the word irrational is used as just another synonym for "evil".

Odd, because what "irrationality" is pretty much a synonym for is faith, and I don't mean it derogatorily. Faith, in the Christian sense anyways, is basically the gap between reason and God. What is beyond the rational.

Interesting, too, that the oppressed and marginalized have historically been labeled irrational. Women, people of colour, the colonized, pagans, the mentally ill, sexual "deviants", etc.

Irrational != Immoral
Moral != Rational

(Translation for non-geeks that means "Irrational does not equal Immoral, Moral does not equal Rational)

Ungrateful Canadians

... "Just 20 per cent said they 'strongly support' Canada's fight in Afghanistan".

Harumph. At least our BFF has thanked us for our role in Afghanistan, unlike those ungrateful taxpayers. Look what they're making us do! We have to make them pay $104,575 so we can learn how to sell the war to them.

The federal government could significantly boost support for the Afghan mission if it were to emphasize diplomacy and human rights, according to opinion polling compiled over seven months for the Department of National Defence.

Really? You mean emphasizing the needless suffering and civilian deaths doesn't work?

Nik Nanos, president of Ottawa's SES Research, said the government-commissioned survey is "standard ... technique for political campaigns."

"You start introducing content and you measure how you can move the dial," he said.

Right, good to know how best to massage the facts.

The poll, at a cost to taxpayers of $104,575, is the latest to look at how to present Canada's military mission to a skeptical public. Others have warned the government against appearing too militaristic, presenting the mission as payback for the 9/11 terror attacks and aligning itself with the U.S. government. All have underscored the fact that combat remains a tough sell in Canada.

What? We don't want our sons and daughters killing and dying?

Alex Morrison, head of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said the challenge is how Ottawa can be honest about the military's role and still make it palatable to the public. The blame lies with previous Liberal and Tory governments that emphasized peacekeeping to such an extent that Canadian soldiers are now viewed as "simply a bunch of do-gooders," he said.

Ah yes, the eternal struggle of propaganda: how best to manipulate the public, while removing the risk of being caught outright lying. Good thing we can blame previous governments: they were so darn good, they made us look bad.

Better Messaging? No, we Need to Stop Killing Civilians

When consumers don't buy a crappy product, the answer is more and better advertising, right? Same thing with war. Since the public ain't buying the war in Afghanistan maybe it's time to hire a new ad agency.

So we must find a new way to explain the civilian casualties. Those pesky women, men, and children keep getting in the way of our bombs and bullets, and for some reason, our people seem to care, and we can't have that!

The subject of civilian casualties was the source of intense discussion on Wednesday in Brussels when the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, met with the North Atlantic Council, the top representatives of the coalition. But the conversation was less about how to reduce casualties, according to participants, than about how to explain them to European governments.

"The Europeans are worried about a lack of clarity about who is responsible for the counterterror mission," said one participant in the debate. "They are worried that if NATO appears responsible for these casualties, it will result in a loss of support" for keeping forces in Afghanistan.

But it is not only the Americans whose practices are being questioned. NATO soldiers have frequently fired on civilians on the roads, often because the Afghans drive too close to military convoys or checkpoints. (NYTimes)

Maybe we should try this messaging: it is the civilians' own fault if they are killed, see:

Do they not have the sense to GTFO of an area where there is an active military campaign?

After all:

Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to make themselves refugees, especially in Africa, and all without the assistance of SUV's or any Kabul Hilton to go to. All they usually have is shank's pony, and they manage to do it. Why else are there refugee camps all over Africa? They can WALK!

Thanks to Boiling Point.

See also: A Better Communications Strategy? No, We Need Safe Drinking Water

A Better Communications Strategy? No, We Need Safe Drinking Water

Message about bad water on reserves not getting through: study

Health Canada says it plans to revamp its communication strategy about drinking water in aboriginal communities after finding out that its warning ads are not working.

Federal Health Minister Tony Clement said Thursday a study has found that its ads, which come in the form of signs and posters, are not clear or effective.

