The Word from Brooklyn

Why Chevron ain't doin' nothin' for the environment

2006-02-05T16:10:00.000-05:00

      I was just looking at an advertisment in the Economist by Chevron, the British-American oil company. On first glance, it makes it seem like a good thing: they give facts about the world consumption of oil, and say how less and less oil is being found every day, and so we need to do something about it.
      On further inspection, though, it is simply a public relations maneuver by Chevron to say, "look how cool we are". In the "Chevron Steps Taken" box, it reads, "Thinking to the future: Committing more than $300 million each year on clean and renewable energies." If you really think about it, $300 million is peanuts. I looked up Chevron's budget for last year, and they made a profit of $14.1 billion. That means their entire budget is a multi-billion dollar endeavor--so $300 million dollars? Pah! It's a measly attempt to appease environmentalist pressure and look like they care. Besides, right under that it continues, "Finding even more energy today: ...-Using steamflooding to extract heavy oil that was previously unrecoverable - more than 1.3 billion barrels from one field alone." Obviously Chevron has put more investment into new technologies for extracting oil, rather than technologies that would reduce the necessity to find oil.
      If Chevron and other oil companies were really serious, they would make a serious investment in alternative, renewable sources of energy. They would be researching solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power like crazy. If we are intent on doing something about our energy, we should follow through. We cannot just sit on our asses and just dip our toes in the water. We must dive in, as if the sky is raining fire and we need to escape. Crazy analogy, but it's true. We have a responsibility, and it is getting larger and larger, more and more urgent as time goes on. The more we pollute, the more instable our climates will get, and the more we'll be fucked. It's time corporations stopped messing around, trying to make money, and start being truly set on making a change.

Fruit Flies and the Sanctity of Life

2005-12-08T11:03:00.000-05:00

I was reading a New York Times article about how a scientist managed to gain insights into the genetics of lifespan by manipulating the lifespan of fruit flies. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/science/06conv.html) I started thinking about that in relation to stem cell research, and I reached a question: What is the difference between genetically manipulating humans and genetically manipulating animals, or even fruit flies?

The main argument against stem cell research that uses stem cells from human embryos is that extracting embryonic stem cells destroys human life. You know, that the scientists are messing with God's work. But no one hears any protest from these people about killing or manipulating other forms of life. Like Michael Rose, the fruit fly scientist: no complaints from the Right there.

What is it that makes life so sacred when we only protest the destruction of human life and nothing else? Are other forms of life not sacred, too? George Carlin commented that, if everything that once lived is dead, and everything that's alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? Religious conservatives only seem to be concerned with themselves, because of an ideology that puts human beings at the top of this earthly kingdom, second only to the Lord Almighty, who of course made us in His image. I don't think we're all that sacred if we go to war with eachother any chance we get. If life is so sacred, how come the religious conservatives are not opposed to the war? How come they didn't flash a huge red light when President George W. Bush said we were going after Saddam Hussein? Christianity is supposed to induce peace, not another reason for war.

Religious conservatives need to get their priorities straight and reconsider their values. Good, Christian values include pacifism, tolerance, and forgiveness of others' sins. Christianity is not about favoring ourselves over others. If Christians go after the destruction of human embryos, they must go after the war mongers, too. If they don't, they are only hypocrites, and their Lord Jesus Christ looks down sadly upon them. In a paraphrase of Bob Marley, they think they're in heaven, but they're goin' straight to hell. Wake up, "christian" America. See how you slowly die a long, suffering death.

On altering one's consciousness

2005-11-08T16:46:00.000-05:00

This is something that's constantly on my mind, and I am always thinking of it from new perspectives and angles.

Why do humans use drugs? We are the only species that ingests or smokes or even injects substances deliberately to alter our consciousness. It seems that most humans have an innate desire to alter our consciousness, so when the opportunity arises, we jump on it. Personally, I have smoked Cannabis many times, and enjoy it recreationally, as well as recognizing its other potential benefits. So my take on altering consciousness is that many of us do it to have a different perspective on life. That is the reason I smoke Marijuana, and the reason why I don't leave out the possibility of trying hallucinagens, such as mushrooms or LSD.

