The Art of Self-Delusion

I lived with a smoker for thirty-three years, and the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that arguing with a smoker about the choice to smoke is a waste of time. They tune you out. Even over the phone, you can hear their eyes glaze over with disinterest. They know what they're doing is bad for them, but they have carefully deluded themselves into a state of mind that makes them immune to every argument. Nothing you can say will be effective, simply because you can't hope to penetrate the barrier of delusion.

It's been my observation that smokers are so adept at deluding themselves that they are able to ignore the impact their behaviour has on other people. They convince themselves that only they are affected. They choose not to consider the fact that someone else is going to end up living with the consequences of their choice. It amazes me that they can actually delude themselves into believing they are unaffected when they have several first and second degree relatives who developed smoking related diseases. Some of them actually died.

Another aspect of the smoker's ability to delude himself that absolutely astounds me is the fact that they can ignore the risks they take with their own kids. A pregnant woman that wouldn't dream of drinking alcohol will continue to smoke, making sure the unborn child gets its daily fix of nicotine and toxins through the umbilical cord. A new mother wouldn't even consider lacing her child's bottle with the mix of chemicals found in cigarettes, but she'll feed them to him directly through her breast milk. A father won't allow his son in the garage when he's spray painting, but he'll smoke in the bathroom next to the room the child sleeps in – that's the same bathroom the child has to use, and it's in the house the child lives in. Both parents soak their clothes in a toxic soup, and then pick up the child so he can absorb it through his skin. The irony is that if someone were using a device to pump the same toxic chemicals into the air in the vicinity of the child, these very parents would rush to the child's rescue.

Some parents delude themselves into believing they can smoke themselves, but keep their kids from doing it. Good luck with that. Thanks to them, their kids have been dealing with varying levels of nicotine addiction since before they were born. They go through the first stages of withdrawal every day at school. For most of them, it's not if they smoke, but when.

These parents even delude themselves into thinking they can keep their kids from finding out they smoke. Again: Good luck with that. If the kids are brain dead they might not notice, but eventually, they will make the connection between that awful stench they associate with their parents, and cigarettes. Or they might figure out why there are always butts in the toilet. The fact that they can smell it the moment they walk through the door into the house might possibly give it away, too.

Some smokers delude themselves by making a compromise. They convince themselves that if they lead an otherwise healthy life, they will 'get away with' smoking. In other words, they only put one bullet in the gun. Never mind the fact that it happens to be armour piercing, in that smoking is the single most detrimental lifestyle choice you can make. These people have essentially made a bargain with death, and no doubt find it a shock when death fails to keep it.

An interesting complication of this delusion involves limitations. Some smokers convince themselves a limited number of cigarettes is less harmful. This makes as much sense as taking smaller breaths in a toxic atmosphere. You might live a little longer, but the end result is inevitable.

Another delusion smokers will often use is emotional stability. They persuade themselves that they 'are not fit to live with' when they don't smoke. In other words, they feel entitled to be a jackass because they're not using nicotine. I guess these people smoke because it's easier than exercising self-discipline.

Smokers will delude themselves with 'I work with smokers, so I might as well smoke'. This delusion allows them to smoke and have it be someone else's fault. So does the 'it's destiny' delusion. If you're going to die when your time comes, regardless of what you do to prevent it, it relieves you of any responsibility for your life-style choices.

One delusion smokers have fallen victim to is all the hype about quitting. Manufacturers of products designed to help the smoker quit have made the mere prospect of quitting daunting. This is big business, but no one seems to have considered that if these companies are successful with their apparent objective, they will eliminate their own market. This is a conflict of interest, but the smoker uses it to further delude himself. Quitting becomes an insurmountable task. Failure is inevitable. Millions of people managed to quit before these products became available, but now, the task is impossible.

Most smokers I've encountered delude themselves with the 'I know all about the risks' approach. The truth is, they don't. They might have absorbed the headline warnings, but they don't actually read any of the information detailing the extensive list of health issues smoking is responsible for. These people sometimes compound this delusion with 'the damage is already done'. Once again, they haven't actually done any research, or they would know smoking conceals the symptoms of disease, and practically eliminates the possibility of early discovery.

One delusion smokers are really fond of is the belief everyday events in their lives are in reality crisis, and justify the use of nicotine. This allows them to postpone quitting with the excuse 'I have too much to deal with right now'. Life being what it is, these events recur at regular intervals, allowing them to postpone quitting indefinitely.

