Do you know about Hulu? Free TV on line. No strings attached. Very short commercials. Because just what we all need is more TV in our lives...
We've been watching season 1 of Arrested Development. Fantastic, hilarious show. Why have I never watched it before?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Green Hair Cuts
Some many years ago, CNA convinced me that I should try getting a fancy hair cut at Toni & Guy instead of the usual super cuts I'd been getting. I fell in love. The layers, the personalization. How had I ever lived with hair cuts that cost less than $50?
More recently, I moved on from just fancy hair cuts to fancy, eco-friendlier hair cuts at an Aveda salon in Albuquerque. Fantastic products, fantastic cuts, and a stylist who was not afraid to thin out my super thick hair. Loved it! One of the best things about the ABQ.
Then I came to San Francisco. It appeared that a hair cut at an Aveda salon might run up to close to around $100 including tips. (Have you ever been to a fancy salon? You have to either take who you can get and just pay however much they cost, or you have to feel cheap and ask for a stylist on the low end of the payscale. The low end was $65.)
So I went to a salon in my neighborhood that an independent website claimed was about 45% green. They at least hawk some type of organic hair products. Although they did have organic products on the shelves, I never did check them for the presence of parabens and SLSs. It didn't matter. My stylist used his own products, not the organic ones. The payscale went from $35 to $60. With my medium length hair, I was charged $60, the top end. The stylist never even got the personalization shears out. And convinced me he needed to keep my hair longer for his little style to work right, but it didn't help. So now I still have longish, super-thick hair, and it cost $72 and featured nasty products.
Next time I will probably toss out the cash and go to Aveda. Or at least not a salon in the Castro, where the stylists might be focusing on men's hair rather than women's.
Does anybody have a stylist who is not afraid to thin? Or a green salon? I may be willing to travel for these services.
Also check out the new info on these super green salons. Maybe there is one near you.
(My justification for spending this much money is that a good cut will last me 6 to 8 months or more. No need for the every six weeks payment.)
More recently, I moved on from just fancy hair cuts to fancy, eco-friendlier hair cuts at an Aveda salon in Albuquerque. Fantastic products, fantastic cuts, and a stylist who was not afraid to thin out my super thick hair. Loved it! One of the best things about the ABQ.
Then I came to San Francisco. It appeared that a hair cut at an Aveda salon might run up to close to around $100 including tips. (Have you ever been to a fancy salon? You have to either take who you can get and just pay however much they cost, or you have to feel cheap and ask for a stylist on the low end of the payscale. The low end was $65.)
So I went to a salon in my neighborhood that an independent website claimed was about 45% green. They at least hawk some type of organic hair products. Although they did have organic products on the shelves, I never did check them for the presence of parabens and SLSs. It didn't matter. My stylist used his own products, not the organic ones. The payscale went from $35 to $60. With my medium length hair, I was charged $60, the top end. The stylist never even got the personalization shears out. And convinced me he needed to keep my hair longer for his little style to work right, but it didn't help. So now I still have longish, super-thick hair, and it cost $72 and featured nasty products.
Next time I will probably toss out the cash and go to Aveda. Or at least not a salon in the Castro, where the stylists might be focusing on men's hair rather than women's.
Does anybody have a stylist who is not afraid to thin? Or a green salon? I may be willing to travel for these services.
Also check out the new info on these super green salons. Maybe there is one near you.
(My justification for spending this much money is that a good cut will last me 6 to 8 months or more. No need for the every six weeks payment.)
NYC Addresses Idling
This is interesting. The original article I saw, from an environmental news source, notes that idling a vehicle for more than 60 seconds will result in a stiff fine. They neglected to mention, per MSNBC, that this only applies in school zones. Big difference. Be careful where you get your news.
Today Matt Told Me That Maybe We Should Get Divorced
So much to blog about this morning! So little time!
Today, the California Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases. As far as I understand it, the central issue is whether voters actually had the authority to take this right away from people (ban same-sex marriage). Generally, the courts are the ones that make decisions on constitutional issues (equal civil rights, etc.). And I think if we put a number of constitutional rights to a vote, many of them would be taken away, not just gay marriage. This case will also determine what happens to the marriages of 18,000 couples that took place in the few month span that it was legal in 2008.
People were marching last night, camping in front of the civic center, holding rallies in front of the court house. They even set up a jumbotron outside of the court house for large groups to watch.
A local news station will be livestreaming the oral arguments from 9 am to noon Pacific time, if anyone is interested. I will obviously not get anything done today again.
Oh yeah, Matt said that if the supreme court supports the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, maybe we should get divorced in support. I reminded him that we had considered that issue before we actually did get married, but he appeared not to remember. So maybe tonight he'll be serving me with papers. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted!
