When I say I'm a feminist, I mean it. Feminism isn't just about equal rights, equal pay for equal work. It's about something more fundamental--the right of a woman to be respected, entitled to her own opinions and able to persue her pleasure before anyone else's without being judged or condemned for it. Given that, some media things have pissed me off this last week...
So, I was watching American Idol. Yes, it's American Idol. Yes, I have no reasonable expectation that it would ever be feminist in any way, shape or form. But nevertheless...one of the hopefuls who auditioned before the judges was a sixteen year old girl who was part of a youth group that gave talks about abstinence and why it's best to wait to have sex until you're married. She told this to the judges, who reacted with exclamations about how cute that was, how great she was, and how sweet and nice of a person she was. Naturally, I have some issues with this. One is that the judges of American Idol are pretty clearly not advocates of abstinence until marriage. Paula and Randy have been divorced, and Simon has never been married (but was accused of cheating on a girlfriend). So why do they find it good and cute that this girl is advocating a position they don't agree with?
This is symptomatic of some of the largest problems concerning sexuality, especially female sexuality, in American society. First, it's accepting the premise that sexual pleasure is inherently sinful and wrong unless it's connected with a bunch of other ideals like love, commitment and monogamy--not a premise that I accept in any way. Plenty of people have sex everyday in a casual, non-comitted, non-monogamous way. Are they wrong? Sinful? I don't think so. Which is a worse sin--a woman who meets a guy in a bar, has consensual sex with him in a context where both parties recognize that this is not part of a long-term relationship and uses protection, or a man who marries a woman until death do them part, sleeps with her even though he doesn't want to and represses the fact that he's gay because he believes he has to fit a certain mold? Generally, I tend to adhere to Dan Savage's set of sexual values--if you're adults, it's consensual, and no animals are involved, then you're good.
Secondly, and more importantly, it's condemning female pursuit of pleasure. The evangelical Christian wait-until-marriage doctrine generally tends to reject things like women taking leadership roles, women articulating their own needs and desires, and all that good stuff that healthy sexual relationships are based on. Think about what would have happened on American Idol if a young woman had walked in and told the judges that she volunteered for a nonprofit education group that teaches girls how to be aware of their bodies, their sexual potential, masturbate, and articulate what they want and need sexually. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have gotten the "that's so sweet!" treatment. And for that matter, I can't think of a single instance where I've heard of a nonprofit that does just that, though I've sure heard of plenty teaching abstinence and repression.
So, women need to be respected. And that includes that girl and her opinion that sex before marriage is wrong. That's her belief, and that's fine. But we need equally vocal groups countering that opinion and being vocal about a woman's right to control her own body in every sense. We need groups telling girls that they are allowed to have sexual desires and fantasies--it's not just a guy thing. We need a society that is more tolerant of sexually liberated women--no more Madonna-whore dichotomy. And we need better TV shows than American Idol, but that's a whole seperate issue.
1.27.2008
1.15.2008
Capitalist activism?
So, we've spent the last two days in Post class debating economics, environmental issues, social change and activism. Which sounds like my cup of tea, except I keep leaving class wanting to kill someone. Because, these, essentially were the debates:
Day 1 : Environmental Justice
Issue: Are there always losers in a capitalist system and can you make progress in areas like this without destroying capitalism?
Sides:
Victor Lindstrom--You can't change things like high pollution areas without getting rid of capitalism, therefore you shouldn't try.
Darren Veit and others--You can't change without getting rid of capitalism, therefore we should get rid of capitalism because it's inherently racist and classist.
Me and nobody else--Capitalism and environmental/social justice aren't incompatible, you just need small amounts of regulation and government action which gives market incentives for positive change.
Day 2: Social Entrepreneurship
Issue: Can you make money without exploiting someone?
Sides
Darren--No, it's completely impossible, especially in the US because it's ingrained in our economic and political system.
Me--Yes--trade isn't a zero-sum game. You having a dollar means someone else has a dollar less, but that's not a bad thing all the time. If I sell you something for a dollar that you're willing to buy for a dollar, everyone wins. I get a dollar richer. You get a dollar of value. And this isn't just theory--Grameen Bank, case in point. It's an incredibly profitable business, and it benefits the poor who get microloans. Even Cranium. Who does that exploit? I'm not going to say it does no harm to anybody, and especially not the environment, but that's different than exploitation.
I'm so sick of feeling like the only activist who doesn't hate capitalism. Yes, it has its problems, but find me a better system. And people like Ms. Engstrom, who get mad about the fact that we're looking for alternative fuel technologies for cars, when we should all just stop driving in the first place..I'm sorry, but we as a society can't function that way. Progress doesn't have to be a bad thing. And while you might be ok with that, most people wouldn't be, and you can't force people to live a certain way.
And it occurs to me now that I'm conflicted about so many things, everyday. I have so many things fighting inside of me, so many different opinions about every single little thing in the world. Let me show you what I mean:
I have a deep respect for our women and men in uniform, and I believe that they are incredibly brave and loyal people. I think war is necessary sometimes. But I hate our military-minded complex, I hate that we fight other cultures first and negotiate later, and I hate the wars those brave soldiers have been involved in in the last few decades.
I believe everyone should have opportunity to advance and that companies should pay people living wages. I know that most people are poor through bad luck or birth, not because of laziness. But I also think companies have a right to hire people at market prices--what people are willing to work for, be it in third world sweatshops or here within our borders. After all, a sweatshop job is better than no job, as horrible as that sounds.
I love the earth and I would rather die than live in a world without mountains, trees, animals and functional ecosystems (and I'm pretty sure that's not an exaggeration for dramatic effect). I believe we all, collectively need to wake up and start reducing our consumption, building sustainable communities and taking care of the earth. But I don't think you can force businesses to be more green. You can't shut down the cattle industry, even if it is responsible for 25% of the world's carbon emissions. You can't make ExxonMobile stop spending billions of dollars to convince people that climate change isn't real. And you can't say that the better information will win, because the people with the money aren't usually the green ones, and it hasn't been working.
How can I change the world when I can't convince my own father to keep our thermostat below 70 degrees? How can I justify asking other people to change their lives when I live in the house I do, wear the clothes I wear, buy the things I buy? How can I, believing so much in the value of competition, the human spirit, the beauty of innovation, how can I tell somebody that their idea, their business, their profit-making method is not valid because the cost is too high to society?
To those of you who ask--how can you spend so much time thinking about these things, my only response is--how can you not? I've never known another way to think, to look at the world. I've thought this way since 2nd grade--my knowledge and opinions have shifted, my core values have remained the same. I believe our lives have no higher mandate, no higher purpose, than to work as hard as we can for as long as we can to make the world a better place, in whatever way we see that. Some people are scientists, giving us a better understanding of the world around us and its possibilities. Some are artists, making us think and adding beauty to a world that can seem bleak. Some of us are businesspeople, coming up with new ideas and finding better ways to make them. And some of us are activists, for the same reason--because that is our calling. Because that is the only way I know to make the world better.
Day 1 : Environmental Justice
Issue: Are there always losers in a capitalist system and can you make progress in areas like this without destroying capitalism?
Sides:
Victor Lindstrom--You can't change things like high pollution areas without getting rid of capitalism, therefore you shouldn't try.
Darren Veit and others--You can't change without getting rid of capitalism, therefore we should get rid of capitalism because it's inherently racist and classist.
Me and nobody else--Capitalism and environmental/social justice aren't incompatible, you just need small amounts of regulation and government action which gives market incentives for positive change.
Day 2: Social Entrepreneurship
Issue: Can you make money without exploiting someone?
Sides
Darren--No, it's completely impossible, especially in the US because it's ingrained in our economic and political system.
Me--Yes--trade isn't a zero-sum game. You having a dollar means someone else has a dollar less, but that's not a bad thing all the time. If I sell you something for a dollar that you're willing to buy for a dollar, everyone wins. I get a dollar richer. You get a dollar of value. And this isn't just theory--Grameen Bank, case in point. It's an incredibly profitable business, and it benefits the poor who get microloans. Even Cranium. Who does that exploit? I'm not going to say it does no harm to anybody, and especially not the environment, but that's different than exploitation.
I'm so sick of feeling like the only activist who doesn't hate capitalism. Yes, it has its problems, but find me a better system. And people like Ms. Engstrom, who get mad about the fact that we're looking for alternative fuel technologies for cars, when we should all just stop driving in the first place..I'm sorry, but we as a society can't function that way. Progress doesn't have to be a bad thing. And while you might be ok with that, most people wouldn't be, and you can't force people to live a certain way.
And it occurs to me now that I'm conflicted about so many things, everyday. I have so many things fighting inside of me, so many different opinions about every single little thing in the world. Let me show you what I mean:
I have a deep respect for our women and men in uniform, and I believe that they are incredibly brave and loyal people. I think war is necessary sometimes. But I hate our military-minded complex, I hate that we fight other cultures first and negotiate later, and I hate the wars those brave soldiers have been involved in in the last few decades.
I believe everyone should have opportunity to advance and that companies should pay people living wages. I know that most people are poor through bad luck or birth, not because of laziness. But I also think companies have a right to hire people at market prices--what people are willing to work for, be it in third world sweatshops or here within our borders. After all, a sweatshop job is better than no job, as horrible as that sounds.
I love the earth and I would rather die than live in a world without mountains, trees, animals and functional ecosystems (and I'm pretty sure that's not an exaggeration for dramatic effect). I believe we all, collectively need to wake up and start reducing our consumption, building sustainable communities and taking care of the earth. But I don't think you can force businesses to be more green. You can't shut down the cattle industry, even if it is responsible for 25% of the world's carbon emissions. You can't make ExxonMobile stop spending billions of dollars to convince people that climate change isn't real. And you can't say that the better information will win, because the people with the money aren't usually the green ones, and it hasn't been working.
How can I change the world when I can't convince my own father to keep our thermostat below 70 degrees? How can I justify asking other people to change their lives when I live in the house I do, wear the clothes I wear, buy the things I buy? How can I, believing so much in the value of competition, the human spirit, the beauty of innovation, how can I tell somebody that their idea, their business, their profit-making method is not valid because the cost is too high to society?
To those of you who ask--how can you spend so much time thinking about these things, my only response is--how can you not? I've never known another way to think, to look at the world. I've thought this way since 2nd grade--my knowledge and opinions have shifted, my core values have remained the same. I believe our lives have no higher mandate, no higher purpose, than to work as hard as we can for as long as we can to make the world a better place, in whatever way we see that. Some people are scientists, giving us a better understanding of the world around us and its possibilities. Some are artists, making us think and adding beauty to a world that can seem bleak. Some of us are businesspeople, coming up with new ideas and finding better ways to make them. And some of us are activists, for the same reason--because that is our calling. Because that is the only way I know to make the world better.
1.02.2008
A suggestion for DIY activism
Like many socially conscious and politically active youth, I constantly want new t-shirts. I identify as liberal, feminist, environmentalist, vegetarian, atheist, anti-materialist, anti-Bush and a bunch of other stuff. And every time I see one of those t-shirts with a witty saying on it--Feminism is the radical notion that women are people or America--one nation under surveillance, I feel compelled to get it so my clothing will speak for what I believe.
But I also believe in green living and simple living and using money for useful purposes. And that side of me is strongly against spending $15 for a Save Darfur shirt instead of just donating $15 to the cause. Plus, I can't shell out money every time someone makes a cool shirt--that's impractical and ridiculous. So, caught in this quandary, I've generally avoided that whole line of shirts.
Until today, that is, when I had a rare flash of brilliance. Why not, I thought to myself, make my own shirt? I thought about this for a few minutes and decided it was feasible. I had a few plain color shirts sitting around that I didn't wear because they're boring. I had spray paint left over from Purple & White Day. All I needed was a few stencils, which I found on this awesome site: http://72.29.83.164/~stencil/stencils.htm
So now, I have this lovely shirt:
But I also believe in green living and simple living and using money for useful purposes. And that side of me is strongly against spending $15 for a Save Darfur shirt instead of just donating $15 to the cause. Plus, I can't shell out money every time someone makes a cool shirt--that's impractical and ridiculous. So, caught in this quandary, I've generally avoided that whole line of shirts.
