Ahh, Sage. The wisest of the garden herbs. It's delicately beautiful, attractively scented, and deceptively useful in so many different ways, making it absolutely indispensable in any kitchen, garden, or healing space. Besides its obvious use in making herbal sachets & potpourri, sage can be used in a medicinal capacity to relieve soar throats, dizziness, colds, and headaches. It can also be used to aid in digestion, and to balance blood sugar and insulin levels in your body. Plus, sage tea is so tasty, and drinking it is both refreshing and relaxing. I think that if I were to be a flower, I'd want to be a sage :-)
12.5.10
Flower of the Week
Ahh, Sage. The wisest of the garden herbs. It's delicately beautiful, attractively scented, and deceptively useful in so many different ways, making it absolutely indispensable in any kitchen, garden, or healing space. Besides its obvious use in making herbal sachets & potpourri, sage can be used in a medicinal capacity to relieve soar throats, dizziness, colds, and headaches. It can also be used to aid in digestion, and to balance blood sugar and insulin levels in your body. Plus, sage tea is so tasty, and drinking it is both refreshing and relaxing. I think that if I were to be a flower, I'd want to be a sage :-)
9.5.10
Great Quote
"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home- so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world.
Yet they are the world of the individual person, the neighborhood she or he lives in; the school or college that she attends; the factory, farm, or office where she works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, and equal dignity without discrimination.
Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world."
-Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States and one-time Chairperson for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, upon presenting "In Your Hands," her booklet on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3.5.10
Tragedy
According to Sarah Palin, drilling for oil makes our country a "more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation." Sure. Except for when there are 25,000 barrels of crude oil pouring into the gulf of Mexico every day, slaughtering marine life, threatening 50% of our nation's wetlands, and compromising the livelihoods of countless fishing and coastal communities.
21 years after the infamous Exxon-Valdez oil spill in the northern gulf of Alaska, communities along the coast have yet to fully recover from the total environmental catastrophe that decimated their fishing industry, and left some species of marine life never to recover. In recent years, Alaskan sea otters and harlequin ducks have had traces of Exxon oil in their systems, oil remains a few inches below the surface on certain beaches, and coastal communities have reported increased rates of alcoholism, suicide, and violence. They are still awaiting a full clean-up, and it has been twenty-one years and counting.
Who knows what the effects of this recent spill will look like. But scientists are posturing left and right that this will be the worst oil spill in history, leaving Exxon Valdez to 'pale in comparison.'
Still, lunacy and denial prevail among those who support off-shore drilling. Sarah Palin herself, although claiming to be "heartbroken" over the disaster, noted on her facebook page that "accidents happen." Right. Oops! And never to be topped for the title of #1 moron, Rush Limbaugh is now claiming that the spill might have been triggered by environmentalists... because they wanted to "head off more oil drilling" and insinuated that this was somehow an earth day commemoration. Wow. What a wacko.
This event is a complete and utter environmental tragedy, an economic calamity, and a political minefield. What is truly heartbreaking about it is the lack of significance it has held in conservatives' attitudes toward energy policy. But how can it represent any action other than a full-fledged investment in alternative energies? How many more decimated ecosystems and toppled communities will it take before we learn that offshore drilling is unsustainable? As my friend Adam so wisely put it, we have to "start talking about alternative fuels as future fuels, because in reality, we have no alternative." Drill, baby, drill, is obsolete and irrelevant, and it's time we regarded it as such.
But for the United States to shift gears on offshore drilling policy, it would defer only a fraction of the tragedy that we are experiencing now along our southern gulf coast. Because spills like this happen all the time, with just as much intensity and at a higher frequency, wreaking environmental havoc all around the world. In Nigeria, for example, it is said that a spill equal to the Exxon Valdez spill has happened at least once every year since 1969, and the country is currently dealing with approximately 2,000 active oil spills. Other countries around the world have limited or no regulations on offshore drilling, and this is not just their problem, it is ours. We import approximately two-thirds of our oil supply from other countries, with half of this supply coming from unstable regions. And although the U.S. accounts for only 5% of the world's population, it is responsible for 25% of its oil consumption. So, this is not just an issue of extraction policy, although that is a central piece to achieving sustainability. This is also an issue of consumption and lifestyle in America, and hugely so.
