Sure, we all buy gas. Those of you who are lucky enough to walk, bike, or take public transportation don’t have to worry about it. For those of us who drive, we know it’s not good for the environment and makes the US depend too much on oil. With that said, we still have a choice.
Pick Your Poison: An updated environmentalist's guide to gasoline from Sierra Club shows you which companies are at the top and which are at the bottom of the barrel.
ExxonMobil, known for its bad environmental reputations and its strong stance in trying to dismiss global warming, ranked as one of the worst and BP Amoco, who supports the Kyoto Protocol to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, ranked at the top with Sunoco.
I'm actually a regular at the local Dominick’s (Safeway) gas station because they use the wind energy to power the fuel station. My ultimate goal is to bike to work. Until then, I'll take Safeway or BP over ExxonMobil.
On a somewhat related note, In the book Stop Global Warming, Laurie David wrote –
"Clever self-interests have successfully scared people away from the fight by insisting that to be an environmentalist, you must be held to a gold standard of perfection. Environmentalists even do it to each other. Unless you live in a solar-powered house, are a practicing vegan, wear hemp clothes, and bike to work, no need to apply here. These qualifications would scare away pretty much everyone I know, and I know a lot of environmentalists. I’ve been asked, “Do you eat meat?” The not-so-subtle subtext being, well, if you do, you aren’t really an environmentalist. I’ve been asked, “What are your shoes made of?” The subtext being that if they’re leather, well, you’re just a hypocrite."
I believe the point she tries to get across is that there will always be people who attempt to discourage you from being aware of the issues and from taking actions against the big companies. But why let someone with hidden agendas tell you what to do? If everyone listens to these people then there would never be any actions taken.
It’s fortunate that I can think for myself and I know that I can make a difference. For example, I know that the local produce is more expensive than buying from the big supermarkets but I’m supporting the local farmer, which mean better local economy, and the food is fresher, healthier, and doesn’t have to be shipped from someplace else, which mean less transportation and less contribution to the global warming.
If it’s possible, then I’d write a different piece like “Buy bike, not car” but since we live in a country where driving is a part of life, you pick the companies that you think have done the less damage to the planet.
Related links:
Take Action! — There are many simple things you can do in your daily life — what you eat, what you drive, how you build your home — that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antactica.
Join the Virtual March — The Stop Global Warming Virtual March is virtual but its purpose is real. By spreading the word and sharing this with others, our collective voice will be heard around the world.
Energizing America — Fossil fuels burned brightly in their day, but now it's time to make the leap to safer, cleaner, climate-friendly alternatives
Negawatt Power — The simplest solution to global warming
Decoder: Corn-Fed Cars - Detroit's phony ethanol solution
Consumer Power - Want to send a message with the dollars you spend? Here's what you need to know to select products and companies that are consistent with your environmental values.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
The Passion of the Christ: a borderline snuff film
I finally got around to see The Passion of the Christ. I could see the audience being divided into four different major groups. Those who liked it because of how they can connect to something Mel Gibson attempted to communicate, those who disliked it because they felt that their group were unfairly portrayed, those in the middle who appreciated it for what it was, and then those in the middle who were confused and didn't appreciate it for what it was because they weren't sure what "it" really was.
To say that the violence of the punishing and torturing of Christ is extreme and very graphic is an understatement. Violence is one of the biggest problems I have with the film. I have an ability to separate between real life violence and the ones in the movie. I don't have nightmares or physical effects watching something gory on films but I cringed while watching The Passion of the Christ and felt depressed throughout the movie.
What is the redeeming value in putting the audience through the brutal whipping scene where Jesus screamed in pain? The louder he screamed, the louder the laughter from the Roman soldiers and the harder they whipped him. What is the redeeming value of putting us through a slow-motion of the whips hitting the flesh, splitting it open, and blood splattering all over the place? What is the redeeming value of showing us how cruel and heartless a human being can be treated?
Not to say that this scene wasn't effective since it managed to make me feel totally depressed. My immediate reaction was that this is probably about as close as I could get to watch a snuff film; how they managed to avoid an NC-17 rating is a mystery.
From talking to a Christian who knows the story well, she said that Gibson's intention was to show how much suffering Christ went through so that it could be appreciated. When asked why she refused to see the film she said that she already knew the story and didn't want to sit through the violence.
If that is the case then who is this film for? Doesn't it mean that the explicit graphic is unnecessary if a Christian who shares Gibson's belief doesn't want to see the the explicit showing of the brutality of the Roman soldiers and how Christ took it all in stride?
I thought that the film lost its message with the unnecessary graphic violence. There were some flashbacks here and there that showed the lighter sides between Jesus and his disciples and Jesus and Mary before Christ was captured but not enough to salvage the film.
