Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U
Think about it.
I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our next president, for a variety of reasons. I think Obama will do a better job of implementing an effective, sustainable environmental policy, for one. My dislike of her is based on her policies, and several of the comments she and her supporters have made regarding racial issues in America.
But to look at the media coverage of her campaign and the way she's been treated absolutely sickens me. The top two reasons not to elect her, if you listen to the top news anchors and media personalities in this country, appear to be 1) she's a bitch, and 2) she will have PMS, which will interfere with her being macho enough to lead us into another quagmire in the Middle East. Aside from the fact that these commentators are missing a basic biological reality (6o year old women are generally post-menopausal), the level of sexism that is ingrained in our media and national consciousness is disgustingly high.
Why is this behavior acceptable? I know the lowest common denominator sells in media, but level of sexism that we've decided is acceptable is past the point of humor, reasonable disagreement or even shock value. I can understand arguments that calling a woman attractive isn't sexist, and while I disagree, I don't think it's realistic to expect that male anchors will stop commenting on what female politicians are wearing anytime soon. But why are statements so blatantly contrary to fact--statements like "she's only famous because her husband slept around"--acceptable from any respectable journalist?
When commentators do this--generalize, lie, stereotype, and degrade--they aren't just attacking Hillary. They're sending a message to every woman in America: We don't want to hear your voice. We don't think you're capable of leadership. You are not, and do not need to be, represented.
Faced with this, what can we do to change it? Prove them wrong. Never sit silent. Never let oppression go unanswered. Refuse to be treated like a second-class citizen. Maybe one of these days, we'll join Nicaragua, Haiti and the UK on the list of countries that have had female heads of state. And though that won't end sexism, it will go a long way towards it.
5.27.2008
5.22.2008
The next step towards sustainibility: food.
Local foods. Sustainable eating. Awareness of where your food comes from and what that means for the earth we live on. It's the next step for the environmentally conscious, those of us who already take the bus, skip showers to be outside and have been vegetarians since before it was cool.
I finally finished The Omnivore's Dilemma, and I'm taking a long, hard look at what I eat and why. My environmentalism, prior to now, has largely consisted of rhetoric and changes only insofar as they didn't require effort. Yes, I've been a vegetarian since I was nine, but that really doesn't take much work. I drive everywhere. I don't take particularly short showers. I can justify it all to myself, and I'm comfortable with my lifestyle for the most part (other than the size of my house, but that's not what we're talking about right now). Except for my food. Because there are glaring inconsistencies between what I want to be and what I eat. In spite of the rhetoric, a good percentage of my daily caloric intake comes from high fructose corn syrup, frozen foods imported from all over the country and produce imported from Latin America.
With food prices rising, with the amount of petroleum it takes to grow crops and ship them across the country, I can no longer justify eating the way I do. For my own health, I can no longer justify my diet to myself. In spite of the fact that I don't live by myself and can't control everything I eat, I'm going to try. Starting now, I want to implement these rules for myself:
1) Frozen food entrees are not an acceptable meal. Once we run out of the ones in the freezer, I will not buy any more.
2) I will not eat more than one dessert item (sweet stuff, potato chips) per day, in a reasonable sized portion, and not more than one other pseudo-dessert item (bagel/pita chips, goldfish, etc.) per day. Exceptions for parties and special occasions.
3) Eggo waffles are not food. Seriously.
4) All food which can be produced locally should be bought at farmer's markets in Seattle.
5) Whenever I have the option, I will only eat produce and food that is locally in season.
6) Tea should be made from stuff I illegally steal from Discovery Park, not from herbs picked by people living on other continents and paid substandard wages.
7) No more Starbucks. Coffee should be GV coffee and I should learn how to make frappucino-resembling beverages myself.
8) No more fish that isn't local and caught in environmentally-friendly ways. Exceptions if I'm traveling in redneck states and there's no other food I can eat.