More often than not, smokers delude themselves with the belief that no one is saying anything to them, so either they don't know, or they don't care. This is probably the most critical delusion of all. Some will enhance the delusion with deceit, and then persuade themselves that they're getting away with it. If a smoker can convince himself that the people who love him aren't tortured by the fact that he smokes, he doesn't have to accept responsibility for their misery. This allows him to smoke guilt free.

Smokers are extremely adept at deluding other people. They will agree with every argument you present, and yet continue to smoke. It's common for smokers to become indignant if you somehow manage to force them into acknowledging that they are defending a choice that will probably bring about their own premature death. Some will actually become angry. Continue your efforts and you run the risk of reinforcing their determination to smoke. No one wants to admit they have made a bad choice. Confronting a smoker with the stupidity of their choice strips away the layers of delusions, and forces them to face the one inexorable truth: The smoker smokes because he wants to. If he didn't, he'd quit.

The good guys are handicapped.

There is a new series of ads on TV promoting the treatment of drug addiction. They compare it to other medical conditions, such as cancer and diabetes, and imply that if you treat one, you should treat the other. When I first saw that, I was more than a little outraged. I still am. The conditions might be similar in that they are all medical conditions, but the similarity ends there.

Some people would have you believe that Type II diabetes and drug addiction are both self inflicted, and although for the most part this tends to be true, it's not absolute. Over eating and failure to maintain a healthy lifestyle can cause diabetes over a number of years, but it is not an axiom. Similarly, some forms of cancer, such as lung cancer in the smoker, could be considered self inflicted, but not all smokers develop lung cancer. Conversely, using most illegal drugs will cause addiction. It's also against the law; whereas the last time I checked, there is no regulation on how much you eat or exercise; and the government still hasn't made smoking illegal.

That said, I still believe drug addicts should be treated. They are victims of our society: and even though they made the choice to take the drugs in the first place, the burden of blame is not theirs alone. As a society, we have struggled with the so-called war on drugs for decades; and if we were honest, we'd admit we've lost every battle. It's our responsibility to look after the victims.

One look at the violence going on in Vancouver confirms the status of our fight against drugs, but if you have doubts, take a look at what's happening in Mexico. The war being fought down there is with battlefield weapons smuggled in from the US. We don't have to go to the other side of the world to find a conflict. It's happening in our own back yard. How long will it be before it's on our doorstep?

There is a remarkable similarity between the war on terrorism and the war on crime. A war lord and a drug lord are basically the same animal. Neither gives a damn about the innocent. Both are dedicated to the pursuit of power, regardless of cost. Whatever else is claimed, whether it be land, wealth, or religious belief, the primary objective for both is power.

The battlefield can never be level in either war because the good guy handicaps himself with values. Place a value on human life and you instantly give an opponent with no regard for human life the advantage. In the real world, good cannot triumph over evil simply because it happens to be good.

In the war on drugs, the good guy has further handicapped himself with laws. We are fighting the lawless from within carefully defined parameters that were intended to protect those of us who would abide by them. The drug cartels have no such impediments. They are not governed by morality, ethics, or even scruples. These people consistently demonstrate a complete disregard for the rights of others, and hold human life valueless. It's ludicrous that they should benefit from the very laws intended to protect what they so obviously hold in contempt.

Some people believe that we should simply end the war on drugs. Legalize the product, and the problem will resolve itself. I certainly hope we never make that mistake. The government has a hard enough time with tobacco. How could they possibly regulate narcotics? The argument is that they could tax the product, but as soon as they did that, they would create a black market the same as they have with tobacco. Legalization also doesn't address the issue of the so-called designer drugs, such as crystal meth. Does anyone seriously believe society should produce and sell them?

Although there is some possibility the strategy would reduce low level property crime, anyone who thinks the drug cartels would go quietly into the night needs to think again. These people have made it clear they will stop at nothing in their pursuit of wealth and power. Eliminate one source of revenue and they will most certainly find another.

Currently, our laws are focussed on imprisonment, despite the fact there is no evidence imprisonment is a deterrent to these crimes. If it were, we would be making some headway. It's obvious the drug dealers consider the possibility of spending time in jail part of the cost of doing business. The prospect of a few years in prison versus the rewards of potentially millions in tax free income must be worth the risk.

The drug trade is a multi-billion dollar industry – probably one of the largest in the world - and it is untaxed. Even worse, the drug dealer spends a few months or years in prison, and when he gets out, still owns the profits from his crime. This is equivalent to putting the bank robber in jail, but letting him keep the money he stole.

