When was the last time you signed a contract and then never bothered to fulfill your obligations without any sort of implications?
How often does the government forgive you for not paying your taxes? Although taxes are more of a suggestion anyways.
My point is how absolutely mind boggling it is that our government (others too) doesn’t bother to live up to its contractually signed obligations. I know this isn’t the most articulate statement but it seems most appropriate: WTF?
We certainly aren’t forgiving third world debt, so why are our prior commitments utterly worthless?
Since pledging to reduce greenhouse gases 6% from the amount emitted in 1990 by 2012 (this works out to be a 5.2% reduction per year) with the Kyoto Accord. Yet Canada’s emissions continue to grow (a big shout out goes to Alberta’s tar sands for helping with this one), with Harper insisting that cutting emissions would be seriously detrimental to our economy.
Personally I think not being able to breathe would hurt our economy more.
Although we have signed Kyoto, we’ve decided to now set our own levels of reductions…due to begin around 2020.
Canada is also among 7 other industrialized nations that participate in annual summits and other meetings as a member of G8. This committee discusses world events such as the economy, health, the environment, and law enforcement. Among the goals that these countries have committed to is aid for Africa. Unsurprisingly there are now rumors that among other countries Canada is trying to back out of this commitment as well:
http://www.one.org/international/g8/
Canada prides itself on being a first world country that boasts seemingly endless natural beauty, so how come we look like complete tools on the world stage? It doesn’t matter if the Liberal party signed the Kyoto accord; the conservatives are still obligated to fulfill their responsibilities.
Our government is making us look like an insolent child that keeps promising to clean their room ‘tomorrow’.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Bill C-517
Recently a little bill called Bill C-517 was turned down in both federal and provincial parliament. People might be familiar with it since Greenpeace has been spearheading a campaign to have it passed along with a handful of other organizations however their efforts proved unsuccessful.
For now.
What’s the deal with Bill C-517? Well it called for mandatory labelling on genetically engineered food. For those of you who are unfamiliar, GE foods are food that have had their genes altered with (an example would be taking a gene from a seal to make your corn more resistant to the cold), which is a very simplified explanation. Passing the bill should be simple, right? Well it’s not.
Studies have shown that 85-90% of Canadians want to know if their food is GE and I personally helped Greenpeace hand over 22,000 signatures in support of the Bill before it was about to be voted on. Again however, this proved to be ineffective. When I wrote my MP asking what the deal was, he wrote back with this:
“Although I support labelling on GE foods, I don’t think this bill will accomplish that.”
A response that ridiculous doesn’t require me to elaborate.
With such overwhelming support of such that bill, you think politicians would jumping all over themselves to endorse it and take credit for it. But that’s not the case, why?
As always, there are giant corporations with big money involved and continuing with our current prime minister’s agenda, we are going to do whatever keeps the U.S. happy (see Bending Over for Bush post).Many people have heard of Monsanto, which is the largest or at least most public supplier of GE seeds to farmers. Older people will remember Monsanto as the creator of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. To quickly summarize, Monsanto eventually got into the seed business after the war and began manufacturing weed killer. However the product became so strong that it was killing not only weeds but crops as well. As a solution, Monsanto began selling GE seeds that would not be killed by their weed killer. Essentially if you sprayed your crops with this killer everything would die except for the GE crops, this is the only visible difference between natural crops and GE ones.
So for people that oppose GE foods that’s problem number one, I don’t want to ingest any food that has been sprayed with such strong fertilizer that it would be dead without changing the DNA of the seed. And it is estimated that around 70% of the food Canadians eat are either GE foods or contain GE ingredients.The next concern is an obvious one, with such a new product we don’t know the implications of eating GE foods. There are no long term studies. However most countries aren’t taking chances, China, Mexico and most of Africa are among nations that have banned GE Foods.
The next issue with labelling is that without it, there is no way to trace any health effects back to GE foods. If I have a violent reaction to something I ate and it had GE ingredients, there is no way for me or my doctor to document it without the labelling. So it is easy for opponents of the labelling to argue that GE foods are exactly the same when it’s impossible to link any side effects to it.
Organic farmers have a problem with GE foods as well, because it is almost impossible to avoid contaminations. Wind, birds, and pollination are all ways that natural and organic crops can be contaminated by GE foods.
And here’s where it gets really, really messy. For the first time in history, Monsanto and other companies are able to copyright their seeds. It used to be that no one could have a copyright on anything living, however now that GE foods are on the market this has changed. Monsanto has taken advantage of this by saying that farmers who buy their seeds can only use them once; forcing them to re-buy seeds every year or face a lawsuit.
So what happens if you are an organic farmer who has had their crops contaminated for one reason or another by GE seeds? Who owns the crops and who is responsible? A recent landmark case involving Percy Schmeiser was brought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and it was decided that if your farm gets contaminated by GE seeds, it is your fault and your responsibility to pay Monsanto or whoever infringement fees. Unless you want to pay every year for new seeds, it is your responsibility to keep GE foods away from your land.
Another way to look at it is, if you have grown a tree on your land even for a hundred years and it gets contaminated by GE seeds, it is now property of Monsanto or whoever owns the right the GE seed.
The scary part about all this is not just the ramifications for Canadian farmers, but for farmers in third world countries. What happens when GE products inevitably end up contaminating farms in Guatemala for example? Most farmers don’t have the resources to keep GE foods out (which almost impossible anyways) or to pay settlement fees to buy their crops back.
Monsanto is a really powerful corporation however this doesn’t immediately mean that it can stop bills from being passed in parliament. Although it helps to have former Monsanto employees now working in parliament and former politicians working for Monsanto. It’s a little bit like Bush’s government, which is full of former oil company executives. (http://www.purefood.org/monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm)
This is all a very brief and simplified explanation of the facts involving GE foods and getting them labelled. Anyone looking for more information, I encourage you to click on the links below and check out the documentary “The Future of Food”.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
http://www.gefreebc.org/gefree_tmpl.php?content=home
http://www.thefutureoffood.com/AboutFOF.htm
For now.
What’s the deal with Bill C-517? Well it called for mandatory labelling on genetically engineered food. For those of you who are unfamiliar, GE foods are food that have had their genes altered with (an example would be taking a gene from a seal to make your corn more resistant to the cold), which is a very simplified explanation. Passing the bill should be simple, right? Well it’s not.
Studies have shown that 85-90% of Canadians want to know if their food is GE and I personally helped Greenpeace hand over 22,000 signatures in support of the Bill before it was about to be voted on. Again however, this proved to be ineffective. When I wrote my MP asking what the deal was, he wrote back with this:
“Although I support labelling on GE foods, I don’t think this bill will accomplish that.”
A response that ridiculous doesn’t require me to elaborate.
With such overwhelming support of such that bill, you think politicians would jumping all over themselves to endorse it and take credit for it. But that’s not the case, why?
As always, there are giant corporations with big money involved and continuing with our current prime minister’s agenda, we are going to do whatever keeps the U.S. happy (see Bending Over for Bush post).Many people have heard of Monsanto, which is the largest or at least most public supplier of GE seeds to farmers. Older people will remember Monsanto as the creator of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. To quickly summarize, Monsanto eventually got into the seed business after the war and began manufacturing weed killer. However the product became so strong that it was killing not only weeds but crops as well. As a solution, Monsanto began selling GE seeds that would not be killed by their weed killer. Essentially if you sprayed your crops with this killer everything would die except for the GE crops, this is the only visible difference between natural crops and GE ones.
So for people that oppose GE foods that’s problem number one, I don’t want to ingest any food that has been sprayed with such strong fertilizer that it would be dead without changing the DNA of the seed. And it is estimated that around 70% of the food Canadians eat are either GE foods or contain GE ingredients.The next concern is an obvious one, with such a new product we don’t know the implications of eating GE foods. There are no long term studies. However most countries aren’t taking chances, China, Mexico and most of Africa are among nations that have banned GE Foods.
The next issue with labelling is that without it, there is no way to trace any health effects back to GE foods. If I have a violent reaction to something I ate and it had GE ingredients, there is no way for me or my doctor to document it without the labelling. So it is easy for opponents of the labelling to argue that GE foods are exactly the same when it’s impossible to link any side effects to it.