One theory is that the brain is simply a filter of a larger, Universal Consciousness. That is to say, it is merely a window through which we can see a particular portion of that Consciousness. So when we use a psychoactive drug, we are modifying the dimensions and angle of that window so that our perspective of the Universal Consciousness is enhanced; it is changed.

This is a theory that I can definitely visualize and work with. The reason is because I have a general interest in theology, in the workings of the human body, and in our place in the universe. I think it's also because I reject the societal norm of there being a definite right way to experience the world and a definite wrong way to experience the world. Why should I define what someone else's personal choices should be? And furthermore, why should I let someone else define for me what I should and should not do? People say using drugs is wrong; I say, if drugs are wrong, then alcohol is wrong as well. Alcohol is a drug, too.

So what are drugs, really, but tools to alter our ordinary consciousness? If we have evolved a consciousness this enhanced to begin with, I feel, why shouldn't we experiment with altering it, possibly furthering its capacity?

Peace.

Ideas, Ideas, Ideas--- and a review of the movie "Crash"

2005-09-02T18:40:00.000-04:00

I've just come back from a month-long vacation, split between England and France, and participated in all sorts of things, from an Earthwatch environmental program to chilling in France speaking only French for 2 weeks. The bottom line is that this summer has really opened my eyes up to what my oldest brother has been talking about for a while: the free flow of ideas.

The basic idea is this: in order for the world to become more in touch with itself, and the people of affluent nations to be in touch with the situations and cultures beyond their own, we have to allow for the free flow of ideas.

Democracy isn't enough, though it definitely helps. For an example, the real reason racist stereotypes exist is because those who believe them haven't been exposed to many people of different cultures. They see one or two and base their judgements about the rest of the people from those cultures on what they see from those individuals. However, if they lived in a very multicultural society, where they would be often exposed to people of many different backgrounds and with different frames of mind, they see beyond stereotypes and learn to view people of different skin colors, faiths, and ideas as simply different from themselves, and nothing more. I like to think that people are people, no matter who they are, what they do, where they're from, or how much money they have. All that really matters to me is if they're interesting, and fun to be around. Personality over labels.

On a related subject... Coming through England on my way back to the States, I saw the new movie Crash, about peoples' lives in Los Angeles colliding both figuratively--that is, intertwining--, and a literal car crash. The style is reminiscent of Pulp Fiction, or even Memento, as it begins at the end and the flashes back to the day before, can constantly flipping back and forth between each set of characters. One of the opening scenes introduces the movie's main issue of racism in its purest, black-and-white form, literally, with two black characters discussing stereotypes. The characters point out that because they are the only two black people among a sea of white faces, a white woman becomes uncomfortable as she and her husband pass by, because of the criminal stereotype of black people. From there, though, the concept is expanded to all backgrounds, even touching upon the mis-labeling of some people. At one point, a Middle Eastern family's store is ransacked and slandered with anti-Arab graffiti, and the father asks why 'they' make no distinction between Arab and what they are, which is Persian. I won't go much more into detail, for fear of ruining too much of the content and plot, but I do give this movie a very high rating, say, 5 stars and two thumbs up, ebert and roeper style. Though be forewarned that it will make you cry at some points... it has a good deal of emotional drama in it.

That's all from me this time, I believe... peace.

Long naps f--- with your brain

2005-07-25T20:08:00.000-04:00

I just woke up from an incredibly long nap in the afternoon, and my addled brain decided to explore in writing what the experience is like:

Something happens to your mind when you wake up from a long nap in the middle of the day. Your eyes can’t focus, for one, and you have to concentrate extra hard on the task at hand. You cannot understand the conversation so much, until the end when your tired brain has thrown it all into view. Almost as if you were stoned, except without that pleasant time-altering effect. Things seem foggier, and your mind is foggier as well, which certainly proves how you can stare at something mindlessly for at least 2 minutes straight. Which almost makes you think why meditation isn’t done in the arms of sleep deprivation, to add something else to fight against while focusing your mind.