The story began when Jesus was captured and ended when he died on the cross. The rising of Jesus scene felt incomplete as if Gibson wanted to show us that there was a light at the end of the tunnel after kept showing us the horrific images. He had his cake and ate it, too.
The production was first rate but I can't imagine anyone paying attention to it. The acting was convincing enough even though each character seemed to be stuck in the same emotions throughout the movie. For example, the Roman soldiers – ruthless and sadistic; Jesus Christ – in pain and agony; Mary and Christ’s disciples – helpless, crying, and depressing and so on.
Before seeing the movie, I thought that I would fall into the third group of audience mentioned in the first paragraph and would appreciate the movie for what it was. Alas, Gibson managed to put me right into the fourth group of confused audience. To some degree, I understand and appreciate Christianity after going to a Catholic school for nine years so my criticism of the movie isn't equivalent to a criticism of the religion. But with the appreciation that comes from the knowledge, I feel that The Passion of the Christ was too personal and didn’t accomplish anything that hasn’t already been accomplished.
To say that the violence of the punishing and torturing of Christ is extreme and very graphic is an understatement. Violence is one of the biggest problems I have with the film. I have an ability to separate between real life violence and the ones in the movie. I don't have nightmares or physical effects watching something gory on films but I cringed while watching The Passion of the Christ and felt depressed throughout the movie.
What is the redeeming value in putting the audience through the brutal whipping scene where Jesus screamed in pain? The louder he screamed, the louder the laughter from the Roman soldiers and the harder they whipped him. What is the redeeming value of putting us through a slow-motion of the whips hitting the flesh, splitting it open, and blood splattering all over the place? What is the redeeming value of showing us how cruel and heartless a human being can be treated?
Not to say that this scene wasn't effective since it managed to make me feel totally depressed. My immediate reaction was that this is probably about as close as I could get to watch a snuff film; how they managed to avoid an NC-17 rating is a mystery.
From talking to a Christian who knows the story well, she said that Gibson's intention was to show how much suffering Christ went through so that it could be appreciated. When asked why she refused to see the film she said that she already knew the story and didn't want to sit through the violence.
If that is the case then who is this film for? Doesn't it mean that the explicit graphic is unnecessary if a Christian who shares Gibson's belief doesn't want to see the the explicit showing of the brutality of the Roman soldiers and how Christ took it all in stride?
I thought that the film lost its message with the unnecessary graphic violence. There were some flashbacks here and there that showed the lighter sides between Jesus and his disciples and Jesus and Mary before Christ was captured but not enough to salvage the film.
The story began when Jesus was captured and ended when he died on the cross. The rising of Jesus scene felt incomplete as if Gibson wanted to show us that there was a light at the end of the tunnel after kept showing us the horrific images. He had his cake and ate it, too.
The production was first rate but I can't imagine anyone paying attention to it. The acting was convincing enough even though each character seemed to be stuck in the same emotions throughout the movie. For example, the Roman soldiers – ruthless and sadistic; Jesus Christ – in pain and agony; Mary and Christ’s disciples – helpless, crying, and depressing and so on.
Before seeing the movie, I thought that I would fall into the third group of audience mentioned in the first paragraph and would appreciate the movie for what it was. Alas, Gibson managed to put me right into the fourth group of confused audience. To some degree, I understand and appreciate Christianity after going to a Catholic school for nine years so my criticism of the movie isn't equivalent to a criticism of the religion. But with the appreciation that comes from the knowledge, I feel that The Passion of the Christ was too personal and didn’t accomplish anything that hasn’t already been accomplished.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Afterlife
To me, afterlife is all about romance or romantic ideas. To be exact, the idea or the theory of there's something else to look forward to after you die is much more romantic than ceasing to exist.
Of course, nobody knows for sure since none ever come back and tell us about their afterlife experience. Still, as human we imagine. Some painted the idea of spending your eternal (after) life with the Creator. Some said that you come back (reincarnate) as a different person. The ideas gives us hope, it consoles us in difficult times when we lost our loved ones. It says that they have passed on to a "better place".
Despite what I think deep down (that the end of this life is just that, the end), I can't help but cling to the idea of reincarnation, the idea of reunite with people I loved and have loved dearly, the idea of coming back to this beautiful blue earth and give it another round, and the idea of finishing the unfinished business.
How romantic!
Of course, nobody knows for sure since none ever come back and tell us about their afterlife experience. Still, as human we imagine. Some painted the idea of spending your eternal (after) life with the Creator. Some said that you come back (reincarnate) as a different person. The ideas gives us hope, it consoles us in difficult times when we lost our loved ones. It says that they have passed on to a "better place".
Despite what I think deep down (that the end of this life is just that, the end), I can't help but cling to the idea of reincarnation, the idea of reunite with people I loved and have loved dearly, the idea of coming back to this beautiful blue earth and give it another round, and the idea of finishing the unfinished business.
How romantic!
Subscribe to:
Posts (RSS)
