A few things to mumble about today:
I just finished reading "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama. All the way through, I kept waiting for him to touch on two groups in particular, but he never did. The disabled and the first nations were both conspicuous by their absence from his book. He dealt at length with the issues he feels to be presenting roadblocks to the hope of the immingrant population; the black population; the economically disadvantaged population, and others, but he never got around to either of the two for whom I kept watch. Question: does he mean to say there is no hope for them? I think that for him, like for too many others, the first nations and the disabled just don't exist.
I also just finished listening to a segment of CBC Radio's "The Current". "The Politics of Blindness" originally aired on March 16, 2011, was a short interview with Graeme McCreath, a blind physiotherapist from Victoria, B.C. He spoke about the CNIB. I have repeatedly encountered a general attitude toward the CNIB that I find crazy-making. Mention those initials, and people get this look on their faces like they can hear celestial harp players plucking out a paean in praise of the institution. The thing is, I have also seen inside the CNIB. I have seen what McCreath alludes to in the CBC interview - the custodial attiutde of the CNIB, the pat on the head, "whaddya you mean, you don't want to learn how to cane a chair?" attitude that sends many clients away gnashing their teeth and feeling hopeless. McCreath claims the CNIB is not made accountable in any way for its patronizing handling of its clients, and I think he's not far off the mark.
Lastly, I just finished having my annual physical, and came away pleased with the results. I couln't help thinking about a former sister of mine. (I know. "Former" sounds weird but my husband's colour wasn't something she could handle, apparently. She is also a self-avowed "cold person". Put those two together, and "former" becomes just the right adjective to use.) Back to the results. I've seen 60 come and go, but there is still no mention of any cholesterol problems for me; no high blood pressure, and everything is going along tickety-boo, healthwise, thank you very much. For her, the problems started years ago. Her doctor has been pressing her to take statins and meds for the blood pressure for some time, but she steadfastly refuses. She is sure that her paleolithic diet will work magic any day now, and save her from those nasty meds. Give her even half a chance and she will proselytize to beat the band, admonishing anyone within hearing to eshew the ingestion of grains as harmful to human health. Yeah, yeah. If her hunter-gatherer diet is the only way to good health, why doesn't it take her there? I'm sorry, I think moderation is much more the key than trying to eat like cave dwellers did. Eschew highly processed foods if you have to cut out something. Eshcew high-salt and -sugar items, but don't eshcew the gym, and you should be fine. I tried to get her to come to the gym, but no go. Don't get me wrong, I don't limit my physical exertion to the treadmill. I also spend many an hour outdoors, but I combine all that regular exercise with a diet that contains, among other foods, whole grains. I don't know. It seems to be doing good things for me, and it isn't even paleolithic.
There. Mumbling all done.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Wearing Formaldehyde
Did you realize you very probably own at least one clothing item that has you wearing formaldehyde every time you don that garment? Especially now with the wide availability of "wrinkle free" and "no iron" apparel on the market, your wardrobe is almost guaranteed to include at least one item of apparel that will be keeping you in close proximity to this carcinogen, maybe even on a daily basis.
In order for this chemical to work its supposed magic, it has to be applied to the fabric with heat, or in other words, baked right into it, so there's no way it's ever coming out, no matter how many times you put the garment through the laundry.
When you encounter formaldehyde as an additive to a fabric, you don't encounter it in its most immediately detectable form, because the distinctive odour is mostly gone. Just think back to your high school science classes, however, and I'm sure you'll remember the nasty smell from those preserved specimens you had to dissect; that frog or whatever other hapless little corpse that was floating in a jar of formaldehyde, waiting for you and your scalpel. It's a stink that most of us who've been in one of those science classes will never forget. Now think of that chemical being applied to your own skin.
