Catching up on Inhabitat

I've been trying to be less obsessed with blogs lately, so today I just caught up on months of posts from one of my favorite blogs, Inhabitat. Some highlights:

New green ferry to Alcatraz.

A cool website for you mothers and mothers-to-be (and people who need to buy presents for such people.)

New green library in Scottsdale.

Eco-resort being built in Monterey.

Is IKEA green? (Other than a thrift shop, where else can you get fairly green products at an affordable price?)

Climate Change: It Just Gets Worse

If you live near the coast (and not on top of a peak like we do), you better think about getting some SLR insurance. I wonder if that exists? Do you think it's included in flood insurance.

Read this.

Just Read: The End of Poverty

www.betterworld.com

Finally, a book that makes economics interesting! Mostly because Jeffrey Sachs discusses all the factors that contribute to extreme poverty, from environment to politics to technology to geography. I have to admit the book was a bit long, at 368 pages, with some points belabored multiple times. However, if you want to feel bad about yourself for living in comparative richness when billions of people live in extreme poverty, this is the book for you... It's actually not all that depressing and guilt-instigating. The redeeming quality of the book is hope, information, and a plan for action. A very slight increase in our taxes, and a heavier burden on the richest of the rich, could easily provide enough money to release millions of people around the globe from the poverty trap. And apparently most Americans are all for foreign aid and actually think the US government contributes more than it actually does.

I do have a couple concerns from this book, although I must admit that I accept most of it at face value because I know so little about economics and because Sachs is so famous.

1) Sachs praises the Green Revolution over and over again for dramatically increasing crop yields the world over. However, I have learned and read many times that the Green Revolution also had disastrous side effects, as the crops must be grown from seed every year, requiring seeds to be bought instead of saved. In addition many of the crop varieties were not designed for specific climates and locations. They may demand excessive insecticide and require monoculture crops. Does anyone know if the benefits outweigh the negatives?

2) This book basically centers on the premise of globalization. Historically countries that have been sealed off have not improved their economic well-being, leaving millions in extreme poverty. Countries that open their doors to trade experience a much higher growth rate and enable more citizens to climb out of poverty. That all sounds great. So how do I reconcile this with the movement toward local sustainability here in the US. If I am supposed to follow a 100 mile diet and buy all local, and if everybody in our country eventually jumps on this bandwagon, are we relegating the rest of the world to poor quality of life?

If any poli sci majors in the proverbial room have insights into these topics, I would be eager to learn.

I recommend picking up this book and reading at least part of it.

ASU Challenges

This one's for you, Sun Devil alums. (Although I cordially invite Wildcats to participate as well.)

ASU is developing something really cool, and I'll just let them speak for themselves:

ASU is unveiling the Challenges Project, an ambitious initiative that aims to identify the most pressing local and global issues we face as world citizens, determine the crucial work being done at the university on each one, and invite everyone—alumni, students, faculty, staff, the public—to help the university tackle them head-on. It’s a way of magnifying the impact of the university, by asking people to pitch in and work on issues that concern them the most....ASU hopes alumni and others will go to the site between now and May to identify the issues they’re passionate about. Later this year, they will be able to return to the site to volunteer to provide expertise, serve on a panel, work on a team, donate resources, or serve as an advocate for problems identified and selected to be part of the initiative with the public.

Read the rest of the article in ASU Magazine and visit the website to suggest an issue. I, of course, plan to be involved in something water-related. Although many people like to make fun of public universities, and especially Arizona State, for the quality of the students and the education, I have excellent things to say about my education there, especially after I left engineering. In addition, I think the university is working to tackle some awesome projects, especially in the environmental realm, from the school of sustainability to a master's in alternative energy. I believe the university is truly working on many issues that matter. Let's join them!

Everyone Should Go To Tahoe in the Winter

A change of pace from the last deep, thoughtful post:

Lake Tahoe is beautiful in the winter.







More pictures to come on Picasa eventually.

In Response: My Thoughts on Marriage

Warning: this post ended up very long, so just stop reading when you get bored! Or don't even start.

