Notley's Refusal to Participate

CBC has reported that Premier Notley of Alberta has backed out of the western premier's meeting this week. She says she is doing so because she needs to monitor Kinder Morgan's end of May deadline. Notley also " said it would be surreal and exceptionally tone deaf for anyone to think we could politely discuss pharmacare and cannabis when one of the players is hard at work trying to choke the economic lifeblood of the province and the country"(CBC).

I appreciate that emotions amongst the premiers may be running a bit high. I can understand why it might feel easier to run away as opposed to trying to work with someone on other issues when you are really pissed off at them. But suck it up children.  You are not the first manager of a large corporation (because that is what premiers are) who is in a serious conflict with a colleague and occasional competitor. Most of us who have been in similar situations have had to attend that meeting and have had to find a way to, at least in the short term, to work together. If I had been able to miss meeting just because I didn't like what a colleague or the government was going to say to me, I could have worked a three day work week. If your job is to advocate on behalf of a group of people (and surely that is part of the premier's job) of course someone is going to disagree with you. Hell, the Prime Minister has historically had to attend meetings of the premiers where at any one time at least half of the provincial premiers are royally pissed off at him.

There are serious issues that the western premiers need to discuss. Some of them may not be resolvable but surely on such issues as pharmacare, the decriminalization of marijuana or universal daycare there is some common ground. If the "leaders" of our provincial governments cannot figure out a way to at the very least be civil to each other that, if nothing else, demonstrates the public's inability to elect mature leaders.  I expect that the leaders within my country should have the capacity to see the big picture, to know how to work with a range of people, some of whom they do not agree with. I expect them to be able to recognize that their colleagues, no matter how misguided or ill-informed they are, do have the best interest of their constituents at heart. Throwing verbal sticks and stones at them, from a distance, strikes me as more than somewhat childish.

While I have some admiration for Notley in terms of some of her environmental decisions (e.g. carbon tax) and at least some sympathy for her limited range of options around oil production when oil is her province's only real income generator, it is hard to respect someone who won't attend a meeting because someone disagrees with her.

Baby and the Bathwater

The May edition of the Walrus had two separate articles that I don't think were meant to be compared to each other but in fact are, at least in my mind, two sides of the same coin.

Lauren McKeon's article Here's Looking at No Kids discusses the growing number of women who are not having children. Some of those women are not able to have children, but there appears to be an increasing number of women who are making a conscious choice not to be mothers. The article discusses amongst other things the incredible pressure that women are placed under to have children and when they decide to not - how society can view that decision. When I first read the article it struck me that we are living in an extraordinary world where it can be recognized that all sorts of people and their very specific issues can be identified as being different and that they need special attention. It is a world where everyone has the right to feel discriminated against and to have those issues addressed. It struck me as I was reading McKeon's work that we, at least in the west, are at some risk of being so fragmented by our special needs that we will have almost nothing in common with each other.

The second article, Lonely Boys by Rachel Giese discusses the fact that young men (and older ones too) are more likely to be socially isolated and at risk of a whole range of mental and physical health ailments because of that isolation. She discusses the various factors that at some point around puberty encourage/force boys to separate from their best pals, that boys they may have been close to throughout their childhood - but no longer seem to be as important. Giese suggests that much of that separation is because society does not encourage or perhaps even allow young men to be close to each other. Giese further suggests that there was a time when men were allowed, by society, to have warm relationships with other men, that in the time of all male clubs, universities, service clubs and the military there was ample opportunity for men to develop strong relationships - relationships that could sustain them throughout their lives. And that as women started to demand access to those all male bastions of power and influence, men lost their places to develop relationships.

As I read those two articles it occurred to me that as we become more aware of individual special needs for growth and development, as we continually reject societies demands for us to conform - there is value in being careful that in making the changes, that we do not destroy the very institutions that have made it possible to survive as a species.

As well while some women are demanding that society cannot and should not expect them to follow the tradition that all women need to have children and that society must support that decision - at the same time men need to be able to demand a society that allows for and facilitates the growth of the male's capacity to develop relationships. And that may include male only institutions.

