It is totally worth 94 minutes of your time to get to know New Zealand political economist Marilyn Waring. Her ideas, boiled down to their most basic, relate to how what women do and contribute count for nothing in a world measured by leading, lagging and other economic indicators.
For example, activities which involve monetary transactions count as production even when they involve the degradation of the earth's resources, such as strip-mining. A sunset has no value, nor a mountain, and trees only count when they have been chopped down and sold. At the same time, Waring criticizes traditional economics for not finding a way to value community well-being. By current thinking, war and disaster are 'good for the economy' because they create jobs such as arms production and clean-up.
As Gloria Steinem wrote in the introduction to Waring's book, Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth, she will change your worldview. She certainly helped me crystallize many inchoate ideas I have had about women's work and place in the world.
But Waring's about so much more than that. My young economist friend Aaron Braaten tweeted back at me the other day that Waring, one of his idols, was years ahead of her time when this film was made in 1995.
Unfortunately, she still is years ahead of her time.
But at least, now, there's a realization that, while it's still a man's world, women make it go round.
If you have an iPhone, get the free NFB app and watch it on your
commute or in bed or wherever you are. Or sit at the computer.
I've been having some fun messing with the national anthem, thanks to the Harper government's commitment, announced during yesterday's throne speech, to castrategender neuter O Canada.
With a little help from some Facebook and Twitter friends, here's what I have so far:
Understand that I am not opposed to this move. First because the anthem has been changed many times, and isn't even a good translation of the original French. Second because women deserve to be acknowledged as well -- especially since there are many serving in Afghanistan where two have already lost their lives.
Although, when you think about it, ''all thy sons' command'' is not inaccurate when you consider the male-female ratio in Parliament, provincial legislatures, corporate boardrooms ...
Anyway.
As others have noted, this sop to women -- oh gee thanks and whoop-de-do -- hardly makes up for the government's disregard for women and families in the federal budget brought forth today. Not only are EI premiums rising while corporate taxes drop, but Harper still has not solved the daycare dilemma.
Today Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tossed a bone to single parent families with this:
To save on tax on the $100 per month for children under the Universal Child Care Benefit, single parents will be able to report the income on the tax return of a child under the age of 18.
Which will work out great for richer families. Poor families .. not so much.
Meanwhile, there's this:
Split families: Parents who share custody of children more or less equally will now also be eligible to share the Child Tax Benefit, Universal Child Tax Benefit and the GST/HST credit.
Which sounds great in principle. But I've been on this beat long enough to know that, when parents are at each others' throats over custody, child support and property, this could lead to even greater conflict..
On other issues relevant to women, I can't say there's a whole lot. Nor is there anything for seniors on small fixed pensions. Nothing on housing. Nothing on health care.
For this they needed the recalibration vacation? Give me the break they took!
But what really galls is that the anthem change is being blamed on us femi-nazis because, as you know, women have have been storming Parliament Hill demanding abortion rights be mentioned, along with equal pay, in the song.
Let's begin in the Sunshine state of Florida where Southern Baptist theologian, father of eight and Republican rep Charles E. Van Zant proposes all citizens, especially of the wombanly persuasion, share his upright way of thinking.
Here's his way of thinking though: Rather than punish the maternal units, go after the doctors who perform the evil abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.
An expansive measure to make most abortions illegal in Florida has been filed for the 2010 Legislative session, challenging federal protections in place for more than 40 years.
Both anti-abortion advocates and abortion rights supporters agree the 53-page proposal is an attempt to directly challenge the 40-year-old Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions in the United States in 1973.
“The Legislature finds that there have been 50 million abortions in the United States since the Roe decision,” the bill reads. “ The Legislature further finds that every life lost to abortion was sacred and of the highest value.”
Sponsored by Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Palatka, HB 1097 would criminalize most abortions now allowed under state and federal law, increase penalties for physicians who perform such services and require pregnant women to receive more information on adoption. The bill was filed Wednesday, the same day that right to life groups made the trek to Tallahassee to meet lawmakers and rally support.
