I'm currently working on a campaign for 'safe LNG.' working with the Gulf Restoration Network, we're trying to build awareness about open-loop LNG terminals proposed for the Gulf of Mexico.
open-loop LNG terminals will chloriante about 200 million gallons of the Gulf's seawater everyday. and that's bad.
Why should you care? Well, if you like to fish or eat seafood of the Gulf of Mexico, you might be interested to know that one of these terminals could deplete fish populations by 5%.
The hurricanes have seriously hurt the fishermen of the Gulf. These terminals would only make their jobs harder.
i'd give more details, but i'm lazy... check out www.healthygulf.org for more info.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
LNG?
i'm taking a quick little poll...
have you heard of the term LNG?
please comment, yes or no.
if yes, please tell me where you live or where you've heard it.. (not what it is-- b/c that would give it away for everyone else..)
thanks!!!!!!!! :)
(will explain later, promise!)
have you heard of the term LNG?
please comment, yes or no.
if yes, please tell me where you live or where you've heard it.. (not what it is-- b/c that would give it away for everyone else..)
thanks!!!!!!!! :)
(will explain later, promise!)
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
misguided old economist attempts to pollute young, idealistic minds
misguided old economist attempts to pollute young, idealistic minds
check out this article and see if i'm crazy, or if this guy doesn't secretly wish he had become an actor instead of an economist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/business/28every.html?ex=1125979200&en=08a661b9c1be67ce&ei=5070&emc=eta1
interesting article, although i can't say i agree with the message. his ending line, "i'll never be young again" is the admission that his life isn't going as he wants it to. c'mon, youth is a state of mind not an age! according to this guy, the two secrets to a happy life that he wished he had known are 1.attain fabulous wealth and 2.marry someone with the same values as you. it seems to me that this guy is just nostalgic of the good ol days-- those days when worrying about the "material world" were not yet his concern. he doesn't even understand what the source of his own happiness is. he says that working helps people's self-esteem, so why is he yearning for the day he can retire? he's simply broadcasting the messages that have been drilled into his head over the years as an economist: work is good, and money = happiness. i'm not buying it, and i hope my fellow youth don't buy it either.
check out this article and see if i'm crazy, or if this guy doesn't secretly wish he had become an actor instead of an economist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/business/28every.html?ex=1125979200&en=08a661b9c1be67ce&ei=5070&emc=eta1
interesting article, although i can't say i agree with the message. his ending line, "i'll never be young again" is the admission that his life isn't going as he wants it to. c'mon, youth is a state of mind not an age! according to this guy, the two secrets to a happy life that he wished he had known are 1.attain fabulous wealth and 2.marry someone with the same values as you. it seems to me that this guy is just nostalgic of the good ol days-- those days when worrying about the "material world" were not yet his concern. he doesn't even understand what the source of his own happiness is. he says that working helps people's self-esteem, so why is he yearning for the day he can retire? he's simply broadcasting the messages that have been drilled into his head over the years as an economist: work is good, and money = happiness. i'm not buying it, and i hope my fellow youth don't buy it either.
Monday, August 08, 2005
polar bears are cute
like fuzzy polar bears?
want to see them covered in oil?
neither do I! that's why one of the campaigns my fellow eco warriors will be working on this year is stopping the budget from getting passed in late September/ early October.
why stop the budget? well, those wiley republican critters have discovered that they didn't have enough political capital to get the energy bill passed if the provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was contained in it. this is a result of over 5 years of lobbying reps from all over the country to defeat this provision... and up until now it has worked. the pro-wilderness folks have threatened to fillibuster if the provision was in the energy bill. so in response, the republicans have sneaked it out of the energy bill (which, by the way, is an abomination to the world community, considering that it further encourages the use of fossil fuels which will speed up the effects of global warming), and put it into the budget.
but, alas, the budget has its own quirky voting system where you only need a simple majority to pass it, and the filibuster is, conveniently, not allowed!
sooooo, that leaves us in a sticky spot. we'll need to convince some middle of the road republicans and democrats to vote to preserve a national wildlife refuge from total destruction.
sounds like i'm exaggerating? just look at the prudhoe bay oil field in alaska to see how destructive these drilling facilities are to the region's ecosystem, wildlife and human populations. there, the facility reports one oil spill a day.
for more on the destruction caused by prudhoe bay oili field, check out : http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm
there is no way the industry can guarantee a safer, cleaner site only a few miles away. scientists have labeled the Arctic refuge as the most biologically diverse preserved region north of the Arctic circle. it is currently supports a complete and in tact ecosystem that will stand absolutely no chance against these oil fields. if the coastal plain were to be opened for drilling, scientists predict 50% of the caribou population will die, polar bears that give birth on the land there will die, thousands of migratory birds will lose their habitat, and the list just doesn't stop.
the absolute worst part of this scenario is that the purported oil supply under the ice of the coastal plain in alaska is minimal. the most positive estimates are far lower than what it would take to fuel the country for a year. if they opened the entire area and drilled every last drop, it would be the equivalent of 5-6% of the total country's annual oil usage. 5%!!! AND, that wouldn't be around for at least 10 years, while the infrastructure gets set up.
the US consumes 25% of the world's oil, and it has about 5% of the world's oil on its own territory. So, if you would all do the math, you'll find that..... drumroll please..... we can never free ourselves from "foreign oil" continuing at the same rate we do right now! it just doesn't work out mathematically!
the amount of oil predicted to be in the Arctic would be less than the amount of oil we could save by having better tires on every car. it is significantly less than the amount of oil we'd save with higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. it is merely a drop in the big oil bucket. not to mention the tragedy it would be for the wild life of the region and the birds from all over the world.
moreover, transporting the potential fuel from alaska to the lower 48 states involves the use of a trans-alaskan pipeline that already poses a clear and easy terrorist target. a few years ago a guy got drunk and went shooting in the woods with his buddies. he actucally hit this pipeline and punctured it, spewing oil into the forest for 3 days, and stopping the flow of the oil for weeks. the last thing we need to do in today's national security driven environment is to depend more heavily on such a huge bullsye for terrorists.
(for more info: http://www.solcomhouse.com/pipeline.htm)
i'm not saying that you all need to believe in the beauty of nature or the right of animals to have a habitat. i'm not even saying that you all should feel sympathy for the Gwitch'in indigenous people of the area who live off of the land, and have been there for the past few hundred years. all i'm saying is that there are smarter alternatives that would make us all better off anyway. e.g. raising fuel efficiency standards on US automobiles would decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere.
please encourage your local senators and congressmen (and women) to vote the right way on this budget. take the time to write a hand-written letter or make a phone call. the only people who'll benefit from this proposal are the oil companies, and that's a cold hard fact.
for more specifics about the campaign the Sierra Club is working on, and also to send an email to your senator or congressman, check out: http://www.arcticrefugeaction.org/
what are your thoughts???
want to see them covered in oil?
neither do I! that's why one of the campaigns my fellow eco warriors will be working on this year is stopping the budget from getting passed in late September/ early October.
