Are you loyal to your country? This seems to be the question our country's draft-dodging, cocaine-using, recovering alcoholic of a president is asking us. On Monday, Congress passed into law a new national holiday: National Loyalty Day. As if I need a day to remind me of my loyalty. Its like having a day to forgive my sins and cash in my good deeds.
The move, surprisingly passing in both houses without much fanfare or discussion, smacks of autocracy and confusion at the White House. But perhaps the ironic piece of this move is that May 1st has traditionally been May Day, a day of May-poles and flowers. It also is a big labor holiday in my dad's hometown of St.Louis, MO as May 1st was the day that summer construction contracts were signed. Unions have always turned out en masse for May Day celebrations and in the past century May Day has also been known as International Worker's Day dedicated to supporting and celebrating the labor movement and the working class.
So, now we add "Loyalty Day" to the list of things to celebrate on May 1. But how the hell do you celebrate loyalty? And isn't it utterly relative? I could celebrate my loyalty to Red Sox Nation by watching the Red Sox tonight. Does that count? Why do we need a useless "holiday" to remind us of our loyalty?
This gets to the root of the problem with a lot of Republican enforced government measures: they're not specific. Their War on Nouns (War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism) has been nothing short of a complete disaster. Their education programs of late (No Child Left Behind) have wavered and collapsed. And now, to add insult to injury, they can't even come up with a decent holiday to add to the national calendar. I guess expecting a timetable and exit strategy around Iraq was out of the question.
In the end, this holiday will have zero impact on our lives. There are millions of holidays that go by without any sort of real acknowledgment. How did you celebrate Labor Day and Memorial Day last year? Most likely, similar to millions of other Americans, you got off work, went to the beach/barbecue/ballgame/picnic of your choice and had a great day off. What sucks about Loyalty Day is that I can't skip out on work. At least they could give me that, for godsakes.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Superfunds near you
In case everyone forgot about how many biohazard sites we have in this country, the Center for Public Integrity gives us a stern visual reminder: they're in our backyard.
CPI has also found that funding and follow through on clean up around Superfund sites has dropped precipitously since 2000 (go figure -- I guess thats what happens when you appoint former industry lobbyists and friends to the EPA).
Among the most egregious companies contributing to Superfund waste sites (and their cover-up at the local level) are General Motors, Alcoa (largest steel manufacturer in the country), Chevron, BP, CBS Inc., General Electric (so much for that Ecomagination bullshit) and Dow Chemical. But the worst offender, the one that contributes the most with ties to Superfund sites all over the country is the Federal Government (read Department of Defense).
CPI has also found that funding and follow through on clean up around Superfund sites has dropped precipitously since 2000 (go figure -- I guess thats what happens when you appoint former industry lobbyists and friends to the EPA).
Among the most egregious companies contributing to Superfund waste sites (and their cover-up at the local level) are General Motors, Alcoa (largest steel manufacturer in the country), Chevron, BP, CBS Inc., General Electric (so much for that Ecomagination bullshit) and Dow Chemical. But the worst offender, the one that contributes the most with ties to Superfund sites all over the country is the Federal Government (read Department of Defense).
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Money in Weed
I don't smoke it but am an advocate of legalizing it. The benefits on society are big (and I don't mean everyone walking around stoned will result in a "calmer" and more "laid back" American culture) and the money (a tax) from it could be tremendous.
Checkout this article from the Prometheus Institutes's blog. It lays out exactly what we could get and then what we could do with over $10 billion in federal funds. Not bad.
There is a lot of history on the public perception of marijuana and how it has come to be looked at so negatively. Politicians who once did it in college poo-poo it, teachers who preach against it in the classroom use occasionally and a culture that fears it spends billions each year on stopping its impact on our lives (the whole War on Drugs is part of that really successful Republican "war on nouns" platform that seems to always end in defeat by obscurity -- "War on Poverty" was a real gem from the Regan-Bush days). Regardless, its time we cast away our old-time assumptions about it, grow up and let it be.
When you can profit $10 billion from it (not to mention the profit from hemp production!) can we really pass it up?
Checkout this article from the Prometheus Institutes's blog. It lays out exactly what we could get and then what we could do with over $10 billion in federal funds. Not bad.
There is a lot of history on the public perception of marijuana and how it has come to be looked at so negatively. Politicians who once did it in college poo-poo it, teachers who preach against it in the classroom use occasionally and a culture that fears it spends billions each year on stopping its impact on our lives (the whole War on Drugs is part of that really successful Republican "war on nouns" platform that seems to always end in defeat by obscurity -- "War on Poverty" was a real gem from the Regan-Bush days). Regardless, its time we cast away our old-time assumptions about it, grow up and let it be.
When you can profit $10 billion from it (not to mention the profit from hemp production!) can we really pass it up?
Best Quickie on Military Industrial Complex
Great little 2 minute animation on how we got to where we are and the effects of the military industrial complex. Maybe a bit of a reach in some ways (towards the end anyway) but interesting ideas on how to look at the strategy that the right-wing hawks use and how they view the world.
Dubya Gets Purple Heart
Apparently, some members of this great nation feel that our fair President needs a little boost after all of the "attacks" he's withstood over the past few years. The boost, is a Purple Heart that was given to him by Bill and Georgia Thomas, one of three that Bill earned during his service in Vietnam.
How in the world can a man who was injured three times in the most controversial American war of the last century, give away a symbol of his country's gratitude for his sacrifice to a man who did everything he could to avoid serving his country so that he had an excuse to party and spend money on blow? It boggles the mind.
But then again, there have to be some actual people who makeup the 28% that approve of his job. I guess Bill and Georgia are some of those folks.
The fact that the President actually accepted the gift is shocking as well.
How in the world can a man who was injured three times in the most controversial American war of the last century, give away a symbol of his country's gratitude for his sacrifice to a man who did everything he could to avoid serving his country so that he had an excuse to party and spend money on blow? It boggles the mind.
But then again, there have to be some actual people who makeup the 28% that approve of his job. I guess Bill and Georgia are some of those folks.
The fact that the President actually accepted the gift is shocking as well.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Illegal Timber Harvesting
...is more lucrative than smuggling heroin. It also clears forest areas equal to the state of New York worldwide annually.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Deforestation Diesel
The next time you fill up your little VW Bug with biodiesel you'll be shocked to find out that you could be contributing to the continuing deforestation of the world's rainforests.
How? Palm, a popular species of tree from which the cheapest and easiest forms of biofuels are sourced from, is the world's number one fruit crop, outpacing the once untouchable banana. Oil from these trees has become a fast and cheap way to produce biodiesel. The explosion in the oil palm market has resulted in massive amounts of deforestation in Africa, South America, Indonesia, Malaysia and other south pacific countries, as corporations and big-business start flocking to the oil palm market.
And this is where the irony is: while supporting a more sustainable fuel source for my automobile that will help limit the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere while I drive, I am also supporting an industry that clear-cuts huge swaths of tropical rainforest further limiting the amount of CO2 absorbed by these forests that play a vital role in slowing and stopping global climate change.
What's interesting about this comparison (that of fighting global climate change by using biodiesel to cut vehicle CO2 emissions or by supporting the forests of tropical regions that absorb massive amounts of CO2)is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. We can do both.
Biodiesel can come from many different oils besides palm, including rapeseed, soybean, hemp, algae, mustard seed, flax seed, sunflower, vegetable oil waste, and canola oil. All of these are able to be made into an efficient and clean-burning biodiesel. So why is there an entire industry being dominated by only one, the palm tree?
Well, because of all the various oils that biodiesel can be made from, oil from palm trees has one of the highest yields besides that of algae and Chinese tallow. This means that from a production standpoint, oil palm is a much more efficient (and therefore lucrative) business to be in.
What must be kept in mind, and in our overall strategy in dealing with emissions, is that there is no silver bullet. The world can't all use one solution because there's too many of us. We need a diversity of solutions. A diversity of crops with which to draw biodiesel from, a diversity of power plants including wind, solar, and geothermal from which we draw power. This diversity is what will sustain the ecological balance we have fallen out of on this planet. Governments can support all types of natural oils and subsidize the ones that cost more or are more difficult to produce. But we simply can't keep thinking that there is one solution that will work for all economies and all environmental challenges that we face as a world.
We have already started converting what was once natural rainforest into monoculture farms for soy, palm oil and other agricultural fast-money crops, much like we did for beef production in the late '80s and '90s (and still do). From a forest ecology standpoint, it brings into question how quickly they are being killed off under the guise of seemingly natural plantations and tree farms.
How? Palm, a popular species of tree from which the cheapest and easiest forms of biofuels are sourced from, is the world's number one fruit crop, outpacing the once untouchable banana. Oil from these trees has become a fast and cheap way to produce biodiesel. The explosion in the oil palm market has resulted in massive amounts of deforestation in Africa, South America, Indonesia, Malaysia and other south pacific countries, as corporations and big-business start flocking to the oil palm market.
And this is where the irony is: while supporting a more sustainable fuel source for my automobile that will help limit the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere while I drive, I am also supporting an industry that clear-cuts huge swaths of tropical rainforest further limiting the amount of CO2 absorbed by these forests that play a vital role in slowing and stopping global climate change.
What's interesting about this comparison (that of fighting global climate change by using biodiesel to cut vehicle CO2 emissions or by supporting the forests of tropical regions that absorb massive amounts of CO2)is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. We can do both.
Biodiesel can come from many different oils besides palm, including rapeseed, soybean, hemp, algae, mustard seed, flax seed, sunflower, vegetable oil waste, and canola oil. All of these are able to be made into an efficient and clean-burning biodiesel. So why is there an entire industry being dominated by only one, the palm tree?
Well, because of all the various oils that biodiesel can be made from, oil from palm trees has one of the highest yields besides that of algae and Chinese tallow. This means that from a production standpoint, oil palm is a much more efficient (and therefore lucrative) business to be in.
What must be kept in mind, and in our overall strategy in dealing with emissions, is that there is no silver bullet. The world can't all use one solution because there's too many of us. We need a diversity of solutions. A diversity of crops with which to draw biodiesel from, a diversity of power plants including wind, solar, and geothermal from which we draw power. This diversity is what will sustain the ecological balance we have fallen out of on this planet. Governments can support all types of natural oils and subsidize the ones that cost more or are more difficult to produce. But we simply can't keep thinking that there is one solution that will work for all economies and all environmental challenges that we face as a world.
We have already started converting what was once natural rainforest into monoculture farms for soy, palm oil and other agricultural fast-money crops, much like we did for beef production in the late '80s and '90s (and still do). From a forest ecology standpoint, it brings into question how quickly they are being killed off under the guise of seemingly natural plantations and tree farms.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Gov. of MO is Pro Breast Cancer
The culture wars around abortion are continuing to rage. Planned Parenthood, the decided face of abortion for the conservative right, is about to be starved to death out of Missouri. Governor Matt Blunt announced this weekend that he will be cutting off all funding to the state program and redirect it all to specific health clinics.
Here are a couple red flags: First, fewer than one in ten clients who show up at a PP clinic actually come in for an abortion and less than 30% of the 860 clinics actually provide abortions. Second, the PP clinics in Joplin and Springfield don't offer abortions to clients. However, what they do offer are free breast and cervical cancer screenings as part of a state health program. So why in the hell is Matt Blunt shutting them down?
I'll let Finley say the rest:
Here are a couple red flags: First, fewer than one in ten clients who show up at a PP clinic actually come in for an abortion and less than 30% of the 860 clinics actually provide abortions. Second, the PP clinics in Joplin and Springfield don't offer abortions to clients. However, what they do offer are free breast and cervical cancer screenings as part of a state health program. So why in the hell is Matt Blunt shutting them down?
"Patients should not have to go to an abortion clinic to access life-saving tests," Blunt declared. Refusing to fund cancer screening at the clinics, he said, "ensures women may access important preventative care without contributing to abortion providers' goal of facilitating the destruction of innocent life."