Some provinces now have laws whereby the proceeds of crime can be confiscated by the government, but these laws don't go far enough. Instead of just confiscating what we determine to be the proceeds of crime – no doubt a lengthy process – when it comes to parasitic crimes such as drug trafficking we should be seizing everything the convicted own, and then assessing income tax and the appropriate penalties on it – with interest. This should be a mandatory sentence, with no possibility of negotiation. When they get out of jail, they can spend the rest of their lives paying for their crimes in dollars, the only value they understand. If anyone thinks this would be too harsh, just remember: These people have no compunctions whatsoever about destroying the lives of millions in their pursuit of personal wealth and power. They target the young and helpless, the weakest and most vulnerable. Why should we care more for them than we do their victims?

Were we to impose such penalties, the issue of providing medical care for drug addicts would be resolved. The proceeds from drug trafficking could be used to benefit the victims. Treatment centres could be established in every city and town. Addicts could be rehabilitated, and even re-educated. With billions at their disposal, governments would no longer have to make impossible decisions regarding which social programs to fund. We could afford to fund them all.

Defence lawyers would undoubtedly proclaim such measures Draconian. Currently, they are screaming about changes being made to the criminal code involving the time spent in jail prior to trial. They claim it's against basic human rights not to credit this time at double its value when imposing sentencing, citing the deplorable, over-crowded conditions in pre-trial imprisonment as the basis for their argument. One very logical response to this comes to mind: If the criminal objects to the punishment, he has the option of not committing the crime.

The question that needs to be considered is whether or not these people should even have human rights, basic or otherwise. Perhaps where we made our mistake was in failing to define the term human. Just because you happen to look the part should not necessarily mean you are entitled to claim membership in the species. Until we accept the fact that people engaged in certain crimes are parasites feeding on our society, and treat them accordingly, we can't hope to win even a single battle, never mind the war.

Economic Terrorism

When you use a threat in an attempt to gain something, it's called extortion. When you attempt to extort a government, it's terrorism. If your threat is aimed at the economy, it's economic terrorism.

The CEO of Chrysler arrived in Ottawa, and presented the federal government with an ultimatum: Give in to our demands, or we're leaving the country. If there were any justice in the world, the RCMP would have been escorting this guy to a jail cell. I can't help but wonder if he'd have had the intestinal fortitude to try pulling that one in Washington.

Talk about a hornet's nest. The simple, immediate response is a resounding 'Let them go'. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated than that. In fact, it's so complicated, I doubt there's a correct way to resolve it.

The primary job loss is ninety-four hundred. They mentioned the twenty-six thousand employed by dealerships, so they're obviously part of the threat. I would expect selling your cars here is contingent on manufacturing them here, and if it isn't, does anyone seriously believe the other auto companies aren't going to start screaming if a competitor is allowed an unfair advantage?

Secondary jobs at suppliers and steel manufacturers would take a hit, too. It's a safe bet that kind of job loss would have staggering repercussions that might even be felt at the local Wal-marts. EI payments for most of these people probably wouldn't even pay their mortgages. Personal debt and loss of medical benefits would undoubtedly put some of them out on the street. Everyone carrying a balance on a credit card is going to pay for that in the form of higher interest rates.

The whole thing with the CRA is almost laughable. A five hundred dollar lien on your property just means you can't sell it. It's not actual money out of the company's bank account – yet. It might affect your borrowing power, but if you're negotiating loans with the government, you don't have a borrowing power to be affected. And the three hundred million in withheld GST doesn't seem like a lot if they need a two point three billion US [that's 2.93 Cad] loan.

Now that we've dealt with the figures, let's take a look at the backlash.

The company has undoubtedly presented this ultimatum in an attempt to achieve leverage, and they're probably focussed more on the CAW than the government. They obviously want concessions from their employees that the employees are unwilling to give. That's a hornet's nest all by itself. Once again, the simplistic response is they should do whatever they have to in order to keep their jobs. The trouble is, if you're living up to or beyond your income, you can't afford a cut in pay; and let's face it: Most of us are living on that particular edge. You can't afford to lose your job, either, so what exactly do you do? This is the new economic reality, and I would suggest we all learn to swallow. Otherwise, we can expect to have it shoved down our throats.

But let's assume the government decides it can deal with the job loss. Chrysler pulls out of Canada, and overnight, everyone who has bought one of their products finds themselves up the proverbial creek. Their brand new, fifty thousand dollar vehicle is all of a sudden not worth half what they owe on it. It could still be under full warranty, but the dealers are gone. Where do they take it if something goes wrong? Only an authorized dealer can diagnose problems with the computer and computer controlled components of today's vehicles because the manufacturers won't share the software required to do it. That puts just about everyone with a Chrysler product up the proverbial creek. In fact, even if they own it outright, they can never sell it. Who in their right mind is going to buy a vehicle they can't get repaired in their own country?

