WSX, an upstart professional wrestling promotion that recently landed a deal with MTV, is now in hot water with the network over a stunt performed during a scene in this week's episode; the episode in question has, incidentally, been pulled (though the series of ten taped episodes will continue to air next week).
The stunt involves one wrestler throwing a "fireball" into the face of another wrestler, the veteran and organization's champion, Vampiro. When MTV officials caught wind of the scene, it was yanked faster than (insert masturbation reference) because they were concerned that it might inspire impressionable viewers to try the stunt themselves.
Now let me make sure I understand this correctly: the network that made hundreds of millions of dollars off of a show (you know the one), two spinoffs, and subsequent two films that depicted, among other things, ass-cheeks stapled together, pouring crawfish into a grown man's diaper, sitting on a porcupine, stuffing a condom-wrapped matchbox car up someone's ass, snorting wasabe, and wrestling crocodiles, THIS network is worried about a fireball?!
I guarantee you, anyone retarded enough to attempt that stunt was probably also stupid enough to staple their butt together AFTER shoving the Micro Machine up their stink tunnel.
I say air the episode and come what may. If nothing else, this is a prime opportunity to implement Social Darwinism.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Political Wedgie
This'll be a quick one.
So finally the Democratic House has unleashed the primal, gale-force winds of its, er...non-binding opposition to Bush's troop buildup. When this issue was first brought up, I was one of the first (and many) to denounce the Democrats for their pussyfooting and noncommittal with regards to the situation. I will say, however, in defense that if the bill is passed, its going to be quite a blow to the ego and morale of Bush's administration; early speculations already label this hypothetical measure as a duly-timed force of debate that could back Republicans into a corner, making it imperative that they take a stance on the problem, a non-binding stance though it certainly may be.
In short, if this measure is passed, the fallout should be a hell of a lot of fun to watch; we've already chuckled to ourselves at the Democrats' bitching about the troop increase before and after some of them applauded ol' W at the State of the Union. Now we may experience the pleasure of witnessing the Republican party pulling its collective bunyan-ridden foot out of its mouth for the same reasons.
We are a mass of fools under the thumb of jackasses.
So finally the Democratic House has unleashed the primal, gale-force winds of its, er...non-binding opposition to Bush's troop buildup. When this issue was first brought up, I was one of the first (and many) to denounce the Democrats for their pussyfooting and noncommittal with regards to the situation. I will say, however, in defense that if the bill is passed, its going to be quite a blow to the ego and morale of Bush's administration; early speculations already label this hypothetical measure as a duly-timed force of debate that could back Republicans into a corner, making it imperative that they take a stance on the problem, a non-binding stance though it certainly may be.
In short, if this measure is passed, the fallout should be a hell of a lot of fun to watch; we've already chuckled to ourselves at the Democrats' bitching about the troop increase before and after some of them applauded ol' W at the State of the Union. Now we may experience the pleasure of witnessing the Republican party pulling its collective bunyan-ridden foot out of its mouth for the same reasons.
We are a mass of fools under the thumb of jackasses.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Various news sites and cable TV talking heads reported today that a contingent of Republican senators blocked the non-binding resolution that would have led to official debate on the subject within the Senate.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, says in response, "If the Republicans want to stand by their president and his policy, they shouldn't run from this debate. If they believe we should send thousands of our young soldiers into the maws of this wretched civil war, they should at least have the courage to stand and defend their position," he said.
This is the part where I say that the Democrats need to show some chutzpah and pursue some action more definitive than a non-binding resolution. In the spirit of Capitol Hill pussyfooting, however, I will side with the lesser of two evils and follow Durbin's lead. With reference to that, check out Republican Senator Judd Gregg's answer following pressure to cut off funding and begin the withdrawal:
"We should not take action once soldiers have been sent into the field and are putting their lives at risk," he said. "We should not be saying to them through a resolution, which is nonbinding, that we don't think the mission you're on makes sense and we don't want you to do it."
