A Semi Humorous Rant About Showers And Conserving Water

I like a good shower. That means that (1) the shower nozzle is above my head  so that I do not have to bend down to get my hair wet. I am never sure why some plumbers/bathroom designers think that all shower users are only five foot five and therefore the shower heads are installed so low that I could have a shower and never get my hair wet. Fortunately probably two thirds of the showers that I use are marginally high enough.

My second need for it to be a good shower is that the water coming out of the nozzle, does so with some force. The most popular shower heads are those that sprinkle down water like a gentle rain shower. That does not work for me. I want a torrent of water blasting away at me. If the top layer of my epidermis is not scoured off by the water ...it never feels like a real shower. In Canada, it is becoming an impossibility to have a truly satisfying shower. Unless one is fortunate enough to have a shower in a house where the owners have carefully protected  their 20 year old shower head or you are travelling and get to stay in a road side motel that has not upgraded their decor in the past 20 years (there are, perhaps not surprisingly, a rather large number of these motels scatted across the Canadian landscape) one is out of luck. Those nozzles are illegal. You can't buy them in Canada. Why? Because some bleeding heart and misguided fool (contrary to what neo-liberals believe - those two descriptors are not always connected) decided that we needed to conserve water. It was further agreed by all that the best way to conserve water would be to reduce the use of water by folks taking a shower.

No one seems to have pointed out that those of us who take showers already are conserving water as compared to those who consume far more water by having a bath. But there are some people who consume far more water than I do and a daily basis. Their access to that water is unrestricted. In fact they are encouraged to consume excess water by a wide range of public health practitioners. I am, of course, referring to all of those people who follow the Canada Food Guide and eat their daily serving of meat and vegetables.

The Beef Cattle Research Council suggests that it takes anywhere from 3700 litres to 20,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef. I suspect the amounts are so varied depending upon how that cow is raised and what feed it is given. In another article from the same organization it suggest that it takes eight gallons of water for every pound of beef. According to a Stats Canada report from 2001 (I could not find more current data but I cannot imagine that the amount of water has gone down in the past 14 years) Canadian farmers used 4,424,600 thousand cubic meters of water to irrigate their crops (1 cubic metre= 220 imperial gallons or 1000 litres). That is a lot of water.  Over 85% of the water used in Canadian agriculture is used for irrigation. 50% of that water is used to irrigate crops used solely for the production of meat. Stop eating meat and we will save a whole lot of water.

While we are saving water, why don't we stop eating lettuce. I can't find the amount of water used to grow lettuce in Canada but whatever the amount  - it is wasted. I like lettuce but given its very low nutritional value - I would rather have a decent shower instead.

And finally the almond. California (that place that has been experiencing drought for the past four or so years) produces approximately 80% of all of the almonds eaten in North America. According to the publication Mother Jones, each almond takes one gallon (American) to grow (walnuts take five gallons). Just under 3.5 billion cubic metres are used to irrigate almonds in California. I like almonds..... I like almonds a lot but I would rather do without them. If I ate 8 less almonds a week - I could have at least one shower a week with decent pressure.

 I appreciate the concern about water usage. I understand that we all need to do our part. But I do wish we would stop these impulses to solve the problem in the easiest way possible. I wish that we could accept that if we are going to deal with some of these problems, we are going to need to understand the whole problem. Making sure that there is enough water for all means that we are going to have to make some fundamental life choices. For many that means that they are going have to give up some things. I am just not too sure why I have to give up having a decent shower while those who eat meat, lettuce and almonds get a free ride.

Ghomeshi Trial - Conclusion

 The formal portion of  Jian Ghomeshi's trial is over. That is, the trial in front of a judge, in full view of the public is finished. The only remaining bit of work to be done is for the judge to decide whether or not the evidence clearly proves his guilt or was insufficient to do so. If it had been a trial by jury - the decision would have been reasonably quick. No jury would take a month to decide. But the judge, presumably because he has other trials to preside over, apparently needs that much time.

There were, of course, two trials occurring simultaneously. One was to determine Ghomeshi's guilt or innocence, the other to determine if the women who brought forward the information that lead to the charges were telling the truth or not. On the surface, the trial started from the same perspective regardless of the fact that those perspectives are diametrically opposite. It, by law, was assumed that (1) Ghomeshi was telling the truth and was therefore innocent, and that (2)  the women were telling the truth and he was guilty. In the best of all worlds, the judge's ruling will clearly state who was honest and who was not. But it is not that simple.

Rightly or wrongly Ghomeshi was, by the public at large, judged to be guilty almost from the first published hints of alleged wrong doing. While there may of been a myriad of reasons for doing so, his bosses at CBC wasted little time firing him when the news of his alleged sexual assault became known. His guilt was so wide accepted that he has not worked since. It strikes me that it is unlikely, regardless of the judge's ruling,  that he will ever in the foreseeable future have a job as prestigious as his previous one . One wonders if he will be employable anywhere else other than on some AM talk late afternoon show.

The women on the other hand, were assumed to be telling the truth. The current thinking on such allegations is that it is so painful for women to talk about sexual assault, that they would only do so if there was some truth behind their statements. Regardless of the judge's findings, those women will always be believed by the vast majority of feminists, if not a significant proportion of the general public.  While both their personal and professional status may not have been enhanced by their disclosures, they certainly have not been diminished. But at the very least they have exposed themselves to public scrutiny and the resultant shame. The emotional/psychological damage may be long standing.

The presumption of innocence, while it may be a cornerstone of our criminal legal system, is sometimes quite simply garbage. They are some people who are clearly guilty and lying when they say they are innocent. Similarly there have been enough cases in the past 18 months (see for example Rolling Stone withdrawal of sexual assault story) to question as to whether or not people are always telling the truth when alleging sexual assault. Our present legal system allows the defence to attack the credibility of a witness; to look for and to pick away at inconsistencies. And rightly so. But we are wrong in assuming that if a witness is inconsistent or if they tell facts out of order, or even forget some, that they are lying.  Our presumptions of guilt or innocence; of truth or lies are based on gut feelings. Our legal system is based on the assumption that we (the judge or the jury) can always  tell who is honest.

I, of course, have no way of knowing as to whether or not Ghomeshi is guilty of the offences. My gut says that the women are telling the truth and that some sort of assault did occur. But I freely acknowledge that that perspective has been shaped by my liberal education and my general inclination to be on the side of the oppressed and the abused.  

For the life of me - I cannot see any real winners in the process