Organic farmers have a problem with GE foods as well, because it is almost impossible to avoid contaminations. Wind, birds, and pollination are all ways that natural and organic crops can be contaminated by GE foods.
And here’s where it gets really, really messy. For the first time in history, Monsanto and other companies are able to copyright their seeds. It used to be that no one could have a copyright on anything living, however now that GE foods are on the market this has changed. Monsanto has taken advantage of this by saying that farmers who buy their seeds can only use them once; forcing them to re-buy seeds every year or face a lawsuit.
So what happens if you are an organic farmer who has had their crops contaminated for one reason or another by GE seeds? Who owns the crops and who is responsible? A recent landmark case involving Percy Schmeiser was brought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and it was decided that if your farm gets contaminated by GE seeds, it is your fault and your responsibility to pay Monsanto or whoever infringement fees. Unless you want to pay every year for new seeds, it is your responsibility to keep GE foods away from your land.
Another way to look at it is, if you have grown a tree on your land even for a hundred years and it gets contaminated by GE seeds, it is now property of Monsanto or whoever owns the right the GE seed.
The scary part about all this is not just the ramifications for Canadian farmers, but for farmers in third world countries. What happens when GE products inevitably end up contaminating farms in Guatemala for example? Most farmers don’t have the resources to keep GE foods out (which almost impossible anyways) or to pay settlement fees to buy their crops back.
Monsanto is a really powerful corporation however this doesn’t immediately mean that it can stop bills from being passed in parliament. Although it helps to have former Monsanto employees now working in parliament and former politicians working for Monsanto. It’s a little bit like Bush’s government, which is full of former oil company executives. (http://www.purefood.org/monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm)
This is all a very brief and simplified explanation of the facts involving GE foods and getting them labelled. Anyone looking for more information, I encourage you to click on the links below and check out the documentary “The Future of Food”.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
http://www.gefreebc.org/gefree_tmpl.php?content=home
http://www.thefutureoffood.com/AboutFOF.htm
It's Tradition
There are very few arguments that rival ‘tradition’ as the most annoying, irrelevant, and inconsistent defense (except for the ‘It’s what god intended’ justification). Examples of when this argument would be used are debates involving whaling, bullfighting, or the annual seal hunt.
I won’t go into detail as to what my arguments are regarding each of those topics but my point is that the ‘tradition’ argument falls flat which is probably why it’s only used when people are really reaching.
I wouldn’t go so far as to dismiss traditions completely; I know that most contribute to cultures and bind us to our history. However, traditions can end because of new education, social acceptance, or even because of inconvenience. Which is why saying “it’s the way it’s always been done” really doesn’t mean anything.
Many of our ancestors had some fun little traditions that could have been maintained for traditions sake:
• Owning slaves
• Marrying your cousins
• Chastity Belts
• Foot binding
• Offering human sacrifices
Therefore I believe that if ever in an argument someone justifies their reasoning with ‘it’s tradition!’ they immediately lose all credibility, dismissed from the debate, and immediately stoned (just kidding).
I won’t go into detail as to what my arguments are regarding each of those topics but my point is that the ‘tradition’ argument falls flat which is probably why it’s only used when people are really reaching.
I wouldn’t go so far as to dismiss traditions completely; I know that most contribute to cultures and bind us to our history. However, traditions can end because of new education, social acceptance, or even because of inconvenience. Which is why saying “it’s the way it’s always been done” really doesn’t mean anything.
Many of our ancestors had some fun little traditions that could have been maintained for traditions sake:
• Owning slaves
• Marrying your cousins
• Chastity Belts
• Foot binding
• Offering human sacrifices
Therefore I believe that if ever in an argument someone justifies their reasoning with ‘it’s tradition!’ they immediately lose all credibility, dismissed from the debate, and immediately stoned (just kidding).
Aquariums
As someone who is adamantly opposed to aquariums (and zoos but that’s for another rant), I hear the same tired arguments all the time:
“It gives people a chance to appreciate ocean life first hand”
Actually I think it does the opposite, by turning the complex workings of an ocean into a sideshow. I think that keeping wild animals captive insults and patronizes how intelligent these animals are (and they are intelligent, whales are just behind humans and apes in intelligence).What kind of respect for nature is being taught when keeping animals in confined spaces for personal motives is the example being set? (Just to be clear, I’m not talking about starfish or algae rather the larger animals that are forced to live in tanks)
“It provides priceless education”
Not buying it. Does every single man, woman and child need to go into space to learn about or understand it?
“Aquariums serve as a sanctuary for rescued animals”
This one is outright laughable. The mortality rate is high for animals that are captured for captivity, both during the capturing process and during their life in captivity. In addition, how are we determining what animals need to be rescued? The Vancouver Aquarium for example, is allowed to capture or import wildlife if it is in ‘distress’ however there are various definitions for distress. The animal could very well be in distress due to the enormous boat chasing it. Then animals are only kept if they can not be rehabilitated, although the larger mammals are rarely released (it might have something to do with their value, an orca whale is worth approx $25,000).
I’ve never heard anyone argue that these creatures are happier in their tanks because I guess not even the biggest tools believe that anymore. Whales and dolphins spend their lives covering thousands of miles while travelling in groups, singing and composing songs that they will repeat every year. This a lifestyle that is completely denied to them in an aquarium. And although it’s very nice of aquariums to ‘rescue’ animals in ‘distress’, their track record argues that they can’t provide a healthy life environment: http://www.straight.com/print/151900, or http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=63
“The animals have trainers that love them”
I have no doubt that trainers love the animals that they work with however it’s beside the point and completely naive. Isolation and withholding food are common methods to train these animals despite how much they love them.
I guess my biggest gripe is not with the people who capture these sea animals, the selfish trainers, nor is it with the fat cats who run aquariums; it’s with the people creating a demand for such a spectacle. Paying money to see a lonely animal confined to swimming circles in an empty tank isn’t my idea of entertainment. It just seems like a sad paradox that we consider ourselves the most advanced species on the planet but forcing a depressed animal to jump around in the water for food is what will still consider entertaining.
“It gives people a chance to appreciate ocean life first hand”
Actually I think it does the opposite, by turning the complex workings of an ocean into a sideshow. I think that keeping wild animals captive insults and patronizes how intelligent these animals are (and they are intelligent, whales are just behind humans and apes in intelligence).What kind of respect for nature is being taught when keeping animals in confined spaces for personal motives is the example being set? (Just to be clear, I’m not talking about starfish or algae rather the larger animals that are forced to live in tanks)
“It provides priceless education”
Not buying it. Does every single man, woman and child need to go into space to learn about or understand it?
“Aquariums serve as a sanctuary for rescued animals”
This one is outright laughable. The mortality rate is high for animals that are captured for captivity, both during the capturing process and during their life in captivity. In addition, how are we determining what animals need to be rescued? The Vancouver Aquarium for example, is allowed to capture or import wildlife if it is in ‘distress’ however there are various definitions for distress. The animal could very well be in distress due to the enormous boat chasing it. Then animals are only kept if they can not be rehabilitated, although the larger mammals are rarely released (it might have something to do with their value, an orca whale is worth approx $25,000).
I’ve never heard anyone argue that these creatures are happier in their tanks because I guess not even the biggest tools believe that anymore. Whales and dolphins spend their lives covering thousands of miles while travelling in groups, singing and composing songs that they will repeat every year. This a lifestyle that is completely denied to them in an aquarium. And although it’s very nice of aquariums to ‘rescue’ animals in ‘distress’, their track record argues that they can’t provide a healthy life environment: http://www.straight.com/print/151900, or http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=63
“The animals have trainers that love them”
I have no doubt that trainers love the animals that they work with however it’s beside the point and completely naive. Isolation and withholding food are common methods to train these animals despite how much they love them.
I guess my biggest gripe is not with the people who capture these sea animals, the selfish trainers, nor is it with the fat cats who run aquariums; it’s with the people creating a demand for such a spectacle. Paying money to see a lonely animal confined to swimming circles in an empty tank isn’t my idea of entertainment. It just seems like a sad paradox that we consider ourselves the most advanced species on the planet but forcing a depressed animal to jump around in the water for food is what will still consider entertaining.