I don't expect to follow any of those rules perfectly. Why bother? Because change can happen, gradually, and I know I am capable of changing my diet far beyond what I think is possible. When I went vegetarian, hot dogs were my favorite food, and sushi was a close second. It took me a few months to quit the red meat, because I loved it so much, and two more years to give up fish. But I did it. And now, I can look back and know that it was worth it. If I get into these habits now, paying attention to my food and developing consciousness, it will be second nature by the time I'm living on my own. Or so I hope. And I know I'll be better, healthier, and greener for it.
Incidentally, I should also learn how to cook. But unlike eating locally, that probably is going to take a miracle.
I finally finished The Omnivore's Dilemma, and I'm taking a long, hard look at what I eat and why. My environmentalism, prior to now, has largely consisted of rhetoric and changes only insofar as they didn't require effort. Yes, I've been a vegetarian since I was nine, but that really doesn't take much work. I drive everywhere. I don't take particularly short showers. I can justify it all to myself, and I'm comfortable with my lifestyle for the most part (other than the size of my house, but that's not what we're talking about right now). Except for my food. Because there are glaring inconsistencies between what I want to be and what I eat. In spite of the rhetoric, a good percentage of my daily caloric intake comes from high fructose corn syrup, frozen foods imported from all over the country and produce imported from Latin America.
With food prices rising, with the amount of petroleum it takes to grow crops and ship them across the country, I can no longer justify eating the way I do. For my own health, I can no longer justify my diet to myself. In spite of the fact that I don't live by myself and can't control everything I eat, I'm going to try. Starting now, I want to implement these rules for myself:
1) Frozen food entrees are not an acceptable meal. Once we run out of the ones in the freezer, I will not buy any more.
2) I will not eat more than one dessert item (sweet stuff, potato chips) per day, in a reasonable sized portion, and not more than one other pseudo-dessert item (bagel/pita chips, goldfish, etc.) per day. Exceptions for parties and special occasions.
3) Eggo waffles are not food. Seriously.
4) All food which can be produced locally should be bought at farmer's markets in Seattle.
5) Whenever I have the option, I will only eat produce and food that is locally in season.
6) Tea should be made from stuff I illegally steal from Discovery Park, not from herbs picked by people living on other continents and paid substandard wages.
7) No more Starbucks. Coffee should be GV coffee and I should learn how to make frappucino-resembling beverages myself.
8) No more fish that isn't local and caught in environmentally-friendly ways. Exceptions if I'm traveling in redneck states and there's no other food I can eat.
I don't expect to follow any of those rules perfectly. Why bother? Because change can happen, gradually, and I know I am capable of changing my diet far beyond what I think is possible. When I went vegetarian, hot dogs were my favorite food, and sushi was a close second. It took me a few months to quit the red meat, because I loved it so much, and two more years to give up fish. But I did it. And now, I can look back and know that it was worth it. If I get into these habits now, paying attention to my food and developing consciousness, it will be second nature by the time I'm living on my own. Or so I hope. And I know I'll be better, healthier, and greener for it.
Incidentally, I should also learn how to cook. But unlike eating locally, that probably is going to take a miracle.
4.04.2008
Limbaugh on feminism & torture music
Rush Limbaugh has some shit to say about Democrats, Hillary, and feminists.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804010009?f=h_latest
I kind of wish I were capable of ignoring comments like this. Because there will always be the Pat Robertsons, with the whole, "Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." And the Ann Coulters, pointing out that if women couldn't vote, the Democrats would never win another election, and then saying, "It's kind of a personal fantasy of mine."
I understand disagreeing about abortion. I understand thinking that feminists take things too far sometimes. But to discount a movement that has done so much for this country...I can't understand that, outside of the conclusion that every single conservative pundit out there doesn't actually believe what they're saying and just knows what sells well. And I don't think that's true. I honestly think that most of them believe what they're saying. How can Ann Coulter believe that restricting women's' right to vote would accomplish anything positive? I would never in my life say that the vote of white men earning $100,000 a year or more should be taken away. I wouldn't say that evangelical Christians should be barred from voting, even though doing so would solve the same "problem" for my side of the aisle. I believe the solution to an electorate that doesn't vote the way I would like is more information and more education, not curtailing their rights. I know that probably wasn't a serious comment. But I still wonder how the Coulters and O'Reillys and Limbaughs of the world can go home happy with themselves and the world. And if they can't, then why are they doing what they're doing?
