Put a fork in it!

It's been a long semester, but its finally come to an end.  Honestly its been pretty fun, L learned a lot, did some stuff I didn't think I would ever do, taught some kids about vegetables, ate vegetables, and visited Greenpoint, BK. But hey, its all part of being in the Food Justice League.

scope it and take yourself a souvenir

How bad could the pink slime be?

In his book, Environmental Communications and the Public Sphere (2nd Edition), Robert Cox writes that "the appeal to 'sound science' in environmental policy reflected a keen awareness of the cultural norm that policy should be as free as possible of political bias and grounded in reliable and valid knowledge" (303).  However, he is pretty knowledgeable of the real world, and acknowledges that this appeal is idealistic by stating, "agency budgets, pressures from political constituents, ideology, and other factors limit the extent to which policy decisions flow directly from scientific findings"(303). 

He goes on to describe how industries challenge scientific findings about chemical contamination or atmospheric contamination, or any other environmental damage, by funding their own scientific research, then releasing a favorable report to mass media outlets as source information, which in turn  creates multiple public results and results in "the public's questioning of the legitimacy of scientific claims and scientific consensus about environmental problems" (311).  According to cox, "feeling uncertain about an issue, the advice goes, the public will be less motivated to demand action" (310).  

I have a theory for thought- that through out the recent history of mankind, the past 2000 years, society has been driven, by religion, science, and economics.  In that order too, but not exclusively so...Think about the major movements in history.  Generally speaking and simplifying things, back in the day, when the Egyptians were building pyramids, to when Moses parted the Red Sea,  to when the Pope was waging war campaigns in the Middle East,everything was done in the name of God, in other cultures it was some other deity.  Then in the 14th century, the Renaissance happened and it was followed by the Age of Enlightenment.  During the Enlightenment; people started investigating and making sense of the natural world and scientific thought was prominent in society, rational discussion about social issues and ideas in the public sphere was seen as necessary, alchemy evolved into modern chemistry.  Society was driven by the interest in scientific discovery.  Then after we entered the Industrial and now Informational Age, society has become driven almost strictly by economic gain, the need for another dollar. 

All three of these things play and may have always existed in society, at the same time, however usually one is more leading than the other.  And it seems to me that in our society, science and religion have been pitted against each other, such that they are irreconcilable, and that way economics wins by default.  Religious charity works and organizations can really positively impact a community or group of people.  Science can really positively impact the lives of many people too. There is no reason that a religious person who believes that God created life and Earth can't work together with a scientist who sees climate change as a threat to life in order to come up with a solution for a common cause, that is to take care of Earth and the life on it.  Yet for some reason in culture religion and science cannot seem to come together, and in turn economic monetary gains is the determining factor for policy and dominates ideology. 

Question: What do you get when you combine science and religion?....Magic.  

Pictures of hurricanes

courtesy of NASA Images

Cool blog bro

In his book, Environmental Communications and the Public Sphere, Robert Cox does a pretty good job at explaining the adapting role and benefits of social media for gathering information about environmental issues in the twenty-first century. It is important to know about the relevancy of social media because whether it is individual advocacy or a more organized advocacy campaign, “in drawing attention to, criticizing, or mobilizing around a specific environmental problem, activist today rarely rely on one social media tool” (Cox, 192).

Because of social media, the means of environmental communication and advocacy have broadened and become more accessible.  Social media and social networks have allowed for a more lubricated means of spreading environmental information from news and journalistic site and creating buzz around trending issues.  Because of the easy of creating, uploading, and disseminating information online, there is much more citizen reporting and documenting, which means more ethical accountability for public and private institutions. 

Moreover, social networking has allowed for the forming of online communities and targeted special interest groups.  These groups may stay online, but they might also mobilize in person and take their advocacy to the streets; “today, environmental, climate, and social justice activists are using the full suite of social media in their organizing efforts” (Cox, 189).

I found it interesting when Cox discusses the ironic challenge of “efficient” media, that is “social media is clearly an efficient tool for targeting key groups by my be constrained by this very advantage” (Cox, 198).  What happens when communicating to a small committed group of people is that, only the people that care, care to search, learn, mobilize, or act.  “The challenge of social media, therefore, is that it may require a wider strategic repertoire of media, enabling activists to communicate beyond the choir when necessary” (Cox, 198).  

