Of Plastic Bags and Things

As described in this article, Rwanda is one of several places in the world that has banned plastic bags. Kigali, the capital of Rwanda is a beautiful and clean African city (I was highly impressed when I visited last year). This is due in part to the plastic bag ban. Rwanda is not alone; apparently 25% of the world either restricts or bans the bags. And people still manage to carry things!

Since it was implemented two years ago, Toronto's 5 cent bag fee has significantly reduced the use of disposable petroleum-based bags. When it first came into effect, there was a chorus of whining hyperbole from those who thought they somehow had a right to free garbage bags or who thought they were being subjected to Soviet-style repression, etc. etc. But most Torontonians got on with their lives, getting into the habit of bringing reusable bags with them.

As Wayne Roberts points out, the city's bag "tax" is just the beginning of what is truly required. Charging a "nominal payment for the convenience offered by plastic throwaways" was enough to start a conversation, to gently encourage people to use less plastic. I used to get funny looks when I said "I don't need a bag"; now I am always asked if I need one. I would say it has been a successful first step: relatively painless, and relatively effective.

Now our illustrious gravy-destroying mayor plans to go to the trouble of actually getting rid of the bag fee (a "Nightmare" according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business). Toronto might never be as clean and beautiful as Kigali.

This must be a joke... please tell me this is a joke

Nature's laws of shopping: Men hunt, women gather

University of Michigan psychologist Daniel Kruger has found that how we shop has an awful lot to do with how we once found our food. Men hunt. Women gather. Conjugal chaos ensues.
[...]
As a scientist, he refused to do the sensible thing – shrug his shoulders. He wanted to know the reason. He combed over studies of aboriginal tribes and did a battery of tests on student volunteers. The results will be published in the upcoming issue of the Journal of Social, Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology.

Kruger found that our habits haven't changed. Our environment and our goals have.

In prehistory, women gathered or foraged for food. This kept them close to home, performing a daily, intensive and social activity. A good memory, a keen eye and a lot of patience when choosing help make a good gatherer.

Men hunted for meat. This was an intermittent, asocial activity that earned them prestige only through the biggest catches. Short bursts of energy were followed by long periods of sitting around waiting for women to bring in the harvest.

There are so many things wrong with this article, I don't even know where to begin.

Blame CUPE

Are you tired of blaming fate, the vagaries of nature, or God for your misfortunes? Try blaming CUPE. It's fun and easy.

Here's an example, provided by the Toronto Sun.


CUPE killed summer. That's right. Summer is dead, and CUPE perpetrated the murder.

Try it yourself. Car won't start? Blame CUPE. Weather too cold? Blame CUPE. Miss the bus? Stub your toe? Spill your coffee? You know who to blame.

Sometimes not knowing is better

At least when you're talking about these. I am convinced we are seeing end times when slapping peanut butter on bread is too much work for us.


And I thought Bagelfuls, precooked eggs and Lunchables were bad.

Worst Headline Ever

If there were an annual worst headline award, The Sun would probably win pretty much every year. Today's paper screamed "'Enormous' fraud at City Hall"

It makes it sound as though the city council or mayor has been caught doing something corrupt or fraudulent. Reading the article, one finds out there were 9 civil servants (working in social services) who are accused of insurance scams with Manulife, the city's supplier of health insurance. They allegedly made fake claims. This is being investigated, has been turned over to the Toronto Police right now, and the city sent the accused employees home (with pay, which is necessary when a charge is unproven).

Rob Ford, (the only councillor interviewed in this article on the same topic, opined "I've always said corruption is rampant at City Hall," he said. "I believe this is the tip of the iceberg."

The city is scrutinized in ways the federal and provincial governments aren't. The city is more efficient than any other level of government - it has to be - and yet, it is constantly being accused of waste. Our city budget is well in line with other large North American cities, it supplies services many other cities don't have to (due to good old Mike Harris), and every penny is watched. If 9 low-level employees of a company which employed over 50,000 were to scam their health insurance, nobody would claim the company itself was corrupt.

City News coverage of the same story

They didn't even do a good job

If you're going to Photoshop someone, so as to play on your witless viewers' prejudices, at least a) start with an original photo that isn't published anywhere, and b) hire a decent graphic artist so the picture looks halfway believable.

Geez.


Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

During a segment in which Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head.

Through the toobz from Media Matters to Tiny Little Dots to Crooks & Liars to The Galloping beaver to me and then straight to you!