On the off-chance the Rush Limbaugh actually wants to learn something and wasn't just trying to get some controversy points, I wrote him this letter (as an 18-year old so I could pretend that my opinion about the election actually matters):
Mr. Limbaugh,
As an eighteen year old Democratic feminist, I would like to correct some of the misstatements you made in your radio broadcast on April 1st. Not all female voters in the Democratic Party—not even those who self-identify as feminists—necessarily support Ms. Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Nor is the party as divided as you claim. While I would prefer to see Mr. Obama as the nominee for the party, I would be happy to vote for either candidate, and happy to see either as president. My desire to see Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton in the White House does not come from the feeling that I am owed any sort of “due”, by society or the party. It comes from my belief that their policies on health care, Iraq, and environmental issues will lead America in the direction I would like to see it heading.
I am troubled by your comments about feminists, as I believe they display a fundamental misunderstanding of what the feminist movement stands for. Feminism believes in allowing women to choose the course of their own lives and calls attention to the prejudice and discrimination that has and continues to, stop women from achieving equality. Though feminists support a woman’s right to choose an abortion, no feminist believes abortion is some type of “due” owed to the movement. Feminists work actively, every day, to promote education about safer sex practices precisely to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies occurring in the US. Not all feminists are the man-hating, career-driven women you make them out to be. My mother, who raised me to be a proud feminist, has only married once, never had an abortion, and stayed home to raise me and my brother.
I understand that as a conservative radio personality, you are naturally critical of the Democratic Party. I am aware that you disagree with the feminist movement on many key issues. However, I would ask that you remember that there is a difference between commentary and falsification. If you want to criticize the Democratic Party, the feminist movement, or Hillary Clinton’s supporters, by all means do so. But please don’t make sweeping generalizations about the feminist movement or women as a whole when you do. To portray such a diverse group of people in such a stereotypical way does everyone a disservice—it adds to misconceptions, illegitimizes your point, and does nothing to elevate the level of political discourse in this country.
Respectfully,
Rachel Alexander
I'm sure he won't reply, and if he does, it will be a form letter. So really, that was pointless. But who knows? Maybe he actually reads his email.
In other news, Mother Jones magazine has published a list, leaked from the US government, of specific songs that have been used in US military prisons to shock detainees and "drown out screams". On the list--Born in the USA, American Pie, the Barney theme song, White America and some others. Check out the link here: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2008/03/torture-playlist.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804010009?f=h_latest
I kind of wish I were capable of ignoring comments like this. Because there will always be the Pat Robertsons, with the whole, "Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." And the Ann Coulters, pointing out that if women couldn't vote, the Democrats would never win another election, and then saying, "It's kind of a personal fantasy of mine."
I understand disagreeing about abortion. I understand thinking that feminists take things too far sometimes. But to discount a movement that has done so much for this country...I can't understand that, outside of the conclusion that every single conservative pundit out there doesn't actually believe what they're saying and just knows what sells well. And I don't think that's true. I honestly think that most of them believe what they're saying. How can Ann Coulter believe that restricting women's' right to vote would accomplish anything positive? I would never in my life say that the vote of white men earning $100,000 a year or more should be taken away. I wouldn't say that evangelical Christians should be barred from voting, even though doing so would solve the same "problem" for my side of the aisle. I believe the solution to an electorate that doesn't vote the way I would like is more information and more education, not curtailing their rights. I know that probably wasn't a serious comment. But I still wonder how the Coulters and O'Reillys and Limbaughs of the world can go home happy with themselves and the world. And if they can't, then why are they doing what they're doing?
On the off-chance the Rush Limbaugh actually wants to learn something and wasn't just trying to get some controversy points, I wrote him this letter (as an 18-year old so I could pretend that my opinion about the election actually matters):
Mr. Limbaugh,
As an eighteen year old Democratic feminist, I would like to correct some of the misstatements you made in your radio broadcast on April 1st. Not all female voters in the Democratic Party—not even those who self-identify as feminists—necessarily support Ms. Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Nor is the party as divided as you claim. While I would prefer to see Mr. Obama as the nominee for the party, I would be happy to vote for either candidate, and happy to see either as president. My desire to see Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton in the White House does not come from the feeling that I am owed any sort of “due”, by society or the party. It comes from my belief that their policies on health care, Iraq, and environmental issues will lead America in the direction I would like to see it heading.