The dangers and consequences of offshore oil drilling have been present for decades, but only now are they becoming real in Americans' minds, as the evidence is being brought right to our doorstep... our shoreline. It is time we reconsider our demand for these unsustainable forms of energy, and react in a way that will ensure no more tragedies like this one will ever happen again. But if we wait for total environmental destruction before we venture to make any changes, then it will certainly be too late.
21 years after the infamous Exxon-Valdez oil spill in the northern gulf of Alaska, communities along the coast have yet to fully recover from the total environmental catastrophe that decimated their fishing industry, and left some species of marine life never to recover. In recent years, Alaskan sea otters and harlequin ducks have had traces of Exxon oil in their systems, oil remains a few inches below the surface on certain beaches, and coastal communities have reported increased rates of alcoholism, suicide, and violence. They are still awaiting a full clean-up, and it has been twenty-one years and counting.
Who knows what the effects of this recent spill will look like. But scientists are posturing left and right that this will be the worst oil spill in history, leaving Exxon Valdez to 'pale in comparison.'
Still, lunacy and denial prevail among those who support off-shore drilling. Sarah Palin herself, although claiming to be "heartbroken" over the disaster, noted on her facebook page that "accidents happen." Right. Oops! And never to be topped for the title of #1 moron, Rush Limbaugh is now claiming that the spill might have been triggered by environmentalists... because they wanted to "head off more oil drilling" and insinuated that this was somehow an earth day commemoration. Wow. What a wacko.
This event is a complete and utter environmental tragedy, an economic calamity, and a political minefield. What is truly heartbreaking about it is the lack of significance it has held in conservatives' attitudes toward energy policy. But how can it represent any action other than a full-fledged investment in alternative energies? How many more decimated ecosystems and toppled communities will it take before we learn that offshore drilling is unsustainable? As my friend Adam so wisely put it, we have to "start talking about alternative fuels as future fuels, because in reality, we have no alternative." Drill, baby, drill, is obsolete and irrelevant, and it's time we regarded it as such.
But for the United States to shift gears on offshore drilling policy, it would defer only a fraction of the tragedy that we are experiencing now along our southern gulf coast. Because spills like this happen all the time, with just as much intensity and at a higher frequency, wreaking environmental havoc all around the world. In Nigeria, for example, it is said that a spill equal to the Exxon Valdez spill has happened at least once every year since 1969, and the country is currently dealing with approximately 2,000 active oil spills. Other countries around the world have limited or no regulations on offshore drilling, and this is not just their problem, it is ours. We import approximately two-thirds of our oil supply from other countries, with half of this supply coming from unstable regions. And although the U.S. accounts for only 5% of the world's population, it is responsible for 25% of its oil consumption. So, this is not just an issue of extraction policy, although that is a central piece to achieving sustainability. This is also an issue of consumption and lifestyle in America, and hugely so.
The dangers and consequences of offshore oil drilling have been present for decades, but only now are they becoming real in Americans' minds, as the evidence is being brought right to our doorstep... our shoreline. It is time we reconsider our demand for these unsustainable forms of energy, and react in a way that will ensure no more tragedies like this one will ever happen again. But if we wait for total environmental destruction before we venture to make any changes, then it will certainly be too late.
2.5.10
Flower of the Week
Beautiful and tasty onion chives! As the planting season is upon us, it seemed fitting to include another edible delight to celebrate springtime home growing. This chive plant is just as decorative in my own home garden as it is useful in my kitchen. A perfect precursor to the array of edible blooms which will be gracing my backyard this growing season.
26.4.10
GMO Sneak Attack
Giant agro-businesses like Monsanto have continuously been able to get sneak by with passing off their GMO-enhanced, foodish items as natural food products in the United States. But the tides are changing in other parts of the world, and people and governments alike are starting to take notice. For example, thanks to stringent food labeling laws, citizens in France currently enjoy the luxury of knowing exactly which of the foods they purchase are genetically modified or engineered. If a food product is made up of less than .1% of genetically modified organisms, a standard much higher than elsewhere in the E.U., then it is labeled as such in the supermarket, allowing consumers the right to make informed decisions about what they are buying and eating. Naturally, there is a certain feeling of security, a joie-de-manger, when sitting down for un repas en France.