why stop the budget? well, those wiley republican critters have discovered that they didn't have enough political capital to get the energy bill passed if the provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was contained in it. this is a result of over 5 years of lobbying reps from all over the country to defeat this provision... and up until now it has worked. the pro-wilderness folks have threatened to fillibuster if the provision was in the energy bill. so in response, the republicans have sneaked it out of the energy bill (which, by the way, is an abomination to the world community, considering that it further encourages the use of fossil fuels which will speed up the effects of global warming), and put it into the budget.
but, alas, the budget has its own quirky voting system where you only need a simple majority to pass it, and the filibuster is, conveniently, not allowed!
sooooo, that leaves us in a sticky spot. we'll need to convince some middle of the road republicans and democrats to vote to preserve a national wildlife refuge from total destruction.
sounds like i'm exaggerating? just look at the prudhoe bay oil field in alaska to see how destructive these drilling facilities are to the region's ecosystem, wildlife and human populations. there, the facility reports one oil spill a day.
for more on the destruction caused by prudhoe bay oili field, check out : http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm
there is no way the industry can guarantee a safer, cleaner site only a few miles away. scientists have labeled the Arctic refuge as the most biologically diverse preserved region north of the Arctic circle. it is currently supports a complete and in tact ecosystem that will stand absolutely no chance against these oil fields. if the coastal plain were to be opened for drilling, scientists predict 50% of the caribou population will die, polar bears that give birth on the land there will die, thousands of migratory birds will lose their habitat, and the list just doesn't stop.
the absolute worst part of this scenario is that the purported oil supply under the ice of the coastal plain in alaska is minimal. the most positive estimates are far lower than what it would take to fuel the country for a year. if they opened the entire area and drilled every last drop, it would be the equivalent of 5-6% of the total country's annual oil usage. 5%!!! AND, that wouldn't be around for at least 10 years, while the infrastructure gets set up.
the US consumes 25% of the world's oil, and it has about 5% of the world's oil on its own territory. So, if you would all do the math, you'll find that..... drumroll please..... we can never free ourselves from "foreign oil" continuing at the same rate we do right now! it just doesn't work out mathematically!
the amount of oil predicted to be in the Arctic would be less than the amount of oil we could save by having better tires on every car. it is significantly less than the amount of oil we'd save with higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. it is merely a drop in the big oil bucket. not to mention the tragedy it would be for the wild life of the region and the birds from all over the world.
moreover, transporting the potential fuel from alaska to the lower 48 states involves the use of a trans-alaskan pipeline that already poses a clear and easy terrorist target. a few years ago a guy got drunk and went shooting in the woods with his buddies. he actucally hit this pipeline and punctured it, spewing oil into the forest for 3 days, and stopping the flow of the oil for weeks. the last thing we need to do in today's national security driven environment is to depend more heavily on such a huge bullsye for terrorists.
(for more info: http://www.solcomhouse.com/pipeline.htm)
i'm not saying that you all need to believe in the beauty of nature or the right of animals to have a habitat. i'm not even saying that you all should feel sympathy for the Gwitch'in indigenous people of the area who live off of the land, and have been there for the past few hundred years. all i'm saying is that there are smarter alternatives that would make us all better off anyway. e.g. raising fuel efficiency standards on US automobiles would decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere.
please encourage your local senators and congressmen (and women) to vote the right way on this budget. take the time to write a hand-written letter or make a phone call. the only people who'll benefit from this proposal are the oil companies, and that's a cold hard fact.
for more specifics about the campaign the Sierra Club is working on, and also to send an email to your senator or congressman, check out: http://www.arcticrefugeaction.org/
what are your thoughts???
Monday, August 01, 2005
another abuse of power by the bush team
our lovely president and his team just sneaked his appointee for position of UN ambassador, Mr. Bolton, in behind senate lines. the president realized his appointee would never get Senate approval, so he waited till the Senate was in recess to sneak him into office under the scrutiny of congress.
here's how some senators were quoted in the nytimes:
(check out the whole article: http://nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01cnd-bolton.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=6014f62ea8a1344d&hp&ex=1122955200&partner=homepage )
might not seem like a big deal in comparison to other crap the Bush administration has come up with? well, it still seems like an abuse of power, and another exmample of bush getting arund every check and balance he can. and i'm glad to see that i'm not the only one who's pissed off... i guess that's a good sign that i haven't fallen completely and utterly into the wallows of disillusionment and cynicism.
what do you all think about this tasty treat from the gang at the white house?
here's how some senators were quoted in the nytimes:
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, characterized Mr. Bush's
move as "the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House," while another
Democrat, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, said in a statement that "even
while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and
circumvents the will of Congress" at home.
(check out the whole article: http://nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01cnd-bolton.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=6014f62ea8a1344d&hp&ex=1122955200&partner=homepage )
might not seem like a big deal in comparison to other crap the Bush administration has come up with? well, it still seems like an abuse of power, and another exmample of bush getting arund every check and balance he can. and i'm glad to see that i'm not the only one who's pissed off... i guess that's a good sign that i haven't fallen completely and utterly into the wallows of disillusionment and cynicism.
what do you all think about this tasty treat from the gang at the white house?
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
a dull willy wonka is back
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is one of my favorite movies of all times. i was therefore super excited to see the newly released Tim Burton remake starring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. the assessment of the remake's quality as compared to the original 1971 film and the Roald Dahl book is under heated internet debate.
i personally enjoyed the second one for entertainment purposes. it was worth my $8.50 to see the new spins on the plot, new oompa loompas, and new versions of the well-loved characters. however, if forced to pick a favorite, the obvious winner is by far the original film. it is timeless, appeals to all ages, and is quirkey enough to warrant repeated viewings. while the remake may be more visually appealing than the first film, its script is shallower, its characters are too extereme but at the same time too undeveloped to be lovable, and the overall feeling is less magical and intriguing. i'd say that if you haven't seen the first one, the remake might only be interesting if you are under age 13 or are at least a little high while watching the trippy Oompa Loompahs.
one major problem i had with the film was the characterization of Willy Wonka. johnny depp does not play the benevolent but odd chocolate maker of the book. the back story with the dentist father is, as far as i know, made up for this version, and adds a level to his motivations, but completely changes wonka's nature. he is now an embittered chocolate fanatic who makes it to fulfill his own childhood desires rather than to please children across the world.
the opening scene of the original film that takes place in the candy store demonstrates the affable nature of mr. wonka, and is desire to make the world happy through his candy. a few lines of the candyman song will help illustrate my point:
i personally enjoyed the second one for entertainment purposes. it was worth my $8.50 to see the new spins on the plot, new oompa loompas, and new versions of the well-loved characters. however, if forced to pick a favorite, the obvious winner is by far the original film. it is timeless, appeals to all ages, and is quirkey enough to warrant repeated viewings. while the remake may be more visually appealing than the first film, its script is shallower, its characters are too extereme but at the same time too undeveloped to be lovable, and the overall feeling is less magical and intriguing. i'd say that if you haven't seen the first one, the remake might only be interesting if you are under age 13 or are at least a little high while watching the trippy Oompa Loompahs.
one major problem i had with the film was the characterization of Willy Wonka. johnny depp does not play the benevolent but odd chocolate maker of the book. the back story with the dentist father is, as far as i know, made up for this version, and adds a level to his motivations, but completely changes wonka's nature. he is now an embittered chocolate fanatic who makes it to fulfill his own childhood desires rather than to please children across the world.
the opening scene of the original film that takes place in the candy store demonstrates the affable nature of mr. wonka, and is desire to make the world happy through his candy. a few lines of the candyman song will help illustrate my point:
Who can take tomorrow Dip it in a dream Separate the sorrow And collect up
all the cream?The candyman. the candyman can. The candyman can 'cause he mixes it
with love and makes the world taste good.And the world tastes good cause the candyman thinks it should.