I am troubled by your comments about feminists, as I believe they display a fundamental misunderstanding of what the feminist movement stands for. Feminism believes in allowing women to choose the course of their own lives and calls attention to the prejudice and discrimination that has and continues to, stop women from achieving equality. Though feminists support a woman’s right to choose an abortion, no feminist believes abortion is some type of “due” owed to the movement. Feminists work actively, every day, to promote education about safer sex practices precisely to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies occurring in the US. Not all feminists are the man-hating, career-driven women you make them out to be. My mother, who raised me to be a proud feminist, has only married once, never had an abortion, and stayed home to raise me and my brother.
I understand that as a conservative radio personality, you are naturally critical of the Democratic Party. I am aware that you disagree with the feminist movement on many key issues. However, I would ask that you remember that there is a difference between commentary and falsification. If you want to criticize the Democratic Party, the feminist movement, or Hillary Clinton’s supporters, by all means do so. But please don’t make sweeping generalizations about the feminist movement or women as a whole when you do. To portray such a diverse group of people in such a stereotypical way does everyone a disservice—it adds to misconceptions, illegitimizes your point, and does nothing to elevate the level of political discourse in this country.
Respectfully,
Rachel Alexander
I'm sure he won't reply, and if he does, it will be a form letter. So really, that was pointless. But who knows? Maybe he actually reads his email.
In other news, Mother Jones magazine has published a list, leaked from the US government, of specific songs that have been used in US military prisons to shock detainees and "drown out screams". On the list--Born in the USA, American Pie, the Barney theme song, White America and some others. Check out the link here: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2008/03/torture-playlist.html
3.13.2008
The DNC
No doubt about it--the 2008 Democratic National Convention will be unlike any other political convention in history. The race is intense, the stakes are high, the candidates aren't all white men. I want to be there, because I think it will be an amazing, crazy whirlwind experience. I want to be there because I believe I will learn something important--maybe about democracy and hope and vision for America, and if not that, some damn useful stuff about manipulative propaganda. Either way, I know it will be worth going to.
I was talking to one of our chaperones at Stevens--a very liberal environmentalist, of the sort who thinks the Democrats are only slightly, if at all, better than the Republicans. She was telling me how she was at the DNC in 2004, and I was like, "Oh, that's cool, how'd you get to go?" and she said, "I was protesting." And then she told me how the delegates to the convention had been given these boxes of Kraft macaroni and cheese with the pasta shaped like donkeys. And the protesters were angry about that (Kraft is owned by Altria, if I'm not mistaken, which is the same company that makes Marlboros), but most of them had no money and were starving and hadn't eaten much during the convention. And they were asking the delegates, please, to just give them the mac and cheese, and the delegates refused.
I could go to the DNC this summer, as a representative from JSA. I could listen to speeches and discuss and debate with other JSAers and eat nice, fancy food when I'm told to do so. I could sit and hear about change we can believe in and hope for America, and I could almost believe it. Almost.
But there would be protesters, from a lot of the causes I identify myself with. And I have to say, looking in their faces and acting like a Democratic president is a symbol of hope for America--that would be a lie. Hillary's served on the board for Wal-Mart. ExxonMobile has contributed more money to Obama than any other presidential candidate from either party. And I can't shake that, when I consider the future of this country.
I want, so much to believe. I want to listen to Obama's speeches and think that he will follow through on every word he says. I want to look at Hillary and believe that she could bring significant, meaningful change to the White House. I want to go the DNC and feel inspired and excited about the future of this country. But I know if I go, especially with the sort of kids who are in JSA--I'll feel sick. Not always, because part of me can believe, just a bit. But I'll walk away from that convention with a bitter taste in my mouth.
