Sunday, December 16, 2007
New Links
I added a link for Co-op America to the Just Living links on the right side of the blog. Also, I inserted a widget for Discovery News. You should be able to access Discovery Earth articles. I hope everyone is enjoying their respective holidays.
Monday, December 03, 2007
The Man Who Hit the Deer
The other night my mom and I were driving home and I saw a deer running on a church's lawn by the side of the road. Because I saw it I was able to warn my mom who came to a stop before the deer leaped into the street. However, a car coming in the opposite direction apparently didn't see the deer, either because it was dark or the driver was inattentive. As best as I could tell, the car hit the deer just before it was completely out of the road. At the very least, we heard something that sounded like glass breaking. The car (I think it was actually more of an SUV) just kept going, not even slowing down. When we got home I looked up the number for animal services in my county and I called the animal emergency number. Apparently, they could only do something if I knew the deer was dead. What an a$$-backwards policy. At any rate, I asked her to give me a number I could call to help an injured animal. It was the county police. They at least accepted the information and said they would send someone out. I don't know if anything ever came of it.
The reason I am posting this story is because I almost didn't make a call. It is so easy to fall into the trap of thinking there is nothing you can do but agonize. At the very least I let someone know that citizens in the county care about injured wildlife. In addition, I now know of a flaw in the system that I can bring to my county rep. Maybe what I did ultimately didn't have an effect. But maybe someone went out, found the deer, and gave him some help. We all have power to change the world, one little step at a time.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Still Standing
I apologize for the long hiatus. I had started an entry on the new farm bill, but I ran out of energy and then it ended up passing in the House before I got around to finishing it. I honestly have no idea if the Senate has passed it as well. But if they haven't, I suggest writing to your Senators and complaining that the Farm Bill continues to subsidize factory farming and makes school children obese with its antiquated school lunch program.
On another note, I will probably not be producing entries with any regularity for the foreseeable future. I'm experiencing a bit of compassion fatigue. I'm still trying to live as ethically as possible, but I just don't have it in me to do the research that I usually do for these entries. However, if anyone is interested in submitting some comments about issues they want me to talk about, I will try to respond, at the very least with my opinion and some links to other resources.
On another note, I will probably not be producing entries with any regularity for the foreseeable future. I'm experiencing a bit of compassion fatigue. I'm still trying to live as ethically as possible, but I just don't have it in me to do the research that I usually do for these entries. However, if anyone is interested in submitting some comments about issues they want me to talk about, I will try to respond, at the very least with my opinion and some links to other resources.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Journalism
During my recent trip to Australia, a certain word came up rather frequently in discussing the work of reporters. "Relatable." I found this to be somewhat...not comical per se, but rather wryly amusing in that way I have. You see, I cannot imagine why it is important for *news* to be relatable. A human interest story? Of course that should be relatable. That's how Oprah rakes in her millions. But that is not news, and it is not, or at least *should* not, be the work of the investigative journalist. Tugging at people's heartstrings is not a worthy aim for journalists. Journalist have an unflinching duty to bring the facts, without bias, to people who do not have the resources or time to dig them up for themselves.
I also heard certain jouranalists and journalism students use the term, "passion." While I am certainly supportive of journalists having a passion for their jobs and for the news, I am extremely concerned by what appeared to be, at least among some, to be a passion for the subjects of their coverage. A journalist may be passionate about bringing the news to people, but she must be completely dispassionate about the topics on which she chooses to report. It seems that more and more, people, at least in the US, are loath to trust the news. I know I certainly am. I am unsure of any reporter's methods, and mistrustful that any news piece is free of bias, whether it be the bias of the reporter or the media outlet she works for.
I want the cold hard facts. I want facts that I can use in making my voting and purchasing decisions. I want to be given the freedom to take unadorned facts and come to my own informed opinion about them, without being swayed by the unannounced agenda of the journalist who thinks she knows better, or the over-emphasized annecdotal evidence that plays on the emotions, but fails to encapsulate the whole issue.