Where will Santa live?
Apparently the North Pole could very well be melted by the end of this summer:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html
This is one of those rare occasions where I don't have anything to say. I mean, is anyone surprised? We are constantly reminded of the dooms-day consequences of our actions and the actions of generations before us, so is this a shock?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html
This is one of those rare occasions where I don't have anything to say. I mean, is anyone surprised? We are constantly reminded of the dooms-day consequences of our actions and the actions of generations before us, so is this a shock?
Japan Needs a PR Agent
You know that feeling you get when you discover something that is a complete outrage and you’re not the least bit surprised? Well, the honor of that feeling today goes to the Japanese government (not unfamiliar with causing these emotions).
Japan is notorious for its whaling laws and moratoriums that they don’t bother to enforce, claiming that the thousands of whales they kill annually are for ‘scientific research’. If this is true then Japanese scientists are the biggest tools in the shed. Researchers reporting on an animal species don’t usually decimate them in the process, but hey, I’m no scientist.
Well, Japan has repeatedly tried to defend itself by insisting that they are not exceeding the yearly whaling quota despite various reports and evidence that the industry has just gone underground. However Greenpeace recently provided indisputable proof that the government was lying while using tax payer’s dollars to support an unsustainable and corrupt industry.
Now, if Japan were a celebrity a PR expert would step in and give some image advice to the country. First we would hear a heartfelt apologize which would be followed by a stint in rehab, a promise to make amends by community service and then maybe a picture of Japan kissing a baby at rally against global warming.
However Japan doesn’t have a PR person giving them good advice, which is why they proceeded to arrest the Greenpeace activists that exposed them. So if you have a minute I encourage you to follow this link and send a letter to Japanese officials letting them know that their bonehead decisions aren’t going unnoticed:
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/outrage-greenpeace-whale-meat
Japan is notorious for its whaling laws and moratoriums that they don’t bother to enforce, claiming that the thousands of whales they kill annually are for ‘scientific research’. If this is true then Japanese scientists are the biggest tools in the shed. Researchers reporting on an animal species don’t usually decimate them in the process, but hey, I’m no scientist.
Well, Japan has repeatedly tried to defend itself by insisting that they are not exceeding the yearly whaling quota despite various reports and evidence that the industry has just gone underground. However Greenpeace recently provided indisputable proof that the government was lying while using tax payer’s dollars to support an unsustainable and corrupt industry.
Now, if Japan were a celebrity a PR expert would step in and give some image advice to the country. First we would hear a heartfelt apologize which would be followed by a stint in rehab, a promise to make amends by community service and then maybe a picture of Japan kissing a baby at rally against global warming.
However Japan doesn’t have a PR person giving them good advice, which is why they proceeded to arrest the Greenpeace activists that exposed them. So if you have a minute I encourage you to follow this link and send a letter to Japanese officials letting them know that their bonehead decisions aren’t going unnoticed:
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/outrage-greenpeace-whale-meat
Bending Over for Bush
Have you heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? If you have no idea what I’m talking about then I don’t blame you, because our government isn’t taking great pains to enlighten the people on the small ‘teakings’ our country’s regulations.
The SPP brought together Prime Minister Harper, President Bush, and President Calderon (of Mexico) in order to achieve “a better quality of life for you and for businesses.” Hmm… I don’t know about you but it’s been a while since I’ve seen people demanding their government provide a greater quality of life for businesses, especially since I doubt this is going to be helpful for the Mom & Pop shops down the street.
The official SPP website says:
“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.”
This description, like the entire website is vague and feels slightly ‘Big Brother-esque’ but the SPP essentially means that we as Canadians can’t really do anything without the U.S.’s permission first. We are essentially aligning our environmental, trade, immigration, and terrorism policies with our southern neighbors.
The U.S. hasn’t had the most impressive track record with their ‘War on Terror’, so I find little satisfaction in knowing that my tax dollars will be supporting it. Plus it means that if my name resembles a suspectived terrorist then I can be barred from air travel(although I have attended a vegan potluck so I think I’m tagged myself…see previous blog)?
And of course, if we are dealing with President Bush we are dealing with oil. The SPP gives the US better access to oil from both Canada and Mexico and I know that most Canadians are very concerned about who we are going to GIVE our oil too. And you know what? Why don’t we throw in some clean Canadian water in that deal too? Because the SPP discussions included giving large amounts of water away too, although the tar sands are ensuring that we won’t have much clean water left anyways… but that’s another blog.
The ‘Fact vs. Myth’ page on the official SPP page boasts that ‘no agreement was ever signed’. Um, does anyone think that is a good thing? It’s as if the leaders of our countries are laughing at us saying “Oh, all that paper work was such a pain in the ass so we just skipped it!” Without a signed agreement how do we know if anyone has breached it? Without anything in writing how do we citizens know what our governments are committing to? Without anything in writing, how do us citizens or the people we elect vote against it?
However we can all take comfort in knowing that our leaders have chosen some outside representatives to participate in SPP discussions, leaders of huge corporations and military officials have been included to voice their opinions.
Excluding public opinion was no mistake because if people had been allowed to vote on it, it would have been dismissed immediately. According to the Council of Canadians, most of us completely disagree with the SPP:
(http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/notcounting/index.html)
Although statistics show that we are completely disagree with pretty much everything the SPP sets out to accomplish, it’s still being implemented. Does anyone else think this is absolutely LUDICROUS? We like to think ourselves a democratic society but our government does whatever the hell they want and seem to just give its citizens the finger when it comes to public opinion.
Which makes me when are we going to stop bending over for Bush?
The SPP brought together Prime Minister Harper, President Bush, and President Calderon (of Mexico) in order to achieve “a better quality of life for you and for businesses.” Hmm… I don’t know about you but it’s been a while since I’ve seen people demanding their government provide a greater quality of life for businesses, especially since I doubt this is going to be helpful for the Mom & Pop shops down the street.
The official SPP website says:
“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.”
This description, like the entire website is vague and feels slightly ‘Big Brother-esque’ but the SPP essentially means that we as Canadians can’t really do anything without the U.S.’s permission first. We are essentially aligning our environmental, trade, immigration, and terrorism policies with our southern neighbors.
The U.S. hasn’t had the most impressive track record with their ‘War on Terror’, so I find little satisfaction in knowing that my tax dollars will be supporting it. Plus it means that if my name resembles a suspectived terrorist then I can be barred from air travel(although I have attended a vegan potluck so I think I’m tagged myself…see previous blog)?
And of course, if we are dealing with President Bush we are dealing with oil. The SPP gives the US better access to oil from both Canada and Mexico and I know that most Canadians are very concerned about who we are going to GIVE our oil too. And you know what? Why don’t we throw in some clean Canadian water in that deal too? Because the SPP discussions included giving large amounts of water away too, although the tar sands are ensuring that we won’t have much clean water left anyways… but that’s another blog.
The ‘Fact vs. Myth’ page on the official SPP page boasts that ‘no agreement was ever signed’. Um, does anyone think that is a good thing? It’s as if the leaders of our countries are laughing at us saying “Oh, all that paper work was such a pain in the ass so we just skipped it!” Without a signed agreement how do we know if anyone has breached it? Without anything in writing how do we citizens know what our governments are committing to? Without anything in writing, how do us citizens or the people we elect vote against it?
However we can all take comfort in knowing that our leaders have chosen some outside representatives to participate in SPP discussions, leaders of huge corporations and military officials have been included to voice their opinions.
Excluding public opinion was no mistake because if people had been allowed to vote on it, it would have been dismissed immediately. According to the Council of Canadians, most of us completely disagree with the SPP:
(http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/notcounting/index.html)
Although statistics show that we are completely disagree with pretty much everything the SPP sets out to accomplish, it’s still being implemented. Does anyone else think this is absolutely LUDICROUS? We like to think ourselves a democratic society but our government does whatever the hell they want and seem to just give its citizens the finger when it comes to public opinion.
Which makes me when are we going to stop bending over for Bush?
