Leisureville – Andrew D. Blechman

Macbeth: Act 3, Scene 2:

… Duncan is in his grave;
23 After life's fitful fever he sleeps well;
24 Treason has done his worst: nor steel, nor poison,
25 Malice domestic, foreign levy, nothing,
26 Can touch him further.

These words, uttered by Macbeth to his wife as he describes the hell that his life has become since his murder of Duncan, occurred to me as I read Andrew Blechman’s searing examination of age-segregated communities burgeoning in popularity in the United States. Is there anyone amongst us who has not pined, as Macbeth does in the above quote, for an existence free of the anxiety, disturbance and suffering that are inevitable components of life? Macbeth realizes the only way to realize such a utopian peace is through death; an increasing numbers of seniors, however, see it as achievable by removing themselves to retirement or age-segregated gated communities, virtually severing the once almost indissoluble ties of community and family in the process. Such is the promise of Leisureville, the wry title the author uses to describe his perception of life in such an environment. After reading the book, many readers may conclude that such communities are another form of what Macbeth longed for in his colloquy with his wife.

While always treating his subject with respect, after living for a month in such a community at the invitation of former neighbours who moved to “The Villages,” the foremost age-segregated community in central Florida, the author draws a portrait of a life that, from most people’s perspective, can only be described as vapid and meaningless. Although days upon endless days filled with swimming, golfing and drinking in a sheltered environment may seem alluring to many, one inevitably has to ask if this is any way for a responsible person to spend the rest of his or her life. Considering that many of the retirees have perhaps 30 or more years of life remaining, the answer has to be no.

Blechman makes a pretty strong case for community engagement and involvement throughout one’s life, not just up to retirement, arguing that inter-generational co-existence is what gives true meaning and vitality to communities. While acknowledging that North American society as a whole doesn’t do a particularly good job of either encouraging or looking after its retired people, he clearly doesn’t see secession as the answer.

In addition to the societal implications of seniors’ self-removal from the larger world, Blechman also examines the environmental and political implications of such movements. For example, owing to their mild climates, two of the most popular states for age-restricted communities are Florida and Arizona. At least up to the present, there have been very few restrictions placed on development, despite the fact that water is becoming increasing scarce in both states, with droughts occurring with disturbing regularity. The author discusses sinkholes happening in The Villages due to depletion of aquifers; as well, he makes regular reference to the bulldozing and flattening of land as The Villages continues its relentless development. Another consequence of this kind of lifestyle is the domination of very conservative politics, led by the developers who, with their vast resources, contribute significant sums to both the Republican Party and local politicos that welcome unrestricted development while at the same time largely ignoring and denigrating the needs of the larger community.

All of us need and deserve regular hiatuses from the hurly-burly of life. In my view, Andrew Blechman makes a compelling argument through Leisureville that none of us deserves a life-long commutation from it.

A Fistful of Dollars: The Story of a Kiva.org Loan

As I have mentioned in the past, I do some volunteer editing work with kiva.org, an Internet-based microfinance entity that raises loans for entrepreneurs in the developing world.

A video explaining how Kiva works was recently produced by Kieran Ball, a Kiva Fellow, and can be found by clicking here. I hope you will get the opportunity to view it.

Alex and Me

Anyone who has ever owned and had a close relationship with a pet other than perhaps a turtle or a hamster will likely attest to the belief, much resisted by the majority of the scientific community, that animals do in fact have some capacity for thought. That has certainly been true of our last two pets, now deceased, a Newfoundland dog and a tabby cat. I remember when I would take Fred, our Newf, on long walks which would frequently see me running into people I knew and stopping for a chat. Fred, always the gentleman, would sit nicely beside me for about five minutes, but after the elapsed time, would invariably take his paw and nudge me on the thigh, saying, in effect, “Time to get a move on.” Similarly, our cat would stay out of our bedroom until he heard me getting up, at which point he would enter the room and meow at me to feed him. Despite the fact that I would react with pavlovian haste to his request, it was somehow never fast enough for him, and he would inevitably chastise me with a series of very acerbic meows as I made my way to the cupboard to get his food, as if swearing at me for not being fast enough.

No doubt, many will dismiss these two anecdotes as manifestations of nothing more than operant conditioning, but on an intuitive level I know they were much more. Which brings me to the subject of this post, a fascinating book by Irene Pepperberg called Alex and Me, the story of her 30-year relationship with an African Grey parrot named Alex. Although possessing a doctorate in chemistry, Pepperberg turned her lifelong fascination with birds into a career discovering the capacity for thought and true communication between parrot and human.