But we are not allowed this luxury of food security in the United States. And the Obama administration has recently reaffirmed their commitment to the secrecy of genetically modified foods, as they plan to vehemently deny our right to truth through labeling. Perhaps it is because a former Monsanto lobbyist is currently our country's chief agricultural negotiator that the Obama administration plans to argue a position against mandatory GMO labeling at a conference of the United Nations' Codex Committee on food labeling next week. This conference will determine the future of global food labeling rules, which has the GMO-happy and agro-business friendly United States Government squirming in its boots. The position paper put together by the U.S. to be submitted before the committee next week ridiculously states that to label genetically modified and genetically engineered food products as such would be "false, misleading, or deceptive." Apparently, our government believes that it would be somehow bad for us to know the truth about what we are eating.
And all of this is going on fairly under the radar. If the administration had it their way, labeling rules would be abolished before we even knew they were an option. But organic food producers, public health advocates, environmental groups and concerned citizens alike are fighting back, petitioning to the FDA and the department of agriculture to reconsider this inappropriate stance on food labeling. To read the letter addressed to FDA Deputy Commissioner of Food Michael Taylor and USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, click here. To sign a petition opposing the sneak attack on GMO labeling, click here!
But we are not allowed this luxury of food security in the United States. And the Obama administration has recently reaffirmed their commitment to the secrecy of genetically modified foods, as they plan to vehemently deny our right to truth through labeling. Perhaps it is because a former Monsanto lobbyist is currently our country's chief agricultural negotiator that the Obama administration plans to argue a position against mandatory GMO labeling at a conference of the United Nations' Codex Committee on food labeling next week. This conference will determine the future of global food labeling rules, which has the GMO-happy and agro-business friendly United States Government squirming in its boots. The position paper put together by the U.S. to be submitted before the committee next week ridiculously states that to label genetically modified and genetically engineered food products as such would be "false, misleading, or deceptive." Apparently, our government believes that it would be somehow bad for us to know the truth about what we are eating.
And all of this is going on fairly under the radar. If the administration had it their way, labeling rules would be abolished before we even knew they were an option. But organic food producers, public health advocates, environmental groups and concerned citizens alike are fighting back, petitioning to the FDA and the department of agriculture to reconsider this inappropriate stance on food labeling. To read the letter addressed to FDA Deputy Commissioner of Food Michael Taylor and USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, click here. To sign a petition opposing the sneak attack on GMO labeling, click here!
25.4.10
Operation: Lunchbox
The startling relationship between the nutrition of America's schoolchildren and the United States Military was highlighted earlier this week by the release of a report deeming school lunches a national security threat. It seems righteous enough: some high-ranking retired military officials have decided that the preeminence of insalubrious foods in the federally-funded school lunch program is detrimental to our childrens' health, and that more wholesome alternatives must be implemented in order to ensure the security of future generations. Considering that most low-income families rely on the free and reduced cost breakfasts and lunches that are provided to students in publics schools as their primary source of nutrition, it's a no-brainer that the content of such meals should provide children with the optimum nutrients to bolster their development and their ability to perform well in school. However, it would be naive to trust this seemingly well-intentioned military suggestion, as these officials are not at all concerned with the overall well-being of our nation's low-income children. Rather, they are worried that the extreme prevalence of obesity in American children is providing them with a lower yield of potential military recruits. And they are not ashamed to say so.
According to the report, twenty-seven percent of potential young recruits (aged 17-24) are overweight and deemed "too fat to fight." They are calling it Mission: Readiness, as if as soon as the weight problem is solved, American youth will be ready and waiting to commit themselves to a life where their worth is determined by their ability to fight. But this is not a military problem, it is a public health crisis that is fueled by an insufficient and profit-driven food system that plays on the susceptability of many Americans by providing them with cheap, preservative-laden, hormone infused, sugar-charged items that somehow pass as real food. And as a growing number of our children are subject to poor diets and diet-related illnesses, the menus in most schools continue to offer foods which are too high in saturated fat and cholestoral and too low in nutrient and fiber rich foods, like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
The group of retired officials are urging congress to reshape the lunch program by removing junk food and high calorie beverages from schools. If the suggestions of these military officials are heard (which is a great possibility considering the presence of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vislak with the group on Capitol Hill this past Tuesday, and the history of military influence on school lunches), then the hope for reshaping American childrens' diet will be recharged, but with a sinister twist. The message being sent here is clear: the government only cares about the well-being of our children when we think of them as no more than future fighting and killing machines. But if our nation's children are not predisposed to being soldiers, then I suppose... let them eat cake.
