Employing your butt to save trees

Americans talk a good game when it comes to the environment, but most of us aren't willing to do much of anything at all. Are you willing to ride the bus, carpool, cut down on your consumption of meat, eat produce only in-season? No thanks," say most Americans. That's my personal experience, based on talking with numerous "concerned" citizens. Most people that I talk with tell me that they will make changes only when the "market" makes it worth their while. It's crazy, but that's the way it is. How about this option: Would you be willing to use one roll of recycled toilet paper per year if it would save 425,000 trees? Resoundingly, America has said "no thanks," according to Time Magazine:

[A] mainstream brand, Scott, started offering toilet paper made with 40% recycled fiber. Switching to such material could make a big difference: the NRDC estimates that if every household in the U.S. replaced just one 500-sheet roll of virgin-fiber TP a year with a roll made from 100% recycled paper, nearly 425,000 trees would be saved annually. . . Hence Greenpeace's four-year-long campaign to pressure paper companies . . . to stop cutting down virgin forests. . .

It's possible — but few Americans are doing it. Toilet paper containing 100% recycled fiber makes up less than 2% of the U.S. market, while sales of three-ply luxury brands like Cottonelle Ultra and Charmin Ultra Soft shot up 40% in 2008.

Considering that the average family uses about 20 rolls of toilet paper per month, NRDC's suggestion is not a laughing matter. Based on my conversations with lots of people, though, being responsible to the environment is truly a laughing matter for most Americans. They just don't get it, unless it affects their pocketbooks.

Continue ReadingEmploying your butt to save trees

Our incredibly fickle media turns all of its spotlights on Michael Jackson

Check out the home page of MSNBC tonight (click on the thumbnail below). Do you see ANYTHING about the crisis in Iran? Instead we are presented with endless drivel about Michael Jackson, who was an extremely talented entertainer many years ago. But I suppose that there is nothing interesting going on in Iran. And nothing much else going on anywhere else either, apparently. For all you can tell by looking at the MSNBC homepage, the problems in Iran have been entirely resolved. Or maybe the problem is that MSNBC doesn't have anybody on the ground in Iran, and when a tree falls in the forest where there aren't any mainstream media reporters, the tree didn't really fall at all. Even though sustained coverage of Iran is potentially a lifeline for the brave Iranian men and women who are standing up to their government, which apparently stole their national election. And BTW, had we elected John McCain and had he gotten his way to bomb Iran, would our media have tried to present an accurate viewpoint of these young heroes? Or would we have merely seen a reply of the Iraq invasion, lots of videos of bombs being dropped and missiles being launched? msnbc-no-iran MSNBC is merely doing what the rest of the commercial news sites are doing. ALL of the commercial news sites have decided that Michael Jackson is far more important than . . . well . . . everything else combined. See the thumbnails below to see the home pages of CNN and ABC. What do these news priorities say about our commercial news businesses, and what do they say about us as commercial news consumers? I'd suggest that this fickle coverage suggests that the commercial media doesn't take its job seriously. Not at all. cnn-not-much-iran abc-barely-mentions-iran Absolute insanity.

Continue ReadingOur incredibly fickle media turns all of its spotlights on Michael Jackson

Census issues

Here's a topic I haven't followed well enough, as became obvious to me when I saw this little gem of a video on Huffpo. I had NO IDEA that one of the reasons Those-Who-Hate-Government-But-Want-Government-to-Manage-Religion-and-Reproduction are threatening not to fill out their census forms is the fear of being placed in Internment Camps. Yep, that maven of legislative insight, Michele Bachmann, warns Glenn Beck of the dire consequences we may well repeat from the WWII era. She also laments the missing "are you here illegally?" question (because of course all undocumented workers would 'fess right up to that on an official government form).

Continue ReadingCensus issues

How and why to repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell.

How and why should we repeal Don't ask, Don't tell? Everything you need to know is here, in this presentation by Lawrence J. Korb, Sean Duggan, and Laura Conley of the Center for American Progress. Here's the pdf. Here are some of the facts worth considering:

More than 32,500 gay and lesbian service men and women have been discharged from military service since 1980.

This policy may have cost the U.S. government up to $1.3 billion since 1980.

“No reputable or peer-reviewed study has ever shown that allowing service by openly gay personnel will compromise military effectiveness.”17

Twenty-four countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. None of these have reported “any determent to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality,” according to the Palm Center, and “in the more than three decades since an overseas force first allowed gay men and lesbians to serve openly, no study has ever documented any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality in foreign armed services.”

Even the British, whose military structure and deployment patterns are most similar to ours—and who fiercely resisted allowing gays to serve in the military—were forced to do so by the European Court

What is step ONE for ending the deplorable status quo? "Issue an Executive Order banning further dismissals on the basis of DADT and send a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress." We're waiting, Mr. Obama.

Continue ReadingHow and why to repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell.

Cultural death in threes –

I am experiencing a rather weird feeling - three cultural icons whose flames burned brightest during my own youth have all been extinguished in the same week. First Ed McMahon, who, for years has been but a caricature of himself, died, essentially of old age, at 86. Not a big surprise, except I wonder how someone who was so vibrant when I was a teen managed to get that old?! A friend pointed out that deaths like his make her feel old, and I get that. But so do the deaths of Farrah and Jacko today - at least for me. Because I can still remember believing that only old people lose contemporaries in any large number - and perhaps because we lost a mom at my oldest daughter's school to ovarian cancer this month - I'm feeling a bit too close to death's doorway. I was never a big fan of Farrah, but I know several men who, as boys, would glaze over just staring at her poster on their bedroom walls. She and her fellow Angels were early purveyors of girl-power - except it was the toxic kind, a power that came primarily from great bodies, beautiful faces and big hair. Oh, and yeah, they could kick butt against the bad guys, of course. Theirs was a cultural impact similar to Barbie's - a completely unrealistic picture of femininity to strive for, girls! But still, they were women in formerly man-held roles, and they were part of my girlhood, for better or worse. Farrah, of course, was always the top angel. Not a role model, although back then some tried to paint her as such; just an icon, replete with faults that became more apparent as she got older and the media more intrusive. Like her or not, I am saddened by the long suffering she had to endure up to her end. As for Michael Jackson, I simply don't know how to feel.

Continue ReadingCultural death in threes –