Tufts Theatre-- Anything to Declare?

I went last night to the play now running at Tufts Theatre. It's a farce written in 1966 in the "Palais-Royal Farce" genre, entitled "Anything to Declare?" By Maurice Hennequin and Pierre Veber, Translated and Directed by Laurence Senelick.

I declare, it was the funniest performance I have seen in over a year.

The writing, directing and (most of the) acting were simply marvelous. The set was professional and the audience was dying of laughter.

The story takes place around the turn of the century (my best guess) in Paris. It's about a young couple who just returned from their honeymoon. The young lady's parents are shocked to find out that their new son-in-law has yet to "become his wife's husband." Hilarity ensues when the parents give him three days to "love" their daughter, or else they're giving her away to the next suitor in line.

I loved it, and would definitely recommend everyone to go see for themselves! It's playing next weekend. http://ase.tufts.edu/drama%2Ddance/performances/drama.asp

city lights -- a liberal bookstore with a facist streak?

11/30/2007

I just got into argument/ “discussion” with the dude that works at city lights bookstore. The bookstore founded by the beatniks and the revolutionaries and tries to perpetuate that attitude by selling revolutionary pieces of writing, magazines, etc. I asked why there weren’t any options for poorer people. I thought it was oppressive that only the rich can be exposed to new ideas. Only the rich can afford these fancy, hard covered books. Do they offer a borrow, or buy and sell back policy? No. no they don’t because they need to stay in business. They struggle as it is. They can’t afford to have used books.

Well, little mr. blond funky haircut and clothes man was getting pissy and defensive, so I let it be. But as I stepped outside it occurred to me that the most basic economics class will tell you that offering discounted, pre-read books would only widen their customer base, offering more choices to the people that enter the store, and thereby widen their sales. And of course they will still make a profit on the discounted stuff, because they can jack up the price as high as they want. Certain buyers, like myself, will only buy something if it’s on sale. If it’s not on the discounted shelf, it won’t be bought. Thus creating a purchase that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that they’ll make a smaller profit because the everyday tourist will then flock to the sale rack and pay less than they would’ve been willing to pay on a book if there hadn’t been a sale rack. Well, this I say to you. They will still buy the new fancy hard cover and go ahead and purchase off the sale rack, too. Bing, bang profity shmam.

not experienced enough?

How experience does one need to be experienced? The below article from the NYTimes comments on the most recent controversy over whether Obama is experienced enough in foreign policy to be president. the article quotes some who say when it comes to determining the country's foreign policy, experience is overrated.

Is being Senator not experience enough? Do we need a life-long military man to run our country? they would certainly have lots of experience with foreign policy. seems to me though, that the Times might be on to something -- a fresh perspective and good judgment might be much more valuable than decades of experience in a broken system.

Interesting to think that in fact, the people with the most experience right now in running the country are President Bush and VP Cheney. I couldn't exactly say that all that experience has helped them any...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/politics/25web-cooper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

kucinich...

After watching the recent Democratic candidates debate, hosted by George Stephanopolous, it seems like Kucinich has something worth saying. i think getting cut off by main stream media debate hosts, like stephanopolous, is probably a good clue that he doesn't stand for the same old crap. I'm just happy he's at least on the same stage as the rest of the candidates (albeit all the way at the end of the stage), willing to say something different than the usual placating BS soudbites we hear from everyone else.

Despite his too black hair and too black suit, he caught my attention.

according to wikipedia, Kucinich believes in:

- Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Insurance Act.
- The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
- Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
- Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
- Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
- Fostering a world of international cooperation.
- Abolishing the death penalty.
- Environmental renewal and clean energy.
- Preventing the privatization of social security.
- Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
- Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
- Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
- Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
- Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
- Ending the war on drugs.
- Legalizing same-sex marriage.
- Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
- Ending the H1B and L1 Visa Programs
- Restoring rural communities and family farms.
- Strengthening gun control.

Sound like good platforms to me! What do you all think? Too pie in the sky? No way he'll beat Hilary or Barack?

Barack for President... a candidate for change??

I can't help but feel totally cynical when I say that I honestly cannot get behind any single candidates running for president... I thought Barack would be good--he's running on an image of change for America. yes, this is well needed, but umm... what type of change is he talking about, exactly? is he actually balls-y enough to change things where this country most needs changing?

what about fixing the situation in the middle east: he says if elected he would INCREASE the defense budget. doesn't seem like much of a change to me.

what about solving global warming: he is (or at least was) promoting LIQUID COAL... a new technology that takes the dirtiest form of energy we have and transforms it into a liquid so we can run our cars on it... great! blow up MORE mountains so our cars can pollute even more asthma-inducing and global warming causing pollution into the air. doesn't sound like the right kind of change..

i'll admit, Barack's got some great speech writers, and we were all very impressed with his family history back in 04.. but really, what exactly would he change??