"You live and learn in these things," Clement said in Ottawa.

"This was a situation where something was tried, it was found to be wanting so we are going to fix it and make sure it's more effective in the future."

A total of 89 First Nations communities in Canada were under a drinking water advisory as of May 4. Among other things, Health Canada was trying to warn people in these communities not to drink their tap water.

Clement said Health Canada will take a more personal approach by using new radio ads and going door-to-door to educate people in aboriginal communities about their tap water this fall.

Considering some of these communities have been without safe drinking water for years and years, perhaps the problem isn't the signage.

One sign posted on a reserve by Health Canada reads: "Do Not Consume Advisory."

According to the study, residents did not know if the sign referred to their tap water or if the advisory was just a suggestion.

The study also found that posters used by Health Canada were confusing.

Chief David General of Six Nations in Ontario said he is aware that people in his community drink their tap water even though it is not safe and that some people get sick as a result.

General said many people do not even notice the signs that warn them not to drink tap water.

'More eye-catching'

"It has to be more than just the static sign that just everybody walks by. It's got to be something that is more eye-catching."

Health Canada says a drinking water advisory is a way to advise members of the public in a specific community that they should use an alternative source of drinking water.

It says it is a measure designed to protect public health from waterborne contaminants that could be present in drinking water.

In March 2006, Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice launched a plan of action to address drinking water problems in First Nation communities.

General said many aboriginal communities would rather have a new water plant instead of a new communications strategy.

Is it just me, or is this article rather patronizing?

If one were to read this article without any background, one would think the problem is the fault of the aboriginals themselves, as if they aren't smart enough to understand not to drink their tap water. They don't mention that many people drink their water because they can't afford bottled water, or because they sometimes have to walk for miles to get clean water.

The problem isn't the communications strategy (although I must admit that was pretty crappy - apparently one of the signs had a calm scene of a mother bathing her baby - gee I wonder why the water appears safe!).

As of May 4, 2007, there were 89 First Nations communities across Canada under a Drinking Water Advisory, and many more are considered "at risk". Many are so contaminated with things like arsenic, so boiling doesn't make it safe. Residents of these communities often get skin rashes from bathing in the water.

(Additional details)


It's criminal this this wealthy nation isn't supplying safe water to its most marginalized communities.

That is one of the many reasons why our First Nations communities experience living conditions equal to those ranking 63rd in the world - in other words they live in Third World conditions. It contributes to the low life expectancy of aboriginals (consistently around 5-7 years less than the rest of the Canadian population).

An American in Hezbollah's Tent

Excerpts from Rethinking Terrorism: A Jewish American Crosses into Hezbollah Territory:

I found myself in front of a squad of Jordanian police, explaining that I could not share in the bread they were offering because it was Eid al-Pesach, a holiday commemorating the Jewish escape from Egypt thousands of years ago.

They offered me yogurt and a spoon.

In all my travels in the Middle East I have repeatedly received the same welcome response.

This trip to Lebanon was no different than the other trips to the Middle East, says the author, which leads to the question:

How does the bombing start when we can we stand here chatting politely, drinking coffee, asking questions about Israel and Lebanese politics? Who are the people who start the bombing? Who are the kidnappers and the killers? And why can't they talk a little more first?

Why indeed? It is at least partially due to the incredible fear-mongering seen from the government and media. Fear is the most useful tool for governments bent on warmaking, and the media are their echo chamber. There is a dangerous and irrational anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hysteria, mostly fueled by the false, but fear-provoking equation: Muslim = Terrorist.

Howard Zinn reminded us of this in a recent address, by quoting Göring, who said: "Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country." (Emphasis mine)

Filed under Reflection

Iraq: War Profiteers and Misinformation

IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers documentary is soon to be released. Screening in Toronto on October 15th, 2006 and worldwide during the week of October 8-14th.

"Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so." The war in Iraq is a huge money-making opportunity for soulless corporations in a system that puts profit before people. I guess making some bucks is well worth the death of between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqis. Sick, Sick , Sick.