And, before I get accused of being the worst kind of hypocrite: I am *not* a journalist. I blog. I make it clear that I am not unbiased and I certainly am trying to sway you to a certain way of thinking. If this was not abundantly clear before, then I do apologize.
I also heard certain jouranalists and journalism students use the term, "passion." While I am certainly supportive of journalists having a passion for their jobs and for the news, I am extremely concerned by what appeared to be, at least among some, to be a passion for the subjects of their coverage. A journalist may be passionate about bringing the news to people, but she must be completely dispassionate about the topics on which she chooses to report. It seems that more and more, people, at least in the US, are loath to trust the news. I know I certainly am. I am unsure of any reporter's methods, and mistrustful that any news piece is free of bias, whether it be the bias of the reporter or the media outlet she works for.
I want the cold hard facts. I want facts that I can use in making my voting and purchasing decisions. I want to be given the freedom to take unadorned facts and come to my own informed opinion about them, without being swayed by the unannounced agenda of the journalist who thinks she knows better, or the over-emphasized annecdotal evidence that plays on the emotions, but fails to encapsulate the whole issue.
And, before I get accused of being the worst kind of hypocrite: I am *not* a journalist. I blog. I make it clear that I am not unbiased and I certainly am trying to sway you to a certain way of thinking. If this was not abundantly clear before, then I do apologize.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
G'day!
I came back from Australia on the 31 of May, and have spent much of the time since sleeping. Sorry for the severe lack of posts lately. Considering how much there is to be angry over I really have no excuse. At any rate:
In Australia, they have many of the same hotbutton issues we do: big agribusiness, immigration issues, racism, etc. However, here is what they currently do that we could borrow from: mini-flush buttons, for when it just doesn't take much water to do the job; hotel lights that only work when the key is inserted into a special slot, thus making it impossible to leave lights on when the room is empty; and "Media Watch," a 15-minute program on the ABC (like the British BBC, rather than the American ABC) that points out the major lapses of the media.
While there, I had an interesting discussion with a Lebanese-American who was a part of my program. I acknowledged that Zionism did displace many Arabs in the area and that Israeli severely mishandled the war in Lebanon and that my sympathy with the Zionist movement was that I could understand the fear that moved Jews to feel the need for a safe haven and the feeling that it could not have been made anywhere other than in the location of Ancient Israel, but that didn't mean the founding of Israel didn't have serious problems. She acknowledged that anti-Jewish sentiment is a large part of what causes strife and that much of the Palestinian refugee problem has been caused and exasperated by neighboring Muslim nations. It was altogether a very civil discourse and I was quite proud of both of us.
Finally, as it is mid-year, I am going to rededicate myself to sticking to fair trade/organic chocolate, coffees, and teas. I am also going to work on decreasing my consumption of eggs and dairy and planning better to avoid being stuck outside the house in a position where I cannot do those things.
Stay tuned for a post on journalism.
In Australia, they have many of the same hotbutton issues we do: big agribusiness, immigration issues, racism, etc. However, here is what they currently do that we could borrow from: mini-flush buttons, for when it just doesn't take much water to do the job; hotel lights that only work when the key is inserted into a special slot, thus making it impossible to leave lights on when the room is empty; and "Media Watch," a 15-minute program on the ABC (like the British BBC, rather than the American ABC) that points out the major lapses of the media.
While there, I had an interesting discussion with a Lebanese-American who was a part of my program. I acknowledged that Zionism did displace many Arabs in the area and that Israeli severely mishandled the war in Lebanon and that my sympathy with the Zionist movement was that I could understand the fear that moved Jews to feel the need for a safe haven and the feeling that it could not have been made anywhere other than in the location of Ancient Israel, but that didn't mean the founding of Israel didn't have serious problems. She acknowledged that anti-Jewish sentiment is a large part of what causes strife and that much of the Palestinian refugee problem has been caused and exasperated by neighboring Muslim nations. It was altogether a very civil discourse and I was quite proud of both of us.
Finally, as it is mid-year, I am going to rededicate myself to sticking to fair trade/organic chocolate, coffees, and teas. I am also going to work on decreasing my consumption of eggs and dairy and planning better to avoid being stuck outside the house in a position where I cannot do those things.