Great Sauteed Meerkats, where do I start with this one? Which part of that quote is the most idiotic? The part where he says we shouldn't take action AFTER soldiers are sent into the field? How about when he makes the point about troop morale?
Well, they're equally stupid and shortsighted. Now that 21,000 more soldiers are in the field (by order of a President who chooses to ignore the opinions of 2/3 of his country), it is far beyond the time to take action. With each day that passes, the chance increases that more of our soldiers will be lost to this ridiculous affair.
It amazes me--well, not anymore, as glaring examples of it seem to keep popping up--how gullible politicians think WE ALL are. Allow me to address this next statement directly to Gregg; perhaps it will drive the point home:
NEITHER THE RESOLUTION, NOR ANY PRESSURES TO WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ ARE DIRECTED IN ANY WAY AT TROOPS. THESE PROPOSALS AND PRESSURES ARE DIRECTED AT THE ADMINISTRATION WHO PUT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE TROOPS LARGELY HAVE NO SAY ABOUT WHERE THEY GO OR WHEN THEY GO THERE; THIS IS A JOB, AND THEY DO IT.
That's it; I'm done. This makes me sick.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, says in response, "If the Republicans want to stand by their president and his policy, they shouldn't run from this debate. If they believe we should send thousands of our young soldiers into the maws of this wretched civil war, they should at least have the courage to stand and defend their position," he said.
This is the part where I say that the Democrats need to show some chutzpah and pursue some action more definitive than a non-binding resolution. In the spirit of Capitol Hill pussyfooting, however, I will side with the lesser of two evils and follow Durbin's lead. With reference to that, check out Republican Senator Judd Gregg's answer following pressure to cut off funding and begin the withdrawal:
"We should not take action once soldiers have been sent into the field and are putting their lives at risk," he said. "We should not be saying to them through a resolution, which is nonbinding, that we don't think the mission you're on makes sense and we don't want you to do it."
Great Sauteed Meerkats, where do I start with this one? Which part of that quote is the most idiotic? The part where he says we shouldn't take action AFTER soldiers are sent into the field? How about when he makes the point about troop morale?
Well, they're equally stupid and shortsighted. Now that 21,000 more soldiers are in the field (by order of a President who chooses to ignore the opinions of 2/3 of his country), it is far beyond the time to take action. With each day that passes, the chance increases that more of our soldiers will be lost to this ridiculous affair.
It amazes me--well, not anymore, as glaring examples of it seem to keep popping up--how gullible politicians think WE ALL are. Allow me to address this next statement directly to Gregg; perhaps it will drive the point home:
NEITHER THE RESOLUTION, NOR ANY PRESSURES TO WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ ARE DIRECTED IN ANY WAY AT TROOPS. THESE PROPOSALS AND PRESSURES ARE DIRECTED AT THE ADMINISTRATION WHO PUT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE TROOPS LARGELY HAVE NO SAY ABOUT WHERE THEY GO OR WHEN THEY GO THERE; THIS IS A JOB, AND THEY DO IT.
That's it; I'm done. This makes me sick.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Get loose. Footloose. Or something.
Constantly scanning news sources and electronically scribbling quasi-manifestos about the state of our nation can often get very cumbersome, not to mention quite jading. It is for that reason alone that I am forgoing the usual format, and am going to somewhat follow my father's lead in writing about...well, life. So yeah, read on.
People just don't cut loose enough; everyone is unbelievably uptight. I'm constantly watching shows or reading National Geographic articles about base jumpers, mountain climbers, kayakers (sic) and wonder why I, as well as the rest of the country, are not out doing those same things.
To this day I've never done any of those things; whether that fact is due to financial reasons or to my being a wuss is for you to decide--I'm not gonna tell you. I did, however, go to concerts.