Now, I don't believe these light-hearted, warm, fuzzies would hold true for Tim Burton's version of Willy Wonka. This Mr. Wonka is not interested in who eats his candy, but only in making it for his own enjoyment. For me, the Gene Wilder Wonka is a nice guy who may have gone a little cooky because he locked himself up in a chocolate factory for decades with no human contact apart from the Oompa Loompahs. His obscure quotes (e.g. "Where is fancy bread, in the heart or in the head?" for a complete list of these awesome quotes check out http://home.att.net/~tom.brodhead/wonka.htm) and odd but friendly behavior (like plucking Mike TV's hair out) make him an intriguing but likeable character.
Johnny Depp's Wonka on the other hand, is mostly too strange and too over the top to be interesting. At the core, this Wonka is a mean, selfish guy. Despite the fact that he eventually learns the value of family by the end of the film, he has a long way to go to winning the hearts of the audience members, of any age.
What did you all think of the new version?
Monday, July 11, 2005
libertarian musings...
anonymous is my new best friend!!! i am soooo happy to have received my first actual comment!! i think i'll specifically ask for feedback more often!
in this vein, please write me with all your criticisms of the following critique on the libertarian ideology.... :)
i just got home from a week-long conference held by the Institute for Humane Studies entitled "the Foundations of Liberty." Their objective was to inform us of (and perhaps convert us to) the doctrines of Libertarianism. The Libertarian party is a 'third party' that believes in limited government whose sole purpose is to protect civil liberties, private property, and the rein of the free market.
Although I have not as yet sworn my allegiance to the libertarian ways, the week was in no way a waste. I met some amazing people from all over the world: (in alphabetical order) argentina, azerbaijan, bulgaria, croatia, india, modlova, romania, russia, ukraine, yugoslavia, to name a few of the countries represented.
it was a great change of pace as compared to my month-long vacation in the paradise also know as trinidad. my brain was put to work for the first time since finals. the lectures refreshed my american history, microeconomics, moral philosophy and even french and english literature.
i was reminded of all the praise economists give to the powers of the free market... how in some mysterious way, the market will make everything all right. for instance, outsourcing a nike factory to india will provide cheaper shoes for everyone. it may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but on paper and in economic graphs, these calculations actually add up and make sense.
however, in practice, i believe the libertarian model would rely too heavily upon individuals' generosity to help the plight of the impoverished, hungry, sick and helpless. the government would not provide a social safety net, eliminating all programs designed to protect the poor (and with the same token, the rich that corrupt govt officials as well).
i just can't accept the fact that it's ok to have a society where the super super rich are getting richer off the not-as-poor-as-they'd-be-without-this-sweatshop-job poor.
would we not be restricting the rights of these people to freely choose their own leader?
where can we draw the line between justified interventions and unjustified? will it depend on the number of casualties the libertarian government pays to 'liberate' another country?
what about during the cold war when several countries democratically voted in communist governments? was the US justified in overthrowing them and installing pro-western leadership? for the sake of argument, let's pretend these new puppet governments actually did fulfill the duties of protecting the people's civil liberties. is it ok to tell the rest of the world that 'we' know what's best for them?
there is a very fine line between liberation and imperialism.
[now you make your comments! :) ]
in this vein, please write me with all your criticisms of the following critique on the libertarian ideology.... :)
i just got home from a week-long conference held by the Institute for Humane Studies entitled "the Foundations of Liberty." Their objective was to inform us of (and perhaps convert us to) the doctrines of Libertarianism. The Libertarian party is a 'third party' that believes in limited government whose sole purpose is to protect civil liberties, private property, and the rein of the free market.
Although I have not as yet sworn my allegiance to the libertarian ways, the week was in no way a waste. I met some amazing people from all over the world: (in alphabetical order) argentina, azerbaijan, bulgaria, croatia, india, modlova, romania, russia, ukraine, yugoslavia, to name a few of the countries represented.
it was a great change of pace as compared to my month-long vacation in the paradise also know as trinidad. my brain was put to work for the first time since finals. the lectures refreshed my american history, microeconomics, moral philosophy and even french and english literature.
i was reminded of all the praise economists give to the powers of the free market... how in some mysterious way, the market will make everything all right. for instance, outsourcing a nike factory to india will provide cheaper shoes for everyone. it may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but on paper and in economic graphs, these calculations actually add up and make sense.
however, in practice, i believe the libertarian model would rely too heavily upon individuals' generosity to help the plight of the impoverished, hungry, sick and helpless. the government would not provide a social safety net, eliminating all programs designed to protect the poor (and with the same token, the rich that corrupt govt officials as well).
i just can't accept the fact that it's ok to have a society where the super super rich are getting richer off the not-as-poor-as-they'd-be-without-this-sweatshop-job poor.
the argument is that people would not choose city life of over-work, under pay, cramped quarters and pollution, for $1/day if they had a better alternative. is it possible, though, that people have abandoned simple and traditional ways of life all for a pipe dream? maybe leaving a self-sufficient farm is desireable because of imagined fortunes awaiting in the city. images, attainable or not, i'd have to blame on the cultural aspect of globalization.
along with foreign industries come foreign ideals of mcdonald's hamburgers, big luxury cars, swimming pools, and rappers' bling. is it elitist to assume that the rest of the world shouldn't have big dreams too? yet, there may be some unintended consequences of exporting the american (or free market) dream. what if images of a better life are in reality unattainable in the place you live. e.g. if you happened to be an average teen male living in central africa? when faced with the harsh realities of poverty, disease, warfare, a corrupt government, and no opportunities, a false sense of hope can turn into utter despair and disillusionment --- perfect fuel off of which dictators and warlords feed.
on a less extreme level, to encourage a completely free market naturally leads to a culture of consumerism. if the proverbial pie gets larger the more we buy, then buying becomes a neccessity, even an act of patriotism. it's a cutlure that encourages mr. and ms. middle class to get to the mall every payday, to help get the economy pumpin, even (especially?) if it puts them in debt.
even if everyone has more money in the long run, i'm not convinced that working one's life away to gain a few more pennies is the ideal society we should be aiming for. as the altermondialistes or anti-wto folks would say, a better world is possible!
finally, there is a fundamental contradiction in the libertarian ideology that becomes evident when one investigates the party's stance on foreign policy. what happens when the head of a state is an evil dictator, who restricts people's liberties, and (perhaps more importantly to the real world,) refuses to open its markets to the rest of the world. can the libertarian government intervene on behalf of those oppressed people? the moral philosopher says yes. we are morally justified in untying the prisoner, or cutting the head off of the dictator.
what happens, though, if those people feel they have 'freely chosen' to give up certain liberties to their government? after all, according to rousseau, we have all signed the imaginary social contract with the powers that be.