Tests done in the U.S. recently revealed that pretty much every American tested had levels of this chemical and others in their blood. Even umbilical cords were found to contain the disturbing chemical presence. Why put yourself through daily exposure to carcinogens? Maybe having to drag out an iron occasionally just isn't that big a deal, especially when compared to the risk the wrinkle-free fabric poses to the health of you and yours. Maybe looking for clothes made from fabrics that are a little more natural is actually you doing yourself a big favour. After all, cotton can wrinkle and so can wool, but neither one of them, when left in their natural state, can pose a carcinogenic risk to you.
Before you dismiss all this as more alarmist hand-wringing from environmentalists, there are a few facts of which you should be aware. In 2002,for instance, 3M ceased using perfluorinated chemicals in its signature product, Scotchgard. Why would they do such a thing if PFC's really were perfectly safe? Also, Dupont has pledged to eliminate virtually all perflourinated chemicals from its products by 2015. Since the name of the game for 3M, Dupont or any other such company is profit, you know they would not lightly undertake any alteration of present practices. Such an alteration is usually short-term expensive and that is most often all it takes for manufacturers to resist making it. If, however, they willingly undertake such a move, it must mean an incredible level of perceived profit, in this case the profit of increased safety for the people significant to the decision makers at Dupont - their customers, their own families, themselves.
Why willingly expose yourself to formaldehyde or any of those other deadly chemical concoctions our clothes are too often steeped in? Why not give some thought, instead, to a peaceful co-existence with wrinkles?
In order for this chemical to work its supposed magic, it has to be applied to the fabric with heat, or in other words, baked right into it, so there's no way it's ever coming out, no matter how many times you put the garment through the laundry.
When you encounter formaldehyde as an additive to a fabric, you don't encounter it in its most immediately detectable form, because the distinctive odour is mostly gone. Just think back to your high school science classes, however, and I'm sure you'll remember the nasty smell from those preserved specimens you had to dissect; that frog or whatever other hapless little corpse that was floating in a jar of formaldehyde, waiting for you and your scalpel. It's a stink that most of us who've been in one of those science classes will never forget. Now think of that chemical being applied to your own skin.
Tests done in the U.S. recently revealed that pretty much every American tested had levels of this chemical and others in their blood. Even umbilical cords were found to contain the disturbing chemical presence. Why put yourself through daily exposure to carcinogens? Maybe having to drag out an iron occasionally just isn't that big a deal, especially when compared to the risk the wrinkle-free fabric poses to the health of you and yours. Maybe looking for clothes made from fabrics that are a little more natural is actually you doing yourself a big favour. After all, cotton can wrinkle and so can wool, but neither one of them, when left in their natural state, can pose a carcinogenic risk to you.
Before you dismiss all this as more alarmist hand-wringing from environmentalists, there are a few facts of which you should be aware. In 2002,for instance, 3M ceased using perfluorinated chemicals in its signature product, Scotchgard. Why would they do such a thing if PFC's really were perfectly safe? Also, Dupont has pledged to eliminate virtually all perflourinated chemicals from its products by 2015. Since the name of the game for 3M, Dupont or any other such company is profit, you know they would not lightly undertake any alteration of present practices. Such an alteration is usually short-term expensive and that is most often all it takes for manufacturers to resist making it. If, however, they willingly undertake such a move, it must mean an incredible level of perceived profit, in this case the profit of increased safety for the people significant to the decision makers at Dupont - their customers, their own families, themselves.
Why willingly expose yourself to formaldehyde or any of those other deadly chemical concoctions our clothes are too often steeped in? Why not give some thought, instead, to a peaceful co-existence with wrinkles?
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Paying with Plastic
Most people who say they'll pay for something with plastic mean they're about to pull out a credit card and up their balance, but starting this spring, Canadians can say it and mean something entirely different.
Starting with $100 bills, the Bank of Canada will incorporate a special plastic polymer into all of Canada’s bills by 2013. To facilitate the transition from the current cotton-paper blend, several months before the new notes appear in circulation, designs will be released so the public can learn to recognize them. We Canadians will get our first peek at the $100 and $50 bill designs in Spring 2011.