Today, the California Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases. As far as I understand it, the central issue is whether voters actually had the authority to take this right away from people (ban same-sex marriage). Generally, the courts are the ones that make decisions on constitutional issues (equal civil rights, etc.). And I think if we put a number of constitutional rights to a vote, many of them would be taken away, not just gay marriage. This case will also determine what happens to the marriages of 18,000 couples that took place in the few month span that it was legal in 2008.
People were marching last night, camping in front of the civic center, holding rallies in front of the court house. They even set up a jumbotron outside of the court house for large groups to watch.
A local news station will be livestreaming the oral arguments from 9 am to noon Pacific time, if anyone is interested. I will obviously not get anything done today again.
Oh yeah, Matt said that if the supreme court supports the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, maybe we should get divorced in support. I reminded him that we had considered that issue before we actually did get married, but he appeared not to remember. So maybe tonight he'll be serving me with papers. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
More Thoughts on the Death of Environmentalism
Some time ago (okay in college), I thought that when I grew up, I wanted to be an environmentalist. I wanted to work for an environmental organization. I wanted to advocate for environmental protections. I wanted to protect nature from humans.
My departure from this belief has been slow and steady, starting with the first and only environmental non-profit for which I worked. It was not terribly well run, nepotistic, feuding with the national organizations, preaching against grazing without addressing ranchers' needs, and saw government as the enemy. And yet the people were fantastic and had the best of intentions.
Prior to working for this non-profit, I had already interned with two national and one state resource management agencies, where I had also encountered fantastic people with the best of intentions.
While in New Mexico, I associated with people intimately-connected to a nonprofit similar to the one for which I had worked, and I volunteered for them. I found deceivingly similar nepotism and questionable business practices.
I then went to work for the state and encountered environmental organizations that told flat out lies about the state government (although the state did not help itself) and once again ignored the needs of their ranching and farming community members. Even after I stood up for my agency (possibly against my own better judgment), called on my card-carrying environmentalist values, and tried to make friends with the enviros, I found more incorrect propaganda on the internet from a prominent and trusted national organization being spoon fed by the local one. I can handle persuasiveness; I can't handle outright lying. My last straw.
I have always thought that environmental organizations could improve their usefulness and success by adopting for-profit business models. Pay your employees a decent wage ($25,000 does not cut it, now matter how virtuous the cause!), hire people who will do a good job (not just your buddies), and make meaningful alliances with others including corporations (and some organizations, like the Environmental Defense Fund, do this successfully).
"Break Through" has just confirmed and expanded many of my thoughts about environmentalism. By regarding humans as separate from nature, and all human development an intrusion, environmentalists isolate and push away a large portion of society. All the farmers and ranchers I have met during many jobs were upstanding, smart, thoughtful, and inspiring citizens. Meeting with them and hearing their stories was one of my very favorite parts of my job, even when I had to drive hours to do so. They were true red and I true blue, and they knew it because I can't keep my mouth shut, but that did not affect their opinions of me. I believe they were truly interested in compromising on issues to protect the environment and their livelihoods. The environmentalists working with them were not interested in compromising, and will possibly drive them from their farms, inviting whole new realms of exurban development. I believe that more environmentalists need to see the environment as inclusive of human society, and figure out how to work cooperatively with all types of people in all types of places and careers to achieve mutual benefits. Let's call it win-win-win.
Environmentalists have also been loath to embrace the use of economics as a way to achieve their goals. As my disenchantment with the enviros was hardening, I read a book by the Stonyfield Farms CEO and became convinced that working for a corporation could be one of the very best ways to intigate environmental and social sustainability. Corporations must play a leading role in mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. We can't just stand back and tell them they are bad. We must work with them to innovate. Economics is a powerful driving force, and the environment is not separate from it.
Well, this has turned into a missive. (Have I posted about my disillusion with environmentalism previously?) I am tired of the subcategorization and segregation of issues and people that should go hand in hand. I am tired of environmental organizations that won't hire me because I have worked for the government and vice versa. We all have learned by now, I am sure, that I am jaded. But "Break Though" gives me hope for the future. Although I will still support environmental causes, I need to make sure that comprehensive and holistic approaches are being taken to solving problems, even if those approaches are "non-environmental."
But I still don't know what to be when I grow up.
My departure from this belief has been slow and steady, starting with the first and only environmental non-profit for which I worked. It was not terribly well run, nepotistic, feuding with the national organizations, preaching against grazing without addressing ranchers' needs, and saw government as the enemy. And yet the people were fantastic and had the best of intentions.
Prior to working for this non-profit, I had already interned with two national and one state resource management agencies, where I had also encountered fantastic people with the best of intentions.
While in New Mexico, I associated with people intimately-connected to a nonprofit similar to the one for which I had worked, and I volunteered for them. I found deceivingly similar nepotism and questionable business practices.
I then went to work for the state and encountered environmental organizations that told flat out lies about the state government (although the state did not help itself) and once again ignored the needs of their ranching and farming community members. Even after I stood up for my agency (possibly against my own better judgment), called on my card-carrying environmentalist values, and tried to make friends with the enviros, I found more incorrect propaganda on the internet from a prominent and trusted national organization being spoon fed by the local one. I can handle persuasiveness; I can't handle outright lying. My last straw.