finally, there is a fundamental contradiction in the libertarian ideology that becomes evident when one investigates the party's stance on foreign policy. what happens when the head of a state is an evil dictator, who restricts people's liberties, and (perhaps more importantly to the real world,) refuses to open its markets to the rest of the world. can the libertarian government intervene on behalf of those oppressed people? the moral philosopher says yes. we are morally justified in untying the prisoner, or cutting the head off of the dictator.
what happens, though, if those people feel they have 'freely chosen' to give up certain liberties to their government? after all, according to rousseau, we have all signed the imaginary social contract with the powers that be.
now, instead of an evil dictator, let's imagine that state only refuses to open its markets to the rest of the world. the state isn't massacring its people or even restricting liberties; it merely protects its native industries from the unfeeling storm of the free market. in this case, does our libertarian government have the right or obligation to intervene? to overthrow this protectionist government?
would we not be restricting the rights of these people to freely choose their own leader?
where can we draw the line between justified interventions and unjustified? will it depend on the number of casualties the libertarian government pays to 'liberate' another country?
what about during the cold war when several countries democratically voted in communist governments? was the US justified in overthrowing them and installing pro-western leadership? for the sake of argument, let's pretend these new puppet governments actually did fulfill the duties of protecting the people's civil liberties. is it ok to tell the rest of the world that 'we' know what's best for them?
there is a very fine line between liberation and imperialism.
[now you make your comments! :) ]
Monday, June 27, 2005
MIA
after a month of being in trinidad, i was so excited to log onto my blog and see that some lovely soul had left me a comment!! as i eagerly opened the comment, hoping it was from my little 13 year old irish cousin with electric red hair, or one of my college friends who was missing me desperately, or maybe even from a secret or past admirer, i was utterly disappointed to read,
" Anonymous said...
please update at least once a week. thank you.
10:50 PM"
! a chastisement from the bloglords.
well, fine. if you want an update I'll give you an update.
Since graduation, I have come to Trinidad (it's the souther most island in the west indies-- in the caribbean... it borders venezuela... i encourage you all to look it up in an atlas... atlases can be very fun, let me assure you .. especially after a few drinks!) with my whole family to attend my cousin's wedding. my cousin (the one with the red hair), my sister and i joined the bridal party, all wearing the same baby-blue beaded dress. the wedding was beautiful, but not as beautiful as my cousin, of course, but that goes without saying. she married a lovely and painfully goodlooking guy from St. Louis. (the bride's mother [my auntie.. not aunt, but auntie] told me this evening that she could worry less about her daughter's future now that she's being looked over by Saint Louis. i thought that was just so clever.) the son of a tomato and cabbage farmer, he's a private pilot. the happy couple just built a house in florida and i can't wait to visit.
for the sake of all you future wedding planners out there, the reception was held at the nearby golf course, in a outdoor breezy tent. the sunset was magical that evening and the dancing did not stop allll night. following the reception, all the youngsters (but not the young-youngsters of course) went out to the hottest nite club to hit the island, called Zen. I have since become a Zen regular. it reminds me of a New york club, with three levels all overlooking the main dance floor, with several VIP sections, one of which is on the roof under the stars (or the sun, depending on how long you're there!).
the day after the wedding we all went 'down de islans' to a family friend's house. we took a boat from the marina to a house on one of the smaller islands surrounding the north coast. we had lots of food, drinks, speeches, swimming, sun and merriment. finally, the next day we all went to another family friend's house in blanchisseuse, a beach about a 1 and a 1/2 hours away. we all had some more great food and drinks and company. i attempted to surf, and 'limed' in the jacuzzi with everyone, including the comedic relief of the wedding, the 3 year-old terror... albeit an entertaining terror.
then, slowly but surely the irish, st. louis and even the trini contingents made their ways back to their homes around the world. i, however, decided to stay for a few more weeks, which have been filled with waterfalls, beaches, pools, parties, books, movies night clubs and (soon to be) turtles.
i hope that was a good enough update for the moment. i'll check in soon, or else i'm sure to receive another threatening comment from the blog lords.
and now a few reviews of the books i've read recently
1. "the alexandria quartet" by lauernce durell is a real literary gem. very very well written, a joy to read the prose. haven't gotten through much of it yet, though.
2. "a heartbreaking work of staggering genius" by Dave Eggers ... soooo good. it's the story of a 21 year-old orphan who takes care of his little brother. i highly highly recommend it. it's told in a stream of conciousness style and i can't wait to find out what happens next.
3. "blink" by.. not sure who.. is a non-fiction that discusses the decisions we all make in a spilt second. it's a interesting and thought-provoking read.
4. and finally " harry potter and the goblet of fire" if you have ever read any of the harry potters yet, you won't need me to recommend to you the 4th of the series. it was a joy to read while i was taking a mental vacation. a little scary at the end, even though i knew harry would live to make another book! can't wait to read the rest of them.
tell me what you all thought of these books!
" Anonymous said...
please update at least once a week. thank you.
10:50 PM"
! a chastisement from the bloglords.
well, fine. if you want an update I'll give you an update.
Since graduation, I have come to Trinidad (it's the souther most island in the west indies-- in the caribbean... it borders venezuela... i encourage you all to look it up in an atlas... atlases can be very fun, let me assure you .. especially after a few drinks!) with my whole family to attend my cousin's wedding. my cousin (the one with the red hair), my sister and i joined the bridal party, all wearing the same baby-blue beaded dress. the wedding was beautiful, but not as beautiful as my cousin, of course, but that goes without saying. she married a lovely and painfully goodlooking guy from St. Louis. (the bride's mother [my auntie.. not aunt, but auntie] told me this evening that she could worry less about her daughter's future now that she's being looked over by Saint Louis. i thought that was just so clever.) the son of a tomato and cabbage farmer, he's a private pilot. the happy couple just built a house in florida and i can't wait to visit.
for the sake of all you future wedding planners out there, the reception was held at the nearby golf course, in a outdoor breezy tent. the sunset was magical that evening and the dancing did not stop allll night. following the reception, all the youngsters (but not the young-youngsters of course) went out to the hottest nite club to hit the island, called Zen. I have since become a Zen regular. it reminds me of a New york club, with three levels all overlooking the main dance floor, with several VIP sections, one of which is on the roof under the stars (or the sun, depending on how long you're there!).
the day after the wedding we all went 'down de islans' to a family friend's house. we took a boat from the marina to a house on one of the smaller islands surrounding the north coast. we had lots of food, drinks, speeches, swimming, sun and merriment. finally, the next day we all went to another family friend's house in blanchisseuse, a beach about a 1 and a 1/2 hours away. we all had some more great food and drinks and company. i attempted to surf, and 'limed' in the jacuzzi with everyone, including the comedic relief of the wedding, the 3 year-old terror... albeit an entertaining terror.
then, slowly but surely the irish, st. louis and even the trini contingents made their ways back to their homes around the world. i, however, decided to stay for a few more weeks, which have been filled with waterfalls, beaches, pools, parties, books, movies night clubs and (soon to be) turtles.
i hope that was a good enough update for the moment. i'll check in soon, or else i'm sure to receive another threatening comment from the blog lords.
and now a few reviews of the books i've read recently
1. "the alexandria quartet" by lauernce durell is a real literary gem. very very well written, a joy to read the prose. haven't gotten through much of it yet, though.