I'll let Finley say the rest:
This is how it goes now. Planned Parenthood clinics lose money to help fight cancer because their parent organization has an image problem: Every time they have to step in to defend abortion rights, it reinforces the impression that that is their main mission. This makes them an easier political target, since overwhelming majorities of Americans favor access to contraception: a Wall Street Journal poll last summer found that 81% of Catholics and 75% of born-again Christians favored providing access to birth control as a way to reduce the need for abortion.
Meanwhile the Governor who cuts the funds himself is slapped for compromising on stem cell research — even though some staunch abortion opponents have more textured feelings about where to put up the guardrails around research. One ABC news poll found that only half of all opponents of legal abortion oppose stem cell research. Blunt may want to think twice about playing the politics of guilt by association.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
No Impact Living...on 5th Avenue
Just when you thought you were taking a stand for the health of our planet by recycling all your recyclable materials, composting all your compost-ables, and buying only organic foods at your local Whole Foods, you find out about Colin Beaven and Michelle Conlin.
Living in a bourgeois 5th avenue apartment is a far cry from a strawbale house in Colorado. But the new face of urban environmentalism has just taken a new turn. The Beaven-Colin family (including 2 year-old Isabella) has committed themselves to a year-long experiment in living a life that leaves no imprint -- or at least one that leaves very little -- one they call No Impact. Since, Mr. Beaven is a non-fiction author he is writing a book chronicling these experiences and has already secured a book deal as well as a documentary filmmaker who will track their every move over the course of the year. Could this be the first ultimate reality-show for No Impact style living?
Living in a bourgeois 5th avenue apartment is a far cry from a strawbale house in Colorado. But the new face of urban environmentalism has just taken a new turn. The Beaven-Colin family (including 2 year-old Isabella) has committed themselves to a year-long experiment in living a life that leaves no imprint -- or at least one that leaves very little -- one they call No Impact. Since, Mr. Beaven is a non-fiction author he is writing a book chronicling these experiences and has already secured a book deal as well as a documentary filmmaker who will track their every move over the course of the year. Could this be the first ultimate reality-show for No Impact style living?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Al Gore goes to Washington
Al Gore is taking his fight to the U.S. Congress. He's testifying before two committees that he once served on, the House Science and Energy Committees. Here's part of his opening speech. Thanks to Nancy Pelosi's office for posting (I think...who really knows). What's your favorite quote?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Edwards Keeps Impressing
This is amazing. Edwards is really becoming the "green" candidate for '08. Edwards committed to an 80% carbon reduction by 2050, by far the most dedicated and patriotic answer among any of our current politicians. No one has gotten this serious about global climate change.
Nicely done, senator.
Nicely done, senator.
Another Coal Mine Accident
This one wasn't in the U.S. but it was much more devastating than anything I've heard before when it comes to coal mine accidents. A methane explosion killed 106 people in a Siberian coal mine and they are currently trying to rescue 4 trapped miners who at 885 feet down.
Do we really need to keep digging this crap out of the earth? I haven't heard of any windfarm engineers or solar panel installers dying from work-related accidents. This mine was relatively new, had a brand new safety system installed was supposed to be a modern marvel for the Russian government.
China just recently closed down 4,000 coal mines because of the threat of accidents like the one in Siberia.
How has the U.S. treated mine safety? The Bush administration ignored warnings from "whistleblowers" about the lack of consistency around safety checks and went a step further by refusing to collect penalties on mines and companies that were not up to snuff. Ken Ward Jr., a reporter for the West Virginia Gazette had a great write-up of administration coal mine policy in the Washington Monthly early on in 2006.
Obviously, if you stop handing out fines for unsafe mining practices, those practices will continue unchecked. But the bigger question that isn't being asked is, do we really need to keep mining the earth for a dirty energy that happens to kill some of our hardest working men and women? There are other ways of obtaining energy for our society and what is so amazing to me is how tightly our world's traditionalists are holding on to a practice that dates back to the middle ages -- burning coal for energy. Its high-time we start actually implementing our knowledge and have a little faith that solar and wind power can meet our energy needs today.
Do we really need to keep digging this crap out of the earth? I haven't heard of any windfarm engineers or solar panel installers dying from work-related accidents. This mine was relatively new, had a brand new safety system installed was supposed to be a modern marvel for the Russian government.
China just recently closed down 4,000 coal mines because of the threat of accidents like the one in Siberia.
How has the U.S. treated mine safety? The Bush administration ignored warnings from "whistleblowers" about the lack of consistency around safety checks and went a step further by refusing to collect penalties on mines and companies that were not up to snuff. Ken Ward Jr., a reporter for the West Virginia Gazette had a great write-up of administration coal mine policy in the Washington Monthly early on in 2006.
Obviously, if you stop handing out fines for unsafe mining practices, those practices will continue unchecked. But the bigger question that isn't being asked is, do we really need to keep mining the earth for a dirty energy that happens to kill some of our hardest working men and women? There are other ways of obtaining energy for our society and what is so amazing to me is how tightly our world's traditionalists are holding on to a practice that dates back to the middle ages -- burning coal for energy. Its high-time we start actually implementing our knowledge and have a little faith that solar and wind power can meet our energy needs today.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Edwards '08 Goes Carbon Neutral
Along with Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, who has since dropped out of the race, Edwards gets on board the Carbon-neutral train:
This is tremendous news as the amount of carbon a Presidential campaign puts out is incredibly high. The amount of air-travel and driving that campaigns do is enormous and offsetting that will be a fabulous undertaking. My only concern is that they do an effective job of tracking down exactly how their offsets will be implemented. Planting mango trees that die within a year due to lack of care is not an offset. The amount of ways we can all get screwed is amazing. Think about it: you pay someone $50,000 to offset your yearly flight travel. In return they say they'll plant some trees, invest in wind companies and start a bio-diesel company. Only, they don't. The bottom line is, if you're going to go carbon-neutral, realize two things:
Stumping in NC 3/13, Edwards pledged to run a "carbon neutral" campaign. Speaking to a crowd of college students at Bennett College" in Greensboro, NC, Edwards "urged all Americans to help reduce" their emissions. Edwards: "It's time for the president of the United States to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war." Edwards "said his campaign will consult with experts to calculate its total carbon emissions -- covering everything from his" travel to the energy used at his HQ. Along with taking a series of steps to improve its energy efficiency, the campaign will buy carbon offsets." Before dropping out of the race, Tom Vilsack also made a carbon neutral pledge. Vilsack "said his campaign would offset its carbon dioxide production" by paying a VT "company that invests in renewable fuels such as wind power. Edwards plans to work with the same company."
This is tremendous news as the amount of carbon a Presidential campaign puts out is incredibly high. The amount of air-travel and driving that campaigns do is enormous and offsetting that will be a fabulous undertaking. My only concern is that they do an effective job of tracking down exactly how their offsets will be implemented. Planting mango trees that die within a year due to lack of care is not an offset. The amount of ways we can all get screwed is amazing. Think about it: you pay someone $50,000 to offset your yearly flight travel. In return they say they'll plant some trees, invest in wind companies and start a bio-diesel company. Only, they don't. The bottom line is, if you're going to go carbon-neutral, realize two things:
- Its not really the silver bullet solution to emissions so treat it as a bridge to what's next.
- You can get screwed by the hundreds of different "schemes" out there that aren't really doing anything, or are ill-equipped to handle your demands, so don't be afraid to thrown on your investigative hat when hunting for carbon offset companies.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Dodging the Storm
Here's a great clip of the Fedex radar around Memphis, TN during a thunderstorm. It's sped up but shows a ton of Fedex planes trying to land before it hits the city. It kind of resembles an ant colony searching for the entrance back home.
FedEx Planes Dodging Storm - Click Here for more great videos and pictures!
FedEx Planes Dodging Storm - Click Here for more great videos and pictures!
Monday, March 12, 2007
Speaking Truth to Power
Dan Rather addressed the SXSW crowd today in the Hilton Ballroom here in Austin. It was my first time seeing the man in the flesh and he's one of the few TV personalities I've seen who actually look larger in real life than on the tube.Rather, whose ultimate career at CBS was dealt a deathly blow by the hands of the more conservative wing of the blogging party, had a stern message for the journalism industry: stop the go-along get-along attitude and start speaking truth to power. Rather went on to say that journalism has entered into a perilous state due to the "access game" they continue to play with those in power; information and access in exchange for integrity of reporting.
Rather talked briefly about his days covering the Nixon administration, being stone-walled during the uncovering of the Watergate scandal, Vietnam, and what he learned from all these experiences. "I made a lot of mistakes but I always tried to be the honest broker of news for the people who couldn't be at the White House or in a place like Vietnam."
Here are a couple of my favorite quotes:
"We've lost the sense that patriotic journalists will be the ones asking the tough questions. Speaking truth to power is part of the job. Follow-up tough questions -- this is now a rarity in American journalism. What we need is a spine transplant."
"We should be asking ourselves tougher questions. For instance, do we still believe in asking the hard follow-up questions? Do we still believe that the documents of the Constitution belong to "we the people" and not the people in power? Do we still believe in journalists being investigative? I've always thought it was redundant -- the term "investigative journalist" -- shouldn't all reporters be investigators? Shouldn't they be digging for the truth, the real story? By its nature, investigative journalism will make someone, usually someone in power, uncomfortable. It puts them in conflict with their constituencies which can be difficult for both the reporter and the contact...."
"A watchdog is not an attack dog. An attack dog goes for the kill, targets the throat. A lap dog just wants to hear "Good pup...". A watchdog barks at anything that seems suspicious and raises issue with odd strangers. We have plenty of lapdogs in American journalism. What we need is more watchdogs."
"As corporations buy up and continue to control the mass media market, and its gotten to the point that only 3 or 4 actually do own the news, the news will continue to get smaller. These are corporations that own record companies, millions of billboards, radio stations, newspapers, professional sports teams, etc. News is not their interest and neither should it be."
"Do we still believe in a constitutional republic where the most important thing is to have an informed citizenry that will judge the decisions of our leadership? I think we like to think we do, but we sure don't act like it."
Starbux on Lockdown
This is what happens when you attend a conference full of computer geeks and Warcraft addicts...
Obviously, during certain times of the morning and day these beauties are unlocked for our mass consumption but usually they're on lockdown.
However, there a few people who are adamantly against the coffee mega-retailer but honestly, they're just not enough to make a dent in the amount being slammed down between 8 am and 8 pm. I've seen folks who are on their third cup of 'bucks at 11 am. How they don't end up speeding off into next week I'll never know.
I'm more amazed at how many people in this good life are going everyday from alcohol buzz to caffeine buzz and not really spending much time in between (which I guess normal people call "reality.")
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The Ultimate Outsource
Halliburton, VP Dick Cheney's favorite private-sector employer and one he still receives paychecks from, has pulled the ultimate outsource: they're reportedly moving their C.E.O to Dubai, one of seven emirates that makes up the United Arab Emirates. Dubai, receieves an economic benefit not from oil but from the Jebel Ali Free Zone which offers lucrative incentives and tax breaks to corporations.
Halliburton's corporate offices will remain in Houston, Texas but CEO David J. Lesar will move his personal offices to Dubai. There are a number of issues that Halliburton currently faces:
1. Breaking away from its military contracting unit KBR to focus on oil drilling and
development.
2. an investigation by the SEC and Justice Department because of questionable
dealings in Iraq, Nigeria and Kuwait.
3. has agreed to pay billions in an recent asbestos litigation suit.
A spokeswoman for Halliburton said:
This move is symbolic but also points to a key shift in the energy epicenters of the world. Now, a major energy firm of North America is moving it's corporate "headquarters" to Dubai, a Middle Eastern economic power house that is fast-becoming a powerplayer in the global energy business. Houston once served as a center of energy deal-making and commerce, but does this move say Dubai has taken over? The younger oil fields of the Middle East trumping the aging fields of North America. Last year, Halliburton reported $2.3 billion in overall revenue, 60% of which was in North America.