Governments in Secret
One thing that pisses me off the most about our current Canadian government is the secrecy. I’d rather have them flaunt their corruption and broken promises in my face….like an honest person.
A government is supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE! We elect these inadequate officials to represent us and our needs so it is a complete paradox to have a government make decisions in private.
Besides, making changes quietly admits guilt (at least that’s what it says to me). Take this article for instance:
http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/news/contentposting?newsitemid=lakes-mining&feedname=cbc-tech-science-v3&show=false&number=0&showbyline=true&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=t&pagenumber=1
The conservatives defend their choice and although it’s completely short-sighted, they appear to have done some (one-sided) research. So why not make this public and stand by your decision?
This solution of dumping toxic waste in Canadian lakes reminds me of small children sweeping all their toys under the bed when they can’t watch TV until their room is clean.
This article comes out the same day that it has been publicized that our government has also ‘quietly’ committed $420 billion towards our military. Now whether I agree with the lakes solution or if this money is well spent is beside the point, it’s that these decisions are being announced in a way to avoid public reaction or input.
Not only is this trend beyond annoying, it’s scary. If we aren’t allowed to be the watchdog of our own government, we could eventually be ‘quietly’ updated on what our rights are and aren’t.
A government is supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE! We elect these inadequate officials to represent us and our needs so it is a complete paradox to have a government make decisions in private.
Besides, making changes quietly admits guilt (at least that’s what it says to me). Take this article for instance:
http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/news/contentposting?newsitemid=lakes-mining&feedname=cbc-tech-science-v3&show=false&number=0&showbyline=true&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=t&pagenumber=1
The conservatives defend their choice and although it’s completely short-sighted, they appear to have done some (one-sided) research. So why not make this public and stand by your decision?
This solution of dumping toxic waste in Canadian lakes reminds me of small children sweeping all their toys under the bed when they can’t watch TV until their room is clean.
This article comes out the same day that it has been publicized that our government has also ‘quietly’ committed $420 billion towards our military. Now whether I agree with the lakes solution or if this money is well spent is beside the point, it’s that these decisions are being announced in a way to avoid public reaction or input.
Not only is this trend beyond annoying, it’s scary. If we aren’t allowed to be the watchdog of our own government, we could eventually be ‘quietly’ updated on what our rights are and aren’t.
My Problem with Plastic
Plastic. Where do I begin? I could honestly write a novel titled ‘My Problem with Plastic’ but then my editor would probably force me to include a romantic sub-story and call it my memoir which would eventually be exposed as a ‘novel based on true events’ and then I would have to apologize to Canadians while being interviewed by Don Cherry, so I’ll just keep this topic to a blog.
Anyways, I’ll begin my gripe with plastics at the beginning. Ironically Alexander Parkes invented plastic in 1862 to help save the elephants. That’s right people, plastic was invented to help the wildlife. Before plastic, ivory from elephant tusks was used in everything from billiard balls to toothpicks.
It took a while for the invention to catch on, as plastic only became commonly used in the last few decades but when it did, it caught on like wildfire.
For instance, plastic bags were only introduced in the 1970’s and although an entire generation hasn’t even passed, they’re already the #1 item found in landfills (we go through about 1.2 trillion a year). And why are we using plastic, something that will take almost forever to go away for products that we use for less than an hour? The estimated half-life for a plastic bag is 500 years, but then again no one knows for sure because plastic doesn’t break down like other matters. Plastic is never broken down by bacteria, instead it keeps breaking into smaller and smaller pieces of plastic that eventually find its way into our air and food.
So problem #1 with plastic is that it is made to last forever but is used for a nano second.
In addition, when plastic is recycled it’s just a bull***t process that eases people’s conscious. Now I’m not saying we stop recycling immediately but we can’t assume that it’s the answer to all of our plastic woes. For instance, when plastic is recycled (which is more complicated than recycling glass or metals) it is melted down and releases toxic chemicals into the air.
So although recycling plastic is essential, it doesn’t justify our extensive use of the material.
Thus problem #2 with plastic is that even when plastic is recycled our air and health is put in jeopardy.
Plastics have been making the news quite frequently lately, it seems that we’re constantly being alerted to different plastics that children shouldn’t be playing with or that we shouldn’t be heating up or that shouldn’t be used to carry our drinking water.
Today plastic has never been more prevalent and it has a history of being linked to cancers and other illness which have also never been more prevalent (Don’t believe me? Check out www.cancer.ca).
Problem #3 is that plastics are likely harmful to our health and the reason I say likely is because the material is relatively new and widely used, we haven’t been able to judge its effects on an entire generation yet.
Finally, my last gripe (#4) with plastic is that it’s made from petroleum!! Now, the oil companies claim that plastic is made from a by-product from drilling oil that would otherwise be discarded and wasted. However I have two questions: Would the waste that is discarded bio-degrade like a natural material? And aren’t we trying to lesson our dependency on oil anyways? By buying plastic and continuing to have it in our everyday lives we are supporting a shady oil industry which is another blog in itself.
Anyways, I’ll begin my gripe with plastics at the beginning. Ironically Alexander Parkes invented plastic in 1862 to help save the elephants. That’s right people, plastic was invented to help the wildlife. Before plastic, ivory from elephant tusks was used in everything from billiard balls to toothpicks.
It took a while for the invention to catch on, as plastic only became commonly used in the last few decades but when it did, it caught on like wildfire.
For instance, plastic bags were only introduced in the 1970’s and although an entire generation hasn’t even passed, they’re already the #1 item found in landfills (we go through about 1.2 trillion a year). And why are we using plastic, something that will take almost forever to go away for products that we use for less than an hour? The estimated half-life for a plastic bag is 500 years, but then again no one knows for sure because plastic doesn’t break down like other matters. Plastic is never broken down by bacteria, instead it keeps breaking into smaller and smaller pieces of plastic that eventually find its way into our air and food.
So problem #1 with plastic is that it is made to last forever but is used for a nano second.
In addition, when plastic is recycled it’s just a bull***t process that eases people’s conscious. Now I’m not saying we stop recycling immediately but we can’t assume that it’s the answer to all of our plastic woes. For instance, when plastic is recycled (which is more complicated than recycling glass or metals) it is melted down and releases toxic chemicals into the air.
So although recycling plastic is essential, it doesn’t justify our extensive use of the material.
Thus problem #2 with plastic is that even when plastic is recycled our air and health is put in jeopardy.
Plastics have been making the news quite frequently lately, it seems that we’re constantly being alerted to different plastics that children shouldn’t be playing with or that we shouldn’t be heating up or that shouldn’t be used to carry our drinking water.
Today plastic has never been more prevalent and it has a history of being linked to cancers and other illness which have also never been more prevalent (Don’t believe me? Check out www.cancer.ca).
Problem #3 is that plastics are likely harmful to our health and the reason I say likely is because the material is relatively new and widely used, we haven’t been able to judge its effects on an entire generation yet.
Finally, my last gripe (#4) with plastic is that it’s made from petroleum!! Now, the oil companies claim that plastic is made from a by-product from drilling oil that would otherwise be discarded and wasted. However I have two questions: Would the waste that is discarded bio-degrade like a natural material? And aren’t we trying to lesson our dependency on oil anyways? By buying plastic and continuing to have it in our everyday lives we are supporting a shady oil industry which is another blog in itself.
Stupid Girls
Ahhh, Jessica Simpson.... This is the girl that made a career out of being the stupid blonde on tv and then proudly declared that she was only playing dumb to appeal to a mass audience.
She reminds me of that pathetic girl in high school who pretends they are stupid so their meat-head boyfriend won't feel threatened by their intelligence.
Not that the girl has that much relevance these days aside for making the odd US Weekly cover for your love triangle between your boyfriend and your father (ew).
The reason I bring her up is because she was recently seen wearing a shirt that said "Real Girls Eat Meat". Now, in a couple of weeks is she going to make the statement that she is only pretending to be an insulting and ignorant person to appeal to rednecks?
A little note to Jessica Simpson:
Real girls make educated and intelligent decisionsReal girls don't boast about their vain, disgusting, habitsReal girls don't 'pretend' they're stupid to be popular or for a paycheque.