Stay tuned for a post on journalism.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
Local Harvest
Recently my mother needed to send some gift baskets, and we found a cute site: localharvest.org. They have lots of organic goodies and, in so far as such a thing is possible, cruelty free meat.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Cast Off the Shackles of Yesterday
New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment
The above article is from the 3/28 Washington Post and is about a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA. To date, women are not guaranteed equality with men in the Constitution.
I wanted to briefly address this paragraph:
For starters, an ERA should make women should eligible for military draft. Even if the military continues to refuse to put women on the front lines, they can still serve invaluably in support functions, like as trained medical staff. And sacrifices which are expected of men can and should be expected of women, assuming that women have been granted the same privileges as men.
Second, the issue of possibly being forced to use unisex bathrooms (and who would want them so badly they would use their constitutional right as a basis for suing for unisex bathrooms is beyond me) pales in comparison to the fact that women are not guaranteed equal pay for equal work or equal consideration for promotions.
We'll skip over the same-sex marriage business, as I think it has been discussed enough in this blog for everyone to know how I feel about it. I'm not even sure that the argument is reasonable, though I suppose I could petition that my right to marry a woman should be equal to a man's right to marry a woman, and that a man's right to marry a man should be equal to a woman's right to marry a man. But any judge could say that everyone in society has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so there's no sex-based descrimination.
Finally, equality between the sexes wouldn't mean that widows and housewives don't get support. It would mean that widowers and househusbands do. We now live in an era where the vast majority of women work and men are beginning to take the option to stay at home with the kids. So we need to worry about men whose wives make more money than they do as much as we worry about women who are supported by paychecks made out to their husbands.
True equality guarantees that nobody gets left behind.
The above article is from the 3/28 Washington Post and is about a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA. To date, women are not guaranteed equality with men in the Constitution.
I wanted to briefly address this paragraph:
In the 1970s, Schlafly and others argued that the ERA would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms. Today, she warns lawmakers that its passage would compel courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.
For starters, an ERA should make women should eligible for military draft. Even if the military continues to refuse to put women on the front lines, they can still serve invaluably in support functions, like as trained medical staff. And sacrifices which are expected of men can and should be expected of women, assuming that women have been granted the same privileges as men.
Second, the issue of possibly being forced to use unisex bathrooms (and who would want them so badly they would use their constitutional right as a basis for suing for unisex bathrooms is beyond me) pales in comparison to the fact that women are not guaranteed equal pay for equal work or equal consideration for promotions.
We'll skip over the same-sex marriage business, as I think it has been discussed enough in this blog for everyone to know how I feel about it. I'm not even sure that the argument is reasonable, though I suppose I could petition that my right to marry a woman should be equal to a man's right to marry a woman, and that a man's right to marry a man should be equal to a woman's right to marry a man. But any judge could say that everyone in society has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so there's no sex-based descrimination.
Finally, equality between the sexes wouldn't mean that widows and housewives don't get support. It would mean that widowers and househusbands do. We now live in an era where the vast majority of women work and men are beginning to take the option to stay at home with the kids. So we need to worry about men whose wives make more money than they do as much as we worry about women who are supported by paychecks made out to their husbands.