The loser in this deal appears to be American business, who once again is having jobs chipped away and sent overseas. The winner looks to be Lesar, Halliburton and of course, Dubai who continues to establish itself as a "regional commercial center rivaling Singapore and Hong Kong."
Halliburton's corporate offices will remain in Houston, Texas but CEO David J. Lesar will move his personal offices to Dubai. There are a number of issues that Halliburton currently faces:
1. Breaking away from its military contracting unit KBR to focus on oil drilling and
development.
2. an investigation by the SEC and Justice Department because of questionable
dealings in Iraq, Nigeria and Kuwait.
3. has agreed to pay billions in an recent asbestos litigation suit.
A spokeswoman for Halliburton said:
Ms. Norcross added, “As companies usually refer to the C.E.O.’s office as the corporate headquarters, that’s what we are doing. Basing the C.E.O. in Dubai to focus on our Eastern Hemisphere growth makes good business sense, as it is the center of our Eastern Hemisphere operations and a global business hub. We will maintain our company’s legal registration in the United States and we are not leaving Houston.”
This move is symbolic but also points to a key shift in the energy epicenters of the world. Now, a major energy firm of North America is moving it's corporate "headquarters" to Dubai, a Middle Eastern economic power house that is fast-becoming a powerplayer in the global energy business. Houston once served as a center of energy deal-making and commerce, but does this move say Dubai has taken over? The younger oil fields of the Middle East trumping the aging fields of North America. Last year, Halliburton reported $2.3 billion in overall revenue, 60% of which was in North America.
The loser in this deal appears to be American business, who once again is having jobs chipped away and sent overseas. The winner looks to be Lesar, Halliburton and of course, Dubai who continues to establish itself as a "regional commercial center rivaling Singapore and Hong Kong."
Saturday, March 10, 2007
World Domination by Collaboration
The last two years of Web 2.0 discussions have been a good foundation for watching it actually unfold. For those of you unaware of Web 2.0 you can read a brief description here.
Many of the panels here at SXSW have to do with organizing communities, managing communities, and dealing with a lot of the hassles that comes along with such an "job." First, a little background. These communities can form around hundreds of thousands of different issues, items or interests. Blogs like dailyKos and Wonkette, who have large consistent followings, are one form these communities take. Second Life is another. Or Facebook and Myspace communities that have since sprung up with thousands of "friends" and supporters.
What's different about these new online communities is that they are increasingly pushing transparency, user empowerment and a strong collaboration with their community members and users. How do you get users?
Jenna Woodul, Co-founder of LiveWorld says that, "its the people stupid."
It's also about the conversation you have with your community members. So often, we forget that a relationship is built on a conversation that is goes both ways. You can't simply talk at your members, you have to include them in the conversation and hear their opinions, perspectives and concerns, even if it hurts you to listen. Betsy Aoki of Microsoft (hold your hisses for a moment please) says:
By ushering in all perspectives (whether or not they are deemed legitimate or spam is up to the community or the host) the community gains a sense of trust. That's when the community starts to create its own rules or laws which further builds trust and camaraderie. And trust is a key building block to any relationship, online or off.
As the community elects leadership, for instance in the form of a rotating advisory board made up of dedicated community members, the community may also begin to gain power and be legitimatized outside of its niche. For instance, the DailyKos community (who refer to themselves as Kossacks) has emerged as a key power among the liberal left for fundraising progressive candidates running for office. In this way these communities begin chipping away at the power that normally would be held by someone or something else.
Maybe not world domination but collaboration for sure.
Many of the panels here at SXSW have to do with organizing communities, managing communities, and dealing with a lot of the hassles that comes along with such an "job." First, a little background. These communities can form around hundreds of thousands of different issues, items or interests. Blogs like dailyKos and Wonkette, who have large consistent followings, are one form these communities take. Second Life is another. Or Facebook and Myspace communities that have since sprung up with thousands of "friends" and supporters.
What's different about these new online communities is that they are increasingly pushing transparency, user empowerment and a strong collaboration with their community members and users. How do you get users?
Jenna Woodul, Co-founder of LiveWorld says that, "its the people stupid."
At the very beginning you HAVE to know your people. If you do establish that rapport with folks when you do hit problems they will step forward to help fix them.
It's also about the conversation you have with your community members. So often, we forget that a relationship is built on a conversation that is goes both ways. You can't simply talk at your members, you have to include them in the conversation and hear their opinions, perspectives and concerns, even if it hurts you to listen. Betsy Aoki of Microsoft (hold your hisses for a moment please) says:
"you can find people who have huge opinions, and they want to share them. They are the ones you want talking to folks, i.e. your customers and supporters. Its not so much incenting people to write, as much as its allowing them and giving them tools to express their ideas, concerns and beliefs around the topic."
By ushering in all perspectives (whether or not they are deemed legitimate or spam is up to the community or the host) the community gains a sense of trust. That's when the community starts to create its own rules or laws which further builds trust and camaraderie. And trust is a key building block to any relationship, online or off.
As the community elects leadership, for instance in the form of a rotating advisory board made up of dedicated community members, the community may also begin to gain power and be legitimatized outside of its niche. For instance, the DailyKos community (who refer to themselves as Kossacks) has emerged as a key power among the liberal left for fundraising progressive candidates running for office. In this way these communities begin chipping away at the power that normally would be held by someone or something else.
Maybe not world domination but collaboration for sure.
Friday, March 09, 2007
SXSW: Re-entry
Our webteam headed off to South by Southwest in Austin, TX this morning...at 12:45 a.m. SXSW is a 3-part conference that stretches out for 10 days bringing all sorts of filmmakers, music lovers (this is Austin -- Live Music Captial of the World) and techies together for a clustergasm of creativity and shareware. Stan, Luke and myself are here for the Interactive portion of the conference along with about 2,000 other bloggers, hackers, web-designers and internet gurus. Just this afternoon, upon arrival and sitting in comfy couches while checking email, Bruce Sterling sat next to us. Last year I met with Markos and Jerome Armstrong of DailyKos and MyDD. Needless to say, its a great crowd to be around and talk with.
I'm hoping to continue a conversation with Treehugger founder Graham Hill and see my buds from EchoDitto. I'm also looking forward to Dan Rather's keynote presentation on Monday.
If you're really interested in the types of panel discussions being staged you can see a complete listing here:
http://2007.sxsw.com/interactive/programming/panels/
I'm hoping to continue a conversation with Treehugger founder Graham Hill and see my buds from EchoDitto. I'm also looking forward to Dan Rather's keynote presentation on Monday.
If you're really interested in the types of panel discussions being staged you can see a complete listing here:
http://2007.sxsw.com/interactive/programming/panels/
Zillion Pillows....or Zillow
Or, more importantly, how much is your friend's house worth? Your boss'? How about that musician you used to stalk? If you have an address Zillow will tell you the relative value of any home in the United States. Created by the two fellows who brought us Expedia.com, its purpose is to "help[ing] you get an edge in real estate by providing you with valuable tools and information." Yeah, like how much the houses on your block are worth, what they are selling for and ones that are currently for sale. Let's just say that it proves to be a much more fun information tool for knowing how the value of Jimbo's home is, than for finding houses for sale in your future dream city.
Zillow combines already known services within the online real estate market, mainly the ability to look for homes that are for sale, advertise your own real estate for sale, and assess the value of your home. However, Zillow adds a few more tools that make it stand out.
It allows owners to create "homepages" that display all the nitty gritty buyers might want to know. Owners can update these pages and continue to post the latest news on the property whether it be additions or major upgrades or fixes. There is also a real estate Wiki which seems to serve as a virtual classifieds for current homes for sale.
All in all Zillow has taken the standard in online real estate tools and expanded them, which seems similar to what Expedia.com did for internet travel.
Zillow combines already known services within the online real estate market, mainly the ability to look for homes that are for sale, advertise your own real estate for sale, and assess the value of your home. However, Zillow adds a few more tools that make it stand out.
It allows owners to create "homepages" that display all the nitty gritty buyers might want to know. Owners can update these pages and continue to post the latest news on the property whether it be additions or major upgrades or fixes. There is also a real estate Wiki which seems to serve as a virtual classifieds for current homes for sale.
All in all Zillow has taken the standard in online real estate tools and expanded them, which seems similar to what Expedia.com did for internet travel.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Voting Like its 1984
Wow. This is a direct hit on Hillary and although its recycled content from an old Mac commercial, its compelling. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the "system." A vote for Barack, is a vote for the people. It also speaks to the "blather" that Hillary tends to speak but rarely really understands or means. The whole "Start a Conversation" campaign is about as real as any other token politician looking to embrace the web's true democracy but failing to check her ego, power and plans at the door.
I don't think she'll ever really get it. She doesn't hear the American public because her own pride is screaming bloody murder.
I don't think she'll ever really get it. She doesn't hear the American public because her own pride is screaming bloody murder.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Romney Back in the Hunt
Its been a tough week for GOP candidates between McCain announcing that he was going to announce his candidacy and Romney stepping quietly away from Ann Coulter's incredibly ridiculous flamethrowing. But now Romney appears to have hit one one out. Via RealClearPolitics:
Nice. McCain only a week ago turned down the opportunity to speak at CPAC and he took two in the gut for it after Romney hit this grandslam.
Almost everything now being written about the 2008 race should be prefaced with "It's still early but..." With that in mind, Mitt Romney, who's had a tough couple of weeks fending off flip-flopping charges, apparently just dazzled the CPAC crowd, according to some conservative folks in attendance.
Nice. McCain only a week ago turned down the opportunity to speak at CPAC and he took two in the gut for it after Romney hit this grandslam.
Racket Grade
This is a tough point. If badminton is always this exciting I'm getting season tickets.
Badminton gets serious
Badminton gets serious
Mondegreen
A fabulous little bracket (similar to the NCAA bracketology) showing classic "mondegreens" or misheard lyrics. Haven't we all sung a little lyric from our favorite pop song only to be flagged by friends with, "How do you think that song goes?!" I didn't feel so bad after reading some of these doozies.
Apparently, the biggest and best mondegreen out there is "A piece of Momma Daddy never had." However, my favorite is "All we are saying, is give Jesus pants."
Apparently, the biggest and best mondegreen out there is "A piece of Momma Daddy never had." However, my favorite is "All we are saying, is give Jesus pants."
Green Thumb Epic
What is it with British and gardening? The BBC put up a 4-hour video on "How to be a Gardener." I watched the first few minutes and there really is something about a British fellow talking about gardens...but that "something" starts to wear out after about 8 minutes. What you decide to do with the other 3:52 is up to you.
"Before we go any further, I'm afraid we have to talk about sex. They may look pretty and innocent to you, but in reality that is all they're interested in."
Baudy.
Hat tip: kottke
"Before we go any further, I'm afraid we have to talk about sex. They may look pretty and innocent to you, but in reality that is all they're interested in."
Baudy.
Hat tip: kottke
Youtube and '08
Youtube has gone political. By creating a hub of all the video content posted by various candidates and their campaigns, YouChoose has made it that much easier for all of us to see our possible future president in his/her finest/worst moments on the campaign trail. The content is put up by the campaign and you can subscribe to each candidate's channel in case you can't get enough of Obama making us all feel warm inside, or Hillary making us all feel empty and cold inside. If you can't bring yourself to watch either one of them, there is always room for Dennis Kucinich.
I like to see/judge which campaign is using this technolgy the best and for that I have a brief set of criteria that I spit out in no particular order or importance:
1. Experience: how many months or days has this candiate's campaign been posting to Youtube?
2. Quality: are the videos all shot on a Treo camera or is there actually some sign of someone who knows what they're doing.
3. Subscribers: who's committed to watching and how many?
4. Diversity: if you put just the campaign speeches up there I'm gonna unsub in a few weeks. Show me different aspects of the campaign trail -- Mitt Romney eats what everyone morning for breakfast? Or how about whats the last thing each candidate does before hitting the sack after a long day of speaking? Keep it colorful....but not a rainbow.