CNA asked in response to my divorce post what sort of discussion Matt and I had about equality of marriage issues before we took the plunge. Although neither of us really remembers what the discussion was, I started to think about my beliefs and decisions about marriage and how they have changed over time. After re-reading this post, I realized I have strayed far from the equality issue into all sorts of other interconnected marriage-related arenas. I am obviously "not into the whole brevity thing." Here goes...

Matt and I have been married for over two years now, and got engaged over three years ago. Over this time, my perceptions of marriage have evolved continuously. In the beginning, I was really sucked into the whole wanting to be engaged thing, I think, even more so than wanting to be married or thinking about what it meant. I wanted to have a ring on my finger and talk about my fiance. My friends in grad school were planning their weddings too, so discussing our plans together was a fun little event. Matt and I were moving to New Mexico together, and for some silly reason I felt weird telling people that I was moving with my boyfriend.

Plus we were moving to New Mexico, a place that would seriously limit my options for the next several years, and I think I wanted some promise that I would get something out of my sacrifice, i.e. a boyfriend for life. (Incidentally, when Matt had been planning to move to Canada earlier, he didn't want me to come because we hadn't been together very long and he didn't want such a commitment. But since Canada sounded fantastic and exciting to me, I kept pestering him that I would love to go, and if it didn't work out, it didn't, no hard feelings, I would just have fun in Canada. And I meant it. So apparently it is New Mexico's fault that we got married...)

I don't think it was until sometime during our engagement that I actually began to consider what getting married and the institution of marriage meant. First of all, 50% of marriages end in divorce, so it's not like getting married is a guarantee of a boyfriend for life. Second, to me, getting married was somewhat of a chance to throw a fun party while we signed our names to a piece of paper that would allow me to cheaply obtain health and dental insurance for my poor student boyfriend. Third, I really didn't envision getting divorced to be any different from or more difficult than breaking up with a live-in boyfriend. Sure there are legal hassles with divorce, but to me the emotional and material difficulties of breaking up were sure to be equally bad either way.

In sum, I don't think Matt and I ever took marriage as seriously as many people do. (Maybe I shouldn't speak for him...) Yes, we were professing our love for each other, and that was awesome, but nothing was going to change in our lives, realistically, other than being granted the rights that come with marriage including employee benefits, visitation rights, and life and death decisions. Things that are very useful in a household when two people want to share their lives with each other. And all we had to do to get those rights was to sign a little piece of paper.

I really can't remember how much of a discussion we had about how it was unfair for us to get married when others can't, particularly same-sex couples. I know we thought about it, and decided that the benefits outweighed the negatives. And we had a gay man marry us through the miraculous power invested in him by an internet certificate. Two days after the ceremony, I wrote this in a blog post:

Well, this past weekend was the big event! Matt and I made our commitment legal and are now able to obtain certain benefits that are unavailable to many others. Part of me felt like participating in this institution was morally wrong until it is open to everybody, no matter who they want to marry. However, I also wanted to marry Matt! So since I went ahead and did it, I pledge to advocate for equal rights and vote for politicians who do as well.

I also had many other concerns about the institution of marriage, based on their patriarchal and anti-feminist origins, as I also discussed in my old blog. I actually think those issues are less of a big deal to me, because you can change things to make the ceremony have meaning for yourself. In fact, I judiciously avoid referring to our "wedding" because I can't stand that term. I was not wedded to someone else. However, no matter what you do, the concept of marriage itself cannot be extricated from its origins, and for this reason I totally understand and sympathize with those who decide not to marry themselves.

In fact, I must confess that when CNA informed me that she and her boyfriend were having a baby together without being married, I felt rather terrible about myself for awhile. I started wondering why I hadn't been strong enough and liberal enough to shun the institution; that I had been too desperate for some sort of commitment. Then I remembered she was having a baby, and actually, I think, has made a much bigger commitment than I have (no pressure :) !) Anyway, I digress. I think there are all sorts of ways that people can make commitments together and share their lives together without being married (or without having a baby). You could even throw a big party without actually getting married! However, marriage does confer some rights and provide some conveniences often not otherwise available.