Hers is the story both of the struggle to get sufficient funding to pursue her studies and the very close, loving relationship that developed over three decades with Alex, her subject and, in a very real sense, collaborator. The book is not meant to be a scientific explication of her methodology, although she provides sufficient information about her training techniques and her results to leave the reader with the belief that what she uncovered was not some unusual capacity for mimicry on the part of an unusually bright parrot, but rather significant indications that Alex was not only able to speak with meaning and purpose but also grasp abstract concepts such as numbers, differences and similarities between things, and language as a tool for influencing and manipulating others, all qualities that have been traditionally viewed as the exclusive domain of homo sapiens.

Rather than my recounting some of Alex’s specific achievements here, I am providing a link to a segment done with Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers: PBS - Scientific American Frontiers:Pet Tech:Watch Online

The reader can’t help but be amused and touched by the experiences that both parrot and human shared over the many years, and perhaps a little humbled in seeing that human beings are perhaps not quite as distinct a species as we have always believed.

I Support Our Troops

While I rarely make overtly political comments in this blog, I have to say that as a Canadian, one of the phrases that irks me to no end is, “I support our troops,” whether uttered by the individual or found on the bumper sticker of the still-ubiquitous SUV. The irony of that statement, as it pertains to democracy, is profound.

What does it mean to express support for the troops? In practice, it invariably means, and demands, an unquestioning acceptance of their presence, their mission, and, sadly, their deaths in Afghanistan. To support the troops by advocating an end to their Afghani operation has been seen as tantamount to some kind of betrayal of them. Certainly this is much evident in the way the Harper Government has used the phrase to stifle discussion about the mission, a warning to those who oppose it to keep their mouths shut at the risk of being labeled unpatriotic.

A couple of years ago, before the Liberal Opposition cravenly acquiesced in yet another extension of the Canadian operation to 2011, (on the specious grounds that they didn’t want to divide the nation), the ever-political, ever-manipulative and ever-morally- blunted Prime Minister Harper labeled those politicians who dared question the validity of our troops being in Afghanistan as ‘Taliban sympathizers,’ working a Macarthesque rhetoric into his usual practice of division and demoralization. Sadly, very little spirited defense was mounted for freedom of thought, opinion, and expression, foundational freedoms that are the putative reasons for trying to “bring democracy’ to the Afghanis. Somehow, the Harper concept of democracy applies only to those views in accord with his own.

And yet perhaps Harper is only a sad symptom of our own weaknesses as human beings. While we rarely consciously acknowledge the hypocrisy, our notions of informed and spirited discourse frequently seem to fall far short of anything approaching a meaningful exchange of ideas. One can’t help but feel that perhaps civilized and respectful discussion is only an ideal, never to be truly realized.

But then, of course, there is the possibility of a renewal of public discussion in the United States with the election of Barack Obama. One of the most encouraging signs emerging south of the border is the fact that unlike Prime Minister Harper, who has surrounded himself with sycophants and policy clones, Mr. Obama seems intent on having a diversity of views in his Cabinet, suggesting he wants the best policy options emerging from the cauldron of heated discussions that inevitably ensue when you place people of diverse perspectives together. Kind of like the classroom I remember so well when things were really working and the kids were really thinking.

Will this mark a turning point in what has become a sad parody of political process as evidenced under the disaster of the Bush presidency? If so, will it have any impact on the poisoned Canadian political process? Perhaps we will begin to get the answer to those questions in 2009.

Happy New Year.

What is America? A Short History of the New World Order – Ronald Wright

As an English teacher, I was always frustrated by my students' poor grounding in history, as historical allusions, etc. meant nothing to them if they didn't have the context. The context that history provides is also essential for interpreting the world that we live in today. Author Ronald Wright provides that crucial tool in his latest book.

Like his last non-fiction work, A Short History of Progress, author Ronald Wright has crafted an eminently readable and concise work that deserves to be read both widely and deeply. In his latest analysis, What is America? A Short History of the New World Order, Wright looks at the history of America, from its earliest days as the domain of the aboriginal, to its current position as probably the most reviled country in the world.

Beginning with a short history of the Spanish subjugation of Mesoamerica (Mexico and the adjoining Maya region of Central America) and Greater Peru which powerfully sets the theme of conquest, the author quickly moves to the time of the English settling of what ultimately became the United States. Much of the history of the genocide and betrayal of the aboriginals living in what, for many, will seem a surprising amount of structure, government and civilization, is well-known to students of that period, but the information serves to provide the context for defining the American character as it has revealed itself over the past two hundred years.