The circulation of $100. bills will begin in November, the $50 note will follow by March 2012 and by 2013 there will be $20, $10, and $5 polymer bills all making their way into Canadians' pockets.
The new bank notes are meant to focus on security and, most importantly, counterfeiting prevention, but more than that, the new notes will create less environmental impact than the cotton-paper blend. The polymer bills are expected to last at least two to three years longer than the current Canuck currency.
I'm quite sure those who decry environmentalism as a global conspiracy out to grab global power will throw up their hands in horror at this evidence that the Canadian government is actually a bunch of Snidely types, all using one arm to drape their capes across their lower faces while they curl their long moustache ends around a finger and chortle maniacally, but what the hell - those of us who have an active intellect and genuinely care about the seventh generation welcome any such move.
Bank of Canada, we salute you!
.
Starting with $100 bills, the Bank of Canada will incorporate a special plastic polymer into all of Canada’s bills by 2013. To facilitate the transition from the current cotton-paper blend, several months before the new notes appear in circulation, designs will be released so the public can learn to recognize them. We Canadians will get our first peek at the $100 and $50 bill designs in Spring 2011.
The circulation of $100. bills will begin in November, the $50 note will follow by March 2012 and by 2013 there will be $20, $10, and $5 polymer bills all making their way into Canadians' pockets.
The new bank notes are meant to focus on security and, most importantly, counterfeiting prevention, but more than that, the new notes will create less environmental impact than the cotton-paper blend. The polymer bills are expected to last at least two to three years longer than the current Canuck currency.
I'm quite sure those who decry environmentalism as a global conspiracy out to grab global power will throw up their hands in horror at this evidence that the Canadian government is actually a bunch of Snidely types, all using one arm to drape their capes across their lower faces while they curl their long moustache ends around a finger and chortle maniacally, but what the hell - those of us who have an active intellect and genuinely care about the seventh generation welcome any such move.
Bank of Canada, we salute you!
.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Indegno Indeed
On February 13th of this year, approximately 500,000 Italian protestors took to their cities' streets and squares, many of them carrying placards that bore a picture of Silvio Berlusconi, topped with the word "indegno". Check your Italian dictionary, and you'll see that the word means "dishonourable". An apt description for a prime minister content to do nothing to better conditions in his country for half of its population. Instead, he spends his time feathering his own nest, chasing skirts and providing rent-free apartments for underage prostitutes.
The World Economic Forum's 2010 Global Gender Gap Report puts it all neatly into a nutshell, when they rank Italy in 74th place, behind Paraguay, Ghana and Kyrgyzstan. For any who doubt the report, it's backed up in spades by two details. One is the fact that only 46% of Italian women hold a job compared with the European Union average of 59%. The other is the fact that Joumana Haddad, a writer from Lebanon, actually expressed indignation at the way she saw Italian women being treated by their country. Given that Lebanon itself is not exactly a bastion of gender equality, Haddad's feelings speak volumes about the inequality rampant in Italy. Haddad's resume more than qualifies her to pass an opinion worth heeding. In addition to being the founder and editor-in-chief of JASAD magazine, Joumana Haddad is head of the Cultural page in the "An Nahar" newspaper, and the Administrator of the IPAF literary prize. She has published several poetry collections which have been translated and published abroad. She has also interviewed international writers such as Umberto Eco, and speaks seven languages. Her accomplishments go on, so suffice it to say, when she passes an opinion, there are many disposed to listen.
Such a source of pride for Berlusconi and his supporters. The country he leads, and the way in which he leads has just been dumped on the dung heap by Haddad. She speaks for many, but it is unlikely Berlusconi cares. He is too busy looking for his next romp between the sheets, too busy seeing the world through the filter of his pathetic version of masculinity. At a time when women perform 66% of the world’s work, but earn just 10% of the income, it is deplorable that a developed country such as Italy should be contributing to these sad statistics, rather than helping to ameliorate them.
Indegno, indeed, Berlusconi.
