"Be Evil"

Google, as a company, has seemed to adopt a somewhat warm & cuddly image in recent years, mostly thanks to its exhausted mantra of "don't be evil." The overly simplistic catchphrase, featured in Google's own code of conduct and heard repeatedly by Google followers, somewhat masks the enormity of Google's vastly unknown and incredibly consequential activities, resting our minds in knowing that our access and information on the internet are secure and protected; leaving us free to indulge in hours of Youtube videos, LOLcat pictures, and the like... untroubled, knowing that our trust is held in a corporation which is truly compassionate at its core.

After all, hasn't Google always been on our side? Haven't they advocated openly for net neutrality over the years? And don't they have a funny holier-than-thou type of public relations that make us want to trust them? For years Google has been snapping our images, filtering our information, and teaching us about the world. They have completely revolutionized the way we acquire information, and have become our go-to encyclopedia for everything from American history to favorite baking recipes. Sure, they got caught spying on us, but they fessed up and then apologized for it. They even vowed to benevolence when it comes to our personal information, stating that "maintaining people's trust is crucial to everything that we do." So our friends at Google would never truly betray our trust, right?

Wrong. Unfortunately, Google's pledge to maintain net neutrality (and consequently our trust) was severely wrinkled yesterday, as if all of a sudden their manta became "Don't be evil- unless it could potentially be profitable to be so." It's kind of like an Animal-Farm-type revision: "no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets" and so on...

Well, for Google it appears that "the sheets"are synonymous with "Verizon," as the two are most certainly in bed together. After denying last week that they had any intention to alter the free state of the internet, Google has signed a proposal with one of the nations largest internet service providers, which introduces the concept of priority service to certain sites and hosts, and the ability of ISPs to effectively block content at their discretion; basically opening up the internet to a pay-to-play regime whereby the highest bidder gets the fastest connection speed.

There are several facets to the proposal which would undermine the unfettered nature of the internet, but the bottom line is this: Google and Verizon are moving in a direction that would ultimately change the internet as we know it forever. It would turn the net, which currently allows enormous space for a deluge of information from every corner of the world, into something more like a cable television system: where the premium channels come at a higher price, and content not suitable to the provider gets winnowed out. This is corporate takeover and self-regulation at its worst, and it simply cannot be allowed to happen. Voice your opinion today, and tell the Federal Communications Commission to do its job, and to save the internet!

Flower of the Week

Surrounded by hundreds of beautiful, exotic, bizarre, and enchanting flowers at the United States Botanic Gardens in downtown D.C. the other day, I felt as if I had taken enough photos to fill the rest of the year with weekly blossoms. But despite the array, there was one flower which caught my attention immediately: in high-hanging planters lining the pathways of the conservatory hung the yellow flowers of the Nong Noch vine. Like nature's beaded curtains, they hung down in cascades of color, brightening and framing my journey through a sea of flowers. They were my immediate favorite, but only the first of many that I fell in love with that day.

Spill by Numbers

From the NPR program All Things Considered. The list of numbers related to the devastating BP oil spill is a concise means of summarizing its effects over last few months:

32,000- The number of people who have been involved in cleaning up the spill

5,300 - The number of vessels that have been deployed to the gulf

3.2 million - The feet of boom which have been laid

to section off the oil from shorelines, wetlands, and other precious areas.

1,843,786 gallons of toxic dispersants have been applied in the gulf

1,699 oiled birds have been found alive, of which 549 have been saved.

This is compared to 1,499 oiled birds which were found dead.

2,168 Baby sea turtles whose nests were in danger due

to their proximity along the gulf to the oil spill, and who were successfully

relocated to the Atlantic shore.

Along the gulf coast shorelines, 600 miles total have been affected by the spill.

This is broken down into 365 miles in Louisiana, 111 miles in Mississippi,

68 miles in Alabama, and 88 miles in Florida.

$4 billion- the amount that BP has payed so far in response costs

4.9 million - the number of gallons of oil which have been spilled into the gulf.

ZERO- the number of offshore oil spills in history

which have been bigger than this one.

This data was compiled by NPR Staff, and comes from BP, restorethegulf.com, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

It has happened!

It has happened! Despite the powerful neoliberal protestors, the United Nations has made an historic decision to recognize water as a fundamental and universal human right!

The resolution was brought to the U.N. general assembly several weeks ago from Bolivia, a country which has been fervently involved in issues of water rights for years. Countries like Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, which see water as a commodity rather than a human right, spoke out against the movement to no avail, as 144 nations voted last Wednesday that water should be viewed as a public trust, not a market commodity. There were 41 abstentions, and zero votes of "no." Abstaining was clearly the safer way to dissent for the opposers of this resolution, since voting against human rights is surely no historical record to boast.

Still, the outcome of this debate could not have been better! The right to safe drinking water and sanitation are now part of the guiding language for governments around the world, and we have all taken a huge step forward in the way we perceive and acknowledge human rights, particularly in regard to health and access to those resources which are a fundamental part of a healthful life. As Ms. Maude Barlow, water activist extrodinaire, put it last week on Democracy Now!: "[The resolution] is a moral statement, a guiding principle of the countries of the world, that they have taken a step in the direction of saying that water is a human right and a public trust, and that no one should be dying for a lack of water."

For more information about the vote, and to watch Ms. Barlow's full interview with Amy Goodman, click here.

From Where?