I have always thought that environmental organizations could improve their usefulness and success by adopting for-profit business models. Pay your employees a decent wage ($25,000 does not cut it, now matter how virtuous the cause!), hire people who will do a good job (not just your buddies), and make meaningful alliances with others including corporations (and some organizations, like the Environmental Defense Fund, do this successfully).
"Break Through" has just confirmed and expanded many of my thoughts about environmentalism. By regarding humans as separate from nature, and all human development an intrusion, environmentalists isolate and push away a large portion of society. All the farmers and ranchers I have met during many jobs were upstanding, smart, thoughtful, and inspiring citizens. Meeting with them and hearing their stories was one of my very favorite parts of my job, even when I had to drive hours to do so. They were true red and I true blue, and they knew it because I can't keep my mouth shut, but that did not affect their opinions of me. I believe they were truly interested in compromising on issues to protect the environment and their livelihoods. The environmentalists working with them were not interested in compromising, and will possibly drive them from their farms, inviting whole new realms of exurban development. I believe that more environmentalists need to see the environment as inclusive of human society, and figure out how to work cooperatively with all types of people in all types of places and careers to achieve mutual benefits. Let's call it win-win-win.
Environmentalists have also been loath to embrace the use of economics as a way to achieve their goals. As my disenchantment with the enviros was hardening, I read a book by the Stonyfield Farms CEO and became convinced that working for a corporation could be one of the very best ways to intigate environmental and social sustainability. Corporations must play a leading role in mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. We can't just stand back and tell them they are bad. We must work with them to innovate. Economics is a powerful driving force, and the environment is not separate from it.
Well, this has turned into a missive. (Have I posted about my disillusion with environmentalism previously?) I am tired of the subcategorization and segregation of issues and people that should go hand in hand. I am tired of environmental organizations that won't hire me because I have worked for the government and vice versa. We all have learned by now, I am sure, that I am jaded. But "Break Though" gives me hope for the future. Although I will still support environmental causes, I need to make sure that comprehensive and holistic approaches are being taken to solving problems, even if those approaches are "non-environmental."
But I still don't know what to be when I grow up.
Just Read: Break Through
www.betterworld.com
I loved this book! And I would say that it's a must-read not just for environmentalists, but also for those interested in politics, particularly of the left.
From the blurbs on the back of the book:
Nordhaus and Shellenberger are right. The Industrial Age gave us an environmentalism of limits and a politics of 'no.' The Creative Age requires a politics and culture of 'yes' - one that rekindles human aspirations for a better future and unleashes the vast human potential all around us to accomplish it.
~Richard Florida, author of Rise of the Creative Class
Environmentalists, along with many other causes of the left, often focus on very specific issues, declining to address a multitude of situations that may be involved in any one problem. How can we protect the Amazon, the authors argue, when many people who live in Brazil have not had their basic needs met? How can we address high asthma rates in cities by trying to reduce pollution when secondhand smoke or mold in inadequate housing may be a bigger trigger? How can we combat or prepare for global climate change when we embed the message in sacrifice rather than economic possibilities? How can we garner support for universal health care when many people are worried that adding additional burdens on the system would make their own coverage even more insecure?
This book is a fascinating compilation of social science theory, history, and so much more. The authors suggest how environmentalism and politics can be redefined in a way that will work better. In ways that might finally achieve more fuel efficient cars, more access to health care and insurance, and more possibilities for the economic and ecologic future.
Addressing global climate change starts with economic investment and development. No matter how you feel about it, money is more motivating to people than guilt and sacrifice. In fact, the authors discuss how guilt immobilizes people and how couching things in economic opportunity and potential addresses people's insecurity.
"Whereas guilt drives us to deny our wealth, gratitude inspires us to share it. It is gratitude, not guilt, that will motivate Americans to embrace the aspirations of others to become as wealthy, free, and fortunate as we are."
Check this book out from your local library!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Just Read: Biomimicry - Innovation Inspired by Nature
www.betterworld.com
I may be behind the times, as always, since I am reviewing a book published in 1998. None-the-less, this book features some really cool stuff! From trying to create super-strong yet somewhat flexible materials based on spider silk to trying to grow replica rhinoceros horn to help preserve the animals from extinction caused by people killing them for their desirable bodily feature, this book takes on many aspects of using nature as inspiration for innovation. Super-fast computers built out of tiny biological parts - maybe coming down a pipeline to you. Watching animal behavior to learn more about natural medicinal cures - happening as we speak. Figuring out how the "mind" is attached to the physical body and using those properties to create cool new functions - an anesthesiologist's dream.
I think in the ten years since this book was published, a lot of people have picked up the mantle of biomimicry. But I don't think it has really started to reshape the world in the meaningful and comprehensive ways the author imagines. Something to think about!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)