I think that differentiation, a steady flow of new content, and promotion of utility is necessary for a social media effort to attain the interests of the masses.  In a culture influenced by a capitalistic ideology, a source’s reinvention and/or innovation are perceived as desirable, or at least interesting, traits to consumers, think about how many of your “socially-conscious” friends bought the iPhone 4gs because it had a slight, hardly noticeably, difference to the identical looking 4g.  The marketing techniques used for the iPhone, can be translated to the services of a blog, or any online site.  It has to appear different from other competitors in the market a balance of both aesthetics and function; it has to keep providing updated material, that is to stay relevant and keep people interested; and it needs to be marketed to a perceptive lifestyle, that is it "may" improve one's lifestyle. 

Or if you want your blog to be successful, for a lot of people to read it, "take it seriously", and be spread around via social networking, all you have to do is work within the Google search ranking system, that is the more hits you get, the more hits you will get.  Generally only the top ten search results, the first page after entering in your search, is all that people pay attention too.  If you don’t feel like doing the footwork of shameless wallplugs on your friends’ facebook pages, twitter blasts, and spamming forums and youtube comments, then you can always just pay for key-word search rankings with Google Adwords.  With Adwords, you can pay a fee so that when people search for “benefits of guano as fertilizer” your site will seem legit with it when it pops up number one.   

  

Which one of you threw up on the carpet?

I have a general theory that in every apartment building in New York there lives at least one hoarder. I first hypothesized this when I was at a friend's place and a woman shouted at us for being too loud.  I remember she turned the lights on to do so, and I wasn't really paying attention to what she was saying but I noticed that there was a ton of junk piled around behind her. More than a normal amount, it looked like that shit on the TLC.

Mine has one too, and she lives one the first floor, right past the front door.  Opposite the guy who sings and plays guitar.  I've looked inside her apartment when I am walking past and her door happens to be open, this usually happens late at night when she is bringing more shit into her apartment. Just piles of junk from the floor to the roof.

The guy who lives in the building across the street, but in the window directly across from mine, is a hoarder-but not just any kind of hoarder...he's an animal hoarder!  Which I learned also has a tv-show about it on Animal Planet.  I discovered this because I've noticed that he feeds pigeons breadcrumbs or something from the window of his fire-escape, which he leaves wide-open, and sometimes I see multiple pigeons go in, and fly around inside.  I don't know what the deal is, but at night he closes his window, and the birds still be flying around inside.

Anyway, everybody always keeps that image of  the "crazy" old lady who owns like fifteen cats in the back of their mind, que: the cat lady from The Simpsons, but nobody really thinks about those people normally. The fact is this unique group of animal lovers exists, and they put up some big numbers. About 250,000 animals fall victim every year, and those are just the rescue cases, who knows how many more there are in Florida that go unreported.  Animal hoarding has a plethora of problems: there are a variety of health risks, there is the possibility of zoonosis, and more importantly it is a form of animal cruelty.  The animals are forced to live in cramped, over populated, often neglected, unsanitary conditions, which I can't imagine smell very pleasant either.

The problem of hoarding is a mental health issue characterized by delusional disorder, attachment disorder, and a serious case of OCD.  So becasue the hoarder is the source of the problem, I don't know what can be done for animal justice on this issue.  Maybe awareness and prevention are the way to go, I guess it might be one of those if you see something, say something kind of things.  Like if you notice an abundance of animal sounds coming from your neighbor's, and you are consistently overwhelmed with the smell of shit in the hall way....you might want to report it to your landlord.

And here I was watching the debate

I just found out that World Food Day was today.   The event sponsored by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, asks that we join and act together, friends, family, and neighbors, to end world hunger. This year's theme is "Agricultural Cooperatives: key to feeding the world".  There are a lot of different approaches to ending world  hunger, i dont know how many of them are good, but FAO believes that

"through group purchasing and marketing, farmers gain market power and get better prices on agricultural inputs and other necessities...cooperatives contribute to food security by helping small farmers and other producers access the information, tools and services they need.  This allows them to increase food production, market their goods and create jobs, improving their own livelihoods and increasing global food security"

I wonder what if a bunch of small farmers, that care about sustainable and eco-friendly farming methods, got together and started selling food they could get their food out of the farmers market and into the supermarkets.  What if all across the country this happened in small pockets and over time they spiderweb together, and people started enjoying this new produce because it was healthier and made them feel better, then maybe industrialized farming methods would be reevaluated and rethought as the public started catching on as these new co-ops started taking market share, and soon the public would have a higher standard for the flora and fauna that they eat.  Of course I am simplifying the issue, really you can just kinda throw up some stickers around your school to raise awareness and it'll kinda just solve itself.