Once the frontiers of America were closed, the U.S government looked abroad to expand its influence and will until we have the situation the world confronts today – a country that subscribes to the notions of exceptionalism and manifest destiny, beliefs that have made it guilty of a hubris worthy of Greek tragedy. Perhaps the best way to view the book is as an examination of a pattern of behaviour that, while hardly unique to the United States, has resulted in a sorry tale of lost potential.

While those who subscribe to the American mythology of benevolence betrayed will be deeply offended by this work, those who are able to rise above blind patriotic fervour will see the truth and validity of Wright’s observation which, as always, are backed by solid research and historical data.

He ends the book on a positive note by looking at one model of co-operation that suggests human beings can rise above their selfish and violent history to work together toward common goals. That model is the European Union which, as the author readily admits, is far from perfect but seems to be succeeding where past structures have failed. One needs only consider their progressive legislation on climate control or medical care for it citizenry to appreciate the accuracy of his observations.

In closing, it seems that all of the goodwill and excitement generated worldwide over the election of Barack Obama suggests that there is still a tremendous hunger in countless countries for the Unite States to succeed as a nation among nations; without question it still has much to contribute, and its tremendous power to influence the direction of world affairs, for both good and evil, is undeniable. But some important questions remain to be answered: Can the United States rise above its national character forged in history, and begin to realize its true potential? Will its citizens, even under inspirational political leadership, be willing to do the hard work and make the necessary sacrifices to achieve that potential?

Only time will answer those questions. I wish them well.

The Positive Side of Failure

There is a thought-provoking column in today's Globe and Mail by Roy MacGregor, who offers his reaction to a high school principal considering banning 'F's' because it 'hurts kids' feelings.'

Many teachers, especially the veterans, will find much truth in his views on the potentially positive results of failure:

The Fs in my past stand for first-rate life lessons

ROY MacGREGOR

From Monday's Globe and Mail
November 17, 2008 at 12:36 AM EST

Just my luck.

Not only born in the wrong century, but in the wrong province.
Were I heading into high school this year in Saskatoon, there's an excellent chance I would escape ever receiving that report card that sits in an old folder in the filing cabinet: History F… Algebra F… Chemistry F…. French F… Latin F…each “F” written and circled in red ink – just in case my parents might miss them.

No, if this bright young lad were headed for Nutana Collegiate, there wouldn't be much fear, as the “F” letter may soon be banned there.

Apparently, it hurts kids' feelings.

“We don't need to degrade the student by giving them a number,” the school principal was quoted this weekend as saying. “Incomplete” or “no mark” would amount to the same thing, but not so “demoralizing” as an actual “F” – so as of the end of January, the “F” may be dropped from the Nutana alphabet.

I could have used that a hundred years ago in that small Ontario town as I dragged my sorry way back up over the hills to a home where family members were already practising their fist pumps in anticipation of much earlier letters in the alphabet.

Back then, I would gladly have traded my place in the vice-principal's office with those of Nutana, but not in retrospect. Over time, I came to mark that slap-in-the-face kick-in-the-seat-of-the-pants as the best thing that ever happened. It was about discovering you just couldn't slide through without paying the slightest attention. When the school let me back in after some inappropriate snivelling, I had learned a lesson that didn't have a classroom – and I like to think I never forgot it.

We don't spend enough time on the plus side of failure.

It was interesting to watch Michael Ignatieff this week as he announced he was once again running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada and practically boasted about his spectacular flameout in the same quest two years ago. And the reception among pundits this time round seemed curiously warmer, as if failure first time round had somehow made him a more rounded and more attractive candidate.

Certainly failure did not hold back Saskatchewan's most famous politician. John Diefenbaker ran six times before he finally won an election, then ran, and lost, twice for the Conservative leadership before finally becoming Prime Minister of Canada with what was then the largest majority victory ever.

In Peter C. Newman's instantly celebrated new book Izzy: The Passionate Life and Turbulent Times of Izzy Asper, Newman points out that Asper's magnificent failure in politics (he was once leader of the Manitoba Liberals) drove him back to business, where he eventually built his massive media empire.

But that's just politics, where ultimate failure is a given – at least in a country like Canada where the citizens tend to eat their own grown-ups.

The arts are no different. British mystery author John Creasey was rejected 743 times before selling his first novel – and went on to publish at least 500 more. Pearl S. Buck had a dozen rejection slips before The Good Earth found a publisher.

British author J.K. Rowling is the world's most successful living writer – a billionaire who has sold hundreds of millions of her Harry Potter books – and yet her convocation address this past June to the graduates of Harvard University was entitled: The Fringe Benefits of Failure, and the Importance of Imagination.

Harvard grads, she said, might not be very well acquainted with failure, but before they come up against it – as we all do – they might like to look at it in a different light. She wasn't claiming failure was any fun, but she did think it sometimes necessary and often helpful.