I suggest someone send Jessica a t-shirt with this picture on it:
http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/fall00/slaughter.gif
She reminds me of that pathetic girl in high school who pretends they are stupid so their meat-head boyfriend won't feel threatened by their intelligence.
Not that the girl has that much relevance these days aside for making the odd US Weekly cover for your love triangle between your boyfriend and your father (ew).
The reason I bring her up is because she was recently seen wearing a shirt that said "Real Girls Eat Meat". Now, in a couple of weeks is she going to make the statement that she is only pretending to be an insulting and ignorant person to appeal to rednecks?
A little note to Jessica Simpson:
Real girls make educated and intelligent decisionsReal girls don't boast about their vain, disgusting, habitsReal girls don't 'pretend' they're stupid to be popular or for a paycheque.
I suggest someone send Jessica a t-shirt with this picture on it:
http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/fall00/slaughter.gif
Plastic Island
One of my biggest grips about humanity is our 'out of sight, out of mind’ mentality, once something is put in the garbage and taken away by the garbage man (or woman no discrimination here!) it’s gone forever. We hear statistics on how much waste is accumulated annually but our cities our so clean and we never see any of it so how bad can it be?
The answer is it’s bad, and a lot of it ends up in our water.
Greenpeace estimates that 10% of ALL plastic ends up in the ocean. Just think of how much plastic you go through in a week, from packaging on a chocolate bar to empty pens to old toys to appliances to WHATEVER. 10% ends up in the water (or approximately 10 million tons annually).
Well we don’t see that much plastic at the beach so where is it? The answer is Plastic Island or the Plastic Vortex and the reason we don’t see photos of it everywhere is because it’s all underwater. But it’s there in the Pacific Ocean and it’s said to between the size of Texas and the size of the U.S.A.
I think that the detrimental effects of this are obvious (highly toxic pollutants in our water from the plastic which ends up concentrated in the fish that most people eat, destroying wild life and ecosystems….etc) , but for those who need a visual:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Sea-Plastic-LN-PG5oct05a.jpg
Essentially after garbage and debris make their way into our beaches (from wind, litter, or from ships) it is picked up by the current and the ocean’s vortexes until it gets stuck in the ones between North America and Asia. I’ve heard people ask “Why don’t we remove it?”. Well, again it’s under water, it’s the size of Texas, and where do we put it? And like all issues, governments usually don’t tackle these things on their own until a huge public outcry (even then they drag their feet).
So what do we do? I usually don’t recommend solutions on this blog because for the most part I think these solutions are usually pretty obvious but aren’t used because they are considered inconvenient: Banning plastic bags are a good step but I think we shold ban plastic, examine our outlandish consumption, habits, and force ourselves to really be responsible for our garbage which is more than just putting it in the garbage can.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with why plastic is public enemy #1, that will be tomorrow’s topic.
The answer is it’s bad, and a lot of it ends up in our water.
Greenpeace estimates that 10% of ALL plastic ends up in the ocean. Just think of how much plastic you go through in a week, from packaging on a chocolate bar to empty pens to old toys to appliances to WHATEVER. 10% ends up in the water (or approximately 10 million tons annually).
Well we don’t see that much plastic at the beach so where is it? The answer is Plastic Island or the Plastic Vortex and the reason we don’t see photos of it everywhere is because it’s all underwater. But it’s there in the Pacific Ocean and it’s said to between the size of Texas and the size of the U.S.A.
I think that the detrimental effects of this are obvious (highly toxic pollutants in our water from the plastic which ends up concentrated in the fish that most people eat, destroying wild life and ecosystems….etc) , but for those who need a visual:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Sea-Plastic-LN-PG5oct05a.jpg
Essentially after garbage and debris make their way into our beaches (from wind, litter, or from ships) it is picked up by the current and the ocean’s vortexes until it gets stuck in the ones between North America and Asia. I’ve heard people ask “Why don’t we remove it?”. Well, again it’s under water, it’s the size of Texas, and where do we put it? And like all issues, governments usually don’t tackle these things on their own until a huge public outcry (even then they drag their feet).
So what do we do? I usually don’t recommend solutions on this blog because for the most part I think these solutions are usually pretty obvious but aren’t used because they are considered inconvenient: Banning plastic bags are a good step but I think we shold ban plastic, examine our outlandish consumption, habits, and force ourselves to really be responsible for our garbage which is more than just putting it in the garbage can.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with why plastic is public enemy #1, that will be tomorrow’s topic.
Killing Time
There are alot of campaigns and fundraisers that are so obviously self-served that it makes the average consumer weary of a company's intentions (please see on of my earlier blogs on green washing).
However I have found a link that genuinely seems to benefit everyone involved. Sponsors get alot of page views, people get rice, and I'm improving my vocabulary.
Enjoy:
http://www.freerice.com/
However I have found a link that genuinely seems to benefit everyone involved. Sponsors get alot of page views, people get rice, and I'm improving my vocabulary.
Enjoy:
http://www.freerice.com/
Animal Owners
I recently went down to my local animal shelter to find a cat to add to my family. Although all the felines there were crazy and fun, eventually I found the perfect one (a shout out to the cat-tastic Dr. Jones!).
Anyways, as I was speaking to one of the employees at the shelter I began to discover new lows in the human race. I'm not just talking about the outright animal abusers, who are so obviously the vilest humans on the planet. No I'm talking about people that view animals like returnable and disposable products.
I was introduced to a 10 year old cat that was left at the shelter after her family decided to get a new puppy and a kitten. What sort of lesson is this for your kids? As soon as it becomes inconvenient, buy a younger one and then leave your responsibility for someone else to take care of?
People with that view and tendencies don't deserve pets. Seriously, that is disgusting.
An animal isn't a sweater or a couch, although society has shown that the majority of people don't bother to be responsible for that type of waste either.
An adopted animal is now a part of your family which means if you move, you find a home for your ENTIRE family. If your pet becomes sick, then you make whatever decision is necessary to take care of it (even if the humane thing is to put it down).
I'm not talking about people who find another loving home for their pet because the current situation isn't working for anyone involved. There are unavoidable situations where a pet isn't happy or the owner can't care for it, but finding another home means fulfilling your responsibilities.
I think part of the problem is that some people expect pets to be a constant source of fun but in reality they are thinking, feeling, creatures that experience boredom, depression, and love like us.
Anyways, as I was speaking to one of the employees at the shelter I began to discover new lows in the human race. I'm not just talking about the outright animal abusers, who are so obviously the vilest humans on the planet. No I'm talking about people that view animals like returnable and disposable products.
I was introduced to a 10 year old cat that was left at the shelter after her family decided to get a new puppy and a kitten. What sort of lesson is this for your kids? As soon as it becomes inconvenient, buy a younger one and then leave your responsibility for someone else to take care of?
People with that view and tendencies don't deserve pets. Seriously, that is disgusting.
An animal isn't a sweater or a couch, although society has shown that the majority of people don't bother to be responsible for that type of waste either.
An adopted animal is now a part of your family which means if you move, you find a home for your ENTIRE family. If your pet becomes sick, then you make whatever decision is necessary to take care of it (even if the humane thing is to put it down).
I'm not talking about people who find another loving home for their pet because the current situation isn't working for anyone involved. There are unavoidable situations where a pet isn't happy or the owner can't care for it, but finding another home means fulfilling your responsibilities.
I think part of the problem is that some people expect pets to be a constant source of fun but in reality they are thinking, feeling, creatures that experience boredom, depression, and love like us.
'That's Gross."
Alright, I know I rant about a lot of things but this is definitely in my list of top five topics that make me wish I had an inhaler.
So I’m sitting in the lunch room:
Girl reading the newspaper: Oh my god did you read this? About that horse that went to the slaughterhouse after it lost only one race?
Me: Um yeah that’s gross.
GRN: That’s soo disgusting, like seriously does anyone eat that?
This girl then proceeds to take a giant mouthful of beef stew.
I know there’s a whole psychological thing with animals that have been domesticated, but I will never understand how eating one type of meat is gross but if you buy another type in a grocery store it’s completely fine. It’s all flesh and it’s all disgusting.
