Like Sonja, I was torn about this morning's announcement of the explosions in London. Obviously they are horrific and any pointless loss of human life is tragic, but the blatant outpouring of coverage for an incident like this, compared to the paucity of coverage of other events in non-white areas that are even more fatal and often ongoing, is jarring, to say the least. The danger of bringing that up is to sound as if you are minimalizing the incident and the deaths in London. I also understand that it's important to mention terrorist attacks in powerful countries because, as the US has demonstrated, when these countries feel they are attacked, they fight back, in ways that have repercussions for people across the globe. I also don't want the media to be in frenzy mode reporting every thing that happens anywhere; I want them to also share the stories of people that are fighting for their rights, and share the stories that you wouldn't know if they didn't think to bring them to you, interesting ones that remind you that we are part of a shared humanity, stuff like that. This is why I support independent media: complaining about media coverage of events is boring, ineffective, and frustrating, much like complaining of any kind. So if you want stories covered, you should work on supporting outlets that do cover them, if you can't write them yourself. For all of those reasons, I feel uneasy emphasizing the disparity in coverage between these bombings and other incidents around the globe. At the same time, though, it is a point that I still think should be brought up every time the media works itself into a frenzy over something.

I have also been similarly torn about Live 8, which in Canada received copious coverage over the weekend. As great as it is to see so many people supporting efforts to make the G8 countries accountable for policies affecting the 3rd world, especially Africa, I'm kind of skeptical about a) what the concerts will accomplish and even b) what they are attempting to accomplish. I just can't get behind the call for more aid to Africa. I am skeptical when I know that these development projects are in the hands of government entities whose policies haven't exactly contributed to longterm growth and sustaniability, either from the donating or receiving nations. I am skeptical that aid will affect the distribution of wealth in countries whose economic situation is based on years of unequal relationships and systems that are reinforced by an unequal international economic system. I am also suspicious that countries increasing the amount of aid they give will feel more comfortable turning around and enforcing policies that hurt these countries more than aid will ever help, such as structural adjustment policies and privatization, subsidies that make it impossible for exports to succeed in the world market, and corporate investment that exploits cheap labor and other resources without providing any longterm benefit to communities, to name a few.

Thus, instead of just continually increasing aid for bandaid solutions, maybe the G8 countries could invest in stopping these exploitative policies. Debt cancellation is a wonderful step; they can also try to exert pressure on private corporations (hahahahaha) to allow these countries to manufacture generic drugs and to enforce labor standards in factories. G8 countries can reduce barriers to trade in their own countries, such as agricultural subsidies, if they're so all about the free market. The list goes on.

Maybe there are ways to funnel aid that are strategic and sustainable, but I am hard pressed to come up with any that are not paternalistic and ultimately ineffective. Communities across the global South are cultivating "development" projects that are sustainable and accountable. There is hope, but I am not sure that it comes in the form of billions of dollars. (At the same time, though, of course there is a need to feed the hungry, etc.)

I'm still going to let my mind rest before I share details of the changes in my personal life...more to come...