Until today, that is, when I had a rare flash of brilliance. Why not, I thought to myself, make my own shirt? I thought about this for a few minutes and decided it was feasible. I had a few plain color shirts sitting around that I didn't wear because they're boring. I had spray paint left over from Purple & White Day. All I needed was a few stencils, which I found on this awesome site: http://72.29.83.164/~stencil/stencils.htm
So now, I have this lovely shirt:
Yes, it's a bit ghetto and the spray painting isn't perfect. But I'm happy about it. I used some of my extra spray paint, I used an old shirt that I wasn't wearing much, I didn't spend any money, and George Bush even looks recognizable. So I propose this--next time you want to make a statement, grab an old shirt, a can of spray paint, and do it yourself.
12.28.2007
This just in...
...the House of Representatives "acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith" and "expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world".
Whew. Glad they got that off their chests.
Ok, so those of you who care about politics have probably already heard about House Resolution 847, which recognizes the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. And those of you who don't care about politics probably stopped reading after the first sentence. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to offer my insights on this historic piece of legislation.
The bill in question was passed by the House on December 11, 2007 with a vote of 372-9-50. Its stated purpose was to recognize the historical importance of Christianity and Christmas. Now, clearly, this piece of legislation was urgently needed at this precise time in American history, as evidenced by the following facts:
a) The vast majority of Americans are clearly unaware of the important role Christianity plays in this country. I mean, gosh, it's been almost a month or so since the last serious threat to the separation of chuch and state. I almost forgot we were a theocracy...I mean, democracy.
b) With a war in progress and another one looming ever closer on the horizon, Congress clearly had nothing more productive they could have been doing with their time on December 11, 2007.
c) Those goddamn atheists are trying to kill Christmas, again.
Delving deeper into this intriguing example of democracy in action, I was heartened to discover that my own Congressional representative voted "nay" on this particular resolution. I was under the impression that he did so because it was clearly a waste of precious Congressional time (which, ahem my tax dollars are paying for), and I wrote him to thank him. Imagine my surprise when I got back this seemingly personalized letter:
Dear Rachel:
Thank you for contacting me regarding my "nay" vote on H.Res.847, a resolution, "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." I appreciate the time you have taken to share your comments with me.
As a Christian, I have long honored and celebrated the holiday of Christmas. I, too, believe that Christmas is, "a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, {and} is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world." I voted no on the resolution, not to diminish the importance of the holiday, but rather as a reflection of what I believe the priorities of Congress should be.
To be frank, I was taken aback that the sponsor of H.Res.847 was Rep. Stephen King who, like many of the cosponsors of the resolution, has consistently opposed efforts to provide health care to children from poor families by voting against the State Children's Health Improvement Program (SCHIP). In my opinion, t he bill was a Republican tactic designed to draw attention from pressing issues in Congress, especially the President's second veto of an extension of health care for children in low-income families. I knew I would take criticism for my actions, but if my vote forces awareness and a discussion of Bush's SCHIP veto that same day, then it was a good protest vote.
It seemed to me that the spirit of Christmas and the message of Jesus were not honored by having this resolution promoted by those who, in my opinion, have not looked to the well-being of "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40). I did not feel right joining in support of this resolution because I felt it was contradicted by the sponsors' actions.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to contact me with matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
Now this, I found interesting. While I fully agree with his position on the SCHIP veto, it seems to me that there are better reasons to oppose this resolution. It's fine to recognize the provisions of the bill as true (I agree with most of them), but it seems to me that McDermott would have been fine with this bill if it were not for the idealogical contradictions it illuminated in some of his fellow Congressmen. Even if this is not the case, and he does believe this resolution was a waste of time (as I think could be reasonably inferred), nowhere does he mention any violations of the separation of church and state, which this bill comes dangerously close to tresspassing on. No, it doesn't actually say anything about favoring one religion over another, but if we interpret the first amendment literally, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Well, this is a law, made by Congress, which "expresses its deepest respect for American Christians". Hmm...
Yes, I am taking this too seriously. Yes, I should just be happy that my Congressperson has enough sense to vote "nay" in the first place. And yes, this is entirely a case of principle. But some principles, I think, are worth defending, and the seperation or church and state is one of them.
Whew. Glad they got that off their chests.
Ok, so those of you who care about politics have probably already heard about House Resolution 847, which recognizes the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. And those of you who don't care about politics probably stopped reading after the first sentence. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to offer my insights on this historic piece of legislation.
The bill in question was passed by the House on December 11, 2007 with a vote of 372-9-50. Its stated purpose was to recognize the historical importance of Christianity and Christmas. Now, clearly, this piece of legislation was urgently needed at this precise time in American history, as evidenced by the following facts:
a) The vast majority of Americans are clearly unaware of the important role Christianity plays in this country. I mean, gosh, it's been almost a month or so since the last serious threat to the separation of chuch and state. I almost forgot we were a theocracy...I mean, democracy.
b) With a war in progress and another one looming ever closer on the horizon, Congress clearly had nothing more productive they could have been doing with their time on December 11, 2007.
c) Those goddamn atheists are trying to kill Christmas, again.
Delving deeper into this intriguing example of democracy in action, I was heartened to discover that my own Congressional representative voted "nay" on this particular resolution. I was under the impression that he did so because it was clearly a waste of precious Congressional time (which, ahem my tax dollars are paying for), and I wrote him to thank him. Imagine my surprise when I got back this seemingly personalized letter:
Dear Rachel:
Thank you for contacting me regarding my "nay" vote on H.Res.847, a resolution, "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." I appreciate the time you have taken to share your comments with me.
As a Christian, I have long honored and celebrated the holiday of Christmas. I, too, believe that Christmas is, "a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, {and} is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world." I voted no on the resolution, not to diminish the importance of the holiday, but rather as a reflection of what I believe the priorities of Congress should be.
To be frank, I was taken aback that the sponsor of H.Res.847 was Rep. Stephen King who, like many of the cosponsors of the resolution, has consistently opposed efforts to provide health care to children from poor families by voting against the State Children's Health Improvement Program (SCHIP). In my opinion, t he bill was a Republican tactic designed to draw attention from pressing issues in Congress, especially the President's second veto of an extension of health care for children in low-income families. I knew I would take criticism for my actions, but if my vote forces awareness and a discussion of Bush's SCHIP veto that same day, then it was a good protest vote.
It seemed to me that the spirit of Christmas and the message of Jesus were not honored by having this resolution promoted by those who, in my opinion, have not looked to the well-being of "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40). I did not feel right joining in support of this resolution because I felt it was contradicted by the sponsors' actions.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to contact me with matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
Now this, I found interesting. While I fully agree with his position on the SCHIP veto, it seems to me that there are better reasons to oppose this resolution. It's fine to recognize the provisions of the bill as true (I agree with most of them), but it seems to me that McDermott would have been fine with this bill if it were not for the idealogical contradictions it illuminated in some of his fellow Congressmen. Even if this is not the case, and he does believe this resolution was a waste of time (as I think could be reasonably inferred), nowhere does he mention any violations of the separation of church and state, which this bill comes dangerously close to tresspassing on. No, it doesn't actually say anything about favoring one religion over another, but if we interpret the first amendment literally, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Well, this is a law, made by Congress, which "expresses its deepest respect for American Christians". Hmm...
Yes, I am taking this too seriously. Yes, I should just be happy that my Congressperson has enough sense to vote "nay" in the first place. And yes, this is entirely a case of principle. But some principles, I think, are worth defending, and the seperation or church and state is one of them.
12.22.2007
Economics and the environment: in defense of recycling
In preparation for college and life, I've been reading some books about real-life applications of economic reasoning and theory. And I've been reading Adbusters and some other socialist or quasi-socialist writings which are, in varying degrees, anti-free market, anti-consumerist and heavily critical of traditional economic wisdom. I'm trying to find the line of truth somewhere in between extremes, one that allows for conservation and responsible use of resources, but doesn't stifle personal freedom or liberty and still allows for economic growth and opportunity.
My book on economics is rather like an older version of Freakonomics, with some more controversial conclusions and more in-depth explanation of the economics behind decisions. (If you're interested, it's called The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg.) Most of it consists of explaining cost-benefit analysis, which is the main tool that economists use for evaluating the merits of a policy decision. Cost-benefit analysis, like the rest of economics, has no moral system inherent to it, and seeks to reach a solution involving the maximum possible efficiency. It relies on two premises--a cost is a cost, no matter who bears it, and a benefit is a benefit, no matter who incurs it. For example, when applying cost-benefit analysis to the legalization of drugs, the increased drug use as a result in considered a benefit, not a cost, because consumers are able to buy more drugs at a reduced cost.
So, the reasoning takes some getting used to, but it makes sense in most cases. Until the chapter called "Why I'm Not an Environmentalist". This chapter points out many legitimate flaws in what the author calls "the religion of environmentalism". A lack of willingness to question fundamental assumptions (something, incidentally, that free-market economics also suffers from). Ignoring markets when trying to solve environmental problems. Lack of willingness to compromise. A pervasive holier-than-thou attitude. These are all problems, and I wish we could solve them. But the arguments made by the author, while criticizing his opponents for their lack of economic logic and rationality, seem overly simplistic to me. Now, I'm not an economist or an environmental scientist, and if anyone can find any reasons why my critiques of his arguments are wrong, I'd appreciate hearing them.
First, Landsburg argues that recycling is bad if your aim is to preserve forests. This is because paper companies have a vested interest in keeping forests around, so if demand for paper is high, logging companies have an incentive to plant more trees and keep forests around. I don't disagree with this argument in its premise--logging companies certainly don't want to see all of our forests disappear, and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. However, this argument as a whole has three large flaws. One is that is fails to distinguish between the quantity and the quality of forests--a crucial distinction to most people who are interested in forest preservation. The second is that it ignores the problem of very high demand. And the final problem is the issue of waste and finite resource consumption.
The way I see this situation is somewhat different. Paper companies currently own some amount of land which they use to plant trees which are then cut down and processed into paper. Suppose that everyone starts recycling and demand for paper falls by 50%. Many of those companies will likely choose not to re-plant trees on the land they currently devote to growing trees and will instead use that land for a more profitable activity. Thus, we have a net loss in land area covered in trees, and less carbon is offset by the presence of those trees. This is exactly what Landsburg is talking about. He didn't cite any studies showing that this is in fact what would happen, or that this has happened in the past, but let's assume that his logic is correct.
But consider the reverse. Suppose everyone who currently recycles, persuaded by Mr. Landsburg's argument, stops doing so. Demand for paper rises by 50%, and the land that paper companies currently own is inadequate to meet demand. After utilizing all of their available resources--converting some land to tree-growing, maximizing the number of trees per square mile, etc--there still isn't enough land to meet demand. What happens now? Paper companies try to obtain more land. Due to the fact that it would be more efficient for them to get land that already has trees on it, they will likely try to acquire forested land from the government or from a private source. The end result is the same--land that was once a growing forest providing a habitat for animals becomes a place where trees are grown until they are big enough to be profitable and are then cut down.
In short, an incredibly high demand for paper would lead to forest ecosystems--places with diversity of life that provide habitat--being turned into land with trees on it. I've seen these kind of forests, and they aren't pretty. The trees and skinny, have almost no branches on them, there's almost no undergrowth, and I doubt they would provide much shelter for animals. Both types of land are technically forests, but they're not the same thing.
In addition, this argument fails to look at the consequences of paper production. Logging and transport of paper takes fossil fuels--a finite resource, not a renewable one, as trees are. Recycling also takes fossil fuels and chemicals, and I'm not sure as to the environmental effects of that. It's something I'd be interested in finding out more about, but unless someone can prove otherwise, I'm guessing that the environmental costs of recycling are no more damaging than the costs of logging new trees in terms of fossil fuels and harmful chemicals. Also, using new paper constantly and not recycling it creates waste. Waste has to be stored somewhere--in landfills, which use space, which is also a finite resource (we only have one earth for the time being). I think moderation is important here, and I'm not advocating using no paper. Paper is a function of our society, and assuming Landsburg's argument is correct, a large dip in paper demand would result in less forests. But excess demand and consumption also has consequences that I think we need to keep in mind.
