Fast forward to around 2:30
I drink tap water
preferably filtered, yes, but tap water none the less.
Stop debating buying a Prius and just stop drinking bottled water instead! (Or do both.)
From Slate's Earth Day special...
According to the Earth Policy Institute, it now takes more than 17 million barrels of oil to make enough PET to meet the America's demand for bottled water—enough to fuel more than 1 million cars a year. ... Royte estimates that each water bottle we buy consumes one-quarter of its volume in oil in production and transportation costs.
And yes, he does go on to say that some tap water has contaminants.... but that they are exacerbated by ... ding ding ding ... bottled water and plastic bottles leeching toxins.
So please just buy a filter and a reusable bottle (look these are pretty! I have one!)
or at least buy those giant water coolers that at least have reduced transportation costs by economies of scale, plus they recycle the bottles constantly.
Either that, or I'm totally going to advocate O'Rourke's suggestion of a 'sin tax' on bottled water that goes towards improving tap water.Live Update from Class!
I should start live-blogging my public policy class.
Just recently:
Theres a thought out there that Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy is partly good for Obama b/c people wont think he's a Muslim.
Hey! At least he believes in Jesus!.....
Of course, its just frivolous
Kelli Arena of CNN today reported that the CIA director finally publically admitted that waterboarding was used, but is not being used right now. She then reported that they did not say it will never be used again, "and of course that got everyone in a tizzy."
Because caring about whether or not the United States of America uses torture is just a little frivolous manner that some silly people get all worked up about.
She also talks like she's talking to third graders. Let me remind you that she's on CNN.
Congrats to Guantanamo detainees and POWs
Because I'm guessing that either way -- McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Clinton -- a year from now we'll probably stop torturing people! Yay!
"It may include us some day."
In the Republican debate in Simi Valley, Mike Huckabee said that his stance on being pro-life is
exercising that deep conviction held by our founding fathers that all of us are equal and no one is more equal than another, recognizing that once we ever decide that some people are more equal or less equal than others, then we start moving that line, and it may include us some day.
Of course -- he also thinks that homosexual couples are not quite as equal as heterosexual couples.
(He thinks gay marriage would end civilization, that they should respect the definition of marriage, especially now, and that the constitution is a sacred document that shouldn’t be changed, which is cute, cuz, uh, its not.)
Registrable Sex Offenses
"Oral copulation" and sodomy and indecent exposure are "registrable sex offenses" in the state of California, meaning that if convicted the person needs to register as a sex offender, be listed on Megans Law websites and announced to one's neighbors that one is a sex offender.
Indecent exposure, of course, includes women being topless in the same places where men are allowed to be topless (as discussed over at The Colonic).
Sodomy technically / historically means basically putting a penis anywhere other than a vagina, which could cover oral as well.
And former President Clinton would be a registered sex offender had the Oval Office been located in California instead of DC.
I know these are old laws that just happen to still be on the books and generally people aren't persecuted for them... but I don't really understand what's stopping us from saying, "Oh, hey, I found one of those out dated ones... Let's scratch that," with a general nod of unanimous agreement from everyone. I see them as merely being potential weapons to throw at someone for other purposes, like the homophobia demonstrated in Lawrence v Texas.
Does someone really need to get caught and drag a case up to the Supreme Court in order for these laws to be overturned? Because, a) that's kind of ridiculous and b) let's get some volunteers.
Equality Irony
apparently...
Wyoming is the "Equality State" according to their state nickname. They were the first to grant women the right to vote.
Wyoming is also where Matthew Shepard was murdered by a bunch of homophobes.
Interesting.
Congratulations Iowa
Not only for very clearly choosing Obama across so many demographic groups and independent voters and everything else awesome
But for so many people caucusing. And for that many new caucus goers and college kids.
Hurray. Democracy's on the way back up perhaps.
RIAA is going crazy
Apparently, the RIAA's website says
If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.
Hm. Nope. Not illegal to make copies for personal use. That's pretty much been the backbone of all the related lawsuits so far, that it is fine to make copies for your own use, you just aren't supposed to share them with others or (more importantly) profit off them.
The RIAA honestly thinks that if you want to listen to a song on your CD player, your computer and your mp3 player, that you should pay for it three times.
And they wonder why people are generally pissed off at record companies.Silence != Prayer
LAT covers a bitching session in Illinois where atheists are angry over a moment of silence in school because they think it breaches the separation of church and state.
To their defense, the moment is for "reflection and student prayer".
While normally I'd be all over making sure we keep prayer out of school, and making sure kids don't feel awkward and isolated for not praying, I really don't feel that this fits at all.
But its for reflection and prayer.
And it is silent.
Kids aren't about to be singled out for not praying along with their friends, or for sitting while everyone else is standing. Everyone just shuts up for a minute.
