

The roads were clear in the morning, but the aftermath could been seen on the nature strips and on the roof of the building opposite us, though the fog and the morning light softened the impact a little.








| Reactions: |
C and I were idly watching the Oscars last night. A short portion of them anyway. Things were going along quite well. An Inconvenient Truth won best documentary feature, which, while predictable, was still heartening. The Oscars were also announced as being "green", though just what this means isn't clear. Still, if Al Gore said it and it's about the environment, I'm guessing it's probably right.

| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |


| Reactions: |
These include advertisements (e.g., the Skechers “naughty and nice” ad that featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop), dolls (e.g., Bratz dolls dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas), clothing (thongs sized for 7– to 10-year-olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink wink”), and television programs (e.g., a televised fashion show in which adult models in lingerie were presented as young girls).According to their findings, this kind of "sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs." The results can be seen in the lowered cognitive functioning in girls who have been taught to self-objectify ("In self-objectification, girls internalize an observer’s perspective on their physical selves and learn to treat themselves as objects to be looked at and evaluated for their appearance"); an increase in a range of mental health problems, such as eating disorders, low self esteem, and depression; diminished sexual health ("as measured by decreased condom use and diminished sexual assertiveness"); and the internalisation of sexual stereotypes that “place appearance and physical attractiveness at the centre of women's value”.
| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |


| Reactions: |

To any thinking person, it must be obvious there is something terribly wrong with relations between human beings and the animals they rely on for food.
The vast majority of the public has an equivocal attitude to the industrial use of animals: they make use of the products of that industry, but are nevertheless a little sickened, a little queasy, when they think of what happens on factory farms and abattoirs. Therefore they arrange their lives in such a way that they need be reminded of farms and abattoirs as little as possible, and they do their best to ensure their children are kept in the dark too, because children have tender hearts and are easily moved.The second half of the speech (or the edited version published in today's SMH) proposes some alternatives and neatly summarises, in one short paragraph, a position I've been trying to articulate for as long as I can remember - the alternative to ambivalence is not remotely difficult or trying:
These alternatives need not involve any sacrifice in health or nutrition, and there is no reason why these alternatives need be costly. Furthermore, what are commonly called sacrifices are not sacrifices at all. The only sacrifices in the whole picture, in fact, are being made by non-human animals.What is trying, however, is having to answer that question (and others like it - where do you get protein? What about calcium? Iron?)
The campaign of human beings for animal rights is curious in one respect: the creatures on whose behalf human beings are acting are unaware of what their benefactors are up to and, if they succeed, are unlikely to thank them. There is even a sense in which animals do not know what is wrong - they do certainly not know what is wrong in the same way that humans do.I've never read any of his work and have always wanted to. I think I might have just found the prompting I need.
Thus, however close the well-meaning benefactor may feel to animals, the animal rights campaign remains a human project from beginning to end.
| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |
| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |

the Boar type is usually an honest, straightforward and patient person. They are a modest, shy character who prefers to work quietly behind the scenes. When others despair, they are often there to offer support. This type of person is reserved with those they do not know too well, but as time passes and they gain confidence, those around them may discover a lively and warm-hearted person behind that mask of aloofness. Despite those born in the year of pig having a wide circle of friends and acquaintances, they have few close friends who understand them and share their inner thoughts and feelings. It is easy to put trust in pig type; they won't let you down and will never even attempt to do so. Such people simply want to do everything right according to social norms.The downside is:
It is important to remember that these people are not vengeful creatures. If someone tries to take advantage of them, the pig type tend to withdraw to reflect on the problem and protect themselves. All they need in such situations is a little time to find a constructive way to respond. The people of the pig type are conservative creatures of habit. They dislike being made to travel too far from familiar surroundings, unless it is a trip to the countryside. They love nature and are never happier than when they are out somewhere, far from the city.
There is a tolerant and peaceful side to their character. Such people are never afraid to allow others their freedom of expression; they do not want to cause arguments and if there is any way to avoid arguing, they will probably take this option. They are not weak, however, and if the situation forces them to fight these people will rise to the occasion, whether it is to defend themselves or those close to them. People of the Boar type are the most admired by others.
Selfish, very spoiled, unhealthy, ignorant, pushy, pity "lazy", and rudeHmm, let’s hope not.
all kinds of meatsUmm, that might be somewhat problematic...
| Reactions: |
| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |
| Reactions: |
OECD countries with insufficient data to be included in the overview: Australia, Iceland, Japan, luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic, South Korea, Turkey.Hmmm...
| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |
I believe New Zealand can aim to be the first nation to be truly sustainable across the four pillars of the economy, society, the environment, and nationhood [...] I believe we can aspire to be carbon neutral in our economy and way of life.Australia’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it seems, will, once again, come back to haunt us, as New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister (I can’t believe they have a climate change minister!), David Parker, announced yesterday that he won’t be looking to trade carbon with Australia any time soon:
There may be better places for us to trade with. If we've got Kyoto-compliant units, it might be in our interests to trade with other Kyoto-compliant countries [...] We could trade with Europe, for example, where they might be more likely to want to trade with Kyoto-compliant units that are more readily made to fit with their scheme.In response to opposition claims that New Zealand going carbon neutral would have "an insignificant effect on global warming", Helen Clark said the costs of inaction would be far greater than those of action:
I believe that in the years to come, the pride we take in our quest for sustainability and carbon neutrality will define our nation, just as our quest for a nuclear-free world has over the past 23 years. The future economic costs of doing nothing are dire [...]Amen.
Two decades ago it was the threat of nuclear war destroying the world as we knew it which galvanized New Zealand to become nuclear free [...] So it must be with this century's environmental sustainability challenge [...] We have to make a stand for our world, and for our own sake.
| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |
The inauguration of a Chinese-financed stadium in Grenada was marred when the Royal Grenada Police Band performed Taiwan's national anthem.Oops.
Beijing's ambassador to the nation, Qian Hongshan, and scores of mainland workers who built the US$ 40 million Queen's Park Stadium in the capital St George’s were visibly uncomfortable as Taiwan's anthem echoed inside the 20,000-seat venue on Saturday.I hate to seem culturally insensitive, but gosh that's hilarious.
"On behalf of the Government and people of this very happy country, a country that recognizes the warmth of its friends and respect its friends, I deeply apologized to the Chinese Ambassador and the entire Chinese people."He has also promised an investigation into the incident, saying:
"I'm pretty sure that all Grenadians including the opposition forces in this country will support any action of the government to deal with this in a way that demonstrates that we respect our friends at all levels at all societies."This jibe was intended for the main opposition party, which was, it seems, happy with the relationship with
| Reactions: |



| Reactions: |
The United States believes that China uses its basic tax laws and other tools to encourage exports and to discriminate against imports of a variety of American manufactured goods … China's subsidies can particularly distort trade conditions for small- and medium-sized American enterprises and their workers.Umm, has Schwab, or anyone in the US government, stopped for one second and thought about what the US’ agricultural subsidies are doing to "small- and medium-sized" enterprises (and micro one especially) in the global south?
| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |
"What the Americans do is up to the Americans … We believe the arrangements for the military commission meet the reasonable requirements of Australian law".Well, that’s a whole new level of doublespeak.
"[W]e do not believe the passage of retrospective criminal law in this country is appropriate".
"[O]nce somebody goes overseas they lose the protection of Australian law".
"I don't equate what the US is doing with the passage of a retrospective criminal law in Australia. I don't accept the analogy".
| Reactions: |

| Reactions: |