True equality guarantees that nobody gets left behind.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Movie Review: Fast Food Nation
On Friday my Father and I watched Fast Food Nation, a recent delivery from Netflix. This movie very much held my attention for the first 80 mintues. The last 39 were iffy, but then my movie threshhold only tends to last for 80 minutes anyway. Hence my preference for children's movies. Anyway, this movie was good. I've recently come to recognize the brilliance of Richard Linklater. Whether it's because he's a good director or he picks good topics for movies (or a combination of the two), his movies are intense and thought-provoking. Fast Food Nation is a fictional adaptation of Eric Shlosser's investigative book of the same name. It chronicles the effect that fast food production has on immigrant laborers, family ranchers, and the quality of our food. A lot of the information has been covered to some degree in this blog. However, the movie will sell it in a way that I never could. It doesn't pull punches. There were a number of times when I had to close my eyes in horror, fearing to watch something horrible happen to a factory worker or animal. And horrible things did happen. As they do happen every day in real life. The movie also shows what happens when good people fail to educate themselves, when bad people fail to care, when good people get educated but feel constrained into doing the wrong thing anyway. Which is why I beg you, dear readers, to get educated, to keep caring, to not let yourself get convinced that doing wrong is the only way to survive in this world.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Review: "This Film Not Yet Rated"
This past weekend I watched This Film Not Yet Rated, a documentary on the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system and rating panel. Certain aspects of the documentary were interesting and spoke to deeper prejudices of American society. The academy is stricter with sexuality, particularly "deviant" sexuality (and conversations about sexuality)than violence, homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships, female sexuality than male sexuality. They are also hypocritical, fail to follow their own protocols for rater eligibility, and frequently are more generous with studio productions than independent film productions.
What I found less relevant was the frequent bandying about of the word "censorship." For one thing, no matter what rating the MPAA gives a film, this rating is in no way a public ban on the film. Though many theaters refuse to show NC-17 rated films, this is a decision of the theaters, not the MPAA. The other issue is that the MPAA describes the goal of its rating system as a guide for parents deciding what is appropriate for their children. This means that yes, a documentary on soldiers in Iraq that features violence, sexuality, and prolific use of the "F" word, should not be rated for a general audience, regardless of the fact that it is all unscripted footage. Now, it probably does not deserve the NC-17 rating, as most teenagers are developed enough to be educated on political issues, and probably coarsened enough to know profanity anyway. Especially if they have a parent with them.
The movie also featured interviews which talk about the fact that in order to receive military assistance, the film has to be approved, from screenplay to final production, by the military. Once again the spectre of totalitarian censorship was raised. However, I find the idea that the military owes assistance to film makers, particularly of fictional films, to be ridiculous. Frankly, I'm more upset that the military gives assistance at all, given the expense of this stuff, than that they demand editorial approval over movies.
So, basically, much of this documentary was interesting, but it was a very self-involved investigation which was mostly relevant to the film industry, rather than the movie-going public.
What I found less relevant was the frequent bandying about of the word "censorship." For one thing, no matter what rating the MPAA gives a film, this rating is in no way a public ban on the film. Though many theaters refuse to show NC-17 rated films, this is a decision of the theaters, not the MPAA. The other issue is that the MPAA describes the goal of its rating system as a guide for parents deciding what is appropriate for their children. This means that yes, a documentary on soldiers in Iraq that features violence, sexuality, and prolific use of the "F" word, should not be rated for a general audience, regardless of the fact that it is all unscripted footage. Now, it probably does not deserve the NC-17 rating, as most teenagers are developed enough to be educated on political issues, and probably coarsened enough to know profanity anyway. Especially if they have a parent with them.
The movie also featured interviews which talk about the fact that in order to receive military assistance, the film has to be approved, from screenplay to final production, by the military. Once again the spectre of totalitarian censorship was raised. However, I find the idea that the military owes assistance to film makers, particularly of fictional films, to be ridiculous. Frankly, I'm more upset that the military gives assistance at all, given the expense of this stuff, than that they demand editorial approval over movies.
So, basically, much of this documentary was interesting, but it was a very self-involved investigation which was mostly relevant to the film industry, rather than the movie-going public.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Interesting article
This is a really interesting article. I am not endorsing or condemning the view point expressed in it. I just think it's really thought-provoking. I may choose to comment more thoroughly on it when I'm not supposed to be working. :-)
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Starbucks: Insert Clever Subtitle Here
I'm not a frequent coffee drinker. However, occasionally I feel the need for some caffeine and there happens to be a Starbucks nearby. I mean, there almost always happens to be a Starbucks nearby. You could be a town with a population of three and you've got a post office and a Starbucks. But I digress. So, I went and got some Starbucks this morning. I didn't even bother to order fair trade as I thought I was ordering a frap (I mis-ordered because I'm a super-spazz)and they are pre-mixed. However, as I looked at the menu, I couldn't even tell if there was a fair trade option at this particular 'bucks. If anything was labeled as such, it was done in really tiny letters (I have pretty good eyes, so verrrry tiny). So, as it is practically impossible to boycott Starbucks (sometimes you just need a cuppa and as I mentioned earlier, they are everywhere), I'm proposing that my readers write letters. Hurrah! My first ever injunction to write letters! Anyway, here's the contact 411:
Starbucks
2401 Utah Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134 USA
Phone: 206-447-1575
Web: www.starbucks.com
Also, you can check out Co-op America's Starbucks Responsible Shopper Profile for more dirt on Starbucks.
