Peg Tittle's Blog, page 54

The Freedom to Shop

In a not so recent, but largely unnoticed decision (Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of Lubicon), the Ontario Divisional Court said that boycotts are illegal when specifically intended to cause economic damage to the boycott target. Isn’t that generally the point? Boycotts allow us to put our money where our mouths are; they allow us to hit a company where it hurts, so it smartens up and changes.

I often choose brands according to the sociopolitical record of the company, doesn’t everyone? Surely the days of shopping according to price and quality alone are gone. Didn’t the ‘Made in Canada’ fad and the Nestlé fiasco kickstart this broadened awareness?

I routinely refuse to purchase GE products because the company is one of the largest military contractors in the U.S. McDonalds lost my business because of the CFCs; Burger King, because it used rainforest beef. Coors? Not as long as they’re anti-gay and racist. Gillette? Proctor & Gamble? Not as long as bunnies do me no harm. And my next pair of shoes will not be Nike. (See Rating America’s Corporate Conscience, Steven D. Lydenberg et al. and The Boycott Quarterly boycottguy@aol.com.)

Granted, it’s getting harder to keep track of who owns who (for example, GE owns RCA now), and often my choices are less-than pure (when I was making a car purchase decision, the most fuel-efficient therefore environmentally-friendly car on the market, the Chevrolet Sprint, was made by GM, a company heavily involved with nuclear weapons). When in doubt, I choose the unknown and too-small-to-be-dangerous brands.

But now the Ontario government has taken away my freedom to choose, to shop according to my ethics. Because doing so causes economic damage to certain companies. Of course, seeing our government give priority to economics over ethics and to corporations over individuals shouldn’t surprise me.

I do wonder, though, how they’ll enforce this decision. I mean, how will the shopping police know why I buy Primo instead of Ragu, MacIntosh instead of IBM?

(They won’t. See that’s the problem with freedom. Better they just don’t give me the chance – to buy Primo, or MacIntosh, or lesbian love poems, or a solar heating system…)

I also wonder if they’re going to be consistent – will trade embargoes be illegal now too, and economic sanctions no longer an alternative to bloodshed? Pity.

Speaking in Code

“I just can’t give any more, sorry.” But of course he can. He just doesn’t want to. By saying “can’t” instead of “won’t”, however, he appears powerless and thus absolves himself of responsibility; as a result, we don’t even consider the matter of blame.

“That’s not gonna happen.” Okay. So informed, we move on. But in most cases, the accurate, honest, statement would have been “I don’t think that’s gonna happen” or “I don’t want that to happen.” By presenting an opinion as fact, the speaker has diverted our attention from evidence and reasons. Why don’t you think that’s going to happen? Why don’t you want that to happen?

“We need to bring our product in line with contemporary standards.” The royal “we” effects a diffusion of responsibility, deflecting accountability from the individual who’s speaking. “Need” is a lie: we won’t die without it. But “need” is far more compelling than “want” – it’s harder to refuse. To “bring in line” suggests cooperation, rather than obedience. “Contemporary” sounds so much better than the “old” standards, and “standards” implies something that’s received official, i.e., expert, approval. Really, he’s just saying “I want you to do what I want – this.” And that would be much easier to say “No” to.

“Hey now, what kind of way is that to talk?” Code for “I don’t want to hear those words” – to which the person might simply respond, “So?” Instead, he or she feels chastised.

The manipulation is done so smoothly, it’s impressive. I have enough trouble getting clear about my true meaning, I couldn’t possibly engage in the simultaneous translation these people seem to do so effortlessly in order to cover their truth and manipulate us into assent, or at least out of dissent. They load their language without even thinking. How can they be so quick, so clever?

They’re not. They are doing it without even thinking. They’re not translating from A to B – they’re going right to B; they’re not even aware of A. I’ve been attributing far more consciousness than is warranted. It’s not that they’re thinking more (let alone, more quickly) than me. They’re thinking less. They’re not thinking at all about what they’re saying, about how they’re saying it. Consider that when I point out what I think they really mean, when I decode what they say in order to challenge or simply clarify, they insist I’m reading too much into a simple choice of words – I’m over-analyzing. Truth is, they’re not analyzing enough. Or at all.

But still – how is it they are so unconsciously manipulative? It just comes ‘naturally’. And that is far scarier than thinking they do it intentionally. All those manipulative phrases – these people are simply saying it the way they’ve been conditioned to say it, or, more accidentally, just the way they’ve heard others say it.

