A good article in the New York Times, linked to by Bru Notes (again, thanks), shows a PR campaign by groups such as PETA and the Humane Society that states that eating meat makes you more liable for the global warming problem than someone driving a Hummer. And there is data from the United Nations that backs this up. This is something I've thought of before, when you consider the transportation and amount of fossil fuels that it must take to ship meat throughout the world. That's not counting the actual raising of cows and other animals for meat on the farm. I eat meat, as I'm sure a lot of left-leaning people do. So it makes you think.
But as Bru posted, I don't agree with PETA's insinuation that those who are already fighting against global warming, including Al Gore and others, should do even more. Global Warming is a lot to adapt to, for anyone who's serious about it. You have to sell your SUV and drive a smaller, fuel-efficient car. You have to recycle more. You have to make a lot of changes, and you can only change so much. I don't think someone who drives a Prius, lives in a small apartment or house and is a good eco-citizen in most respects is an evil hypocrite for eating a hamburger now and then. If PETA and the Humane Society wants to fight global warming on the pretense of saving the animals, have at it, it's a great and noble goal. But they shouldn't expect other environmental activists to do it.
Friday, August 31, 2007
He Sold His Soul to Walmart
Thanks to The Bru Notes for giving a heads up to this really good article from the business magazine Fast Company about Adam Werbach, a former president of the Sierra Club (at 23) who is now helping Walmart in its sustainability efforts. Needless to say, there is a figurative paradox of a lifelong environmentalist working for a company that is decidedly un-progressive in many respects. Werbach expresses his misgivings at Walmart's labor practices, for example, and finds that his political and environmental activism collides with the nature of his work on behalf of Walmart.
Werbach has taken much heat from his peers and the environmental community on this decision. I think it's a little admirable. He had issues with the environmental movement on its willingness to confront the issues and try to right its wrongs, which really echo a lot of the issues I had working with progressive movements locally. He is trying to make this large corporation, which to this point has been a huge strain on our communities, more "green" and more sustainable. Even if he can make baby steps with this, he still deserves a lot of credit. He will take Walmart further with this (that is, if they're sincere about it) than if they'd just gotten a few corporate exiles to run their sustainable development branch.
Werbach has taken much heat from his peers and the environmental community on this decision. I think it's a little admirable. He had issues with the environmental movement on its willingness to confront the issues and try to right its wrongs, which really echo a lot of the issues I had working with progressive movements locally. He is trying to make this large corporation, which to this point has been a huge strain on our communities, more "green" and more sustainable. Even if he can make baby steps with this, he still deserves a lot of credit. He will take Walmart further with this (that is, if they're sincere about it) than if they'd just gotten a few corporate exiles to run their sustainable development branch.
Idiot of the Day
It's going to be really hard to dethrone my personal Biggest Idiot:
But this guy is still worth mentioning. He is a leader of a right-wing political party in Germany who has said that Rudolf Hess, Hitler's secretary, should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. An idiotic statement, sure, but I think the German government has a pretty radical policy in that he can be charged with a crime and sentenced to prison for making such a statement. I guess all countries have policies that don't really make sense. I just found out that in my country, someone could be arrested for making hand gestures and tapping their feet in a public bathroom.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Enough With the 'Raising Awareness' Garbage
From Adage:
Enough With the 'Raising Awareness' Garbage
That's not the point. The point is "the film has grossed roughly $600,000 domestically since its release July 25."
And that's just fine with Ken Lombard, president of Starbucks Entertainment. "Our measurement of success was not the box office," Lombard said. "Our measurement of success was to do as much as we could to encourage discussion around the critical issue of today -- global warming."
I'm sure that's the sort of thing that Starbucks shareholders want to hear. "We don't measure success in stupid old dollars. We're more interested in conversation." What? Did Lombard follow patrons around and eavesdrop. "Hey! We've got two people discussing global warming on Table 2. Sweet! It's a success." And does that conversation count if it's two global-warming naysayers talking about the polar bear population being at its highest point in the last 40 years?