If by now you're thinking none of that will ever happen, think again. These people have already used economic terrorism on our government. Why would they care about anything that happened here after they left?

So what if the government gives in to them? The answer here is obvious. In today's economy, a lot of companies are in the same position as Chrysler. Once they know the government can be made to comply using these tactics, what's to stop them from trying it too?

Where have all the children gone?

13/03/09


I first asked myself that question over two decades ago. My boys were still in school, and the bus went by our rural home every morning. I knew there were kids down our dead end road because the bus went down to pick them up, and took them home every afternoon.

We never saw them, but for that matter, we never heard them either. Afternoons and weekends, when my guys were outside, the only voices I heard were coming from my own yard. Eventually, I began to suspect the reason had something to do with the satellite dishes I could see in my neighbours' yards. In every case, both parents worked; and it was a good bet the kids amused themselves after school with the TV.

As I went about my daily life, I began to notice another strange disappearance. Playgrounds that were once full of kids were empty for most of the day. Weekend school yards were like ghost towns – eerie and silent. It was almost as though the kids had vanished from the face of the earth, replaced by a crop of satellite dishes rising up from rooftops like some new kind of weed.

That generation was the first to fall victim to the electronic tsunami. Television was augmented by video games, and eventually, computers. There was way more to keep them occupied than there were hours in the day, and the big outdoors couldn't compete with the delights to be found inside.

What no one seemed to notice, or care about, was the number of parents joining their kids in front of the tube. People who used to socialize with friends and family sat home with the TV. News stories about predators snatching kids from urban back yards, parks and schools swept the nation, and parents justified their choices by persuading themselves they were keeping their kids safe.

Conflicts naturally arose over program selections, and to solve the squabbles, televisions were put in every room. To keep peace among the siblings, multiple game boxes were added. It became impossible not to be able to amuse yourself with an electronic device.

These kids grew up, and moved away from home. The first thing most of them brought into their new digs was a fancy new TV. Video games and computers were next, and the umbilical cord to their favourite pastime was restored.

Surprisingly, some of them managed to disconnect long enough to create kids of their own. Almost immediately, a new type of electronics began to appear: Those aimed at the young and so very vulnerable. Instead of an imagination, babies still in their cribs now needed a power pack and battery charger.

These new parents fell victim to one of the most insidious marketing schemes ever conceived. They had been raised to rely on information from electronic sources, and failed to even question what they were being sold. A crying baby became a symbol of failure; a bored child an abomination, and they soon learned to let us know whenever they were bored. It became the parents' obligation to keep them amused. The search for new and better electronic devices became almost frantic, and before you knew it, prospective parents were being told a new baby would cost them ten thousand dollars in the first year alone.

No one stopped to even consider that as this new generation began to grow, their ability to amuse themselves was being denied the necessary environment in which to develop. Withhold adult intervention, and boredom begets imagination and creativity in the child. This simple and so very basic concept, understood by previous generations, had been obliterated. Tired and frustrated parents soon gave in to the constant demands, buying truckloads of electronic devices in a hopeless quest for a few minutes of peace in which they themselves could get reconnected.

Flash forward to present day, and the story last winter that started an uproar across the nation. A teenage boy in Ontario ran away after a fight with his parents over a video game. The boy died, and almost overnight, the manufacturer of the game became the evil villain. TV specials and newspapers painted a picture of a cold and soulless corporate entity intent on profits regardless of the consequences. We were told in so many words that the 'new' electronic era was having a negative impact on our kids.

Ya think?!!! My kids were still toddlers when we were told shows such as Sesame Street could cause them to develop Attention Deficit Disorder. At the very least, we were cautioned, it would decrease their tolerance for the relative boredom they would encounter in school. We were actually advised back in the seventies that 'for the good of the child', we should limit their TV. Was everyone asleep?

Whatever the reason, parents failed to heed the advice; but what was even worse, they were so busy 'being connected' themselves, they failed to learn the most important lesson of all: Kids learn by example. If Mom and Dad are always plugged in to the TV and video games, it becomes the natural order of things. It's normal for the child to expect to do it, too.