Aight so that's all for now... Peace and love.

Reflections on Life, Death, and Aftermath

2005-06-05T21:30:00.000-04:00

First, let me try and make a long story short: George Lucas is the man. He's a storytelling genius! Father-son, the Jedi, everything---he created a masterpiece. But on to the specifics: the Jedi. One scene, specifically: Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi are in a lightsaber duel on the Death Star, and Obi-Wan says, "Strike me down, Darth, and I could become more powerful than you could ever imagine."

Let me try to explain why this is so cool. Obi-Wan is a Jedi Master. He's trained all his life. The Jedi religion is identical in almost every way to Taoism. From my experiences studying the Buddhist philosophy, this line is particularly significant because of the Jedi philosophy on death. According to the Buddha, at least, death is not sad. It is merely true. It may be the end of life, but not the end of consciousness. The ultimate goal of any practicer is to become dissattached to even life itself, and be unafraid of death. Obi-Wan Kenobi has trained so much that he is unafraid of death---and that's why he disappears when Vader strikes him down!!! He's entered a whole new frame of existence; his full embrace of the Force has allowed him to transcend material being itself and become entirely one with the Force. He is now purely made up of the Force and can be everywhere. He communicates with Luke through his feelings, because Luke is able to use the Force strongly and therefore use Obi-Wan's teachings strongly.

"Life was just a funny thing that happened on the way to the grave." - Quentin Crisp

Now, more onto the Buddhist philosphy of death. The achievement of full Enlightenment on Earth, in Buddhism, allows one to pass on from one's mortal coil and mortal cycle of rebirths and become one with Nirvana. After thinking about this, I've begun to understand this a little more fully. We as human beings are normally bound to this state of consciousness, with four dimensions (the 3 spacial dimensions, plus time). Then, at the end of our experiences on Earth, our bodies die and our [minds/spirits/souls/whatever you want to work with] are freed, moving on to the next rebirth.

However, as that quote shows, if we acknowledge that it is a hard fact that at some point we are going to die, and because we know that, we make sure that we spend each moment without wasting any. Mr. Quentin Crisp is right, however morbid his witty remark may be. We are all destined to shuffle off this mortal coil. The more we realize it, the less we can be afraid to transcend space and time and become aquainted with the 5th dimension, which I'm convinced has everything to do with God, Nirvana, etc.

If I have wierded out anyone, I must ask: why have you continued to read so far?
If I have excited or impressed anyone, I must say: May the Force be with you, fellow Star Wars nerd.

Forensics, and Subsequent Recovery

2005-06-01T01:09:00.000-04:00

Last Friday, I and 5 other trail blazers woke up at the crack of dawn (or, rather, 6:30-7 AM), all climbed into a Dodge Caravan and headed off to the J.F.K. airport. There, we waited ten minutes or so and were joined by the brains of the operation, Jim Shapiro. Our destination? Milwaukee, Wisconsin, via NorthWest Airlines to compete/judge in the National Catholic Forensics League Championships. Oi vey... oi gavult actually.

Two things I learned on the plane over:
1. How small trans-American planes can be, and
2. How f---ing BIG the (aptly named) Great Lakes actually are.
Speaking of which, when I looked out the window (I guess over Lake Michigan), I did a double take and thought, Is that a lake? ...or an ocean?

So we checked into our hotel, the Hyatt, whose claim to fame is that it has the only revolving restaurant in Wisconsin (Polaris--I didn't go up there). Actually, it's claim to fame should be the vertigo that you get when walking from the elevators to your room---the rooms are arranged so that there is a central, indoor courtyard-- and the floors (15, I believe) are all completely identical. So when you are walking along looking out, you feel like you're in one of those space-liners that are in some movies----and oh, the major vertigo it causes....! aaaaaaaaaah...