My economics books (textbooks too) are filled with comments about pollution. Most of these state that pollution is a cost of doing business-necessary, unavoidable, and able to be quantified. For example, Landsburg models it in cost-benefit analysis. If I live in a city that has a factory which pollutes, the correct way to determine if the factory should be allowed to continue polluting is to determine how much I, and other individuals in my city, would be willing to pay for cleaner air. If the total amount is higher than the money made by the factory from polluting, then we pay the factory to stop and it stops. If not, it goes on polluting. And that, in an economist's world, is not seen as a problem. My textbooks describe pollution as an "externality"--something that has a cost to people not involved in the profits of whatever is creating it, and something therefore, that the market does not correct for. This seems like a more optimistic idea, because it allows for the argument that it's fair to force regulation. But essentially, it's the same problem--if the government forces a factory to stop polluting, that's going to make their product cost more, which will drive prices up for the same consumers living in the city where the pollution was a problem in the first place. So the same question--how much is it worth to you?--it still the deciding factor.
I don't disagree with this logic. Again, it's the end conclusion that I have an issue with. It's fine to argue that pollution and environmental costs are just that--costs, which can be measured in monetary value to the individuals they concern. But this fails to account for the fact that environmental damage effects us all--it's not just the inhabitants in that city who breathe bad air who suffer. Everyone has a share in the effects of global warming, regardless of how close you live to the factories that are polluting. Cost-benefit analysis is fine, but what about the end of the world? Let's assume that eventually, global warming, if left unchecked could lead to the end of life on earth as we know it--mass extinctions, the end of the human race, or whatever. If you analyze that in terms of cost-benefit, I'm willing to bet everyone on earth (nihilists and suicidal people exempted) would pay the highest cost possible in order to avoid that outcome, because if we didn't, the money that we saved would be useless. So given that, I think it makes sense to make some sacrifices to stop things that effect us all, even if they lead to us having less in the end. Having less is better than having nothing.
I think, in the end, both sides need to concede a bit. Environmentalists and economists shouldn't be two separate sides--in an ideal world, they could work together. My hope for the future is just that. I wish environmentalists were more willing to consider market-based solutions to problems, to be more innovative instead of regulating everything, and to give people and companies more incentives to decrease their impact. I wish economists were willing to acknowledge that some things do effect everybody and can't practically be analyzed only in cost-benefit terms, and that morality does have a place in discussions like this when what's at stake is so large. And I wish everybody were willing to slow down production a bit and take some time to just smell the flowers.
My book on economics is rather like an older version of Freakonomics, with some more controversial conclusions and more in-depth explanation of the economics behind decisions. (If you're interested, it's called The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg.) Most of it consists of explaining cost-benefit analysis, which is the main tool that economists use for evaluating the merits of a policy decision. Cost-benefit analysis, like the rest of economics, has no moral system inherent to it, and seeks to reach a solution involving the maximum possible efficiency. It relies on two premises--a cost is a cost, no matter who bears it, and a benefit is a benefit, no matter who incurs it. For example, when applying cost-benefit analysis to the legalization of drugs, the increased drug use as a result in considered a benefit, not a cost, because consumers are able to buy more drugs at a reduced cost.
So, the reasoning takes some getting used to, but it makes sense in most cases. Until the chapter called "Why I'm Not an Environmentalist". This chapter points out many legitimate flaws in what the author calls "the religion of environmentalism". A lack of willingness to question fundamental assumptions (something, incidentally, that free-market economics also suffers from). Ignoring markets when trying to solve environmental problems. Lack of willingness to compromise. A pervasive holier-than-thou attitude. These are all problems, and I wish we could solve them. But the arguments made by the author, while criticizing his opponents for their lack of economic logic and rationality, seem overly simplistic to me. Now, I'm not an economist or an environmental scientist, and if anyone can find any reasons why my critiques of his arguments are wrong, I'd appreciate hearing them.
First, Landsburg argues that recycling is bad if your aim is to preserve forests. This is because paper companies have a vested interest in keeping forests around, so if demand for paper is high, logging companies have an incentive to plant more trees and keep forests around. I don't disagree with this argument in its premise--logging companies certainly don't want to see all of our forests disappear, and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. However, this argument as a whole has three large flaws. One is that is fails to distinguish between the quantity and the quality of forests--a crucial distinction to most people who are interested in forest preservation. The second is that it ignores the problem of very high demand. And the final problem is the issue of waste and finite resource consumption.
The way I see this situation is somewhat different. Paper companies currently own some amount of land which they use to plant trees which are then cut down and processed into paper. Suppose that everyone starts recycling and demand for paper falls by 50%. Many of those companies will likely choose not to re-plant trees on the land they currently devote to growing trees and will instead use that land for a more profitable activity. Thus, we have a net loss in land area covered in trees, and less carbon is offset by the presence of those trees. This is exactly what Landsburg is talking about. He didn't cite any studies showing that this is in fact what would happen, or that this has happened in the past, but let's assume that his logic is correct.
But consider the reverse. Suppose everyone who currently recycles, persuaded by Mr. Landsburg's argument, stops doing so. Demand for paper rises by 50%, and the land that paper companies currently own is inadequate to meet demand. After utilizing all of their available resources--converting some land to tree-growing, maximizing the number of trees per square mile, etc--there still isn't enough land to meet demand. What happens now? Paper companies try to obtain more land. Due to the fact that it would be more efficient for them to get land that already has trees on it, they will likely try to acquire forested land from the government or from a private source. The end result is the same--land that was once a growing forest providing a habitat for animals becomes a place where trees are grown until they are big enough to be profitable and are then cut down.
In short, an incredibly high demand for paper would lead to forest ecosystems--places with diversity of life that provide habitat--being turned into land with trees on it. I've seen these kind of forests, and they aren't pretty. The trees and skinny, have almost no branches on them, there's almost no undergrowth, and I doubt they would provide much shelter for animals. Both types of land are technically forests, but they're not the same thing.
In addition, this argument fails to look at the consequences of paper production. Logging and transport of paper takes fossil fuels--a finite resource, not a renewable one, as trees are. Recycling also takes fossil fuels and chemicals, and I'm not sure as to the environmental effects of that. It's something I'd be interested in finding out more about, but unless someone can prove otherwise, I'm guessing that the environmental costs of recycling are no more damaging than the costs of logging new trees in terms of fossil fuels and harmful chemicals. Also, using new paper constantly and not recycling it creates waste. Waste has to be stored somewhere--in landfills, which use space, which is also a finite resource (we only have one earth for the time being). I think moderation is important here, and I'm not advocating using no paper. Paper is a function of our society, and assuming Landsburg's argument is correct, a large dip in paper demand would result in less forests. But excess demand and consumption also has consequences that I think we need to keep in mind.
My economics books (textbooks too) are filled with comments about pollution. Most of these state that pollution is a cost of doing business-necessary, unavoidable, and able to be quantified. For example, Landsburg models it in cost-benefit analysis. If I live in a city that has a factory which pollutes, the correct way to determine if the factory should be allowed to continue polluting is to determine how much I, and other individuals in my city, would be willing to pay for cleaner air. If the total amount is higher than the money made by the factory from polluting, then we pay the factory to stop and it stops. If not, it goes on polluting. And that, in an economist's world, is not seen as a problem. My textbooks describe pollution as an "externality"--something that has a cost to people not involved in the profits of whatever is creating it, and something therefore, that the market does not correct for. This seems like a more optimistic idea, because it allows for the argument that it's fair to force regulation. But essentially, it's the same problem--if the government forces a factory to stop polluting, that's going to make their product cost more, which will drive prices up for the same consumers living in the city where the pollution was a problem in the first place. So the same question--how much is it worth to you?--it still the deciding factor.
I don't disagree with this logic. Again, it's the end conclusion that I have an issue with. It's fine to argue that pollution and environmental costs are just that--costs, which can be measured in monetary value to the individuals they concern. But this fails to account for the fact that environmental damage effects us all--it's not just the inhabitants in that city who breathe bad air who suffer. Everyone has a share in the effects of global warming, regardless of how close you live to the factories that are polluting. Cost-benefit analysis is fine, but what about the end of the world? Let's assume that eventually, global warming, if left unchecked could lead to the end of life on earth as we know it--mass extinctions, the end of the human race, or whatever. If you analyze that in terms of cost-benefit, I'm willing to bet everyone on earth (nihilists and suicidal people exempted) would pay the highest cost possible in order to avoid that outcome, because if we didn't, the money that we saved would be useless. So given that, I think it makes sense to make some sacrifices to stop things that effect us all, even if they lead to us having less in the end. Having less is better than having nothing.
I think, in the end, both sides need to concede a bit. Environmentalists and economists shouldn't be two separate sides--in an ideal world, they could work together. My hope for the future is just that. I wish environmentalists were more willing to consider market-based solutions to problems, to be more innovative instead of regulating everything, and to give people and companies more incentives to decrease their impact. I wish economists were willing to acknowledge that some things do effect everybody and can't practically be analyzed only in cost-benefit terms, and that morality does have a place in discussions like this when what's at stake is so large. And I wish everybody were willing to slow down production a bit and take some time to just smell the flowers.
11.30.2007
Quotes list
"You can sit anywhere you want, it's like Southwest Airlines."
Mr. Nomura
"This is math class. Not fun class."
Walter Ray
"That chair spends most of its life messed up because people come and mess up with it."
O'Sully
"I understand why girls never want to tie their own bikinis."
Nick Aldredge
"It's a digital clock, but it's still ticking."
Mr. Nomura
"You go write pornos, I'm gonna drop this class."
Anna Ludwig
"I'd like you to listen even if your initials could stand for American Pie."
Mr. Nomura
"If somebody says to you 'when you're out in the real world...' well, you should probably listen to them because what they have to say is important. But then LAUGH."
Mike Shope (Post advisor)
"I'd like you to listen even if your initials could be the postal code for Nebraska."
Mr. Nomura
"Speaking of parent functions, did you know we have open house coming up soon?"
Mr. Nomura
"I'm going to do what I can to really destroy your soul."
Mr. Louvre
"That's not quite grippa."
Mr. Nomura
"You know I don't like Asian kids."
Mr. Louvre
Ms. Fried: I should hear the sound of writing.
Keejaa Ramgotra: There is no sound of writing.
Ms. Fried: Exactly.
"Remember, if you sit on the ground, it's like trying to heat the whole world with your butt. It just doesn't work."
Heidi Rodenhizer
"You don't need to come up with a thesis that says, 'Alan Lightman is RASCIST!!!...for the following 3 reasons.'"
Mr. Louvre
Keejaa Ramgotra: Can you talk a little slower?
Mr. Louvre: No, but thanks for asking.
"Wow, there's like grippa people wanna see this one."
Mr. Nomura
"That's why they're paying Mr. Nomura the big bucks here."
Mr. Nomura
"Hella's like when everyone raises their hand."
Mr. Nomura
"I'd like you to listen even if you have the same name as a Disney character but spelled differently."
Mr. Nomura
"Let's not do that anymore or Mr. Nomura reserves the right to embarass you."
Mr. Nomura
"I'm dangerous in shoe stores."
Nick Aldredge
"She's caveophilic."
Andrew Kennard
"This is a class with a lot of problems."
Mr. Nomura
Victor: Don't you get money if you go to a blood bank?
Darren: No, that's a sperm bank.
"We can do cereal mascots, not serial killers."
Mr. Nomura
"We should just make up an offense and be like "Carl didn't actually sodomize a pole, did he?' "
Andrew Kennard
"We got some gems. Like Rippe and Cram."
Darren Veit
"All opposed say 'hippo'!"
Sarah McNabb
"If you can use the word 'mollifluous', do it. Because it's awesome."
Mr. Lovre
"It's just like learning a foreign language--this is the irregular verb tense of band."
Jeff Gary on the fight song
"Cholera is transient. Only the Buddha is eternal."
Walter Ray
"Now you can say things are hecta tight because it's 100 times as cool."
Mr. Knapton
" 'Captain Brannigan, we're reached the point of infinite discontinuity.'