Except in cases where a woman’s life is considered in danger, doctors who perform abortions would face first degree felonies punishable by up to life in prison and civil fines.
Now, it's doubtful this bill will get very far. But you can bet Van Zant will have back-up in the House. And, if they don't succeed this time, they'll try another way to crack this.
By the way: You'll find the comments over at Feministing rather amusing.
On Friday an Oklahoma judge declared a controversial law
unconstitutional that would have enacted a host of new abortion
regulations, including one mandating that detailed demographic and
personal information about women seeking abortions be posted online.
Though pro-choice activists are applauding the decision, it was not
indicative of a dismissal of the regulations themselves. Instead, the
judge knocked down the law due to the fact that it violated Oklahoma’s
"single-subject" rule, which states that each law can only cover one
subject.
The law, which was initially scheduled to go
into effect on Nov. 1, 2009, would have required a woman seeking an
abortion to fill out a 10-page questionnaire asking everything from her
age and marital status to the date of the abortion to the county in
which it took place. That information would then be posted on the
state’s Department of Health website. Proponents of the law say that
names would not have accompanied the statistics. But opponents say the
law was a scare tactic that infringed on women’s privacy, and that
people in small towns in Oklahoma could easily draw conclusions about
identities from even seemingly anonymous information.
Undaunted, the forced birthers are back at the drawing board, drafting, count 'em, four new laws that will get around the technicality.
In other action, the panel passed
four separate abortion measures that previously had been declared
unconstitutional because they had been combined in one bill.
Bills must deal with only one subject.
The panel passed HB 3290 by Rep. Skye McNiel, R-Bristow. It would
require a doctor to be in the room when the abortion pill RU486 is
administered.
The panel also passed HB 2780 by Rep.
Lisa Billy, R-Lindsay, which would require women who seek an abortion
to have an ultrasound and have its contents explained to them.
Rep. Ryan Kiesel, D-Seminole, said the
Legislature should focus on preventing unintended pregnancies rather
than bringing further disgrace and shame to women facing the most
difficult decision of their lives.
Billy responded: “This bill is about
choice for women. It is an opportunity for her to understand what is
growing inside of her and the consequences.”
The panel passed HB 3110 by Rep. Pam
Peterson, R-Tulsa, which would allow health-care providers who object
to abortion not to participate in the procedure.
Peterson’s other abortion bill, HB 3284, also passed.
It would require women who seek abortions to provide a host of information about themselves to be posted on a public Web site.
As if there aren't bigger things to worry about in Oklahoma -- like how one in five actual children live in poverty.
A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this
week
and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a
woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some
instances.
According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National
Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is
that it
is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not
those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended
miscarriage.
The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal
statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for
inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The
basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who
was seven
months pregnant, paid a man
$150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl
gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was
initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because,
at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for
attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.
The bill passed by the Utah legislature would change that. While
the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions
taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care,
with penalties including up to life in prison.
In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to
induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could
make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior.
Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district
attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to
cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too
much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.
"This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a
miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird,
executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are
no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are
substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the
bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car
accident."
Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a
prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa where a pregnant woman who
fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate
her pregnancy.
Because, Lady, when you're preggers your body is nationalized by the state.
Take Kenya. For 20 years, Kenyans have been working fitfully to
revise their constitution and are now mere weeks away from possibly finalizing
the document. But this milestone in the nation's slow move towards real
democracy may be marred by another human rights calamity. If the constitution
is approved in its current form by the Kenyan Parliament sometime this year,
Kenya will join the inglorious ranks of three nations -- Northern Mariana
Islands, Uganda, and Zambia -- that have prohibited abortion within their
constitution.
The most recent draft of the constitution had solid human rights
protections for women. However, a review by a parliamentary commission resulted
in the evisceration of many of the core democratic constitutional provisions.
This included amending Article 25, which in its original language guaranteed
that "Every individual has the
right to life" (emphasis added).