Anyway, scary rooms arrangement aside, on to Milwaukee itself (my room was very nice, by the way). Compared to New York City? Two words: ghost town. Hardly a person walking the streets, hardly a car driving the streets. Very quiet... and since it's pretty much summer (soon, anyway), fairly mild. Never got colder than , say, 60 degrees? I like it there, though. It's very chill and relaxed. Kind of spread out, but not Suburbia; it still has the city feel. It's small though--you could walk from one side to the other in about 30 minutes.

As for the tournament? My part of Forensics is in the Speech half, and my particular event is called Original Oratory: you write a ten minute speech, memorize it, and deliver it. pretty difficult, I think. My oratory is about advertising, specifically, how it grabs us and tries to make us feel we aren't good enough the way we are. The thesis is that we should buy less impulsively and not be grabbed by advertising.

The outcome was that I didn't break into any of the final rounds, but I don't really care. I blame more my writing than my performance, because since I had a badly organized oratory I didn't have much to work with as far as performance went.

Oh well... well, final exams are soon and I can then start planning my oratory for next year. I'm thinking about America's response to terrorism, or something along the lines of that. I'm currently reading George Lakoff's book, Don't Think Of An Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame The Debate. It's really good stuff--his section on terrorism, 9/11 and foreign/domestic policy is very interesting and I might even end up quoting a thing or two from him for my speech (ah.. thievery... steal from one source and it's plagerism. steal from many and it's research, my friend). I actually advise all people leaning towards the left politically to pick this book up, because it gives such a clear and laid out plan to take back politics from the conservative front.

Alright since it's 12:07 where I am (Eastern Time Zone rather than whatever this place keeps time in), i think i'll go to bed. Peace and love in the highest...

Biased Newspapers everywhere and not a page to read....

2005-05-22T20:17:00.001-04:00

I had a conversation with my mom while walking on the streets of Brooklyn today about the bias in the news. It was sparked by my mom checking out the headline on the front page of the New York Post. I can't remember what it was, but it was one of those typical trivial domestic stories that people prefer to read instead of what's going on in, say, Iraq.

Naturally I usually feel that the New York Times (my personal favorite) gives no bias. But as some of my republican or libertarian friends point out, it is still biased and I notice myself sometimes that it isn't giving all views on a story. But what gets me about these friends or even just anyone who points that out is that they seem to think that their favorite newspapers are bias-free, which, ofcourse, they are far from.
Take the Post for example. Its most obvious bias is one for trivial domestic stories such as, say, the Michael Jackson trial or the story today (which I now remember) which was about a girl who didn't want to go on a plane, her dad convincing her by going on it with her and the plane ironically crashing. What is worst about this bias is that there are so many other things going on the world that are way much more important than a girl who had a gut instinct about a plane trip. Big deal--over 1630 people have died so far in Iraq now. Who's still keeping track of that besides The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS? Shit is still going on in Iraq and people aren't paying attention, much less trying to find out why it's going on.
Now, back to the Times. Of course it may not show some sides of the story, but what it does do that I like is puts the real important events right on the front page where I can quickly see them. Then, when I have time, I can look inside for other things, like domestic stories or interesting and kinda funny (but trivial) shite.

I just find the whole lack of interest in the world around us in much of the American public disgusting. We've gotten so accustomed to being focused on ourselves that we have forgotten that shit happens elsewhere, too, and we need to be aware of why it happens. For instance, how many people actually know the reason Al Quaeda performed the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center? Or how many people question their own knowledge and demand to know more about it? It so happens that Al Quaeda is not primarily against the U.S. They are against the Saudi Royal Family because they feel the Saudis have strayed from the fundamentalist Islam they promised to live by in the earlier part of the 20th century. The reason they attacked us is because we are supporting the Saudis through buying their oil. They want that we stop supporting them, and the only way we will pay attention is if we are snapped out of our ignorance and bliss with a catastrophe.