What do you all think of the candidate pool??

Supreme Court sees the environmentally friendly light!

woohoo!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/02/BAGN7P06F542.DTL&hw=sierra+club&sn=002&sc=902

Supreme Court's EPA decision creates political hot potato

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Monday, April 2, 2007

(04-02) 16:37 PDT Washington -- The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Monday that the
Environmental Protection Agency has the power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act puts the Bush administration in a quandary.

Either it must start to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant, an action it has resisted for six years. Or the EPA must state publicly that greenhouse gases do not threaten human health or welfare, a view rejected by most climate scientists, including the agency's own researchers.

The administration could drag its heels on a decision, hoping to run out the clock until President Bush leaves office. But lawmakers say the ruling will increase pressure on Congress to pass economy-wide limits on greenhouse gases to avoid a patchwork of state rules and EPA regulations.

The ruling "provides another compelling reason why Congress must enact, and the president must sign, comprehensive climate change legislation," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., who is drafting a bill.
The high court's decision will strengthen California's position against legal challenges in federal court from automakers. Legal experts say it also increases the chances the state will get a waiver from the EPA to implement its new tailpipe emissions limits, set to take effect in 2009.

"We remain hopeful that the EPA will soon determine, as California has, that vehicle greenhouse gases must be reduced," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement Monday.

The court was ruling in a case brought by 12 states, including California, one U.S. territory, three cities and 13 environmental groups that sought to force the administration to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.
The states argued that EPA must regulate four greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons -- because the Clean Air Act requires the agency to limit any pollutant that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

But the EPA claimed it didn't have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and even if it did it wouldn't do so because reducing U.S. vehicle emissions would do little to stem the global rise in greenhouse gases from developing countries like China and India.

The case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, has been widely seen was one of the court's most critical environmental decisions in decades. It split the court between its liberal and conservative wings, with Justice Anthony Kennedy once again providing the swing vote in a narrow decision.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that EPA was wrong to say it had no authority to regulate greenhouse gases and ordered the agency to reconsider its stance in light of mounting evidence of the perils of global warming.

"EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate," Stevens wrote. He later added, "While the president has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."

He was joined in the opinion by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter as well as Kennedy.

Stevens also took issue with the administration's claim that curbing auto emissions would only make a small dent in the problem.

"While it may be true that regulating motor-vehicle emissions will not by itself reserve global warming, it by no means follows that we lack jurisdiction to decide wehther EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it," Stevens wrote.

Former EPA general counsel Ann Klee, who served in the Bush administration until July 2006, said the court's decision will effectively force her former agency to begin regulating tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, whether it wants to or not.

"It significantly constrains EPA in terms of making a decision not to regulate," said Klee, now a partner at Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C. "It said EPA can decide not to regulate only if it determines that a pollutant does not contribute to public harm and welfare" -- which would be difficult given the growing scientific consensus about the threats from climate change.

Sierra Club senior attorney David Bookbinder, who's in charge of the environmental group's climate change litigation, said the ruling will require the agency to enforce the Clear Air Act.

"This is everything we wanted," Bookbinder said. "The only thing the court left up to EPA is to make the determination: Do greenhouse gases endanger human health? We all know the answer to that. Even EPA has said that."

Chief Justice John Roberts and three other conservative justices -- Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented, arguing that the states, cities and environmental groups lacked standing to sue the EPA to force regulatory action.
Roberts expressed suspicion about estimates that Massachusetts could lose hundreds of miles of coastal land with projected rises in sea levels.

The states "are never able to trace their alleged injuries back through this complex web to the fractional amount of global emissions that might have been limited with EPA standards," Roberts wrote in dissent.

The decision in the climate case came the same day the Supreme Court ruled against Duke Energy Corp., giving a boost to an EPA program requiring utilities to install cleaner technology when they make upgrades at coal-fired power plants.

The court's unanimous decision was cheered by environmentalists, who say it endorses the Clinton administration's strategy of imposing steep fines on companies that skirt federal clean air rules. The Bush administration, backed by the utilities, has sought to ease those rules.

"This is a banner day for the environment," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "The Supreme Court decided two cases squarely on the side of protecting the environment and public health."

E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.

Go Edgar! it really IS your birthday!

Environmental hero Edgar Wayburn celebrates his 100th birthday!

http://www.sierraclub.org/history/wayburn/