Did somebody say JDI? Apparently Premier Graham has taken to heart Mr. Irving's suggestions for New Brunswick's "wood supply issues."
This is really just a fancy way of saying that one of our country's richest men (whose family is technically not headquartered in Saint John, but in Bermuda, where they pay no corporate tax), has just told us how to run our Crown Lands. The amount of protected areas is down, and the amount of tree plantations is up.
Be outraged, in this place.
The last report on Crown Lands included a survey saying over 90% of New Brunswickers want more input into forestry policy and management. Then the government cancelled the public consultations to follow-up on those recommendations. There was never any explanation for that cancellation - it appears now that some recommendations are more equal than others.
Does the government really think this is going to be good for New Brunswickers? The reality is we already have the most mechanized forestry industry in the country. We have a lot of people working in forestry, but in terms of the volume of wood processed, we employ the least people per unit produced. More tree farms aren't good for small woodlot owners, or small mills.
Guess whose bottom line they might actually improve?
Winner of today's quiz gets a free copy of the Telegraph Journal.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Compassionate Heart of Literature
What does the literary background/orientation of a political leader tell us? And why, in times of crisis, do writers emerge to lead troubled nations?
These questions preoccupy me after watching Barack Obama's transformation from first-term senator to president of the world's most powerful nation - an ascension that would have been impossible without his muscular rhetoric.
His lofty speeches repudiate empty corporate-speak and his elegant elocution is a welcome contrast to George W. Bush's habitual mangling of the English language. Obama is a voracious reader, and has devoured the writings of Shakespeare,Ellison, Nietzsche, Abe Lincoln and hundreds more. It’s no wonder he sounds so sophisticated.
Language is power, and Obama's political campaign was successful despite all odds because of he could envision a 'more perfect union' and convince people that that union was not only achievable, but imminent. As a writer and reader, he expressed the outrage of many marginalized Americans but tempered it with a sense of 'hope' that their country could change for the better.
Subsequently, Obama's two books returned to the best-seller lists, and his astonishing fundraising success relied in large part on his silver tongue. He recruited the support of countless Americans - people who work but can't get ahead, people who are sick of corruption and patronage in government, people who can't improve their lives because of financial hardship, people who are angry at predatory corporations.
Similarly, after the Czech people decided to be rid of their Soviet overlords, they elected Vaclav Havel, poet, playwright and essayist. He, too, properly understood the power of words, and his inaugural address paralleled (and pre-dated) Obama's depiction of a troubled nation, largely run by liars. He began:
My dear fellow citizens,
For forty years you heard from my predecessors on this day different variations on the same theme: how our country was flourishing, how many million tons of steel we produced, how happy we all were, how we trusted our government, and what bright perspectives were unfolding in front of us.
I assume you did not propose me for this office so that I, too, would lie to you.
Our country is not flourishing. The enormous creative and spiritual potential of our nations is not being used sensibly. Entire branches of industry are producing goods that are of no interest to anyone, while we are lacking the things we need. A state which calls itself a workers' state humiliates and exploits workers. Our obsolete economy is wasting the little energy we have available. A country that once could be proud of the educational level of its citizens spends so little on education that it ranks today as seventy-second in the world. We have polluted the soil, rivers and forests bequeathed to us by our ancestors, and we have today the most contaminated environment in Europe. Adults in our country die earlier than in most other European countries.
No amount of winking and 'you-betchas' is going to counter the cold reality that people feel when they are being misused.
Although politicians often bully language to meet their ends, rarely does a man or woman with a literary heart seize our attention while maintaining political power. And we might assume that writers are immune from the crassness of politics, but transformative politicians understand that "robust language" is indispensable in rallying people to their side.
So, why do 'literary' leaders appear at the fore during crises? I suspect it's the act of reading, coupled with the critical thinking skills that writing requires.
I'm not normally one of those 'reading, writing and arithmetic' types, but to read fiction is to enter a wrestling match with other people's thoughts, feelings and experiences. Writing calls us to organize our thoughts and justify our opinions. Literature is not merely a pleasant way to idle away an afternoon. It is a method of engendering compassion, which, as Karen Armstrong reminds us, means 'the act of feeling with the other.' Com-passion.
This unity with others is precisely what Obama proposed, and exactly what he needed in order to win in a divided electorate. Contrast his approach with George Bush's divisive and ignorant goverment. Bush lacked compassion, and his non-plussed response to Hurricane Katrina is only the first example that comes to mind. Someone who spends long periods of time training his or her mind to experience the thoughts, feelings, tragedies and celebrations of other people would be more likely to respond quickly to such an immense disaster.