Another thing that really pisses me off are people who acknowledge how disgusting and vile the slaughtering process is but then say ‘I just don’t want to think about it’ or ‘I just can’t sit through videos of that stuff’. If you can’t bear to watch footage of what your diet is supporting then you shouldn’t be supporting it. Period.
I think these videos should be shown in schools:
http://www.goveg.com/ui_cows.asp
So I’m sitting in the lunch room:
Girl reading the newspaper: Oh my god did you read this? About that horse that went to the slaughterhouse after it lost only one race?
Me: Um yeah that’s gross.
GRN: That’s soo disgusting, like seriously does anyone eat that?
This girl then proceeds to take a giant mouthful of beef stew.
I know there’s a whole psychological thing with animals that have been domesticated, but I will never understand how eating one type of meat is gross but if you buy another type in a grocery store it’s completely fine. It’s all flesh and it’s all disgusting.
Another thing that really pisses me off are people who acknowledge how disgusting and vile the slaughtering process is but then say ‘I just don’t want to think about it’ or ‘I just can’t sit through videos of that stuff’. If you can’t bear to watch footage of what your diet is supporting then you shouldn’t be supporting it. Period.
I think these videos should be shown in schools:
http://www.goveg.com/ui_cows.asp
Al Gore
Al Gore has done some fantastic things for the environmental movement and he's been promoting the cause long before it was in vogue to do so. The man seems genuinely committed to conservation without an ulterior motive. There’s just one thing that seems quite odd to me, why isn’t he a vegetarian?
I know, even I’m thinking “The man won a Nobel Prize! Isn’t there someone better to pick on!?!” And I’m sure there is, however I don’t believe that being a vegetarian is a small detail when it comes to being environmentally aware.
As Peta has said, it’s strange that Al Gore is promoting an eco-friendly lifestyle but only the lifestyle choices that are convenient to him.
Here are just some random facts on the meat industry which Al Gore, the man credited with bringing global warming mainstream is still supporting with his carnivorous lifestyle:
• An area of rainforest the size of 7 football fields is destroyed every minute to make room for grazing cattle, a vegetarian saves 1 acre of trees annually
• 1 pound of beef requires approx. 2500 gallons of water, 1 pound of soy requires approx. 250
• More than 1/3 of fossil fuels produced in the US goes towards raising animals for food
• A vegan diet does more to reduce emissions than driving a hybrid car
• 10 people can be fed with the grain that goes to feeding one cow that provides for one person
Plus, even Oprah is going vegan. So can anyone tell me, what gives with Al Gore?
I know, even I’m thinking “The man won a Nobel Prize! Isn’t there someone better to pick on!?!” And I’m sure there is, however I don’t believe that being a vegetarian is a small detail when it comes to being environmentally aware.
As Peta has said, it’s strange that Al Gore is promoting an eco-friendly lifestyle but only the lifestyle choices that are convenient to him.
Here are just some random facts on the meat industry which Al Gore, the man credited with bringing global warming mainstream is still supporting with his carnivorous lifestyle:
• An area of rainforest the size of 7 football fields is destroyed every minute to make room for grazing cattle, a vegetarian saves 1 acre of trees annually
• 1 pound of beef requires approx. 2500 gallons of water, 1 pound of soy requires approx. 250
• More than 1/3 of fossil fuels produced in the US goes towards raising animals for food
• A vegan diet does more to reduce emissions than driving a hybrid car
• 10 people can be fed with the grain that goes to feeding one cow that provides for one person
Plus, even Oprah is going vegan. So can anyone tell me, what gives with Al Gore?
Nuclear Power
Lately governments (mine at least), have been assuring us that nuclear power is the way of the future. It produces vast amounts of energy without depositing endless tones of carbon into our atmosphere. It’s been around for forever, and now here it is to solve our problems. It’s too good to be true. And it is.
There are a few aspects of nuclear power that are missing from these commercials that feature flowers blooming, children playing, and clear blue skies.
Where do I start?
Let’s start with the most obvious. Nuclear power plants have a history of accidents and nuclear leaks. Let’s say that we have 100 power plants in our country (like the US) and only one of them has an accident in 20 years. That accident could be anything from a terrorist attack to a plane crash to the plant just getting old with the potential for leaks. I guess that’s a good average but that 1 accident will result in highly radioactive fuel leaking into the surrounding environment. This scenario has proven to cause cancers of all sorts for anyone or anything within miles of the area and will leave the area contaminated for generations to come.
Alright, now suppose that risk isn’t convincing and we can delude ourselves into thinking that as long as we take the correct precautions we can avoid an accident like that. Then I suggest we investigate the theory of nuclear power as ‘clean’ power.
It is true that the actual use of nuclear power for energy is ‘clean’ in the sense that there are no emissions during the process of extracting energy. However looking at only one step of a process is naïve, similar to if you were to conclude that a J.Lo movie will be an Oscar winner after seeing a preview.
The most common first step of nuclear power is extracting uranium from the ore and ore from the ground, a messy process to say the least and lucky for us Canadians we are the #1 exporter of uranium ore. At best, ore can contain 1% uranium which means that enormous amounts of ore needs to be processed to get even a little uranium. After the ore is processed it is left in a powdered state which is just as radioactive as uranium and is hazardous for approx. 250,000 years. The mining of uranium usually then contaminates the air, water, and land with radioactive chemicals and heavy metals.
After uranium is mined and then used for power there’s also the small issue of waste. Currently there is no safe way to dispose of radioactive waste. There are currently no examples of nuclear waste staying in an insolated environment for tens of thousands of years, which is about its half life.
That’s a lot of waste that isn’t going anywhere from the 441 nuclear power plants that are currently operating in the world.
Oh yeah one other thing: if uranium mining is being funded by governments for nuclear power plants, then isn’t there a potential for some of that energy being dedicated toward weapons?
There are a few aspects of nuclear power that are missing from these commercials that feature flowers blooming, children playing, and clear blue skies.
Where do I start?
Let’s start with the most obvious. Nuclear power plants have a history of accidents and nuclear leaks. Let’s say that we have 100 power plants in our country (like the US) and only one of them has an accident in 20 years. That accident could be anything from a terrorist attack to a plane crash to the plant just getting old with the potential for leaks. I guess that’s a good average but that 1 accident will result in highly radioactive fuel leaking into the surrounding environment. This scenario has proven to cause cancers of all sorts for anyone or anything within miles of the area and will leave the area contaminated for generations to come.
Alright, now suppose that risk isn’t convincing and we can delude ourselves into thinking that as long as we take the correct precautions we can avoid an accident like that. Then I suggest we investigate the theory of nuclear power as ‘clean’ power.
It is true that the actual use of nuclear power for energy is ‘clean’ in the sense that there are no emissions during the process of extracting energy. However looking at only one step of a process is naïve, similar to if you were to conclude that a J.Lo movie will be an Oscar winner after seeing a preview.
The most common first step of nuclear power is extracting uranium from the ore and ore from the ground, a messy process to say the least and lucky for us Canadians we are the #1 exporter of uranium ore. At best, ore can contain 1% uranium which means that enormous amounts of ore needs to be processed to get even a little uranium. After the ore is processed it is left in a powdered state which is just as radioactive as uranium and is hazardous for approx. 250,000 years. The mining of uranium usually then contaminates the air, water, and land with radioactive chemicals and heavy metals.
After uranium is mined and then used for power there’s also the small issue of waste. Currently there is no safe way to dispose of radioactive waste. There are currently no examples of nuclear waste staying in an insolated environment for tens of thousands of years, which is about its half life.
That’s a lot of waste that isn’t going anywhere from the 441 nuclear power plants that are currently operating in the world.
Oh yeah one other thing: if uranium mining is being funded by governments for nuclear power plants, then isn’t there a potential for some of that energy being dedicated toward weapons?
Terrorist Scarf
Anyone can tell that I’m all for being socially aware and active. I may disagree with your cause or not even care at all but at least you’re doing something about it. Fight the power man!