So it’s not that I’m a relative moron at strategic behaviour – it’s that somehow I missed out on that conditioning. Probably because I’m not a male. And I consciously rejected any parallel conditioning directed to females.

So here I am. Either taking what people say at face value and being manipulated left, right, and centre, or trying to decode everything. Of course, by the time I decode what they’ve said, B into A, they’ve said something else. And when I respond directly to A, they think I’ve gone off-topic. So I have to explain that their B is a translation of A. But they don’t want to hear it. I suppose I could just respond to their B with a B of my own – but to do that, I have to decode their B into A, figure out my response to it, then encode my A into a B. And by the time I’ve done that, they’ve left. Which is just as well.

Every day in every way …

Every day in every way the world is getting better and better.  Yeah right.

Well why isn’t it?  Every day there’s a whole new batch of young adults just chafing at the bit to change the world.  What happens?

They become parents.

So first, there’s the matter of money.  Nutritious food and a constant supply of clothing that fits cost money.  Leaving little for the revolution.

Then there’s the matter of time.  To get the money, you need to work.  So that pretty much makes the day a write-off.  And much of the evening is taken up with parenting.  It’s nine o’clock: do you have time to change the world – before you go to bed?

Better question: do you have the energy to change the world?  Getting up at six or seven, hustling the kids and yourself to daycare, school, and work, putting in eight hours that is, no doubt, laced with at least a little stress, making your way home, perhaps detouring to pick up a kid or two, making supper for several people, doing the dishes, then slogging through a bunch of chores like washing everyone’s clothes, or cleaning the house or apartment a little, or preparing lunches, all the while spending quality time with the kids – it’s nine o’clock: do you know where your bed is?

But more significant than any of that is this: parents don’t take risks.  You can’t afford to get fired – so you don’t stand up at work.  You can’t afford to go to jail – so you don’t stand up anywhere else.  You’re responsible for your kids, they depend on you, you have obligations to them – to be there and to provide them with what they need.  You can’t afford to be reckless anymore; you become cautious – about everything.

Because you love them so much – if anything should ever happen to them –    So you don’t make enemies – at least, none that really count.  Love holds you hostage, it makes you vulnerable; it makes you – oh, the horror – conservative.

And that’s why young radicals become middle-aged sell-outs overnight: they have kids.

And parents don’t change the world.

(They hope their kids will.)

(But, of course, their kids will grow up and become

A Fun Run

I happened to experience once upon a time to a provocative juxtaposition: I watched the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, with Kenyans in the lead of course, just after I saw the news about a famine in east Africa, in particular, in Kenya.

So it occurred to me that any one Kenyan runner (there are always several leading the pack) would have had to eat the entire village’s food just to develop the strength and stamina to become a world class runner. Should a village make, or be made to make, such a sacrifice? I mean, how does a country full of bloated bellies, with half its population under fifteen, and so malnourished they’re brain-damaged, how can such a country produce and sustain a team of elite athletes? (Then again, with first prize at $40,000 and a clean team sweep, not unusual for Kenya, totalling almost $100,000, how can it not?)

Seeing a Canadian with the front runners, I wonder on what grounds could it be morally acceptable for that Canadian, who probably has a job that pays about $30,000, to beat the Kenyan, whose annual income is more like $3,000? I mean, that’s 15 years’ wages waiting at the finish line for her. (Would winning and turning over the prize money to the Kenyan be any better?) (Should such races be segregated by economic status?)

The Canadian runner, looking terribly overfed, falls behind, and I realize that the Kenyan may well have had to spend a whole year’s salary just to get to the race. Though of course maybe her airfare and accommodations were paid for. And I rather suspect she won’t keep the $40,000 for herself. (Would it be wrong if she did?)

And as the Canadian runner falls further back, I see another runner move ahead, and realize Kenya and Ethiopia are racing against each other for the gold. How sick is that? Now I know there are a number of reasons for the starvation and some of them, such as overpopulation, are their own fault. But some of them are not. They don’t control the climate (and if anyone does, we, the first world countries with our climate-changing industry, do). And then there’s the interest on third world debt that I keep hearing about – the principal has been paid back over and over, but still, due to the wonder of compound interest, they’re supposed to keep paying and paying.

It’s a commercial break now, time for a word from the sponsors: a bank – a big bank. (Is there any other kind now?) Of course. So let me summarize: one of the largest and most powerful financial institutions has staged a race, has dangled $100,000 at the finish line, and then watches representatives of two starving countries compete for it. (How sick is that.)

