The NJ4

Ran across this little public service announcement, about homophobic brutality in NYC, and the consequences to those who fight back. Here's a blog entry on this incident.

While I think people should never resort to aggression, and I do separate aggression from self defense, and I do believe (from the descriptions of the incident) that at least one of the women was aggressive, I don't think they would have harmed the man in question unless they were seriously threatened. They were trying to intimidate the man, to make him leave them alone. Not to mention that it seems they did not apparently commit any serious crime, and that three men who entered the fry were responsible for the "victim"'s wound. Anyway, they are heading to jail for 3 1/2 to 11 years, for trying (albeit aggressively) to defend themselves. Some justice...

WTC plans

A homeless man found a couple of sets of drawings on the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center, and of course The Post made a fuss about it. Then, in true architect fashion, the bloggers and posters at archinect decided to make light of the whole thing...

The lessons: beware of homeless terrorists, old drawings and all the wasted paper at my firm do have post-consumer use, believe everything you read, and never trust architects.

Green Publication

New York Times magazine is publishing its green issue today. I haven't seen the paper copy; I wonder if it's made from recycled paper, or if they just refused to print it and gave people a link to the website instead...
Just began reading some of the articles, and I'm actually quite impressed. I didn't expect the writers to have much knowledge on the topic, and while they don't necessarily convey any information i didn't know before, the articles seem to give a full spectrum of the situation, not just relying on carbon offsets and biofuels. Maybe this will actually inform some readers.

Maybe then issues like this will be moot:

“People react really negatively to phrases like ‘density,’ but they react really positively to phrases like ‘walkability.’ ”

Matt Lerner, developer, walkscore.com

Chinese characters

yeah, right...

The Chinese Government, in conjunction with its Olympic Committee, is halting construction for this summer's games in Beijing. This and other measures (temporary factory closures, traffic restrictions) are being done to clean up the extremely polluted air of the city... ..for the occasion of the Olympics themselves. But what about the future? With the world's largest population and fastest growing economy/infrastructure/urbanity, China has positioned itself to be the world's biggest polluter very soon, surpassing the country whose wastefulness it has made a model for its growth and "modernity": the US. I'm wondering why, if they have a clue about what to do to contain pollution (which they obviously do, judging from their strategies), why they don't put some real policies into practice full-time. Could it be because the Chinese government wants to make as much economic headway as possible, as fast as possible? And are all Chinese actually benefiting from this, even in the short term?
The other major issue in Chinese policy coming to the forefront due to the Olympics is the imprisonment of the state of Tibet within the Chinese Republic. The torch relay has become a constant platform for protests, with the current trek through India (with its thousands of Tibetan expatriots) as possibly the most combustible stop yet. It's even sparked an alternative torch relay for human rights. But while these recent events may have woken up the IOC (somewhat) and prompted China's bullshit positive spin measures, it does not seem to have fazed the people of the host country. Apparently, Chinese citizens are taught from early on (through history classes and other propaganda) about the lack of patriotism and generally defiant behavior of the devious Dalai Lama and his cronies... ...in fact, a friend of mine living in China (who sent me that article) describes her experiences in trying to discuss the issue with the young Chinese this way:

...afraid i'm not in close contact with lots of chinese friends. my closest chinese friend might as well be american. talked to another chinese friend about all it. she just kept saying she's so angry and she doesn't understand why people are protesting. she feels T is a part of china. i asked her why and she just said that from a young age that's what they learn. most chinese people don't ask why, they just accept things and sometimes arguments aren't arguments at all. then she wanted to know what i think. i said that i just think it's unfair that their own leader is exiled. and that americans value freedom and that's why most of us feel T should be on its own. i tried explaining that they have their own language and culture, but she just said that many parts of china have their own language and culture - which is true, but their languages are dialects. this friend is one of my favorite chines friends, but that doesn't matter. think about all the history textbooks and propaganda every country has. and then talk to them about what their gov't does wrong. ***note: i've left out referencing any country in particular; i'm pretty sure all these emails get scanned for specific words. with the limited information that is in the media, one wouldn't be able to understand the whole situation with important pieces of information missing. to question what you think your gov't does requires you to step out of being a part of that country and looking in. that's near impossible for a country with a majority of citizens who are extremely nationalistic. so i'm sort of moving towards imposing my opinion, but yeah...that's been my experience so far. i don't really get a chance to talk to chinese people about it - mostly because my friends are not chinese, but also because i'd have to comfortable enough to talk to a chinese friend about it in the first place.

