desperately seeking sense

oh, what a world, what a world.

how is it that corporations manage to have zero brains and zero heart yet audacity up the wazoo?

the big-business of agriculture in south america -- which exists so that we can enjoy produce out of season -- is poisoning us and poisoning the eco-systems and communities where said produce is grown. as if that weren't evil enough, it's detrimental, global impact reaches so far as poisoning the north american birds who winter in south america. (read article here.)

in other "dear god, what kind of mess have we created" news, manufacturers of bio-diesel are making a "green" energy source but are dumping tons of by-product into the rivers. since the by-product is non-toxic to humans, someone apparently thought dumping it in the river would be okay. alas, it is literally suffocating the inhabitants of the river to death. reduce petro dependency, kill eco-systems -- is this really a "green" alternative? (read article here.)

how is it that we allow the import of produce grown with massive pesticide use that would be illegal in the u.s.? and how, in this day and age -- after looking at everything that has happened in this country, everything that is happening in china -- how can anyone think it is okay to dump ANYTHING into a river or lake or ocean...ever?

i blame people. corporations are amalgamations of people -- not some sort of autonomous entity. people in power are making irresponsible decisions. and other people in power profit from it, and their tacit support of the irresposibility makes them just as culpible.

what the fuck is wrong with people

(btw, read casimir's blog for additional education about the enviro- socio-global implications of food we eat -- and some yummy slow-food recipies.)

keeping my eye on the real issues

living in portland is feeling lately like living in a sea of optimistic, idealistic obama-supporters. their enthusiasm for his rhetoric can make a person second-guess herself. thank goodness that not everyone in the media is infatuated with obama or a clinton-hater (maureen dowd, i loved you, but we're over). more and more, i am finding paul krugman to be the voice of reason among all the demonization and idolization being thrown around.

let's talk policy. read paul's latest column.

i prefer a president who has progressive yet actionable policy plans, no matter how entrenched in politics-as-usual she might seem on the outside. many of clinton's policies are a return to the idea of a government responsible for taking care of its citizens (à la new deal policies) and in our present economic situation, that might not be such a bad thing. i find this to be a compelling position. re-tooling the system to serve a greater purpose is change, and i'd like to think it is at least somewhat realistic.

(and, yes, i secretly hope that a return to new-deal style government during economic gloominess might again lead to the creation of governmental support for arts outreach like the federal theatre project. art is critical to keeping us in touch with what is human, particularly when times get tight and, as a whole society, we start switching out of "thrive" mode into "survive" mode.)

the monogamy myth

it turns out that even those species that "mate for life" are apparently getting their groove on outside of the relationship. (read ny times article)

perhaps it's time we set aside unrealistic expectations of complete monogamy. instead, i suggest we focus on figuring out how to have affairs without destroying our partnerships. that is perhaps the harder task, but it is the one which respects both our nature and our social bonds. a 100% commitment to the relationship and to your partner need not require a 100% dedication of your sexuality to that person.

the politics of fruit

i didn't know farming policies and politics in this country are so messed up. i'm jaded enough not to be surprised, but i'm still disturbed by it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01hedin.html?em&ex=1204693200&en=4f0386d314947329&ei=5087%0A