The wording choice for Article 25 is hardly revolutionary. In
fact, it reflects the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
is consistent with the majority of national constitutions in the world. But
conservative religious groups are not partial to international legal precedence
and many lobbied Kenyan parliamentarians to amend Article 25. Which they did,
and then some.
Article 25 still protects life, but life is now defined as
beginning at conception. Moreover, Article 25 also outlaws abortion. Phrases in
the draft guaranteeing the right to healthcare, including reproductive health
care, and that no one may be refused emergency medical treatment (say, for an
unsafe abortion) were also eliminated from the draft text.
A pregnant 27-year old Nicaraguan woman, "Amelia," with metastatic
cancer has been denied medical treatment on the grounds that it might
harm her baby.
Nicaragua passed a draconian anti-abortion law in 2008 which
criminalizes abortion even in the case of rape or incest or when the
mother's life is in danger. Nicaraguan doctors are prohibited from
treating pregnant women with cancer, HIV/AIDS, malaria and cardiac
diseases, and threatened with prison sentences for providing health
services or information related to abortion.
Amelia has effectively been handed a death sentence by her
government. Each day she is denied treatment, she edges closer to
death; in a tragic irony, she will most likely die before the baby is
even born. Her 10-year old daughter will be left without a mother,
since the Nicaraguan government values the life of an unborn fetus over
that of a mother.
And doesn't that just put the ''life'' in ''pro-life?'' (And if you want to do something to help, please go here.)
... it's not just the preventable deaths of these women,
but the bloody suffering they go through. And their families. And their
soon-to-be-orphaned children.
Yet this is the kind of no-family-planning, no-contraception, no-abortion, misogynist healthcare Steve is promoting.
It's unconscionable.
Indeed.
And, finally, something completely different. Angie the Anti-Theist is having an abortion -- and is documenting it. (Follow the Twitter debate here.)
Prior to conceiving my son five years ago, I was told I would never carry a child to term because of sexual abuse that happened when I was 7- and 8-years-old — and I barely did. I didn’t find out I was pregnant with him until the 21st week, roughly halfway through my pregnancy. When I did find out, I was underweight for the duration of the pregnancy, and I had several other high risk indicators. I did my best to gain weight (it helped that my ex-husband worked at a pizza store).
Even still, I made several trips to the emergency room throughout my last two trimesters. During my eighth month of pregnancy, I actually lost ten pounds due to a pretty horrible stomach virus. It was as if I had no immune system at all while pregnant. I went from having never received IV fluids in my life, to being intimately familiar with the feeling of cold fluids dumping into my veins. And let’s not even get into the other causes of dehydration.
When my son was born, I decided I didn’t want any more kids, in part because I’d learned during my pregnancy that I was a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis, a fatal and painful disease (of which my son was fortunately spared). I don’t regret that decision. My son is happiest when he’s getting one-on-one attention from an adult — he has even manipulated the system at school so that he gets to hang out with his teacher while she eats lunch and the other kids nap! I honestly don’t believe siblings are always a blessing, always friends, or always best for a family.
I know that I can be a damn good mom to the one special needs child I have — he had many health problems when he was younger and he is speech delayed and has a short attention span now — but I don’t know if I could be a good mom to two kids, one or both of whom would have special needs. I know my mom had more children than she could afford or care for, and I don’t want to make the same mistake.
Now, considering all that, I think Angie is entitled to make her own decisions about her own health and well-being, as well as those of her son. But you can be sure that there are millions of people who believe that they have the right to colonize her body.
4000 Years for Choice visualizes the ancestral traditions passed down
for millennia by lineages of mothers, grandmothers, and
great-grandmothers. The rediscovery of these practices is deeply
transformative when one considers “the right to choose”, especially for
those who have been exposed to the “abstinence until marriage” and
“anti-abortion” rhetoric.
A sample from the timeline, which proves that women have long battled for control of their bodies.
300s BCE – Soranus, a Greek physician and medical
writer, wrote about the silphium plant. He suggested that women drink
the juice once a month because “it not only prevents conception but
also destroys anything existing.”