Which brings me to Canada. Stephen Harper is known neither for his love of literature nor for his compassion. His initial reaction to the global economic crisis was not to empathize with people about to lose their homes or retirements or live savings, it was to portray the disaster as a good time to buy stocks. Harper continues to antagonize Canadian artists, and has even provoked the ire of Booker-prize winning author Yann Martel. Martel sends Harper a book every two weeks, and publishes the list on his website.
On the horizon, watching all of this is Michael Ignatieff, author of numerous books and descendent of grandfather and great-grandfather who worked under Russian czars Alexander II and Alexander III. Ignatieff's writings have been called everything from dazzling to arrogant. Whether he is successful in taking a page from Obama's book remains to be seen.
In the meantime, Obama has repudiated the petty cronyism of the Bush years, demonstrating that after eight years of organized cruelty, it is once again cool to be kind. Let's hope he continues to read with ferocity, and to use language to uplift those who need it most.
These questions preoccupy me after watching Barack Obama's transformation from first-term senator to president of the world's most powerful nation - an ascension that would have been impossible without his muscular rhetoric.
His lofty speeches repudiate empty corporate-speak and his elegant elocution is a welcome contrast to George W. Bush's habitual mangling of the English language. Obama is a voracious reader, and has devoured the writings of Shakespeare,Ellison, Nietzsche, Abe Lincoln and hundreds more. It’s no wonder he sounds so sophisticated.
Language is power, and Obama's political campaign was successful despite all odds because of he could envision a 'more perfect union' and convince people that that union was not only achievable, but imminent. As a writer and reader, he expressed the outrage of many marginalized Americans but tempered it with a sense of 'hope' that their country could change for the better.
Subsequently, Obama's two books returned to the best-seller lists, and his astonishing fundraising success relied in large part on his silver tongue. He recruited the support of countless Americans - people who work but can't get ahead, people who are sick of corruption and patronage in government, people who can't improve their lives because of financial hardship, people who are angry at predatory corporations.
Similarly, after the Czech people decided to be rid of their Soviet overlords, they elected Vaclav Havel, poet, playwright and essayist. He, too, properly understood the power of words, and his inaugural address paralleled (and pre-dated) Obama's depiction of a troubled nation, largely run by liars. He began:
My dear fellow citizens,
For forty years you heard from my predecessors on this day different variations on the same theme: how our country was flourishing, how many million tons of steel we produced, how happy we all were, how we trusted our government, and what bright perspectives were unfolding in front of us.
I assume you did not propose me for this office so that I, too, would lie to you.
Our country is not flourishing. The enormous creative and spiritual potential of our nations is not being used sensibly. Entire branches of industry are producing goods that are of no interest to anyone, while we are lacking the things we need. A state which calls itself a workers' state humiliates and exploits workers. Our obsolete economy is wasting the little energy we have available. A country that once could be proud of the educational level of its citizens spends so little on education that it ranks today as seventy-second in the world. We have polluted the soil, rivers and forests bequeathed to us by our ancestors, and we have today the most contaminated environment in Europe. Adults in our country die earlier than in most other European countries.
No amount of winking and 'you-betchas' is going to counter the cold reality that people feel when they are being misused.
Although politicians often bully language to meet their ends, rarely does a man or woman with a literary heart seize our attention while maintaining political power. And we might assume that writers are immune from the crassness of politics, but transformative politicians understand that "robust language" is indispensable in rallying people to their side.
So, why do 'literary' leaders appear at the fore during crises? I suspect it's the act of reading, coupled with the critical thinking skills that writing requires.
I'm not normally one of those 'reading, writing and arithmetic' types, but to read fiction is to enter a wrestling match with other people's thoughts, feelings and experiences. Writing calls us to organize our thoughts and justify our opinions. Literature is not merely a pleasant way to idle away an afternoon. It is a method of engendering compassion, which, as Karen Armstrong reminds us, means 'the act of feeling with the other.' Com-passion.
This unity with others is precisely what Obama proposed, and exactly what he needed in order to win in a divided electorate. Contrast his approach with George Bush's divisive and ignorant goverment. Bush lacked compassion, and his non-plussed response to Hurricane Katrina is only the first example that comes to mind. Someone who spends long periods of time training his or her mind to experience the thoughts, feelings, tragedies and celebrations of other people would be more likely to respond quickly to such an immense disaster.
Which brings me to Canada. Stephen Harper is known neither for his love of literature nor for his compassion. His initial reaction to the global economic crisis was not to empathize with people about to lose their homes or retirements or live savings, it was to portray the disaster as a good time to buy stocks. Harper continues to antagonize Canadian artists, and has even provoked the ire of Booker-prize winning author Yann Martel. Martel sends Harper a book every two weeks, and publishes the list on his website.
On the horizon, watching all of this is Michael Ignatieff, author of numerous books and descendent of grandfather and great-grandfather who worked under Russian czars Alexander II and Alexander III. Ignatieff's writings have been called everything from dazzling to arrogant. Whether he is successful in taking a page from Obama's book remains to be seen.