'Excellent, fire the phasers.' "
Walter Ray
"And then they went to the United States...on jet skis!"
Mr. Lovre
"I wish I still had that denim Bible...but I burned it in high school."
Mr. Lovre
"Oh my goodness, you broke the shame meter!"
Mr. Nomura
"My dog hasn't done anything. I mean, no one's shot each other yet."
Mr. Truax
"Just get on YouTube and look up 'prison thriller' and you'll see what I'm talking about."
Mr. Sodano
Anna Ludwig: You people all suck.
Ms. Fried: Anna, stay positive!
Amanda Montoya: You suck really good!
"Hickeys on your neck? I can't do nothing about that."
THII
Mr. Sodano: You in the back, what are you doing?
Jeff Gary: We're having a casual conversation.
"You look like you're Darth Sideous using the force lightning."
Alex W to Amanda
"I was supposed to turn this in but I drew a devil on it and lost it."
Anna Ludwig
"Some people are obviously more agressive than others. I live next to one of them."
Mr. Truax
"I know, but we don't want naked boys."
Ms. Engstrom
"As long as nobody's hips flexed involuntarily, we're ok."
Mr. Lovre
"That was very acceptable."
Mr. Sodano
"Despite being seven feet tall, I ate spaghetti. That's a complex sentence."
Mr. Lovre
"Mr. Nomura, my homework blew out the window."
Cory Hargus
"Dr. Casey goes to search you at the dance, you turn around and punch her in the face."
Mr. Truax, on how violence is not the answer
"If anyone asks what you did at school today, tell them you spend an hour and 40 minutes discussing the occult relation between man and vegetable.
In a windowless room.
Naked."
Mr. Lovre
"It's Keejaa's Death Show today."
Mr. Lovre
While discussing Moby-Dick--
Sub: Ah, but who is the real victim?
Matt Bateman: The reader.
While discussing what we did over Thanksgiving break--
Ben Hamaji: I watched the Apple Cup.
Mr. Truax: You know what? No one in Texas cares!
Mr. Truax: Aren't they all like Neanderthals?
Stefan: Well, they kept touching me.
"We used to strip and wax floors."
Mr. Truax
"This is gonna suck--and I'll come back to this in a minute--but this is gonna suck...us into a war with Mexico."
Mr. Truax
Mr. Nomura: Alright, so you have a boat...do you guys know Jane Zanzig?
Class: Yeah.
Mr. Nomura: Alright, Jane is in a boat...
"Stop saying 'It's what's for dinner!' That's retarded!"
Mr. Sodano
Mr. Sodano: I'm going through puberty a second time.
Jeff Gary: Are you sure it's not the first time?
"Watch out for the gay because it'll catch you. And then you'll be in for a life of misery and political opression."
Mr. Lovre
"Don't tell me when there's disco dancing in my room. I know."
Mr. Lovre
"Remember, there's no wrong answers in poetry. Unless of course, your answer is wrong."
Mr. Lovre
Olivia Spenser: ...and then he got gangrene and died.
Mr. Sodano: Really? That malkes that whole story even better.
"If you want me to guess your weight I can do so within 5 pounds."
Mr. Johnson
"Don't talk bad about Oprah - that's grounds for fighting."
Ms. Sloan
"So yeah, I have been schooled of sorts."
Mr. Savoie
"Carl, remember, you've been replaced and this is a perfect example of why. Ooh, is that two burns in one day?"
Ms. Cram
"I'm now in an excited state. If I was an electron I'd give off light."
Mr. Johnson after jumping onto a desk
"We got to shoot skeet."
"Actually, I was able to hit it."
"Men are more interested in shooting skeet."
Mr. Truax
"Middle school is like PMS for three years."
Ms. Taylor
Mr. Sodano: If one of you started talking during the concert, I'd kill myself on stage.
Olivia Spenser: How would you do that?
Mr. Sodano: I'd take your flute and jam it through my head. In one ear and out the other.
Some person: Mr. Johnson, you're acting like Mr. Truax
Another person: Yeah Mr. Johnson. Where's your banana?
Mr. Johnson: Literally or figuratively?
"To say it's cool to be ghetto is like saying you want to get raped."
Mr. Truax
"You say potato, I say spud."
Mr. Lovre
"Don't try this at home."
Mr. Nomura
Truax: When you're 25 years old and hanging out with your friends, what do you get to say?
Isabel Perez: Derogatory terms?
"Ok, we're firing a projectile straight up...that doesn't seem like a good idea."
Mr. Nomura
"Excuse me, does anyone know how to get past the YouTube block?"
Mr. Sodano
Truax: If you're not careful about what you say, what can happen?
Jennifer: You get shot.
"I have to get my noodle out and whack some people. Like maybe Jonas Meyers right on the head."
Mr. Nomura
"You go too far east and no one will understand you when you say hella."
Mr. Swarner
"There might be drug dealers in your living room. They might be your parents."
Mr. Truax
"You're getting hit in the noodle with the noodle."
Mr. Nomura, while brandishing a foam noodle
Mr. Knapton: I didn't go to prom.
Cece Johnson: Aww...why not?
Mr. Knapton: I didn't want to...and I didn't have a date.
"That's more Fremont, that's not Wallingford."
Mr. Truax, regarding the store High Maintanence Bitch
"That's like saying I'm manly enough to sleep with men."
Ben Miller
"It turned out he'd been raping his kids and stuff like that..."
Mr. Truax
"I'd like you to stop talking or you might meet the same fate as some of Henry VIII's wives."
Mr. Nomura
Truax: You know what works really well in Somalia despite the fact that no one's running the place?
Class: What...?
Truax: Cell phones.
"Please wear something more appropriate than tank tops and ski masks."
Thomas J. Knapton
"You just broadsworded me, man."
Mr. Sodano
"How much pil could a pilchuk chuck if a pilchuk could chuck pil?"
Mr. Swarner
"If Rachel and Walter got married then Rachel could be like a professional chef on TV."
Mr. Nomura
Veronica Galvin: Zubin, you're bike staff on Lopez.
Zubin Hensler: Wait, I don't have a bike. Is that a problem?
Nomura: What can I threaten you with? How about excommunuication by the pope?
Walter Ray: You know the pope?
Nomura: Yeah, he's a good friend of mine.
Ben Miller: Why don't I research moral relativism?
Mr. Swarner: You're just going to get a picture of me.
Mike Shope: What's our vision?
Addis Goldman: Insert corny organization slogan here.
Mike Shope: Yes, exactly!
"That's uber-ridiculous."
Mr. Sodano
While playing the Indiana Jones theme--
Olivia Spenser: Mr. Sodano, can you conduct with a whip?
Mr. Sodano: Yeah, just throw some snakes at me.
"Wait, am I a clarinet?"
David Gary, while playing the bassoon
"Also, some of my best friends are sand."
Walter Ray
"That's like celebrating mad cow disease."
Mr. Carpenter
"When I saw them last, they were clothed."
Ms. Engstrom
"You know what I need it like an electricity gun. I'd just start shocking you guys."
Mr. Sodano
"Pete and Repeat fell out of a boat, whatever."
Mr. Sodano
"I'm just saying, if it weren't for females, there wouldn't be a male dominated world."
Walter Ray
"45--4 measures after 40."
Mr. Sodano
"I'm a bitch, ok?"
Ms. Engstrom
"I think my eyes are bleeding from that one, that's good."
Mr. Sodano
"Tell him to shut up! Hit him on the nose like a puppy!"
Mr. Lovre
"This part of the song makes you feel high, like roofies."
Mr. Sodano
"Oh! Our productivity is down to 7.6! We're lower than the US dollar! The yen is gaining on us!"
Mike Shope, during a moitivational speech
Sodano: Holy crap, dude, that's the snare drum you just killed.
Olivia Spenser: Somebody do an autopsy on the snare drum.
"That's right, I said francophile, I'll say it again."
Mr. Lovre
"Were there a bunch of atheist armies running around Europe slaughtering each other in the name of God?"
Mr. Truax
"Yesterday you were like Superman. Now you're like Superman with kryptonite."
Mr. Sodano
"The best way to avoid an avalanche is to start an avalanche."
Addis Goldman
"Can you drink a big glass of shut the hell up for a while?"
Mr. Sodano
"I already make good decisions--I go home and smoke weed."
Michael Peila
"Let's add the people who have the death triplets."
Mr. Sodano
Sarah McNabb: How did you get these? You just asked for them?
Mike Shope: I'm cute, yeah.
Darren Veit: Could you clarify if that's Fahrenheit or Celsius?
Veronica Galvin: It's an angle.
Sodano: You're going to get coal in your stocking!
Eli Z: I'm Jewish.
"Life is ridiculous, Mr. Knutzen. That's what's ridiculous."
Mike Shope
"You're living out in podunk nowhere Montana..."
Mr. Truax
"Do you ever buy bread? Good bread, not Spongebob bread."
Mr. Truax
"They stabbed you in the back, man. Somebody stabbed you in the back."
Mr. Sodano
While not strictly a quote, I feel that this merits inclusion...
Ten Degrees of Noncomprehension in Mr. Nomura's Class (from the day when everyone in the entire class failed to do every single problem on the homework)
1. hella
2. grippa
3. snapa
4. hexa
5. octa
6. hellza
7. shasta
8. vista
9. babushka
10. uber
"It's always important to play tuning before you play Tupac."
Mr. Sodano
"Are there situations when you have to do a bad thing, like kill somebody...yes!"
Mike Shope
"And the last player from Garfield is Ronald McDonald, scoring no points in any games..."
Mr. Sodano
"Holy schmoley, is that a fuji?"
Mr. Truax
"I'm an anti-playa."
Mr. Lovre
"Is there something illegal about undressing mannequins in stores?"
Anna Ludwig
"My acting skills are exemplary of something other than good acting."
Matt Bateman
"I'll hire someone to rape you and you'll be like, 'Damn that was good!' "
Amanda Montoya
"People don't like feeling like a peon."
Mr. Truax
"Darren, stop playing with yourself."
Ms. Engstrom
"There was this period when I was in middle school when I used to see gorillas out of the corner of my eye all the time."
Walter Ray
"Who the heck is some guy in a podunk counry in Africa going to say about it?"
Mr. Truax
"Suck my lance."
Matt Bateman
"I definitely don't connect underwear with hilarious. I connect it with something...different."
Phillip Bruckhardt
Walter Ray: Did you know that Washington DC has more escort agencies than McDonalds?
Matt Bateman: How many escort agencies does McDonalds have?
Stefan Moedritzer: Are those bottle rockets?
Ben Miller: Sparklers.
Stefan Moedritzer: We'll talk later.
"I came from Ms. Cram's class due to a strong personality conflict."
Tommy Flemming
"You guys are like gang-banging my Doritos."
Jeff Gary
"That's an eye, right? Good, cuz it's an ugly vagina."
Anna Ludwig
"...if she wan't quite so blonde and...coeddish."
Mr. Truax
Amanda Montoya: So I can't do a dildo, but I can love a penis?
Anna Ludwig: Right.
"Dig down deep in your nasal passages."
Carol Brown
Mr. Gilbert: So you guys are minors, your parents control pretty much every aspect of your lives...
Anna Ludwig: Oh, I thought you meant people who work in mines!
"We need to feed our preganant bodies because they have a forum in them."
Carol Brown
"I like smoking pot, ok?"
Ms. Engstrom
"I don't think Satan is a notary public."
Walter Ray
"If you can't respect Nordstrom property by not unhooking mannequin bras then I'm going to have to ask you to leave."
Anna Ludwig
"We've got our tentacles in the middle of China."
Mr. Truax
"Yes, you've independantly discovered the forte-piano."
Mr. Sodano
Stefan Moedritzer: Addis has porn on his phone.
Addis Goldman: Yeah, Ms. Engstom, you wanna see?
Ms. Engstom: Sure.
"Do you think it's bad that I have a lighter next to a box of firecrackers in my bag?"
Anna Ludwig
"Halla-freakin'-lula, man."
Mr. Lovre
"NO, NO I DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM NAKED!"
Ms. Engstrom
"It's the Evil Empire of Florida."
