Roundhouses are for hobbits...apparently not?

I just finished going through a photo gallery on the BBC's website which is certainly worth sharing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/06/in_pictures_life_in_an_eco_roundhouse/html/1.stm

Our consumer lifestyle is recklessly indulgent. And I don't think we have the time to wait for the government to come up with stricter emission standards, but to take on the responsibility ourselves. Societal attitudes need to change. Just putting your paper in a blue bin really isn't enough. Bringing down the amount of trash and recycle you create is the next step. Using less energy on a daily basis (turn that light off!), wasting less water etc etc.

What I think would be really great is if more eco-friendly products could be more accessible to middle- and low-income earners. I'm talking about eco-friendly building materials, and clean energy sources like solar panels (so easy to install on rooftops), things that will have an enormous impact, if taken up wholesale. But for most people, these are too costly. It's analogous to expecting a poor person to shop at Whole Foods for healthy foods rather than going to McDonalds for an unhealthy but considerably cheaper meal.

Although, come to think of it, cooperative communities/attitudes could manage where individual households cannot in achieving energy independence. For example, a single streetlight provides light for about 4-5 houses around it, right? That means that if we replace regular street lights with a solar-charged LED light, with contributions from each household, the costs would be about $100 per household for the panel, the light and the battery/converter kit. Imagine how much energy & money could be saved by getting rid of every street light in the country. Now I know that we don't pay for our street lights, at least not directly, but I'm just using this as an example. If someone wants to start a project replacing streetlights with solar-powered ones, I'm all for it...

There's also a downside to renewable/clean energy, however, that I should point out. The use of corn to produce ethanol caused an increase in corn prices, impacting consumers detrimentally. Cellulosic ethanol requires too much energy to produce. Even the use of non-useful plants for ethanol production (there's a plant in India--I can't remember the name), can cause a shift in production as farmers stop growing other essential products, such as soya bean. Wind turbines are not simply eyesores, the setting up of a wind farm also takes up large tracts of land. Solar panels won't work so well in perennially cloudy areas. When applying these different technologies, I think we must not give up any but rather plan on a combination of them to balance out economic and environmental issues. Diversifying our sources of energy is only practical, the dependence on oil proves that if nothing else.

Getting back to the article that sparked this blog: Now, I'm not ready to give up some of the conveniences that Tony Wrench and Jane Faith have, such as washing machines (washing by hand is not pleasant), but I really admire their philosophy of living within one's means and practising a low-impact lifestyle. I've been trying to slowly change my lifestyle to be make more environmentally conscious choices. These decisions have not even meant major sacrifices, I'm building up towards them! Here are some things I've done (and many others have also taken up).

**Using eco-friendly (i.e. natural), concentrated detergent: regular detergent is made less concentrated by adding water and ends up requiring more plastic for packaging, a waste all round. My clothes are no dirtier, and nor am I spending more money (I may be saving money actually...). Likewise with dishwashing detergent and cleaning sprays, household freshening sprays etc. etc. I use only naturally made products. This is partially because bleach smells disgusting and I am too paranoid to use it on places where my skin will touch it...i.e. everywhere.

**I have had one roll of paper towels in my kitchen all year. And I didn't buy it, it was already there and so far I've used maybe five sheets of it. Instead, I bought a very cheap set of kitchen cloths and use them for the same purpose. They can be regularly cleaned with my laundry and reused. I also only buy toilet paper that's made of 100% recycled paper.

**Not using a hot water cycle in the washing machine, cold cycles work fine 99.9% of the time. I have a very white-collar lifestyle and so my clothes do not collect grime that may warrant hot water usage. This also means that I don't do two separate loads of whites and colours (even washing machines are racist?!) I also run the dryer for a shorter period than a normal hour-long cycle. Victoria is too rainy to allow for air drying or I may be tempted to use that system instead.

**Limiting my use of the vacuum cleaner to every two weeks, sweeping regularly instead. I have a small place, it takes thirty minutes to sweep up the entire apartment! Turning off unused lights, and generally unplugging devices which are not in regular use. Turning the heat down/off when leaving a room/the flat.

**Buying local/close to local produce whenever possible, and limiting my intake of imported foods which have to travel incredibly long distances. BC grows great apples, but tomatoes unfortunately come from either California or Mexico most of the year...what can you do? Also, I like my European cheeses. But I have started purchasing Canadian produced chocolate...without realising it.

These are just a few things among many that anyone can do and I'm always looking for suggestions of how to decrease my carbon footprint...

American Idol and Dumb People

I watch American idol as entertainment along the lines of "I can't believe people can sing this badly, be this stupid, that Paula Abdul really is that crazy." Occasionally, it also introduces me to songs that I subsequently download the original of (cause the Idol contestants rarely sing a decent version). And, of course, while I abhor Simon Cowell's compulsive need to be rude, his comments are usually spot on and rock. I especially liked how he called out Kristy Lee Cook on playing the patriot card with "God Bless the USA" this week...heehee.