Based on this criteria I'd say Obama is doing really well. He has by far the most subscribers (2,268 -- the next closest is Edwards with just shy of 1,000), has a ton of quality video footage available and its all different stuff. Some of it is created by the campaign and some of it is created by grassroots activists. Other campaigns just don't seem as committed to getting themselves online in a big way. Even Hillary, who received much press on the fact that she announced via a taped webvideo, only has 400 subscribers.
Granted, Obama is quickly wrapping up the student vote and as we all know this generation of students get everything online. Its not surprising that the candidate with the largest Facebook group in history is also the most-subscribed to Youtube channel of any '08 candidates.
I like to see/judge which campaign is using this technolgy the best and for that I have a brief set of criteria that I spit out in no particular order or importance:
1. Experience: how many months or days has this candiate's campaign been posting to Youtube?
2. Quality: are the videos all shot on a Treo camera or is there actually some sign of someone who knows what they're doing.
3. Subscribers: who's committed to watching and how many?
4. Diversity: if you put just the campaign speeches up there I'm gonna unsub in a few weeks. Show me different aspects of the campaign trail -- Mitt Romney eats what everyone morning for breakfast? Or how about whats the last thing each candidate does before hitting the sack after a long day of speaking? Keep it colorful....but not a rainbow.
Based on this criteria I'd say Obama is doing really well. He has by far the most subscribers (2,268 -- the next closest is Edwards with just shy of 1,000), has a ton of quality video footage available and its all different stuff. Some of it is created by the campaign and some of it is created by grassroots activists. Other campaigns just don't seem as committed to getting themselves online in a big way. Even Hillary, who received much press on the fact that she announced via a taped webvideo, only has 400 subscribers.
Granted, Obama is quickly wrapping up the student vote and as we all know this generation of students get everything online. Its not surprising that the candidate with the largest Facebook group in history is also the most-subscribed to Youtube channel of any '08 candidates.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Effects on Rainforests: A History
Apparently, clearing vast swaths of rainforest isn't a new idea.
Salon's "How the World Works" is carrying an intriguing story covered on Rhett Butler's Mongabay that speaks to some of our more hidden assumptions when it comes to rainforest destruction. However, there are numerous responses that can spin off as a result of an article like this so I'll try and parse it without gravitating toward wild conjectures and unqualified statements.
Dolores Piperno of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, found evidence of widespread fire use for land-clearing by pre-Colombian populations in Latin America. This evidence further supports other research that suggests the impact indigenous populations had on tropical forests before European arrival.
Even more interesting is her claim that there is a clearly defined "forest resurgence" upon the arrival of European explorers and conquistadors due to the "terrible decimation" they caused indigenous peoples through disease, warfare and slavery. Piperno goes on to say that had Europeans not arrived on the scene 500 years ago, the forests of Central and South America would bear little resemblance to what we see today making the point that the continued impacts of indigenous populations could have severely altered the forests in ways we will never know.
On first analysis, it's easy to write this off as utter balderdash...at least thats the initial response for me. Could it be that we, one of the most materialistic societies the earth has ever known, are superseded in rainforest destruction only by indigenous populations from centuries ago? That's the initial response. In a different way it's easy to jump to the island of self-justification: "See! I knew our culture wasn't the only one screwing the earth!" Suddenly, I feel as though I can let go of any guilt I may harbor for the depletion of the rainforests, or other ecological wonders, in my time. If we aren't the only ones doing it, who cares? Just as misery loves company, guilt can't stand to be left alone.
Let's dive a little deeper. What does this really mean? To me, it begins with recognizing the potential of our time, the energy of this moment. To write off or ignore this study is to dodge responsibility. To justify our way around it with comparisons to cultures long dead and gone that survived a level or two above hunter-gatherers, is to ignore our progressive history as a human species and to sell ourselves short when it comes to our potential.
It doesn't really matter to me whether or not past cultures, centuries ago, removed more trees than we previously thought. What matters to me is that we have an opportunity to change our own actions, actions we know to be harmful to a necessary ecological resource. We are the culture of now, and we can choose to do something about it, or stand by and become another pillar in history that future civilizations will read about and wonder why we weren't smart enough or organized enough to stop the train of destruction before it was too late. Indeed, Piperno says it best at the close of her research:
On a more basic level this article and Piperno's research does achieve its intended means: to break the scarlet-hued vision of conservationists everywhere who fail to acknowledge the impacts of indigenous people's pasts on the land. The danger of this message, however, is the ease in which we, in an effort to justify our own actions, ignore the much greater impacts of ourselves on this earth. While Piperno enlightens our understanding of the historical indigenous impacts on Central and South American tropical forests, she does not vindicate the current impacts of forest clearing and destruction. If anything, she empowers us to do something about it.
Salon's "How the World Works" is carrying an intriguing story covered on Rhett Butler's Mongabay that speaks to some of our more hidden assumptions when it comes to rainforest destruction. However, there are numerous responses that can spin off as a result of an article like this so I'll try and parse it without gravitating toward wild conjectures and unqualified statements.
Dolores Piperno of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, found evidence of widespread fire use for land-clearing by pre-Colombian populations in Latin America. This evidence further supports other research that suggests the impact indigenous populations had on tropical forests before European arrival.
Even more interesting is her claim that there is a clearly defined "forest resurgence" upon the arrival of European explorers and conquistadors due to the "terrible decimation" they caused indigenous peoples through disease, warfare and slavery. Piperno goes on to say that had Europeans not arrived on the scene 500 years ago, the forests of Central and South America would bear little resemblance to what we see today making the point that the continued impacts of indigenous populations could have severely altered the forests in ways we will never know.
On first analysis, it's easy to write this off as utter balderdash...at least thats the initial response for me. Could it be that we, one of the most materialistic societies the earth has ever known, are superseded in rainforest destruction only by indigenous populations from centuries ago? That's the initial response. In a different way it's easy to jump to the island of self-justification: "See! I knew our culture wasn't the only one screwing the earth!" Suddenly, I feel as though I can let go of any guilt I may harbor for the depletion of the rainforests, or other ecological wonders, in my time. If we aren't the only ones doing it, who cares? Just as misery loves company, guilt can't stand to be left alone.
Let's dive a little deeper. What does this really mean? To me, it begins with recognizing the potential of our time, the energy of this moment. To write off or ignore this study is to dodge responsibility. To justify our way around it with comparisons to cultures long dead and gone that survived a level or two above hunter-gatherers, is to ignore our progressive history as a human species and to sell ourselves short when it comes to our potential.
It doesn't really matter to me whether or not past cultures, centuries ago, removed more trees than we previously thought. What matters to me is that we have an opportunity to change our own actions, actions we know to be harmful to a necessary ecological resource. We are the culture of now, and we can choose to do something about it, or stand by and become another pillar in history that future civilizations will read about and wonder why we weren't smart enough or organized enough to stop the train of destruction before it was too late. Indeed, Piperno says it best at the close of her research:
"As with the forces associated with 'development' today, these prehistoric advances probably came with negative consequences for the native flora and fauna. Profound human alteration of the tropical landscape with substantial loss of biodiversity is hardly new, but we are the first societies with the wherewithal to do something about it."
On a more basic level this article and Piperno's research does achieve its intended means: to break the scarlet-hued vision of conservationists everywhere who fail to acknowledge the impacts of indigenous people's pasts on the land. The danger of this message, however, is the ease in which we, in an effort to justify our own actions, ignore the much greater impacts of ourselves on this earth. While Piperno enlightens our understanding of the historical indigenous impacts on Central and South American tropical forests, she does not vindicate the current impacts of forest clearing and destruction. If anything, she empowers us to do something about it.
Language of the Future
When I was in high school French or Spainish were the two languages we, as blossoming young linguists, were given to study. If you were really into learning the root of the English lanugage you could also take Latin. But that was for the geeks. Like me.
You thought deciphering the accents of the French language or the rolling 'r's of Spainish were difficult, trying learning an alphabet with 10,000 characters. More and more oftoday's public schools are putting America's young tykes through Mandarin immersion courses. Why now? China's booming economy. Not only is it now the world's most populous country it's also the world's largest potential market of untainted consumers. So, as you can imagine it would help if we spoke their language. Or at least tried.
In California, 41 public and private schools offer Chinese language training. Sentaor Joseph Lieberman co-authored a bill that would bring in a flood of $1.3 billion to augment Chinese classes in school. Parents are lobbying school administrators and local leaders to put a Chinese program in their children's school. Gov't, schools and parents all fighting for the same thing? Now that's new.
Suddenly, all those Chinese language programs, once quiet and gathering dust, are bursting at the seems with interested young 6th graders (or rather, the parents of 6th graders). Asia Society has a program and opportunity webpage as a resource for Chinese teachers to get jobs in American schools. But even that isn't meeting the need. The Chinese American International School (CAIS) here in San Francisco has programs that start as early as kindergarten.
You thought deciphering the accents of the French language or the rolling 'r's of Spainish were difficult, trying learning an alphabet with 10,000 characters. More and more oftoday's public schools are putting America's young tykes through Mandarin immersion courses. Why now? China's booming economy. Not only is it now the world's most populous country it's also the world's largest potential market of untainted consumers. So, as you can imagine it would help if we spoke their language. Or at least tried.
In California, 41 public and private schools offer Chinese language training. Sentaor Joseph Lieberman co-authored a bill that would bring in a flood of $1.3 billion to augment Chinese classes in school. Parents are lobbying school administrators and local leaders to put a Chinese program in their children's school. Gov't, schools and parents all fighting for the same thing? Now that's new.
Suddenly, all those Chinese language programs, once quiet and gathering dust, are bursting at the seems with interested young 6th graders (or rather, the parents of 6th graders). Asia Society has a program and opportunity webpage as a resource for Chinese teachers to get jobs in American schools. But even that isn't meeting the need. The Chinese American International School (CAIS) here in San Francisco has programs that start as early as kindergarten.
``I think what all of us in the profession are trying to do is dramatically increase the study of Chinese,'' said Andrew Corcoran, head of the school and executive director of the institute. ``The latest figures indicate that only 24,000 students study Chinese in the United States and 200 million Chinese students are studying English. We don't even get a line on the graph, that's how small it is.'Is it possible that economic explosion that 1 billion people represent is the driving force behind this? Or is it actually a product of the Chinese government's effort to make Chinese the world's #1 language? Regardless, being able to order from my local Chinese restaurant in Mandarin would be sweet.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Olbermann debunks attack on Al Gore's energy use
Once again, conservative think tanks are out to pawn their slightly twisted, laundered, half-truths to the open public. This time the esteemed Tennessee Center for Public Policy got a hold of Al Gore's energy bills. This "non-partisan" group claims Gore is a hypocrite. Too bad they are a part of the American Enterprise Institute which continues to claim the skepticism around global warming (whether global warming is actually happening as well as the challenging the claim that humans play a role), take huge payouts from Big Oil and "cheerleads the war in Iraq."
Gotta love Olbermann's reply. Kudos to Tennesse Center for Public Policy for finding the real facts in this story...idiots.
Gotta love Olbermann's reply. Kudos to Tennesse Center for Public Policy for finding the real facts in this story...idiots.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Obama on 60 Minutes
I was immensely impressed by both Barack and his wife Michelle in their interview with Steve Kroft. By far two of the strongest most eloquent people I've heard run for president in a long time.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nyUsDOeFo24
Obama's campaign released a new social networking site alongside their campaign website called "My Obama.com." Its a good start and is definitely the closest to any Web 2.o standard than any other candidate but I think Howard Dean set an unrealistic bar when it came to internet ingenuity for a political campaign. Barack's tech team is certainly nipping at Dean's legacy though.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nyUsDOeFo24
Obama's campaign released a new social networking site alongside their campaign website called "My Obama.com." Its a good start and is definitely the closest to any Web 2.o standard than any other candidate but I think Howard Dean set an unrealistic bar when it came to internet ingenuity for a political campaign. Barack's tech team is certainly nipping at Dean's legacy though.