Mr. Truax
"I'd like you to be quiet even if you're talking."
Mr. Nomura
"I just...I hate when they get naked!"
Sasha Parsley
"That seems like on oddly labor-intensive projectile..."
Mr. Lovre on burritos
"I'm sure you guys have heard of alcohol before..."
Mr. Knapton
"There are neighbors out there who get into neighbor wars."
Mr. Truax
"It's a mix between a strip show and...political commentary."
Mr. Truax
"Yeah he's looking at the view--he's checking me out!"
Mr. Truax
Truax: What happened to the League of Nations in the Treaty of Versailles?
Neil Eddington: It got created?
"...and I think back whimsically to my childhood..."
Mr. Truax
"Did anybody see what happened to Boeing over the weekend? They got the shaft."
Mr. Truax
"This obviously kills Europe."
Mr. Truax
"It was a free willy-nilly before that."
Mr. Truax on banks
"What does a heart mean? Oh, you're breaking up with me? Again?"
Mr. Lovre
"Only two minutes until we start taking off our underwear...I mean, debriefing."
Mr. Lovre
"Later, I'll be singing snippets of annoying songs for you to carry around all day, starting with 'You Are My Sunshine'."
Mr. Lovre
"I won't have you pulling out your eyeballs in class."
Mr. Lovre
"I just spelled out part of the word 'methodology' on my pants."
Mr. Lovre
Lovre: We've covered the first line. What else is there?
Matt Bateman: The second line?
"Anybody else have any textile questions I can answer right now?"
Mr. Lovre
"Speaking of screwing a grapefruit..."
Ms. Engstrom
"We got a Colgate man over here. I'm a Crest man. I don't touch Colgate."
Mr. Truax
"I'm not attracted to men, but Virgible..."
Mr. Lovre
"Let's all do the symbols and then go back and get uncomfortable together."
Mr. Lovre
"You talk about the size of his penis and his inability to utilize said organ..."
Mr. Lovre
"I've never had a situation where a student I didn't want to touch again...and I don't mean physically..."
Mr. Truax
Mr. Nomura
"This is math class. Not fun class."
Walter Ray
"That chair spends most of its life messed up because people come and mess up with it."
O'Sully
"I understand why girls never want to tie their own bikinis."
Nick Aldredge
"It's a digital clock, but it's still ticking."
Mr. Nomura
"You go write pornos, I'm gonna drop this class."
Anna Ludwig
"I'd like you to listen even if your initials could stand for American Pie."
Mr. Nomura
"If somebody says to you 'when you're out in the real world...' well, you should probably listen to them because what they have to say is important. But then LAUGH."
Mike Shope (Post advisor)
"I'd like you to listen even if your initials could be the postal code for Nebraska."
Mr. Nomura
"Speaking of parent functions, did you know we have open house coming up soon?"
Mr. Nomura
"I'm going to do what I can to really destroy your soul."
Mr. Louvre
"That's not quite grippa."
Mr. Nomura
"You know I don't like Asian kids."
Mr. Louvre
Ms. Fried: I should hear the sound of writing.
Keejaa Ramgotra: There is no sound of writing.
Ms. Fried: Exactly.
"Remember, if you sit on the ground, it's like trying to heat the whole world with your butt. It just doesn't work."
Heidi Rodenhizer
"You don't need to come up with a thesis that says, 'Alan Lightman is RASCIST!!!...for the following 3 reasons.'"
Mr. Louvre
Keejaa Ramgotra: Can you talk a little slower?
Mr. Louvre: No, but thanks for asking.
"Wow, there's like grippa people wanna see this one."
Mr. Nomura
"That's why they're paying Mr. Nomura the big bucks here."
Mr. Nomura
"Hella's like when everyone raises their hand."
Mr. Nomura
"I'd like you to listen even if you have the same name as a Disney character but spelled differently."
Mr. Nomura
"Let's not do that anymore or Mr. Nomura reserves the right to embarass you."
Mr. Nomura
"I'm dangerous in shoe stores."
Nick Aldredge
"She's caveophilic."
Andrew Kennard
"This is a class with a lot of problems."
Mr. Nomura
Victor: Don't you get money if you go to a blood bank?
Darren: No, that's a sperm bank.
"We can do cereal mascots, not serial killers."
Mr. Nomura
"We should just make up an offense and be like "Carl didn't actually sodomize a pole, did he?' "
Andrew Kennard
"We got some gems. Like Rippe and Cram."
Darren Veit
"All opposed say 'hippo'!"
Sarah McNabb
"If you can use the word 'mollifluous', do it. Because it's awesome."
Mr. Lovre
"It's just like learning a foreign language--this is the irregular verb tense of band."
Jeff Gary on the fight song
"Cholera is transient. Only the Buddha is eternal."
Walter Ray
"Now you can say things are hecta tight because it's 100 times as cool."
Mr. Knapton
" 'Captain Brannigan, we're reached the point of infinite discontinuity.'
'Excellent, fire the phasers.' "
Walter Ray
"And then they went to the United States...on jet skis!"
Mr. Lovre
"I wish I still had that denim Bible...but I burned it in high school."
Mr. Lovre
"Oh my goodness, you broke the shame meter!"
Mr. Nomura
"My dog hasn't done anything. I mean, no one's shot each other yet."
Mr. Truax
"Just get on YouTube and look up 'prison thriller' and you'll see what I'm talking about."
Mr. Sodano
Anna Ludwig: You people all suck.
Ms. Fried: Anna, stay positive!
Amanda Montoya: You suck really good!
"Hickeys on your neck? I can't do nothing about that."
THII
Mr. Sodano: You in the back, what are you doing?
Jeff Gary: We're having a casual conversation.
"You look like you're Darth Sideous using the force lightning."
Alex W to Amanda
"I was supposed to turn this in but I drew a devil on it and lost it."
Anna Ludwig
"Some people are obviously more agressive than others. I live next to one of them."
Mr. Truax
"I know, but we don't want naked boys."
Ms. Engstrom
"As long as nobody's hips flexed involuntarily, we're ok."
Mr. Lovre
"That was very acceptable."
Mr. Sodano
"Despite being seven feet tall, I ate spaghetti. That's a complex sentence."
Mr. Lovre
"Mr. Nomura, my homework blew out the window."
Cory Hargus
"Dr. Casey goes to search you at the dance, you turn around and punch her in the face."
Mr. Truax, on how violence is not the answer
"If anyone asks what you did at school today, tell them you spend an hour and 40 minutes discussing the occult relation between man and vegetable.
In a windowless room.
Naked."
Mr. Lovre
"It's Keejaa's Death Show today."
Mr. Lovre
While discussing Moby-Dick--
Sub: Ah, but who is the real victim?
Matt Bateman: The reader.
While discussing what we did over Thanksgiving break--
Ben Hamaji: I watched the Apple Cup.
Mr. Truax: You know what? No one in Texas cares!
Mr. Truax: Aren't they all like Neanderthals?
Stefan: Well, they kept touching me.
"We used to strip and wax floors."
Mr. Truax
"This is gonna suck--and I'll come back to this in a minute--but this is gonna suck...us into a war with Mexico."
Mr. Truax
Mr. Nomura: Alright, so you have a boat...do you guys know Jane Zanzig?
Class: Yeah.
Mr. Nomura: Alright, Jane is in a boat...
"Stop saying 'It's what's for dinner!' That's retarded!"
Mr. Sodano
Mr. Sodano: I'm going through puberty a second time.
Jeff Gary: Are you sure it's not the first time?
"Watch out for the gay because it'll catch you. And then you'll be in for a life of misery and political opression."
Mr. Lovre
"Don't tell me when there's disco dancing in my room. I know."
Mr. Lovre
"Remember, there's no wrong answers in poetry. Unless of course, your answer is wrong."
Mr. Lovre
Olivia Spenser: ...and then he got gangrene and died.
Mr. Sodano: Really? That malkes that whole story even better.
"If you want me to guess your weight I can do so within 5 pounds."
Mr. Johnson
"Don't talk bad about Oprah - that's grounds for fighting."
Ms. Sloan
"So yeah, I have been schooled of sorts."
Mr. Savoie
"Carl, remember, you've been replaced and this is a perfect example of why. Ooh, is that two burns in one day?"
Ms. Cram
"I'm now in an excited state. If I was an electron I'd give off light."
Mr. Johnson after jumping onto a desk
"We got to shoot skeet."
"Actually, I was able to hit it."
"Men are more interested in shooting skeet."
Mr. Truax
"Middle school is like PMS for three years."
Ms. Taylor
Mr. Sodano: If one of you started talking during the concert, I'd kill myself on stage.
Olivia Spenser: How would you do that?
Mr. Sodano: I'd take your flute and jam it through my head. In one ear and out the other.
Some person: Mr. Johnson, you're acting like Mr. Truax
Another person: Yeah Mr. Johnson. Where's your banana?
Mr. Johnson: Literally or figuratively?
"To say it's cool to be ghetto is like saying you want to get raped."
Mr. Truax
"You say potato, I say spud."
Mr. Lovre
"Don't try this at home."
Mr. Nomura
Truax: When you're 25 years old and hanging out with your friends, what do you get to say?
Isabel Perez: Derogatory terms?
"Ok, we're firing a projectile straight up...that doesn't seem like a good idea."
Mr. Nomura
"Excuse me, does anyone know how to get past the YouTube block?"
Mr. Sodano
Truax: If you're not careful about what you say, what can happen?
Jennifer: You get shot.
"I have to get my noodle out and whack some people. Like maybe Jonas Meyers right on the head."
Mr. Nomura
"You go too far east and no one will understand you when you say hella."
Mr. Swarner
"There might be drug dealers in your living room. They might be your parents."
Mr. Truax
"You're getting hit in the noodle with the noodle."
Mr. Nomura, while brandishing a foam noodle
Mr. Knapton: I didn't go to prom.
Cece Johnson: Aww...why not?
Mr. Knapton: I didn't want to...and I didn't have a date.
"That's more Fremont, that's not Wallingford."
Mr. Truax, regarding the store High Maintanence Bitch
"That's like saying I'm manly enough to sleep with men."
Ben Miller
"It turned out he'd been raping his kids and stuff like that..."
Mr. Truax
"I'd like you to stop talking or you might meet the same fate as some of Henry VIII's wives."
Mr. Nomura
Truax: You know what works really well in Somalia despite the fact that no one's running the place?
Class: What...?
Truax: Cell phones.
"Please wear something more appropriate than tank tops and ski masks."
Thomas J. Knapton
"You just broadsworded me, man."
Mr. Sodano
"How much pil could a pilchuk chuck if a pilchuk could chuck pil?"
Mr. Swarner
"If Rachel and Walter got married then Rachel could be like a professional chef on TV."
Mr. Nomura
Veronica Galvin: Zubin, you're bike staff on Lopez.
Zubin Hensler: Wait, I don't have a bike. Is that a problem?
Nomura: What can I threaten you with? How about excommunuication by the pope?
Walter Ray: You know the pope?
Nomura: Yeah, he's a good friend of mine.
Ben Miller: Why don't I research moral relativism?
Mr. Swarner: You're just going to get a picture of me.
Mike Shope: What's our vision?
Addis Goldman: Insert corny organization slogan here.
Mike Shope: Yes, exactly!
"That's uber-ridiculous."
Mr. Sodano
While playing the Indiana Jones theme--
Olivia Spenser: Mr. Sodano, can you conduct with a whip?
Mr. Sodano: Yeah, just throw some snakes at me.
"Wait, am I a clarinet?"
David Gary, while playing the bassoon
"Also, some of my best friends are sand."
Walter Ray
"That's like celebrating mad cow disease."
Mr. Carpenter
"When I saw them last, they were clothed."
Ms. Engstrom
"You know what I need it like an electricity gun. I'd just start shocking you guys."
Mr. Sodano
"Pete and Repeat fell out of a boat, whatever."
Mr. Sodano
"I'm just saying, if it weren't for females, there wouldn't be a male dominated world."
Walter Ray
"45--4 measures after 40."
Mr. Sodano
"I'm a bitch, ok?"