Sometimes however, I wish people would use their energy on more pressing issues:
http://www.usmagazine.com/rachael-ray-ad-pulled-by-dunkin-donuts
Ok, I get it. But, seriously? Let’s consider this ad and Rachel Ray’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’
1. Was anyone seriously offended? Or was this just an opportunity for Conservatives to demonstrate their ‘war on terror’. Why not use your time fighting ‘the axis of evil’ then impressing on people’s civil liberties of being allowed to wear pretty much whatever the hell they want?
2. After seeing this ad did anyone run out, buy one of those scarves and decide that they’d missed their calling as a suicide bomber?
3. Does anyone believe that Dunkin Doughnuts has a secret initiative to promote terrorist activities? I don’t even think they serve ‘freedom fries’
And another point: since when does that traditional Arab headdress IMMEDIATELY equate with Muslim extremism? I guess anyone who wears one of these hats
(http://www.shorelineoftahoe.com/store/images/W/B8-B8K13101-05.jpg) obviously supports Castro and socialism.
What bothers me even more is that Dunkin’ Doughnuts gave creditability to these allegations by removing the ad! Yeah, I know they don’t want to offend anyone but by removing the ad they are essentially agreeing that there is something offensive about the scarf.
All this ranting has made me want to go shopping, anyone know where I can get that cute scarf?
Sometimes however, I wish people would use their energy on more pressing issues:
http://www.usmagazine.com/rachael-ray-ad-pulled-by-dunkin-donuts
Ok, I get it. But, seriously? Let’s consider this ad and Rachel Ray’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’
1. Was anyone seriously offended? Or was this just an opportunity for Conservatives to demonstrate their ‘war on terror’. Why not use your time fighting ‘the axis of evil’ then impressing on people’s civil liberties of being allowed to wear pretty much whatever the hell they want?
2. After seeing this ad did anyone run out, buy one of those scarves and decide that they’d missed their calling as a suicide bomber?
3. Does anyone believe that Dunkin Doughnuts has a secret initiative to promote terrorist activities? I don’t even think they serve ‘freedom fries’
And another point: since when does that traditional Arab headdress IMMEDIATELY equate with Muslim extremism? I guess anyone who wears one of these hats
(http://www.shorelineoftahoe.com/store/images/W/B8-B8K13101-05.jpg) obviously supports Castro and socialism.
What bothers me even more is that Dunkin’ Doughnuts gave creditability to these allegations by removing the ad! Yeah, I know they don’t want to offend anyone but by removing the ad they are essentially agreeing that there is something offensive about the scarf.
All this ranting has made me want to go shopping, anyone know where I can get that cute scarf?
The next great threat to national security....
I don’t know if the following story is absolutely hysterical or a sign of the apocalypse.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/21/fbi-looking-for-vega.html
I can just imagine this coming from the top after a conversation like this:
Dick Cheney: Well sir, we have yet to locate Osama Bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or any sort of proof indicating guilt for 90% of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
George Bush: Drat.
CondoleezzaRice: Despite that sir, I believe there is a greater threat to our nation’s security and constitution.
GB: Homosexuals? Democrats? Hippies?
CR: Actually sir you are somewhat correct. I’m talking about VEGANS.
DC: They are going to ruin the country!!
CR: He’s right, they go against everything that America is built on. They believe in environmental preservation, animal compassion, health, and social awareness. I also believe that most them try to bike to work.
DC: That’s disgusting. We need to infiltrate their gatherings and generate the main threats and suspects immediately.
GB: I like it. And I think we should call them “The Alliance of Destruction & Doom”, how can America not fight something with that name? Otherwise you are supporting Destruction and doom. Simple as that.
CR: I like it.
DC: Well our time is up, I feel like we made some real progress. I’ll send a memo to the FBI, the NRA, and Bill O’Reilly. I guess we’ll just have to make time to talk about our $400 billion dollar deficit next time.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/21/fbi-looking-for-vega.html
I can just imagine this coming from the top after a conversation like this:
Dick Cheney: Well sir, we have yet to locate Osama Bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or any sort of proof indicating guilt for 90% of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
George Bush: Drat.
CondoleezzaRice: Despite that sir, I believe there is a greater threat to our nation’s security and constitution.
GB: Homosexuals? Democrats? Hippies?
CR: Actually sir you are somewhat correct. I’m talking about VEGANS.
DC: They are going to ruin the country!!
CR: He’s right, they go against everything that America is built on. They believe in environmental preservation, animal compassion, health, and social awareness. I also believe that most them try to bike to work.
DC: That’s disgusting. We need to infiltrate their gatherings and generate the main threats and suspects immediately.
GB: I like it. And I think we should call them “The Alliance of Destruction & Doom”, how can America not fight something with that name? Otherwise you are supporting Destruction and doom. Simple as that.
CR: I like it.
DC: Well our time is up, I feel like we made some real progress. I’ll send a memo to the FBI, the NRA, and Bill O’Reilly. I guess we’ll just have to make time to talk about our $400 billion dollar deficit next time.
My Hero
I’m guessing that for anyone who has taken the time to read this blog (all 5 of you…. thanks mom) will know that a lot of things really irritate me. You’re probably wondering: “Do you like anything or anyone? You kill-joy!”
That is a fair enough question, since I seem to find issue with everything and everyone. BUT, there is one man that can do no wrong and that is Mr. Paul Watson. Those of you familiar with him know that there are no neutral feelings on this guy.
A quick history of Paul Watson for those of you who are confused: he is one of the founding members of Greenpeace who then left (or was expelled depending on who you ask) when he felt there wasn’t enough direct action. He then went on to find a ship of his own, create “The Sea Shepherd” organization, sink an illegal whaling ship, get arrested and have his boat seized, escape and then go back to steal his boat back.
Some other highlights of his life include being shot in the chest by a Japanese marksman, paying the Canadian government his $10,000 bail in toonies after protesting the annual seal hunt, and is rumored to have created “tree spiking” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking).
Seriously, this guy is a hero. He takes action when governments are either too afraid or corrupt to intervene and he also keeps a record of how many illegal whaling or fishing ships he’s sunk on his ship.
Some may say he’s a radical but I say it’s people like him we should be worshipping and following in magazines instead of the latest teen star in rehab. Agree with him or not you have to admire someone who will stop at virtually nothing to protect what he believes in.
That is a fair enough question, since I seem to find issue with everything and everyone. BUT, there is one man that can do no wrong and that is Mr. Paul Watson. Those of you familiar with him know that there are no neutral feelings on this guy.
A quick history of Paul Watson for those of you who are confused: he is one of the founding members of Greenpeace who then left (or was expelled depending on who you ask) when he felt there wasn’t enough direct action. He then went on to find a ship of his own, create “The Sea Shepherd” organization, sink an illegal whaling ship, get arrested and have his boat seized, escape and then go back to steal his boat back.
Some other highlights of his life include being shot in the chest by a Japanese marksman, paying the Canadian government his $10,000 bail in toonies after protesting the annual seal hunt, and is rumored to have created “tree spiking” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking).
Seriously, this guy is a hero. He takes action when governments are either too afraid or corrupt to intervene and he also keeps a record of how many illegal whaling or fishing ships he’s sunk on his ship.
Some may say he’s a radical but I say it’s people like him we should be worshipping and following in magazines instead of the latest teen star in rehab. Agree with him or not you have to admire someone who will stop at virtually nothing to protect what he believes in.
Greenwashing
One of the greatest crimes of business right now is the practice of ‘greenwashing ‘. How many times have you been watching TV and ad comes on:
“we care about your children’s future and the future of our planet, which is why our product is greener than ever... brought to you by Clorox”
Makes you wonder, did they just raise the price and buy some carbon offsets? Seriously, I’ve seen CAR COMPANIES advertise their products as ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly’... IT’S STILL A FREAKIN CAR. That’s like saying Paris Hilton is now ‘Chastity friendly’.
The thing that is most irksome is that the terms ‘green’, ‘environmentally friendly’, etc. are mostly undefined which means that nobody is launching a lawsuit against any corporationS for false and misleading advertising.
Technically a product is ‘now greener than ever’ if it’s now only 99.99% toxic, down from the entire 100%.I like to make a parallel between this trend in products to people losing weight. Generally anybody with half a brain knows that for most of the population you only need to eat somewhat healthy and get daily exercise. THAT’S IT. Yet the diet industry is a multibillion dollar industry supported by everyone trying to find an easy short cut.