2. "a heartbreaking work of staggering genius" by Dave Eggers ... soooo good. it's the story of a 21 year-old orphan who takes care of his little brother. i highly highly recommend it. it's told in a stream of conciousness style and i can't wait to find out what happens next.
3. "blink" by.. not sure who.. is a non-fiction that discusses the decisions we all make in a spilt second. it's a interesting and thought-provoking read.
4. and finally " harry potter and the goblet of fire" if you have ever read any of the harry potters yet, you won't need me to recommend to you the 4th of the series. it was a joy to read while i was taking a mental vacation. a little scary at the end, even though i knew harry would live to make another book! can't wait to read the rest of them.
tell me what you all thought of these books!
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
i love G.B. Shaw!!!!!!
check this out. it's a video clip of George Bernard Shaw in 1930. he is such a cutie! :)
http://www.britannica.com/nobel/video/oshawge003v1.mov
http://www.britannica.com/nobel/video/oshawge003v1.mov
Monday, May 16, 2005
Shaw is a genius!
I just think this is so clever. Quote from George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman:
Get it? hectoring/ Hectoring...? hahaha? :)
Violet: Don't be unreasonable, Hector. It was quite natural of Mr Malone to open my letter: his name was on the envelope.
Malone: There! You've no common sense, Hector. I thank you, Miss Robinson.
Hector: I thank you, too. It's very kind of you. My father knows no better.
Malone: [furiously clenching his fists] Hector-
Hector: Oh, it's no use hectoring me...
Get it? hectoring/ Hectoring...? hahaha? :)
The 'New Woman'
I think I've finally found an appropriate label to my idea of feminism...
the "New Woman" was a concept highly written about at the end of the 19th century. I suppose this conception of women is no longer 'new', but I like it...
According to E. Gainor's book Shaw's Daughters, the new woman,
Maybe today's status quo already qualifies as New Women. We certainly don't wear lung-restricting corsets anymore. Although, today's highly fashionable stillettos and tight jeans are certainly not the best to fit my 'active lifestyle.' Neverthess, now we women have a choice between sweatpants, jeans or a tight-ass skirt. We also have to count our blessings in that we're no longer forced to learn home economics, if higher education appeals to us. We have 'come a long way, baby' and maybe these New Women had something to do with it. While over a century old, I still appreciate the New Woman's independence of spirit and action and refusal to conform. We should all aim to be 'New' and maybe one day things like corporate glass ceilings and male-only presidencies will be a thing of the past, too.
the "New Woman" was a concept highly written about at the end of the 19th century. I suppose this conception of women is no longer 'new', but I like it...
According to E. Gainor's book Shaw's Daughters, the new woman,
"was noted for independence of spirit and action; she refused to conform to the conventional, male-determined code of feminine behavior or to accept an inferior
status legally, intellectually, or socially. This personal adventurousness manifested itself externally in such 'unwomanly' activities as cigarette smoking and in the rejection of traditional, purely decorative and cumbersome feminine attire in favor of a more practical wardrobe that suited an active lifestyle."
Maybe today's status quo already qualifies as New Women. We certainly don't wear lung-restricting corsets anymore. Although, today's highly fashionable stillettos and tight jeans are certainly not the best to fit my 'active lifestyle.' Neverthess, now we women have a choice between sweatpants, jeans or a tight-ass skirt. We also have to count our blessings in that we're no longer forced to learn home economics, if higher education appeals to us. We have 'come a long way, baby' and maybe these New Women had something to do with it. While over a century old, I still appreciate the New Woman's independence of spirit and action and refusal to conform. We should all aim to be 'New' and maybe one day things like corporate glass ceilings and male-only presidencies will be a thing of the past, too.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
peppermint patty
i think i too will be glad to have my health tomorrow... check out the second-to-last strip:
http://www.comics.com/comics/peanuts/meet_the_gang/meet_peppermint_patty.html
http://www.comics.com/comics/peanuts/meet_the_gang/meet_peppermint_patty.html
tongue twister
here's a fun little ditty to practice. i highly recommend reciting it in front of people who you'd like to shock; those people who are still under the impression that you're little miss/mister innocent. we used it as a warm-up before play rehearsal to practice our british accents. i thought of it just now when i realized while studying for an exam I have tomorrow at 9am, that i had skipped over 70 pages that i thought I'd read.
so, here goes:
yay! it appears so vulgar when you have to type it out. but just say it out loud, as fast as you can, and it just sounds lovely (especially with a british accent!).
so, here goes:
shit motherfucker damn, fucker damn damn
some motherfucker just fucked my man
but i'll fuck another fucker better than the other fucker
shit motherfucker damn, fucker damn damn
yay! it appears so vulgar when you have to type it out. but just say it out loud, as fast as you can, and it just sounds lovely (especially with a british accent!).
Saturday, May 07, 2005
penis envy anyone?
oh freud...
"Accepting that she does not have a penis is so difficult that, according to Freud, some girls persist for years in the belief that they can get one ("or something like it"). The desire can remain unconscious throughout life. For example, a grown woman who desires to "carry on an intellectual profession" is really expressing a disguised unconscious wish for a penis."
and all this time I've been so curious as to why I like to study.... ahh! yes! i don't have a penis! that's why! thanks Freud, i've been so lost without your wisdom!
to read more on Freudian theories of women and motherhood, check out:
http://www.bham.ac.uk/english/bibliography/CurrentCourses/Freud/Freud/girls.html
"Accepting that she does not have a penis is so difficult that, according to Freud, some girls persist for years in the belief that they can get one ("or something like it"). The desire can remain unconscious throughout life. For example, a grown woman who desires to "carry on an intellectual profession" is really expressing a disguised unconscious wish for a penis."
and all this time I've been so curious as to why I like to study.... ahh! yes! i don't have a penis! that's why! thanks Freud, i've been so lost without your wisdom!
to read more on Freudian theories of women and motherhood, check out:
http://www.bham.ac.uk/english/bibliography/CurrentCourses/Freud/Freud/girls.html
I am, like, soo over Shakespeare
I love modern theater. The more I read, the more I am intrigued by it. While thinking whom I should take as a date to a certain formal event I had, the thought of taking my English professor popped into my head. He is in his 30s, skinny and appears shorter than he is because of his visibly negelcted posture. The strictly ordered decor of his office and his faint accent make it clear that he is German. His gold tooth shines with every smile and his parted, slicked back hair only serves to accentuate his unibrow. So why the attraction? Well, he's just so garn smart. And I'm a sucker for accents. Plus, he's the one who has introduced me to a new perspective on the world of modern theater, and I'll be forever grateful.
Yet, my new-found fondness towards modern theater has unexpectedly altered my opinion of traditional theater. While watching our school's prodution of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, I was oddly disappointed. This production was performed in a rather modern way. The costumes were modern, and there was extensive use of videos and visual technology. In between each scene, the audience saw artsy montages of images projected on a massive screen hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the stage and on small TVs to either side of the stage. It was rather well done, and the cast was truly talented. However I realized that the constraints of traditional theater are hard to overcome, and that suits and laptops on stage just aren't enough.