Depressing News

The Ford Motor company has announced that within a few years they will no longer be making sedans. The company is abandoning its Fiesta, Fusion and Taurus line of vehicles and will instead concentrate on pickup trucks and SUVs. Not  for the entire world, just for the United States (and presumably Canadian) markets. It can only be assumed that the other big American car producers (GM and Chrysler) will follow suit.

While I am not one of them, for anyone who follows the car market - this business decision is not a surprise. In fact the almost complete switch to larger vehicles is obvious to anyone who parks in a large box store parking lot. As a driver of a small car, I am constantly aware that that the majority of vehicles surrounding me are either trucks or SUVs. Consumers have for the past decade have been making the switch from sedans and cars to bigger, boxier vehicles, vehicles with big tires that are reputably safer (except of course if you are driving a smaller import and get hit by a SUV). It is clear that the American (and Canadian) markets are enamoured with the concept of driving something big. Not that most of them need to - they just want to.

This news is particularly discouraging in that in spite of the  general acceptance that global climate change is real and that the change is caused at least in part because of the amount of carbon that is released into the air; in spite of the fact that a significant percentage of the public list environmental concerns as being one of their top three concerns; in spite of the fact that there is a constant debate about how safe it is to transport oil, we are insisting on driving larger vehicles that consume more gas. As is so often the case, there is a large disconnect between what we say and what we do.

I can appreciate that pickup trucks and SUVs are far more fuel efficient than they use to be. I understand why all of that space is attractive. As I pack my car for market day, or have to rearrange the back of my car to ensure that I can get two booster seats into the back seat or wonder how I am going to get that 10 foot piece of fragile wood trim home - I think about how I would love to have a bigger vehicle. But I do not need one. What I need is a reliable vehicle that will meet most of my needs, most of the time. What I need is a vehicle that is fuel efficient all of the time.

There are some Canadians who argue that we need larger vehicles because we have to drive large distances (as compared to people in Europe or Asia), there are others who argue that we need to have big vehicles with all wheel drive because our weather conditions are terrible for so many months of the year. While the former argument has some limited validity, the reality for most people is that they do not drive those great distances all of the time; the latter argument's validity becomes questionable when it is made by those who live on Vancouver Island or by people whose chosen life styles occasionally force them to drive through harsh conditions (e.g. choosing to live in a  new house on a poorly maintained rural road and then saying you need to own a SUV).

 

According to Statistics Canada, 81% of Canadians live in urban areas. Why would one need a vehicle that is, at least supposedly, made for rough roads or carrying heavy loads? If car manufacturers have been able to fabricate more fuel efficient vehicles, that does not mean that we get to drive bigger cars.

As we sit and ponder the environmental fate of the world, as we are alarmed by the violent weather patterns that seem to be emerging, as we bemoan the irresponsible producers of oil - maybe we should drooling over the newest SUVs.

Bright Yellow Triangles and Opioids

Health Canada now requires that prescribed opioid medications need to clearly indicate both on the bottle and in pamphlets a clear warning as to the potential for addiction and misuse. Doctors, researchers and others who study addictions and prescription misuse have suggested that this is an important step in preventing people from developing a dependency on this medication.

I have limited experience with taking medication. Other than my beta blockers for my heart condition and the very occasional antibiotic, I have managed to avoid needing to take prescribed medication. I therefore, may not be qualified to pass comment on a health initiative that may save lives. However, I cannot believe that sticking on a bright yellow triangle on a bottle of pills will cause anyone to be more careful. It is even less likely in my mind that anyone (with the exception of a few rather bored folks) will bother to wade through a notice, typed in incredibly small print, that has been stuck into the box. Individuals are not going to look at the label or read the pamphlet at 2:00 in the morning when they need to take another pill.

It is hard for me to believe that there is a single person living in Canada who is not aware that there is an ever increasing number of individuals who are addicted to opioids. I have to believe that every doctor is well aware of the risks and that the days of extended use of such medication without supervision and review is long past. I have to hope that every time such a medication is prescribed, the doctor has a serious and clear conversation with the patient. In my limited experience, even with my rather innocuous prescribed drugs, I don't get them until the pharmacist makes sure that I understand what I am getting. It would seem to me that if the medical community is doing its job (and I acknowledge that that is not always the case), there is sufficient opportunity for the patient to get all of the information about the drug and its dangers - if they want to hear it.