The Kenyans win. Easily. And I wonder now whether the immorality lies not in having these races, but in not having more of them.

Games for Girls (Seriously? In 2012?)

Okay, so I went to bored.com, clicked on Games, then clicked on Girls.

Mostly because I was irritated that there even was a separate section for Girls (and surprised there wasn’t a separate section for Blacks)—alongside Popular, Animations, Stickman, Shooting, Escape, Puzzle, Action, Skill, Walkthru’s, Mobile, and More. Why do girls need a separate section? Are they not interested in any of the other sections? Are none of the other sections ‘for’ them?

Anyway, so what do I find when I click on the Girls tab? This:

Sugar and Spice and everything Girl! Play celebrity, dress-up, cooking, sports, and puzzle games designed just for little ladies young and old alike! Like to run restaurants? Become a princess? Go on a hot date with the boy of your dreams? It’s all here!

Seriously? In 2012?

I’m a girl, or at least female-bodied, and I have to say I’m very interested in Action. Specifically, Shooting. Failing that, Escape.

Combining Family and Career

People say that women can’t have, can’t combine, a family and a career, that it’s having family responsibilities that keeps them from advancement – the inability to work late or on weekends, the tendency to need time off to tend to kids…

I’m not so sure.  I’ve never had such competing obligations, and I don’t have a career.  I think the family thing is a red herring.  Women just don’t get hired into career-track jobs nearly as often as men, and when they do, they don’t get advanced.  (And not because their family responsibilities get in the way.)

In fact, it might be an advantage to be a mother, because you’re seen as more adult then, you’re seen as an authority.  Certainly one carries oneself with more authority, I notice that a lot: as soon as someone becomes a parent, the authority they are to their kids spills over, and they start acting like they know everything with everyone, like they have a right to tell everyone what to do.  It’s especially obvious with women because it’s the first time they have, or are seen to have, authority. Women without kids aren’t grown up yet, they aren’t granted any sort of authority, certainly no position of responsibility.  It’s as if becoming a parent proves you can be responsible.

But of course it does no such thing: witness the very many irresponsible parents; indeed, becoming a parent in the first place is, for many, due to irresponsibility.  And, of course, there are many other ways of demonstrating responsibility.

Trust – the movie

I’m so bloody sick and tired of men who assume center stage is for them.  The way the movie ends, and most of the way it plays out, it’s about the dad, about how he can’t deal with his failure to protect his daughter.

Mom’s not quite so important, apparently, despite her greater empathy with the whole experience: not only is she too beating herself up over her failure as a parent, for, after all, she’s as much the girl’s parent, but also she must surely be saying to herself ‘It could’ve been me — at 13.’

And that’s what the movie’s really about.  The real story, the far more important story, is about Annie.  She’s the one who misplaced her trust.  She’s the one who pays for it, with her life almost.  She even says as much, but apparently the director didn’t hear the writers (assuming he chose the last scene and determined how it was shot, who got the close-up, who got their big face in the camera last…).

This movie should’ve been an examination of not only trust (what is trust and how do we know who to trust?), but also an examination of love: with all the shit we force-feed our kids (including the shit ads the dad makes), it’s perfectly reasonable and perfectly predictable that what happened happened (and I refer here both to what Charlie does and what Annie does).

Shame on Schwimmer for making it about the man.

A New Three-Strike Law

There are over 2 million people in prison. Each week, there’s another thousand.  We pay for their housing, food, medical care, education – about $30,000 per year per prisoner.

So I propose a new three-strike law: first crime, you get rehab (maybe it was truly an accident; maybe you’ll change your mind about stuff; maybe you’ll grow up); second crime, you get imprisoned (okay, this is punishment, pure and simple, because if that’s what it takes – ); third crime, you get exiled – you get kicked out.

Given your inability or unwillingness to follow the rules of this society, you should live in some other society, yeah?  If you have found another society willing to take you, great.  Bye.  If not, we will escort you to a remote designated area.  You’re on your own.

Really, it’s not as if the bar is set that high.  Basically, you just have to pay for the stuff you use (via taxes for the stuff in common, such as roads and parks, and at the check-out for everything else) and abide by a bunch of laws, most of which are pretty reasonable.  Sure, some of our taxes are unjustified and some price tags are too high, but we don’t have to say we agree, we don’t have to serve in the military, we don’t even have to engage in that bare minimum of participation, voting.  And a lot of price tags are too low, given the actual materials and labor.  So geez loueez if you want a free ride and you can’t abide by a few rules, then I say get the hell out.  We’re tired of carrying you.