Starbucks
2401 Utah Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134 USA
Phone: 206-447-1575
Web: www.starbucks.com
Also, you can check out Co-op America's Starbucks Responsible Shopper Profile for more dirt on Starbucks.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Like Pink, I Am Not Dead
Hey, everyone. I know it's been a while since I posted anything. Even longer since I've posted anything, y'know, good. Sorry. I may have something in the works about eco-friendly cleaning products (which also happen to be more human-friendly) in the works.
In the meantime, I'd love to get people's opinions on the following issue:
The major race for the presidential Democrat nomination seems to be between Clinton and Obama. I find myself completely in the dark about who is the better candidate. I'm hoping to improve my knowledge before the primaries, but I was wondering if any of my readers (what are we up to now? 4?) are leaning one way or the other, and for what reasons. I know that ultimately a third-party candidate would be better, but part of making change is sometimes going for the compromised win instead of the uncompromised loss. So I tend to vote Democrat. Though, this time around, if there is a Green candidate, I may vote green since my state's electoral votes go blue the vast majority of the time. So, seriously folks, weigh in.
Finally, Safeway makes tasty organic peanut butter and Silk's new line of soy yogurts seem no better than the old line, but the flavor selection seems to have expanded.
In the meantime, I'd love to get people's opinions on the following issue:
The major race for the presidential Democrat nomination seems to be between Clinton and Obama. I find myself completely in the dark about who is the better candidate. I'm hoping to improve my knowledge before the primaries, but I was wondering if any of my readers (what are we up to now? 4?) are leaning one way or the other, and for what reasons. I know that ultimately a third-party candidate would be better, but part of making change is sometimes going for the compromised win instead of the uncompromised loss. So I tend to vote Democrat. Though, this time around, if there is a Green candidate, I may vote green since my state's electoral votes go blue the vast majority of the time. So, seriously folks, weigh in.
Finally, Safeway makes tasty organic peanut butter and Silk's new line of soy yogurts seem no better than the old line, but the flavor selection seems to have expanded.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Shorter Showers
Decreasing the length of showers is important, since that much heated water takes a lot of energy. This is probably much harder for women than men, and I've been trying to think up a few ways that my showers could go faster. For one, switching to leave-in conditioner. This way I don't have to take the time to put it in and rinse it out with the water running. One could probably help by getting tangles out of long hair before a shower, so wetting and washing goes more quickly. Also, I've always been one to shave in the shower, but I figure it can probably be done afterward. Also, sugaring might be a reasonably good alternative if one has the patience and the deftness for it (Ideal Bite had a tip on sugaring not too long ago). And of course, the obvious action of using a timer to keep from losing track of time.
Plus, since it's winter and we are all generally less sweaty and smelly, we could probably do with fewer showers anyway.
Anyone else have suggestions for saving water?
Plus, since it's winter and we are all generally less sweaty and smelly, we could probably do with fewer showers anyway.
Anyone else have suggestions for saving water?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Co-op America's 12 Steps for Reducing Carbon Emissions
The following is courtesy of Co-op America:
Each of these steps would reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2054. Implementing at least seven of them brings us to the scale necessary to meet the climate challenge, but we have to start now, and move quickly. We have a ten-year window in which we need to be well on the way to achieving these steps.
The good news is that we have the technology and know-how to accomplish all of these steps right now. The best news is that we don't just save the climate with these steps. They bring us real energy security, more jobs, a cleaner environment, real progress on the war against poverty, and a safer world. Let's get started today.
