I am very excited. A friend of mine in L.A. has finally started a blog. One of the most interesting, informed and opinionated people I know, he writes as he speaks and his blog is eloquent, witty and a delight to read. The reason I'm so excited, however, is because his passion is for politics and he has started his blog just in time to cover, blow by delicious blow, the 2008 Presidential Election. I am also opinionated and interested but don't seem to have the inclination to follow politics in quite the same way.
Now, I can read a well-spoken and summarized rally cry without the misery of slugging through The Economist or watching television. Topics covered in his impressive first week: The excitement of having Obama as the Democratic nominee, why Clinton did not lose because of sexism, how Obama's camp is using the Internet to squelch rumors and who should be his V.P. It's great stuff and I recommend that you check out Free Radical.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I have sprouts!
I just planted my garden on Tuesday and I already have sprouts! Nothing is more exciting than growing plants, especially from seed. Putting something in the ground that grows to make food? This is the stuff that civilizations are built on. Literally. I finally finished reading the 400+ page book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It's really dense, that's why it took me six months to read it. He's an academic and a scientist so he goes to great lengths to explain and provide evidence to support his theories but most of it can be summarized in a few sentences.
Basically he asks the question “Why do some civilizations grow to conquer other civilizations or groups of people and not the other way around?” The answer, he says is in dense populations. Dense populations require food production. Out of the 200,000 plant species in the world, a mere dozen, he says, account for 80% of our current crops and not a single major food plant has been domesticated in thousands of years. That some groups of people happened to live where these plants grew gave them an enormous leg up. Same story for domesticable animals which were much more prevalent in Eurasia. Out of those domesticated herds living in close proximity with people came most of the communicable diseases that became accidental weapons of mass destruction for civilizations conquered by Europeans. Actual weapons came from innovation and technology, a result of competition for land that again is borne of dense populations requiring land for food growing. In the sparsely populated Americas, traversed by hunter-gatherers, there was little need for technology.
Diamond describes food production as an autocatalytic process meaning that it "catalyzes into a positive feedback cycle" that goes faster and faster. I've heard that once you plant vegetable plants that they produce more year, especially if you continue to cultivate them. So last Friday, I went to the nursery and bought vegetable seeds, herbs and soil - peat moss, manure and planting mix. First, I blocked off my area (about 10x4') with cinder blocks to hold the soil (I ran out and used some stiff cardboard for the rest). Then I laid cardboard boxes over the soil (after removing the packing tape) and soaked them. I layered and layered the soil but had only covered about a half of an inch so I went back to the nursery. In the end, I built up the garden about two or three inches, and then watered it again. I tracked the sun to make sure I was getting at least five hours of sunlight before I planted.
I started to get a little freaked out. I haven't used a book and I'm pretty much making this up as I go. What if birds come and eat all my seeds? Or some little animals come and chew off the plants as they sprout? What if I can't find a job and have to move out before any veggies grow? A sign at the nursery about checking the PH balance of my soil made it sound like my seeds might be sizzling in acid in the ground right now instead of germinating. I also saw a lot of spiders in the garden and an army of ants, but a little Internet research informed me that both are very garden friendly.
I took a deep breath and planted my seeds. I put tomatoes with the parsley, basil and mint plants, a row of green onions and marigolds for bug protection for the entire garden, lettuces with radishes here and there to protect from critters, an assorted mix of summer squash and bordered the whole thing with cosmos, which are pretty and also keep bugs away. In the cinder blocks, I planted arugula, which apparently does well in containers. In the areas outside the garden, I planted a hummingbird flower mix and sweetpeas to climb the fence. The seed packages say they it 45-90 days to produce vegetables but I should have sprouts for everything by 5-15 days. I spent $140 total and if it provides four weeks' worth of vegetables, it will have paid for itself but I anticipate that it will produce much more than that and enough to give away to friends. I still have most of the seeds I bought so I can keep planting as long as the weather is nice.
An article in the New York Times said seed and food plant sales are up all over the country and not since the 1970's when inflation was high, have nurseries seen this kind of interest in fruit and vegetable gardening. A desire to eat better quality food and rising food prices are cited as responsible for the surge. The latest salmonella scare in tomatoes, they think caused by contamination upstream from another farm, makes me think that my city garden is potentially safer than an organic farm in a more rural area. And if food production really is the catalyst for civilization, then who ever controls food production will have power over us all. How cool would it be if we asserted our independence and expressed our liberty by starting a food growing revolution?
Basically he asks the question “Why do some civilizations grow to conquer other civilizations or groups of people and not the other way around?” The answer, he says is in dense populations. Dense populations require food production. Out of the 200,000 plant species in the world, a mere dozen, he says, account for 80% of our current crops and not a single major food plant has been domesticated in thousands of years. That some groups of people happened to live where these plants grew gave them an enormous leg up. Same story for domesticable animals which were much more prevalent in Eurasia. Out of those domesticated herds living in close proximity with people came most of the communicable diseases that became accidental weapons of mass destruction for civilizations conquered by Europeans. Actual weapons came from innovation and technology, a result of competition for land that again is borne of dense populations requiring land for food growing. In the sparsely populated Americas, traversed by hunter-gatherers, there was little need for technology.
Diamond describes food production as an autocatalytic process meaning that it "catalyzes into a positive feedback cycle" that goes faster and faster. I've heard that once you plant vegetable plants that they produce more year, especially if you continue to cultivate them. So last Friday, I went to the nursery and bought vegetable seeds, herbs and soil - peat moss, manure and planting mix. First, I blocked off my area (about 10x4') with cinder blocks to hold the soil (I ran out and used some stiff cardboard for the rest). Then I laid cardboard boxes over the soil (after removing the packing tape) and soaked them. I layered and layered the soil but had only covered about a half of an inch so I went back to the nursery. In the end, I built up the garden about two or three inches, and then watered it again. I tracked the sun to make sure I was getting at least five hours of sunlight before I planted.
