Saturday, September 24, 2005

The Value of a Dollar

For the last couple of months, and for the fist time in recorded history (that I am aware of), gas prices have crossed the triple digit threshold here in Ontario...seemingly for good. Bemoaning gas prices has become something of a learned behaviour both locally and nationally for some time, so it seems only too reasonable that when we experience the most recent (and most dramatic) price fluctuations--fluctuations that saw the price-per-liter jump from 1-2$ and then back down to around 1$ in some areas, that people are going to ask questions and demand answers. Premier Dalton McGuinty (does anyone take this guy seriously anymore!?) gave a very eloquent speech about 'Finding Answers' to these crazy trends, signaling that an inquiry from one of the ministry's regulatory boards (some B.S. to do with business ethics...whatever they happen to be) is in order. Thanks big D., now how 'bout an inquiry into those promises you made regarding the gas tax and class sizes in public schools; ass.

But I digress, really what's important about gas prices is not the cost itself, but what this could mean to the way we organize our society. Fossil fuel and marriage represent perhaps two of the most important and foundational institutions in our culture. I won't touch marriage in this entry (or suggest the many ways in which I think these two concepts are related) but the fact of the matter is we are, it seems, on the verge of a transformation in terms of how and what fossil fuel means to us. Gas and oil are more expensive than they've ever been, and neither is going to get cheaper anytime soon. The powers that control how these resources are priced are immeasurably more powerful than any pipsqueak government minister or ministry. The organizational structures that underpin almost every movement a typical north American makes is organized on the principle that gas is available everywhere at a price he/she can afford. Even our patterns of consumption work on this principal. In short, gas prices resonate through almost every corner of our day-to-day lives whether we realize it or not and have informed how we exist and co-exist.

So its natural, when the status quo is under threat, to meet that threat with resistance (especially when the satus quo is the warm gooey womb of overindulgence). But I think that there are other alternative possible here that are being ignored as we throw our collective temper tantrums over the rising price of soft serve. This could be the start of something new, something great, something that environmental lobbyists have been seeking for the last 60 years: A transition away from our dependence on fossil fuel.

If we take a moment to look and listen beyond the angry moans of car drivers across the country, we'll see and hear some interesting things afoot things like:

The TTC making some of the most progressive user friendly policy changes (transferable passes) they've made in years.

Car dealerships offering special considerations to lease holders wishing to switch to hybrid or other new fuel efficient vehicles.

Some long needed attention being paid public transportation zones in desperate need of expanded service. (like train and bus routes to bedroom communities around the GTA)

I have to cut this off here...but more on this later....

Thursday, September 08, 2005

I'm a Concrete Abstract Random...who the fuck are you!?

Aside from the dream jobs that I pretend exist in the real world, I think I can safely say that, in general, jobs tend to have at least one ugly side to them. Today (in the form of our annual staff meeting/"let's have a good year" rally) the ugly showed up and punished me for four (4) hours. (note: a solid 15 mins. of this time was used in the form of rambling statements about how:
a) we'd 'BRIEFLY' go over the material
b) we'd 'JUST GLOSS' over a couple of things
c) we'd 'COVER THIS NEXT SECTION QUICKLY' because we seem to be running overtime) ....I mean really. Jesus.

I suppose I should concede here, that despite my complaints already listed and those soon to follow in this post, that this will really be the only meeting of this kind that I'll have to endure. A BIG shout out to the good people at City Academy for that. Amen.

But on to what really got me thinking about the days proceedings...

We were going through learning strategies for students when we all participated in this survey that would tell us what kind of thinker we were and what kinds of expectations thinkers of each type have of the world. Apparently there are four categories of thinkers consisting of two types of 'random' thinkers and two types of 'Sequential' thinkers. The sub-categories on each side essentially just divide those who show slight affinities towards one way of thinking from those who show dramatic ones. It struck me while I was filling out this form just how problematic this, and almost every 'test' like this one really is. I call to mind the 'Archetype' and 'Colours' tests that I'm sure many of you have encountered while in highschool or whatehaveyou. My complaint is firstly that these things are not implemented in the right spirit, and secondly that; really, when you think about it, they don't offer much new information or insight. An arbitrary category gets assigned to you and with it, a list of very general, vague (and here's the tricky part: universally applicable) character traits. To illustrate, I refer to an episode of the Simpsons. In this episode, a factory worker in a peanut canning factory looks out the window to see a full grown elephant storming towards the open doorway next to him. He remarks as he watches the elephant tear through the place that his horoscope was *exactly* right. He then pulls out the horoscope and it reads: "You will face challenges today". Did I really need to undergo this procedure to be told that I am not a fan of highly structured or regimented learning environments? What burns me the most is that the people who developed these tests most likely profited amply from the patents and distribution rights. It would be like me going up to a person who is shivering violently and saying the them: "Gee, I think you are the type who needs a blanket...that'll be 5 bucks bitch. Where's the blanket you say? You got the wrong guy...you want this guy over here..."

I actually ended up with a description that said I was mostly Concrete-Random, also showing an affinity towards abstract random. Now, the abstract random I can understand, but concrete random is quite the oxymoron. It's supposed to suggest that I an comfortable in both highly structured and unstructured worlds...but really what it boils down to is that its a cop-out category... It's not that this test in particular is a cop-out, its just that I feel like all of these tests can't escape the sort of surface level pop-psychology riff-raff that ignores the larger complexes of human thought. These tests through slick language and comforting categorization strategies make us feel like we can adequately contain all of our quirks into a defineable space and suggest that if we just follow the steps that accompany the test, we can do x, y, and z. My 'Imperial' alert is buzzing. Hasn't that anti-christ Dr. Phill ( a whole other discussion) done enough to make it obvious to people that there are no easy answers when it comes to the ebbs and flows of the human experience?