This is a quickie just to update you on a couple of things annoying me today, and one thing that is not annoying me.
First, I heard a woman from Emily's List on NPR say yesterday that they are all psyched because Hillary Clinton is the first woman running for president. This is gallingly untrue. Viva Pat Schroeder! She even ran after Emily's List was founded, so, in theory, they already should be over their first-female-candidate jones. That's so 19 years ago. Also, I am not a big third party type, but the Commies and the Greens and so forth have been fielding females for awhile. Angela Davis was the VP candidate on the Communist ticket twice. No love.
Sorry to be all third-wave feminist, unimpressed with Hillary's non-groundbreakingness. It's just too annoying.
More annoying, however, is the current "back to the land" discussion being waged at the Berkeley Parents Network Advice column. It's too wordy to share, but let me summarize. The initial poster wanted to know if she was crazy for wanting to go off the grid, in response to her fears of global warming. Instead of answering, "Yes," people gave her "on-the-one-hand, on-the-other" responses. But no one pointed out that 1 person, or a family of 4, living in the middle of nowhere, can make a bigger negative global impact than living in the city, where you can walk places. I read somewhere (and possibly I will try to find a link later) that Manhattanites leave the smallest "global/environmental footprint" of anyone in America, because they can walk everywhere, and energy costs are lower because everyone is functionally huddled together, sharing heat, etc. You get my point.
Not annoying: Get your war on is funny again today. The second two in particular.
First, I heard a woman from Emily's List on NPR say yesterday that they are all psyched because Hillary Clinton is the first woman running for president. This is gallingly untrue. Viva Pat Schroeder! She even ran after Emily's List was founded, so, in theory, they already should be over their first-female-candidate jones. That's so 19 years ago. Also, I am not a big third party type, but the Commies and the Greens and so forth have been fielding females for awhile. Angela Davis was the VP candidate on the Communist ticket twice. No love.
Sorry to be all third-wave feminist, unimpressed with Hillary's non-groundbreakingness. It's just too annoying.
More annoying, however, is the current "back to the land" discussion being waged at the Berkeley Parents Network Advice column. It's too wordy to share, but let me summarize. The initial poster wanted to know if she was crazy for wanting to go off the grid, in response to her fears of global warming. Instead of answering, "Yes," people gave her "on-the-one-hand, on-the-other" responses. But no one pointed out that 1 person, or a family of 4, living in the middle of nowhere, can make a bigger negative global impact than living in the city, where you can walk places. I read somewhere (and possibly I will try to find a link later) that Manhattanites leave the smallest "global/environmental footprint" of anyone in America, because they can walk everywhere, and energy costs are lower because everyone is functionally huddled together, sharing heat, etc. You get my point.
Not annoying: Get your war on is funny again today. The second two in particular.
2 comments:
Is Ms. Off The Grid's reasoning that if she lives off the grid she will not use electricity and thus not contribute to global warming? If so, why can't she just turn off her lights and use candles or whatever in SF?
However (and not to be all annoyingly on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand about it), if she means she wants to get out of a California b/c it's going to be underwater soon, I can sympathize--I find it reassuring that I can always go take refuge in my parents' house in the good old land-locked midwest when the sea level starts to rise. Too bad for all you coast-dwelling suckas!!
I'd rather die than live in the midwest
Post a Comment