I started to get a little freaked out. I haven't used a book and I'm pretty much making this up as I go. What if birds come and eat all my seeds? Or some little animals come and chew off the plants as they sprout? What if I can't find a job and have to move out before any veggies grow? A sign at the nursery about checking the PH balance of my soil made it sound like my seeds might be sizzling in acid in the ground right now instead of germinating. I also saw a lot of spiders in the garden and an army of ants, but a little Internet research informed me that both are very garden friendly.
I took a deep breath and planted my seeds. I put tomatoes with the parsley, basil and mint plants, a row of green onions and marigolds for bug protection for the entire garden, lettuces with radishes here and there to protect from critters, an assorted mix of summer squash and bordered the whole thing with cosmos, which are pretty and also keep bugs away. In the cinder blocks, I planted arugula, which apparently does well in containers. In the areas outside the garden, I planted a hummingbird flower mix and sweetpeas to climb the fence. The seed packages say they it 45-90 days to produce vegetables but I should have sprouts for everything by 5-15 days. I spent $140 total and if it provides four weeks' worth of vegetables, it will have paid for itself but I anticipate that it will produce much more than that and enough to give away to friends. I still have most of the seeds I bought so I can keep planting as long as the weather is nice.
An article in the New York Times said seed and food plant sales are up all over the country and not since the 1970's when inflation was high, have nurseries seen this kind of interest in fruit and vegetable gardening. A desire to eat better quality food and rising food prices are cited as responsible for the surge. The latest salmonella scare in tomatoes, they think caused by contamination upstream from another farm, makes me think that my city garden is potentially safer than an organic farm in a more rural area. And if food production really is the catalyst for civilization, then who ever controls food production will have power over us all. How cool would it be if we asserted our independence and expressed our liberty by starting a food growing revolution?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
An unreasonable man
Well folks, it looks like we've got ourselves a Democratic candidate. While I still support Obama, and will follow through with my promise (to myself) to volunteer for his campaign now that he has the nomination, I have to say a word about Ralph Nader. I just watched the documentary, An Unreasonable Man, about Nader's work and his bid for the 2000 presidency and I have to say, the guy has a point. If you haven't seen the film, I recommend it.
Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.
I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.
The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.
The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.
In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:
In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.
But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.
We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.
The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.
We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.
Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.
I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.
The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.
The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.
In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:
In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.
But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.
We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.
The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.
We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Concerned citizen
This weekend I found a note on my car. It was a slip of paper printed on a laser printer. It read as follows:
Thank you for taking up two parking spaces.
Had you been more thoughtful, you could have moved forward/backward to allow another vehicle to park.
So rather than helping to solve the problem, you have helped to make it more difficult. Please make an effort to do otherwise in the future.
At first I was shocked. I couldn't have taken up two spaces because I am actually very thoughtful and would never do that. Even though I was in a hurry to get somewhere, I got out and looked. Sure enough, there was two or three feet of curb behind my car but it seemed as though the car in front of me had found plenty of room in the "other parking spot". Besides, I have a tiny car. My RAV4 is shorter than pretty much every car on the road except a mini so another car would have taken up those extra feet. Would they leave a note on a SUV saying that their car is too large for the city and how dare they take up so much space?
I drove away kind of incensed. This person has made it their job to monitor their street (neighborhood? city?!) for rude parkers, printing out sheets of these notes and cutting them into "tickets" to issue. It's hard to imagine that this note would cause anyone to change their behavior. Dripping with condescension and judgment, it fails to even indicate "the problem" the note is trying to address, so a truly clueless person would only be baffled.
For a moment, I was tempted to write a response and leave it on my car. This is what I would have written:
Thank you for being such a diligent citizen.
Without you, surely our city would fall into chaos and ruin, overrun by the rude and stupid.
At the time that I parked, another car was parked in front of the neighboring driveway and taking up a few feet of curb so I squeezed my tiny car into the only space available.
Thank you for taking up two parking spaces.
Had you been more thoughtful, you could have moved forward/backward to allow another vehicle to park.
So rather than helping to solve the problem, you have helped to make it more difficult. Please make an effort to do otherwise in the future.
At first I was shocked. I couldn't have taken up two spaces because I am actually very thoughtful and would never do that. Even though I was in a hurry to get somewhere, I got out and looked. Sure enough, there was two or three feet of curb behind my car but it seemed as though the car in front of me had found plenty of room in the "other parking spot". Besides, I have a tiny car. My RAV4 is shorter than pretty much every car on the road except a mini so another car would have taken up those extra feet. Would they leave a note on a SUV saying that their car is too large for the city and how dare they take up so much space?
I drove away kind of incensed. This person has made it their job to monitor their street (neighborhood? city?!) for rude parkers, printing out sheets of these notes and cutting them into "tickets" to issue. It's hard to imagine that this note would cause anyone to change their behavior. Dripping with condescension and judgment, it fails to even indicate "the problem" the note is trying to address, so a truly clueless person would only be baffled.
For a moment, I was tempted to write a response and leave it on my car. This is what I would have written:
Thank you for being such a diligent citizen.
Without you, surely our city would fall into chaos and ruin, overrun by the rude and stupid.
At the time that I parked, another car was parked in front of the neighboring driveway and taking up a few feet of curb so I squeezed my tiny car into the only space available.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Damn you Flickr!
Unless you're one of my dozen friends on Flickr, you wouldn't know that I've become obsessed; which is not a good thing to happen while I'm unemployed. A friend of mine had been bugging me to join for years and I kept writing back that I was perfectly happy with ofoto, now Kodak Gallery. Whenever I took pictures, which was usually trips and special occasions, I uploaded them there and invited friends and family to look at them. They could buy prints if they wanted although I don't know if anyone, other than me, has bought prints of my photos.
