How safe are YOU

The media get blamed for a lot of social problems that they’re not really responsible for, such as anorexia in teenage girls, violent behaviour in children, cigarette smoking and so on.

However, there is one thing I think can be blamed squarely on ‘The Media’: the public’s distorted perception of risk. Granted, with the rise of the internet ‘The Media’ is a lot more complex and amorphous than it was even ten years ago, but often the same distortions that make the headlines on the local news channel are mirrored online. For every atm scam that makes it to the evening news on CP24, there are five that I get via email.

Not everyone knows about snopes.com or thinks to check it every time they see or get emailed a scare story. Though they probably should. Or at the very least, understand that ‘The Media’ is really the world’s biggest Drama Queen.

Take terrorism, for example.

According to a study by HealthyAmericans.org, seventy percent of Americans ranked chemical terrorism as a major concern in 2007. Never mind the odds of anywhere in the US being the subject of such an attack for now, or the fact that if you combined the populations of all the major cities that could possibly be victim to such an attack it wouldn’t add up to anywhere near 70% of the US population.

Instead, just take the real-life scenario of a chemical attack that did happen, under the worst-case scenario, which took place almost 12 years ago to the date I post this. Picture one of the most crowded places, most populous cities in the world – Tokyo, Japan. Then picture an attack using one of the scariest chemicals of them all – nerve gas. Then imagine it being released in the scariest of all urban places – subway stations full of commuters at one of the busiest times of the day. Not just one attack either, but FIVE. How many people died as a result of the attacks – that occured in one of the most densely populated parts of the world? TWELVE.

So even under the worst-case scenario of something that’s highly unlikely to happen the first place, the odds of dying from it are still miniscule.

Another scare story making the rounds is Bird Flu. This is probably something that is cause for concern – for birds. For people? Not so much.

How is The Media to blame for this? Take this headline as an example, from one of the world’s most reputable news sources, the BBC. The headline reads: Bird flu ‘could kill 150m people’. A hundred and fifty MILLION? Holy crap!

Then take a look at the sub-heading: A flu pandemic could happen at any time and kill between 5-150 million people, a UN health official has warned.

The BBC, not known for being a scare-mongering tabloid, took the highest, scariest number and plugged it into the headline.

That headline was from about 18 months ago. How many people has it killed so far, in the entire world? 169. Most of those deaths have been in Indonesia, one of the most densely populated, impoverished parts of the world. In their entry in the CIA World Fact Book, there is a long list of diseases to be wary of if you plan to travel there. Their entry for avian flu:

“highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza has been identified among birds in this country or surrounding region; it poses a negligible risk with extremely rare cases possible among US citizens who have close contact with birds (2007)”

Obvious (except to their own audience) fear-mongering outlets are the tabloid news. Take this, from Fox News: Iran, Iraq, Etc.: Email Your Pick of Top Terror Threat. “Are you tired of trying to make sense of what bogeyman, country or crazed group is trying to do us in from week to week?”

Even reputable organisations do the same thing – such as this report from the New Scientist: US ‘unaware’ of emerging bioterror threats. Part of the article speculates that “Terrorists could potentially develop bioregulators that disrupt the immune system, neurological system or endocrine system.”

Why do these stories crop up over and over? Most media depend on advertising or subscriptions for their revenue. The more viewers they claim, or the larger share of audience, the more money they earn. The more dramatic the headline, the more likely that someone is going to read it. Even someone such as myself will click on a link to a dramatic headline if only to see what kind of BS someone is trying to scare me with.

That isn’t to say that terrorist incidents don’t happen. It’s obvious that they do. My husband has a relative who was killed in a bomb attack in India. It’s terrible what happened – to a very nice person, a family man, minding his own business, on his way home from work one day. My husband’s family couldn’t care less about the odds of something like that happening, because it did happen. The same goes for victims of such attacks everywhere.