I never went to a concert in college till my sophomore year. Beforehand, my collective concert experience was a Jars of Clay show in Nashville, an Aerosmith/Monster Magnet concert with my father (also in Nashville), and a "flashback" concert featuring Jan & Dean and The Four Tops. When I entered college, I had not been to a show in going on four years. I hadn't lost my taste for it or anything, its just something I never really thought about.
At the beginning of my sophomore year, I fell into the role of Arts & Entertainment Editor for our campus newspaper. As this was LaGrange College, my job may at first glance have been likened to sports editor at MIT. It just so happened, though, that there was a very strong contingent of advocacy for the arts at that school, and I was basically given free reign to write about whatever I wanted, to cover or review anything that struck my fancy.
As luck would have it, Flogging Molly came to Atlanta in September of that year. For the uninitiated, Flogging Molly are a traditional Irish band, but with a punk edge; the band includes tin whistles, fiddles, mandolins and accordions, but features hard-driving rhythms and electric guitar galore. Due to the miniscule amount of Scotch-Irish blood in my veins, I'm a big fan, and so headed out with my friends Libby and Danielle to cover the show.
I stayed at the back of the small venue for the two opening acts; I'd never heard them before and actually wanted to listen. But finally, when the headliners took the stage in total blackness to the sound of Joe Strummer's "Redemption Song," I plowed my way into the crowd, ready to engage in whatever might transpire; I'd never been in a mosh pit before and was experiencing feelings akin to climbing a roller coaster that was surely too high. As soon as the band kicked into the jig that was "The Likes of You Again" I was in the midst of a vortex of flying bodies, most pierced, some tattooed, all smelly. Strange then, perhaps, that I began to enjoy myself and began to alternately shove against and move with the mass, occasionally pushing upwards to heave a crowd-surfer off of my head. I gradually let go of inhibition and slept better that night.
Throughout the rest of my college years, I got into several mosh pits at Between the Buried and Me, Every Time I Die, and even got onstage at Andrew WK. All were liberating, all were some small part of an anonymous camraderie existing between the people at those concerts.
So jump off a bridge, go to a concert, get into a fight, take a cruise, swim with the sharks. Do anything that will make for a good story one day.
Or at least good blog fodder.
People just don't cut loose enough; everyone is unbelievably uptight. I'm constantly watching shows or reading National Geographic articles about base jumpers, mountain climbers, kayakers (sic) and wonder why I, as well as the rest of the country, are not out doing those same things.
To this day I've never done any of those things; whether that fact is due to financial reasons or to my being a wuss is for you to decide--I'm not gonna tell you. I did, however, go to concerts.
I never went to a concert in college till my sophomore year. Beforehand, my collective concert experience was a Jars of Clay show in Nashville, an Aerosmith/Monster Magnet concert with my father (also in Nashville), and a "flashback" concert featuring Jan & Dean and The Four Tops. When I entered college, I had not been to a show in going on four years. I hadn't lost my taste for it or anything, its just something I never really thought about.
At the beginning of my sophomore year, I fell into the role of Arts & Entertainment Editor for our campus newspaper. As this was LaGrange College, my job may at first glance have been likened to sports editor at MIT. It just so happened, though, that there was a very strong contingent of advocacy for the arts at that school, and I was basically given free reign to write about whatever I wanted, to cover or review anything that struck my fancy.
As luck would have it, Flogging Molly came to Atlanta in September of that year. For the uninitiated, Flogging Molly are a traditional Irish band, but with a punk edge; the band includes tin whistles, fiddles, mandolins and accordions, but features hard-driving rhythms and electric guitar galore. Due to the miniscule amount of Scotch-Irish blood in my veins, I'm a big fan, and so headed out with my friends Libby and Danielle to cover the show.