Monday, February 12, 2007
How much water does it take to make water?
Bottled water is one of the largest beverage industries in the world. Global consumption in 2004 grew to a staggering 41.1 billion gallons, up 6.5% since the previous year. In the U.S. the average American was consuming 25 gallons of bottled water annually. The U.S. market for bottled water has exploded growing by 15% in 2002 and 7.5% in 2004. How much water is that? About 7.357 billion gallons of bottled water.
Why do we drink so much of it? Most people believe that tap water isn't fit to drink because it comes out of a dirty faucet while bottled water has been "cleaned" and is therefore much more fitting to drink. But, hundreds of studies prove this assumption dead wrong. NRDC conducted its own tests and found no reason to believe that tap water is any cleaner than bottled water or vice versa. 22% of the bottled waters they tested contained chemical levels that were above strict state health limits. These chemicals and contaminates are able to avoid detection in standards testing because....well, because there is no standards testing. Bottled water has no international standards or committee that tests various types of water brands.
I'm off for a glass of fresh water straight from the exotic side of my bathroom sink.
Why do we drink so much of it? Most people believe that tap water isn't fit to drink because it comes out of a dirty faucet while bottled water has been "cleaned" and is therefore much more fitting to drink. But, hundreds of studies prove this assumption dead wrong. NRDC conducted its own tests and found no reason to believe that tap water is any cleaner than bottled water or vice versa. 22% of the bottled waters they tested contained chemical levels that were above strict state health limits. These chemicals and contaminates are able to avoid detection in standards testing because....well, because there is no standards testing. Bottled water has no international standards or committee that tests various types of water brands.
Here's some more for your gourd: recently, it was discovered that some brands of water actually consume 7 times as much water to create the bottle than the amount of water the bottle holds itself. Seems a bit inefficient to me. Here's why thats possible."Bottled water may be no safer or healthier than tap water, while selling for up to 1,000 times the price," the report said. The reason, according to the environmental group, is an absence of standards regulating bottled water.
He starts with the production of the bottle in China, taking the bottle blanks to Fiji, and confirming that it takes more water to make the bottle than it actually holds. He then transports the bottle to the States by ship. Not even including the distribution in the States, the numbers are absolutely staggering.The world's obsession with bottled water has even started to produce a connoisseur elite that pride themselves on understanding the best that bottled water has to offer similar to those of us who take wine (maybe a bit too) seriously. Maybe, instead of having a wine steward at your next elegant dining experience, you'll have a water steward.
I'm off for a glass of fresh water straight from the exotic side of my bathroom sink.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Open Season on Gray Wolves
We really should question the way in which this country manages it's endangered species. I guess, once you have reached x number of individuals, there's no reason to protect them.
Montana, Wyoming and Idaho will be declaring open season on the soon-not-to-be endangered Gray Wolf. Great Lakes states Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin are considering a similar option specifically for trophy hunting. I don't quite understand why we pick and choose endangered species like some sort of laundry list of animals that could very well disappear. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground in this idea of how to live with animals. Its like as soon as a species is on its last breath, we remove our hands from their throat and allow it to keep breathing again until some other incident or lobbyist (this time the ranchers and farmers lobbies) chooses to start choking the speicies out again.
Where is the middle ground? How can this be an effective, efficient policy? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife, IMHO, is a joke...what they really do is manage land and animals for our use.
Montana, Wyoming and Idaho will be declaring open season on the soon-not-to-be endangered Gray Wolf. Great Lakes states Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin are considering a similar option specifically for trophy hunting. I don't quite understand why we pick and choose endangered species like some sort of laundry list of animals that could very well disappear. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground in this idea of how to live with animals. Its like as soon as a species is on its last breath, we remove our hands from their throat and allow it to keep breathing again until some other incident or lobbyist (this time the ranchers and farmers lobbies) chooses to start choking the speicies out again.
Where is the middle ground? How can this be an effective, efficient policy? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife, IMHO, is a joke...what they really do is manage land and animals for our use.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Private Solar Funding
Billionaires and other uber-rich can have a huge impact on where our country, and world, is headed. Ted Turner is partnering with New Jersey solar company, Dome-Tech Solar, to bring solar energy to the California markets. Since Gov. Schwarzenegger committed the state to creating over 3,000 megawatts of new solar energy, this market could be substantial.
The question is, how come the gov't can't give substantial sums of money to promote the R&D of solar and wind energy? Well, if we're giving anywhere between $8.6 and $11.3 billion every year in subsidies to big oil, imagine what half of those figures could do for solar power.
How much solar power are we wasting? Alot...
The question is, how come the gov't can't give substantial sums of money to promote the R&D of solar and wind energy? Well, if we're giving anywhere between $8.6 and $11.3 billion every year in subsidies to big oil, imagine what half of those figures could do for solar power.
How much solar power are we wasting? Alot...
Bush, quietly lifts Alaska drilling ban
Lots of little manuevers going on during this whole Iraq war ordeal. Bush single-handedly laid a below the belt blow to our environment and also helped to continue our dependence on oil as an energy resource.
Nope, he didn't open up ANWR (but you know its on his hit-list) but he did open up the similarly-sized Bristol Bay in Alaska. The fish-rich waters off the coast of our northernmost state was approved by Congress last month as one of its last acts. However, how quickly we forgot that those very waters of Bristol Bay were set aside and protected by the Congress in 1990 and re-opened in 2000 thanks to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R) "who argued that the area's oil and natural gas could be developed while still protecting the fisheries."
What are the effects of off-shore oil and gas drilling on fisheries, oceanlife and the water? For the purely academic version go here. For a more layman's explanation, go here. Regardless, should we be worried?
Nope, he didn't open up ANWR (but you know its on his hit-list) but he did open up the similarly-sized Bristol Bay in Alaska. The fish-rich waters off the coast of our northernmost state was approved by Congress last month as one of its last acts. However, how quickly we forgot that those very waters of Bristol Bay were set aside and protected by the Congress in 1990 and re-opened in 2000 thanks to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R) "who argued that the area's oil and natural gas could be developed while still protecting the fisheries."
What are the effects of off-shore oil and gas drilling on fisheries, oceanlife and the water? For the purely academic version go here. For a more layman's explanation, go here. Regardless, should we be worried?
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Forest Consciousness
I sat in wonderment for over 2 hours on this website today. Granted its Saturday, so I had some time to waste, but it also speaks to the powerful images and music Forests Forever was able to pull together for an amazing experience into the consciousness of forests. You can visit over 10 different forest systems throughout the world. I highly recommend Waipoua, the Ural's Boreal Forest and the Amazon as your first visits.
Not only is the experience pleasing to the senses but it pleases the brain as well. At the end of each slide show, which is controlled by you the viewer, you can read about why each of these forests are so important to our global ecosystem and learn about their history.
Always a good reminder coming from such an urban setting of how necessary nature is in our lives.
Not only is the experience pleasing to the senses but it pleases the brain as well. At the end of each slide show, which is controlled by you the viewer, you can read about why each of these forests are so important to our global ecosystem and learn about their history.
Always a good reminder coming from such an urban setting of how necessary nature is in our lives.
Put the pie down and step back from the dessert table!
Apparently our law enforcement staffs have run out of dangerous people to arrest and apprehend and have turned their focus on to the frightening pie terrorist groups. AMERICAblog caught this story this morning....
VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) -- A Canadian lawyer has been awarded more than C$10,000 ($8,550) in damages by a British Columbia court after he was falsely arrested and strip-searched over rumors he planned to throw a pie at the prime minister.A judge ruled on Wednesday that police had no objective basis to believe that Cameron Ward planned a pie attack when he was arrested in a crowd that was watching then-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien during a visit to Vancouver in August 2002.
"He was too far away and was not in possession of a pie," British Columbia Supreme Court Judge David Tysoe wrote in his ruling, which said that Ward's constitutional rights had been violated.
Nicely done, fellas. I hear cherry is the pie of the month so keep your eyes peeled.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Top 10 Eco-Neighborhoods
Just when you think you're community is the greenest of the green, some magazine has to come and ruin it for you by putting out "America's Best Eco-Neighborhoods" a list of towns and cities that have been chosen as having a particularly vibrant eco-neighborhod -- none of which include your humble, but eco-riffic, abode. I was distraught not to see my home city up on the list, but I guess there is always room for improvement.
Topping the list are Austin, TX and Asheville, NC, both of which have a bit of southern charm mixed in with a tint of green. An oddity about this list is that the cities are displayed in alphabetical order, which makes me wonder if the 1 through 10 listing is completely arbitrary and really what we are looking at are 10 cities that have some eco-strengths in certain pockets but aren't necessarily all that dedicated to sustainable development per se.
I noticed that Andersonville, IL, a suburb of Chicago, is also at a key decision point in their city's development. While many of these cities are presently on the green track or were founded by communities dedicated to improving the environment, the future contains some key questions and answers around where they will go and how they'll get there.
However some cities are also committing to more intensive strageties to deal with water pollution, air pollution, global warming and environmental degradation. The city of Denver has quite a plan to limit its greenhouse gas emissions and a mayor that appears ready to tackle the issue head-on. While Denver has other environmental issues it needs to worry about (like water availability in drought season), dealing with global warming on a local scale is key to solving the issue in a larger context.
If you're city didn't make the top ten, feel free to get involved in your community and see if it appears next year. Needless to say its a good start and highlighting who's doing what helps the rest of us.
Topping the list are Austin, TX and Asheville, NC, both of which have a bit of southern charm mixed in with a tint of green. An oddity about this list is that the cities are displayed in alphabetical order, which makes me wonder if the 1 through 10 listing is completely arbitrary and really what we are looking at are 10 cities that have some eco-strengths in certain pockets but aren't necessarily all that dedicated to sustainable development per se.
I noticed that Andersonville, IL, a suburb of Chicago, is also at a key decision point in their city's development. While many of these cities are presently on the green track or were founded by communities dedicated to improving the environment, the future contains some key questions and answers around where they will go and how they'll get there.
However some cities are also committing to more intensive strageties to deal with water pollution, air pollution, global warming and environmental degradation. The city of Denver has quite a plan to limit its greenhouse gas emissions and a mayor that appears ready to tackle the issue head-on. While Denver has other environmental issues it needs to worry about (like water availability in drought season), dealing with global warming on a local scale is key to solving the issue in a larger context.
If you're city didn't make the top ten, feel free to get involved in your community and see if it appears next year. Needless to say its a good start and highlighting who's doing what helps the rest of us.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
ExxonMobil Fumbles Integrity
In a not-so-shocking release today, the Union of Concerned Scientists stated that big-oil company ExxonMobil spent over $16 million in a coordinated effort to mislead the American public on the science behind global warming and climate change. UCS isn't the first group to make that claim. Back in September, Britain's Royal Society demanded that the oil company halt financial support of groups that purposely misrepresent the science of climate change. ExxonMobil didn't feel that this deserved a response until this:
Notice how ExxonMobil immediately takes the conversation to a selfish perspective; doesn't global warming, a "significant policy issue," effect everyone who lives on the planet earth, and not just "the company?" I'm glad that they believe they're funding a "discussion" around the issue but what they forget is that there is no discussion to be had. The majority of the world's leading individual climatologists and scientists, organizations and government agencies support and defend the fact that human induced levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing climage change. What ExxonMobil wishes to do is to bring the issue out of certainty and into uncertainty cloaked in the idea that a community "discussion" (backed by corporate contributions) will give us a better or more honest answer.
Someday, these corporations will have the gaul to take responsibility for their impacts on our world and instead of shying away from leadership, embrace it, and tackle the problem.
"the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.
