When Harper touts his leadership, be afraid

Alternative View
By Gloria Martin

In the Sept. 10 Strip, Casey Lessard made comment that he feared a majority government in the federal election, and that, although he couldn’t quite put your finger on it, he “just doesn’t trust him (Prime Minister Stephen Harper).” I have to admit that I resonate with that fear, but I think with good reason.
First off is the fact that we are facing an early election despite Harper’s own pronouncements to the contrary; he says one thing and does another. Second, we have a prime minister who does not respect the will of Parliament by disregarding a majority vote in the house: the vote taken on allowing Iraq war resisters to stay in Canada. Having refused to participate in an illegal war not sanctioned by the United Nations, a war which has committed serious human rights violations, left countless untold dead, with lives and communities utterly destroyed, Harper continues to deport these courageous resisters back to the United States to face prison sentences. This is in spite of the fact that a majority vote was taken in the House of Commons to let them stay. Make no mistake: Canada would be fighting in this Iraq war if the Conservatives had their way.
Perhaps this is why Harper is so insistent on supporting another very unpopular war in Afghanistan. Canadians have heard the pleadings of voices like Afghan’s former MP Malalai Joya urging us to stop supporting her government, one of the most corrupt and criminal governments in the world – a gang of druglords and warlords, many of them wanted for human rights violations. She has told us that 60% of the Afghan people consider this government to be the worst in two decades. She reminds us that it’s a proven fact that no nation can liberate another. Liberation must be achieved by the people themselves – others can only provide support. The majority of Canadians want to support the troops by bringing them home, but Harper is determined to keep them there and watch as many of them return home in body bags. I was proud to call myself Canadian because we were a peacekeeping country concerned for human rights and people in crisis. Now we are involved in a war and supporting a criminal government. Would Harper follow the US in a war against Iran? His actions thus far suggest he well might. He seems more intent on impressing the Republican government than the Canadian people. We need to read the writing on the wall before it happens.
Last but not least is Harper’s reneging of the Kyoto Accord. Faced with the biggest crisis of all time he would rather point a finger at China than take full responsibility for our significant part in the global environmental crisis. Our very life on this planet depends on us taking urgent measures now. Now is the time for strong leadership on this matter because we don’t have until 2050! So am I nervous about the outcome of this election? Very! And with good reason.
For more information please go to www.youtube.com and watch Malalai Joya on Democracy Now! 19June07; Malalai Joya on ABC program on Afghanistan; War Resisters Supporter Catches Up With Stephen Harper; Canada’s Parliament votes to let U.S. War Resisters stay.
Gloria Martin is a Parkhill resident.

I would walk 100 miles

Alternative View
By Anjhela Michielsen

Somewhere between 1500 and 3000 miles (or 2400 to 4800 km) is the average distance your food has travelled to land on your plate (Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University). And the numbers are climbing. In our modern era, these may not seem astonishing because we have come to accept and reap the benefits of a globalized market. It is not shocking to see produce stamped with the words Product of Mexico, Israel, Peru or, most frequently, U.S.A.. With most shoppers concerned about the price of their food, few care where the produce is coming from.
This is slowly changing. Our food security is diminishing, and our concerns about the environmental impact of imported products are growing. These concerns include: pesticide and herbicide use; genetically altered crops; fuel consumption due to transportation; and human and animal rights concerns. As a result, some people are looking for alternatives to the supermarket shelves.
In 2005, B.C. couple, Alisa Smith and James MacKinnon decided to try something that is now coined ‘The 100 Mile Diet’. They committed to eating within a 100 mile radius (160 km) of where they live for one year. They have since written a book recording their journey and findings called The 100 Mile Diet – A Year of Local Eating. They found many environmental, social and health benefits from their experiment, and have since continued with their commitment and challenging others to follow their example.
The environmental benefits to eating locally are the most obvious: as confirmed by Iowa State University researchers, regional diets decrease fuel consumption by up to 20% as opposed to typical North American diets. There are many other reasons that eating locally benefits the consumer individually: an increase in taste because of freshness; direct connection to the farmer and their farming practices; support to local economies and consumption of less processed and packaged food, leading to weight loss and better overall health.
We are privileged to live in one of the most prosperous farming areas in the world. When you really think about it, there is a lot you can get within 160 km of where we live. There are many resources right under our noses, like the Grand Bend and Pinery farmers markets, the Sunnivue organic farm - featured in this issue - and all of the various local farms that are too numerous to count. You don’t have to drive far to start seeing farm after farm. We even have wineries for wine lovers out there.
It may take some creativity and a little more thought, but eating a local diet is highly beneficial for the environment, the local community and personal health.
If you decide to take up The 100 Mile challenge or have already, the Grand Bend Strip wants to hear about it!