I stayed at the back of the small venue for the two opening acts; I'd never heard them before and actually wanted to listen. But finally, when the headliners took the stage in total blackness to the sound of Joe Strummer's "Redemption Song," I plowed my way into the crowd, ready to engage in whatever might transpire; I'd never been in a mosh pit before and was experiencing feelings akin to climbing a roller coaster that was surely too high. As soon as the band kicked into the jig that was "The Likes of You Again" I was in the midst of a vortex of flying bodies, most pierced, some tattooed, all smelly. Strange then, perhaps, that I began to enjoy myself and began to alternately shove against and move with the mass, occasionally pushing upwards to heave a crowd-surfer off of my head. I gradually let go of inhibition and slept better that night.
Throughout the rest of my college years, I got into several mosh pits at Between the Buried and Me, Every Time I Die, and even got onstage at Andrew WK. All were liberating, all were some small part of an anonymous camraderie existing between the people at those concerts.
So jump off a bridge, go to a concert, get into a fight, take a cruise, swim with the sharks. Do anything that will make for a good story one day.
Or at least good blog fodder.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
State of the Union...I think
As I sit down to begin what I hope will be a pretty short-winded blog regarding the State of the Union address last night (I mean really, what could I say that hasn't already been said?), I must apologize for my tardiness in getting this up; I managed to hold on throughout the meat of the speech, but by the time he started playing hype man to Dkembe, I fell asleep and woke up just an hour ago. Hell, even then I only woke up because my body clock went off reminding me that I Love New York was on.*
Now you, my readers (all one of you) may be asking yourselves, "Josh! How could you have possibly fallen asleep during that speech? It was a somber, heartfelt affair, with circumstances and contexts demanding the careful dissection of every moment. And do you really watch I Love New York?**"
First question gets first answer:
President Bush's speech was in effect an outline one of the most simpering, repetitive, uncommitted plans through which I have had the displeasure of sitting. It was a canker sore on the inner lip of politics (a lip that is already chapped beyond medication); I would rather listen to color commentary on a three-foot streamer of drool emitting from the mouth of Benjamin Franklin. I, along with every other viewer, was subjected to roughly 48 minutes of the President rattling off a list of things that need to get done, reforms that should have been instigated at least three years ago, stuff that focus groups have been screaming into his ear for what seems like eons.
There are a couple of points in particular which I would like to address. One, the mention of No Child Left Behind. Bush brings this topic up first thing, using the passing of that act as an example of Congress' "newfound bi-partisanship." We have here one hit and one miss: it is indeed true that there is a newfound lack of partisanship in Congress. It did not, however, stem from the passing of that act; it stemmed from wanting his sorry butt out of the White House. In the past few weeks, there have arisen far more condemnations of the "new" war plan than endorsements, many of them coming out of his own camp.
Two: let us address the war plan, and his discussion of it last night. Honestly, I don't know what to say on the subject. His explanation for sending off 21,000 more troops to Iraq is the same tired old song we've been hearing for years now: the terrorists hate democracy, they hate Americans, they want to kill all of us. To quote the President, "To win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." Never mind that winning the war on terror is about as likely as winning the war on drugs. For every cell wiped out, two more will spring up in its place; it is the nature of the beast, and martyrdom is revered in that society like nothing else. As far as the terrorists' "hatred for Americans" is concerned...well, most of that is certainly justifiable. We likely wouldn't be having the problems we're having today if we had just stayed the hell out of that region in the first place (and by first place, I mean at least thirty years ago); our continued support for Israel has made this a social, economic, and political issue, all amplified religiously because of the society that it involves. We are a perpetually warring and paranoid nation; many of these cells can trace their origins back to our own Special Forces training them to drive the Russians out when they were still the enemy du jour.
And finally, the magic words were uttered: "global climate change," an utterance followed by a list of goals and pursuable standards once again bereft of any complementary focus, plan, or clearly stated objective.
To what does all of this translate? It translates to a meager attempt (by an even more meager president) to appease his critics by making mention of issues without actually proposing a specific plan, and to fire up the 34% of the country that still has his back with a rehashing of the same recycled war propaganda that has been shoved down our throats for the last three years. The man's like Chuck Wepner: he knows he can't win, he just wants to last the 15 rounds.
