Going Green

An article was published recently in CBC News titled, “Gore’s power usage an inconvenient truth, think tank claims.” The article goes on to attack Gore’s power usage in his mansion. Defenders of Gore claim that he balances out his usage by investing in renewable energy sources. This report was released after Gore won an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth. At the Oscars, in an attempt to seem less hypocritical awarding Gore for bringing environmental awareness to the world at an awards show known for its excesses, the presenters claimed that the “Oscars were going green” this year. However, after investigating these claims on the official Oscars website, all I found were tips on how one could decrease their negative impact on the environment. There was little about what the Oscars organizers actually did (if they did anything.)

I’m not sure what to believe when it comes to these stories. Perhaps Gore is betting set up, as some have alleged, and this is a smear campaign. Maybe the Oscars did ‘go green’ and I just didn’t find the evidence I was looking for. I can imagine a case where Gore uses an entire coal power station to keep his entire estate lit up all night long. He could be the spokesperson for a lifestyle he doesn’t live. I just wonder if this matters.

What is the purpose of the think tank that, allegedly, exposed Gore’s hypocrisy? Are they showing that even someone in Gore’s position can’t live by the rules he set out in An Inconvenient Truth? Are they showing that no one is really concerned about the environment? Perhaps the next step will be to argue against global warming altogether. It seems if successful the think tank will discredit an environmental movement that is important. And what is the point to that?

I believe in the importance of critical reflection and analysis. If we don’t question what we are doing, then we end up moving blinding through this world. But if just seems that a think tank could do something more useful than trying to discredit Gore. Perhaps they could come up with a more plausible way for people to live by these environmental standards? They could work on a solution, instead of attacking the only plan we have so far.

The End of Blackness

On the Colbert Report a few nights ago, Debra Dickerson, the author of “The End of Blackness,” was interviewed. Despite the fact that I completely disagree with her, I have to say she makes an interesting point, and was a fantastic sport on the program.

Barack Obama is rumoured to be intending to run for President. (I’m not sure if this is confirmed yet.) Dickerson’s problem with this is that he would not be the first black president, but the first African-African-American president (not first African-American or Black president.) For her, to be black is a cultural distinction. If you are black your ancestors were Africans brought to American in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Obama does not have the correct lineage.

This raises many concerns. What is it about having the particular black culture that is important? Is it the simple fact that their ancestors were slaves? In much the way I could make claims to Scottish culture, simply because, by blood, I am of Scottish decent. Or is it something more? Something like the way your life is now, because you have ancestors that were slaves, and are still living in the country that emancipated them, a country that is still racist, and thus leads to a disadvantaged life for those of the minority? This, rather long-winded expression, is what I associate with black culture. But, if this is true, then any person who is perceived to be ‘black’ by the majority, will suffer the disadvantages of being ‘black’ in this society. So, in some sense, will share in the black culture, necessarily.

Being Scottish isn’t really something that shapes my life, or my perception of the world. It’s this neat fact about history, but it’s not my culture, and doesn’t influence me very much. I wouldn’t want to think that ‘black’ culture falls into this same category. I want to say it is something more, because there are struggles currently going on. But if it’s about this current struggle, than Obama, is black. And the fact is, if he was the first ‘black’ president that would be a huge step forward, and would work towards decreasing old school racist tendencies in the US.

Academically, I think Dickerson is making an interesting point. Politically and culturally, I don’t find it to be an important distinction.

The View

I was watching The View today (I blame this on the fact that I only get one station.) Every time I watch this show I get a new reason to stop watching it. Anyway, the topic for today was that in Texas, I believe, they are moving to make HPV vaccinations mandatory for young teen girls. The HPV vaccine is to stop the STD that ‘has been strongly linked’ to cervical cancer. The HPV vaccine is especially effective in young girls. Once you’ve been exposed to the different strains that this protects against, it is less effective. Young girls, presumably, have had few, if any, sexual partners. When I heard of this vaccine I was happy. Yay, many young girls vaccinated against cervical cancer.

The response on The View? A: parents should get to decide if their kids get vaccinated. I wonder at this. There is an opt-out clause in the regions with the mandatory vaccination. But, much like our Red Measles, and Hepatitis that we were vaccinated against in school, the idea is to encourage it. This seems like a good thing.