I don't for a moment expect a child in our society to grow up in an environment free of all the electronic devices we have today. Not only would it be unreasonable, it would be detrimental to the child. This is the world they live in. What they need is for parents to teach them how to use these tools without letting them take over their lives. Parents today need to understand that their role as parent isn't confined to the acquisition of things. Their obligation to their child goes beyond whatever that ten thousand dollars buys for a baby. They are first and foremost the role model. Whatever they choose to make important in their lives, their child will choose as well. They need to set an example, and they need to start when the child is young.

If you plug a child into an electronic device, no matter how simple, while it's still in it's crib, why are you surprised ten or fifteen years later to find it's become addicted? Kids today have DVD players while they're in the car, and portable games they can take anywhere. Just about every toy, regardless of the targeted age group, runs on batteries. No imagination required. They are subjected to this during the most intense learning period of their lives. What do you expect them to learn?

I was married to a man who was addicted to VLTs, so I am quite familiar with the symptoms of this form of addiction. To this day, I do not believe the fascination these machines held for him had anything to do with winning. The attraction was the repetitive whirling pictures and sounds, and he had an infinite capacity for it. I know this because he had the exact same response to video games. The more repetitive the game, the greater the fascination. Whenever I think about it, the word mesmerized comes to mind. Not only could he not carry on a conversation while playing them, he could not even register things happening around him. At times, getting an intelligent response from him required that you insert yourself between him and the screen. My husband was an adult when video games and VLTs became common place. I can only imagine what his life, and mine, would have been like if he'd been exposed while still a child.

Blaming a corporation because parents decided to use electronic baby sitters is typical of our society. Someone has to be at fault, because no one wants to accept the possibility the consequences are the result of bad choices. Let's ignore the fact that we created the market, and nail the big, bad corporation to the wall.

And if you're advocating for government intervention, it's not going to happen. Any effort on the part of government to regulate this stuff would be absurd. Even if they do studies and prove the sedentary lifestyle associated with electronic devices is hazardous to our health... Wait a minute... They already did those studies, and the results are actually in. For the first time in human history, the younger generation is not expected to live longer lives than their parents. The reason cited? Inactivity. Doesn't anyone think it's time we all turned everything off and went outside?

Morning Coffee

09/03/09

I am the absolute first one to admit that I'm a television addict. I prefer TV to movies because of the continuity of the characters. Turning on your favourite show every week is a lot like having an old friend come to visit. It's comfortable.

My favourite shows are dramas. I especially like crime stories and science fiction, and I enjoy almost anything to do with space. A good mystery or who done it will keep me riveted to my chair. Some of my absolute favourites are the older shows, from the seventies and eighties. The stories were well thought out, and the actors were good. You got to know the characters, and in most cases, for me anyway, developed a rapport with them. They never let you down. In any given situation, you knew exactly what to expect from them. I watched television to be entertained, and usually was.

Over the years, I've noticed that TV writers have begun to repeat their stories. This makes perfect sense. There are only so many stories out there. Thinking up a new one is probably becoming extremely difficult. Watch The Rockford Files and you will see stories that are very similar, if not identical, to stories you've seen from today. The details might change, but essentially, it's the same basic story.

Somewhere along the line, TV writers and producers introduced the shock factor. They wanted to get our attention. Competition had become tougher. There were too many really good shows, and if you wanted your share of the audience, you had to work for it.

They started with sex scenes. If you didn't want the audience to recognise your story, distract them with some explicit sex. When that became mundane, they threw in vulgar language, and 'scenes of violence'. Not surprisingly, even the most horrific soon became common place. Enter the outrageous. A case in point is 'the men's bathroom' scene. It started with sound effects, but soon it became necessary for us to see men using the facilities. Since it can't possibly progress the story, the only explanation I can come up with is to distract us. So why would they want to do that?

I can remember the first time I saw that scene, but for the life of me, I can't remember any part of the story. I'm beginning to suspect that I exercised my right as a viewer, and changed the channel. Personally, I find the whole 'true to real life' aspect of modern TV disgusting. I know people use bathrooms. They don't do it in my living room.

Another thing that distracts me when I'm watching TV is when writers get their facts wrong. I'm sure everyone in every walk of life encounters this one. My example is the so called 'blood feather'. I've kept birds for over thirty-five years, so the error is a glaring one. In two separate shows, the entire story hinges around the discovery of a 'blood feather' at the scene of the crime. Both shows gave the impression that a bird had lost a blood feather as opposed to the other type of feather they have. The reality is, all feathers start out as blood feathers. It's part of the feather growing process. Birds do not 'lose' them, and they tend to get very irate if you attempt to extract one. Needless to say, with all this going through my mind, I completely lose track of the story. And so did you, if you read through all of that. I know it's just a story, but if they're going to use stuff like that, I really think they should do a little research.