As a side note, the media's reaction and coverage of this thing was outlandish. Every network I turned to, all I heard about was this somber and honest speech, this admittance of wrongs, this recognizing what steps must now be taken to rectify the state of the nation (read "clusterf!!k"). My God...is no one intelligent enough to not take the Positive Press bait?
*I do not watch this show. If you do, you should be strung up by your testicles and beaten with Singapore canes.
**I told you...no.
Now you, my readers (all one of you) may be asking yourselves, "Josh! How could you have possibly fallen asleep during that speech? It was a somber, heartfelt affair, with circumstances and contexts demanding the careful dissection of every moment. And do you really watch I Love New York?**"
First question gets first answer:
President Bush's speech was in effect an outline one of the most simpering, repetitive, uncommitted plans through which I have had the displeasure of sitting. It was a canker sore on the inner lip of politics (a lip that is already chapped beyond medication); I would rather listen to color commentary on a three-foot streamer of drool emitting from the mouth of Benjamin Franklin. I, along with every other viewer, was subjected to roughly 48 minutes of the President rattling off a list of things that need to get done, reforms that should have been instigated at least three years ago, stuff that focus groups have been screaming into his ear for what seems like eons.
There are a couple of points in particular which I would like to address. One, the mention of No Child Left Behind. Bush brings this topic up first thing, using the passing of that act as an example of Congress' "newfound bi-partisanship." We have here one hit and one miss: it is indeed true that there is a newfound lack of partisanship in Congress. It did not, however, stem from the passing of that act; it stemmed from wanting his sorry butt out of the White House. In the past few weeks, there have arisen far more condemnations of the "new" war plan than endorsements, many of them coming out of his own camp.
Two: let us address the war plan, and his discussion of it last night. Honestly, I don't know what to say on the subject. His explanation for sending off 21,000 more troops to Iraq is the same tired old song we've been hearing for years now: the terrorists hate democracy, they hate Americans, they want to kill all of us. To quote the President, "To win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." Never mind that winning the war on terror is about as likely as winning the war on drugs. For every cell wiped out, two more will spring up in its place; it is the nature of the beast, and martyrdom is revered in that society like nothing else. As far as the terrorists' "hatred for Americans" is concerned...well, most of that is certainly justifiable. We likely wouldn't be having the problems we're having today if we had just stayed the hell out of that region in the first place (and by first place, I mean at least thirty years ago); our continued support for Israel has made this a social, economic, and political issue, all amplified religiously because of the society that it involves. We are a perpetually warring and paranoid nation; many of these cells can trace their origins back to our own Special Forces training them to drive the Russians out when they were still the enemy du jour.
And finally, the magic words were uttered: "global climate change," an utterance followed by a list of goals and pursuable standards once again bereft of any complementary focus, plan, or clearly stated objective.
To what does all of this translate? It translates to a meager attempt (by an even more meager president) to appease his critics by making mention of issues without actually proposing a specific plan, and to fire up the 34% of the country that still has his back with a rehashing of the same recycled war propaganda that has been shoved down our throats for the last three years. The man's like Chuck Wepner: he knows he can't win, he just wants to last the 15 rounds.
As a side note, the media's reaction and coverage of this thing was outlandish. Every network I turned to, all I heard about was this somber and honest speech, this admittance of wrongs, this recognizing what steps must now be taken to rectify the state of the nation (read "clusterf!!k"). My God...is no one intelligent enough to not take the Positive Press bait?
*I do not watch this show. If you do, you should be strung up by your testicles and beaten with Singapore canes.
**I told you...no.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
New CTL bill an Obamanation
My apologies. The pun was irresistible.