It's true that I never liked this play's script or plot or lack of resolution to the societal queries posed. However, what bothered me most was the unavoidable rigidity that all shakesperian plays pose. Firstly, we're forced to listen to endless speeches and warying monologues. Secondly, the cast consisted of at least 20 actors, and yet most of them said and did nothing throughout the entire play. It just doesn't seem efficient to use people with busy lives as the background of a scene. For instance, in the court scene where Shylock attempts to enforce his bond, there were 15 really talented actors sitting on the stage, all doing a wonderful job of doing nothing. The "best" actors were those that were sitting the stillest, completely committed to their position of silent but engaged spectator. They reminded me of the cliched role of 'Tree' in elementary school plays.
The use of three women attendants also bothered me. These three ladies stood still for the majority of the time they were on stage. Except for one scene where they sang a beautiful song in harmony, they did great jobs of doing nothing. What's worse is that I'm sure artistic liberties were taken by the director to put the song in the play in the first place. As far as I know, Shakespeare didn't included songs in his texts.
What's the point of all this complaining? I'm not sure. Maybe my perspective was skewed after a long day of drinking and Snoop Dogg on the slope. Maybe I'll never be able to look at Shakespeare the same way again, after working so closely with modern theater. Maybe I should stop looking for meaning in this blog, and get back to my paper...
In any case, I sure am glad that theater has moved on since Shakespeare's days, and it's pretty cool that we have such a variety of styles out there today.
Yet, my new-found fondness towards modern theater has unexpectedly altered my opinion of traditional theater. While watching our school's prodution of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, I was oddly disappointed. This production was performed in a rather modern way. The costumes were modern, and there was extensive use of videos and visual technology. In between each scene, the audience saw artsy montages of images projected on a massive screen hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the stage and on small TVs to either side of the stage. It was rather well done, and the cast was truly talented. However I realized that the constraints of traditional theater are hard to overcome, and that suits and laptops on stage just aren't enough.
It's true that I never liked this play's script or plot or lack of resolution to the societal queries posed. However, what bothered me most was the unavoidable rigidity that all shakesperian plays pose. Firstly, we're forced to listen to endless speeches and warying monologues. Secondly, the cast consisted of at least 20 actors, and yet most of them said and did nothing throughout the entire play. It just doesn't seem efficient to use people with busy lives as the background of a scene. For instance, in the court scene where Shylock attempts to enforce his bond, there were 15 really talented actors sitting on the stage, all doing a wonderful job of doing nothing. The "best" actors were those that were sitting the stillest, completely committed to their position of silent but engaged spectator. They reminded me of the cliched role of 'Tree' in elementary school plays.
The use of three women attendants also bothered me. These three ladies stood still for the majority of the time they were on stage. Except for one scene where they sang a beautiful song in harmony, they did great jobs of doing nothing. What's worse is that I'm sure artistic liberties were taken by the director to put the song in the play in the first place. As far as I know, Shakespeare didn't included songs in his texts.
What's the point of all this complaining? I'm not sure. Maybe my perspective was skewed after a long day of drinking and Snoop Dogg on the slope. Maybe I'll never be able to look at Shakespeare the same way again, after working so closely with modern theater. Maybe I should stop looking for meaning in this blog, and get back to my paper...
In any case, I sure am glad that theater has moved on since Shakespeare's days, and it's pretty cool that we have such a variety of styles out there today.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
yay for bikes!
In the middle of my final project for Personal Finance Management class, I came across a great website that compares prices of riding a bike to driving a car. It's cute because the author is really passionate about bike riding!
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/autocost.htm
p.s. A few weeks ago, I was enjoying a lovely walk around campus, when I saw none other than Bill Nye (the Science Guy!) riding his bike down the street! He looked just like on tv, wearing a striped shirt and tie, except he was wearing a white styrofoam helmet and his khakis were tucked into his socks. How cute! (He is an alum of this beautiful institution.......oh my goodness... in less than one month I'll be an alum, too. anxiety! fear! sadness! nostalgia! excitement! AAAH! too many emotions to comprehend! *tear, smile, frown, laugh, wrinkled face of confusion... )
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/autocost.htm
p.s. A few weeks ago, I was enjoying a lovely walk around campus, when I saw none other than Bill Nye (the Science Guy!) riding his bike down the street! He looked just like on tv, wearing a striped shirt and tie, except he was wearing a white styrofoam helmet and his khakis were tucked into his socks. How cute! (He is an alum of this beautiful institution.......oh my goodness... in less than one month I'll be an alum, too. anxiety! fear! sadness! nostalgia! excitement! AAAH! too many emotions to comprehend! *tear, smile, frown, laugh, wrinkled face of confusion... )
Sunday, April 24, 2005
romance
It's amazing what can be considered scholarly work in the bellies of a university such as my own. I'm currently taking a course entitled "Sex in French" where we analyze portrayals of sex in French film and litterature. Mostly shocking, somewhat arousing, often disturbing, our assignments are certainly never boring.
Although I enjoy shocking my friends with images found within the pages of these books, I feel a little guilty that my ivy league homework consists of watching X-rated movies. Surprisingly, I am learning a lot about the implications of pornography and sexual taboos on society, and how they have (or haven't) changed over time.
You are surely asking what insights I can share with you all. Well, firstly, sex is a lot more complicated than you once thought. It seems as if when it comes to discussing sex, one is automatically launched into the deep, dark secrets of the human pysche. You'd think that with a title like Sex in French, the class might have been happy. Well, maybe the operative word was French, but all the endings (and middles and beginnings, now that I think about it) were sad, depressing, disturbing, not really happy.
It served as a great contrast to the over-romanticized "Hollywoodien" movies that the US pumps out by the dozen, where man chases woman until the end, when they have passionate, romantic sex, and ride off into the sunset to live happily ever after. The film I analyzed for a paper, for instance, was called Romance, and it was the absolute opposite of a romantic film. The director, Catherine Breillat said, "For me, romance is the illusion of love." If we were to accept this French director's opinion, then it seems to me that Americans surround themselves in the illusion of love. Why watch a fictionalized illusion of an elusive emotion? Yet, I even find myself glued to the television, soaking up every fake illusory moment. Maybe it's reassuring to fool ourselves that life is so easy and uncomplicated?
But is romance really the illusion of love? why bother being romantic if there's no love? i guess that 's where sex comes in! gotta bring the chocolate cake and roses on valentine's day to get laid. well, in that sense I suppose Breillat is right. but hey, nowadays, all you need is beer to get laid! so, maybe 'they' are right in saying that romance is dead. No more illusions? can we all handle the fact that it's just all about sex?
according to dictionary.com, romance is defined as:
ro·mance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-mns, rmns)n.
1.
a. A love affair.
b. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love: They kept the romance alive in their marriage for 35 years.
c. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something: a childhood romance with the sea.
2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful: “These fine old guns often have a romance clinging to them” (Richard Jeffries).
maybe it's silly to categorize our actions and emotions with messy little human-made words. i dunno about you, but my coffee sure does have some romance clinging to it, and i intend on building my romance with my law books. So, if you'd all excuse me, I need to set the mood, light some drippy candles, put on a little Barry Manilow, and try to seduce my brain into studying. May your evening be as filled with romance as mine...