It's always the pretty ones.

Two millenniums and some change ago,  Jesus married Mary Magdalene, then he died for our sins.  Fast forward to 1893 and methamphetamine makes its world debut in Japan.  In 1919 crystallized methamphetamine was synthesized by pharmacologist Akira Ogata via reduction of ephedrine using red phosphorus and iodine.  Eighty-nine years later and the shits been so perfected throughout the decades it gets a TV premier.

Effects include: euphoria, anxiety, increased alertness, increased energy, increased self-esteem, increased self-calories, increased excitation, increased irritability, increased aggression, excessive feelings of power, and paranoia.

Now earlier today I found out that crystal meth is bad for the environment!  How this escaped me I don't know, but apparently, and in this case appearance does actually matter, 26 year old, "model" Sara Barnes burned down a 3,500 year old bald cypress tree nicknamed "the Senator".  Barnes turned herself in to the Florida Police, admitting that she and a friend climbed into the tree with a friend and in an accidental meth smoking session, managed to burn down one of the world's oldest trees.

For her crime, Barnes got hit with a third degree felony, intentional burning of land, as well as possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia by the Seminole County Sheriffs Office.

And I thought about it, because I think about stuff like this, and there isn't much difference between a tree and a person- trees can think just like you-so this is kinda like she murdered a really really old person.  That's not cool.

YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT...

Well except you Ray Kinsella, you did build that. (go ahead google it)  

The truth is, people have lived together, and helping each other in some social manner for as far back as we know. I know this cuz  Nicholas Wade told me in his New York Times article.  According to Wade's research on the hunter-gather era that has dominated our human existence, "tribes with highly cooperative members would prevail over those that were less cohesive, thus promoting genes for cooperation."  I imagine it is pretty difficult to bring down a saber tooth tiger by yourself....it might be a good idea to have some friends and a game plan before you leap into that fight.  

As humans we are  blessed by Darwin with the ability to speak and develop complex languages which we use to communicate ideas with one another, allowing for an expansion of knowledge and ability.  A group allows the opportunity for many to act as one in accomplish various objectives efficiently and cohesively, bringing the group closer to its long term goals.  

In a report for Sciencemag.org written by Anita W. Woolley titled "Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups", Woolley conducted a study about individuals working together in groups, and from her findings makes the case that the "collective intelligence", or "c", of a group is not based around the individual intelligence of the members, but rather the groups social dynamics and interpersonal communication abilities. More specifically she states "there was a significant correlation between "c" and the average social sensitivity of group members". Here I interpret social sensitivity to mean degrees of empathy.  Moreover, she states "c was negatively correlated with the variance in the number of speaking turns by group members" such that "groups where a few people dominated the conversation were less collectively intelligent than those with a more equal distribution of conversational turn-taking."  

Woolley's research report also got quite the attention buzz with it's last finding that collective intelligence "was positively and significantly correlated with the proportion of females in the group".  I feel the same rule goes for parties- you always want there to be a higher girl to guy ratio. But really I agree with Woolley's findings, women do tend to be more socially sensitive than men, I don't know about being more social, but definitely more socially sensitive.  Idk why this seems to be, it might be cultural, it might be something to do with the differences of brain function between men and women.  As a man I could say that this is some bullshit research based on some subjective ass questions conducted by a woman for women and the only results need be known on the issue can be researched every Sunday while watching the NFL- but I wont't because that would sound ignorant.  Some might even think that I'm some kind of caveman.  But to be fair to cavemen, without them first, we wouldn't be now.    