While doctors, in the post-modernist world may not be on quite as high as pedestal as they use to be, they are still seen as people who can deliver on basic cures and pain relief. In spite of the near epidemic rates of cynicism, we appear to still need to believe that there are people who will always give good advice so that we can get better. In spite of some overwhelming contrary evidence, many of us want/need to believe that the doctor is always right.  People who are in pain are more likely to nod their head when the doctor is talking, ready to agree to anything as opposed to discussing other less effective but safer options. If they ever have qualms about the medication they will just say -"well the doctor said it would help". Doctors may need to find ways of explaining the dangers differently or at the very least be able to spend more time with such patients on a more regular basis.

As the over prescription of such medications as opioids is at least in part the result of people wanting quick and simple results, so is the decision to solve at least part of the problem of abusing prescriptions by printing bright yellow labels on the bottles. It sounds good. It sounds as if someone is doing something. If such warnings stops two people from going down the path to addiction it is worth it. But  for Health Canada to assume that opioid abuse is the result of a lack of education profoundly misdirects the conversation of how and why addictions happen. This initiative places the onus on the patient, when that responsibility at the very least needs to be shared with those who are handing out the pills.

Surprises

At my age - I do not expect too many surprises. I still get to meet interesting people and see extraordinary scenery; I still have the chance to try new things and to have my adventures, but most of those things are somewhat planned. I see those sights, meet those people, have those adventures because I do something that allows them to happen. For example I look forward to meeting some new, interesting people or seeing something I have not noticed before when I hitchhike, but that only happens because I decide to hitchhike. That events happen is not really surprising - in fact I sort of anticipate them happening and when they don't - I am disappointed. But last week two things happened that were just a little bit different.

I was talking to my neighbour and somehow we started talking about dowsing for water. I have always been a bit cynical about that particular bit of folk lore. We did have a well "witched" 35 or so years ago, and the person was accurate. But there is something about believing that a willow stick held in the hands of the right person will dip at a specific place and that there will be water in the ground that strikes me  as weird. It may be because I am somewhat of a natural cynic or perhaps because I just do not trust people. For whatever reason, it is easier for me to assume that a person is conning me. However my neighbour said he could do it, went into his shed and pulled two mental rods each about three feet long with a right angle bend 2/3 of the way down the rod. He held them loosely in his hands, pointing out from his body and as he walked down the street - every time he came to a buried water pipe the rods swung parallel to the depression/cracks in the road. I was quite convinced that I understood his trick. He was suggesting that the cracks in the road were the consequence of shoddy road construction done over sewer/water pipes. Whenever he came to such a spot he  manipulated the rods so that they would move. Quite frankly the rods move so quickly and definitively I was almost embarrassed at the obviousness of his trick. Then he offered the rods to me.

I told him that I had no affinity with anything of that sort and I was sure that they would not work for me. I was giving him a graceful way out - but he insisted and so I tried it - knowing that it would not work. And they did work!!! With absolutely no effort on my part, with the rods held loosely, they swung parallel to the cracks in the road. Not just once but every time.  I don't understand why and I don't care. It was just fun to do something totally outside of my experience.

On Saturday I was at the market. It was wet and it was cold. It was raining when we set up and it was raining when we packed up seven hours later. The fact that anyone came to the market was in my mind a bit of a miracle. I did not expect to sell anything - it was far too miserable for anyone to browse. But a woman did come by and decided to buy a shawl. I was , of course, delighted. We did our business, I gave her some washing instructions, we chatted a bit and then she left. A few minutes later I saw her across the street and realized that I had not told her something - something that I say to all of my customers who spend a lot of money and that is - "When I give something I have made to one of my kids or a relative and they say thank you - that is really nice but they would say thank you whether or not they liked it. But when someone buys something from me, something that in my mind is a lot of money - it makes me feels good, it validates the work that I have done and I get excited to know that someone likes and appreciates my work as much as I do.

The lady was told me that she was an artist and had just sold one of her works. She had decided to take the money and buy something special just for her. She understood the joy of an artist (although I never call myself that) in finding someone who wants their work. We hugged. I have never hugged a customer before but it felt right. Somehow for that brief moment, we stopped being salesperson and customer and became two people who knew what it meant when someone else liked how you spent your day.

Pretty special indeed