But what could the victims or the Indian government have done to prevent it? In reality, pretty much nothing. There are a lot of crazy nutjobs in the world who can come up with all sorts of dodgy rationalisations for violence. No amount of policing or social control can stop everyone who has an agenda and is determined to carry it out. Part of life is that tragedy can strike out of the blue, from anywhere at any time. But that’s no reason to live in constant fear or suspend civil liberties. It’s no reason to believe the crap spewed on Fox news or vote in power-hungry whackjobs who promise to protect you. It means to live life as fully as possible because you never know when your time is up. And in the meantime, look both ways when crossing the street.

For further reading: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978-1,00.html

www.junkscience.com

http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html

Bad idea of the week – turning Fez Batik into a flophouse

Today there was an article in the Toronto Star about a plan to turn the space in the Richmond Street club district that used to house the Fez Batik club into a homeless shelter. I’m struggling with where to begin – I can’t believe such a stupid idea has gone so far.

The area general area – a few blocks around Richmond and John Streets – has been in decline the past few years, but is still the heart of the Toronto’s night life. I don’t tend to hang around there too often – the places tend to attract a younger, more suburban crowd – but it is the centre for a lot of out of towners and tourists.

Is plunking a homeless shelter in the middle of it really such a bright idea?

First off, a lot of people who need those kinds of services have substance abuse problems. The proposed shelter would be in the midst of dozens of bars – bars that are also notorious havens for drug dealers. Does anyone else see why that would be a not be a good plan – encouraging people with drug and alcohol problems in the one area of town where it’s easiest to get drugs and alcohol? All that’s missing is a late-night beer store or LCBO.

Secondly, homeless types and drunk suburbanites are a terrible mix. I know because I see the interaction between the two groups all the time where I live. I see the kids harrassing the homeless and the pan-handlers on Queen Street West regularly. People who are already down and out don’t need to be kicked down further, which is what drunken, sheltered, spoiled suburbanites love to do for entertainment as they head back to where dad’s beamer is parked.

Then there is the venue itself. I used to have a room-mate who worked at Fez Batik for a few years. The rent on that place then was something in the range of $30,000 per month. That was the rent alone – not the costs for staff, utilities or anything else. The plan for the shelter would provide for just forty beds. That means that just the rent alone would cost $750 per month per person. Isn’t that rather expensive? Surely there is cheaper real estate than that available.

There are already shelters in much better locations. One, I believe, recently closed – it was on Queen West and had few surrounding businesses. I don’t have a problem with shelters in general, but there are neighbourhoods in which it would be bad to put one for all kinds of reasons; where a few blocks away would be fine.  There’s one near where I live – at College and McCaul.  I pass by it regularly and see the people standing around outside with their coffees and cigarettes.  They mind their own business.  It’s close to public transport and roads, and a handful of houses, but I’ve never heard of any problems.  There’s certainly enough vacancies in Toronto that a similar location could be found.

Of course, the real solution would be for social services and the accompanying costs be covered by the provinces again rather than the cities. And to put the welfare rates back up to where people can at least afford rent and food. I’ll go deeper into my reasoning for that in a future blog.

For now, I’ll just be emailing my counciller before the meeting on Wednesday.

Organic Jeans, workers rights and what I’d REALLY like to see

Levi Jeans has recently introduced organic jeans. Admittedly, I don’t know that much about cotten production so I can’t really tell if this is a PR thing since ‘all things organic’ is becoming increasingly mainstream, or whether there is actually a pressing need for organic cotten over other types.

However, this article in the Toronto Now doesn’t really delve into that at all, but instead the writer comments: “No doubt it’s good for farm workers who’d otherwise be stewing in toxins, but are they any better off financially when organic clothing is being peddled at such low prices?”

I’m not saying that workers rights are not important, or that the environment is not important.

However, what I’d really love to see is all these eco- and workers-rights activists start their own business since they seem to know so much about how things should be run.

Consumer activism is always something that’s bothered me on some level.  I know people’s hearts may be in the right places, they may have good intentions, and some of them may make  a positive difference.  However, some just seem have a particular ideology and go on the attack at the first whiff of anything ‘corporate’.  There’s certainly more ego-satisfaction to being part of an activist movement common to a lot of crusading types than just being some schmuck working in an office somewhere.