I'm sure that if they had instead called it a Moment of Reflection and talked up how the kids would have time to reflect on their day, or their studies, or mediate, or just relax and be less stressed, etc, then there would be no problem.
And there's no freakin difference anyway.
An atheist student who's part of the dispute says, "My one friend was really angry because he liked having that moment to think about his life. He's going through a tough time. His parents are getting divorced. His brother's not very nice to him."
... basically hurting her entire argument. So just let everyone sit quietly for a minute and everyone will chill and take a deep breath and it'll be nice.
Gary
My mechanic, Gary, died.
He worked at a place that him and his brother owned and it was down the street from the first house I lived in and close to my dad's second house. My dad's been taking his cars there at least as long as I've been alive. My dad just stopped by for gas and ended up talking to his brother about him for an hour.
He was always really nice and easy going. My sister and I had beat up old cars so we were there a lot. He'd let us just pick the cars up when we needed them and my dad would be back to pay him later. They were a do-able walk from the house, or sometimes they'd drive over and pick us up and then we'd drive them back when we needed to pick up a car.
I don't really think I'm doing him justice here yet. This sounds corny nostalgic but Gary was half of the best small but great business that makes you feel like family that I've known. My dad didn't even know he had cancer until three weeks ago, he'd just kept working. I feel really bad for his brother, too. I guess normally you'd go back to work to forget about stuff or try to carry on with your life or whatever but they shared the place.
I think my car that I totalled in 2004 is still behind the shop. Maybe part of why this is more upsetting than one would think is because it was my first car and he was my first mechanic. I was an adult and I could drive and he was the man who was going to help me along with that, my trusty friend who would take care of my baby.
I don't know exactly. It was always good to see him, even if I haven't had a real reason to for the past four years. Gary was really nice and I miss him.
We hope this does not undermine our credibility...
Wooooow.
FEMA staged a fake press conference.
Really!
Apparently, they called a press conference 15 minutes before it was going to happen, so no reporters were able to show (shocker!) and then they had FEMA employees ask questions to FEMA's deputy administrator who just said what a lovely job they were doing in CA, of course without saying "by the way, these aren't reporters".
Here's my favorite part:
I hope readers understand we're working very hard to establish
credibility and integrity, and I would hope this does not undermine it.
Excuse me but, HAHAHAHA. Yea, don't worry, I'm sure this will not undermine your credibility, don't worry. I'm sure no one will mind that you totally lied to them (again).
I mean, Bush decieves the public every day but he does it in front of real reporters.
"But he does it tooooo"
aka. why it is important to have ethics as leader of one of the most prominent countries in the world.
Mugabe accused Bush of "rank hypocrisy" in response Bush calling Mugabe a violator of human rights.
And everything that this egotistical dictator says about Bush rings true, especially without question the comments about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. In another article, Mugabe is quoted as saying "[Bush] has much to atone for and very little to lecture us on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
So first of all... Mugabe, a "democratically" elected leader of a nation has been accused of "assault on his people," and his response is not "no, we do not torture people" but rather "George Bush does it too and while that does not make it right, it at least makes it wrong for him to accuse me of such things."
Next... uh, yea, actually good point. Wow. Damnit, I didn't want to say that Mugabe said something right, but darn I think I just did.
As far as I know, the Bush Camp has not responded. What would they possibly say?
This is why (if it weren't already obvious) that it's just not ok for us to torture people and avoid international conventions just because we can get away with it. A dictator in Africa who has been accused of starving his population through mismangement just proclaimed that the US has no moral standing, and he's kinda right. That makes the US ineffective as a world leader in trying to solve conflict and human rights violations. The United States of America, self proclaimed bringer of freedom and democracy and we have no moral standing. Great.
I think on some levels I really am somewhat scared and disappointed that in eight short years we have lost so much credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world and for good reason.
Hitchens: A Death in the Family
A soldier died in Iraq who cited one of his reasons for signing up as Christopher Hitchen's pro-war writings a few years ago.
Hitchens then contacts the family and learns about their son.
An amazing read.
Orwell thought that the Spanish Civil War was a just war, but he also came to understand that it was a dirty war, where a decent cause was hijacked by goons and thugs, and where betrayal and squalor negated the courage and sacrifice of those who fought on principle. As one who used to advocate strongly for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickened by the degeneration of the struggle: by the sordid news of corruption and brutality (Mark Daily told his father how dismayed he was by the failure of leadership at Abu Ghraib) and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Baghdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean. It upsets and angers me more than I can safely say, when I reread Mark's letters and poems and see that—as of course he would—he was magically able to find the noble element in all this, and take more comfort and inspiration from a few plain sentences uttered by a Kurdish man than from all the vapid speeches ever given.