Jim Prentice lies about Digital Copyright on national radio, then hangs up

Oh my, this would have been hilarious, if it wasn't real. CBC's Search Engine finally got an interview (10 minutes promised, 10 8 minutes delivered) to ask some questions about the digital copyright. Cory Doctorow from Boing Boing sums it up nicely:

[Prentice] delivered nothing but spin and outright lies about his legislation and ended up hanging up on Jesse Brown, the interviewer.

You have to listen to this -- in it, the Minister lies, dodges, weaves and ducks around plain, simple questions like, "If the guy at my corner shop unlocks my phone, is he breaking the law?" and "If my grandfather breaks the DRM on his jazz CDs to put them on his iPod, does that break the law?" and the biggie, "All the 'freedoms' your law guarantees us can be overriden by DRM, right?" (Prentice's answer to this last one, "The market will take care of it," is absolutely priceless.)

It's crazy - he speaks slowly, hums and haws, ers and ummms, until the 10 less than 8 minutes are up. The big question is whether he doesn't understand his own bill or just doesn't want us to get it.
Jim Prentice unlocked - Listen for yourself (It's the first segment).

Some actual information about the bill. Join the Facebook group or check out the website Fair Copyright for Canadians

An Open Letter to People Who Smoke While Driving

Dear smoking drivers,

When you are finished smoking your cigarette, please do not throw it out of your window. There may be a cyclist right in the trajectory of its burning ember.

Sincerely,
Your friendly nonsmoking cyclist

p.s. You could also be a real pal and refrain from honking a cyclist out of her lane so that you can illegally pull over into said bike lane where you aren't supposed to be, seeing as how you are in a car and all.

The Stupifying World of Fox News

So I was reading about the mainstream media's lack of coverage of Winter Soldier. In a way I was surprised, since the winter soldier testimonies were all over my feed reader, from Democracy Now to Common Dreams to The Real News. On the other hand, I guess it isn't so surprising after all.

I thought I'd check Google News, and indeed, the only coverage of Winter Soldier was from the independents and a few local papers. There were only 240 results. (As a comparison, just try searching for "American Idol" - nearly 14,000 results.)


So I thought, just for kicks, that I'd check to see if there was even a speck of coverage on CNN or FOX.


On Fox, the only results from 2008 was a story about Captain America, the ultra-patriotic comic book superhero.

Then I started browsing FOXNews.com. Why? Must have been momentarily possessed by a self-destructive devil. The subcategories under U.S. are all about fear and distraction. Crime, Sports, Education, Live Audio, War on Terror, Homeland Security, Law, Immigration, Natural Disasters, Sept. 11, U.S. Military. And who, oh who, can protect us from the brown hordes that threaten us (learn all about it under Immigration, September 11, Homeland Security, War on Terror)? And from our neighbours? And the damn planet? Then there's the "HOT TOPICS": FOX News Election Coverage, Celebrity Gossip, FOX Movietone News. Hmm, that's basically sports and entertainment. Even though sports and entertainment have their own top level categories. I guess the American economy is doing A-OK. I could feel my brain turning to mush already.

Next, I went to the videos, where I was treated to some interestig headlines:
Axis of Evil - Is there a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq? The Axis of Evil is back? Ma, we better make ourselves a fallout shelter.
Man's World? - Can Hillary Clinton use business leadership skills to reach the White House? Everyone knows Hillary has bigger Kahunas than most men. She should really go home and bake a cake.
Damage Control? - Obama, church blame media for controversy over pastor's provocative comments But of course, that's just damage control, or maybe it's the liberal media's fault. Because everyone knows Fox is fair and balanced.
Losing His Religion? - Obama distances himself from controversial pastor Catch-22: if Obama distances himself from the pastor he's losing his religion, and if he doesn't, then he's racist.
Losing My Religion? - New poll suggests shrinking spiritualism in U.S. Must be Obama's fault.
Racism or Sexism? - Is racism or sexism the bigger problem? Because we must hierarchize, always. By the way, the host's answer was that people just need to stop whining.

Of course, it wasn't all bad. I did learn about panda porn.

This Week in Intelligence

And I don't meant the secret CIA kind - I mean the part of I.Q. that comes before "quotient".

It's been a busy week for intelligence.

To sum up:

Men don't like intelligent women. This is, of course, the fault of teh feminists. (We pencilled the plan in our agendas, right after "Destroy the Family".)