Here comes Fatty Doo Doo

If South Park is making fun of it, then you know its relevant.  The latest episode "Raising the Bar" was about how Americans have really lowered their standards for what is culturally acceptable.  Cartman gains a few pounds so he is counted as obese and gets to ride in one of those jolly-persons scooters and children anomalies like Alana aka Honey Boo Boo who get serious attention and a tv show? for being ridiculous.  And though they do make it fun to laugh at Cartman on a fat scooter, there is a serious issue being brought up...theres a bunch of fat kids running around, well i guess more slowly walking than running.  And lemme be clear, I'm talking about the young ones, like elementary school-ers blossoming in middle school-ers like gigantic sunflowers in the summer--they be growing big.  But surely the blame cannot be placed solely on these future big-and-talls.  Due to the way a majority of the food is produced in this beautiful country, that is corporately owned and industrialized to maximize profits, and the public school system is run, by a set and shrinking budget, buying nutritious and organic food usually gets cuts from the plan.  As a result the kids are not eating the most nutritious of food for their breakfast and lunches.  You may ask, why can't parents pack their kids lunches? Some people can't afford to, and they can't afford to or may not have the time to cook for their children at all and as a result their children grow up eating unhealthy at home.  All of this equates to a generation that has developed an almost systematic lifestyle that is unsustainable in all senses of the word, both individually as well as nationally. Anyways, this is the wicked,-boston not related-problem my Environmental Communications group and I are working on-- thinking about how to create a movement towards sustainable food, in terms of nutrition and diet as well as the way in which it is farmed.  Luckily we have the First Lady Michelle Obama on our side.

What's supply without demand

In her article "Contextualizing Boycotts and Buycotts: The Impure Politics of Consumer-Based Advocacy in an Age of Global Ecological Crises", Phaedra C. Pezzullo assumes that the political system that is, is corrupt, or as she puts it, "impure".   It is all very Noam Chomsky sounding, the reasoning behind her assumption.  But it is interesting what she does with the mindset, which is, she makes the case that there should be more attention placed in analyzing "boycotts and buycott campaigns as a significant communication practice offering varying economic and cultural critiques", more specifically, how "the efficacy of boycotts and buycotts, then, pivots on how advocates identify, frame, and resist specific relations" (128). This involves being specific about the focal points of the campaign, which may help clarify the power relations in the struggle between the stakeholders.

For working definition, Pezzullo clarifies "boycotts and buycotts share many characteristics, though they do differ. A boycott campaign is a concerted refusal to spend money* as well as to convince others to refuse to spend money*on a product or service in the hopes of changing specific condition(s) or practice(s) of an institution. In contrast, a buycott or procott or girlcott campaign is a concerted effort to make a point of spending money* as well as to convince others to make a point of spending money*on a product or service in the hopes of affirming specific condition(s) or practice(s) of an institution. Both involve nonviolent collective critique constituted by communicative acts that are verbal (e.g., press releases and chants at protests) and nonverbal (e.g., marches and spending or not spending money on a specific commodity or
service)" (125).

After reading her article, I have decided boycotts and buycotts are like the opposite sides of the same coin. By boycotting one company, you are effectively placing your money into the companies of substitute goods.  By buycotting a company, you are diverting your money to a specific company away from other options.  They both seek to reform bad qualities by reaffirming good qualities, at least what is perceived as "good" and "bad".  For example, after the BP oil spill, BP looked pretty bad in the eyes of the American people, and their PR team didn't do a very good job at swaying that perception, they still looked like environmentally hazardous and still contained the fragrance of some big-oil-assholes.  According to a Bloomberg article, BP's profits fell after the incident, like a big 66% drop.  American people were boycotting the British company, opting for Exxon and Shell both of which saw an increase of profit in regards to BP's fall.  This isn't a buycott because it isn't like Exxon has better business practices that need reaffirming, rather they were perceived as not being as bad as BP and thus more deserving of the dollar.  Buycotts are a bit more complicated because it is not as common of a term, but as Pezzullo states "a buycott is promoted as a necessary step during impure politics" (136).  Boycotts are not as effective as the campaigns seem to only attract a target group of users, and in some cases there is even backlash against the boycott, check Chick-Fil-A. Money speaks and everybody wants to listen.  As a society and a culture we vote with our dollar on a company with proper business ethics or a good product or service, it would then seem economically beneficial for a company to then work hard to having a good product and business practices such that consumers will buy the company's product or service based upon their liking of the company.  It seems to me that there would be a lot of PR influence going on with a buycott campaign and perhaps maybe even branding manipulation,  but that is all part of the "impure" free-market.  It's easier to be recognized being the book cover than it is to being the pages.