Notice how ExxonMobil immediately takes the conversation to a selfish perspective; doesn't global warming, a "significant policy issue," effect everyone who lives on the planet earth, and not just "the company?" I'm glad that they believe they're funding a "discussion" around the issue but what they forget is that there is no discussion to be had. The majority of the world's leading individual climatologists and scientists, organizations and government agencies support and defend the fact that human induced levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing climage change. What ExxonMobil wishes to do is to bring the issue out of certainty and into uncertainty cloaked in the idea that a community "discussion" (backed by corporate contributions) will give us a better or more honest answer.
Someday, these corporations will have the gaul to take responsibility for their impacts on our world and instead of shying away from leadership, embrace it, and tackle the problem.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Making Terrorists out of Mole Hills
The U.S. House will soon vote on a bill that would define acts of peaceful protest as terrorism. Already passed by the Senate, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (AETA) categorizes activists as terrorists if they engage in First Amendment-protected activities like demonstrations, leafleting, undercover investigations and boycotts targeted at any business or institution that uses or sells animals or animal products. Have we lost our right to protest?
If AETA was in place during the 1950s and ‘60s, civil rights activists who engaged in lunch counter sit-ins at restaurants that serve animal products might have faced 10-year prison terms. It also would include any kind of whistleblower looking to flag illegal or questionable practices of the company.
According to the ACLU:
The House is expected to vote on this bill soon after returning from recess possibly this week. The electorate’s call for sweeping change in Congress last week gives us new cause to encourage Members to vote down this bill that is a direct hit to our First Amendment rights. Please contact your Representative and the House Judiciary Committee today and ask them to oppose the AETA.
While this bill speaks primarily to animal rights activists and their abilities to challenge animal rights abuses in the corporate sector, it also is a new tactic in how corporate America chooses to deal with active opposition to their policies, or lack there of. AETA can be applied to a breadth of situations and activities that could very well limit the ability of any activist in America to challenge or call to question a corporation's actions around animal rights, human rights and the environment.
If AETA was in place during the 1950s and ‘60s, civil rights activists who engaged in lunch counter sit-ins at restaurants that serve animal products might have faced 10-year prison terms. It also would include any kind of whistleblower looking to flag illegal or questionable practices of the company.
According to the ACLU:
“Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision because they ‘disrupt’ the company’s business. This overbroad provision might also apply to a whistleblower whose intentions are to stop harmful or illegal activities by the animal enterprise. The bill will effectively chill and deter Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights to advocate for reforms in the treatment of animals.”
The House is expected to vote on this bill soon after returning from recess possibly this week. The electorate’s call for sweeping change in Congress last week gives us new cause to encourage Members to vote down this bill that is a direct hit to our First Amendment rights. Please contact your Representative and the House Judiciary Committee today and ask them to oppose the AETA.
While this bill speaks primarily to animal rights activists and their abilities to challenge animal rights abuses in the corporate sector, it also is a new tactic in how corporate America chooses to deal with active opposition to their policies, or lack there of. AETA can be applied to a breadth of situations and activities that could very well limit the ability of any activist in America to challenge or call to question a corporation's actions around animal rights, human rights and the environment.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Perle and Adelman: We Shouldn't Have Invaded Iraq
Richard Perle, long known as the Prince of Darkness among politcal and anti-war circles, admitted to Vanity Fair yesterday that if he had to decide all over again he would not support a military invasion of Iraq and would instead urge the President and the Joint Chiefs to pursue "other means."
Perle is also one of the architects of the current neo-con policy and a major player in advising the Pentagon, White House and Defense Department. Perle is thus one of the most prominent neo-con policy advisors to publicly admit that the invasion of 2003 was, in hindsight, a bad idea. Here's an interesting quote from the interview:
The rest of the article also quotes other administration and policy officials.
Yikes. Now the speechwriters are instigating major foreign policy decisions? Is ANYONE captaining this ship?
The best part? They're all throwing Bush under the bus. The loyalty among neo-conservatives is about as thin as the facade of power.
Perle is also one of the architects of the current neo-con policy and a major player in advising the Pentagon, White House and Defense Department. Perle is thus one of the most prominent neo-con policy advisors to publicly admit that the invasion of 2003 was, in hindsight, a bad idea. Here's an interesting quote from the interview:
"I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct.What seems strange here is that Perle, a major sculptor of foreign policy under this administration and a key consultant leading up to and during the war in Iraq, moves away from the claim that Saddam ever had WMDs and instead acknowledges that Saddam "had the capability to produce" WMDs. That in itself is a dramatic shift from the pre-war affirmation every administration official exhorted that Saddam had WMDs and was selling them to terrorists (see Colin Powell's U.N. sales job).
The rest of the article also quotes other administration and policy officials.
"I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."
Yikes. Now the speechwriters are instigating major foreign policy decisions? Is ANYONE captaining this ship?
The best part? They're all throwing Bush under the bus. The loyalty among neo-conservatives is about as thin as the facade of power.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
How Much is Pollution Worth?
As someone who has now spent two years in the environmental movement in one of the most liberal cities in America, I've been amazed at how much further "ahead" people are out here in terms of conceptualizing a different world that on the eco-front is far and away greener than anything you may read in the standard ink around the country.
Then I'm reminded of how "out there" we may seem to be when I read something like this.
Carbon offsetting is becoming the new fad in circles from the Sierra Club to bands like Pearl Jam and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. Many corporations are scrambling to buy up carbon offsets so they can proclaim their "greenness" to consumers and thus feel better about their products and bottom line.
In essence, this is another way that people (and corporations) can duck responsibility. Buying up carbon credits is a good thing because it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere but really its a temporary pass for emitters to pay a small price for their pollution. If a corporation wants to buy up some carbon credits in order to keep belching out 500 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the next five years, you can bet it will cost less to plant a bunch of trees in some third world country or put up 10 windmills in Montana than it would to pay the price through cutting their emissions to respectable levels. After all, that means cutting production. It presents a great marketing opportunity for the companies and firms, selling themselves as "green leaders" to their consumers and clients, when really they're just buying the right to pollute. Not only is it a corporate feel-good action but a consumer one as well. By the way, when those trees in Tanzania are cut down, all that carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
During medieval Europe the Catholic church offered up a similar opportunity to offset one's sins with purchased indulgences effectively saying society could purchase forgiveness if they could fork over enough money. Carbon offsets feel all to parallel in this. What happens when everyone wants to just offset their CO2 and let someone else do the dirty work? The point is not everyone can simply fork over money to pollute because in the end, the biggest polluters in our world are also the wealthiest and as long as they can pay, our air and water will only continue to get worse. It feels like a group of people agreeing that they have to empty the latrines in order to have a place to go to the bathroom but no one is signing up to do the dirty work. Right now we have a few "janitors" in the mix -- carbon offsetting programs and organizations, but all too many polluters willing to pay whatever they can not change their processes and strategies. Here's the list of carbon offsetting programs.
I don't think carbon offsetting is a solution. It might be a bridge (to where I have no idea) that helps usher in understanding of climate change and CO2. It shirks responsibility, presents the idea of a free lunch, and further pushes global warming and climate change off into the horizon away from our daily routines and business habits, that, God forbid we might have to change. My one fear is, do we really want to make a market out of our climate? What happens if that market takes a dive? Thats a Black Tuesday I don't want to be around for.
The erosion of the commons in this society is all to prevalent. Privatizing water and air is already happening. Taking ownership of the very basic elements of this earth shouldn't be surprising but it should germinate indignation. Real solutions to cleaning up the earth will revolve around changing paradigms and cultural habits, not looking for a free lunch or short cut.
Then I'm reminded of how "out there" we may seem to be when I read something like this.
Carbon offsetting is becoming the new fad in circles from the Sierra Club to bands like Pearl Jam and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. Many corporations are scrambling to buy up carbon offsets so they can proclaim their "greenness" to consumers and thus feel better about their products and bottom line.
In essence, this is another way that people (and corporations) can duck responsibility. Buying up carbon credits is a good thing because it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere but really its a temporary pass for emitters to pay a small price for their pollution. If a corporation wants to buy up some carbon credits in order to keep belching out 500 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the next five years, you can bet it will cost less to plant a bunch of trees in some third world country or put up 10 windmills in Montana than it would to pay the price through cutting their emissions to respectable levels. After all, that means cutting production. It presents a great marketing opportunity for the companies and firms, selling themselves as "green leaders" to their consumers and clients, when really they're just buying the right to pollute. Not only is it a corporate feel-good action but a consumer one as well. By the way, when those trees in Tanzania are cut down, all that carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
During medieval Europe the Catholic church offered up a similar opportunity to offset one's sins with purchased indulgences effectively saying society could purchase forgiveness if they could fork over enough money. Carbon offsets feel all to parallel in this. What happens when everyone wants to just offset their CO2 and let someone else do the dirty work? The point is not everyone can simply fork over money to pollute because in the end, the biggest polluters in our world are also the wealthiest and as long as they can pay, our air and water will only continue to get worse. It feels like a group of people agreeing that they have to empty the latrines in order to have a place to go to the bathroom but no one is signing up to do the dirty work. Right now we have a few "janitors" in the mix -- carbon offsetting programs and organizations, but all too many polluters willing to pay whatever they can not change their processes and strategies. Here's the list of carbon offsetting programs.
I don't think carbon offsetting is a solution. It might be a bridge (to where I have no idea) that helps usher in understanding of climate change and CO2. It shirks responsibility, presents the idea of a free lunch, and further pushes global warming and climate change off into the horizon away from our daily routines and business habits, that, God forbid we might have to change. My one fear is, do we really want to make a market out of our climate? What happens if that market takes a dive? Thats a Black Tuesday I don't want to be around for.
The erosion of the commons in this society is all to prevalent. Privatizing water and air is already happening. Taking ownership of the very basic elements of this earth shouldn't be surprising but it should germinate indignation. Real solutions to cleaning up the earth will revolve around changing paradigms and cultural habits, not looking for a free lunch or short cut.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Push-Polling in Ohio
One complaint about our political leaders worldwide is that they can't be trusted. Joe Citizen feels like he can't really trust everything a politician is saying, promising, showing or asking for, especially if they're asking you for your vote. I imagine thats largely true. Politics, oftentimes, becomes the selling of an idea. Instead of a new product that takes the stain out of your teeth, politicians are selling ideas that may or may not impact the way in which you choose to live your live, and that can be incredibly powerful if sold with the right packaging, or what those in the business call "message."
But when Joe Citizen gets in on the action, do we all become "politicians?" Common Sense Tennessee is the newest group attacking Harold Ford Jr. in his bid for U.S. Senate. In case you haven't heard, the RNC launched an incredibly racist and cheap-shot ad that was later pulled by Mehlman (GOP Chairman) after media hype and public outcry. Now, Common Sense Tennessee has been caught running a "push-poll" to TN voters, claiming Ford is soft on terrorism and will raise "your taxes." Though claiming to be an impartial survey it works to influence the view of its respondents through subtlety and guise. Its get better. The ad was put on by Common Sense Ohio which is currently run by Proctor and Gamble exec Nathan Estruth.
While being a longtime supporter of Blackwell (Ohio Sect. of State) and donor to the GOP, Estruth recently made the mistake of telling a reporter that he was actually a "moderate" who was very turned off by the democratic candidates on the ticket.
The fact that "truth" is in the guy's last name just brings the irony to a whole new level.
But when Joe Citizen gets in on the action, do we all become "politicians?" Common Sense Tennessee is the newest group attacking Harold Ford Jr. in his bid for U.S. Senate. In case you haven't heard, the RNC launched an incredibly racist and cheap-shot ad that was later pulled by Mehlman (GOP Chairman) after media hype and public outcry. Now, Common Sense Tennessee has been caught running a "push-poll" to TN voters, claiming Ford is soft on terrorism and will raise "your taxes." Though claiming to be an impartial survey it works to influence the view of its respondents through subtlety and guise. Its get better. The ad was put on by Common Sense Ohio which is currently run by Proctor and Gamble exec Nathan Estruth.