Finally, one day in June last year, after finding some pics of Santa Monica on Flickr, I thought it would be fun to upload some of my own since I'd been photographing my walks on the beach for a while. I uploaded several hundred photos from the last few years in L.A. only to discover that you have to subscribe to Flickr to upload that many. It took me almost a year but the day I planned my UK trip, April 1, 2008, I broke out the credit card and paid the $25 for a year of Flickr. Uh oh. I started uploading everything I had and tagging and sorting. Then I decided that I needed a new camera for my trip to the UK, my old one was well over four years old and less than two megapixels! Most camera phones are better than that now.
Two weeks and 700 photos later, I was a Flickr tagging and sorting maniac. Good thing I don't have a job because I spent about five whole days downloading, reviewing, tweaking, exporting, uploading, naming, tagging and organizing my photos. The reason I am reluctant to join these types of sites is not because I don't see the inherent value, it's because I know that if I like it, I'll get sucked in. It wasn't enough to have a place to send my friends to see pics of my trip, I needed to get more exposure! I joined groups, I looked at other people's photos, I submitted my photos, I made comments, I favorited and I tagged and tagged and tagged. Snapping like crazy at everything, I've uploading another 700 photos in the last month and signed up for Flickr stats which has since become a 7pm ritual, seeing how my photos performed that day. Performed? What's my ROI for this endeavor?
So far, it's not very good. Flickr'ing is keeping me from diligently applying for jobs and I've instead become obsessed with walls and pavement, no doubt fruitful pursuits. What I'd really like to see is more of my friends on Flickr. I know, I know! It's true though, you can't imagine how happy it makes me (and will make you) to see pictures of far away friends, family, babies, dogs and vacations pop up on the Flickr homepage. When I was in England, my relatives teased me for taking so many photos. They said I looked like tourist (imagine!) I explained that in the world that's young and hip, everyone takes pictures of everything. It's just another way that we communicate in this digital age. Showing people what we see through our eyes. That's a beautiful thing, no? So what are you waiting for?
Finally, one day in June last year, after finding some pics of Santa Monica on Flickr, I thought it would be fun to upload some of my own since I'd been photographing my walks on the beach for a while. I uploaded several hundred photos from the last few years in L.A. only to discover that you have to subscribe to Flickr to upload that many. It took me almost a year but the day I planned my UK trip, April 1, 2008, I broke out the credit card and paid the $25 for a year of Flickr. Uh oh. I started uploading everything I had and tagging and sorting. Then I decided that I needed a new camera for my trip to the UK, my old one was well over four years old and less than two megapixels! Most camera phones are better than that now.
Two weeks and 700 photos later, I was a Flickr tagging and sorting maniac. Good thing I don't have a job because I spent about five whole days downloading, reviewing, tweaking, exporting, uploading, naming, tagging and organizing my photos. The reason I am reluctant to join these types of sites is not because I don't see the inherent value, it's because I know that if I like it, I'll get sucked in. It wasn't enough to have a place to send my friends to see pics of my trip, I needed to get more exposure! I joined groups, I looked at other people's photos, I submitted my photos, I made comments, I favorited and I tagged and tagged and tagged. Snapping like crazy at everything, I've uploading another 700 photos in the last month and signed up for Flickr stats which has since become a 7pm ritual, seeing how my photos performed that day. Performed? What's my ROI for this endeavor?
So far, it's not very good. Flickr'ing is keeping me from diligently applying for jobs and I've instead become obsessed with walls and pavement, no doubt fruitful pursuits. What I'd really like to see is more of my friends on Flickr. I know, I know! It's true though, you can't imagine how happy it makes me (and will make you) to see pictures of far away friends, family, babies, dogs and vacations pop up on the Flickr homepage. When I was in England, my relatives teased me for taking so many photos. They said I looked like tourist (imagine!) I explained that in the world that's young and hip, everyone takes pictures of everything. It's just another way that we communicate in this digital age. Showing people what we see through our eyes. That's a beautiful thing, no? So what are you waiting for?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Lasagna garden
I've decided to plant a garden. I've lived in this apartment almost nine months, I'm not sure why it's taken me so long. My neighbor said the soil in our small patch of yard was shit but then I remembered it doesn't matter. Last year, I helped a friend of mine create a lasagna garden in her backyard. The idea is simple: You put layers of wet newspaper on top of any ground surface - grass, weeds, rocks, it doesn't matter - and layer peat moss and any organic material you can find like compost, manure, clippings, etc. Then you plant your garden! My mom always says that vegetables are the easiest plants to grow. People always complaining that they kill plants in their house don't have to worry. As long as you have light and water, veggies will grow. Fruits too!
The best thing about this method, other than the obvious ease of it, is that you leave the soil undisturbed. That means earthworms and other bugs that till the soil will find their way into your garden and keep it growing. I remember reading an article about a guy who turns lawns into food gardens. In the article, his company was rototilling this front yard and broke their machine on the grass roots and rocks. It was totally silly, renting that expensive machine and going through all that work, and killing all the sweet little earthworms! All you have to do is layer on top. The lack of light kills grass roots and anything else much easier than any chemicals or forceful extraction, the newspaper eventually gets eaten by worms and dissolves into the earth.
I've been mulling over this idea for some time. I can't see the garden from my apartment so it's easy to forget that there is a patch of land down there. Then yesterday, walking around, I saw that someone in San Francisco was growing vegetables in pots on the sidewalk! It really is that easy and I have no excuses. Here's how to do it.
Without getting into this too much, I believe that water and food are going to become serious battle grounds as people start to realize that mass production of food has driven it into very unhealthy directions. Big agribusiness is not likely to give up huge profits to make our food healthier and treat the earth better but we DO have control over our food - we can all plant vegetables. Power to the people!
The best thing about this method, other than the obvious ease of it, is that you leave the soil undisturbed. That means earthworms and other bugs that till the soil will find their way into your garden and keep it growing. I remember reading an article about a guy who turns lawns into food gardens. In the article, his company was rototilling this front yard and broke their machine on the grass roots and rocks. It was totally silly, renting that expensive machine and going through all that work, and killing all the sweet little earthworms! All you have to do is layer on top. The lack of light kills grass roots and anything else much easier than any chemicals or forceful extraction, the newspaper eventually gets eaten by worms and dissolves into the earth.