Although I enjoy shocking my friends with images found within the pages of these books, I feel a little guilty that my ivy league homework consists of watching X-rated movies. Surprisingly, I am learning a lot about the implications of pornography and sexual taboos on society, and how they have (or haven't) changed over time.
You are surely asking what insights I can share with you all. Well, firstly, sex is a lot more complicated than you once thought. It seems as if when it comes to discussing sex, one is automatically launched into the deep, dark secrets of the human pysche. You'd think that with a title like Sex in French, the class might have been happy. Well, maybe the operative word was French, but all the endings (and middles and beginnings, now that I think about it) were sad, depressing, disturbing, not really happy.
It served as a great contrast to the over-romanticized "Hollywoodien" movies that the US pumps out by the dozen, where man chases woman until the end, when they have passionate, romantic sex, and ride off into the sunset to live happily ever after. The film I analyzed for a paper, for instance, was called Romance, and it was the absolute opposite of a romantic film. The director, Catherine Breillat said, "For me, romance is the illusion of love." If we were to accept this French director's opinion, then it seems to me that Americans surround themselves in the illusion of love. Why watch a fictionalized illusion of an elusive emotion? Yet, I even find myself glued to the television, soaking up every fake illusory moment. Maybe it's reassuring to fool ourselves that life is so easy and uncomplicated?
But is romance really the illusion of love? why bother being romantic if there's no love? i guess that 's where sex comes in! gotta bring the chocolate cake and roses on valentine's day to get laid. well, in that sense I suppose Breillat is right. but hey, nowadays, all you need is beer to get laid! so, maybe 'they' are right in saying that romance is dead. No more illusions? can we all handle the fact that it's just all about sex?
according to dictionary.com, romance is defined as:
ro·mance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-mns, rmns)n.
1.
a. A love affair.
b. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love: They kept the romance alive in their marriage for 35 years.
c. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something: a childhood romance with the sea.
2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful: “These fine old guns often have a romance clinging to them” (Richard Jeffries).
maybe it's silly to categorize our actions and emotions with messy little human-made words. i dunno about you, but my coffee sure does have some romance clinging to it, and i intend on building my romance with my law books. So, if you'd all excuse me, I need to set the mood, light some drippy candles, put on a little Barry Manilow, and try to seduce my brain into studying. May your evening be as filled with romance as mine...
energy bill = bad
Energy bill passed.
Is the environmental movement dead?
Are we to accept that industrial interests are more valuable to society than sustainability?
Why should any of us care about the enivronment in the first place?
Is relying on the market a reliable strategy? Maybe government intervention is innappropriate, and would only serve to interfere in the genius of the market.
Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. First of all, the government already has a huge role in subsidizing the oil industry. It, therefore, already has interfered in any potential to allow the market to self-regulate.
Secondly, it has long been acknowledged that the market has inherent failures: monopolies, commons problems, externalities, collective action coordination problems, etc. In order to correct these flaws, an over-arching body must step in to act in the good of the people-- e.g. the government. Thus, it is not an unreasonable request that policy makers do something to help the market swing in favor of the environment. For instance, to switch from gas stations to electricity-charging stations (or bio deisel stations, or whatever the 'new' energy to fuel cars might be), setting up the necessary national infrastructure could only feasibly be acheived with governmental help.
Stop subsidizing the oil industry. Start legitimately investing in alternative fuel sources. Look at the long term, not short term, in terms of energy needs. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska will only put a bandaid over the wound of the dire states of our future energy supply.
It is so frustrating to read the reports of government officials making problems worse, when clear solutions are immediately available. Call me an idealist or what you will, but this is plainly unacceptable.
The Bush administration had a choice back in 2000: revamp the country's energy infrastructure or continue down the oil road.
Those that rely on market-based strategies would claim that the problem will solve itself once the price of oil becomes too high. When driving a hybrid car is significantly less expensive than driving an SUV due to oil prices, the switch will naturally follow the market.
However, one cannot rely completely on this strategy. Sure, eventually oil prices will be so high that the individual driver might make more environentally friendly decisions. However, this does not negate the fact that our policy makers are not considering the price of extending the oil regime. They too consider their individual benefits. Thus, a dinner from the oil industry will most likely have a greater impact on the way they vote on enery issues than the letter from a concerned citizen.
Is the environmental movement dead?
Are we to accept that industrial interests are more valuable to society than sustainability?
Why should any of us care about the enivronment in the first place?
Is relying on the market a reliable strategy? Maybe government intervention is innappropriate, and would only serve to interfere in the genius of the market.
Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. First of all, the government already has a huge role in subsidizing the oil industry. It, therefore, already has interfered in any potential to allow the market to self-regulate.
Secondly, it has long been acknowledged that the market has inherent failures: monopolies, commons problems, externalities, collective action coordination problems, etc. In order to correct these flaws, an over-arching body must step in to act in the good of the people-- e.g. the government. Thus, it is not an unreasonable request that policy makers do something to help the market swing in favor of the environment. For instance, to switch from gas stations to electricity-charging stations (or bio deisel stations, or whatever the 'new' energy to fuel cars might be), setting up the necessary national infrastructure could only feasibly be acheived with governmental help.
Stop subsidizing the oil industry. Start legitimately investing in alternative fuel sources. Look at the long term, not short term, in terms of energy needs. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska will only put a bandaid over the wound of the dire states of our future energy supply.
It is so frustrating to read the reports of government officials making problems worse, when clear solutions are immediately available. Call me an idealist or what you will, but this is plainly unacceptable.
The Bush administration had a choice back in 2000: revamp the country's energy infrastructure or continue down the oil road.
Those that rely on market-based strategies would claim that the problem will solve itself once the price of oil becomes too high. When driving a hybrid car is significantly less expensive than driving an SUV due to oil prices, the switch will naturally follow the market.
However, one cannot rely completely on this strategy. Sure, eventually oil prices will be so high that the individual driver might make more environentally friendly decisions. However, this does not negate the fact that our policy makers are not considering the price of extending the oil regime. They too consider their individual benefits. Thus, a dinner from the oil industry will most likely have a greater impact on the way they vote on enery issues than the letter from a concerned citizen.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
earth day at the airport
yeah, i've picked the right job...
After graduation next year, I'll be entering the class of 2006 with the environmental organizing training program called Green Corps. I'll be fighting off bad guys like polluters and dumpers that make our world a less beautiful place to live.
It's easy to forget how much I care about the environment as I get lost in my day-to-day routine of school. Especially since I'm surrounded by like-minded liberal tree-huggers, on a college campus where Earth Day is celebrated like New Year's,which is located in one of the most leftist towns in the country (move over Berkeley!). But, I can thankfully rely on our president to remind me of my passion to change things for the better of the Earth.
Yesterday was Earth Day (although, Earth Day should be everyday), and our incompetent president was obliged to discuss his environmental policies. His speech was filled with the usual BS on how much he looooves the environment. In fact, he's so into nature, that he gave his speech on a beautiful airport runway in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Oh, Mr. Bush, how I love your rhetoric.