Ms. Engstrom
"I think my eyes are bleeding from that one, that's good."
Mr. Sodano
"Tell him to shut up! Hit him on the nose like a puppy!"
Mr. Lovre
"This part of the song makes you feel high, like roofies."
Mr. Sodano
"Oh! Our productivity is down to 7.6! We're lower than the US dollar! The yen is gaining on us!"
Mike Shope, during a moitivational speech
Sodano: Holy crap, dude, that's the snare drum you just killed.
Olivia Spenser: Somebody do an autopsy on the snare drum.
"That's right, I said francophile, I'll say it again."
Mr. Lovre
"Were there a bunch of atheist armies running around Europe slaughtering each other in the name of God?"
Mr. Truax
"Yesterday you were like Superman. Now you're like Superman with kryptonite."
Mr. Sodano
"The best way to avoid an avalanche is to start an avalanche."
Addis Goldman
"Can you drink a big glass of shut the hell up for a while?"
Mr. Sodano
"I already make good decisions--I go home and smoke weed."
Michael Peila
"Let's add the people who have the death triplets."
Mr. Sodano
Sarah McNabb: How did you get these? You just asked for them?
Mike Shope: I'm cute, yeah.
Darren Veit: Could you clarify if that's Fahrenheit or Celsius?
Veronica Galvin: It's an angle.
Sodano: You're going to get coal in your stocking!
Eli Z: I'm Jewish.
"Life is ridiculous, Mr. Knutzen. That's what's ridiculous."
Mike Shope
"You're living out in podunk nowhere Montana..."
Mr. Truax
"Do you ever buy bread? Good bread, not Spongebob bread."
Mr. Truax
"They stabbed you in the back, man. Somebody stabbed you in the back."
Mr. Sodano
While not strictly a quote, I feel that this merits inclusion...
Ten Degrees of Noncomprehension in Mr. Nomura's Class (from the day when everyone in the entire class failed to do every single problem on the homework)
1. hella
2. grippa
3. snapa
4. hexa
5. octa
6. hellza
7. shasta
8. vista
9. babushka
10. uber
"It's always important to play tuning before you play Tupac."
Mr. Sodano
"Are there situations when you have to do a bad thing, like kill somebody...yes!"
Mike Shope
"And the last player from Garfield is Ronald McDonald, scoring no points in any games..."
Mr. Sodano
"Holy schmoley, is that a fuji?"
Mr. Truax
"I'm an anti-playa."
Mr. Lovre
"Is there something illegal about undressing mannequins in stores?"
Anna Ludwig
"My acting skills are exemplary of something other than good acting."
Matt Bateman
"I'll hire someone to rape you and you'll be like, 'Damn that was good!' "
Amanda Montoya
"People don't like feeling like a peon."
Mr. Truax
"Darren, stop playing with yourself."
Ms. Engstrom
"There was this period when I was in middle school when I used to see gorillas out of the corner of my eye all the time."
Walter Ray
"Who the heck is some guy in a podunk counry in Africa going to say about it?"
Mr. Truax
"Suck my lance."
Matt Bateman
"I definitely don't connect underwear with hilarious. I connect it with something...different."
Phillip Bruckhardt
Walter Ray: Did you know that Washington DC has more escort agencies than McDonalds?
Matt Bateman: How many escort agencies does McDonalds have?
Stefan Moedritzer: Are those bottle rockets?
Ben Miller: Sparklers.
Stefan Moedritzer: We'll talk later.
"I came from Ms. Cram's class due to a strong personality conflict."
Tommy Flemming
"You guys are like gang-banging my Doritos."
Jeff Gary
"That's an eye, right? Good, cuz it's an ugly vagina."
Anna Ludwig
"...if she wan't quite so blonde and...coeddish."
Mr. Truax
Amanda Montoya: So I can't do a dildo, but I can love a penis?
Anna Ludwig: Right.
"Dig down deep in your nasal passages."
Carol Brown
Mr. Gilbert: So you guys are minors, your parents control pretty much every aspect of your lives...
Anna Ludwig: Oh, I thought you meant people who work in mines!
"We need to feed our preganant bodies because they have a forum in them."
Carol Brown
"I like smoking pot, ok?"
Ms. Engstrom
"I don't think Satan is a notary public."
Walter Ray
"If you can't respect Nordstrom property by not unhooking mannequin bras then I'm going to have to ask you to leave."
Anna Ludwig
"We've got our tentacles in the middle of China."
Mr. Truax
"Yes, you've independantly discovered the forte-piano."
Mr. Sodano
Stefan Moedritzer: Addis has porn on his phone.
Addis Goldman: Yeah, Ms. Engstom, you wanna see?
Ms. Engstom: Sure.
"Do you think it's bad that I have a lighter next to a box of firecrackers in my bag?"
Anna Ludwig
"Halla-freakin'-lula, man."
Mr. Lovre
"NO, NO I DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM NAKED!"
Ms. Engstrom
"It's the Evil Empire of Florida."
Mr. Truax
"I'd like you to be quiet even if you're talking."
Mr. Nomura
"I just...I hate when they get naked!"
Sasha Parsley
"That seems like on oddly labor-intensive projectile..."
Mr. Lovre on burritos
"I'm sure you guys have heard of alcohol before..."
Mr. Knapton
"There are neighbors out there who get into neighbor wars."
Mr. Truax
"It's a mix between a strip show and...political commentary."
Mr. Truax
"Yeah he's looking at the view--he's checking me out!"
Mr. Truax
Truax: What happened to the League of Nations in the Treaty of Versailles?
Neil Eddington: It got created?
"...and I think back whimsically to my childhood..."
Mr. Truax
"Did anybody see what happened to Boeing over the weekend? They got the shaft."
Mr. Truax
"This obviously kills Europe."
Mr. Truax
"It was a free willy-nilly before that."
Mr. Truax on banks
"What does a heart mean? Oh, you're breaking up with me? Again?"
Mr. Lovre
"Only two minutes until we start taking off our underwear...I mean, debriefing."
Mr. Lovre
"Later, I'll be singing snippets of annoying songs for you to carry around all day, starting with 'You Are My Sunshine'."
Mr. Lovre
"I won't have you pulling out your eyeballs in class."
Mr. Lovre
"I just spelled out part of the word 'methodology' on my pants."
Mr. Lovre
Lovre: We've covered the first line. What else is there?
Matt Bateman: The second line?
"Anybody else have any textile questions I can answer right now?"
Mr. Lovre
"Speaking of screwing a grapefruit..."
Ms. Engstrom
"We got a Colgate man over here. I'm a Crest man. I don't touch Colgate."
Mr. Truax
"I'm not attracted to men, but Virgible..."
Mr. Lovre
"Let's all do the symbols and then go back and get uncomfortable together."
Mr. Lovre
"You talk about the size of his penis and his inability to utilize said organ..."
Mr. Lovre
"I've never had a situation where a student I didn't want to touch again...and I don't mean physically..."
Mr. Truax
11.22.2007
Liberalism
I love liberalism. I know that's a vague term, but to me, being a liberal means acknowledging a few social and economic truths. Specifically, socially:
a) If you sleep with someone, you're both adults, everyone consented and no one died, it's none of the government's business.
b) Institutionalized rascism is not a method of national security.
c) Evolution is a theory, rather like gravity. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is just bullshit, and bullshit requires proof before we start teaching it in schools.
d) If we're going to ignore the Geneva Conventions, we could at least have enough balls to not outsource our "enhanced interrogation techniques". On second thought, we could have enough balls to call it what it is--torture.
e) Probably one way we could have fewer illegal immigrants is if we stop staging CIA coups in Latin American countries, overthrowing people we don't like, replacing them with military dictatorships and then send in economic hitmen to convince the countries to borrow large sums of money that go to development which is contracted to US companies and keeps the countries in a perpetual cycle of debt and poverty. You know, because if everyone in their home countries wasn't starving to death, they might not want to leave.
f) Although arguing that the 3rd Amendment protects the right to have an abortion is a bit sketchy, trust me, you don't want to see a country where women are forced to have babies they don't want to.
And economically:
a) Free market capitalism, while wonderful for increasing GDP, isn't always the best way to protect the environment.
b) Trickle down economics doesn't always work either.
c) The cost of taking campaign contributions from large corporations is a loss of political integrity. Campaign finance reform is in order.
d) Sometimes, equity is better than efficiency.
e) Also, I've read the Constitution very carefully, and I can promise you that there is nothing in there saying you have the right to unlimited consumption of fossil fuels. Just FYI.
My breed of liberalism would best be defined as progressive--I believe that your personal life is your business, no matter how odd society finds your choices, as long as they're not harming anyone else. I believe that equity trumps efficiency--I'd rather have a bit smaller economic pie if everyone gets a piece. I believe that the environment is important enough to put some restrictions on our sacred doctrine of capitalism, because as Al Gore so eloquently pointed out, you can't make money if you don't have a planet to live on. And I believe that if I'm pregnant and you try to tell me what to do, I will kick your ass. Actually, I know that for a fact.
That said, I also have a few bones to pick. There are some arguments liberals need to stop making, and there are some issues of hypocracy and public behavior that we would do well to correct. Specifically:
a) Ok, please stop with the "Against Abortion? Then Don't Have One" bumper stickers. People who are against abortion view it as murder, not as a choice. You're telling them that if they're against killing people, they shouldn't do it themselves, but should continue to let you. No. That argument is not going to convince anyone, and it's going to piss people off.
b) Al Gore. Stop flying around the world in a private jet to promote An Inconvinent Truth. Airplanes are the worst contributers to global warming of any form of transportation.
c) Castro and Chavez are not governments we should be idealizing or promoting. Chavez recently abolished all term limitations on the Venezualen presidency and refused to renew the broadcasting license for a station that broadcast anti-Chavez images during the attempted coup in 2002. And when Castro took over, there were teenagers in Cuba injecting themselves with HIV to protest the government. Homosexuals were executed. I'd rather have a corrupt democracy than a repressive socialist state.
d) Michael Moore, please just stop. No one likes you anymore. Also, you own shares in Halliburton, were raised in a rich suburb of Flint, and have hired to date one black person to work on any of your films. Way to be progressive!
e) Biofuels are not a godsend. Ethanol takes so much petroleum to produce and transport that it's worse for the environment than gasoline, and it's also made out of corn. Which is food. In a world where 50% of people are malnourished. Not a good idea, people.
f) The feminist and gay rights movements need to recognize trans people and truly work on issues for all women and gays, rather than trying to get rich white women/gays the same rights that rich white straight men have.
That's all for now. I believe in liberalism, in spite of all its problems. I believe it can work. But it would help a lot if people would check some facts and calm down once in a while.
a) If you sleep with someone, you're both adults, everyone consented and no one died, it's none of the government's business.
b) Institutionalized rascism is not a method of national security.
c) Evolution is a theory, rather like gravity. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is just bullshit, and bullshit requires proof before we start teaching it in schools.
d) If we're going to ignore the Geneva Conventions, we could at least have enough balls to not outsource our "enhanced interrogation techniques". On second thought, we could have enough balls to call it what it is--torture.
e) Probably one way we could have fewer illegal immigrants is if we stop staging CIA coups in Latin American countries, overthrowing people we don't like, replacing them with military dictatorships and then send in economic hitmen to convince the countries to borrow large sums of money that go to development which is contracted to US companies and keeps the countries in a perpetual cycle of debt and poverty. You know, because if everyone in their home countries wasn't starving to death, they might not want to leave.
f) Although arguing that the 3rd Amendment protects the right to have an abortion is a bit sketchy, trust me, you don't want to see a country where women are forced to have babies they don't want to.
And economically:
a) Free market capitalism, while wonderful for increasing GDP, isn't always the best way to protect the environment.
b) Trickle down economics doesn't always work either.
c) The cost of taking campaign contributions from large corporations is a loss of political integrity. Campaign finance reform is in order.
d) Sometimes, equity is better than efficiency.
e) Also, I've read the Constitution very carefully, and I can promise you that there is nothing in there saying you have the right to unlimited consumption of fossil fuels. Just FYI.