This is why we can't have nice things

Imagine with me- it's day seven of your ten day tour in the middle of the South African bush, and the sun is beating down on you like a motherfucker.  And it's pretty exhausting to say the least. Youre fatigued but still focused.  Sitting there in the Land Rover, staring out into the distance with your Kowa Genesis XD binoculars, you see what you've been waiting for, and it is magnificent.  A beautiful, majestic full-grown giraffe running, out in the distance, about 500 meters away. You watch God's happy little creature for a while, you observe it eating leaves off the high branches, you look at it's long legs the way it runs with backwards knees and you think to yourself 'that's kinda interesting'.  Then, you pull out your Remmington 700 and shoot the fucker through the scope.  BAM!! One shot straight through the sarcophagus and it goes down.  You're guide and driver, Baruti, drives you to the warm carcass before the hyenas can get to it.  This is the moment you paid for, the one you've been waiting for.  You hop out the truck, hand your Canon 5D Mark II to Baruti, and stand next to your kill.  With a big grin painted across your face, you shout "This is gonna be one hell of a picture!"

Photographer David Chancellor took a series of photos titled Hunters, idk the technical terms of description, but its basically about different families that go to Africa for vacation with the intention of killing some big animal, and the photos are of after the hunt, and its shocking to see some of these people holding in their hands a dead animal.  He talks about the controversial activity here in this WIRED article. 

According to the article: big-game hunting in South Africa alone, "brings in about 157 million USD a year".   But in Kenya, where this killing big animals for sport is banned,  "the safari industry rakes in about 800 million USD a year".  So I did some math and it looks like keeping your animals alive and protecting the environment in which they inhabit is pretty economical.  And more commercial.  A lot of profit could be made.  People like seeing wild animals, especially when these wild animals are alive, and if they live for a while, then more people can potentially see them and go home with a good experience, then they tell their friends, their friends go visit the country to see the wild animals, you know living.  This brings more tourism dollars to the country, gives the country incentive to protect the wildlife, the circle of life continues for another day in Africa.

Ive been to Africa and seen the animals, the giraffe, the zebra, the buffalo, the hippo, the lion, the cheetah, and the elephant, and its all a very humbling and wonderful experience. I think big-game hunting is insanely messed up, and really unfair to the animals.  I mean what is the killing for really? It's not for food, it's purely so one person can feel big on the inside and have a photo to show at the dinner party which is probably chowing down on either hot dogs or something crazy exotic like sea turtle stew. And I guess even whole families are doing it now,  like some sort of sophisticated-redneck family event.  Like Disneyland isn't exciting enough anymore, the kids have to go kill lions. I think a rule of fairness should be put into play when it comes to hunting for fun: you are only allowed to use weapon ideas from before 500 a.d. this includes knives, spears, sticks, but nothing nearly sophisticated like guns.  I would say the crossbow is just out of allowable weapons.   "Man with spear" fights rhino- I think that would be a fair animal-to-animal match. 

Apartment life

Living in NYC means you probably aren't in a house or have a yard, or a lot of room in general.  And being from California means you gotta suffer all this claustrophobia without your meds, at least not the premium shit.  And its relatively expensive.  Anyways have no fear cuz the internet is here, and I raked it out a bit.  Depending on what your situation is, you might find yourself wanting to do a little ganja farming, and for that here's the break down. 

If you do, you gotta keep it green and do it organically.  "Cannabis growers should feel an obligation to use a healthy, living soil to produce truly medicinal and connoisseur-quality pot" says Danny Danko of High Times. He further explains that, "pouring salts and chemicals onto a dead medium and then down the drain does unnecessary damage to your local environment, polluting rivers, lakes and oceans. One look at some of the results of chemical agribusiness runoff, such as the Salton Sea in Southern California, and you’ll see why nonorganic nutrients are never advisable: Rotting fish carcasses float on the salty foam of a dead sea, and the whole area reeks with a foul stench that’s clearly man-made." And if that's not reason enough to go green with it, Danko adds,"I've smoked plenty of decent chemically grown pot (and grown it in the past), but the same strains, grown organically, always win out in the final analysis."  

That being said, I found out that apparently this organic soil recipe by Subcool is dope and the correct one to use.  

An inconvenient truth

Jane M. Gaines in her article Political Mimesis brings up a very serious question. Do documentaries actually lead to social change? To be specific in her own words; “I am concerned with the question of what it might be that moves viewers to want to act” (89).  This question is problematic, which she addresses, such as what constitutes action? What is counted as change? How are these measured? And how do we measure the films impact, in relation to the political conditions of the audience?  It is interesting because there are so many documentaries about different social issues, environmental issues, political issues, health related issues, whatever else Micheal Moore thinks is wrong, and yet there are still a lot of problems.   