Now to bring my theory around, anybody with half a brain knows that chemicals are harmful and end up in our water and air, that driving a car is bad, and most of the superfluous products and excessive packaging end up in our oceans and overflowing dumps. Yet because bleach is now ‘greener than ever!’ we can excuse ourselves from buying it and tons of other products.
Therefore I’m not even going to bother going into what choices are society should be making because I’m positive we already know however it’s too inconvenient to acknowledge it. Besides that air freshener has such a cute new label.
ps. If you would like some more examples of companies taking advantage of this new trend and basically lying to the public, check out: http://stopgreenwash.org/
“we care about your children’s future and the future of our planet, which is why our product is greener than ever... brought to you by Clorox”
Makes you wonder, did they just raise the price and buy some carbon offsets? Seriously, I’ve seen CAR COMPANIES advertise their products as ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly’... IT’S STILL A FREAKIN CAR. That’s like saying Paris Hilton is now ‘Chastity friendly’.
The thing that is most irksome is that the terms ‘green’, ‘environmentally friendly’, etc. are mostly undefined which means that nobody is launching a lawsuit against any corporationS for false and misleading advertising.
Technically a product is ‘now greener than ever’ if it’s now only 99.99% toxic, down from the entire 100%.I like to make a parallel between this trend in products to people losing weight. Generally anybody with half a brain knows that for most of the population you only need to eat somewhat healthy and get daily exercise. THAT’S IT. Yet the diet industry is a multibillion dollar industry supported by everyone trying to find an easy short cut.
Now to bring my theory around, anybody with half a brain knows that chemicals are harmful and end up in our water and air, that driving a car is bad, and most of the superfluous products and excessive packaging end up in our oceans and overflowing dumps. Yet because bleach is now ‘greener than ever!’ we can excuse ourselves from buying it and tons of other products.
Therefore I’m not even going to bother going into what choices are society should be making because I’m positive we already know however it’s too inconvenient to acknowledge it. Besides that air freshener has such a cute new label.
ps. If you would like some more examples of companies taking advantage of this new trend and basically lying to the public, check out: http://stopgreenwash.org/
" I could never be a veggie"
People who know me know never to say “I could never give up meat”. They know they’ll get some ugly rant from me where I end up sweating and spitting when I talk. Why? Because that statement is just a pathetic attempt to avoid taking responsibility for what you put in your mouth.
When a person says this they are claiming that they could not survive without meat and therefore should never attempt to try a healthier, more humane, and environmentally friendly diet.
I have yet to hear of any person that physically cannot survive without flesh. Of course we’ve all ‘had a friend that went vegan and got violently ill.’ Let’s get two things straight:
1. That’s probably not true.
2. If it is true, then your friend is a complete moron and probably did no research before they cut everything out at once. (Step by step people!)
What should be said is “I don’t want to ever try changing my habits that have a disastrous ripple effect on everything that lives”.
Eating meat is an environmental, social, animal cruelty, and health epidemic. Some people argue that if it’s that horrendous then why we don’t hear more about it. Well, how long did it take for the world to realize that smoking had dire consequences? The meat industry is the current tobacco industry. Don’t believe me? Do some research, just don’t try telling me you could never give it up because I might find I could never give up throwing vegetables at anyone who buys from hot dog stands.
When a person says this they are claiming that they could not survive without meat and therefore should never attempt to try a healthier, more humane, and environmentally friendly diet.
I have yet to hear of any person that physically cannot survive without flesh. Of course we’ve all ‘had a friend that went vegan and got violently ill.’ Let’s get two things straight:
1. That’s probably not true.
2. If it is true, then your friend is a complete moron and probably did no research before they cut everything out at once. (Step by step people!)
What should be said is “I don’t want to ever try changing my habits that have a disastrous ripple effect on everything that lives”.
Eating meat is an environmental, social, animal cruelty, and health epidemic. Some people argue that if it’s that horrendous then why we don’t hear more about it. Well, how long did it take for the world to realize that smoking had dire consequences? The meat industry is the current tobacco industry. Don’t believe me? Do some research, just don’t try telling me you could never give it up because I might find I could never give up throwing vegetables at anyone who buys from hot dog stands.
Celebrities
Celebrities can be really irritating and I'm not just talking about the narcissism, indulgence, and insulting our intelligence with half the things they hawk at us.
No, what I am rambling about today is 'green celebrities'. Now, I know there are some stars that are generally committed to an ecologically balanced future but for the most part it's really hard to take them seriously when they're never seen wearing an outfit twice.
Who am I going to pick on today? Jennifer Aniston. I recently read that she has gone ‘green’ by cutting down her water consumption by brushing her teeth in the shower…. Ok that doesn’t really work. Isn’t brushing your teeth in the shower like leaving a huge faucet running while you brush?
Also, the woman is a spokesperson for bottled water. Bottled water is not only an enormously ridiculously concept (we pay up to a 300% markup on something WE GET FOR FREE), but the whole industry creates large amounts of waste, consumes oil (measure a quarter of the water in the bottle and that’s the amount of oil it takes to produce it), and even recycling the containers puts fumes in the air.
So it seems you’re a friend of the environment if you promote an extremely un-environmental product, jet around the world, and eat meat as long as you try and multi-task in your shower in your mansion.
Therefore if celebrities are as influential as they seem to think they are then they partially to blame for the incredibly low standards we seem to hold ourselves to.
No, what I am rambling about today is 'green celebrities'. Now, I know there are some stars that are generally committed to an ecologically balanced future but for the most part it's really hard to take them seriously when they're never seen wearing an outfit twice.
Who am I going to pick on today? Jennifer Aniston. I recently read that she has gone ‘green’ by cutting down her water consumption by brushing her teeth in the shower…. Ok that doesn’t really work. Isn’t brushing your teeth in the shower like leaving a huge faucet running while you brush?
Also, the woman is a spokesperson for bottled water. Bottled water is not only an enormously ridiculously concept (we pay up to a 300% markup on something WE GET FOR FREE), but the whole industry creates large amounts of waste, consumes oil (measure a quarter of the water in the bottle and that’s the amount of oil it takes to produce it), and even recycling the containers puts fumes in the air.
So it seems you’re a friend of the environment if you promote an extremely un-environmental product, jet around the world, and eat meat as long as you try and multi-task in your shower in your mansion.
Therefore if celebrities are as influential as they seem to think they are then they partially to blame for the incredibly low standards we seem to hold ourselves to.
An Introduction
As someone who has been an activist most of my life I know that to create change there are a number of tactics of persuasion. Mostly you need to demonstrate to people how they will directly benefit from a new conceptor, sometimes guilt works.
I believe that a person is smart but society... well it has shown me to be a group that drags their feet towards change and seems to take action in the very last moments or when it is seemingly too late.
Remember that there are many ambitious and driven people out there making positive contributions, but this is not what my blog is about.
As you can tell by the title I'm an angry activist, in fact I'm frustrated, pissed off, disheartened, and sometimes disgusted. These are emotions I rarely share since they are not in the top persuasal techniques, in fact they mostly just cause people to distance themselves from you.
But I have a feeling that I'm not the only one that feels this way.
That's why I'm using this annoymous forum to say what I really feel. I'm tired of patting my friends on the back for switching off their lights when they leave the room or offering a high five to my family when they took the time to watch "An Unconvenient Truth".
It's estimated that we lose 100 SPECIES EVERY DAY, that half of all species are going to be extinct within 100 years, and we're just beginning to phase out plastic bags!?! Seriously, I feel like we should all be wearing perscription helmets at this point and consider letting another species dominate this planet for a while.
In conculsion, while I attend rallies, protests, write letters, and continue to persuade everyone I know to make changes, I will use this blog to say how I really feel.
I encourage you to let me know how you really feel!
A Double Existence
For some of you scanning the internet this blog probably looks familiar.
That's because I have the exact same blog on blog.ca but I'm going to conduct and experience and see if I can get more traffic on this blog site.
That's because I have the exact same blog on blog.ca but I'm going to conduct and experience and see if I can get more traffic on this blog site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)