1. Increase fuel economy for the world's 2 billion cars from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg. (Current US averages are a woeful 22 mpg.)
2. Cut back on driving. Decrease car travel for 2 billion 30-mpg cars from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year, through increased use of mass transit, telecommuting, and walking and biking.
3. Increase energy efficiency by one-quarter in existing buildings and appliances. Move to zero-emissions plans for new buildings.
4. Decrease tropical deforestation to zero, and double the rate of new tree plantings.
5. Stop soil erosion. Apply "conservation tillage" techniques to cropland at 10 times the current usage. Encourage local, organic agriculture.
6. Increase wind power. Add 3 million 1-megawatt windmills, 75 times the current capacity.
7. Push hard for solar power. Add 3,000 gigawatt-peak solar photovoltaic units, 1,000 times current capacity.
8. Increase efficiency of coal plants from an average of 32 percent efficiency to 60 percent, and shut down plants that don't meet the standard. No net new coal plants; for new plants built, an equal number should close.
9. Replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal with natural gas, a four-fold increase in natural gas usage over current levels — a short-term step until zero-emissions renewable technologies can replace natural gas.
10. Sequester carbon dioxide at existing coal plants. Sequestration involves storing carbon dioxide underground, an unproven technology that may, nonetheless, be better than nothing.
11. Develop zero-emissions vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.
12. Develop biomass as a short-term replacement for fossil fuel until better carbon-free technologies are developed — but only biofuels made from waste, and made without displacing farmland and rainforests.
Each of these steps would reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2054. Implementing at least seven of them brings us to the scale necessary to meet the climate challenge, but we have to start now, and move quickly. We have a ten-year window in which we need to be well on the way to achieving these steps.
The good news is that we have the technology and know-how to accomplish all of these steps right now. The best news is that we don't just save the climate with these steps. They bring us real energy security, more jobs, a cleaner environment, real progress on the war against poverty, and a safer world. Let's get started today.
1. Increase fuel economy for the world's 2 billion cars from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg. (Current US averages are a woeful 22 mpg.)
2. Cut back on driving. Decrease car travel for 2 billion 30-mpg cars from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year, through increased use of mass transit, telecommuting, and walking and biking.
3. Increase energy efficiency by one-quarter in existing buildings and appliances. Move to zero-emissions plans for new buildings.
4. Decrease tropical deforestation to zero, and double the rate of new tree plantings.
5. Stop soil erosion. Apply "conservation tillage" techniques to cropland at 10 times the current usage. Encourage local, organic agriculture.
6. Increase wind power. Add 3 million 1-megawatt windmills, 75 times the current capacity.
7. Push hard for solar power. Add 3,000 gigawatt-peak solar photovoltaic units, 1,000 times current capacity.
8. Increase efficiency of coal plants from an average of 32 percent efficiency to 60 percent, and shut down plants that don't meet the standard. No net new coal plants; for new plants built, an equal number should close.
9. Replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal with natural gas, a four-fold increase in natural gas usage over current levels — a short-term step until zero-emissions renewable technologies can replace natural gas.
10. Sequester carbon dioxide at existing coal plants. Sequestration involves storing carbon dioxide underground, an unproven technology that may, nonetheless, be better than nothing.
11. Develop zero-emissions vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.
12. Develop biomass as a short-term replacement for fossil fuel until better carbon-free technologies are developed — but only biofuels made from waste, and made without displacing farmland and rainforests.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Hey Mikey!
In my numerous recent failures to avoid eggs, dairy, and crappily-sourced chocolate, I have become increasinlgy frustrated. Not only with myself, but with everyone I know. Because I have realized that going vegetarian is so ridiculously easy compared to trying to go organic, sustainable, or sweat-shop free. Most foods are pretty obvious about being meat-based. And even when they aren't, they're all required to have ingredients listed on the side. Same with clothes. Labels say what they're made of: leather, fur, silk, wool. And most malls and grocery stores carry some form of vegetarian merchandise; not always so for organic, fair trade, etc. And electronic books are becoming more readily available (the glue used for binding books isn't animal friendly). Vegetarianism is practically a cake walk.