I'm beginning to think that real change can only be radical change--a socialist revolution, the election of a libertarian president who abolishes government as we know it, or something else equally extreme. I don't know what I want from this election, from this country, from the world in this age of globalization. I know what I'd like to see, but I don't know what's possible, what it would take to get there. I think at some point in my lifetime, that change will come, because of increasing human realization. But maybe change is just an illusion, a word that's lost all meaning from being used as filler in campaign speeches.
In spite of my misgivings, I will do everything humanly possible to go to the DNC. Because no matter who wins or what happens, there will be some great pictures.
I was talking to one of our chaperones at Stevens--a very liberal environmentalist, of the sort who thinks the Democrats are only slightly, if at all, better than the Republicans. She was telling me how she was at the DNC in 2004, and I was like, "Oh, that's cool, how'd you get to go?" and she said, "I was protesting." And then she told me how the delegates to the convention had been given these boxes of Kraft macaroni and cheese with the pasta shaped like donkeys. And the protesters were angry about that (Kraft is owned by Altria, if I'm not mistaken, which is the same company that makes Marlboros), but most of them had no money and were starving and hadn't eaten much during the convention. And they were asking the delegates, please, to just give them the mac and cheese, and the delegates refused.
I could go to the DNC this summer, as a representative from JSA. I could listen to speeches and discuss and debate with other JSAers and eat nice, fancy food when I'm told to do so. I could sit and hear about change we can believe in and hope for America, and I could almost believe it. Almost.
But there would be protesters, from a lot of the causes I identify myself with. And I have to say, looking in their faces and acting like a Democratic president is a symbol of hope for America--that would be a lie. Hillary's served on the board for Wal-Mart. ExxonMobile has contributed more money to Obama than any other presidential candidate from either party. And I can't shake that, when I consider the future of this country.
I want, so much to believe. I want to listen to Obama's speeches and think that he will follow through on every word he says. I want to look at Hillary and believe that she could bring significant, meaningful change to the White House. I want to go the DNC and feel inspired and excited about the future of this country. But I know if I go, especially with the sort of kids who are in JSA--I'll feel sick. Not always, because part of me can believe, just a bit. But I'll walk away from that convention with a bitter taste in my mouth.
I'm beginning to think that real change can only be radical change--a socialist revolution, the election of a libertarian president who abolishes government as we know it, or something else equally extreme. I don't know what I want from this election, from this country, from the world in this age of globalization. I know what I'd like to see, but I don't know what's possible, what it would take to get there. I think at some point in my lifetime, that change will come, because of increasing human realization. But maybe change is just an illusion, a word that's lost all meaning from being used as filler in campaign speeches.
In spite of my misgivings, I will do everything humanly possible to go to the DNC. Because no matter who wins or what happens, there will be some great pictures.
2.24.2008
Wolves, politics and human arrogance
They are trying to take my wolves away. Our wolves. The wolves I've spent three years tracking, thinking about, respecting and learning from. The wolves who have stunned us into silence so many times through what they choose to reveal to us when we truly take the time to listen, be patient and observe.
When I first heard, I was shocked. Angry. And then I thought some more, and I was filled with an incredible sadness. Because this has been happening for so long. We've been moving this way since the beginning of human existence, and we've been moving this way so quickly in recent years. And I can always feel for the environment in the abstract and object to its degradation, its subjugation, by and for human arrogance. But this has a face on it. I know these wolves--seven or eight of them, at least. I've seen them in action, studied their footprints for hours, heard them howling in the dead of night over a frost-covered meadow and seen what their teeth can do to another animal. And I have such a deep respect for them because of everything they've allowed me to experience.
I understand a rancher, a farmer, who objects to the wolves because they eat livestock. I understand thinking they should be killed if they're caught in the act. And while I don't agree--I'm a bigger fan of the Defenders of Wildlife's efforts to compensate farmers for damage wolves do to their property--I can understand their motivations, their reasoning.