I've been mulling over this idea for some time. I can't see the garden from my apartment so it's easy to forget that there is a patch of land down there. Then yesterday, walking around, I saw that someone in San Francisco was growing vegetables in pots on the sidewalk! It really is that easy and I have no excuses. Here's how to do it.
Without getting into this too much, I believe that water and food are going to become serious battle grounds as people start to realize that mass production of food has driven it into very unhealthy directions. Big agribusiness is not likely to give up huge profits to make our food healthier and treat the earth better but we DO have control over our food - we can all plant vegetables. Power to the people!
Friday, May 30, 2008
The zero inbox
I got an email from a reader last week and I, naturally, Google'd her to see who she was and what she had online. She actually has a page with links to her entire online life and blogs on it, not really all that difficult to find but one of her posts changed my life. I now feel much less old in that "I can't even keep up with my email" kind of way. This is it: freedom from organization.
It's a very simple guide to manage your Gmail and keep it at ZERO new messages. For someone who has become used to over 80 new messages and keeps subscribing and then unsubscribing to alerts and newsletters and then completely misses messages from friends, I was overjoyed. It took me all of a half hour to make the changes she suggests and I'm a changed woman! I wondered, of course, if ten years ago I would have been the one figuring this out and telling other people. I seem to have thrown my hands up over technology lately and just let it overtake me but Martina reminds us that technology is here to SERVE not to RULE.
It's a very simple guide to manage your Gmail and keep it at ZERO new messages. For someone who has become used to over 80 new messages and keeps subscribing and then unsubscribing to alerts and newsletters and then completely misses messages from friends, I was overjoyed. It took me all of a half hour to make the changes she suggests and I'm a changed woman! I wondered, of course, if ten years ago I would have been the one figuring this out and telling other people. I seem to have thrown my hands up over technology lately and just let it overtake me but Martina reminds us that technology is here to SERVE not to RULE.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Don't they have the Internet in Alaska?
In a couple of weeks, my little map covered in red dots is going to be archived. It will have been a year since it was started and they have to start over. I've had around 8,000 visits in the last year and before the map went away, I wanted to document where the dots are.
The majority of visits are from the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia with a couple of other sizable dots in Iran (that's Sam's cousin!), India, and Indonesia (that's daysofturmoil).
Here’s where the rest of the dots appear with the notable absences in parentheses:
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Columbia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Guyana, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and Mexico (No Cuba)
Hawaii and Newfoundland (No Alaska)
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Canary Islands, Guinea, Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Mauritius (all major cities or capitols of those countries) and Morocco
Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, (One dot in China), (Only two dots in Russia: Moscow and Siberia), (One dot in Kyrgyzstan and no other former Soviet “stans”)
Pakistan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan (No Afghanistan)
I find it fascinating. It's a potentially good indication of the prevalence of the Internet (or at least Blogger) around the world. In the case of China, it's especially indicative: only one dot for a country that has more Internet users than any other and for a blog that mentions China in 22 (make that 23) posts.
The majority of visits are from the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia with a couple of other sizable dots in Iran (that's Sam's cousin!), India, and Indonesia (that's daysofturmoil).
Here’s where the rest of the dots appear with the notable absences in parentheses:
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Columbia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Guyana, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and Mexico (No Cuba)
Hawaii and Newfoundland (No Alaska)
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Canary Islands, Guinea, Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Mauritius (all major cities or capitols of those countries) and Morocco
Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, (One dot in China), (Only two dots in Russia: Moscow and Siberia), (One dot in Kyrgyzstan and no other former Soviet “stans”)
Pakistan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan (No Afghanistan)
I find it fascinating. It's a potentially good indication of the prevalence of the Internet (or at least Blogger) around the world. In the case of China, it's especially indicative: only one dot for a country that has more Internet users than any other and for a blog that mentions China in 22 (make that 23) posts.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Eight products that I don't need
When I was in the UK, I stocked up on an over-the-counter lip cream for cold sores. It comes in a tiny tube and has 5% Acyclovir. Cold sores go away almost instantly with this cream which is available only by prescription in the U.S. I don't have a doctor and have only had health insurance about 6 of the 16 years that I've lived away from home. Needless to say, I won't pay for the doctor visit to get the prescription (that has to be represcribed every two years EVEN THOUGH herpes simplex is a very common virus that you can't get rid of) and can't afford to pay for the drug anyway.
In the U.S., there are no less than eight over-the-counter remedies for cold sores. All with a drug other than Acyclovir, and none of them work. I know because I've had cold sores since I was four and have tried everything. They don't have any of these "other" remedies in the UK because they don't NEED them. The one that works is available to everyone and it's cheap, cheaper even than our non-remedies. The cost of the Acyclovir cream in the UK is $6 for the generic brand and $8 for Zovirax, the name brand, compared to about $50 here for a prescription for Zovirax and $6-12 for our OTC products.
Our entire pharmaceutical industry works like this, marketing dozens of useless products to suckers like me who can't get the real deal and then charging a small fortune for prescription drugs. But here's what I find most interesting. GlaxoSmithKline makes Abreva, the over-the-counter remedy that I had been using, and they're the SAME COMPANY as GlaxoWellcome that makes Zovirax!
So these jerks are charging us ten times more than the Europeans are paying for the same drug, but keep access to it so restricted that they can make even more money marketing products to us that we don't even want! It's a total racket. How much longer are we going to put up with this?
If you have examples, please post. Thanks!
In the U.S., there are no less than eight over-the-counter remedies for cold sores. All with a drug other than Acyclovir, and none of them work. I know because I've had cold sores since I was four and have tried everything. They don't have any of these "other" remedies in the UK because they don't NEED them. The one that works is available to everyone and it's cheap, cheaper even than our non-remedies. The cost of the Acyclovir cream in the UK is $6 for the generic brand and $8 for Zovirax, the name brand, compared to about $50 here for a prescription for Zovirax and $6-12 for our OTC products.