While being a longtime supporter of Blackwell (Ohio Sect. of State) and donor to the GOP, Estruth recently made the mistake of telling a reporter that he was actually a "moderate" who was very turned off by the democratic candidates on the ticket.
The fact that "truth" is in the guy's last name just brings the irony to a whole new level.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Our Greatest Self-Inflicted Wound
It's been a while since I've posted to the Ark, but the actions of my government over the past 24 hours has brought me back to the keyboard.
There are lots of things I take for granted as an American. One of them is my right to a trial and habeas corpus, or, my right to challenge the charges laid against me and my custody. It is perhaps one of the single most important, yet often forgotten, personal individual freedoms we have as members of this society. Tuesday, President Bush seriously challenged the writ of habeas corpus, a common law that dates back to Henry II in the 12th Century. Dare I ask, have we gone this far backwards?
With the threat of terrorism and national security as his backdrop, President Bush signed into law the Military Comissions Act yesterday morning. The Monitor has a great breakdown of the key parts of the bill:
The third point actually reaches back into history and tries to protect those military personnel who may have broken the Geneva Convention in their interrogation of detainees. Then it goes a step further by re-defining what is considered toture or inhumane treatment under interrogation procedures. In other words, the United States has taken the Geneva Conventions and re-written them to our own needs, which in the end defeats the purpose of an international agreement, right? But with our country's regard for international agreements I guess thats no surprise.
The fourth point simply enlarges the scope of who can be considered an "unlawful combatant." It's even less clear with the term "material scope" as to who it includes as possible targets thus linking virutally any 'person of interest' to a possible detainee.
The common theme running through this bill seems to be a loss of individual freedoms within the judicial system on a situational basis resulting in a collection of back-room decisions and non-public rulings through an escalation of military legal proceedings that try non-military individuals as military combatants.
Keith Olbermann had a rather adept analysis of the bill and what impacts it has on the American public. Also, Stanifesto has a great beat on how this all relates to the American sense of nationalism and pride we all feel...maybe less so after a law like this is passed.
There are lots of things I take for granted as an American. One of them is my right to a trial and habeas corpus, or, my right to challenge the charges laid against me and my custody. It is perhaps one of the single most important, yet often forgotten, personal individual freedoms we have as members of this society. Tuesday, President Bush seriously challenged the writ of habeas corpus, a common law that dates back to Henry II in the 12th Century. Dare I ask, have we gone this far backwards?
With the threat of terrorism and national security as his backdrop, President Bush signed into law the Military Comissions Act yesterday morning. The Monitor has a great breakdown of the key parts of the bill:
• Establishes special rules for military-commission trials for Al Qaeda suspects accused of committing war crimes. The rules permit the exclusion of a defendant from his trial if classified evidence is being presented, and the admission of hearsay and coerced statements as evidence.• Authorizes a three-officer military panel to determine a detainee's status as an enemy combatant eligible for indefinite detention in US custody. This is in lieu of the ability to file a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of the detention in federal court.
• Creates a retroactive legal defense for US personnel who engaged in harsh interrogation tactics from September 2001 to December 2005. Also narrows the range of activities that might constitute a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions outlawing torture and cruel treatment.
• Expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to provide that anyone who offers "material support" to someone engaged in hostilities against the US can be held indefinitely in military detention, regardless of whether he or she actually engaged in hostilities. Also provides that only noncitizens held as unlawful enemy combatants may be tried by a military commission.
The first point goes directly to the heart of the torture debate: can coerced statements be used as factual evidence in a court of law? Most intelligence experts say no. Not to mention that while these statements are being presented in the court the defendants will most likely not be allowed to attend as any statements gathered during "aggressive interrogation measures" (or "torture lite") are usually considered classified information. Not only will the defendants not be able to defend their own statements in person but the decisions around those statements will be decided by, not a group of his/her peers but by a selected trio of military officials.
The third point actually reaches back into history and tries to protect those military personnel who may have broken the Geneva Convention in their interrogation of detainees. Then it goes a step further by re-defining what is considered toture or inhumane treatment under interrogation procedures. In other words, the United States has taken the Geneva Conventions and re-written them to our own needs, which in the end defeats the purpose of an international agreement, right? But with our country's regard for international agreements I guess thats no surprise.
The fourth point simply enlarges the scope of who can be considered an "unlawful combatant." It's even less clear with the term "material scope" as to who it includes as possible targets thus linking virutally any 'person of interest' to a possible detainee.
The common theme running through this bill seems to be a loss of individual freedoms within the judicial system on a situational basis resulting in a collection of back-room decisions and non-public rulings through an escalation of military legal proceedings that try non-military individuals as military combatants.
Keith Olbermann had a rather adept analysis of the bill and what impacts it has on the American public. Also, Stanifesto has a great beat on how this all relates to the American sense of nationalism and pride we all feel...maybe less so after a law like this is passed.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Top 10 Stories You Should Know About
A great piece on marketplace about the news stories that should have gotten more attention but didn't. Why the hell did CNN cover the Jean-Benet Ramsey case for a week while a Detroit judge handed down a decision that called the President's NSA surveillance program "unconstitutional" and must be "stopped immediatley?"
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Petrolius
We decided to stop waiting around for a commerical attacking the issue of oil addiction in this country and made one ourselves. Petrolius, the purple pill that allows us to keep driving around in old technology that burns gas, has kept us from the next great advancement in transportation tech.
Obviously, this is heavy on the tongue in cheek but its also a commentary on where our country is headed and how "in the clouds" we've been when it comes to quitting our addiction to oil.
Enjoy!
Obviously, this is heavy on the tongue in cheek but its also a commentary on where our country is headed and how "in the clouds" we've been when it comes to quitting our addiction to oil.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Around the Horn
A Japanese oil tanker collided with a cargo ship and spilled 1.4 million gallons of crude into the Indian Ocean -- the Phillippines call it the region's worst spill.
California could become the first state to create a large network of "no-fishing" zones in an effort to help species of fish, crab and shellfish recover from over-fishing (if you like Dungeness crab wait til you see them after a couple years of R&R).
But, its more than overfishing that is killing our seafood specimens: a dead-zone along the Pacific coast is so oxygen depleted that massive crab and fish die-offs are taking a toll on the fishing industry on the west coast.
A U.S. district judge slaps every Katrina victim in the face...
California could become the first state to create a large network of "no-fishing" zones in an effort to help species of fish, crab and shellfish recover from over-fishing (if you like Dungeness crab wait til you see them after a couple years of R&R).
But, its more than overfishing that is killing our seafood specimens: a dead-zone along the Pacific coast is so oxygen depleted that massive crab and fish die-offs are taking a toll on the fishing industry on the west coast.
A U.S. district judge slaps every Katrina victim in the face...
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Voting for Freedom From Oil
RAN is having a vote to choose a new ad campaign around their Freedom From Oil work. You can cast your vote at Jumpstart Ford's website for the best photograph that depicts how we can break our addiction to oil and then checkout the results. The winning photo will be featured in RAN's ad campaign this fall.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Vacation
I've made the jump and am on vacation for the next week. This will, hopefully, provide a chance for me to re-dedicate myself to writing. So...with that in mind here are few great quotations on vacations.
Oh Robbie boy, you've got give it a better go than that!
Guilty as charged. But how often do your vacations not go directly according to plan (which results in no real loss except more time to kick back) versus how often your work plans fall apart (which results in much loss and stress for everyone involved)? Its more fun to plan things you want to do that are different from your everyday habit. Imagine how fun work would be if we took more vacations? I think the Europeans have it down...
I do not really like vacations. I much prefer an occasional day off
when I do not feel like working. When I am confronted with a whole week in
which I have nothing to do but enjoy myself I do not know where to begin.
To me, enjoyment comes fleetingly and unheralded; I cannot determinedly enjoy
myself for a whole week at a time.
~Robertson Davies
Oh Robbie boy, you've got give it a better go than that!
If we would only give, just once, the same amount of reflection to what we
want to get out of life that we give to the question of what to do with a two
weeks' vacation, we would be startled at our false standards and the aimless
procession of our busy days. ~Dorothy Canfield Fisher
Guilty as charged. But how often do your vacations not go directly according to plan (which results in no real loss except more time to kick back) versus how often your work plans fall apart (which results in much loss and stress for everyone involved)? Its more fun to plan things you want to do that are different from your everyday habit. Imagine how fun work would be if we took more vacations? I think the Europeans have it down...
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Closing Down SXSW
Sitting here in the Halcyon coffee shop in downtown Austin, TX with a bunch of other haggard (but happy) Southies, the initial reaction to this year's interactive conference is one of optimism and reassurance. Optimism in the sense that normal everyday folk are doing some amazing work in empowering everyday people on the internet. Reassurance in the sense that there IS so much creative lift within this community of developers, designers, coders, programmers, e-theroists, organizers and entepreneurs.
Bruce Sterling, one of the foremost social comentator bloggers and sci-fi writers of our time, closed out the 4 day event with a wonderful speech around the power of the human experience. I left his talk with a real sense of "We Can..." (those of you who are Deanaics out there will have horrible flashbacks to a certain song that bore its ugly head when "on hold"). I realized that we were the transition generation (as my buddy Stan notes, "we're all a part of transition generation!") from an offline world to an online world. Sterling defines past generations as "legacy people" who read the newspapers, believe in TV and radio and go into work where they keep their 'work things.' I realized just how free we are as a generation. I can work from home continually, get all my news from NYtimes.com or Salon.com, can talk to my friends via email, text message or instant message, edit webpages and do my writing and journaling on various blogs. Heck, I can buy all my necessary items to live online and have them delivered to my door. But this is all old information. What Sterling is talking about is how this generation will handle the future. We are a group of people who grew up on the internet. We straddle legacy. Early memories still revolve around big-wheels, barbies and television with only 30 channels. Now, our days are filled with keyboards, texting and walking, gaming and wireless communication. We are the transition generation -- transitioning to an "internet of things" where we can make "reality simple again."
But is this freedom really a facade? Obviously it is. As soon as you lack the power to drive a wireless access point or a computer you lose your "freedom." Sterling is big on the "cradle to cradle" idea and very much embraces the idea of returning to our roots as a human species. Whether that means technology will play a role is still a major question. Where will it lead us?
Sterling is living in Belgrade, Serbia with his wife (also a writer) where one saying rules the day: Make no decision out of fear.
Bruce Sterling, one of the foremost social comentator bloggers and sci-fi writers of our time, closed out the 4 day event with a wonderful speech around the power of the human experience. I left his talk with a real sense of "We Can..." (those of you who are Deanaics out there will have horrible flashbacks to a certain song that bore its ugly head when "on hold"). I realized that we were the transition generation (as my buddy Stan notes, "we're all a part of transition generation!") from an offline world to an online world. Sterling defines past generations as "legacy people" who read the newspapers, believe in TV and radio and go into work where they keep their 'work things.' I realized just how free we are as a generation. I can work from home continually, get all my news from NYtimes.com or Salon.com, can talk to my friends via email, text message or instant message, edit webpages and do my writing and journaling on various blogs. Heck, I can buy all my necessary items to live online and have them delivered to my door. But this is all old information. What Sterling is talking about is how this generation will handle the future. We are a group of people who grew up on the internet. We straddle legacy. Early memories still revolve around big-wheels, barbies and television with only 30 channels. Now, our days are filled with keyboards, texting and walking, gaming and wireless communication. We are the transition generation -- transitioning to an "internet of things" where we can make "reality simple again."
But is this freedom really a facade? Obviously it is. As soon as you lack the power to drive a wireless access point or a computer you lose your "freedom." Sterling is big on the "cradle to cradle" idea and very much embraces the idea of returning to our roots as a human species. Whether that means technology will play a role is still a major question. Where will it lead us?