Truth and Denial
The House will vote on a bill calling the the massacre of Armenians "genocide".
This is one of the times when it seems like our laws and our words don't have meaning.
The only argument I have heard publicly is that it will upset Turkey, therefore "endangering our national security interests."
Other than from Turkey (duh), I have not heard anyone in Congress or the White House say that we should not call it genocide because it wasn't genocide. The argument against the bill has nothing to do with the bill itself, but rather angering Turkey over something they not only refuse to admit, but actively deny.
So because Turkey wants to deny genocide, we should deny genocide, too. But Ahmadinejad is a bad person because he denys the Holocaust.
Best part of the WaPo article:
As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush pledged to ensure that "our nation properly recognizes" what he called "a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension."
So the President has called it "genocidal" but refuses to call it genocide and urges the House not to call it genocide either.
All good reasons to vote against this bill.
(It also says that GHWB and Pres Clinton avoided using the word, as well, but that Barack and Hillary support the legislation. I guess she's running off speakin' her own mind again!)
Interesting Slate piece titled "Getting Comfy with Genocide: is the word losing its power to shock us into action?" talking about Darfur.
If you haven't heard it before, I think the case for calling the Aremenian situation "genocide" lies in a quote that Hilter said before embarking on the Final Solution.
After all, who remembers the Armenians?"
Please call your Congressman if you can. It takes two minutes.
On Fundamentalism vs. Radicalism
A quick note that was pointed out by someone in a class last year but I think is a mincing of words occuring quite often and liberally.
The word 'fundamentalism' refers to the philosophy of following a religion (or other ideology) to the letter, based directly on The Book (whatever that Book is), strictly adhering to whatever it tells you because you believe it to be the word of the Divine (where the Divine is God, Allah or Ayn Rand)... coming from fundamentals
The word 'radicalism' or 'extremeism' refers to ideologies that go beyond the general beliefs held and professed by everyone else in a given simliar group, and/or seizing on particular aspects while ignoring the whole of the philosophy (evidence, the Ayn Rand Institute) ... going extreme or radical
(yes, these are my off-the-top-of-my-head definitions and by no means constitute an exact definition but are required for the rest of the post)
Islamic fundamentalist are those who adhere stictly to the Koran, Islamic extremist / radicals believe in jihad.
Once you break the words down and pay attention to what they mean, while bin Laden may be both fundamentalist and extremist, it becomes pretty insulting to someone who peacefully abstains from alcohol and pre-marital sex and keeps Halal to wage war on the 'fundamentalists'.
Mitt Again, Hilary, and hopefully a return
First, in following with "Mitt Romney is an Idiot" which perhaps should be rephrased "Mitt Romney: Not so good with that series of tubes"
Over on Slate The Has Been took up Mitt's challenge to his followers that users could create an ad from clips on the website and text and stuff saying what Romney's "really about" and the winning ad as determined by viewers voting and page view (mistake) would be broadcast in wherever however many times. The Has Been made a fabulously funny video that stole the election and now Romney's looking dumb and not counting votes. Awesome! Way!
So Mitt Romney : 0 for 2 in understanding the power and purposes of the internet. I give the guy cheers for trying to let his fans create a video (cuz, hey, it happens on youtube anyway, may as well have them do it for you and give you the rights) but you pay people to be on your campaign for a reason. Let them pick the ad. Really.
If youre looking for more Romney related funny: Slate's Five Brothers
Two:
According to WaPo: "Bill Clinton Endorses Wife's Torture Position"
First of all, that sounds awkward. We couldn't have written that to sound a) not like she likes torture and b) not like its a sex position?
Apparently:
Tim Russert asked candidates if they supported such an exemption to a ban on torture. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she opposed an exemption. Russert then pointed out her husband had supported one. "I'll talk to him later," she said.
Oh good, right, I forgot, Hilary must run her ideas past her husband to get approval and only if he agrees does she get to speak her mind. Good call. Also, wives and husbands must agree on all policy matters. Also, we asked all the wives of all the other candidates the same question an dthen asked the candidates if they agree with their spouses. Oh, wait. No, we didn't do that.
Lastly, telecommunications in South Africa, while they exist, are slower than this blogger is used to, and in combination with other distractions of being abroad, I have been nurishing a tendancy to read something, get frustrated... and then not blog it.
I apoligize. Expect a mini revival. Really should pick up in November though.
Also, a re-categorization of blog topics, too. It'll be fun all around.
Iraq as a dis
A government official in South Africa's response to cries for South Africa to support regime change in Zimbabwe in response to a financial and democratic meltdown and refugee crisis :
"For those who don't understand, I ask that President Bush recruit them and send them to Iraq," a visibly angry Manuel said amid heckling from opposition lawmakers.