I guess I have to add that she's not going to be able to read this bog there, because the federal government of China censors access to websites of a certain nature, blogs being one of them. Iran, for all the villifying done of its society by the Bush administration, has almost complete internet freedom, with few exceptions. This accentuates just how necessary the Chinese federal government (rightfully) sees its control of the ignorance of its populace.
Even the most educated of the Chinese, even those that live in other countries where they are exposed to different opinions, if raised in mainland China can keep some of these views. A co-worker of mine is quite intelligent, articulate, and generally a person compatible with me morally (besides religion). But when any negative press about China is reported (poisoned toys, pollution, rapid suburban expansion), she strives to remove any culpability from her native people and government. Maybe it's the latent feeling of patriotism that i have as well, but more likely it's imbedded idealism. My patriotism doesn't prevent me from criticizing the corruption and injustices of my country, it's governments, it's police, etc. In fact, my patriotism hinges on being able to criticize my country's actions, and react in a way that I think will improve it, and consequently the world. China, and its people, need to do the same, and quickly/actively. The fate of the world may just rest on them.

heroes of our youth...

oh, how we were so naïve...

meathead

Just read an editorial on the issue of food shortage around the world, specifically related to meat (in response to this piece of news). The author makes some interesting points about the amount of food being eaten by farm animals that become our steaks, including the fact that the grain could be used for biofuels. That statement in and of itself assumes that biofuels are something we should be striving for. I feel that at this point, we should be investing our efforts in solar, wind, wave, and other renewable energies, not on alternative fuels. The transformation of these plants into usage-ready fuel does create its own pollution; biofuels are not a panacea.
Another point of contention is that the food used to feed these animals could help feed the hungry in all over the world, and that people from rich countries, specifically America, throw away much of their food. While those contentions are technically true, they fail to consider for the transportation and preservation costs of moving this food across continents and oceans. Work should be done on improving the living conditions of people in their own country, not on giving people handouts that will not improve their long-term situation in the least. Second, the wastefulness of Americans and other rich peoples is an issue of its own, it seems to me irrelevant to the discussion of the harnessing of food for cattle.
So I don't necessarily disagree with the main issue at hand: we eat too much meat. But I do think it is part of most people's diet, and if eaten in moderation could remain so. I also think the author of the editorial really does not investigate the issue much or at least fails to educate the reader on the context of the issue at hand. This simplistic look at crucial issues of our times really angers me, especially if one is writing about it in public. I really expected a real argument full of intricacies, but all I got was a rant, like this one.
Activists need to be informers, not just propaganda-screaming cogs. Or else they are merely putting themselves at the same level as their "rivals".

But I could be wrong; maybe it's all the methane and fat in my brain, from my beef and pork-rich diet...

activist youtube?

Here are some youtube clips I've come across this morning. They are made by activist groups, some are a bit satirical, and quite accessible to the public. I don't necessarily agree with everything on these videos, and the second one is a bit sophomoric (i hate that word, but it's there to be used... I was a very smart sophomore, damn it), but they are fun nevertheless.

-green consumption by the International Forum on Globalization.
-civilization
-renewable energy by Greenpeace UK
-orangutan by Greenpeace UK

well, I guess the last one isn't satirical, and a bit one-dimensional in its thinking... but might as well put it on there.