Back in the seventies and eighties, writers and directors were dressing up their sets with scantily clad women. This was a reflection of our society at the time, and, despite the best efforts of the Women's Lib Movement, still continues today. When I first started to think about it, I thought it odd that television was still objectifying women. Now, I realise that I was looking at it all wrong.

Every time I watch one of the CSI shows, I find myself distracted by the way the characters dress. The men are usually wearing something appropriate – a suit and tie, a shirt with an undershirt visible underneath, or something else you would expect to see a professional wearing in their line of work. The women are all too frequently found in a sleeveless, revealing blouse or skin tight top. I have to ask: Is the man wearing the jacket hot, or is the woman cold? Are we really expected to believe there are two standards of dress at the place of employment? Have the laws changed so that the woman can dress like a hooker without sensor, but the man is required to conform to a standard? Is a woman not capable of going to work without putting herself on display? If you were a woman working in law enforcement, would you deliberately invite the kind of male reaction you could expect to get by wearing revealing clothing?

Then I started to wonder if this really was an example of the typical male sexist attitude toward women. Maybe it was more complicated than that. This might be a sexist attitude toward men. Perhaps the producers feel the male mind is so simple, the only way to attract his attention is to appeal to a basic instinct. On the other hand, these shows often have numerous sub-plots that can span several episodes. Maybe the producers feel attention deficit disorder is so prevalent in the male population, the only way to keep a male audience is to give them something to look at.

So let's assume that neither of those two motives is at work here. What else are they doing?

The longer these shows run, the more detailed the so-called science. How much of that is real, and how much is pure fabrication? I know they were wrong about the blood feathers. How much of the rest of it is just wrong? Who would know, unless you could remember enough of it to do some research. Even someone educated in the field would have difficulty following the flashing pictures portraying the science. Is the point to distract us from doing that? Or are all those flashing pictures intended to compete in an ever faster moving world? Has the average audience become so accustomed to the rapid changes that it's become the only way to get their attention?

Or are they attempting to distract us from the fact that we've seen the same story dozens of times? Seriously, if you take all that camera work and computer generated imagery out of the show, what's left? Most of the actors and actresses are pretty good, but their parts are scaled back to allow time for all those special effects. You don't see enough of them to even get to know them, never mind developing any kind of rapport.

In recent years, writers have changed the way the characters respond, and even killed them off. As far as I'm concerned, either tactic pretty much finishes the show for me. I quit watching because the characters aren't who I have come to expect them to be. And I don't trust the writers. Kill off a lead character and I feel betrayed. I'm probably not going to risk coming back to see if you'll do it again.

Personally, I'd like to see television resurrect the art of story telling. If I wanted to watch all that graphic detail, I'd turn on the Discovery Channel.

Morning Coffee

One of my sons was out shopping for a new appliance recently, and happened to come across a 'Limited Edition' washer and dryer. When he told me about this, I thought he was joking. My son is prone to sarcasm, and occasionally has a warped sense of humour. He's actually been known to amuse himself by testing my gullibility.

He assured me he was telling the truth, and went on to explain his viewpoint. In his opinion, a 'Limited Edition' is something people buy when they want to impress other people. So how, my son wanted to know, could you impress people with a washer and dryer that fell into this category? Even if you had 'Number One of Five Hundred', or some similar designation, it's not like you keep your laundry equipment in the front hall, or any place else in the house where people would accidentally encounter it. So what could you do? Instead of socialising with your guests, would you spend your time trying to figure out a way to get them downstairs to the laundry room to view your prize?

I've been thinking about this, and believe I have solved his dilemma. When he has dinner guests, he could show off his elite appliances when his wife gives them their mid-dinner tutorial in laundry detergents. Of course, if you are a conscientious guest, you would no doubt make the appropriate comments as soon as you found yourself in the presence of such splendour.

I can't help but be intrigued that people actually respond to this type of marketing. It's been around for a long time, so it obviously works. Another example is the 'Limited Edition' coins that were made from the silver found in the debris from the World Trade Centre. We were told for years that there was a limited supply. Didn't anyone catch on?

Personally, the whole concept of owning something that came from the debris of such a disaster gives me the creeps. Thinking back on it, I'm also somewhat surprised, given our dollar oriented society, that some enterprising entrepreneur didn't start marketing pieces of the debris itself.