This week's episodes made me feel more than ever how stupid most of the Idol contestants are. When did it become attractive for twenty-somethings to act like simpering, substance-less, stupid people (alliteration!)? Why do the women feel the need to act like they are five? I quote one of them, regarding losing her voice, in a baby-voice: "it went bye bye"--you're twenty, for the love of all that is holy. It's not a crime, and not even unattractive to act your age. Is this a result of having Bush as a president? Lack of intelligence and/or maturity is simply considered normal, perhaps even something to aim for? I'm not asking for Einstein's, this is a singing contest, but a little show of brains would not be amiss. Is anyone thinking about the kids watching this show, their impressionable minds seeing that being famous is about acting half your age (or in some cases, quarter your age). I'm not saying that celebrities are all idiotic, there are many intelligent, articulate celebrities out there, e.g. Susan Sarandon, Hugh Grant (who is Cambridge educated believe it or not), Robin Williams etc. etc. Unfortunately, the uber-popular American Idol is not where these stars are found. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears get way more coverage in the news than high-class stars do.

This may also explain/be explained the dismal state of K-12 education in many public schools. Why does everything need to be dumbed down, we need to be pushing kids further instead of relaxing standards so that everyone can graduate. Ambition, drive, and high standards can be good things. Expecting young Americans appearing on a singing competition to be somewhat intelligent is a reasonable request.

Guns on Campus?

A few years ago, while I was doing my Bachelors, I remember the uproar over the possibility of campus police carrying handguns in an attempt to up security. Now I don't much care for guns, no matter whose hands they are in and thought asking for more guns on what is a relatively peaceful, non-violent campus was asking for trouble. [Guns are the reason I don't shop at Walmart by the way. I refuse to buy products from a store that sells guns in some states. There are, of course, many reasons not to shop at Walmart, this is my primary motivator effectively defusing the cheaper costs which are so attractive to a student.]

Anyways, the reason I thought of this suddenly was because I read an article about the rise in Indian student deaths across US campuses. The material of the article contained a reference to a group called "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus." Said group apparently advocates for the right of licensed individuals to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. Wait a second, What?!!! That was my reaction reading this titbit. On second thought, it didn't really surprise me given the vast network of the NRA.

I'm struck by the asinine nature of such advocacy. I'm not going to go into numbers of how many people die yearly in accidental gun deaths etc etc. All I'm going to say is, how is this going to fix things? In the event that some crazed nutter, carries a gun onto campus and starts indiscriminately shooting people, will the aforementioned 'licensed individuals' be there on hand like superheroes in a comic? Moreover, will they be sharp shooters immediately able to take out the killer? What will they do that a policeman cannot? If we change the scenario to a more intimate threat, i.e. that a student is accosted in a dark alley or some such circumstance, do you really think having a gun on hand is necessarily going to pull things back in your favour? Likely that both victim and offender die or get injured.

By allowing guns on campus, we are allowing a lot of trigger-happy folks to carry weapons on campuses and ultimately make campuses much more dangerous. Instead, please just be careful security-wise. Don't wander around alone in the middle of the night, stick to crowded areas etc etc. Unfortunately, there's not much to do in cases of the 'killer on a rampage' situation. But lets not make it easier to happen?

Five Years

It has been five years since the Iraq war started. Many Americans took to the streets today protesting the continuation of the war (and some got arrested), but George W. Bush took the day to once again proclaim victory against the enemies of America and Iraq. To George W., the costs of the war have been exaggerated by his opponents and, moreover, whatever the numbers, they have been necessary for victory in the war against terror. Here are some numbers by generally reliable sources:

** The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of war at $600 billion, while Joseph Stiglitz estimates that once post-war costs are included, the Iraq war will have cost somewhere around $3 trillion. (Taken from today's BBC news report: http://news.bb.co.uk/2/hi/americas/730523.stm)

** www.iraqbody count.org estimates civilian deaths to be between 82,249 and 89,760. They use numbers from documented sources. I've seen websites which place the number at over a million--I don't know about how true that is and I'm not sure how they're calculating their numbers.

** The AP reports that close to 4,000 American troops have died. The DoD reports the same.

I'm not sure what 'cost' is necessary but these numbers are very high. It's disturbing that we think collateral damages of over 80,000 civilians is considered okay by the government and the Armed Forces. If we're trying to maintain our values of life, liberty and justice, why aren't we following those self same values?

Some poetry

INTERDEPENDENCE

We cannot have well humans on a sick planet.
We cannot have a viable human economy by devastating the earth’s economy.
We cannot survive if the conditions of life itself are not protected.
Not only our physical being, but our souls, our minds, imagination and emotions depend on our immediate experience of the natural world.
There is in the industrial process no poetry, no elevation or fulfilment of mind or emotion comparable to that experience of the magnificence of the sea, the mountains, the sky, the stars at night, the flowers blooming in the meadows, the flight and song of the birds.
As the natural world diminishes in its splendour, so human life diminishes in its fulfilment of both the physical and the spiritual aspects of our being.
Not only is it the case with humans, but with every mode of being.
The wellbeing of each member of the earth community is dependent on the wellbeing of the earth itself.