So, here's my challenge: go one week, no meat. It's good for the animals, good for the planet, good for humanity, and good for you. C'mon, just try it. You may even like it.
Fair warning: hostess uses animal fat in their products.
Also, here's a small thing we can all do to help the planet. When you leave a room, shut off the lights. It's that simple. ;-)
So, here's my challenge: go one week, no meat. It's good for the animals, good for the planet, good for humanity, and good for you. C'mon, just try it. You may even like it.
Fair warning: hostess uses animal fat in their products.
Also, here's a small thing we can all do to help the planet. When you leave a room, shut off the lights. It's that simple. ;-)
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Buy Buy Baby
This Washington Post article relates a new development in the baby business. Now prospective parents can order pre-made embryos after carefully reviewing the contracted egg and sperm donors. All egg donors must be in their twenties and have at least some college education. Sperm donors must have an advanced degree. Both are vetted for their medical histories, for example making sure there's no familial history of mental illness.
And it is so very, very scary.
Of course, this business is only marginally scarier than what has preceded it. In a modern world where socio-economic class is becoming continually more of an issue, paying for embryos is a bad idea.
Though I have never been in a situation where I wanted children and could not have them, and therefore cannot possibly understand and thereby reject the feelings and efforts of infertile couples seeking to have children, my first response to all of these infertility clinics is that they are churning out babies that the world doesn't need. As a firm believer that the world needs to achieve zero population growth, I cannot be fully comfortable with the amount of effort that goes into producing pregnancies. This is hardly going to be a popular stance. I don't even like it much myself. Except that here I am not talking about people who are trying very hard to have their own biological children. These people are already outsourcing, they're just choosing parents to create a designer baby, rather than adopt one of the desperate infants (or older foster children) populating the world.
Of course, these potential children are being chosen over existing children because with the embryos-r-us retailer, they can get a designer baby. With adopting a child from a third-world country, who can say what you're getting? You might have to love a child inspite of it being flawed. A fate to be avoided, most definitely.
Well, what's wrong with wanting to choose who parents your child? Isn't that what we're essentially doing when we have children the natural way? No, not really. When you choose a mate, you look for mutual attraction, shared values, a sense of security with each other. Generally speaking, we don't check their medical histories or go back through their family tree. We want to have children with our partners because we love them, not because we weighed and measured them and decided they scored high enough. And in our society, it is inconceivable that if we all chose exactly what we wanted in our children that we wouldn't vere towards the same sorts of traits: athletic, smart (probably of a scientific bent), attractive, with the standard rule of beauty at the moment being tall and thin.
And if everyone were like that, would that necessarily be terrible? Well, not everyone would be like that. You see, mail-order embryos are something that can only be afforded by the rich (or at least, relatively rich on the global scale). So the rich would have these children, carefully selected to have been born from healthy, attractive, well-educated (and therefore assumed to be intelligent) parents, and the poor would just have regular kids. And who is going to move up in the world? Joe Schmo, born of his parents love (or drunken one-night stand and broken condom) or Joseph Schmoington III, born of strangers carefully screened for genetic fitness? This is why it is eugenics. Because not only does this process entail cold-bloodedly deciding which genes are worthy and which are unworthy, but it also involves exclusion. And this is only with pre-screened parents. This particular issue of the Abraham Institute, or whatever it's being called, doesn't even touch on the fact that embryos are being screened for genetic fitness. I can understand why one wants to rule out some damaging and painful congenital disorders, but people can choose the sex of the baby, and it's not stopping there. I don't believe for a minute that it's stopping there.
I'm exhausted and terrified just thinking about the implications of where our society is taking reproduction. And that's without going into issues of the objectification of women and the consequences of sex determination in misogynistic cultures.
And it is so very, very scary.
Of course, this business is only marginally scarier than what has preceded it. In a modern world where socio-economic class is becoming continually more of an issue, paying for embryos is a bad idea.