Our entire pharmaceutical industry works like this, marketing dozens of useless products to suckers like me who can't get the real deal and then charging a small fortune for prescription drugs. But here's what I find most interesting. GlaxoSmithKline makes Abreva, the over-the-counter remedy that I had been using, and they're the SAME COMPANY as GlaxoWellcome that makes Zovirax!
So these jerks are charging us ten times more than the Europeans are paying for the same drug, but keep access to it so restricted that they can make even more money marketing products to us that we don't even want! It's a total racket. How much longer are we going to put up with this?
If you have examples, please post. Thanks!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
All eyes on China
I got a request to blog more frequently. It very sweet and it made me smile but in order to do it, I’ll have to post more of my silly thoughts while I chew on those that surround my days and weeks and sometimes months, like what I’m thinking right now about China.
This month’s issue of National Geographic is all about China, every page. It's excellent. I love the timing of this magazine and I think they’re right on; in the very near future, the whole world is going to be looking at China. Not just the Chinese government that suppresses rights and imprisons those that speak out against it and not just the China that’s buying the world’s debt, investing in resources in Africa and South America and not just the China that’s hosting the Olympics.
I have yet to find someone who agrees with me but I’ll even go one further. Not only will the world be all about China and the Chinese people, soon, it will no longer be all about the United States. It’s already happening in conversations with friends, relatives and my parents. I can’t get into any conversation without someone bringing up what China is doing. All of a sudden, they’re in everyone’s country and everyone’s business.
There's a great article on WorldChanging about a collaboration between photographer Paolo Woods and journalist Serge Michel at FotoGrafia, the 7th edition of international festival of photography which runs until May 25th in Rome. Their presentation follows China's industrial neo-colonialism in Africa. The photos of Chinese running factories and building local economies and Chinese being taught by Africans in their classrooms are amazing. You can see all the photos from China's Wild West under stories, on Paolo Wood's website:
China is home to one of the oldest continuous civilizations on earth. They are by far the most populous country, making up 20% of the world’s population. There are more people on the Internet in China than in any other country, including the U.S. They are expected to overtake us as the world’s largest economy in less than 10 years. Over 30% of the population call themselves religious and that number is growing. 45% of women say they don't want to give up their careers to have children.
They are the world leaders in manufacturing, and in a few short decades, they have grown a rich class and an enormous middle class with healthy appetites for domestic and foreign goods and resources. They have quickly embraced the West’s competition for success and all the stress and malaise that goes with it. They still cannot freely surf the Internet or speak their mind but those days are numbered. As they continue to embrace technology, art and imported culture, they’ll find themselves in a much more visible role in the world struggle for human rights.
Most Chinese in school are now studying English and their English speakers outnumber those in the United States. There’s a mass migration going on of people from the country to the city and with increased wealth and population density comes a frenzy of information sharing and a demand for more freedom. I predict that in the next few years China will have a cultural explosion, exporting and importing people and culture with the same voracity that they have adopted everything else.
China is dealing with the issues we’re all dealing with, except in all cases their situation is already more dire. They need to provide healthcare for the biggest baby boomer population in the world, a generation that has less children to provide for them due to the one-child policy. They have the highest statistic for air pollution related deaths, have built more mega dams than anywhere in the world, and have deforested and leveled mountains to the point of serious environmental erosion. They’re only now beginning to embrace archeological digs and animal conservation. They’re dealing with a rapidly growing disparity between rich and poor, massive urbanization, and a serious shortage of natural resources.
Natural disasters are a constant but this time the Chinese are starting to ask questions like why so many schools collapsed in the recent earthquake. We’re already seeing a comparison between how China handled their rescue efforts compared to the disasters in the rest of the world. The incredible level of humanitarian aid offered by regular citizens has put the government in an uncomfortable position. No longer a closed society, there are at least three Flickr groups with photos from the earthquake: china 512 earthquake, Sichuan Earthquake 2008 and Just The News (were you there? - if not, don't add!)
They’ve turned the spotlight on themselves by bidding to host the Olympics and I’m afraid it isn’t going off for a while. I predict that the era of all eyes on America is coming to an end. The question is, will American eyes remain closed to the outside world or will we begin to learn by observing others?
This month’s issue of National Geographic is all about China, every page. It's excellent. I love the timing of this magazine and I think they’re right on; in the very near future, the whole world is going to be looking at China. Not just the Chinese government that suppresses rights and imprisons those that speak out against it and not just the China that’s buying the world’s debt, investing in resources in Africa and South America and not just the China that’s hosting the Olympics.
I have yet to find someone who agrees with me but I’ll even go one further. Not only will the world be all about China and the Chinese people, soon, it will no longer be all about the United States. It’s already happening in conversations with friends, relatives and my parents. I can’t get into any conversation without someone bringing up what China is doing. All of a sudden, they’re in everyone’s country and everyone’s business.
There's a great article on WorldChanging about a collaboration between photographer Paolo Woods and journalist Serge Michel at FotoGrafia, the 7th edition of international festival of photography which runs until May 25th in Rome. Their presentation follows China's industrial neo-colonialism in Africa. The photos of Chinese running factories and building local economies and Chinese being taught by Africans in their classrooms are amazing. You can see all the photos from China's Wild West under stories, on Paolo Wood's website:
China is home to one of the oldest continuous civilizations on earth. They are by far the most populous country, making up 20% of the world’s population. There are more people on the Internet in China than in any other country, including the U.S. They are expected to overtake us as the world’s largest economy in less than 10 years. Over 30% of the population call themselves religious and that number is growing. 45% of women say they don't want to give up their careers to have children.
They are the world leaders in manufacturing, and in a few short decades, they have grown a rich class and an enormous middle class with healthy appetites for domestic and foreign goods and resources. They have quickly embraced the West’s competition for success and all the stress and malaise that goes with it. They still cannot freely surf the Internet or speak their mind but those days are numbered. As they continue to embrace technology, art and imported culture, they’ll find themselves in a much more visible role in the world struggle for human rights.