Another marketing ploy that eludes me is the 'Designer Label', where the manufacturer emblazons his logo on the outside of his clothing. People actually pay extra for the privilege of advertising the product. Talk about a bonus for the manufacturer. Not only does he not have to pay for advertising, his customer is paying him to do it for him. This is so successful that some people will spend hours in line ups to take advantage of sales of these products; not because they're better, but because of the label. Wearing the latest 'Designer Label' is now a status symbol. In an affluent society, apparently you have to wear a sign that displays your ability to pay.

Some advertisers focus their efforts on being annoying, another strategy that escapes me. The line of reasoning is simple. They want you to remember the name of the product, so that when making a selection, you choose theirs. It must work, too, judging by the number of annoying advertisements on television. In my opinion, a discerning consumer would remember them all right, and boycott their entire line of products.

Some commercials on TV aren't just annoying. They're offensive. Some target your intelligence; others, your sense of values. Some are just plain dishonest. Their messages are clear: You're a woman; buy our broom and turn into an idiot. You want your family to eat like pigs? Buy our soup. Never mind that our model is wearing fake eyelashes; buy our mascara and you'll look just like her. One of the absolute worst shows a woman who is supposedly so addicted to margarine she steals it from her neighbours. In this same category is the one where the parents act out their sexual fantasy regarding pizza in front of their son. My response? You offend me, and yet you think I should buy your product? Why would I do that? In these instances, I make a point of remembering the brand, so I don't accidentally purchase their products.

So I have to wonder. Do they test these commercials before they run with them? Or do they just wait to see the results? Personally, I'm tired of being bludgeoned senseless in my own home because I happened to turn on the TV. My oldest son thinks I'm putting too much thought into it, but it seems to me people don't think about it enough. My son says he isn't influenced by commercials, but I think he'd be surprised by the truth. Advertising is a billion dollar industry. They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

As the economic situation worsens, we're going to see even more competition for a share in the market. Some marketers are already changing their approach, using their definition of a softer, more 'comforting' sell. The only reason I know this is because it made the news. But now that I do, a couple of questions come to mind: Are we children? In these hard times, do we turn to Corporate America for comfort?

The answer here might be surprising to some. Yes, we do respond to these strategies. We are bombarded by so many commercial messages in the run of a day that when we're standing in a store trying to decide which product to buy, we invariably choose one that seems familiar. Most of the time we're in so much of a hurry we don't even stop to think that we might know the name of the product because the commercial for it drives us nuts. We have allowed ourselves to become the mindless consumer, and have no one to blame for it but us.

This could change. We have the power to make it change. As money gets tight, necessity is going to force us to be more discerning about what we buy. We are going to have to get the best product for the best value. At the same time, advertising dollars are going to be scarce. Commercials that don't produce the desired results won't last Think about it. We could actually bring this about. We could put an end to annoying, offensive, or dishonest advertising. Don't like the commercial? Don't buy the product. You'd be surprised at how effective this could be.

Morning Coffee

On a trip to my local grocery store, I happened to observe a young woman in the produce department. She had been examining the fresh pears, and called a produce employee over to help her. She wanted to know where the pears were from, and made a point of saying she didn't buy fruit that had been imported. Needless to say, the encounter set off a chain reaction in my mind.

I have lived in Alberta for thirty-five years, and have travelled extensively throughout the province. I have never seen a commercial orchard anywhere. I've never questioned this, because I know why. Commercially grown fruit trees will not survive our winters. In other words, if you're buying any kind of fruit in a grocery store anywhere in the province, at any time of the year, it was imported from somewhere.

This brought to mind the two and four hundred mile limit. I know we use kilometres, but it doesn't really matter which you choose. Environmentalists tell us we should only buy food grown within a specific radius of where we live. I've heard both two hundred and four hundred as the targeted zone. Since there are no commercial orchards inside a four hundred mile radius of most of the province, that means we cannot buy fruit. Period. It also puts most of the vegetables on the forbidden list, too.

The reason for this, we are told, is because we are wasting energy and contributing to greenhouse gasses every time a truck brings us a load of oranges from Florida. It makes sense, and as evidenced by the woman I saw in the store, people are trying to comply. It occurred to me, though, that maybe they haven't quite thought this through.

I couldn't help but wonder if the woman in the grocery store paid any attention to where the other stuff she bought came from. If she had, she might have noticed that our clothing, without exception, comes from the other side of the world. In fact, I would defy you to find a piece of clothing made on this continent, never mind in this country. Does this mean we should stop buying clothes?