Though I have never been in a situation where I wanted children and could not have them, and therefore cannot possibly understand and thereby reject the feelings and efforts of infertile couples seeking to have children, my first response to all of these infertility clinics is that they are churning out babies that the world doesn't need. As a firm believer that the world needs to achieve zero population growth, I cannot be fully comfortable with the amount of effort that goes into producing pregnancies. This is hardly going to be a popular stance. I don't even like it much myself. Except that here I am not talking about people who are trying very hard to have their own biological children. These people are already outsourcing, they're just choosing parents to create a designer baby, rather than adopt one of the desperate infants (or older foster children) populating the world.
Of course, these potential children are being chosen over existing children because with the embryos-r-us retailer, they can get a designer baby. With adopting a child from a third-world country, who can say what you're getting? You might have to love a child inspite of it being flawed. A fate to be avoided, most definitely.
Well, what's wrong with wanting to choose who parents your child? Isn't that what we're essentially doing when we have children the natural way? No, not really. When you choose a mate, you look for mutual attraction, shared values, a sense of security with each other. Generally speaking, we don't check their medical histories or go back through their family tree. We want to have children with our partners because we love them, not because we weighed and measured them and decided they scored high enough. And in our society, it is inconceivable that if we all chose exactly what we wanted in our children that we wouldn't vere towards the same sorts of traits: athletic, smart (probably of a scientific bent), attractive, with the standard rule of beauty at the moment being tall and thin.
And if everyone were like that, would that necessarily be terrible? Well, not everyone would be like that. You see, mail-order embryos are something that can only be afforded by the rich (or at least, relatively rich on the global scale). So the rich would have these children, carefully selected to have been born from healthy, attractive, well-educated (and therefore assumed to be intelligent) parents, and the poor would just have regular kids. And who is going to move up in the world? Joe Schmo, born of his parents love (or drunken one-night stand and broken condom) or Joseph Schmoington III, born of strangers carefully screened for genetic fitness? This is why it is eugenics. Because not only does this process entail cold-bloodedly deciding which genes are worthy and which are unworthy, but it also involves exclusion. And this is only with pre-screened parents. This particular issue of the Abraham Institute, or whatever it's being called, doesn't even touch on the fact that embryos are being screened for genetic fitness. I can understand why one wants to rule out some damaging and painful congenital disorders, but people can choose the sex of the baby, and it's not stopping there. I don't believe for a minute that it's stopping there.
I'm exhausted and terrified just thinking about the implications of where our society is taking reproduction. And that's without going into issues of the objectification of women and the consequences of sex determination in misogynistic cultures.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Resolutions
I did my grocery shopping at Marks and Spencer today. It's not exactly MOM (My Organic Market, a mini-chain in Maryland), but they do seem to try hard to be responsible. For starters, they only use cage-free eggs, for sale or for producing their packaged goods. There's a lot of excess packaging issues over here though.
I've also been good about line drying all of my clothes, rather than using a dryer. And I'm pretty sure I'm washing all of my stuff in cold water. The washing machine here is a little tricky though. :-) I'm used to home where you just press the cold button.
So, it is that time for (cue big TV announcer voice) New Year's Resolutions. So here are some of mine, perhaps to inspire some of yours:
1. Continue to try and reduce environmental footprint
2. Buy only fair trade, organic chocolate
3. Switch investments to all socially responsible funds
Anybody out there have any good resolutions born of their dedication to environmentalism and/or social responsibility? Feel free to share.
I've also been good about line drying all of my clothes, rather than using a dryer. And I'm pretty sure I'm washing all of my stuff in cold water. The washing machine here is a little tricky though. :-) I'm used to home where you just press the cold button.
So, it is that time for (cue big TV announcer voice) New Year's Resolutions. So here are some of mine, perhaps to inspire some of yours:
1. Continue to try and reduce environmental footprint
2. Buy only fair trade, organic chocolate
3. Switch investments to all socially responsible funds
Anybody out there have any good resolutions born of their dedication to environmentalism and/or social responsibility? Feel free to share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