By now the 110th Congress of these United States has gotten cozy in its new position, probably long enough now to have left a warm spot with its butt in the spinning black leather chair of Washington. As many would expect, a good deal of bills on the floor are energy and fuel-related, something that certainly has not gone unforeseen in the weeks leading up to the changing of the guard in Congress. Whether it is for anyone's good or for the sheer publicity that the Democrats will garner from doing so, we are in for a good deal of these types of bills.
One of the bills that has caused some of the most fervent head-scratching among both parties is one introduced on January 4th calling for funding of coal-to-liquid energy production. This method of fuel production is, as most anyone could tell you, not the cleanest or most efficient; to put things into perspective, a new study released by the Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Center reports that a 35 mpg vehicle running on CTL fuel will produce as much carbon dioxide as a 19 mpg car running on conventional fuel.
Now this is all very depressing for environmentalists, but the subject causing the most confusion in this situation is that the bill was jointly released by Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky and...Sen. Barack Obama, a man who, up until this story broke, had a 100% approval rating among voters in the League of Conservation. The usually climate-concerned Congressman is, needless to say, in hot water with the greeners.
The obviously detrimental effect that this would have on the environment is not the only issue here; for the time being, no known CTL process involves carbon-catching (the primary reason that the process is so dirty), and adding this feature would inevitably jack up the cost of production. As it stands right now, the fuel produced by most CTLs is up to 40% more expensive than conventional fuel processing. Considering the already fluctuating nature of oil prices, this option is right out.
In Obama's defense, he seems to be looking to the long term. Utilization of American coal to produce fuel would cut significantly into our dependence on foreign oil; for those playing the home game, this is a good thing. In addition, the process is not completely new; China has been at it for a few years now. Not only that, but researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have been working on improving the quality of CTL fuel, as well as lowering the cost.
So far, however, there haven't been any major breakthroughs of which to speak, and the bill comes to us after at least four or five years of research. It would, I suppose, be superfluous at this point to observe that this bill would undoubtedly benefit the coal industry in Obama's home state of Illinois.
David Doniger, policy director for the NRDC, sees this largely as a step sideways: "Coal-to-liquid is, in the best-case scenario, no worse for the climate than oil-derived gasoline -- and no better," he says. And while Doniger does support coal gasification as an alternative to coal-burning power plants, he warns that CTL is not at this point a dependable alternative.
Can the purification of CTL fuels be accomplished with "investment and innovation," as Senator Obama phrases it? I'll be monitoring this topic for a while; until I see reports of progress, a skeptic I remain.
By now the 110th Congress of these United States has gotten cozy in its new position, probably long enough now to have left a warm spot with its butt in the spinning black leather chair of Washington. As many would expect, a good deal of bills on the floor are energy and fuel-related, something that certainly has not gone unforeseen in the weeks leading up to the changing of the guard in Congress. Whether it is for anyone's good or for the sheer publicity that the Democrats will garner from doing so, we are in for a good deal of these types of bills.
One of the bills that has caused some of the most fervent head-scratching among both parties is one introduced on January 4th calling for funding of coal-to-liquid energy production. This method of fuel production is, as most anyone could tell you, not the cleanest or most efficient; to put things into perspective, a new study released by the Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Center reports that a 35 mpg vehicle running on CTL fuel will produce as much carbon dioxide as a 19 mpg car running on conventional fuel.
Now this is all very depressing for environmentalists, but the subject causing the most confusion in this situation is that the bill was jointly released by Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky and...Sen. Barack Obama, a man who, up until this story broke, had a 100% approval rating among voters in the League of Conservation. The usually climate-concerned Congressman is, needless to say, in hot water with the greeners.
The obviously detrimental effect that this would have on the environment is not the only issue here; for the time being, no known CTL process involves carbon-catching (the primary reason that the process is so dirty), and adding this feature would inevitably jack up the cost of production. As it stands right now, the fuel produced by most CTLs is up to 40% more expensive than conventional fuel processing. Considering the already fluctuating nature of oil prices, this option is right out.