But part of me strongly believes that rather than complain about the wrongs that everyone else is doing, why not set an example?  There are people out there who have done just that – the founded Ben & Jerry’s, the Body Shop, Ethical Funds and so on – who not only set an example, but ended up providing jobs for thousands of people.  In the long run, that’s much more positive. And effective.

Seal hunt season again

It’s huntin’ time again for some estimated 6,000 newfies to start their annual seal hunt, and for some reason, the usual protests are a lot quieter this year.

I suppose that part of it has to do with the McCartney’s divorce proceedings. Even if a hundredth of what gets written about their split in the British press was true they’d be unlikely to get along for enough time to get a good photo next to a baby seal. And who knows what would happen if one of them got ahold of one of those hakapiks. Speaking of which, it would also go along way towards explaining the why they both appeared to be so belligerant when they went up against the Newfoundland Premier on Larry King last year – possibly their anger towards each other was misdirected towards the hunters.

Also quiet is this year is Morrisey. Of course, this year he doesn’t have an album coming out or an upcoming tour to publicise…

So this time round the protesting appears to be left to the usual suspects at PeTA, who are as informed and unbiased as always. I think most people are just bored of them by now. There’s only so often you can see photos of a chick in a lettuce-leaf bikini before the novelty wears off.

Although I do think that seals (particularly the babies that aren’t in reality hunted) are very cute, and I don’t wear fur myself, that doesn’t mean I have the right to complain about how others earn their living. Newfoundland is far from a rich province, and the seal trade provides some much need economic support. Although eco-tourism is often touted as an alternative to the seal hunt, I’ve yet to see a single protestor front the cash to start that kind of business there. It’s so much more fun to tell people what to do than it is to help them at all. Also, Newfoundland already has eco-tourism. Obviously it’s not viable enough to employ everyone in the province. (that, and imho, eco-tourism is an oxymoron)

It would be nice if the protestors would get one thing through their heads – they don’t kill the ones with the white coasts. That practice has been illegal for over 20 years but you wouldn’t know it from the all Peta/Ifaw propaganda.

I’m not even really against the concept of fur. Not that the seals are hunted simply for their coats, but what is so bad about fur? It’s no more cruel than leather. On top of being fabulous, it’s actually far more enviro-friendly than the alternatives, particularly if you regularly have to suffer through an Arctic winter. Warm, extremely durable, from a natural and renewable source that helps keep indigenous, rural people self-sufficient.

The reason I’d never wear fur myself is that I wouldn’t want some idiot throwing ketchup on me.

For further reading: http://freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com/2007/03/environmentalists-case-for-seal-hunt.html

Vegas virgin

Last weekend was my first ever trip to Las Vegas – I went with my husband and a group of friends. Before that, I was a vegas virgin. I’d always wanted to go, just that there’s a lot of places I want to go and I have yet to reach my true calling in life – to be one of the idle rich. Until then, I take the trips that my few vacation days and cheap flights from Buffalo allow.

I have to admit that I didn’t find as much tackyness and schmaltz as I’d been hoping, but there was still some of it hidden away in spots. Las Vegas looks like it was a war zone about a decade earlier, and they’re only now rebuilding. There’s cranes everywhere, and gaping holes and fields of gravel between the gargantuan hotel/casinos. And somehow, I did manage to function on only three hours of sleep per night.

Another thing that suprised me is that I expected more hard-core gamblers than I saw. The sort that frequent the other casino towns, sitting at the same slot machine for hours on end, eyes glazed over. The ones with those cards on a string. Nah. Vegas was more for alcoholics – a booze-hound’s paradise.