I wonder if the overwhelming sense of entitlement, which is what, I think, justifies much lawbreaking in the eyes of the lawbreakers, comes from a life of getting what you don’t deserve and not getting what you do deserve (and, conversely, seeing others get what they don’t deserve).  For example, most ‘kids’ who live at home – do they still have to do daily chores to earn their allowance, not to mention their food and shelter?  Every time I hear that they expect their parents to just give them money – for everything – I think, wait a minute!  You want it?  You work for it!  Slave at a minimum wage job for a year and save up for it.

As for not getting what you deserve, yeah it’s hard knowing that people with ten times as much didn’t work ten times as long or ten times as hard.  They either had it given to them or they got it through grossly unfair salary differences (bonuses at work, golden parachutes, severance pay – I’ve been declared redundant, I’ve been fired, and I’ve quit, but I’ve never gotten more than a – well, actually I never got a farewell party either.  But that injustice doesn’t justify the other injustice.  And anyway, all this addresses just theft and property damage in all its manifestations – economic violations of the social contract, if you will.

Other violations of the social contract, such as personal damage in all its manifestations (assault, manslaughter, and so on) are harder to explain.  And, truthfully, I find these people easier to exile.  If you have so little control over yourself or so much disregard for me, for my life, I’d rather you be somewhere else.  Far away.

So, go!  Let us escort you to our border.  Cross over into this designated non-country, and you can do whatever you want.  If you’re not killed first by others like you.  Or by just trying to live without society, without the benefits of a couple thousand of years of others’ work.  Work that has given us dvd players and ipods, not to mention medical treatment, and shoes, and light bulbs, and flush toilets.  But hey, you gave all that the finger.  So make your own damn shoes.  And be careful not to step in your own shit.

(I dare say you’ll miss us a lot more than we’ll miss you.)

Walking Alone in a Park at Night

In a rape trial, that the woman was walking alone in a park at night has been considered relevant – presumably it’s a mitigating circumstance: the accused can be excused for thinking she wanted it if she was walking alone in a park at night.

What!?  Why? Why is it that a woman walking alone in a park at night is understood – by men – to be implying consent to sex with any and all men?

Are parks designated sex zones?  I suppose in a sense they are.  Lovers often meet there for clandestine encounters.  Yeah, for consensual clandestine encounters.

Okay, but parks at night are also popular mugging zones, perhaps because of the poor lighting which makes escape easier in the event they are policed.  Okay, but a woman walking alone in a park at night is more at risk for rape than for purse-snatching.

So why is a woman walking alone – ah, is that it?  A woman unaccompanied by a man is unowned?  Up for grabs?  Literally?

Being There

I recently read a lament about work attitudes, about how more and more people seem to think that just being there is enough, that their paycheque is for putting in time rather than for actually doing anything, let alone for doing a good anything, that people feel no guilt about the mistakes they make, nor do they feel any desire to do better.

I’d like to offer some comments in defense, or at least in explanation, of that position.  First, teachers give marks for attendance – for just being there.  And no matter how many mistakes you make, you’ll still pass.  So, hey, who says the students don’t pay attention?

Second, the job you’ve been hired to do is probably so trivial and boring, it’s impossible to keep it without sending your brain out to lunch while you’re there.

Third, showing initiative has, in my experience, backfired more often than not.  Do a good job, yes, but be careful not to do too good a job, be careful not to do, or even point out, what your supervisor should’ve done.  That’s called insubordination and it’s just cause for dismissal.  Seriously.  For example, when I worked at a detention centre, I noticed one night that the previous shift’s reports had several spelling errors.  I corrected them.  For this, I was reprimanded (because the reports were used in court and, I was told, any changes would be suspect).  So, later, when I saw a coworker collecting statistics in a most onerous fashion (not only without computer assistance, but without using a symbol key – he’d write out the full referral agency every time rather than assigning, say, numbers to each of the six possibilities and providing a key), I did not make a suggestion to our supervisor.  I guess you could say I showed no initiative; I guess you could say I displayed no desire for improvement.

Gone are the days when one gets a raise or a promotion for a job well done.  The salary grid and the advancement ladder are based solely on number of years, on seniority – on how long you’ve been there.