Also, Stupidity is the best defense against the left's pesky rationality

But of course, I shouldn't worry my pretty little head about all of this, because my pretty little head holds a pretty little brain, which due to its cute and womanly IQ cannot possibly think about anything but shoes and lipstick. But fortunately I was born in Canada, where we have a respectable "national IQ". That almost makes up for the fact of my womanhood. Because can you imagine if I was born in, say, Kenya or Rwanda? Not that I can draw that conclusion by myself. Being a woman and all.

Don't you just feel smarter already?

Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Canada (along with three other good old-fashioned white colonial settler nations: USA, Australia & New Zealand) voted no. 143 other countries voted yes, so it passed anyways.

Wait... we voted no? To a non-binding declaration?

Yup, that's right: "No rights for you!"

Um. What gives the Canadian state the right to dictate who get rights anyways?

JJ is right, it is embarrassing, but unsurprising.

Silly Monkeys!

Oops, our face is sure red!

An Air Force B-52 bomber flew over the heartland last week with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles attached to its wings. The pilots and crew evidently had no clue what they were carrying. Nor did the munitions crew that accidentally loaded the missiles. No one noticed that six nuclear warheads were missing for more than 12 hours. And of course the American public didn't know what was happening until now.

You know, they'd have a lot better chance of convincing us that Iran is the danger if they were more careful with their toys.

... just sayin'.

Blue is for Boyz, Pink is for Gurlz - It's Scientifikal

From Bad Science:

This week every single newspaper in the world lapped up the story that scientists have cracked the pink problem. "At last, science discovers why blue is for boys but girls really do prefer pink" said the Times. And so on.

The study took 208 people in their twenties and asked them to choose their favourite colours between two options, repeatedly, and then graphed their overall preferences. It found overlapping curves, with a significant tendency for men to prefer blue, and female subjects showing a preference for redder, pinker tones. This, the authors speculated (to international excitement and approval) may be because men go out hunting, but women need to be good at interpreting flushed emotional faces, and identifying berries whilst out gathering.

There are so many things wrong with this study, most of it covered over at Bad Science. And yes, this is Very Bad Science.

Anyone wanna bet if they found out men had a preference for pink, they would say it's because men are programmed to seek out womens' flushed emotional faces and pink labia? (Don't forget the first law of evolutionary psychology: men are motivated by the desire for sex, while women are motivated by the desire for security). And if women showed a preference for blue it would be because of our innate attraction to blue eyes - really, no foolin'! This is fun. We could play this with every color. Men like orange - quick, what does it mean?

Well, I suppose I should get back to gathering my pink fruits and vegetables (how many pink gatherables can you think of?). And my male readers should go hunt us up some blue meat. No excuses, it's in your genes.

Underpaid women: Stupid Letters to the Editor

You know, I have no one to blame but myself. I know how the National Post makes my head spin, and yet some macabre force compells me to read it.

Anyways, today I found this little gem of a letter to the editor:

Underpaid women
Re: Why Men Earn More, editorial, July 23.

The bottom line is that if women want to earn as much as men, they have to behave like men in the employment marketplace. That usually means: work longer hours at intellectually challenging, personally unrewarding careers that offer a poor workplace environment, physical hazards, pay linked to performance, an imposition on nonworking lifestyle choices or some combination of the above.

Furthermore, women would have to take on more responsibilities, make family sacrifices and be more productive in the jobs they have. That's how men do it. Women can do it too, if they so choose.

Now I could politely tell the author to climb back into the cave from whence he came, and let us women go back to eating bonbons while our menfolk hunt for our dinner, but I think I'll take the high road today. Some facts might be a better response.

First, we need to get to the heart of his argument, which appears to be that women, compared to men:

1. work shorter hours in more rewarding and challenging careers
   
2. experience better workplace environments, and fewer physical hazards
   
3. are payed based on something other than performance
   
4. make poor lifestyle choices
   
5. take less responsibilities and make fewer family sacrifices
   
6. are less productive in their jobs than men.
   

Are any of these true?

1. Do women work shorter hours in more rewarding and challenging careers? When all women are compared with all men in paid employment, women's earnings in 2003 averaged only 63.6% of men's. This is indeed due in part to womens' shorter average paid working hours. (Of course, when unpaid work is added, women and men both work nearly 9 hours a day). Often paid working hours are not a matter of choice; women are overrepresented in part-time, contract and temporary work, and women are less likely to be paid for overtime hours. When adjusting for the difference in working hours, the gap decreases to 70.5% - that is, women make 70.5% of the average earnings of men working full-time for a full year. Lastly, more women than men head single parent households, which significantly impacts the quantity of paid hours worked. (Most data from here, here, and here) As to whether women work more rewarding jobs, that is probably fairly subjective, but we do know that women are overrepresented in the lowest paying jobs like cashiers, food service, and child care jobs and underrepresented in the highest paying occupations like senior managment, law, and dentistry. I suppose a case could be make that scanning bar codes all day is more rewarding than looking at nasty teeth, but otherwise I think most people would prefer the higher paying jobs - for the pay, the challenge, and the status.
   
