Fooling ourselves, and feeling good about it

I was reading the paper today, and for no good reason, i thumbed through the Living section. I should know better than that, as that damn section always has the touchy-feely bullshit that makes me cringe. Not all touchy-feely stuff is bad, but the living section has this way of always feeling like nails on a chalkboard to me.
Anyhow, I ran across yet another article about "Locavores", people who only eat food grown/raised within a certain distance of their home. Now, I'm all for reducing emissions by less distance when it comes to shipping. But this presents a greater problem for me. Namely, that we are a "feel-good" society, not a "get-something-accomplished" society. We feel good because we're buying, say, strawberries that are locally grown IN JANUARY. Now, I see an issue there. I love strawberries. They're an awesome form of berry, and I believe that they should be enjoyed by all who love and crave them. But, I have to ask how the hell we're growing strawberries and various other produce during the frozen months of our little chunk of tundra. Sadly, the answer is quite clear; greenhouses. There's nothing eminently wrong with greenhouses, but I get the feeling that we're just transferring the environmental costs from one stage to another. Let's take a quick look, shall we?
Locally grown strawberries will have to travel at most 150 km's to come to market, thusly cutting way down on emissions from cars. That would be the main argument for them. But are the strawberries processed on site for quality control and packing? Or do they have to be sent to another facility for that? Also, these greenhouses they were grown in didn't grow out of the ground after some water, fertilizer and a little TLC. They had to be built, which means heavy equipment, building materials, and man hours. Where did the building supplies have to come from? What brought them to the build site? What put them together? How did the workers get there to build it? How is it heated/lighted/powered in general during the cold months? These costs add up, both in emissions and cost. Powering the lights and fans of a greenhouse takes a lot of power, and as most power in Canada is supplied via coal-firing power plants, a lot of coal. If we were to grown the produce outside during the more hospitable months, that would mean no greenhouses, no need for excessive amounts of power, and less coal being burnt. Which also translates to less emmisions.
The issue is, growing produce out of season is not an economical option. The cost (both environmentally and fiscally) in producing and maintaining a site suitable for growing berries in the dead of winter makes me wonder how much good we are actually doing by buying our locally grown products. We have to figure out whether we can figure out a concept that at the very least is up-front with consumers about what the real environmental and economical footprint of a company is, instead of fooling them into believing they are doing good through their "informed" buying decisions. Otherwise, the only good we're doing is for people's consciences.

An aneurysm-inducing experience

I feel very sad today. Ravaged by what can only be described as the Martian Death Flu (or tonsillitis, if you want it that way), I have actually started a blog. I've always fought the concept of blogs, for a few reasons that I shall henceforth list:
a) Everytime someone brings up unbiased journalism, someone else will always, always pipe up "Have fun writing a blog for the rest of your life!"
b) No one really gives that much of a damn what you think. And by you, i mean anyone who writes a blog and believes it will be read.
c) Scaachi has a blog, and now that I have one too, we have something in common. This frightens me.

As you can see, there are a great many reasons that I should not be blogging, and yet I am still chicken-pecking away at my keyboard. The problem is (much to my chagrin) that blogging is now a big part of the dissemination of information. I'm sure that we all find it very comforting that Joe Yokel can tell us exactly where the aliens probed him, but I find it bothersome that we're giving morons a soapbox on which to spout their inane ideas. Morons like me, who go and stereotype a group that I am now a part of. Point would be, this is a different kind of concept for me: it goes against everything I usually believe in, and yet I feel as if I have to give it a try before a categorically bash everyone else who does this. Even if it does cause what I now consider to be an imminent aneurysm.

An open letter to Christie Blatchford

Dear Christie;

Your painfully biased "stories" make my heart hurt and my eyes bleed. Everytime I read one, I feel as if a small band of intelligent monkeys is punching me resolutely in the back the head. But, you do entertain. Seeing you lampoon not only defendants in court trials, but also your (and my) own profession has a painful yet comedic quality to it, akin to my idea that there should be a television show where celebrities have rabid giraffes set on them just for kicks. The point would be, stop kicking my chosen profession in the teeth.
But you also have good qualities, namely that you are getting up in years, and hopefully we will be able to blame your bias on senility. Remember, it's not discriminatory or hurtful if you're too old to know what you're saying! Also, you seem to be able to write anything (read:fictional dramatizations) without actually getting sued, while much better journalists are getting sued and/or jailed for saying or protecting the truth.
Truth is, Christie, you are a prototypical columnist. I say this not in praise, but in hopes that maybe if you are a prototype, there might only be one of you, and perhaps we can all be a little (read: a lot) better.

With love,
Concerned citizens