It seems that in its book and music selections, Starbucks picks things that its core audience might be interested in that they'll actually buy it at a premium price in the store. But with movies, we're supposed to believe that the company is just happy to spark a conversation?
More annoying still is the idea that a company -- hell, anyone -- needs to encourage discussion or raise awareness about global warming. Who ISN'T aware of it by now? Even the deniers are aware of it. Even they are having a discussion about it. The only people not talking about it are those Amazonian tribes who have no contact with the modern world! So stop it already. If you're going to do something -- cut carbon emissions, use solar power, plant trees or whatever -- then do something. Quit it with the "Oh, we raised awareness." Talk about your b.s. metrics.
Enough With the 'Raising Awareness' Garbage
Starbucks, Paramount Movie Effort Flops, but That's Just Swell!
Interesting piece -- in the Los Angeles Times of all places! -- about the latest venture between Starbucks and a movie studio. Paramount's summer release, "Arctic Tale," is performing miserably. How you mess up a movie about a cute little polar bear and a chubby little walrus is beyond me. Perhaps that cheesy preaching from Queen Latifah and the grrrl-power/boys-are-stupid vibe didn't help.That's not the point. The point is "the film has grossed roughly $600,000 domestically since its release July 25."
And that's just fine with Ken Lombard, president of Starbucks Entertainment. "Our measurement of success was not the box office," Lombard said. "Our measurement of success was to do as much as we could to encourage discussion around the critical issue of today -- global warming."
I'm sure that's the sort of thing that Starbucks shareholders want to hear. "We don't measure success in stupid old dollars. We're more interested in conversation." What? Did Lombard follow patrons around and eavesdrop. "Hey! We've got two people discussing global warming on Table 2. Sweet! It's a success." And does that conversation count if it's two global-warming naysayers talking about the polar bear population being at its highest point in the last 40 years?
It seems that in its book and music selections, Starbucks picks things that its core audience might be interested in that they'll actually buy it at a premium price in the store. But with movies, we're supposed to believe that the company is just happy to spark a conversation?
More annoying still is the idea that a company -- hell, anyone -- needs to encourage discussion or raise awareness about global warming. Who ISN'T aware of it by now? Even the deniers are aware of it. Even they are having a discussion about it. The only people not talking about it are those Amazonian tribes who have no contact with the modern world! So stop it already. If you're going to do something -- cut carbon emissions, use solar power, plant trees or whatever -- then do something. Quit it with the "Oh, we raised awareness." Talk about your b.s. metrics.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Latest on Manhunt 2
I typically don't keep abreast of the latest video game happenings. I love gaming, always have, but I'm a classic gamer at heart and I've always been on a strict budget, so it's very vary rare that I buy the newest release. But this Manhunt 2 story intrigues me. The latest news is that the sequel to Manhunt apparently got re-edited, and its initial rating of AO (Adults Only) by the ESRB was brought down to a more marketable (and release-able, since Sony and Nintendo won't permit AO games to be published) M rating. Now, the M rating still makes it perfectly clear that the game isn't for kids. But that's not good enough for the crybabies at the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, who want the government to hold their hands in deciding what games to buy for their children. They're now saying that the ESRB hasn't described what led them to change the rating. What does it matter? This is just grasping for straws now.
As one poster commented on Game Politics, you're now seeing these organizations come out of the woodwork to attack games. But they aren't attacking offensive lyrics in music, or graphic violence in movies, because those aren't hot-button issues anymore. They're taken for granted now. Someday, violence and adult situations will be common in games too, and no one will care. This is just a device for a few groups to get notoriety.
As one poster commented on Game Politics, you're now seeing these organizations come out of the woodwork to attack games. But they aren't attacking offensive lyrics in music, or graphic violence in movies, because those aren't hot-button issues anymore. They're taken for granted now. Someday, violence and adult situations will be common in games too, and no one will care. This is just a device for a few groups to get notoriety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)