He tried to imply that Congress was the reason his eco-friendly proposals like the policy on reducing power plant emissions, the Clear Skies Initiative, weren't coming into effect:
"The initiatives we did through executive order are important, but it would sure be helpful if Congress passed the Clear Skies legislation, as well." Gee, well, maybe they'd pass it if it didn't exclude montoring the major pollutants that come from a power plant, like mercury.
Nowadays when women who are or plan to become pregnant are told to avoid eating fish because of dangerous mercury levels, how can anyone suggest that admitting mercury into the air isn't harmful? The EPA itself said inFebruary 2003 ("America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses") that children born to women with high blood concentrations of mercury (about 5 million American women, according to their estimates) are at risk of adverse health problems, including reduced developmental IQ, problems with motor skills, and damage to the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems.
And, the source of this mercury is not so myserious. The EPA reports that U.S. electric utilities released 48 tons of mercury in 1999. This comprises about 40 percent of manmade mercury emissions in the U.S..
Now, please help me understand this next comment:
hmm...
He went on to encourage Congress to speedily approve his nominee to head the EPA, Steve Johnson. According to the president, "He comes from the ranks of the EPA, he knows the agency [sic]." Well, of course, being my skeptical self, I ran over to grist.org -- an online journal of "environmental news and commentary" -- to see what the crazy liberals had to say about this guy. Surprisingly, he might acutally care about the environment.
In short, the environment is still dying and the Bush administration is only helping its decline. Luckily for us, Bush has a lovely way of making us all think that he cares and that he's doing everything he can to help. Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Oh, the power of shallow misleading rhetoric and a media that just eats it up.
After graduation next year, I'll be entering the class of 2006 with the environmental organizing training program called Green Corps. I'll be fighting off bad guys like polluters and dumpers that make our world a less beautiful place to live.
It's easy to forget how much I care about the environment as I get lost in my day-to-day routine of school. Especially since I'm surrounded by like-minded liberal tree-huggers, on a college campus where Earth Day is celebrated like New Year's,which is located in one of the most leftist towns in the country (move over Berkeley!). But, I can thankfully rely on our president to remind me of my passion to change things for the better of the Earth.
Yesterday was Earth Day (although, Earth Day should be everyday), and our incompetent president was obliged to discuss his environmental policies. His speech was filled with the usual BS on how much he looooves the environment. In fact, he's so into nature, that he gave his speech on a beautiful airport runway in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Oh, Mr. Bush, how I love your rhetoric.
He tried to imply that Congress was the reason his eco-friendly proposals like the policy on reducing power plant emissions, the Clear Skies Initiative, weren't coming into effect:
"The initiatives we did through executive order are important, but it would sure be helpful if Congress passed the Clear Skies legislation, as well." Gee, well, maybe they'd pass it if it didn't exclude montoring the major pollutants that come from a power plant, like mercury.
Nowadays when women who are or plan to become pregnant are told to avoid eating fish because of dangerous mercury levels, how can anyone suggest that admitting mercury into the air isn't harmful? The EPA itself said inFebruary 2003 ("America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses") that children born to women with high blood concentrations of mercury (about 5 million American women, according to their estimates) are at risk of adverse health problems, including reduced developmental IQ, problems with motor skills, and damage to the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems.
And, the source of this mercury is not so myserious. The EPA reports that U.S. electric utilities released 48 tons of mercury in 1999. This comprises about 40 percent of manmade mercury emissions in the U.S..
Now, please help me understand this next comment:
One of the initiatives I announced on Earth Day last year was to restore, improve and protect 3 million acres of wetlands over a five year period of time. The policy used to be no net loss. I thought we needed to be more aggressive on wetlands. And so the new goal is to restore, improve or protect 3 million acres of land [emphasis added].
hmm...
He went on to encourage Congress to speedily approve his nominee to head the EPA, Steve Johnson. According to the president, "He comes from the ranks of the EPA, he knows the agency [sic]." Well, of course, being my skeptical self, I ran over to grist.org -- an online journal of "environmental news and commentary" -- to see what the crazy liberals had to say about this guy. Surprisingly, he might acutally care about the environment.
He ascended the agency ladder swiftly under the watch of Carol Browner, whoI am flabbergasted that someone who even likes the environment was appointed, but I'm not entirely convinced of this guy's commitment. Clearly, if he's on board with Bush adminstration policies, he can't be all that green. And if Carol Browner is right, and he is green, then he'll only have to shut off his ideals while he's in his new visible political position.
headed the EPA during the Clinton administration. "I don't know if Johnson is a Democrat or Republican, but he's a very green guy, a truly committed environmentalist, from my experience." He didn't shy away from enforcing tough standards, safeguarding public health, and taking action against chemical companies when needed, said Browner. "One is almost left to wonder," she added, "if the Bush administration knew just how deep his commitment is to these issues when they decided that he was their man.
In short, the environment is still dying and the Bush administration is only helping its decline. Luckily for us, Bush has a lovely way of making us all think that he cares and that he's doing everything he can to help. Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Oh, the power of shallow misleading rhetoric and a media that just eats it up.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Tentative steps into the world of blogs
Call me Pippi or Pip, just don't call me late for dinner!
It might make me a Neanderthal in your eyes, but truth is, this my first ever blog entry. I must have been absent from life the day the blog craze came by, but even the hairy ape has to encounter modernity at some point. So, lucky for me, the blogging bandwagon has returned to the past for a fleeting moment, to let me jump on. Hope there's still some room!
This blog-o-mine will serve as a recycling bin for the clutter in my head. And, I am in definite need of some Spring Cleaning! It wil be a humble blog of thoughts that will most likely be seen as unimportant and unimpressive to anyone other than myself. But hey, I'm always up for a new adventure, especially if it consists of long voyages on the great sea of political commentary, philiosphical ramblings, and day-to-day musings.
Hope you all enjoy!
It might make me a Neanderthal in your eyes, but truth is, this my first ever blog entry. I must have been absent from life the day the blog craze came by, but even the hairy ape has to encounter modernity at some point. So, lucky for me, the blogging bandwagon has returned to the past for a fleeting moment, to let me jump on. Hope there's still some room!
This blog-o-mine will serve as a recycling bin for the clutter in my head. And, I am in definite need of some Spring Cleaning! It wil be a humble blog of thoughts that will most likely be seen as unimportant and unimpressive to anyone other than myself. But hey, I'm always up for a new adventure, especially if it consists of long voyages on the great sea of political commentary, philiosphical ramblings, and day-to-day musings.
Hope you all enjoy!
If only I had something interesting to say. I've noticed that the library is much quieter on Thursday night, although it probably doesn't take a heightened sense of observation to notice. I feel almost intimidated by writing my thoughts on the internet, for all willing surfers to peruse as they will. It's as if my own ideas aren't good enough for other people to waste their time reading. Perhaps if I made them politically relevant, they'd be more interesting. Unfortunately, talking about Politics largely depresses me. There is no political party in which I have any trust. The political system in general is so flawed, I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't all be better off romping in the woods, like Hobbes depicts.
I am in a generally cyncial mood about most things at the moment. Have I been reading too much existentialist crap? Graduation looms around the corner and life is about to hit me smack in the face.
I am in a generally cyncial mood about most things at the moment. Have I been reading too much existentialist crap? Graduation looms around the corner and life is about to hit me smack in the face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