The World Economic Forum's 2010 Global Gender Gap Report puts it all neatly into a nutshell, when they rank Italy in 74th place, behind Paraguay, Ghana and Kyrgyzstan. For any who doubt the report, it's backed up in spades by two details. One is the fact that only 46% of Italian women hold a job compared with the European Union average of 59%. The other is the fact that Joumana Haddad, a writer from Lebanon, actually expressed indignation at the way she saw Italian women being treated by their country. Given that Lebanon itself is not exactly a bastion of gender equality, Haddad's feelings speak volumes about the inequality rampant in Italy. Haddad's resume more than qualifies her to pass an opinion worth heeding. In addition to being the founder and editor-in-chief of JASAD magazine, Joumana Haddad is head of the Cultural page in the "An Nahar" newspaper, and the Administrator of the IPAF literary prize. She has published several poetry collections which have been translated and published abroad. She has also interviewed international writers such as Umberto Eco, and speaks seven languages. Her accomplishments go on, so suffice it to say, when she passes an opinion, there are many disposed to listen.
Such a source of pride for Berlusconi and his supporters. The country he leads, and the way in which he leads has just been dumped on the dung heap by Haddad. She speaks for many, but it is unlikely Berlusconi cares. He is too busy looking for his next romp between the sheets, too busy seeing the world through the filter of his pathetic version of masculinity. At a time when women perform 66% of the world’s work, but earn just 10% of the income, it is deplorable that a developed country such as Italy should be contributing to these sad statistics, rather than helping to ameliorate them.
Indegno, indeed, Berlusconi.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
How Do You Spell "Stupid"?
In the case of a pedophile just found guilty for the eighth time, stupid is best spelled "James Fontana". That's the name of the sentencing judge who rejected the Crown’s request to give Dennis James Taylor an indefinite prison term because he felt it would be like passing a life sentence on him. Just how stupid is this moronic judge? Does he really not understand that Taylor has in effect done just that to the children he has molested? Some, or maybe even all of them, will spend the rest of their lives dealing with what this piece of filth did to them, so why should there be any hesitation on Fontana's part to deal with this habitual offender in kind?
Taylor’s lawyer, Ari Goldkind, says of the recidivist pedophile, “My client understands he will have a tough road ahead but he is reasonable and realistic about his situation.” After one finishes shaking one's head at this nonsensical drivel, one is left wondering if Taylor's "reasonableness" would mean he'd agree to an indefinite term of incarceration that would preclude the possibility of any further backsliding on his part. If so, perhaps he could sit down and have a chat with Stupid about reality and being reasonable.
Taylor has previously been declared a dangerous offender, so one really has to wonder why he was back out on the street. Shouldn't he have been put away permanently before now? Whoever it was that gave the green light to Taylor's being freed to victimize children again apparently is of a like mind with Fontana. Quite obviously, they both feel it is important to protect Taylor's supposed rights, even if it means trampling all over the rights of his victims. After all, why should Taylor have to stay behind bars when there are so many more children on whom he could yet visit his particular perversion?
Taylor’s lawyer, Ari Goldkind, says of the recidivist pedophile, “My client understands he will have a tough road ahead but he is reasonable and realistic about his situation.” After one finishes shaking one's head at this nonsensical drivel, one is left wondering if Taylor's "reasonableness" would mean he'd agree to an indefinite term of incarceration that would preclude the possibility of any further backsliding on his part. If so, perhaps he could sit down and have a chat with Stupid about reality and being reasonable.
Taylor has previously been declared a dangerous offender, so one really has to wonder why he was back out on the street. Shouldn't he have been put away permanently before now? Whoever it was that gave the green light to Taylor's being freed to victimize children again apparently is of a like mind with Fontana. Quite obviously, they both feel it is important to protect Taylor's supposed rights, even if it means trampling all over the rights of his victims. After all, why should Taylor have to stay behind bars when there are so many more children on whom he could yet visit his particular perversion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)