Most Chinese in school are now studying English and their English speakers outnumber those in the United States. There’s a mass migration going on of people from the country to the city and with increased wealth and population density comes a frenzy of information sharing and a demand for more freedom. I predict that in the next few years China will have a cultural explosion, exporting and importing people and culture with the same voracity that they have adopted everything else.
China is dealing with the issues we’re all dealing with, except in all cases their situation is already more dire. They need to provide healthcare for the biggest baby boomer population in the world, a generation that has less children to provide for them due to the one-child policy. They have the highest statistic for air pollution related deaths, have built more mega dams than anywhere in the world, and have deforested and leveled mountains to the point of serious environmental erosion. They’re only now beginning to embrace archeological digs and animal conservation. They’re dealing with a rapidly growing disparity between rich and poor, massive urbanization, and a serious shortage of natural resources.
Natural disasters are a constant but this time the Chinese are starting to ask questions like why so many schools collapsed in the recent earthquake. We’re already seeing a comparison between how China handled their rescue efforts compared to the disasters in the rest of the world. The incredible level of humanitarian aid offered by regular citizens has put the government in an uncomfortable position. No longer a closed society, there are at least three Flickr groups with photos from the earthquake: china 512 earthquake, Sichuan Earthquake 2008 and Just The News (were you there? - if not, don't add!)
They’ve turned the spotlight on themselves by bidding to host the Olympics and I’m afraid it isn’t going off for a while. I predict that the era of all eyes on America is coming to an end. The question is, will American eyes remain closed to the outside world or will we begin to learn by observing others?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Wired sells out to Monsanto
I picked up my new Wired magazine and immediately read their cover story, an inflammatory ‘environmentalists are full of shit’ piece. It really pissed me off. They end their series of anti-arguments based on facts focused around cutting carbon dioxide, with a “take it with a grain of salt" letter from the editor of Worldchanging.com. He basically says the article is a short-lens focus that could get us into even more trouble. Isn’t the damage already done with a cover like “Keep your SUV, forget organics and screw the spotted owl?” I suppose it would be okay if they were using it to get people reading but then dole out some actual wisdom inside, but they don’t.
Here are my reactions to the articles:
1) A/C is OK. Here they say it takes more energy to heat a house in a cold climate than it does to cool a house in a hot climate. Good point, but really do we want everyone to move to the Southwest? The area is already burgeoning and just beginning a mega-drought that could last up to 150 years, where are they going to get enough water to live? What about clamping down on cheap housing construction and passing ordinances requiring better insulation. We’ll all have to pay more per square foot but maybe it will have the doubly beneficial effect of making our houses use space more efficiently.
2) Live in cities. Yes, for the most part, urbanization is cool and better for the environment but they make an argument that exurbs are the same as living in a truly rural area surrounded by trees. People don’t live in exurbs to be closer to nature, they sprouted up because people (like in Los Angeles) couldn’t afford to buy houses in the city so developers bought cheap land 50 miles out of town in the desert and built affordable housing there. The article points a finger at lawnmowers (a product of the suburb/exurb) and I totally agree that lawnmowers are a waste of energy. But why not encourage people with land to plant trees and grow a garden to feed themselves instead of trying to get them to move to a city? Not everyone wants to live in an apartment.
3) Organics are not the answer. This one really burns me up. They say we should screw organic because it takes 25 organic cows compared to 23 industrial cows for the same milk and they put out 16 percent more greenhouse emissions. Are they f’ing kidding me? We should drink hormone-laced pus-filled milk from sick suffering cows for that differential? The only smart thing they say in this article, albeit stuffed in the middle, is that if you really want to do something for the environment, stop eating meat altogether. It’s true that we can’t go organic at our current rate of consumption but we (in industrialized countries) eat and waste too much food anyway. Instead, I think we should go organic 100% and patronize restaurants that serve reasonable proportions of quality food.
4) Farm the forests. The only good thing in this section is about culling dead wood out of the forests, it does prevent fires and with the climate heating up, we can’t afford the kind of fires it’s going to bring. But the rest of it, about becoming full time forest farmers and cutting down old growth trees is total bullshit.
5) China is the solution, not the problem. I agree! (See next post) China has become the number one producer of alternative energy solutions for export and use in their own country. Due to decades of rapid and untethered production and growth, their feet are now much closer to the proverbial fire than ours; they will likely find and implement environmental solutions quicker than us.
6) Accept genetic engineering. If I read one more thing about biofuel, I’m going to be sick. They just made the point that we should use more public transportation in the “move to the city” argument but now they’re talking about how we should embrace genetic engineering so we can grow more biofuel. They attack fertilizer and say nothing of chemical sprays, but fertilizer is necessary because of our addiction to monocrops (and profits). Thousands of years ago, farmers rotated crops and used trees and companion plants that naturally kept bugs away or attracted complimentary insect relationships (like worms) and enrich the soil to the benefit of certain crops. The author mentions Monsanto as some kind of wonder company here to save our lives. Monsanto is a chemical company that produces the world’s best-selling “herbicide,” a chemical that kills everything. They then got into the agriculture business producing 90% of the GMO crops on the planet, specifically engineered to resist their herbicide. Roundup kills everything except the crops they engineer. They are corporate bullies who use lawsuits and threats to wipe out local farmers. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." Unchecked, everything we eat will be engineered by Monsanto. If Wired really gave a shit about us and the environment, they’d do a full report on how they control our food supply.
7) Carbon Trading doesn’t work. I agree, good idea that needs improved.
8) Embrace nuclear power. There’s been a lot of talk that the only way we’ll produce enough energy for the billions of us on the planet in the future is from nuclear. They call it the cleanest of the fossil fuels because of the low emissions, uh, but what about the huge volume of nuclear waste produced? We already have tons of it buried in leaking containers under the ground in Washington and other states, we have no safe way to dispose of it and it remains toxic for thousands of years. Let’s focus on energy saving and efficiency before we make feeding our voracious appetites the top priority, eh?