Gaines goes on to say that documentaries, or the form of film, is more effective because films often make their appeal through the senses to the senses, circumventing the intellect” (92).  Through sight and sound, the “realism works to align the viewer with a struggle that continues beyond the frame and into his or her real historical present” (93).  Sounds believable enough and she does cite Einstein.  Film documentarians then are able to frame an issue with the purpose of generating, or eliciting, a strong emotional response, which will potentially lead to activism.  There is a shock value to it, and then an empathetic response, which may then turn into either a sympathetic or apathetic retaliation.  

I think most documentaries now a days are not very successful in terms of communicating objectives.  It is easy to communicate that the oceans are beautiful and that littering is wrong, all you have to do is take a few shots with that expensive Nikon you got for your high-school graduation.  I watch a number of documentaries on Netflix, and I notice that most of these are usually less funded than blockbuster films have really good shots and are well produced.  I'm no film student, but Food, Inc. (2008) for example has beautiful shots, and they are well edited, and some even have animations that explain in detail, but with fun, the entire problematic process of the issue.  Food Inc, for example shows how farmers grow their corn, then the corn goes to the livestock farmers, to the chickens, to the cows, to the porks, and then these animals go to the slaughter house, and then through some process and it comes out as a hot dog.  Now see that was a long description, imagine watching it, and then an hour and a half more of it.  That is a bit exaggerated, as the whole thing is actually 93 minutes long.  Don’t get me wrong, Food Inc was a dope documentary and I learned a lot, but it hasn’t turned me organic or made me actively seek out locally grown food.  The problem I am getting at, is the documentary is too long, it is very thorough, and intriguing, and clear, but damn I get it. I think that in order for a documentary to be successful in generating social activism, it has to be short and almost pure shock, with very clear objectives, with bullet points of what has to be done and when.  I think a good example of an effective documentary, was the Kony 2012 one.  It generated a huge amount of publicity and a lot of people felt for the cause and even donated money….until they looked deeper into what was happening with the money, and the Hollywood scandal which lead to the movements quick...finish.  Regardless though, it was popular and raised awareness pretty well.  I even saw some posters up around the city, that red Kony 2012 one.   I give credit to how it was able really frame the issue to really create an emotional response, as well as being really well produced, and short enough for everyone to watch it fully (less than 30 min), keeping people’s attention and intrigue with various shock points.   I also believe that short youtube clips, with content that may or may not have been planned, may even act better than fully produced documentaries in creating a buzz for social change because they have the ability to go viral or gorilla.  What does that mean? Idk, but its controversial.  I point to the video of the when the Police pepper sprayed those OWS-ers over at UC Davis. It was shocking, and lead everybody to the same conclusion that what they were seeing was 1) real and 2) fucked.  That video pissed a lot of people off but that seems to be what was needed to start some action.  

It's been a while since I dug for bugs

Yo imma have to add this to my bug collection.  Asian Long-horned beetle is the name, killing trees is it's game.  Not really, its just laying its larvae that happen to burrow deep within the tree, either way its annoying and these things are invasive and causing a lot of forestation damage.   And if the forests go, where will people go camping.  Plus I bet they would look cool underneath a glass frame.   There's a whole website about these little insect terrorists asking: if you see something, say something. http://beetlebusters.info/where-is-it/new-york/  

Hey you vegetarians....I'm looking at you

I recently watched a Ted talk given by Stefano Mancuso titled "The Roots of Plant Intelligence" in which he makes the argument that plants are living creatures similar to insects and animals.  In his presentation he seeks to raise critical question about the mainstream notion that plants don't have intelligence.  He does so by providing evidence he collected such as comparative behavior when exposed to light as opposed to the absence of light, the way in which a plants roots grow and transmit signals to the rest of the plant- and how these observations seem similar to what is seen in animal behavior and animal brains.

This got me thinking about the idea of soil fertilization.  I wonder if the plants absorb or incorporate into their structure the neurons and axons that are in the soil from of all the dead species of animals, insects, fish, birds, dinosaurs, whatever, that have ever lived.  I then wonder if that is why certain plants contain chemicals that create a neurological change when ingested by humans or even other animals.  I then wonder if this then shapes our human evolutionary course seeing as they are a large part of our diet.  Anyways I think its pretty interesting, here check it out:

Sum it up for me

It seems like almost everybody today is advocating for or against something.  And why not? We are arguably more aware citizens, and we have more access to information.  We can see the social and economic and environmental injustices and we can start campaigns and social movements to try and advocate for policy change, raising awareness, a change in practice or a course of action, etc.

I was reading some more of my friend Robert Cox's book Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere and in his chapter "Advocacy campaigns and message constructions" he talks about the importance of a campaign's message- the critical construction and diction.  Cox states “A message is a phrase or sentence that concisely expresses a campaign’s objectives and the values at stake in the decision ...Short, compelling, and memorable; it accompanies all of a campaign’s communication materials (241). He goes on to say that in an advocacy campaign, messages "provide a frame for audiences’ understanding and reception of the details of its other informational materials. In developing such messages, campaigns often attempt to identify values and language that resonate with their base and persuadables- those sympathetic to their objectives but undecided” (241).  

Similar to a PR slogan for a political campaign, some environmental advocacy campaigns will have a more rhetorical messages than others. The message is constructed to not be the complete communication of the campaign, but serves a variety of other purposes. The message allows for the campaigns exposure and recognition of the issues the campaign is dealing with. A really well constructed and worded message might seek to strike an emotional chord with the viewing public while asking for a direct and specific action to be taken. This involves incorporating persuasion techniques and carefully selection diction, such as value loaded words and phrases.

For some reason the best exemplifying advocacy campaign message that I can think of when reading Cox's description of a message, is "Vote or Die" which is the campaign message of P. Diddy's Citizen Change. The Citizen Change campaign wanted to encourage young people to vote. The message, "Vote or Die" is simple, it calls to attention the campaign's values, it is compelling, memorable, and dramatic. It also creates a division of choice of stakes, one can either "vote" or one can "die". The slogan demands action and raises awareness at the same time.

How dope would it be...

to see Earth from space.

Trying to divide the french fries equally

Everyonce in a while I will hear a quote that really sticks with me for some reason or not.  Maybe it is the mindset I am in maybe its just a good quote. Whatever.  Back in high school, I remember hearing my history professor say “When asked who he liked facing more in war a single opponent or a coalition of different armies, Napoleon replied ‘a coalition because there is less coordination and more complications.”   

I think of this quote because when it comes to large complex issues such as global warming or social issues such as gay marriage or abortion, there is no clear cut solution or answer, rather a variety of opinions and fingers pointed in different directions on what the next step should be.

I think that Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber said it best in their article Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, when they state “We have been learning to ask whether what we are doing is the right thing to do.  That is to say, we have been learning to ask questions about the outputs or actions and to pose problem statements in valuative framework.  We have been learning to see social process as the links tying open systems into large and interconnected networks of systems, such that outputs from one become inputs to others.  In that structural framework it has become less apparent where problem ceters lie and les apparent where and how we should intervene even if we do happen to know what aims we seek.”   Basically we think to much about the consequences of out solutions, over analyze what could go wrong and eventually end up not doing a thing.   

That last part was a cynical translation of what the two Berkley professors said, but not too far out of an opinion. I mean lets look at some examples.  Global warming.  It’s a big fuckin’ deal to many, a myth to others, and not a concern to the rest.  And to the people trying to slow, or even stop, global warming, there are many many many problems causing the Earthly phenomenon, yet what are the solutions? Don’t drive cars? Don’t burn gas? Stop manufacturing all products? Kill all the cows? Throw iron in the ocean?  These are all easier said than done.  For instance, we stop making drilling for oil, stop mining coal…and then what? The world economies come screeching to a holt due to the new transportation problems of not having any gasoline.  Solutions have implications, solving one problem and creating another. 

Lets look at some social issues to further this point.  Social inequality, something that couldn’t be more problematic to the citizens of the world.  Yet how do you solve it? Everyone donates 10,000 and it is equally distributed across the world? We heavily regulate financial markets and corporate responsibilities? These are too idealistic and won’t necessarily lead to results, moreover they are implicative.  By stating that these things are bad, we assign areas of blame for the problems we asses, and what is detrimental to me, might be beneficial to someone else.  It is all a matter of perspective. 

Social issues and environmental issues are multi dimensional and many different opinions can be said on how they should be handled.  And that could take a long time listening to everybody’s political vies and social responsibilities.  So I leave you with this….DO NOT LITTER!!!!! Its easy and relatively well agreed upon socially and culturally.  No one likes seeing a bunch of trash lying around on the streets.