300s BCE – The birthwort plant was craved into the
background of an Egyptian vase found in Thebes and was known for its
abortive and contraceptive properties. Ancient Greeks also knew of
birthwort. Dioscorides, the Greek physician suggested birthwort be put
in a suppository with pepper and myrrh to provoke menstruation or to
expel a fetus.
300s BCE – The Greek philosopher Plato commented on
population in the Roman Empire. He wrote, “There are many devices
available. If too many children are being born, there are measures to
check propagation.”
300s BCE – Aristotle wrote that people should
produce more abundantly if the city was too small, or use birth control
measures if it was too large.
400s BCE – The Hippocratic Oath remained the
standard medical oath until the 1970s. It stated, “I will not give a
lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and
similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”
1850s BCE – The Petri Papyrus, a medical text from
Ancient Egypt, listed three different contraceptive methods; gummy
substances for the cervix and vagina, honey, and sodium carbonate, and
a crocodile dung vaginal suppository.
2700s BCE – Emperor Shen Nung of China, who laid
the foundation for traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture, wrote
some of the earliest recipes for contraception and abortion, many of
which were quoted well into the 16th century.
3000s BCE – The Royal Archives of China hold the earliest written record of an abortion technique.
We've come a long way from crocodile dung and pepper suppositories.
But, the way the HarperCons think, we may one day have to revert back to them.
Image: The poster for 4000 Years for Choice is by Heather Ault.
I don't usually go on tirades about columnists at other papers - but the Ottawa Citizen's David Warren is now the subject of an email campaign by at least one pro-choice group that I know of.
Why is abortion so popular with women who would never dream of having an abortion?
Perhaps because women believe women should have autonomy over their bodies, and the right to control their lives and destinies?
Maybe your question should be turned around Mr. Warren. Maybe it should read, ''Why do so many right-wing men who will never get pregnant feel it's any of their business to pontificate on women's bodies and their self-determination?''
To continue with his incoherent, all too precious and disingenuous diatribe ...
The "culture of death" -- of family breakdown,
contraception, abortion, pornography (this last is demographically
significant, for as men become more addicted to pornography, they
become less interested in conventional, procreative sex) -- feeds on
itself.
Culture of death? Seriously?
I wrote on the weekend about
Michael Ignatieff's demand that Stephen Harper include abortion and
contraception "services" in his G8 scheme to improve maternal and child
healthcare in the poorest countries. My immediate purpose was to remind
readers of the huge and vicious lie upon which the Liberal leader is
trading. For we do not improve the health of a baby by killing it.
No, we improve the health of the mother whose malnourished, diseased, AIDS-ravaged, exhausted and all-too-often raped body cannot bear the burden of a fifth, sixth, seventh child, especially before the woman is even 30. And, if she dies of maternity related causes, what of those other actual living children? They're as good as dead.
But hey, to Warren, contraception is the ''culture of death.''
The
proposition may be evil and absurd; yet according to several media
sources, there is evidence it is popular -- especially among woman
voters who had been trending towards Harper's more socially and
fiscally conservative policies. I know several examples of "swing
voters" in this class, and can more or less follow the thinking. I'm
afraid it is not flattering to them.
Note the genius of
Ignatieff's appeal: not for more contraception and abortion here, where
we have surely had enough, but rather in "the poorest countries" --
which we think have long been producing "too many babies." And, too
many babies who could be clamouring to come here one day. Harper's
policy might increase the load; Ignatieff's might reduce it.
Nice one. Now he accuses Ignatieff -- as well as every doctor who has ever worked in the field -- of advocating eugenics. (And, for a sense of how Warren feels about immigration from the poorest countries, read this.)
Even within North America, abortion appeals to some because it does,
in fact, disproportionately reduce the offspring of certain racial
minorities. The eugenic argument for it was actually the first to be
made, back in the days when it was still acceptable to speak about the
fertility of the "lower orders" and the "inferior races."