9) Used cars not hybrids. Okay, I get the argument. New cars cost a lot of energy to make. If you’re driving a ten-year old fuel-efficient Toyota like my RAV, it’s better for the environment to keep driving it than to buy a new car. Except that my RAV will never end up in the landfill, there will always be someone waiting to buy it. They suggest (again, to be inflammatory) by the same logic you’re better off driving a Hummer because making a Hummer contributes less carbon to the environment (because of the nickel in Prius’ battery). They say nothing about the fact that cars in Europe are twice as fuel-efficient as ours and are the same as a Prius, which is why you don’t see hybrids there. It’s all a bunch of crap. We’re sold gas-guzzlers on purpose so the hybrids look good in comparison. While it doesn’t affect our carbon output, the quiet drive of the hybrids has many other benefits.
10) Prepare for the worst. Yes, things are going to get much hotter and much worse before they get better and we do need to accept that and prepare. They quote Stewart Brand who says, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" and suggest that we take over completely by using our technology to fix the things we've broken like helping birds migrate, for example. We're destroying their natural habitat, building over open spaces that break up long migration journeys, disrupting communication with our noise and killing them and their food with pesticides but the scientists are going to save the birds with assisted migration? Then again, they mention that Monsanto, who brought us Agent Orange, PCBs and Bovine Growth Hormone, will save us with genetic engineering. What is this issue sponsored by Bush and the chemical industry?
I agree we better figure out ways to adapt and continue to innovate but we are consuming and disrupting the natural order of the planet at an unsustainable rate and technology alone will not save us (or the birds). We need to continue to make our small but impactful changes like eating locally produced food, driving less, taking a tote the store instead of using plastic bags, planting trees and food in our yards if we have them, installing energy efficient appliances, using less energy by unplugging what we aren’t using, and continuing to pay attention, support innovation and demand responsibility from corporations and governments.
Here's the first part of a two hour-long show about Monsanto:
Here are my reactions to the articles:
1) A/C is OK. Here they say it takes more energy to heat a house in a cold climate than it does to cool a house in a hot climate. Good point, but really do we want everyone to move to the Southwest? The area is already burgeoning and just beginning a mega-drought that could last up to 150 years, where are they going to get enough water to live? What about clamping down on cheap housing construction and passing ordinances requiring better insulation. We’ll all have to pay more per square foot but maybe it will have the doubly beneficial effect of making our houses use space more efficiently.
2) Live in cities. Yes, for the most part, urbanization is cool and better for the environment but they make an argument that exurbs are the same as living in a truly rural area surrounded by trees. People don’t live in exurbs to be closer to nature, they sprouted up because people (like in Los Angeles) couldn’t afford to buy houses in the city so developers bought cheap land 50 miles out of town in the desert and built affordable housing there. The article points a finger at lawnmowers (a product of the suburb/exurb) and I totally agree that lawnmowers are a waste of energy. But why not encourage people with land to plant trees and grow a garden to feed themselves instead of trying to get them to move to a city? Not everyone wants to live in an apartment.
3) Organics are not the answer. This one really burns me up. They say we should screw organic because it takes 25 organic cows compared to 23 industrial cows for the same milk and they put out 16 percent more greenhouse emissions. Are they f’ing kidding me? We should drink hormone-laced pus-filled milk from sick suffering cows for that differential? The only smart thing they say in this article, albeit stuffed in the middle, is that if you really want to do something for the environment, stop eating meat altogether. It’s true that we can’t go organic at our current rate of consumption but we (in industrialized countries) eat and waste too much food anyway. Instead, I think we should go organic 100% and patronize restaurants that serve reasonable proportions of quality food.
4) Farm the forests. The only good thing in this section is about culling dead wood out of the forests, it does prevent fires and with the climate heating up, we can’t afford the kind of fires it’s going to bring. But the rest of it, about becoming full time forest farmers and cutting down old growth trees is total bullshit.
5) China is the solution, not the problem. I agree! (See next post) China has become the number one producer of alternative energy solutions for export and use in their own country. Due to decades of rapid and untethered production and growth, their feet are now much closer to the proverbial fire than ours; they will likely find and implement environmental solutions quicker than us.
6) Accept genetic engineering. If I read one more thing about biofuel, I’m going to be sick. They just made the point that we should use more public transportation in the “move to the city” argument but now they’re talking about how we should embrace genetic engineering so we can grow more biofuel. They attack fertilizer and say nothing of chemical sprays, but fertilizer is necessary because of our addiction to monocrops (and profits). Thousands of years ago, farmers rotated crops and used trees and companion plants that naturally kept bugs away or attracted complimentary insect relationships (like worms) and enrich the soil to the benefit of certain crops. The author mentions Monsanto as some kind of wonder company here to save our lives. Monsanto is a chemical company that produces the world’s best-selling “herbicide,” a chemical that kills everything. They then got into the agriculture business producing 90% of the GMO crops on the planet, specifically engineered to resist their herbicide. Roundup kills everything except the crops they engineer. They are corporate bullies who use lawsuits and threats to wipe out local farmers. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." Unchecked, everything we eat will be engineered by Monsanto. If Wired really gave a shit about us and the environment, they’d do a full report on how they control our food supply.
7) Carbon Trading doesn’t work. I agree, good idea that needs improved.
8) Embrace nuclear power. There’s been a lot of talk that the only way we’ll produce enough energy for the billions of us on the planet in the future is from nuclear. They call it the cleanest of the fossil fuels because of the low emissions, uh, but what about the huge volume of nuclear waste produced? We already have tons of it buried in leaking containers under the ground in Washington and other states, we have no safe way to dispose of it and it remains toxic for thousands of years. Let’s focus on energy saving and efficiency before we make feeding our voracious appetites the top priority, eh?