B: If we are going to vaccinate against a cancer that rises from ‘sexual promiscuity’ we need to partner it with an abstinence program, so that the kids don’t misunderstand the importance of not having sex.

What?!

I have my tetanus shot, I think I’ll go stick a rusty nail in my hand. Or, hey, I’ve had my hep C shot, I think I’ll go to Mexico and drink out of a puddle.

Once again, the women on The View seem to have completely missed the point. Does anyone else wonder if they actually look into the subjects that they discuss??

Just for Jer

I found this funny... It's from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

The Apology Paradox

I was reading an article about apologies, and one of the main claims is that you cannot apologise for something that is responsible for your existence. What this means is that to honestly, sincerely apologise for something, you must wish that it wasn’t the case. So, for me to apologise for breaking your mug, I have to wish that your mug hadn’t been broken (or that I had, at least, not been the one to break it.) This article claimed that it is paradoxical to wish that something that is responsible for you to not be the case, and that we can not wish that, with sincerity. For example, you can’t apologise for your family, your heritage, your country. I couldn't apologise for your broken mug, if by breaking it, I have saved my life. In this case, I'm not sorry I saved my life. Anything that created the circumstances that formed you as the person you are, you cannot sincerely wish was not the case. It is to unwish yourself.

This is particularly important in the case of transgenerational wrongs, i.e. it is paradoxical to apologise for the American slave trade from the point of view of the descendents of the slave owners, but, more interestingly, it is also paradoxical for the descendents of the American slaves to regret the fact that their ancestors were slaves. In both cases, the slave trade is considered a key causal fact that is responsible for who we all are now. Even more counter to intuition, this would mean that if you were conceived during a rape, you could not be unparadoxically remorseful of that fact, because otherwise, you would not exist.

Take, for example, the situation of Clementine. She was 12 when the genocide happened in Rwanda. Her and her sister hid in a tree, hidden from the massacre, but still able to hear the murder of their entire family. Amazingly they escaped, and eventually found their way to America. A decade later Clementine entered an essay writing contest, which she won. She claims her aim is to speak for those who can’t, and tell everyone what happened. According to the paradox she could not regret, sincerely, the genocide and her experiences, because they are responsible for who she is today.

Celebrity Gossip

I was watching Canada AM this morning, waiting for the coffee to jump start my brain. The entertainment coverage focussed mostly on the world premiere in Toronto of Guru, a bollywood movie. Apparently there have been rumours about a relationship between two of the main actors from Guru, and the belief was that they would announce their engagement at the premiere. But, this never happened.

When interviewed, the guy said something to the effect, “I don’t know why people want to know about my private life, what pyjamas I wear, or what side of the bed I sleep on. I’m happy to talk about my work, but not that.” I thought to myself that this was a good statement, although I’ve heard similar claims from Hollywood before. The dialogue from the news hosts went as follows;

Beverly Thomson: “what we want to know is whether she knows what pyjamas he’s wearing.”
Seamus O’Regan: “I think she does.”

The response of the two news hosts took me off guard. Is the idea of the privacy of celebrities so unaccepted, that the very idea makes us laugh? Shouldn’t we be asking actors about acting, and disregard their personal details? And certainly, it seems that the job of news hosts should be something to that effect. I know that Canada AM is not a “hard-hitting” news show, but this morning it sounded more like E-Talk. Why is gossip so important?

Finding the Cause II

The previous post was meant, and was successful, at triggering discussion about causes. The main reason for the post was because of the missing cause, the missing party, in the list of those responsible. And this would be the people in Rwanda.

My knowledge of this conflict is sketchy, and I am the first to admit that. But this genocide was internal, one part of the population attacking another. Although they were aware of their differences because of the Belgian anthropologists, it was their media that used the propaganda that created the horror that was to follow. Much like the WW2 media claim that the Germans ate their dead, the Rwandan media was making all sorts of wild claims about the Tutsis, and the danger their existence posed to the rest of the population.

I find it interesting that General Dallaire did not mention the Rwandans in his list of those responsible. And to me, this is to do them a great disservice. If it is possible that everyone BUT THEM caused the genocide, then the Rwandans themselves are unable to control their own lives. And by not placing any blame with them, we steal from them their sense of equal humanity with us.