In Obama's defense, he seems to be looking to the long term. Utilization of American coal to produce fuel would cut significantly into our dependence on foreign oil; for those playing the home game, this is a good thing. In addition, the process is not completely new; China has been at it for a few years now. Not only that, but researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have been working on improving the quality of CTL fuel, as well as lowering the cost.
So far, however, there haven't been any major breakthroughs of which to speak, and the bill comes to us after at least four or five years of research. It would, I suppose, be superfluous at this point to observe that this bill would undoubtedly benefit the coal industry in Obama's home state of Illinois.
David Doniger, policy director for the NRDC, sees this largely as a step sideways: "Coal-to-liquid is, in the best-case scenario, no worse for the climate than oil-derived gasoline -- and no better," he says. And while Doniger does support coal gasification as an alternative to coal-burning power plants, he warns that CTL is not at this point a dependable alternative.
Can the purification of CTL fuels be accomplished with "investment and innovation," as Senator Obama phrases it? I'll be monitoring this topic for a while; until I see reports of progress, a skeptic I remain.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Climate issue now a matter of human rights.
This is an entry I posted on my now-trivial MySpace blog, and figured it carries enough merit to be on here. Its a couple of weeks old, but still relevant. Enjoy.
Well boys and girls, it's official: the infection that is bureacracy has spread to climate change and it's possible effects on the lives, habits, and cultures of certain peoples. The common thread between human rights and indigenous climate has now been formulated.
Does this fact, however, make climate change a human rights issue? We can't "officially" know for the time being, as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (in, you guessed it, D.C.) decided to parry rather than address a 175-page petition issued by the Inuit Circumpolar Council (based out of Alaska and Canada) regarding the amount of greenhouse emissions. The petition, signed by 63 individuals, outlined the negative results on the climate heretofore enjoyed by the Inuits, and called for lowering of emissions.
Did petitioner Sheila Walt-Cloutier expect immediate action, or any action at all? Probably not, but check out the IACHR's terse response: "we will not be able to process your petition at present... the information provided does not enable us to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration."
"It was disappointing for sure. Their letter was evasive and dismissive, and that's the part that disappoints me and angers me more than anything else," Watt-Cloutier said.
Dear readers...all two of you...listen up and spread the word. If it happens there, it can and WILL happen here. It is imperative that Southern populations wake up and realize that the contempt harbored by government and big business towards Nature will not be without consequences. Eating away at the fabric of Nature and her processes will deteriorate our standard of living.
And I think there's some document in Washington that forbids that.
Oh, if you want the source of this story, here ya go:
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/61215_02.html
Well boys and girls, it's official: the infection that is bureacracy has spread to climate change and it's possible effects on the lives, habits, and cultures of certain peoples. The common thread between human rights and indigenous climate has now been formulated.
Does this fact, however, make climate change a human rights issue? We can't "officially" know for the time being, as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (in, you guessed it, D.C.) decided to parry rather than address a 175-page petition issued by the Inuit Circumpolar Council (based out of Alaska and Canada) regarding the amount of greenhouse emissions. The petition, signed by 63 individuals, outlined the negative results on the climate heretofore enjoyed by the Inuits, and called for lowering of emissions.
Did petitioner Sheila Walt-Cloutier expect immediate action, or any action at all? Probably not, but check out the IACHR's terse response: "we will not be able to process your petition at present... the information provided does not enable us to determine whether the alleged facts would tend to characterize a violation of rights protected by the American Declaration."
"It was disappointing for sure. Their letter was evasive and dismissive, and that's the part that disappoints me and angers me more than anything else," Watt-Cloutier said.
Dear readers...all two of you...listen up and spread the word. If it happens there, it can and WILL happen here. It is imperative that Southern populations wake up and realize that the contempt harbored by government and big business towards Nature will not be without consequences. Eating away at the fabric of Nature and her processes will deteriorate our standard of living.
And I think there's some document in Washington that forbids that.
Oh, if you want the source of this story, here ya go:
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/61215_02.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)