This, to me, makes no sense. A desire to kill wolves for no reason, just because they're there. The government, by delisting the wolves, is making an incredible assumption. They're asserting that humans have an unconditional right to kill other species so long as their actual existence as a whole is not threatened. Think about that. Every regulation in place that says when you can and can't hunt animals, and which ones you can hunt, is there only to preserve the species as a whole. It lacks any concern for an individual animal's welfare or right to exist. An animal only has a right to exist if there are so few of its species left that its death would threaten survival as a whole. And this fundamental assumption, about the human right to control nature, is not being questioned by either side. The groups planning to start a lawsuit for violation of the Endangered Species Act are debating about the number of wolves that would constitute a sustainable population, not whether we have a right to kill a population even if it's self-sustaining. Just think about that for a minute. Where did we get this idea from? Why does it run through society almost unquestioned?
The governor of Idaho has said that when the delisting is official, one month from now, he plans to allow open season on wolves in Idaho. And he's said that he will be the first to pick up a gun to go shoot them. He wants, he's said, a complete end to all the wolves in Idaho.
Close your eyes. Picture a world in which anyone who wants, who has a gun, can walk into a forest and shoot a wolf on sight, just for existing. Look into that wolf's eyes, the eyes of the pack as one of their own falls in a pool of blood. Look at the hunter, watching. And the wolves, staring back, trying to understand. Look at the dead wolf, which will lie there until its body is reclaimed by the earth, since the hunter has no use for it.
This vision of our earth is enough to make me lose most of my faith in humanity. What keeps me from doing that is the people in these states, the very same ranchers and farmers. In spite of the losses some of them have incurred because of the wolves, an overwhelming number of them are opposed to these new policies. And we can stand with them, united. Think back again. Picture that world. If it's not what you want, then do something about it.
When I first heard, I was shocked. Angry. And then I thought some more, and I was filled with an incredible sadness. Because this has been happening for so long. We've been moving this way since the beginning of human existence, and we've been moving this way so quickly in recent years. And I can always feel for the environment in the abstract and object to its degradation, its subjugation, by and for human arrogance. But this has a face on it. I know these wolves--seven or eight of them, at least. I've seen them in action, studied their footprints for hours, heard them howling in the dead of night over a frost-covered meadow and seen what their teeth can do to another animal. And I have such a deep respect for them because of everything they've allowed me to experience.
I understand a rancher, a farmer, who objects to the wolves because they eat livestock. I understand thinking they should be killed if they're caught in the act. And while I don't agree--I'm a bigger fan of the Defenders of Wildlife's efforts to compensate farmers for damage wolves do to their property--I can understand their motivations, their reasoning.
This, to me, makes no sense. A desire to kill wolves for no reason, just because they're there. The government, by delisting the wolves, is making an incredible assumption. They're asserting that humans have an unconditional right to kill other species so long as their actual existence as a whole is not threatened. Think about that. Every regulation in place that says when you can and can't hunt animals, and which ones you can hunt, is there only to preserve the species as a whole. It lacks any concern for an individual animal's welfare or right to exist. An animal only has a right to exist if there are so few of its species left that its death would threaten survival as a whole. And this fundamental assumption, about the human right to control nature, is not being questioned by either side. The groups planning to start a lawsuit for violation of the Endangered Species Act are debating about the number of wolves that would constitute a sustainable population, not whether we have a right to kill a population even if it's self-sustaining. Just think about that for a minute. Where did we get this idea from? Why does it run through society almost unquestioned?
The governor of Idaho has said that when the delisting is official, one month from now, he plans to allow open season on wolves in Idaho. And he's said that he will be the first to pick up a gun to go shoot them. He wants, he's said, a complete end to all the wolves in Idaho.
Close your eyes. Picture a world in which anyone who wants, who has a gun, can walk into a forest and shoot a wolf on sight, just for existing. Look into that wolf's eyes, the eyes of the pack as one of their own falls in a pool of blood. Look at the hunter, watching. And the wolves, staring back, trying to understand. Look at the dead wolf, which will lie there until its body is reclaimed by the earth, since the hunter has no use for it.
This vision of our earth is enough to make me lose most of my faith in humanity. What keeps me from doing that is the people in these states, the very same ranchers and farmers. In spite of the losses some of them have incurred because of the wolves, an overwhelming number of them are opposed to these new policies. And we can stand with them, united. Think back again. Picture that world. If it's not what you want, then do something about it.
1.27.2008
Female sexuality.
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.
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.
1.15.2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)