There was a time, Rowling told the puzzled students, when “by every standard, I was the biggest failure I knew.” Seven years after her own graduation, her marriage had failed, she was a single mother and unemployed.

She began scribbling away in coffee shops on a book about wizards.

“Failure,” she said, “meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged.”

Setbacks, Rowling argued, make one stronger, not weaker. Knowing you can survive a setback and move on makes one “secure in your ability to survive” and teaches you more about yourself than any examination can.

“It is impossible,” she said, “to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all – in which case, you fail by default.”

She was speaking to Harvard University, but I hope her words are heard by Nutana Collegiate, which I'm sure is a fine school with a fine principal.
The principal might, however, like to reconsider.

The only school letter I ever earned was an “F.”

And it was richly deserved.

Yet Another Reminder About the Dangers of Unfettered Capitalism

In light of the current financial crisis facing the world, there are probably few that need additional proof of the dangers of unfettered capitalism, given the propensity of many corporations for greedy and immoral behaviour. Nonetheless, there is yet another sobering reminder of this truth in today’s Globe and Mail story about Dow Chemical’s (of Bhopal infamy) apparent intention to seek financial compensation from Canada over the fact that two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, have banned the widely used pesticide 2-4-D for cosmetic applications. Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement gives corporations the right to seek financial compensation if their businesses are hurt by a government’s exercise of its sovereignty, in this case the provinces’ efforts to protect the health of its citizens.

The story is reproduced here:

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT AND LUKE ERIC PETERSON
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
October 22, 2008 at 1:12 AM EDT
Dow AgroSciences is considering using the controversial investor-protection provisions of the North American free-trade agreement to seek compensation from the federal government over Quebec's ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

The company, a maker of the weed-killer 2,4-D, filed a notice of intent to submit a claim to arbitration under NAFTA in late August. The 27-page legal action was posted yesterday on the Foreign Affairs website, where it is listed as a dispute to which Canada is a party.

In its notice, Dow says the Quebec ban outlawing the use of bug and weed sprays for merely appearances' sake around homes breaches legal protections owed by Canada to U.S. investors under the trade agreement.

NAFTA has provisions, known as Chapter 11, that restrict the ability of a country to take measures “tantamount to nationalization or expropriation” of an investment from a firm from another NAFA member. Besides Canada, the United States and Mexico are in the trade pact.

The Indianapolis-based company, whose 2,4-D is a standard ingredient in many commercial weed sprays, is seeking compensation of not less than $2-million, plus legal costs and yet-to-be specified damages.

Dow's legal brief accuses the Quebec government of implementing a pesticide ban that “is not based on science” and was applied to 2,4-D “without providing any meaningful opportunity” for the company to make its case that the herbicide is safe.

Quebec instituted its pesticide ban in 2006, and Dow's action could have wide-ranging impacts. Ontario has recently adopted a similar measure, as have many municipalities, based on a precautionary public-health approach of minimizing exposures to these chemicals.

Although pesticide bans are spreading in Canada, the degree of health risk posed by the sprays is highly contentious. While such respected groups as the Canadian Cancer Society have argued in favour of bans, Health Canada says the pesticides it allows on the market are safe, if used as directed.

Ironically, Health Canada issued its assessment backing the safety of 2,4-D in May, shortly after Ontario said it would follow Quebec's lead by banning the lawn and garden chemicals.

The Dow claim is the latest in a long string of disputes to arise under Chapter 11 – a legal back-channel that permits foreign investors to detour local courts and sue the federal government before an international tribunal.

Foreign Affairs lists nine active arbitrations to which Canada has been named as a party.

The government is defending against a similar Chapter 11 claim filed by another U.S.-based chemical producer over lindane, a suspected carcinogen banned or no longer used in many countries. When Canada moved to end the use of the fungicide on seed treatments, U.S.-based Chemtura Corp. sued for $100-million in damages. That arbitration is going on behind closed doors.

Many of the NAFTA Chapter 11 actions have been based on complaints that pollution regulations harm business, raising concerns that companies are trying to use the trade treaty to stop governments from taking actions to protect public health or the environment.

Kathleen Cooper, a senior researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says that the Quebec ban is backed by medical and environmental organizations, and enjoys wide support in public-opinion surveys. She says she is troubled that chemical producers can invoke NAFTA in an effort to “undermine the decisions of democratically elected governments.”

Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, says Dow is “quite transparently” trying to stop pesticide bans from spreading around the country and he predicts the company will face a public backlash for its position.

But Dow, in its submission, says Quebec has consistently ignored decisions supporting as safe the continued use of 2,4-D from Health Canada and other regulators.