Editor’s Note: The book is available at The Currant Organic General Store on Parkhill’s Main Street.

Peaking out: make changes before we run out of oil

Alternative View
By Anjhela Michielsen

“Peak oil” is the point when the world will have used half of the oil resources on the planet and the global output of oil will no longer meet demand. Peaking is usually followed by a serious decline, a prospect that worries many researching “peak oil.” Few dispute that oil will hit a peak; the arguments centre on when it will occur. Some say oil’s peak is decades away, but many believe it will happen between 2010 and 2020 (monbiot.com). Today we consume around four times as much oil as we discover.
Peak oil is one of the world’s most serious questions because the consequences are so great. Experts predict that lack of oil will cause a steady rise in prices and frequent oil shocks, leading to increased global instability, and an unstable economy held permanent hostage to terrorists, unstable dictatorships, resource wars and natural disasters. This will start a domino effect of human rights violations in desperate bids by western countries to gain control over remaining oil supplies that fuel their economies.
Isn’t this already happening? Take, for example, the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the US government with the ultimate agenda of controlling oil reserves in Iraq. The violence has caused devastation to several countries – Afghanistan, Iraq and the US – which will take decades to recover from, and some countries may never recover.
This is only the beginning. Oil corporations already commit massive human rights violations in southern countries through unsafe working conditions, pollution to environment and underpaid labour (and more), and when western countries become desperate for more fossil fuel to maintain their economies and lifestyles, the violence will only increase and the “have-not” countries – as throughout history – will pay the price. The best solution is for us to use our creativity to find solutions and for governments to support initiatives.

Note: just before press-time, the government reaffirmed it would not allow electric vehicles on the roads of most provinces, even though we make them in Canada for an American market. What’s wrong with this picture?

Breaking the binary: does disability exist?

Alternative View
By Anjhela Michielsen

Male/female. Caucasian/non-Caucasian. Straight/gay. Able/disabled. Civilized/savage. Rich/poor. Rational/emotional. Mind/body. Normal/abnormal.
All of these pairs appear to be polar opposites. But in every set, in Western thinking, one part is privileged over the other. One is seen as “having” while the other is seen as “lacking.” This is called a binary. This ideology perpetuates Western power structures, which privilege white, straight, “civilized” men.
Let’s examine the ability/disability binary. “Able” is privileged over “disabled,” but who decides what is ability and what is disability? If you break it down, it’s actually “invented” by us: people in a culture or society who behave according to the ideas of the binary and follow certain rules. Therefore, our society is economically and physically built to privilege the “able” bodied individual creating the limitations that hinder all people from accessing and independently enjoying all aspects of public life, including working, shopping, recreating, traveling and worshipping.
As an “able” bodied individual, I take many things for granted. I am able to move freely in the physical construction of society without struggle, not often stopping to consider what it would be like if – because of my physical state – I weren’t able to step up one step to get the medical prescription I need without calling someone to get it for me, or being limited to certain clothing stores because most in our area are not accessible. This realization has made me look deeper into how I’ve been privileged as an able-bodied person in our society, and how I perpetuate oppression, and this is the first step to being part of the solution.
So, is there such as thing as “disability?” Or is it something that we, as a society, have created because of binary thinking, placing the rights of able-bodied people over those with other physical situations?
How can we, as a community, break the binary?