—Thomas Berry

Some common courtesy? And some politics to spice it up...

I am convinced that I may be the champion of bottled-up frustration. There are a lot of disgruntled people out there, but I may just take the cake in not expressing extreme levels of irritation that I feel on a daily, perhaps even hourly, basis. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that this level of pent up emotions have got to be terrible for me and that I should really learn to let go of this unhealthy amount of rage.

Perhaps the biggest reason I have for this level of rage, is that many, many things that people do bother me. But I feel perfectly justified in getting bothered by these points because they so often are matters of common courtesy or common sense. By the way, neither of these two attributes is as common as you'd like to believe. There are two primary things that have me all het up by the way and I point them out here so whoever reads this blog can appreciate and perhaps even empathize with my situation:

1. Talking on phones loudly in public locations: It's not simply a matter of YOUR privacy, it's every person's right to not be subjected to every last detail about the last crazy party you went to or the recent family scandal. So please, talk softly. Actually, let me refine this: Don't talk loudly in public. Unless your fellow conversationalist (conversee?) is hearing impaired or you are in a very loud place, there is no need to raise your voice.

2. Walking in large groups so that you take up the entire sidewalk: I am a fast walker and like to get to places quickly. It won't hurt your 'pack' to be a little more scattered so as to allow innocent bystanders passage. Is it too much to ask?

So now that I have let that off my chest…pheww. I’m now good till the next time it happens, at which time I may have an apoplectic fit. Or some other thing may grate on my nerves.
___________________________________________________________________

In other news, I have come to the somewhat disturbing conclusion that bomb blasts in my home country do not seem to affect me emotionally anymore. I have become increasingly blasé about them and that worries me. It happens so often that I can no longer react in an appropriately shocked manner. Which, in turn, saddens me intensely. What does it say about the state of a country when its citizens have come to expect bomb blasts by extremists on a regular basis?

And while this cycle of violence and death continues, the only other news about Pakistan is the power struggle between the “democratically” elected parties and their power-brokering deals…best of both worlds? I think not. We are, once again, at a point where the military has failed us and Pakistanis once again look to democracy as a savior, only to be disappointed, and in about a decade the tides will shift again and the army will step in again. How does this cycle stop? Once we leave behind all our Zardari’s and Sharif’s with their false promises and feudal ideas and find an honest-to-goodness ethical and just leader. What a pipe dream it seems right now.

But there is good news. Not all change comes from the government and there is so much grassroots activism that is focused on diminishing poverty, improving health and education standards amongst a multitude of other noble causes. Hurrah for the development organizations toiling away in the difficult arena that is improving the lives of others. With no real guarantee of success, it is a brave occupation to belong to. Also, hurrah to the philanthropists who give so generously to those in need. There is still some light left after all…

Irresponsible Journalism

Yesterday, I was sitting in a seminar waiting for the professor to start class when some of the undergrads began discussing an article they were quite shocked by in the university's student newspaper (which, by the way, only comes out once a week--hurrah for daily BDH's!). Now I rarely pick up the newspaper because it has little information of interest to me, such is the grad student disinvolvement with university life. Anyways, I hadn't read the Martlet and it turned out there was an article in it called: "Violence at root of Qur'an" which essentially called the text a genocidal document. The author, Derek Madson, was linking the Qur'an's hatred-inciting violence with the Criminal Code of Canada which in its hate crimes legislation exempts religious texts from its definition for hate speech. the article has kept me hopping mad since I read it and I've already sent of a complaint to the newspaper for printing it.

Now I am not arguing that the Qur'an does not have its violent moments, there's a fair amount of it to be honest. My issue with Mr. Madson was his irresponsible journalism. First of all, I think we all know some other religious texts that are equally violent. In a letter I wrote to the newspaper complaining on such hate-mongering acts, I noted that the Bible calls for the execution of homosexuals in Leviticus. Deutoronomy has its fair share of violence. For crying out loud: working on the Sabbath is a sin and the punishment prescribed is death!

Mr. Madson recorded his "casual perusal" of the Qur'an and cited various examples of hate speech within it. I would like to say to him, religious texts are complex and casual glances tell us little of these complexities. Furthermore, he says that the Qur'an's hate speech should not be tolerated because of 'jihadists' who preach them regularly. Oh well, if the fundamentalists are using this violent speech, then yes we must abandon everything about a religion that over a billion people (clearly they are all racist and violent) adhere to. I'd just like to add that the Criminal Code of Canada was written far before Islam had much of an impact on Canada and probably exempted religion from its hate crimes legislation because of the Bible!

Why does this man need to write such a hateful article? Does he truly think all Muslims are 'jihadists'? I am a Muslim and while I am enraged at his seeming righteousness, I wish him no harm. He can believe what he likes as far as I (and many, many other Muslims are concerned) but this racist diatribe is unwelcome and unwarranted. Before you publish something, check your facts more thoroughly, talk to a few experts perhaps. No "casual perusals" please.