9) Used cars not hybrids. Okay, I get the argument. New cars cost a lot of energy to make. If you’re driving a ten-year old fuel-efficient Toyota like my RAV, it’s better for the environment to keep driving it than to buy a new car. Except that my RAV will never end up in the landfill, there will always be someone waiting to buy it. They suggest (again, to be inflammatory) by the same logic you’re better off driving a Hummer because making a Hummer contributes less carbon to the environment (because of the nickel in Prius’ battery). They say nothing about the fact that cars in Europe are twice as fuel-efficient as ours and are the same as a Prius, which is why you don’t see hybrids there. It’s all a bunch of crap. We’re sold gas-guzzlers on purpose so the hybrids look good in comparison. While it doesn’t affect our carbon output, the quiet drive of the hybrids has many other benefits.
10) Prepare for the worst. Yes, things are going to get much hotter and much worse before they get better and we do need to accept that and prepare. They quote Stewart Brand who says, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" and suggest that we take over completely by using our technology to fix the things we've broken like helping birds migrate, for example. We're destroying their natural habitat, building over open spaces that break up long migration journeys, disrupting communication with our noise and killing them and their food with pesticides but the scientists are going to save the birds with assisted migration? Then again, they mention that Monsanto, who brought us Agent Orange, PCBs and Bovine Growth Hormone, will save us with genetic engineering. What is this issue sponsored by Bush and the chemical industry?
I agree we better figure out ways to adapt and continue to innovate but we are consuming and disrupting the natural order of the planet at an unsustainable rate and technology alone will not save us (or the birds). We need to continue to make our small but impactful changes like eating locally produced food, driving less, taking a tote the store instead of using plastic bags, planting trees and food in our yards if we have them, installing energy efficient appliances, using less energy by unplugging what we aren’t using, and continuing to pay attention, support innovation and demand responsibility from corporations and governments.
Here's the first part of a two hour-long show about Monsanto:
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Random interactions
Every now and then, I have a string of what seem to be odd or funny fleeting interactions with strangers. I always wonder if these people are a kind of messenger delivering something to me that I wouldn't hear coming from a friend. Then again, I try not to read too much into them.
I was taking a cab to the wedding in Georgia. It was only a dozen blocks or so but I had some slight heels on and I’m such a wimp, I’d probably have blisters if I walked it. Anyway, the cab driver was chatting at me the whole time but a lot of it was unintelligible for some reason. I think I told him I was going to a wedding, he asked where I was from, I said San Francisco and then he said he’d spent some time there in the sixties. Oh, I said, that was a good time to be there. He looked at me, really confused, huh? Never mind. He chatted at me some more. Then when I got out (and he dropped me off in the wrong place as it turns out) he said “And just remember, it’s never too late!”
I was introduced to someone at a party on Friday and he said as he was leaving, “Your name is an adjective!”
The other day I had to mail some bills. I had been sitting at the computer for far too long and finally launched myself out the door when I had only 20 minutes to get there. I could make it if I walked quickly but when I hit the hills, I suddenly got a burst of energy and decided to run. There was one big hill, a street, and then another. Halfway up the first one, a guy on a bike came by. He said something and I paused the iPod (which I never take walking but did because I knew I needed motivation to get there quickly). I said, very impressive! He rode his bike exactly alongside me to the next street. Let’s see how you do on this one, he said. Challenged, I of course had to keep running. My chest pounded a bit on the top but I made it up at the same pace as him. As he pedaled off he said, “You have my admiration!”
While I was England, I went into a shop to get some photos printed. The saleslady asked me if I was Canadian. When I said no, American, she said “Really? Because your accent is so soft.”
In Georgia, I was at the apartment of my friend getting married. All the bridesmaids were arriving for hair and makeup and to generally get ready together. There were a lot of people milling around as my friend got her hair put into giant curlers. I introduced myself to a woman I didn’t know. You have good eyebrows, she said. I realized she must have been the makeup gal and said that I wasn’t getting made up. Embarrassed, she said “Oh, well it’s good you have nice eyebrows then, imagine if you didn’t!”
I was taking a cab to the wedding in Georgia. It was only a dozen blocks or so but I had some slight heels on and I’m such a wimp, I’d probably have blisters if I walked it. Anyway, the cab driver was chatting at me the whole time but a lot of it was unintelligible for some reason. I think I told him I was going to a wedding, he asked where I was from, I said San Francisco and then he said he’d spent some time there in the sixties. Oh, I said, that was a good time to be there. He looked at me, really confused, huh? Never mind. He chatted at me some more. Then when I got out (and he dropped me off in the wrong place as it turns out) he said “And just remember, it’s never too late!”
I was introduced to someone at a party on Friday and he said as he was leaving, “Your name is an adjective!”
The other day I had to mail some bills. I had been sitting at the computer for far too long and finally launched myself out the door when I had only 20 minutes to get there. I could make it if I walked quickly but when I hit the hills, I suddenly got a burst of energy and decided to run. There was one big hill, a street, and then another. Halfway up the first one, a guy on a bike came by. He said something and I paused the iPod (which I never take walking but did because I knew I needed motivation to get there quickly). I said, very impressive! He rode his bike exactly alongside me to the next street. Let’s see how you do on this one, he said. Challenged, I of course had to keep running. My chest pounded a bit on the top but I made it up at the same pace as him. As he pedaled off he said, “You have my admiration!”
While I was England, I went into a shop to get some photos printed. The saleslady asked me if I was Canadian. When I said no, American, she said “Really? Because your accent is so soft.”
In Georgia, I was at the apartment of my friend getting married. All the bridesmaids were arriving for hair and makeup and to generally get ready together. There were a lot of people milling around as my friend got her hair put into giant curlers. I introduced myself to a woman I didn’t know. You have good eyebrows, she said. I realized she must have been the makeup gal and said that I wasn’t getting made up. Embarrassed, she said “Oh, well it’s good you have nice eyebrows then, imagine if you didn’t!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)