Faced with this dilemma, I was relieved to have my thoughts wander down to South America, and the farmer growing pears so we could have them fresh in our stores in the winter time. I'd be almost willing to bet that his life would change dramatically if we were to stop buying them. The way my mind works, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn he had actually planted trees so he would have pears to ship to Canada in February. He was probably thinking it would pay for a new roof, or put clothes on his kids. I wonder what he could grow instead? Drugs, maybe?

So who else is affected by this decision to not buy imported produce, I wonder. There must be people picking the crops, packaging them, and loading them on ships and trucks. What are they supposed to do now? What about the guy driving the truck itself? Doesn't he have a family to feed and bills to pay? How many people are we going to put out of work here?

Needless to say, I find the imported produce question a little more complicated than environmental issues alone. On the other hand, we really do need to address the colossal waste of our natural resources, and the effect our choices are having on the environment. I just think we could focus our attention on something besides our food supply, and still make a significant impact.

Take manufactured products as an example. In some cases, we choose to ship our raw materials to the other side of the world, where they are manufactured into products, and then shipped back to us. The reason we do this is money. We can have things manufactured in countries such as China and India far cheaper than we can have them manufactured here. Even when you factor in the cost of all that shipping, it's still cheaper; and now that the cost of fuel is so low, there's no incentive to change.

I'm sure everyone knows the issues with cheap labour in third world countries, and it's undoubtedly a significant factor in the cost of manufacturing. Another significant factor, and one we often choose to ignore, is the lack of environmental laws in most of these countries. The cost of not polluting the environment during the process of manufacturing has a substantial impact on the bottom line. We sit here and criticise the governments of these countries for not implementing strict laws, and at the same time, demand cheaper products from their manufacturers. Everyone agrees that we need them to get on board the environmental wagon, but no one wants to pay for it.

Closer to home, my husband was a trucker. At one time, he worked for a company hauling huge rolls of newsprint from Alberta down to the state of Washington. It was not uncommon for him to encounter other truckers hauling huge rolls of newsprint from the state of Washington up to Alberta. It was obviously cheaper for the companies in both destinations to import their paper, even factoring in the cost of shipping.

In both these cases, I have to wonder if the carbon emissions tally for the importer included those created by the excessive shipping, or in third world countries. Somehow, I'm thinking it didn't, but let's not point any fingers of blame at Corporate America. Yes, they initiated the practice in the first place, but they were merely responding to the demands of the so-called consumer - that would be us. We wanted more, and we wanted it to be cheaper. At the same time, those of us who held shares in the corporations demanded a profit, regardless of the consequences. Even the most conscientiously run company couldn't comply with the demands of both consumer and shareholder.
So if you're like me, and find the whole imported produce issue a dilemma, how do we deal with this? I've given it some thought, and come up with a compromise.

I can't just stop buying things because they happen to be imported. Moving is out of the question, and I'm not interested in living out the rest of my life without ever having fruit and vegetables again, regardless of where they come from. What I can live without is twenty pairs of socks, and ten pairs of shoes.

My compromise is not just to buy less. Whenever possible, I will be loyal to manufacturers who comply with the environmental laws of this country, regardless of where their factory is. The things I buy have to be the best quality I can afford. I don't need twenty pairs of socks. I need six pairs that I can wear more than once without blowing out the heel. The ten pairs of shoes that fall apart the first time I get caught in the rain are history. I will ask myself specific questions before I make a purchase. Yes, all those 'Made in China' do-dads in the stores are cute, but the big question is, how much of it is just junk? Then there's 'Do I really need it?' and 'What am I going to do with it?' A really good question to ask is 'Will I ever have to dust it?'

When I was growing up, we didn't get new clothes every week, or even every month. We got them twice a year, in the spring, and again in the fall. My mother bought the best quality she could afford, and we were expected to look after it. Anything that still fit from the previous year was not replaced. We had sufficient clothing to get from washday to washday. We recycled down through the family, and mended things. I don't remember constantly tripping over shoes because there was no room to put them away. Our house wasn't cluttered with stuff. I don't remember feeling deprived, either. In fact, I always thought I had a good life. What I don't remember spending time thinking about was stuff. It was fun getting new things, but it wasn't the focal point of my life. We certainly didn't go shopping as a form of entertainment. We actually had better things to do with our time.

Believe it or not, if we all make similar choices, it will not put people out of work. It takes more time to make a better quality product, and the manufacturer gets to charge more for it. We might end up working fewer hours, but we won't need as much money. Who knows? We might actually have time to think about other things.