In the meantime, Obama has repudiated the petty cronyism of the Bush years, demonstrating that after eight years of organized cruelty, it is once again cool to be kind. Let's hope he continues to read with ferocity, and to use language to uplift those who need it most.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
more on this later...
A study of ten Chicago neighbourhoods using network analysis revealed several key supports that helped artists connect with audiences and other artists. One of these supports was “space resources – which included varied access to live/work space for making art aswell as varied access to public, private and commercial space for art presentations, exhibitions,festivals, parades, murals and facilities” (Grams, 2004, p. 14).
Other assets that were identified as partof some “circuits” were historic sites and public art that helped communities codify their identities,community-based art service activities for local children and families, and employment opportunities provided to local residents by non-profit cultural organizations (pp. 16-19).
This study also showedthat there were three mechanisms through which arts organizations leveraged assets for neighbourhood improvement: 1) by connecting people to local and non-local resources, 2) by enabling local problem-solving, and 3) by building social relationships among the different sectors of the community (Stern & Seifert, 2007, p. 45).
Other assets that were identified as partof some “circuits” were historic sites and public art that helped communities codify their identities,community-based art service activities for local children and families, and employment opportunities provided to local residents by non-profit cultural organizations (pp. 16-19).
This study also showedthat there were three mechanisms through which arts organizations leveraged assets for neighbourhood improvement: 1) by connecting people to local and non-local resources, 2) by enabling local problem-solving, and 3) by building social relationships among the different sectors of the community (Stern & Seifert, 2007, p. 45).
Monday, January 05, 2009
Dealing With Chinese Crowds: A Primer for Canadians
As promised, here's a look at boarding a plane (or waiting in any kind of line), Chinese style.
When a crowd assembles - and it's always a crowd in China - people jockey continuously for position, mostly maintained by elbowing and crowding together in the most advantageous place. Looking at the others in the crowd is likely to be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and while you are busy looking at the other person, they will steal your spot. Lesson learned.
Furthermore, the concept of "personal space" does not exist in a nation of over a billion people. If you are waiting for a subway, bus or train, people will push entirely up against you, especially if you don't look forceful. The only way to move at all is by pushing back. Standing still is impossible because you will be accosted from all sides by people pushing you out of the way. Did I mention there's a lot of pushing? It's a Canadian elementary teacher's nightmare.
People have been asking me - how was China? Strangely, the adjective that comes to mind is Darwinian. Picture this: 240 Chinese people (and about 10 white people, and 1 black person) are waiting for a flight. Fifteen minutes before the plane even calls for boarding, people line up near the door. Rather, they make a large mass near the door because "lining up" doesn't normally occur.
When the doors to the tarmac are opened, people literally run as quickly as possible to board the plane. Why? So they can sit as close as possible to the front. Why? So they can exit the plane as quickly as possible. Why? So they can wait in the next line as quickly as possible. Why? You get the picture. Imagine a group of sugar-starved seven-year-olds at a gigantic Easter egg hunt. Now you get the sense of urgency and lack of social constraint that Chinese crowds exhibit.
They are like those flocks of birds that appear in the fall, weaving and dancing in perfect synchronization, yet seemingly without a leader. I am not saying this to imply the Chinese are uncivilized or to criticize - it goes without saying that we have vast cultural differences from China and experiencing it firsthand was jarring. After a while, however, it becomes just another norm and before you know it, you are pushing onto the bus before the next guy can get in ahead of you.
When a crowd assembles - and it's always a crowd in China - people jockey continuously for position, mostly maintained by elbowing and crowding together in the most advantageous place. Looking at the others in the crowd is likely to be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and while you are busy looking at the other person, they will steal your spot. Lesson learned.
Furthermore, the concept of "personal space" does not exist in a nation of over a billion people. If you are waiting for a subway, bus or train, people will push entirely up against you, especially if you don't look forceful. The only way to move at all is by pushing back. Standing still is impossible because you will be accosted from all sides by people pushing you out of the way. Did I mention there's a lot of pushing? It's a Canadian elementary teacher's nightmare.
People have been asking me - how was China? Strangely, the adjective that comes to mind is Darwinian. Picture this: 240 Chinese people (and about 10 white people, and 1 black person) are waiting for a flight. Fifteen minutes before the plane even calls for boarding, people line up near the door. Rather, they make a large mass near the door because "lining up" doesn't normally occur.
When the doors to the tarmac are opened, people literally run as quickly as possible to board the plane. Why? So they can sit as close as possible to the front. Why? So they can exit the plane as quickly as possible. Why? So they can wait in the next line as quickly as possible. Why? You get the picture. Imagine a group of sugar-starved seven-year-olds at a gigantic Easter egg hunt. Now you get the sense of urgency and lack of social constraint that Chinese crowds exhibit.