The first couple of nights we spent at the Four Queens on Freemont Street – the old Las Vegas strip. I was kinda disappointed it was covered, but at least some of the classic signs were there – the giant cowboy, the Golden Goose. Of course, I thought at the time that I took more pictures of the area than I actually did. Somehow, in my brain, with picture taking only, intent gets mixed up with ‘already done’. At least I’m not like that at work…

The remaing two nights were at the Stratosphere. They no longer have a roller coaster on the top of the tower, but there are two other rides there. I have to admit only one in our group braved the ride. I’ll blame cheapness rather than fear on my part – I didn’t want to pay the bucks to go on it. Maybe if I’d actually won some money I might have. The hotel did have a very nice rooftop pool surrounded by resort-beach type murals on all sides. It was especially nice since it was about 25 degrees celcius and one of my friends had just been on the phone to someone back home telling them it was colder than minus twenty-five. Oh, it was hard to go home again…

My husband and I also made it to Double Down – a smaller, smokier version of the Bovine.

I’ve heard Las Vegas described as Disney World for grownups and it is. Where that’s most apparent, of course, are the fake european city streets in Paris Paris, the Venetian and Caesars Palace. It didn’t really remind me of Europe, but of that long-ago trip to Orlando, Florida.

All in all, a good trip. Next time I’d have to see all that I missed on this trip such as New York New York and the Bellagio fountain, but that’ll be in the far-off future for now.

Why I’m not libertarian (quite)

I like the idea of libertarianism. I tend to agree with most of what is said about freedom, free markets and the criticism of governments. I loathe the nanny state and the near-obsession that some people have with all forms of social control. The Canadian government is one of the best arguments in favour of libertarianism – inefficient, nepotistic, bloated, expensive, rampant cronyism…

There’s just two things that get in the way of me completely adhering to it as an ideology:

1-Government isn’t always bad everywhere.

2-The private sector isn’t always any better.

Let’s start with the first – that government isn’t always bad. I lived in the UK for a few years, and was amazed at the efficiency of some of the services in comparison to the same ones in Canada. For example, when I filed for my tax return all I did was fill out a simple one-page form with my address information, and mailed that in along with my P-65 – similar to the T-4 slip in Canada. Nothing else to fill out, no numbers to calculate. Two weeks later I had a cheque for waaay more than I’ve ever had returned to me in Canada. And Canada isn’t always that bad either. When I went to apply for a new passport, only a few weeks before the Christmas holidays, it came in the mail about a week sooner than I’d been told it would. Can’t complain there!

What the British had done, in concept, when it came to government was brilliant. Government employees aren’t paid well above market value with union wages the way they are here. Instead, jobs were linked to prestige. Considering how obsessed so many people are with social status, I can’t see what that can’t be done elsewhere. Just get rid of the public sector unions, cut the salaries and attach a greater aura of ‘importance’ to the whole public service sector in the form of elevated job titles or special but cheap perks.  The Victorian concept of ‘public duty’ could probably go a longer way than most people think.

The other point, that Libertarians seem to steadfastly ignore,  is that the private sector isn’t any better. Guess they’ve never read Dilbert.  I’ve worked for most of my adult life in B2B for private companies, as well as various Government departments, small businesses and the BBC, and have in the course of my career been witness to plenty of the same problems that plague governments.

Libertarians will argue that at least in the private sector there’s a choice, competition, etc. but they don’t tend to take monopolies such as Ticketmaster or Wal-Mart into account. Also, the big banks in Canada are notorious for having VPs of circular filing and paperclip procurement, but not enough staff to do the actual work that needs to be done. And let’s not even get into the albatross that is Nortel… My husband complains of a supplier he has to deal with at work that is impossibly bureaucratic and frustrating; again, a private company, but just as bad as any government agency.

Most of the well-known libertarians tend to come from the field of entertainment, journalism or academia, and appear to have limited experience amongst the true rank and file of a company or corporation. Just read Dilbert, where the creator proves my point on a near daily basis. I’m not saying that they’re wrong about much – I totally agree with John Stossel, Penn & Teller and others on the importance of social and economic freedom, I just find that sometimes such advocates can be a little naive about the private sector.

I don’t entirely fall into the ’small is beautiful’ camp when it comes to ‘big business’ vs ’small business’ either. As employee, I’ve been screwed over plenty of times by small business people, and never by the larger ones…

So I’m close to being a libertarian, but not quite. I’d have to say that I don’t adhere to any ideology, but some are preferable to others, and if I had a choice, it probably would be what I’d pick.