Yes, well, that was also back in the day when not even women were ''persons.''
This
argument is still very much alive, though today dressed up in feminist
jargon.
Really? Prove it.
"Population control," through the United Nations or otherwise,
has always consisted of "breeding instructions for the blacks, browns,
and yellows." And this is precisely what Ignatieff is selling, to the
sort of people who want to buy it.
Oh, you mean us dumb carsvehicles vessels who believe women should have choice? That ''sort of people?''
Ah David Warren, father of a Down syndrome child you trot out for rhetorical purposes when convenient, such a fine upstanding, believer in fatherhood, family, the sanctity of life, etc., remind me to take morality lessons from you.
We are part of the great majority of the faithful in the Catholic
church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters
related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood. We are part of
the great majority who believes that Catholic teachings on conscience
mean that every individual must follow his or her own conscience ― and respect others' right to do the same.
We know how to reduce the actual number of abortions. The most effective means is to reduce poverty among young women and children. When having a child does not present such an insurmountable economic crisis the decision to abort a pregnancy becomes much less attractive. However, actually reducing the number of abortions is a matter of substance and that is almost never discussed.
Most commonly we talk about making choice illegal. With the Stupak amendment added to the health care reform bill, anti-abortion Democrats have once again chosen symbolism over substance. So, if we restrict insurance coverage of abortion services then which abortions are being stopped? Obviously, the only women who lose choice are the poor who cannot pay for an abortion. Stupak returns us to the days before Roe v. Wade when the daughters of the rich and the middle class were forced to take a three-day trip to Europe when they wanted to terminate a pregnancy.
Catholic bishops join arms with conservative politicians and force upon the public legislation which, and don't kid yourself about it, it only means, "We impose a burden upon poor women which we would not dream of imposing on the middle and upper class." Otherwise, why wouldn't they be discussing making it illegal to get an abortion at all, arresting women of means in the airport when they returned from France or Spain after exercising their "choice?" Because, if they impose these standards on their own members you would find a lot of politicians, Catholic bishops and evangelical preachers working the drive-through windows at local fast food restaurants. They can be high and mighty forcing the poor to be ethical for them but they would never accept such regulation of their own family or constituency. This is the hypocrisy of choosing symbolic action over substance.
The politicians and religious leaders who are offering us the Stupak amendment are the same ones who have failed to act substantively to improve the plight of poor children in our nation by actually making health care, education and housing available so that the real abortion numbers would go down. Poor women are already the most vulnerable people in our society.
It's the poor who will bear the brunt of these punishing acts.
Ah yes. The poor, the meek, the defenceless, the voiceless.
Between 1980 and 2005, the time parents spent on the job rose substantially for families with children, mostly because of the rising labour market participation of mothers.
During this period, the proportion of families with two parents working on a full-time, full-year basis more than doubled from 15% to 32%.
Single-parent families, particularly single mothers, also increased their work time by substantial margins. Over that period, the proportion of single mothers with a full-time and full-year schedule rose from 43% to 51%.
<SNIP>
Two-parent families in all earnings groups saw increases in their work time but increases were greatest in the low and middle earnings groups. For example, the proportion of parents working full year and full time in the middle earnings group (comprising families who earned between $46,700 and $93,400 in 2005) tripled over the period, from 11% to 32%.
Single parents with low earnings also recorded significant increases in their work hours, especially lone mothers. Between 1980 and 2005, the proportion of single mothers with low earnings working on a full-year and full-time basis rose from 8% to 20%.
The study also examines the extent to which the rise in parental work time translated into higher annual earnings for families. Increases in earnings were divided into two parts: the part due to increases in parental work time, and the part due to increases in rates of pay.
Among two-parent families, increases in parental work time accounted for nearly one-half (45%) of the overall growth in earnings, with low and middle earnings families contributing more than two-thirds.
The rest of the growth (55%) was due to an increase in rates of pay, in large part because of rising wages among top earnings families. This helps explain the growing gap between top and bottom earnings families documented in other studies.
