Nathan

Hello from beautiful Monterey.

I suppose it was not the most profound idea ever but I was thinking over these past few days about Spears and Anna and why the fuck I have to hear so goddamn much about them yet we can go, what, 6 months or 12 months and not hear a goddman thing about Mr. Dick (except of course when he shoots a dude in the face).

Got me to wondering what the fuck I have to hear so much about these ladies when we pay this other dude's salary? I understand that tabloid journalism and entertainment journalism is important to a lot of people, but my point is that, wow, we can't turn part of our glaring media light on Dick or the resident? Find out what they did today in their lives. Find out how the fuck one chokes on a pretzel and gives himself a black eye. Find out what they ate for dinner, who they partied with, etc. Please, tell me about people who I am paying to help me and us.

Color me confused.

On another note, I got the chance to watch Mr. Michael Crichton on Charlie Rose the other day. I really love this guy's writing but what a pompous ass. I really like Charlie calling him on some of the stuff he did for instance when Crichton was saying he is not a 'catastrophy-ist' or whathaveyou and Charlie pretty much saying, 'yet all your books are about some sort of looming catastrophy'. Pretty classic. Good banter and good on Michael for sitting down with this knowledgable host for a bevy of good questions. Also I give credit to Crichton for his clarification of a number of different (very controversial) positions he has taken in regards to the environment however one question I might have wanted Charlie to ask him was this (when Michael was claiming that science, no emotions, should rule the climate debate): 'But Michael like all of us you are part of this earth and will be again one day. Do you not feel that 1. you have an emotional, spiritual and physical connection to the earth and 2. that this might not be perhaps germane to the discussion and course of action?'

The mind can cloud the heart and vice versa but neither can live without the other.

Hug a hill of trees.

This is good to read and see in a number of different spots. Obviously as you can read here I would have liked to have seen the discussion of 'action versus words' happen much earlier, but I understand that we move very slowly as a group and crew of humans.

It is also heartening to read and hear on the radio more and more discussion as to what the fuck is wrong with our TV news media. Like they were talking about on the radio this morning, it seems we haven't learned too much since pre-9/11 when the TV news media just went after Chandra Levy and that whole story. We sit here and our fourth estate is still doing the same thing which is not being a helpful contributor and moderator to the national discussion. Farreed excepted.

Do we need a red light before going green? Perspectives CNET News.com: "How can anyone say corporations don't have a role here? We are all stakeholders in this planet. We all care about its future. Let's stop arguing about whose role it is to initiate and work together to become a force for change. "

Lunacy. Straight lunacy.

It's a debate we ought to have — but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit.




It is so true. The reality is he won't even consider the third rail that is the crux of this debate: we have too many humans on the planet for it to reasonably support us. 'Capping carbon' really should be an effort to 'cap population' and perhaps even to 'reduce population'. It is a sad fact, but one that we could explore if properly presented.

For instance: 'this is how you can really help the world and that is by having only two children. Forget recycling - do this.'

Global warming to continue for centuries - Yahoo! News

Ugh. Pass the lemonade.