My breed of liberalism would best be defined as progressive--I believe that your personal life is your business, no matter how odd society finds your choices, as long as they're not harming anyone else. I believe that equity trumps efficiency--I'd rather have a bit smaller economic pie if everyone gets a piece. I believe that the environment is important enough to put some restrictions on our sacred doctrine of capitalism, because as Al Gore so eloquently pointed out, you can't make money if you don't have a planet to live on. And I believe that if I'm pregnant and you try to tell me what to do, I will kick your ass. Actually, I know that for a fact.
That said, I also have a few bones to pick. There are some arguments liberals need to stop making, and there are some issues of hypocracy and public behavior that we would do well to correct. Specifically:
a) Ok, please stop with the "Against Abortion? Then Don't Have One" bumper stickers. People who are against abortion view it as murder, not as a choice. You're telling them that if they're against killing people, they shouldn't do it themselves, but should continue to let you. No. That argument is not going to convince anyone, and it's going to piss people off.
b) Al Gore. Stop flying around the world in a private jet to promote An Inconvinent Truth. Airplanes are the worst contributers to global warming of any form of transportation.
c) Castro and Chavez are not governments we should be idealizing or promoting. Chavez recently abolished all term limitations on the Venezualen presidency and refused to renew the broadcasting license for a station that broadcast anti-Chavez images during the attempted coup in 2002. And when Castro took over, there were teenagers in Cuba injecting themselves with HIV to protest the government. Homosexuals were executed. I'd rather have a corrupt democracy than a repressive socialist state.
d) Michael Moore, please just stop. No one likes you anymore. Also, you own shares in Halliburton, were raised in a rich suburb of Flint, and have hired to date one black person to work on any of your films. Way to be progressive!
e) Biofuels are not a godsend. Ethanol takes so much petroleum to produce and transport that it's worse for the environment than gasoline, and it's also made out of corn. Which is food. In a world where 50% of people are malnourished. Not a good idea, people.
f) The feminist and gay rights movements need to recognize trans people and truly work on issues for all women and gays, rather than trying to get rich white women/gays the same rights that rich white straight men have.
That's all for now. I believe in liberalism, in spite of all its problems. I believe it can work. But it would help a lot if people would check some facts and calm down once in a while.
11.15.2007
How many times...
...can a corporation betray us before we question its right to exist?
That was the heading for a very well-done page in the last issue of Adbusters, and it really got me thinking. If you look at the track record of any major American corporation (and I don't care how socially conscious it claims to be) you're going to find some pretty evil shit buried beneath the smiling pictures of their "diverse" group of employees.
We, the Socially Conscious Youth of America, know large corporations are bad. We know they're owned by Satan. We sit around and discuss this in Starbucks coffee stores wearing shirts we bought at Target with Nike shoes. We believe this to be true, but we rarely act. And that, to me, is the single biggest failure in youth activism today. Too few people are willing to walk the walk.
Let's look at some of these companies. Starbucks, which seems to be regarded as the not-so-evil corporation based on the numbers of young, hip people I see there all the time, definitely has some labor issues. For one, although they claim to support third world producers, only 6% of the coffee they buy is fair-trade certified, and fair trade in itself doesn't guarantee a fair or even a better deal for third world coffee growers. (Fair trade also puts a cap on business growth, doesn't allow growers to roast their own coffee, and defines a fair wage as the minimum wage for the country of origin for the coffee.) Starbucks is noted for providing part-time employees with health insurance and other benefits. Good, right? Sure, except that the cut-off for part time employment is 20 hours a week, so Starbucks gets around this by having a lot of employees who work 19.75 hours a week and are denied benefits. So much more cost effective.
Then there's American Apparel. Yes, their average wage is $12 USD/hour. But they're definitely not a union-friendly company. They were accused of union busting in 2003 and since then have refused to disclose information about worker unions at the company. Three sexual harassment lawsuits have also been filed by former employees against Dov Charney, the CEO. And socially progressive as they brag to be, with their "never retouched models", I don't see them promoting any new or different beauty standards from the rest of the fashion industry.
And of course, where would we be without hating on some oil companies? Exxon-Mobile has three lovely black marks against it (that I'm aware of; I'm sure there are many more). Number one: In the 1980s, the company, along with several other oil and gas companies, gave money to a Christian missionary organization working in Columbia. The deal? The missionaries would convince the indigenous people they were working with to move off their land onto reservations and become "civilized"; in return, Exxon and the other companies had first rights to the petroleum-rich land the people had been living on. Number two: I'm sure we all remember hearing about the disastrous Exxon-Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska in 1989--the one that spilled 10.8 million gallons of oil, the one that environmental scientists in the area predicted would take approximately 30 years for the ecosystem to recover from. The official cause? The skipper was drunk and hit a reef, causing the tanker to spill its oil. The real story? Exxon had been faking safety reports and did not have proper safety equipment turned on--equipment that would have allowed the ship to see and avoid the reef. The reason? The system was determined too expensive to operate. And then number 3: Exxon has also been behind some of the organizations that have been turning up "scientific" studies denouncing global warming. They pay scientists to say that it's fake, the scientists do so, and we get more bullshit studies calling the single largest threat this planet has ever faced a fraud.
Pepsi and Coke each have their own issues--both have been accused of contaminating local water supplies in India with DDT, pesticides, and other carcinogens. Coca-Cola admitted to killing and intimidating workers in Columbia to prevent a union from forming, and they've also been accused of human rights violations with workers in Guatemala. And both of them are such large companies--PepsiCo owns Frito-Lay, which makes just about every major brand of chips. Also on the large-companies-who-own-hella-stuff front, you have ConAgra, which owns dozens of smaller food companies and is the largest manufacturer of processed food in the country. They also have a beef processing plant in Greely, Colorado which has been investigated numerous times amidst allegations of safety violations, workers rights violations and employing illegal immigrants. And they're one of the big guys that's contributing to industrialized agribusiness that's making the smaller farmers go out of work.
I would also like to point out that although Nike has been accused of workers rights violations and running sweatshops, a) they have improved dramatically since these charges were first leveled, and b) Adidas and Reebok both have much lower scores in terms of social responsibility and working conditions.
Fortunately, this isn't black and white. You're not either with us or with the capitalists. You can't boycott every business on the evil list, and you probably don't want to. So start small. Maybe cut one or two coffees a week. Get your next pair of pants used. And most importantly, know what you're buying. Be educated. Know your facts. Only when the majority of people are aware of things like this will real change ever occur.
That was the heading for a very well-done page in the last issue of Adbusters, and it really got me thinking. If you look at the track record of any major American corporation (and I don't care how socially conscious it claims to be) you're going to find some pretty evil shit buried beneath the smiling pictures of their "diverse" group of employees.
We, the Socially Conscious Youth of America, know large corporations are bad. We know they're owned by Satan. We sit around and discuss this in Starbucks coffee stores wearing shirts we bought at Target with Nike shoes. We believe this to be true, but we rarely act. And that, to me, is the single biggest failure in youth activism today. Too few people are willing to walk the walk.
Let's look at some of these companies. Starbucks, which seems to be regarded as the not-so-evil corporation based on the numbers of young, hip people I see there all the time, definitely has some labor issues. For one, although they claim to support third world producers, only 6% of the coffee they buy is fair-trade certified, and fair trade in itself doesn't guarantee a fair or even a better deal for third world coffee growers. (Fair trade also puts a cap on business growth, doesn't allow growers to roast their own coffee, and defines a fair wage as the minimum wage for the country of origin for the coffee.) Starbucks is noted for providing part-time employees with health insurance and other benefits. Good, right? Sure, except that the cut-off for part time employment is 20 hours a week, so Starbucks gets around this by having a lot of employees who work 19.75 hours a week and are denied benefits. So much more cost effective.
Then there's American Apparel. Yes, their average wage is $12 USD/hour. But they're definitely not a union-friendly company. They were accused of union busting in 2003 and since then have refused to disclose information about worker unions at the company. Three sexual harassment lawsuits have also been filed by former employees against Dov Charney, the CEO. And socially progressive as they brag to be, with their "never retouched models", I don't see them promoting any new or different beauty standards from the rest of the fashion industry.
And of course, where would we be without hating on some oil companies? Exxon-Mobile has three lovely black marks against it (that I'm aware of; I'm sure there are many more). Number one: In the 1980s, the company, along with several other oil and gas companies, gave money to a Christian missionary organization working in Columbia. The deal? The missionaries would convince the indigenous people they were working with to move off their land onto reservations and become "civilized"; in return, Exxon and the other companies had first rights to the petroleum-rich land the people had been living on. Number two: I'm sure we all remember hearing about the disastrous Exxon-Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska in 1989--the one that spilled 10.8 million gallons of oil, the one that environmental scientists in the area predicted would take approximately 30 years for the ecosystem to recover from. The official cause? The skipper was drunk and hit a reef, causing the tanker to spill its oil. The real story? Exxon had been faking safety reports and did not have proper safety equipment turned on--equipment that would have allowed the ship to see and avoid the reef. The reason? The system was determined too expensive to operate. And then number 3: Exxon has also been behind some of the organizations that have been turning up "scientific" studies denouncing global warming. They pay scientists to say that it's fake, the scientists do so, and we get more bullshit studies calling the single largest threat this planet has ever faced a fraud.
Pepsi and Coke each have their own issues--both have been accused of contaminating local water supplies in India with DDT, pesticides, and other carcinogens. Coca-Cola admitted to killing and intimidating workers in Columbia to prevent a union from forming, and they've also been accused of human rights violations with workers in Guatemala. And both of them are such large companies--PepsiCo owns Frito-Lay, which makes just about every major brand of chips. Also on the large-companies-who-own-hella-stuff front, you have ConAgra, which owns dozens of smaller food companies and is the largest manufacturer of processed food in the country. They also have a beef processing plant in Greely, Colorado which has been investigated numerous times amidst allegations of safety violations, workers rights violations and employing illegal immigrants. And they're one of the big guys that's contributing to industrialized agribusiness that's making the smaller farmers go out of work.
I would also like to point out that although Nike has been accused of workers rights violations and running sweatshops, a) they have improved dramatically since these charges were first leveled, and b) Adidas and Reebok both have much lower scores in terms of social responsibility and working conditions.
Fortunately, this isn't black and white. You're not either with us or with the capitalists. You can't boycott every business on the evil list, and you probably don't want to. So start small. Maybe cut one or two coffees a week. Get your next pair of pants used. And most importantly, know what you're buying. Be educated. Know your facts. Only when the majority of people are aware of things like this will real change ever occur.
11.11.2007
Freak dancing & feminism
My first thought when someone explained to me that high school dancing = freak dancing was something along the lines of, "Why would anyone want to do that?" Freshman year, I didn't go to any dances because I didn't drink and I didn't really want to simulate anal sex with someone who did. My first actual exposure to freak dancing was probably at a JSA dance sophomore year, and that was pretty innocent freak dancing by Garfield standards. Then there was prom, which kind of tainted my perceptions further. The fact that everyone spent hundreds of money on fancy dresses and limos and hair and makeup just to come there and degrade themselves made me sad. Not to mention that the entire experience was incredibly awkward.
The first time my perceptions really began to change was in Guatemala. We were dancing almost every day and I got a lot more comfortable with it in general. I freaked out the first time we had salsa lessons and was actually in tears because it scared me so much. And when I thought about why that was, I came up with something kind of strange. There are some places, some groups of people, some activities that I view as "safe" in the sense that I'm allowed to be who I am and not be judged on the basis of appearance, sexiness or sex appeal. Prior to dance lessons, Guatemala and GV were some of those things, and salsa lessons felt like sexuality invading what I viewed as an amazingly deep, profound, and personal experience. And that really scared me. Because as much as I love myself, I've always felt like a very awkward person when it comes to appearance and dancing.
But Guatemala was all about getting outside your comfort zone. And that was one of the only things we did on the trip that was actually outside my comfort zone, so I knew I was going to have to dance at some point, and I did--on the buses, at the dance party, and in the dance lessons. I tried to tell myself that no one really cared what I looked like, which worked out. And I ended up not just dancing, but also freak dancing for a bit with some of the Guatemalans. And while it was a bit creepy with some of the guys, overall it wasn't that bad and was kind of fun.