According to the report, twenty-seven percent of potential young recruits (aged 17-24) are overweight and deemed "too fat to fight." They are calling it Mission: Readiness, as if as soon as the weight problem is solved, American youth will be ready and waiting to commit themselves to a life where their worth is determined by their ability to fight. But this is not a military problem, it is a public health crisis that is fueled by an insufficient and profit-driven food system that plays on the susceptability of many Americans by providing them with cheap, preservative-laden, hormone infused, sugar-charged items that somehow pass as real food. And as a growing number of our children are subject to poor diets and diet-related illnesses, the menus in most schools continue to offer foods which are too high in saturated fat and cholestoral and too low in nutrient and fiber rich foods, like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
The group of retired officials are urging congress to reshape the lunch program by removing junk food and high calorie beverages from schools. If the suggestions of these military officials are heard (which is a great possibility considering the presence of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vislak with the group on Capitol Hill this past Tuesday, and the history of military influence on school lunches), then the hope for reshaping American childrens' diet will be recharged, but with a sinister twist. The message being sent here is clear: the government only cares about the well-being of our children when we think of them as no more than future fighting and killing machines. But if our nation's children are not predisposed to being soldiers, then I suppose... let them eat cake.
14.4.10
Bravo LaHood!
In the month since Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood stated alternative modes of transportation such as walking and biking should be considered in equal measure to automobiles in transportation planning and funding, there has been a frenzy of chagrined comments from fuming conservatives and trucking industrialists alike. Accusations that LaHood's position is "non-sensical," implications that he may be on drugs, and sarcastic comments that now our cargo systems will rely on back-packers, have all been flung about the proverbial ape's den that is the United States' House of Representatives. Oh my, who ever knew that non-motorized transportation could cause such a stir?
In reality, LaHood is responding to a viable demand from the American people- that we may exercise our freedom with the right to share the road safely, no matter what vehicle type we choose. Siting a survey which outline how most people want more mobility options in his official blog, Mr. LaHood explained his statements concerning bicycle policy by emphasizing that "people across America who value biking should have a voice when it comes to transport planning.... I didn't say they should have the only voice, just a voice."
Still, leave it to a near-sighted conservative like Rep. Steve LaTourette to take a sensible policy, one which is a part of the Obama administration's new livability initiative, and turn it into some radical liberal fantasy- as if Mr. Lahood has proposed that motorists' rights will somehow be diminished by opening up a discussion about transportation planning that includes a consideration of cyclists and pedestrians. Besides blatantly insulting the transportation secretary in the presence of congress, Rep. LaTourette also cried that new bicycle and walking paths must not be paid for using moneys from the United States gasoline tax- which would be fair enough, if so many walkers and bikers did not also drive cars.
And as LaHood rightly stated that he is not going to apologize for his plans to improve our transportation systems, he has been applauded not only by bicycle enthusiasts and the League of American Bicyclists, but also by environmentalists and strategic urban planners who believe that investing in infrastructure to support alternative modes of transportation would be holistically beneficial to society. Not to mention, it's what the people want. So, Bravo for Mr. LaHood. He is on the right path so far, and it's one that does not discriminate in favor of motorized car-culture! Hurray!
In reality, LaHood is responding to a viable demand from the American people- that we may exercise our freedom with the right to share the road safely, no matter what vehicle type we choose. Siting a survey which outline how most people want more mobility options in his official blog, Mr. LaHood explained his statements concerning bicycle policy by emphasizing that "people across America who value biking should have a voice when it comes to transport planning.... I didn't say they should have the only voice, just a voice."
Still, leave it to a near-sighted conservative like Rep. Steve LaTourette to take a sensible policy, one which is a part of the Obama administration's new livability initiative, and turn it into some radical liberal fantasy- as if Mr. Lahood has proposed that motorists' rights will somehow be diminished by opening up a discussion about transportation planning that includes a consideration of cyclists and pedestrians. Besides blatantly insulting the transportation secretary in the presence of congress, Rep. LaTourette also cried that new bicycle and walking paths must not be paid for using moneys from the United States gasoline tax- which would be fair enough, if so many walkers and bikers did not also drive cars.
And as LaHood rightly stated that he is not going to apologize for his plans to improve our transportation systems, he has been applauded not only by bicycle enthusiasts and the League of American Bicyclists, but also by environmentalists and strategic urban planners who believe that investing in infrastructure to support alternative modes of transportation would be holistically beneficial to society. Not to mention, it's what the people want. So, Bravo for Mr. LaHood. He is on the right path so far, and it's one that does not discriminate in favor of motorized car-culture! Hurray!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)