You've heard of brainwashing, brandwashing, and even greenwashing. But just as the corporate world never ceases to come up with ways to lead us on and deceive us, out comes a new form of eco-hypocrisy: localwashing. You see, Corporate America is very clever, and they begin to pick up on things when grassroots movements start growing organically within communities- then they hijack our ingenuous principles, beat them and pulverize them, turn them into some public relations vomit, and- voila! You have a warped, vaguely familiar message that leaves you feeling confused, slightly disturbed, and somehow taken advantage of.

So, in one way or another, these marketing behemoths have caught word that buying local is apparently a good thing, and they've jumped on that bandwagon with guns blazing, ready to take over our minds and use our own good intentions against us. McDonald's, of all companies, is now touting boastful ads that give the impression that the poisonous entity actually cares about our environment- and that they use local ingredients. Ahem... excuse me... what? McDonalds?! Local?? It's as if our brains cannot digest such a blatant oxymoron. But this, dear reader, is what they would like us to believe.

The "From Here" Campaign is in full effect now in the greater Seattle area and in most of Washington state which, interestingly enough, was already the primary supplier of most of McDonald's industrial-grade "food" products. So, in order to boast a local initiative, McDonald's choose the one place in America where their "food" production is already most concentrated. Wow! How convenient.

Not to appear fully benevolent however, each of McDonald's new ads feature a lovely little disclaimer at the bottom: "participation and duration may vary." Oh! Excellent. So not only has McDonald's chosen its most convenient location for localwashing, but they also can't guarantee that what you're buying is local- even there. So the billboards all contradict themselves, and the conscious consumer is left feeling... a bit confused at best.

The truth is that most companies spend more time, money, and energy into creating an eco-friendly facade than they do to actually support environmental movements. There are some who genuinely strive to improve their business to reflect an environmentally stable future, and those that do deserve recognition. But a savvy consumer must learn how to weed out the fradulent actors from the honest ones, and unfortunately I think we can all discern on which side McDonald's falls.

It really is quite appalling, but I'm sure the fatburger corporate executives are sitting around a table somewhere, chuckling and patting themselves on the back for once again foiling the intentions of good-hearted Americans trying to make the world a better place. And I'm sure that after they do that, they break out into a chorus of evil-villain inspired laughter: "mwa-ha-haaa!"

Flower of the Week

Tiny, lovely, little shiny Marigolds. Where would our gardens be without them? These little plumes of firey-colored flowers sit low in the soil and attract all sorts of beneficial insects to your garden- the kind that will keep other bugs from nibbling on your crops. They are but one approach to maintaining an organic garden free of pesticides, and they make the whole lot look a bit prettier too. How wonderful!

Protecting NYC's Gardens

Since 2002, most community gardens in New York City have been covered by a memorandum established between the State Attorney General and the Bloomberg Administration which established certain ground rules and protections for the gardens under the jurisdiction of several city agencies. Namely, the GreenThumb program, a subset of the Department of Parks and Recreation, has been principally responsible for the oversight and management of city gardens, and those gardens have been provided with a certain amount of security and protection from the government. However, that memorandum is expiring this coming September, and the document which has been drafted to replace it seems to provide much less protection than its counterpart, while at the same time increasing regulation on community gardens, threatening the future of urban gardening in NYC.

While not fully designated as city park land under the original regulations of 2002, community gardens were at least protected as "open space", and were placed under the jurisdiction of the Parks department for their preservation as community gardens. The use of their land for purposes other than gardening was subject to environmental review as well as a land use and disposition review. This meant that if any development were to be planned upon the site of an existing community garden, there would be a protocol in place to ensure the responsible use of that land, in order to fully understand the environmental and community impact of removing a garden in lieu of a new development of any kind. Among other enforcements, these rules sought to ensure that neighborhood gardeners could operate with security, knowing that their gardens would be protected by the city.

The new proposed regulations, however, contain none of the language from the original document which set gardeners' minds at ease. To the contrary, the future of community gardens is being threatened by these new rules which do not provide any sort of preservation guarantee, nor do they ensure the protection of garden land in the face of urban development. The key language excluded from the draft, which contained in the 2002 memorandum and was a major point of satisfaction for gardeners, states that lots designated as community gardens will be "offered to the Parks Department for preservation as community gardens or open space." This statement is integral to the protection of urban gardens, and its exclusion is the cause of much grief in NYC community gardening circles.

The city is currently accepting public comments on the drafted material, and it is highly recommended that those with an interest in NYC's urban gardens read the draft and make their voices heard. A local garden blogger has included on their website instructions for how to do so. In addition, a public hearing is to be held on August 10th at the Chelsea Recreation Center in Manhattan, to which any and all with an interest in community gardens should be present. The New York City Community Garden Coalition has listed great resources for those who are interested and want to get involved, including a letter which summarizes the situation and calls on community members to take action.

The community of gardeners in New York City are not allowing these new regulations to pass quietly. In fact, the buzz circulating throughout city organizations, parks, and neighborhoods is such that the potential response of individuals -whether it be at the hearing, over the phone with 311, in writing to the Parks Department, or on the web in public commentary- is enormous. These regulations have not been passed yet. There is still time for NYC communities to rally around the gardens that keep them healthy and safe, to make absolutely sure that these spaces of growth and harvest, of teaching and learning, of sharing, laughing, and loving, will remain in their neighborhoods for generations.