Sterling is living in Belgrade, Serbia with his wife (also a writer) where one saying rules the day: Make no decision out of fear.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
South By and On
Two days into the conference and I can honestly say that many of the greatest minds here will play a role in changing the digital landscape of our future. And, since that digital landscape is becoming more and more linked to our physical landscape, these folks will indirectly play a role in how we all live our lives (and children's lives) down the road.
SXSW Interactive is the geek extension to the long-running SXSW Music and Movies Conference in Austin, TX. Basically, its an excuse for all the part-time bloggers, filmakers, developers, designers, programmers and (recently) industry reps from IBM, Dell and Apple (Apple sent the most) to come together and meet, talk to, share stories and shake hands with their web heroes. My buddy Stan Jones is a talented designer who got to meet Jeffrey Zeldman, a designer who changed the way everyone at this conference thinks about web design through his book Designing With Web Standards. I was able to hear Jason Kottke and meet other bloggers of community fame.
But what really stands out at an event like this is how much already in motion everyone is. I don't think the number of individuals here who are "blown away" by the content being discussed and introduced any more than other web conferences I've been to. In fact, I think most folks here know already much of the content being thrown around and talked about. So, does this mean that all of us techies are on the same page when it comes to web development? Maybe this community of interactive folks is more tight knit than we had previously estimated, and we're really only separated by 1 or 2 degrees?
Regardless, these conferences are necessary and an integral part of the community. Why are they necessary when we can be connected with audio, video, intstant messenger, cell phone, and text message? Because nothing can replace the human experience of meeting someone, shaking their hand and sitting down over a morning coffee to discuss a project that at the same time baffles and astounds you. And we're bound to have that here. The creativity is being scraped off the walls like butter and slathered over all who are willing to soak it in.
Gotta love Austin.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Philippines Mudslides and Illegal Logging
The recent mudslides in the Philippines has wreaked havoc on a the residents and natural regions around the south-east Asian archipelago, especially on the island of Leyte. It being monsoon season heavy rains have fallen for over three days in the region. Thousands are reported to be buried in one of the worst mudslides in the country's history.
The Philippines have a rough history with natural disasters. In 2003 mudslides claimed over 80 people and hundreds went missing. In 2001, a typhoon killed 36 people after it caused massive mudslides and flooding. The blame for the latest mudslide is falling to illegal loggers who are raping most of the rural regions with clear cutting of hardwood forests. Its not the first time illegal logging has been put on the hot seat either. So, one hopes that the country, but more importantly the world, begins to realize that buying such products from the asian wood market is directly connected to these disasters. The folks sitting in their tropical hardwood chairs and couches who give large checks to the American Red Cross after disasters like this could probably do better to educate themselves on the devastation their furniture causes. The bottom line is its a circular process...we're all connected.
Checkout a devastating report on the causes of illegal logging, how its connected to American consumers and the effects of such deforestation on the natural environment.
Already, the country is dealing with soil erosion and deforestation (most of it illegal) not to mention high pollution levels among the ancient mangrove swamps where the majority of their fish stock are bred.
The Philippines have a rough history with natural disasters. In 2003 mudslides claimed over 80 people and hundreds went missing. In 2001, a typhoon killed 36 people after it caused massive mudslides and flooding. The blame for the latest mudslide is falling to illegal loggers who are raping most of the rural regions with clear cutting of hardwood forests. Its not the first time illegal logging has been put on the hot seat either. So, one hopes that the country, but more importantly the world, begins to realize that buying such products from the asian wood market is directly connected to these disasters. The folks sitting in their tropical hardwood chairs and couches who give large checks to the American Red Cross after disasters like this could probably do better to educate themselves on the devastation their furniture causes. The bottom line is its a circular process...we're all connected.
Checkout a devastating report on the causes of illegal logging, how its connected to American consumers and the effects of such deforestation on the natural environment.
Already, the country is dealing with soil erosion and deforestation (most of it illegal) not to mention high pollution levels among the ancient mangrove swamps where the majority of their fish stock are bred.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Ecologist on RAN
The organization I work for, Rainforest Action Network, is being featured in this month's Ecologist. If anything I'm interested in what folks are thinking about some of the work we do as the article does a great job of grasping what our work has accomplished, some of its shortfalls, what we hope to accomplish and how we operate "under the radar" of the media and major networks. You can't get the article online (!) but you can grab it at your Barnes and Noble (or local bookshop newsstand of your choice...I think.)
Granted its a friendly news source (in case you couldn't tell the Ecologist is a bit of a softball for us) and many of our victories are garnering more attention especially in the financial sector with the likes of JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and now Wells Fargo. But its nice to finally get a little press outside of American Banker and Investors Daily. Not exactly mainstream, y'know?
Checkout the global finance campaign's website DirtyMoney for more info:
http://www.dirtymoney.org
Otherwise, see the new RAN website that will be released in the coming weeks.
http://www.ran.org
Granted its a friendly news source (in case you couldn't tell the Ecologist is a bit of a softball for us) and many of our victories are garnering more attention especially in the financial sector with the likes of JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and now Wells Fargo. But its nice to finally get a little press outside of American Banker and Investors Daily. Not exactly mainstream, y'know?
Checkout the global finance campaign's website DirtyMoney for more info:
http://www.dirtymoney.org
Otherwise, see the new RAN website that will be released in the coming weeks.
http://www.ran.org
Monday, January 30, 2006
NASA to Scientists: Shutup!
For those of you who dont know him, James Hansen discovered of global warming. Well, not quite, but he has been the alarm bell since 1988 warning governments and business leaders that the heat trapping gases CO2 and NOx are causing climate fluctuations that wouldn't otherwise be happening. Bill McKibben features a full run-through of Hansen's expereince on the Senate floor back in 1989 in his book End of Nature. If you haven't read it...pick it up.
Hansen now says that NASA and administration officials have been asked to review all his interview requests, coming lectures, papers and postings to the Goddard Insitute website often before they are released. I guess the odd piece here is why are public affairs officials reviewing scientific data and results being posted publicly on a website by one of the world's renowned climate scientists?
Well apparently they're doing it alot.
Except when the policy statements are tied to imperical data from one of the most accomplished climate scientists in the world. Don't we PAY him for his opinion? Isn't this like paying a basketball fan to go out and play for Kobe Bryant? Let the man talk! He's smart! Its why we pay him tax dollars.
And here's where it gets interesting:
Hansen now says that NASA and administration officials have been asked to review all his interview requests, coming lectures, papers and postings to the Goddard Insitute website often before they are released. I guess the odd piece here is why are public affairs officials reviewing scientific data and results being posted publicly on a website by one of the world's renowned climate scientists?
Well apparently they're doing it alot.
Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."
He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.
Except when the policy statements are tied to imperical data from one of the most accomplished climate scientists in the world. Don't we PAY him for his opinion? Isn't this like paying a basketball fan to go out and play for Kobe Bryant? Let the man talk! He's smart! Its why we pay him tax dollars.
And here's where it gets interesting:
The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."
The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.
After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
Almost sounds as if it was cut from a movie script. The scary piece of this is that now no scientist can get on a call with press unless several public affairs officials from NASA are on the call as well. Are they translating something? What the heck is the point other than to twist results in the name of political gain?
PS: Arthur over at Its Getting Hot in Here has a great post on this as well.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
The Power of Algae
Small steps toward curbing global warming emissions is coming out of the hub of tech/science advancement using one of nature's most simple organisms: algae. Isaac Berzin of MIT has created bioreactors of algae that strip the CO2 and NOx pollutants from emitting power plant smokestacks removing up to 40% of the CO2 and 90% of the NOx.
Working much like a screen, the algae bioreactors use photosynthesis to absorb the CO2 and other pollutants and emit oxygen instead. The algae is then harvested daily and from it a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out. This fuel can be used as biodiesel and is some of the cleanest fuel that can be burned for cars running on "veggie-oil." The dried solid is then clumped together and can be burned as a cleaner coal. Ethanol is also a by-product of this process.
The most impressive side of this plan, however, is Berzin's business strategy that lays out the way in which utilities and coporations can make money off of the deal. By setting up algae farms, the biodiesel and ethanol can be sold as additional energy products.
Berzin's company in Cambridge, GreenFuel Techonologies is dedicated to educating all about the massive economic and ecologic bonuses coming out of clean air biofuels.
This is a good step in removing CO2 and NOx gases from the atmosphere but I also hope that eventually we'll move towards a more sustainable fuel source using solar and wind. The bottom line is this method is used on smokestacks that continue to belch out millions of pounds of CO2 and NOx every year and isn't really advancing the techological capability of clean energy. However, I'm all for supporting ways in which to clean up our environment, and this is one of the more interesting ways to help our air quality. I also don't want to ignore the fact that had we developed cleaner energy tactics a century ago we wouldn't be looking for ways to limit our emissions today. Still, who woulda thunk algae can absorb such dirty pollutants?
Working much like a screen, the algae bioreactors use photosynthesis to absorb the CO2 and other pollutants and emit oxygen instead. The algae is then harvested daily and from it a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out. This fuel can be used as biodiesel and is some of the cleanest fuel that can be burned for cars running on "veggie-oil." The dried solid is then clumped together and can be burned as a cleaner coal. Ethanol is also a by-product of this process.
The most impressive side of this plan, however, is Berzin's business strategy that lays out the way in which utilities and coporations can make money off of the deal. By setting up algae farms, the biodiesel and ethanol can be sold as additional energy products.
For his part, Berzin calculates that just one 1,000 megawatt power plant using his system could produce more than 40 million gallons of biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol a year. That would require a 2,000-acre "farm" of algae-filled tubes near the power plant. There are nearly 1,000 power plants nationwide with enough space nearby for a few hundred to a few thousand acres to grow algae and make a good profit, he says.Now, the utilities aren't just gouging people for energy usage but are instead making it back in the form of fairly green energy. This explosion of biodiesel as a clean fuel could begin to affect car companies as more and more become open to producing diesel versions of their most popular vehicle for customers who want to drive on veggie oil.
Berzin's company in Cambridge, GreenFuel Techonologies is dedicated to educating all about the massive economic and ecologic bonuses coming out of clean air biofuels.
This is a good step in removing CO2 and NOx gases from the atmosphere but I also hope that eventually we'll move towards a more sustainable fuel source using solar and wind. The bottom line is this method is used on smokestacks that continue to belch out millions of pounds of CO2 and NOx every year and isn't really advancing the techological capability of clean energy. However, I'm all for supporting ways in which to clean up our environment, and this is one of the more interesting ways to help our air quality. I also don't want to ignore the fact that had we developed cleaner energy tactics a century ago we wouldn't be looking for ways to limit our emissions today. Still, who woulda thunk algae can absorb such dirty pollutants?
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Wedges and Wedgies
Billy Parish of Energy Action posted a great post on a blog I helped get cranking called Its Getting Hot in Here (was the blog for the activist base during the Montreal climate talks last week but is now becoming the youth blog for students activists and the like).
Princeton released the study, that as Billy points out, was also sponsored by Ford Motor Company (you'll see a gratuitous photo of an Escape in the flash presentation) and BP. I, like Billy, don't agree with all the solutions they map out as many have side effects that would only add to the carbon problem in the atmosphere (and why the hell are people thinking nuclear is a good way to go?) Also, I, like Billy, agree that simply hoping to put a ceiling on emissions is aiming too low. As the study points out we do have the technology to make great leaps past global warming (as opposed to simply making the least possible effort) and create a new society not based on coal and oil. Too bad the study leaves some of those out.
Princeton released the study, that as Billy points out, was also sponsored by Ford Motor Company (you'll see a gratuitous photo of an Escape in the flash presentation) and BP. I, like Billy, don't agree with all the solutions they map out as many have side effects that would only add to the carbon problem in the atmosphere (and why the hell are people thinking nuclear is a good way to go?) Also, I, like Billy, agree that simply hoping to put a ceiling on emissions is aiming too low. As the study points out we do have the technology to make great leaps past global warming (as opposed to simply making the least possible effort) and create a new society not based on coal and oil. Too bad the study leaves some of those out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)