Reading between the labels

Alternative View
By Anjhela Michielsen

Consumers have power. Using buying power in a capitalist economy as an active way of creating social change and is one of the most underused forms of expression, and yet en masse it is so powerful.
Our economy is built on supply and demand. Wal-mart started carrying organic produce in Canada in 2006 after the company realized the market demand. The fact that the giant retailer is carrying organic produce - food favoured by people who care about the earth, good environmental stewardship, and fair trade - is a laughable concept; their sale of the food is an attempt to portray Wal-mart as having good environmental and ethical standards, a form of green-washing for the benefit of those who demand such products. Considering the environmental damage caused by Wal-mart (as an example, “new stores built [in 2007] alone consume enough electricity to add about 1 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere” – Stacy Mitchell, grist.org) and human rights violations committed in its name (Norway’s federal pension fund dropped its investment in Wal-Mart, citing “serious” and “systematic” human rights violations in Wal-Mart’s supply chain - New York Times, May 4, 2007). Yet Wal-mart has added organic products to its shelves because of consumer demand for the products. Our free market economy leaves business to govern themselves, creating a conscience-less money-making machine. This puts consumers in the position of making the crucial decisions about the products they buy, a power which many people do not exercise.
More than 70 per cent of Wal-mart’s goods come from China; in fact, if Wal-mart were a company, it would be China’s sixth largest trading partner, ahead of Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada (wakeupwalmart.com). The Boycott Products Made in China campaign has listed some crimes that are being committed in China and how buying products made in China supports this corruption. Buying a product made in China supports the “suppression of democracy and freedom, wholesale and indiscriminate use of the death penalty, commercial harvesting of transplant organs of executed prisoners, denial of basic rights to Chinese workers and farmers, nationwide forced abortions and sterilizations, sweeping and brutal repression of all religions, criminal psychiatric abuse of political prisoners, routine torture of prisoners, military occupation and genocide in Tibet, draconian repression in East Turkestan, military expansion and aggression, world’s tightest Internet censorship (and) the largest dealer of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to rogue states” – to name a few (www.boycottmadeinchina.org).
People suffer when we financially support China’s economy and its present government.
People are suffering here, too, as a result of our actions. Too often we hear of lay-offs in industry jobs and plant shut-downs in Ontario, because domestic companies can’t compete with lower-priced off-shore competitors.
Boycotting Chinese products, as well as most foreign made products, can be very discouraging for consumers but, with some research and sacrifice, it is possible. If everyone stopped buying products made in China there would be no market for products made under the supervision of this oppressive regime.
Support our local communities. It’s better for our neighbours and the environment, too.
Useful websites:
http://www.boycottmadeinchina.org/
http://www.made-in-china.com/
http://www.walmartwatch.com/
http://www.canadianmade.com/

Running on empty: how biofuels are powering a world food crisis

Alternative View
By Anjhela Michielsen

Tempers are flaring in Haiti, Egypt and elsewhere around the world as grain prices rise out of reach. Haiti’s prime minister was fired Saturday and the government introduced a rice subsidy aimed at defusing the hungry rage that has triggered violence and looting.
A scarcity of supply is one of the main reasons for the price increase, and the move to replace fossil fuels – which contribute to global warming – with “cleaner” biofuels is one of the key factors in making food scarcer. The move to biofuels has increased the demand and price for biofuel sources, including corn, wheat and soybeans, and monopolizes on land used to grow other food products.
The dramatic increase in demand for biofuels is, as The Guardian’s John Vidal contends, “turning the corn belt of America from the bread basket of the world into an enormous fuel tank.” U.S. President George Bush wants to see the production of biofuels quintuple by 2017 to supply “24 per cent of the nation’s transport fuel,” according to British environmentalist George Monbiot, also writing in The Guardian, who is calling for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production targets and subsidies. The emphasis on fuel security is coming at the cost of food security “on a scale never seen before,” according to environmental analyst Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute, who notes the world has consumed more grain than it has produced for “seven of the last eight years.” Brown says the low availability of grains for human food consumption is the direct result of “misguided” U.S. policies intended to decrease reliance on fossil fuels by increasing the production of biofuels.
Growing demand for meat-centred North American diets, especially among the rising middle class in the world’s two largest nations, China and India, is exacerbating the problems of using food for fuel. Cornell University ecologist David Pimentel suggests it takes on average “nearly 6 kg” of grain to create 1 kg of high-quality animal protein, noting the amount of grain fed to livestock in the United States alone could feed 800 million people.
The rise in demand for grain for fuel and livestock feed caused a record price increase in 2007; the price of corn doubled and wheat increased by about 50 per cent (Vidal). While meat production is an important part of the increase, The Economist says “ethanol is the dominant reason” grain prices have increased. Elisabeth Rosenthal of the International Herald Tribune says food costs increased 25 per cent in the neediest countries, while the UN Food and Agriculture Organization saw its food price index increase by 40 per cent in 2007, four times the increase of the year before. Considering the impact the diversion of grains for fuel has on food security, its efficiency as a fuel is questionable; ethanol was “20 per cent of the whole maize crop” in the United States in 2006, but produced only enough fuel to offset “2 per cent of US automobile use” (Vidal).
The move to biofuels demonstrates a skewed set of priorities, valuing lifestyle over human life. The World Bank says ethanol is highly inefficient as a fuel, noting “the grain needed to fill up an SUV would feed a person for a year” (The Economist). The curse of the “have” nations is that they – meaning we – will not sacrifice the maintenance and enrichment of material lifestyle, and the people in “have-not” nations pay the price.

Article adapted from a longer essay. For more information, email anj at grandbendstrip.com.