So I came back to the US with a bit more confidence and decided to go to homecoming. It was fun, and I enjoyed myself, but I still left feeling a bit disgusted. Grinding is one things, but girls bending all the way over to the floor in booty shorts while guys lift up their shirts...well, that was something different. I enjoy freak dancing when it feels relatively equal. When it's someone you know, you're both sober, you're both having fun, no one's bending over and no one's feeling creeped out, then I'm good, and I really do have fun.
But I'm still struggling with the feminist side of this. I identify strongly as a feminist, although I disagree with the organized, mainstream, 3rd wave feminist movement on many issues. Most of those issues are related to things like this--can women use their sexuality in an empowering way, or is using sexuality for anything inherently degrading? Take stripping, which a lot of this discussion is centered around. The guys are paying the women, the women are teasing them in a way, and so it would seem like the women are in power. Except that the women are also selling their bodies to horny guys. And feminists argue that this is a product of the "girl power" movement--let's empower our young women by sexualizing them young, by teaching them that it's good to be valued for their appearance, by saying that tnis is a good thing.
I see two extremes here. The first, which would be a hardcore lesbian seperatist position circa the 1970s and 80s would involve all women deliberately being unattractive to men, no porn, no sex industry, and no evaluation of anyone based on looks. And the second, which would be something of a utopian society for Hugh Hefner, would involve every girl being taught how to be sexy and exploit that fact starting at the age of 9 or 10, with all careers for women tying into sexuality in some way. Let's just say that Office Hoes and CEOs wouldn't just be a spirit day at Garfield anymore. I don't want us to go down either of these roads, but I don't see an equilibrium that's working without creating a Madonna-whore dichotomy.
So, going back to freak dancing, I think you can fit it into feminist ideas. They're not completely incompatible, as long as girls aren't being degrading or degrading themselves. I'm down with dancing, and I'll probably show up at the next Garfield dance. But I'll also be in jeans, sober, at a 120 degree angle or higher, and I don't intend on dancing with anyone who I don't know. That's my line for now, and I think it allows for both fun and self-respect.
The first time my perceptions really began to change was in Guatemala. We were dancing almost every day and I got a lot more comfortable with it in general. I freaked out the first time we had salsa lessons and was actually in tears because it scared me so much. And when I thought about why that was, I came up with something kind of strange. There are some places, some groups of people, some activities that I view as "safe" in the sense that I'm allowed to be who I am and not be judged on the basis of appearance, sexiness or sex appeal. Prior to dance lessons, Guatemala and GV were some of those things, and salsa lessons felt like sexuality invading what I viewed as an amazingly deep, profound, and personal experience. And that really scared me. Because as much as I love myself, I've always felt like a very awkward person when it comes to appearance and dancing.
But Guatemala was all about getting outside your comfort zone. And that was one of the only things we did on the trip that was actually outside my comfort zone, so I knew I was going to have to dance at some point, and I did--on the buses, at the dance party, and in the dance lessons. I tried to tell myself that no one really cared what I looked like, which worked out. And I ended up not just dancing, but also freak dancing for a bit with some of the Guatemalans. And while it was a bit creepy with some of the guys, overall it wasn't that bad and was kind of fun.
So I came back to the US with a bit more confidence and decided to go to homecoming. It was fun, and I enjoyed myself, but I still left feeling a bit disgusted. Grinding is one things, but girls bending all the way over to the floor in booty shorts while guys lift up their shirts...well, that was something different. I enjoy freak dancing when it feels relatively equal. When it's someone you know, you're both sober, you're both having fun, no one's bending over and no one's feeling creeped out, then I'm good, and I really do have fun.
But I'm still struggling with the feminist side of this. I identify strongly as a feminist, although I disagree with the organized, mainstream, 3rd wave feminist movement on many issues. Most of those issues are related to things like this--can women use their sexuality in an empowering way, or is using sexuality for anything inherently degrading? Take stripping, which a lot of this discussion is centered around. The guys are paying the women, the women are teasing them in a way, and so it would seem like the women are in power. Except that the women are also selling their bodies to horny guys. And feminists argue that this is a product of the "girl power" movement--let's empower our young women by sexualizing them young, by teaching them that it's good to be valued for their appearance, by saying that tnis is a good thing.
I see two extremes here. The first, which would be a hardcore lesbian seperatist position circa the 1970s and 80s would involve all women deliberately being unattractive to men, no porn, no sex industry, and no evaluation of anyone based on looks. And the second, which would be something of a utopian society for Hugh Hefner, would involve every girl being taught how to be sexy and exploit that fact starting at the age of 9 or 10, with all careers for women tying into sexuality in some way. Let's just say that Office Hoes and CEOs wouldn't just be a spirit day at Garfield anymore. I don't want us to go down either of these roads, but I don't see an equilibrium that's working without creating a Madonna-whore dichotomy.
So, going back to freak dancing, I think you can fit it into feminist ideas. They're not completely incompatible, as long as girls aren't being degrading or degrading themselves. I'm down with dancing, and I'll probably show up at the next Garfield dance. But I'll also be in jeans, sober, at a 120 degree angle or higher, and I don't intend on dancing with anyone who I don't know. That's my line for now, and I think it allows for both fun and self-respect.
11.05.2007
Why I'm still optimistic.
In response to Ian's note on Facebook: (http://hs.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=6233849491&ref=mf) (Read it, it's good.)
I don't think this generation is inherently more destrustive than any other generation. The scope of wars, genocides and the like has been much greater now than ever before, but that's the result of techology. It's a lot easier to exterminate six million Jews now than it was before the Industrial Revolution. We don't have more insane psychopaths now; they just have more deadly tools in their hands to realize their intentions. And while that's not a good thing, it does mean that we as a species haven't gotten any worse.
I am inclined to agree that the environment is completely fucked, but I don't think that matters. Either it is or it isn't, and that shouldn't change anything about the way we live. We should all do whatever we can to reduce our impact on the earth. If we're fucked, we might gain some more time, and if not, we'll keep ourselves that way. If we all die out, it won't matter. 99% of the species that have ever existed on the earth are extinct, and when dramatic climate changes occur, new species evolve to take their places. So if we all die, assuming we all picked the right get-out-of-hell-free card, we'll be ok.
Given that I'm an optimist and given that it doesn't really matter, I live my life assuming we're not fucked. I'm hoping technology will catch up and find some way to get our carbon footprints down, since it's too late to just reduce from using less. And I hope that if scientists come up with a way to, economics and politics will take a back seat to the environment for once. I'm living my life trying to make the world a better place, because if global warming doesn't kill us all, I want my children (proverbial, since I'd rather not contribute to overpopulation) to live in a better, more equal world. So as long as there's a bone left in my body, I'm going to work for social and environmental justice, because I believe in the power of people to change their world when given the chance.
With regard to the US's role in this--the Founding Fathers never intended to create a society with "liberty and justice for all". It wasn't a concept people could even imagine at the time, and history has shown time and again that rich white guys really don't like to give up power. I'm sure if you were to bring Jefferson and Washington and Madison and everyone else back from the dead, they would look at this country and be shocked--by the number of immigrants, by the legally (if not socially) almost-equal status of minorities and women, by the sheer size of the country.
The Founding Father never envisioned this world, but we made it anyway. And the Founding Fathers, in spite of the rhetoric about democracy and the rights of man, never really believed in that for everyone. But that doesn't mean we can't. The beauty of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that what was written two hundred years ago as an idealistic vision is becoming closer and closer to reality as time goes on. Will we ever reach a world where everyone is truly equal? I doubt it. And some days, I feel like we've made such little progress. But when you look back, we have come a decent way. Birth control was illegal in this country fifty years ago. Segregation was legal at the same time. Yes, we still have institutionalized rascism, and we're miles and miles away from any kind of equality. But that doesn't mean we aren't getting better.
I believe that the American Dream is real, not because it's ever been a reality in this country, but because of what it's inspired in others. We had a sucessful revolution that sparked others around the world. Maybe our revolution wasn't truly revolutionary, but some of the other ones were. And to me, that's the real accomplishment of the US. Maybe all that talk about human rights, democracy and equality was just rhetorical bullshit. But the rest of the world believed it, even if we didn't.
And I still haven't lost all hope for the world. I'm almost out of hope for this country, but fuck this country. We're only one country. I believe in the world, because the more I look, the more I see people in "third world" countries trying to make positive change in their communities. I see people with vision, passion and a clear idea for a better world. And when I talk to them, I hear their hope. They know that the US is full of shit, but they're still working to institute the ideals our country was founded on. They're working to become the country and the people we never were. And even though we don't want to admit it, our age is over. Look at history--no one gets to rule the world for more than a few hundred years. Our time is over, and I'm still holding out hope for whoever comes next.
I don't think this generation is inherently more destrustive than any other generation. The scope of wars, genocides and the like has been much greater now than ever before, but that's the result of techology. It's a lot easier to exterminate six million Jews now than it was before the Industrial Revolution. We don't have more insane psychopaths now; they just have more deadly tools in their hands to realize their intentions. And while that's not a good thing, it does mean that we as a species haven't gotten any worse.
I am inclined to agree that the environment is completely fucked, but I don't think that matters. Either it is or it isn't, and that shouldn't change anything about the way we live. We should all do whatever we can to reduce our impact on the earth. If we're fucked, we might gain some more time, and if not, we'll keep ourselves that way. If we all die out, it won't matter. 99% of the species that have ever existed on the earth are extinct, and when dramatic climate changes occur, new species evolve to take their places. So if we all die, assuming we all picked the right get-out-of-hell-free card, we'll be ok.
Given that I'm an optimist and given that it doesn't really matter, I live my life assuming we're not fucked. I'm hoping technology will catch up and find some way to get our carbon footprints down, since it's too late to just reduce from using less. And I hope that if scientists come up with a way to, economics and politics will take a back seat to the environment for once. I'm living my life trying to make the world a better place, because if global warming doesn't kill us all, I want my children (proverbial, since I'd rather not contribute to overpopulation) to live in a better, more equal world. So as long as there's a bone left in my body, I'm going to work for social and environmental justice, because I believe in the power of people to change their world when given the chance.
With regard to the US's role in this--the Founding Fathers never intended to create a society with "liberty and justice for all". It wasn't a concept people could even imagine at the time, and history has shown time and again that rich white guys really don't like to give up power. I'm sure if you were to bring Jefferson and Washington and Madison and everyone else back from the dead, they would look at this country and be shocked--by the number of immigrants, by the legally (if not socially) almost-equal status of minorities and women, by the sheer size of the country.
The Founding Father never envisioned this world, but we made it anyway. And the Founding Fathers, in spite of the rhetoric about democracy and the rights of man, never really believed in that for everyone. But that doesn't mean we can't. The beauty of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that what was written two hundred years ago as an idealistic vision is becoming closer and closer to reality as time goes on. Will we ever reach a world where everyone is truly equal? I doubt it. And some days, I feel like we've made such little progress. But when you look back, we have come a decent way. Birth control was illegal in this country fifty years ago. Segregation was legal at the same time. Yes, we still have institutionalized rascism, and we're miles and miles away from any kind of equality. But that doesn't mean we aren't getting better.
I believe that the American Dream is real, not because it's ever been a reality in this country, but because of what it's inspired in others. We had a sucessful revolution that sparked others around the world. Maybe our revolution wasn't truly revolutionary, but some of the other ones were. And to me, that's the real accomplishment of the US. Maybe all that talk about human rights, democracy and equality was just rhetorical bullshit. But the rest of the world believed it, even if we didn't.
And I still haven't lost all hope for the world. I'm almost out of hope for this country, but fuck this country. We're only one country. I believe in the world, because the more I look, the more I see people in "third world" countries trying to make positive change in their communities. I see people with vision, passion and a clear idea for a better world. And when I talk to them, I hear their hope. They know that the US is full of shit, but they're still working to institute the ideals our country was founded on. They're working to become the country and the people we never were. And even though we don't want to admit it, our age is over. Look at history--no one gets to rule the world for more than a few hundred years. Our time is over, and I'm still holding out hope for whoever comes next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)