2. Men do represent about 3/4 of those injured in the workplace - however, we do have labour laws for a reason. Willingness to be injured is fortunately not a requirement for a decent wage. This means we should continue trying to reduce workplace injuries overall, not demand women experience a greater share. There are other risks women face more than men: including sexism on the job, sexual harrassment, repetitive stress injuries, toxic chemicals. Do women have better working environments? Hard to say, but probably men and women both have equally shitty workplaces.
   
3. Are women paid for something other than performance, more often than men? This appears to be true, but it is not exactly a good thing. Pay-for-performance tends to result in higher pay not lower pay. So, yes please, we'd like some more of that, thank you. I expect it isn't likely to happen any time soon since the kinds of jobs that reward performance aren't typically nursing, teaching, and clerical.
   
4. Women make poor lifestyle choices. Where to even begin with this one. Most likely the letter writer is referring to having children, since I can't imagine what other lifestyle choices affect employment so differently for men and women. One thing: it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby, so why should a woman be poorer just because it is her body in which the fetus must grow? But, the fact is, we do, which is part of the reason reproductive choice is so important.
   
5. Women take less responsibility and make fewer family sacrifices. This is sort of funny. I suppose if you were to remove child care, and husband care, and elder care from the picture, then it could be true. Also, one of the things women know when they start a family is that they are making a big sacrifice - their job opportunities and pay almost certainly decrease - unlike men, who experience the opposite. That could be one of the reasons women are delaying marriage and children longer and longer.
   
6. Women are less productive than men. This I couldn't find any data on, either way. We know two things definitely improve productivity - one is technology, since improved technology allows fewer labour hours to accomplish more. The second is training and education. Neither of those are related to gender.
   

It is true than when women behave like men (mostly meaning not having any children), they tend to make similar wages.

The thing is, women, in some people's eyes, don't do the same work as men. They stay home having babies and knitting dirndls while the men are out hunting bear and fending off the Visigoths, so naturally they get paid less... It's easy to caricature this view (dirndls versus Visigoths, etc), but there may be some truth in it. Some research suggests that when women behave as men do--not having babies, mainly--the income gap largely disappears. If so (I won't claim the matter has been definitively settled), the question facing women is a stark one: What do you want, kids or cash?<Straight Dope>

Not very family friendly, is it?

The Whiner Files: Backpack Edition

Oh no! Not the backpacks! Grownups with backpacks - why that's nearly as bad as women who wear sneakers for their commutes. Selfish sneaker wearing women - caring about their own comfort more than they care about how their legs look to the menz.

Dude - let me 'splain. We don't have enough SPACE for everyone to drive. Some people can't even afford a car, or are too young to drive. Hence the subway. When you can't store your whole day's worth of stuff in your car, you have to carry it somehow. The backpack is the most body-friendly way to do that. If you don't like backpacks, you can carry a plastic grocery bag. And leave the rest of the backpack-toting world alone.

I find people are actually pretty careful with their backpacks and even when they aren't, if you ask them nicely to move, they cheerfully oblige. Let's practice together, in our non-bitchy voices: "Can you please move your backpack so I can sit down? Thanks."

What do people carry in their backpacks? Well, those lazy entitled students (though personally I find those whose parents drive them to school are a wee bit lazier and more entitled than those who take mass transit) usually have enough books and homework to keep them busy for 9.2 hours a day.

Now, I have shocking news. In this new age of peak oil and a warmed globe, you better get used to backpacks. Here's what I recommend: an umbrella for sudden weather changes, sweater (for the over-airconditioned buildings), wide-brimmed hat and big bottle of SPF2000 for melanoma protection. Maybe you should place the blame for the backpack scourge where it is deserved: on the shoulders of big oil.

Is there really nothing better to complain about? Like say, people starving or something? Or your favourite shampoo was discontinued? Come on.

You know what really gets me? People who say "napsack". WTF is a nap sack? Something to hold my supplies for the dream world? In conclusion, if you're going to whine about sacks or packs or backs or naps, please do not waste space in the NEWSpaper doing so. Get a blog like the rest of us.

Can Biological Essentialism Die Already

Come on people. I thought we got beyond this decades ago.