They are like those flocks of birds that appear in the fall, weaving and dancing in perfect synchronization, yet seemingly without a leader. I am not saying this to imply the Chinese are uncivilized or to criticize - it goes without saying that we have vast cultural differences from China and experiencing it firsthand was jarring. After a while, however, it becomes just another norm and before you know it, you are pushing onto the bus before the next guy can get in ahead of you.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
So. I took a 'real' vacation . . .
As you can tell, the quality of internet access in Thailand as China was not great. That, and I decided to switch off the urge to be productive or efficient. Scary, I know - apparently that's what a vacation is supposed to be . . .
In any case, it's going to take me a few entries to digest my trip; for today I will share some of the immediate reflections with you, in the form of a list.
1. Travelling ain't easy. I did three consecutive days of airports to get to the beautiful tropical island of Koh Samui, Thailand. It turns out the best cure for jetlag is to clear customs repeatedly, get shoved on to a plane with 240 pushy Chinese people (more on that later) and haul your suitcase from here to Kingdom Come. Which was worth it, by the way.
2. Canadians are incredibly fortunate people. In China I saw a number of elderly or disabled people (some missing limbs) begging in public places. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see the lack of care given to these people. I have always felt fortunate but having seen people in the world living in shacks with no running water, I realize how much I have taken for granted. Not that everyone in Asia is poor, but the majority of people are struggling to make it.
3. The Thai people are as friendly as New Brunswickers, and I wish I could speak their language. Everywhere we went on Koh Samui, people smiled, said hello and waved to us. The island is half rural, half tourist, with visitors outnumbering locals 3:1. The people there are so laid back, they laughed when I asked what time the sun sets. Apparently that's a non-starter for them - a fact which was confirmed to me when the European man behind me at Bangkok airport lamented "The Thai people move at a snail's pace." Good on ya, I say. If I lived on a tropical island I wouldn't hurry, either!!
4. There is a difference between mainland China and Hong Kong. My one regret on this trip was not seeing more of mainland China. We were only there for a day or two between stops to Thailand and Hong Kong. Fortunately, I did get to see the Lohuo Market, which is full of dvd hawkers (an endless patter of "missy, you buy dvd movie") and knock offs of western brands. We took the Canadian approach to bartering - laugh when the price is outrageously high. It worked pretty well - I got some good presents.
5. Don't ever fly Continental via Newark. They will screw up and then deny any wrongdoing.
6. Most people in the world have the same basic concerns. Caring for their families, surviving economically, have a good laugh, eating a nice meal with family and friends, enjoying the sunshine - the best things in life are free.
7. I'm glad I went, but I'm glad to be home. See #1 and #5.
In any case, it's going to take me a few entries to digest my trip; for today I will share some of the immediate reflections with you, in the form of a list.
1. Travelling ain't easy. I did three consecutive days of airports to get to the beautiful tropical island of Koh Samui, Thailand. It turns out the best cure for jetlag is to clear customs repeatedly, get shoved on to a plane with 240 pushy Chinese people (more on that later) and haul your suitcase from here to Kingdom Come. Which was worth it, by the way.
2. Canadians are incredibly fortunate people. In China I saw a number of elderly or disabled people (some missing limbs) begging in public places. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see the lack of care given to these people. I have always felt fortunate but having seen people in the world living in shacks with no running water, I realize how much I have taken for granted. Not that everyone in Asia is poor, but the majority of people are struggling to make it.
3. The Thai people are as friendly as New Brunswickers, and I wish I could speak their language. Everywhere we went on Koh Samui, people smiled, said hello and waved to us. The island is half rural, half tourist, with visitors outnumbering locals 3:1. The people there are so laid back, they laughed when I asked what time the sun sets. Apparently that's a non-starter for them - a fact which was confirmed to me when the European man behind me at Bangkok airport lamented "The Thai people move at a snail's pace." Good on ya, I say. If I lived on a tropical island I wouldn't hurry, either!!
4. There is a difference between mainland China and Hong Kong. My one regret on this trip was not seeing more of mainland China. We were only there for a day or two between stops to Thailand and Hong Kong. Fortunately, I did get to see the Lohuo Market, which is full of dvd hawkers (an endless patter of "missy, you buy dvd movie") and knock offs of western brands. We took the Canadian approach to bartering - laugh when the price is outrageously high. It worked pretty well - I got some good presents.
5. Don't ever fly Continental via Newark. They will screw up and then deny any wrongdoing.
6. Most people in the world have the same basic concerns. Caring for their families, surviving economically, have a good laugh, eating a nice meal with family and friends, enjoying the sunshine - the best things in life are free.
7. I'm glad I went, but I'm glad to be home. See #1 and #5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)