Among single mothers, increasing work hours contributed to one-third of the overall increase in annual earnings. These gains were mostly associated with the rising work hours of single mothers with low earnings.
Conversely, because single fathers increased their work time by much smaller amounts, most of the changes in their annual earnings were driven by changing rates of pay.
Right off the bat, that tells us several things.
First, the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
While lower-income single parents are struggling, single mothers have it especially tough -- and, indeed, other studies reveal that these families are among the poorest in the country.
More women work outside the home for pay. Ergo, there is a real need for affordable daycare spaces.
(Doesn't anybody question what the Harper government's $100 a month -- taxable -- pay-off has injected into the underground economy, and the lost tax revenues as a result? And how many of those under-the-table caretakers are struggling single mothers as well?)
Finally, this confirms that men make more -- since they didn't have to increase their hours as much to gain earnings.
Broadsides regulars -- and how I love you all -- know that I am not big on organized religion, partly because much of it is based superstition and most of it is about keeping women down. But, every once in a while, a ChristianTM concept comes along that I think is worthy of note.
That once in a while came along today, in this news release. I added the links:
‘God’s Girlz’ Doll Line a Wholesome Alternative for Girls
BERRYVILLE, Ark. (October 13, 2009) – Research compiled by the leading producer of Christian-themed apparel in the United States continues to reveal that mothers feel uncomfortable with the risqué fashions and body shapes that many fashion dolls display. As a result, Kerusso (www.kerusso.com) has expanded its 12-inch fashion doll line with the newest figure named “Imani,” meaning “faith.”
The Imani fashion doll joins Kerusso’s best-selling line, which includes other fashion dolls, “Sarah,” “Abigail” and “Hannah.” Imani is a beautiful, African-American young lady that girls will identify with in a very positive, godly way.
“As a faith-based company, we feel we will make a positive contribution to the little girls of this generation with modest, yet fashionable, contemporary fashion dolls with positive virtues,” said Vic Kennett, Kerusso president and chief executive officer (PDF).
Lori Carter, Kerusso vice president of creative development said, “We heard from moms and their daughters who told us the God’s Girlz fashion doll line contributes to their faith. The God’s Girlz line is packed with inspirational content designed to promote faith-encouraging play.”
Now, apart from the "faith-encouraging play'' part -- what? do they dress up to go to church? -- what's not to like about fashion dolls who don't look like they're auditioning to be pole dancersat the local strip club?
I went all over (the very slow-loading) Kerusso site and was not only happy to find that the Ts are pretty cool -- if you buy into that Christian messaging thing -- but also, apart from a PDF about Christian voting patterns, absolutely no mention of abortion, gay rights or any of the usual Christian Right obsessions.
Which makes Kennett more astute a businessman that I had first thought.
And here I was, all ready to mock the dolls.
Okay, so I will mock the Praise Ponys, named Faith, Love and Hope.
Not sure where they fit into God's scheme.
Behold a Palin horse? The four Praise Ponys of the Apocalypse?
Antonia Zerbisias has been a Star columnist since 1989 but has been telling people what she thinks ever since she could open her mouth. Her career ambition as an opinionator dates back to Grade 9 when a cartoon commentary on a teacher resulted in her suspension from high school. The principal sent her home with a note calling her "rude, obstreperous and bold." Her parents were neither amused, nor surprised. Once she was punished for being that way. Now she makes it pay. And, because she can take it as well as dish it out, she wants to hear what you have to say. Fire away!
TheStar.com
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Toronto Star or www.thestar.com. The Star is not responsible for the content or views expressed on external sites.
Distribution, transmission or republication of any material is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
they involve the degradation of the earth's resources, such as strip-mining. A sunset has no value, nor a mountain, and trees only count when they have been chopped down and sold. At the same time, Waring criticizes traditional economics for not finding a way to value community well-being. By current thinking, war and disaster are 'good for the economy' because they create jobs such as arms production and clean-up.
Recent Comments