As a note to those who read this, you will be thinking now, "Oh my god... he's not sympathizing with the terrorists is he?" Kinda, but I'm not a terrorist myself. I feel that in order to understand why people do things, we can't label them as inhumane--we need to put ourselves in their shoes and really understand what it is they want to accomplish.

Compassion

2005-05-14T01:26:00.000-04:00

The book that I'm reading right now is pretty cool. It's called "Destructive Emotions: How Can We Over Come Them?", narrated by Daniel Goleman, and it's a scientific dialogue with the Dalai Lama. It's about a conference called by the Dalai Lama to better understand Buddhism's connection with psychology and emotional control.

I'm insanely interested in Buddhism. It's understanding of the psychological origins of suffering are so dead on that it's almost like Siddhartha Guatama (Buddha) could see into the future of science. The path of Buddhism is such that intense training can lead to such a high level of consciousness and ability to use one's brain and keep control of one's emotions and responses. It's awesome--one study in which the Dalai Lama (given the name Oser for the book for his protection) went into any meditative state (one-pointed concentration, focusing on compassion, or what Oser calls the "Open State"), he was able to stop an uncontrollable muscle spasm which accompanies the "Startle Reflex" -- like jumping when you hear a loud noise, for example. Because he was trained so much in concentration and the like, especially when Oser went into one-pointed concentration (concentrating on one point in your vision), Oser didn't flinch one bit. Only his inner workings sped up--heart rate, breathing, etc.

So cool. But now as I look at the time, I think I'll be getting to bed. I do have to get up relatively early in the morning, anyway.

Illegalize This!

2005-05-14T00:03:00.000-04:00

In a moment of friday evening boredom I picked up a documentary which I hadn't seen in a while about the illegalization process of Marijuana, entitled "Grass". I began watching it and was reminded about the complete stupidity of the drug laws criminalizing the drug.

It started in 1910s, when Mexican immigrants began coming over the border into San Hose [i'm actually not sure that's the name of the town, i will have to check], carrying with them the Marijuana plant. They smoked the plant as a way to relax after a hard day's work in the fields. The townspeople were wary of the new people with their strange customs--they thought the marijuana gave the Mexican immigrants "super powers" (hey, don't ask me--people were pretty crazy back then). Then came a case in which a Mexican immigrant who had supposedly grown insane from Marijuana use had violently murdered a man. So the county passed an ordinance that made possession of marijuana a crime--seemingly a way to control marijuana in general, it was really a way to get rid of the Mexican immigrants who pretty much were the only people who had it on them.

The anti-marijuana ad and movie campaigns were ridiculous, too. Here's a chronological list:
Marijuana. If you smoke it:
--You will go insane!
--You will die!
--You will become a heroine addict!
--You will become out of touch with reality!
--You will become unmotivated, dysfunctional, and generally a LOSER!
--You will be in the hands of Satan! And the evil sodomites that run Hollywood.
Now?
--Bad things will happen. But we don't know what.

In the '70s, Marijuana came close to being decriminalized, thanks to Jimmy Carter (bless his soul)... but unfortuantely a scandal involving an incident with Cocaine arrived at the very last second and Carter was forced to appear tough on crime, so the decriminalization movement was shot down before Congress was able to vote on it.

Oh well. Luckily marijuana criminalization is a state issue thanks to Anheiser (the original tough government "marijuana will kill you" guy) who encouraged states to take drug enforcement into their own hands. So that means to have effective marijuana legalization we can concentrate our efforts in one state and get it there. What is strange to me, though, is that at one point New York had legalized marijuana, due to lack of ability to enforce its marijuana laws. Looks like at one point that got shot down, I guess.

Still, there's always hope. Except for me, as I for now have to deal with having a relatively anti-marijuana Assistant District Attourney for a mother. However, she probably wouldn't care if it weren't illegal. Which is of course all the more reason to fight to legalize it...