The director of Iraq for Sale, Robert Greenwald, has already brought us such brilliant pieces as Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (see the walmart parody here) and Outfoxed, the excellent exposé of Fox News' propaganda machine.

Speaking of Fox, the misinformation at Fox is so overwhelming and often ridiculous we progressives often ignore it. Millions of Americans don't. The lies are truly making their way into the popular consciousness, as shows in this podcast(free mp3) by The Rational Radical, which directly links Fox to the Harris poll that showed 50% of Americans think Saddam had WMD. Fox news viewers were most likely of all to have the most such misconceptions in several areas.

Other news stations are not exempt, by the way. Fox just happens to lead the way. For detailed coverage of media misinformation, visit MediaMatters.org

Filed under: Film | War in the Middle East | Media

Obesity Wars

About a week or so a go, a study came out showing that being moderately overweight is actually a cause of fewer deaths than being underweight.

Quote from The abstract of the study (you have to buy it to read the whole thing): "Conclusion: Underweight and obesity, particularly higher levels of obesity, were associated with increased mortality relative to the normal weight category. The impact of obesity on mortality may have decreased over time, perhaps because of improvements in public health and medical care. These findings are consistent with the increases in life expectancy in the United States and the declining mortality rates from ischemic heart disease."

Main findings:

• Deaths associated with underweight (BMI<18.5): +33,746
  
• Deaths associated with overweight (BMI 25-29.9): -86,094 (i.e., overweight "saved" lives")
  
• Deaths associated with obesity (BMI>30): +111,909
  

Read The New York Times article on the study. (user name: redjenny4 password: redjenny)

The report doesn't say that obesity isn't a problem! Firstly, it correctly demonstrates that BMI is an imperfect measure of possible obesity (a body builder can have a BMI classification of obese, but have 5% body fat). The study also correctly points out that being underweight isn't healthy either, especially with the accompanying neurotic food mentality and "thin is in" superstar body types.

The study shows that being moderately overweight isn't going to kill you. well, duh! being 20 lbs overweight is no big deal! It is the extreme of obesity that has the health risks, not carrying a little extra "junk in the truck"! Especially if you are overweight, but exercise and eat healthy. That's going to give you an advantage over someone who is sedentary and eats crap all the time, but has a genetically slim build, or high metabolism. Or someone who doesn't eat enough and is malnourished. The study only looked at premature death and not increased morbidity and disability, or chronic disease (diabetes, managed heart disease, high blood pressure) which are more and more manageable thanks to modern medicine, but may seriously impede quality of life.

so that's what a balanced read of the study shows.

The media, of course, is all over this, with headlines reading "Obesity is not that dangerous after all!", "Bon Appetit!", "Whoppers and the End of an Epidemic", "The public health community's massive fib"

The fast food industry and chain restaurants LOVED this. Their PR and marketing is jumping on this! They are practically calling the long standing recommendations to eat healthy and exercise a conspiracy! Check out these sites:

www.obesityscam.com and www.consumerfreedom.com

These sites promotes things like fear of organic foods (covered in manure) and hurrahs for soft drinks: "The latest phony food scare centers on soft drinks and their alleged link to type 2 diabetes" and are against apparent prohibition sponsors MADD.

yikes!

Their "about us" says the "Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices. The growing cabal of "food cops," health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know "what's best for you" are pushing against our basic freedoms. We're here to push back." They equate knowledge with control - I guess telling someone that overeating junk food every day isn't healthy is curtailing their consumer freedom.

Aside: I like the way they call me a consumer, not a citizen or human being.

My favourite line is: "We believe that only you know what's best for you." I guess doctors, scientists and nutritionists are all just meddling activists. My knowledge gleaned from ads and marketing that barrages me all day is obviously better than the knowledge they learn in 5-15 years of high level schooling... But what do they know? If I believe a pound of butter, a cigar and a bottle of whisky is good for me, I must be right!

Center for Consumer Freedom is a front group for Berman & Co., a PR company representing the restaurant chains, alcohol and tobacco industries. More info about them here: