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.