Race & Words
Another thought :
We need some words that allow for discussion of race, the biology, and race, the social construct, like how we have "sex" and "gender".
Mitt Romney is an idiot
I'm not sure if the fact that Romney is doing well in the polls right now makes me say "Geez what's wrong with people?" or "Yay, the Republicans who lost the right to govern by being far too compliant with Bush for far too long are surely going to lose if Romney wins the nomination!"
According to Slate's Human Nature column:
"Mitt Romney is demanding lifetime federal GPS tracking of anyone who has used the Internet to commit a sex offense against a minor."
Specifically for people who used the internet ... that cyber, not physical network of computers to commit sex crimes should have to wear lifetime Global Positioning Satellite tracking devices.
Its like he's just playing Political MadLibs... "Ok... I need a crime everyone disagrees with, I need a reference to the menace of modern technology, and then I need a reference to the glories of technology... Ok, I got it..."
SA & Thoughts on the N Word
A long rambling converstation with my South African flatmate and my American flatmate yielded an interesting thought :
To restrict the 'allowed' usage of the N-word to Black people negates the attempt to take the negative meaning away and "take it back" into an empowerment sense.
By saying, "Yes this word is still bad if you, anyone who isn't me, uses it, but it's ok if I use it because then it has a different meaning," still maintains that old definition, still connects it strongly to that word. For a word to gain a new meaning, it must be whole heartedly accepted as having that new meaning, which includes letting whomever wants to express that sentiment use that word to do so.
Sure, if a member of the KKK uses it, they're probably going for that whole bad definition. But if the word is being re-defined, why then can't an ally to the cause also use it, in order to bring more popularity to the positive, empowering definition?
For example, the word 'queer' I would argue can be used by anyone sympathetic to the cause of gay rights, or about groups, events, etc rallying around the issue. The word can now start to mean something positive, because that new meaning can become accepted.
The shoud of shock that covers the N-word continues to give power to the minority of the population that want to use it to hurt another group of people, and with everyone continuing to act as if the word has such extreme power, it continues to do so.
And, just by way of comparison, a word with similar connotation in South Africa simply is not used by anyone appaprently.
Legacy of Apartheid (possibly Part I)
Today I started classes at UCT and found myself in an Urban Geography class where all the students already knew each other because it is a small department, and had all already taken a course with this professor.
In her introduction on the topic, she asked a question along the lines of "What is the main cause of housing inequity in South Africa?" with a student offering the answer of the Grouping of Persons Act, the law at the backbone of apartheid.
What struck me was the extent to which this answer seemed obvious and factual. The question of housing inequality was not a rambling of musings on not only race relations, but class and prejudice and land use, and intentional and unintential biases, but rather one Act which had codified humans by race in a country where democratic elections only began a little more than 10 years ago.
It could be easily argued that housing inequalities in the US are also attributed to racism of the past, that lack of access to resources forty years ago created the self segregated neighborhoods of today. But what it does not answer is how on the surface the situations can have the same answer when you compare a law that was overturned ten years ago, to a laws that were overturned thirty or forty years ago.
I think my question really, is if South Africa sees all these problems, and is working to fix them, the WTF's wrong with the US. For example, I assume because of the legacy of aparthied, housing is a constitutional right in South Africa, and the goverment is required to show evidence of making progress on the issue. They have built 2 million subsidized houses since 1996, and while some are small or crappy or somewhat falling apart, it seems quite better than zero.
So I'm curious to know, and maybe I'll try to research this before my work load goes crazy, but what happened after the Civil Rights movements in the US in comparison to what is happening now in South Africa? Who's on the right track? I'm almost afraid to say, but feel it may be true, that even if South Africa is attacked the inequities head on and therefore more effectively, that knowledge might not even be of use to policy in the US, because the current issue isn't direct racism anymore, but, as I've argued, more classism. It seems the time to address the outcomes of institutionalized racism were right after we ended it, rather than waiting out to see what would happen.
Dealing with Brown
Indeed, education research has long suggested that the economic mix of a school matters more than the racial mix in promoting the academic achievement of students. UCLA professor Gary Orfield, a strong proponent of racial desegregation, notes that "educational research suggests that the basic damage inflicted by segregated education comes not from racial concentration but the concentration of children from poor families."
Yay, Slate!
TMZ and the State of Reporting
In some respects, TMZ, which first appeared in December 2005, represented a throwback to earlier journalism, when many reporters relied on documents rather than arranged interviews to break news.
So... TMZ does actual journalism, actual reporting, goes out and conducts investigations relevant to their given subject matter, in a throwback to 'earlier' journalism. Meanwhile the 24 hour news networks regurgitate what TMZ tells them say, and otherwise conduct interviews with talking heads and ignore real issues.
Awesome!