I also think that Matt and I see our marriage very differently than other people might see their own. My mom used to chide me for leaving Matt all the time, on vacations to various places and a summer in LA. To her, our marriage apparently meant that I should be by Matt's side at all times, no matter what other things I want to do with my life. And I don't think she would have thought that if we were still just living together. But that is not what we think. Matt completely understands my needs for freedom (although sometimes he follows me across the country).

And I can imagine that many women, if their husbands suggested getting a divorce, whether or not in jest, would not have taken it in stride as I did. Some people think marriage is nothing to joke about. I think Matt has a good point. Although we previously decided to get married even though same-sex couples can't, we have now been living in San Francisco, hanging out in the Castro, and watching Proposition 8 pass. Marriage equality seemed to be so close, but it slipped away by a few percentage points.

In California, we have something called a domestic partnership (different from when your employer gives you benefits for your domestic partner based on tax returns showing you live together, etc.), where couples are granted, as far as I understand it, the same rights granted to married couples. However, as argued this morning, this difference in nomenclature basically relegates same-sex couples to second class status. I actually looked into domestic partnerships today, thinking that maybe I would actually consider getting divorced if we could retain our rights through another measure, but it turns out the domestic partnerships are only for same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples in which one member is over the age of 62. Or some crap like that. So heterosexual couples are actually prevented from showing solidarity by choosing a domestic partnership instead of marriage. (I recently read an article about how a new institution for same-sex marriage in France is actually being used by record numbers of heterosexual couples who are choosing it over traditional marriage. I will look for the link.)

So, I think at this point, unless Matt convinces me somehow, that getting divorced in solidarity is not really a good choice. What difference would it really make? Sure, we'd be making a statement, but who would really know about it? Our friends, most of whom are liberal? Our conservative family members who would just write us off as cuckoos? Instead, I can, and do, support the fight to overturn Prop 8.

I also read a book, called The Offbeat Bride, in which the author discusses in length her and her husband's decision to get married despite the lack of equality. They made this decision despite the fact that some of their gay friends questioned or resented them for doing so. And I'm sure many people choose not to be married for these very reasons. All valid points.

In the end, I am not trying to judge anyone here, either for thinking more highly of marriage than I do, or more poorly of it. Although when I got married my motivations were different and more immature, now I view marriage mostly as a granting of rights that are important to me and will become even more so the older we get. I think maybe in some states there are other ways to obtain these rights, but it is so much more complicated than signing a piece of paper. (Convenience is such a good excuse, isn't it?) We have made decisions to partake of the institution while trying to minimize the negatives. Had I been more mature at the time, maybe we would not have made that decision. I love my husband, and he loves me, but as I was sitting on the couch while he suggested getting divorced, I imagined our lives being absolutely no different than they are now. Although I did ask him if I would still have health insurance.

I think getting married or not is a complicated decision in this day and age, and everybody should make their choice meaningful for them. I think that ultimately marriage should be relegated to the religious arena from whence it came, and the government should go about providing equal rights to everyone in some other manner. I'm not sure how. Maybe consenting adults just sign a piece of paper that grants them the rights currently granted in marriage.

(In fact, Matt thinks that marriage should not even necessarily be limited to two people, although that opens a whole other can of worms in terms of rights and decision-making ability - your multiple spouses could fight over whether to pull your life support tube. I also think in this day and age there is still a huge risk for involuntary servitude and physical and sexual abuse of women within what amounts to polygamy. Maybe it works for some people, but proper caution must be exercised.)

So that's the end of my long-winded marriage blog. And again, that is just what I have come to terms with myself, and I completely value everybody else's opinions on the subject. In fact, I'd love to hear them! Let's have a discussion. And I'll let ya'll know if we get divorced.

Star-studded Prop 8 Video. Check it out!

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

***

Also see timeline of this morning's oral arguments at That is So Queer.