notes about giving during this time: "Where donors are giving in the coronavirus era: A survey conducted in mid-April by the University of San Diego in partnership with the Chronicle shows that donors since the pandemic have been giving more to health organizations. Meanwhile, many are cutting back on environmental and education giving, writes Michael Theis."
"Americans who have given to charity during the past 12 months have dropped to a historic low of 73%, according to new survey from Gallup. The study also confirmed other data suggesting a decline in fewer donors overall in recent years."
Sunday, May 3, 2020
Monday, April 27, 2020
April 2020 donation
even when I first started tracking notable articles on this blog in October 2018, I noticed that I read a lot of stuff from The Guardian. I never noticed before then tho. since noticing, I've thought to donate, but never did so until today. I gave only a small amount, and hope to feel more comfortable to give more after Covid, but I think anything, no matter how small, is appreciated.
I plan to choose a new group to donate to every month, and will probably eventually want suggestions. but for now I really like NPR, Radiolab, PBS, Planned Parenthood, Compton Initiative, OC Food Bank, Second Harvest, Food Finders, Harvest Partners, Food Forward, and Seed Savers.
cross-posted to my other "blog"
I plan to choose a new group to donate to every month, and will probably eventually want suggestions. but for now I really like NPR, Radiolab, PBS, Planned Parenthood, Compton Initiative, OC Food Bank, Second Harvest, Food Finders, Harvest Partners, Food Forward, and Seed Savers.
cross-posted to my other "blog"
Thursday, November 14, 2019
intended harm
taken from theskimm Oct 13th
or a better example might be smoking since abusing alcohol is the problem, but having a glass with dinner likely won't hinder you enough to accidentally kill someone in an alcoholic fit. but if I died from lung cancer caused by second hand smoke, could my family sue Phillip Morris? when used correctly, smokers do cause harm to others.
What's hitting the 'deny' button….
SCOTUS. Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied an appeal from gun-maker Remington to block a lawsuit filed by families of the 2012 Sandy Hook victims. The families claim the company is liable for the shooting over its promotion of the rifle used in the massacre. But the company says a law protects it from lawsuits over crimes committed with its guns. Yesterday, SCOTUS said it won't hear the appeal, so the lawsuit now goes back to a lower court in Connecticut.
I wonder if this is a good idea. I get that guns are essentially MADE to injure/kill something/someone so it's not like a BMW could be liable in the same way if someone killed someone else using a car because cars are made to transport you from point a to point b. that you misused it and killed someone doesn't really have to do with the car itself.
but couldn't you kind of argue that alcohol is made to make you feel different which leads to decreased reaction speeds, impaired decision making etc. so if someone killed someone else while drunk, could the victim's family sue Johnny Walker?
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
4x
taken from theskimm on Oct 8th:
I'm definitely not against representation, but how much representation is "fair"? a gallup poll in 2017 "concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT." so at 20%, GLAAD wants a major over representation of a minority group, which seems kind of uncool.
of course, 20% is still very small compared to 80%, but with any over representation you're in a sense discrimination against the other. I don't care if there are fewer straight characters on tv, but what if we were to request the same representation of other minorities?
asians make up about 6% of the general population of america; should we ask for 1 in 4 of characters in media to be asian? that may not be a problem, but hispanics make up 16.7%, so 4 times that would be nearly 67%. we're out of percentages if we add all up all the non-whites in america and multiplied that by four, so there would be negative caucasians on tv.
A new report shows that LGBTQ+ diversity on TV is at an all-time high. Last year, the advocacy group GLAAD called on the TV industry to do better when incorporating LGBTQ+ diversity. And called for 10% representation on screen by 2020. Yesterday, it released a report saying the industry delivered with 10.2%.
The study also shows that LGBTQ+ women characters outnumbered LGBTQ+ men on broadcast TV for the first time ever... There was also an increase in the number of transgender characters. But GLAAD doesn't want to stop there.
It's challenging the TV world to get to 20% by 2025. And that within the next two years, all platforms should make sure at least half of the LGBTQ+ characters in shows are people of color.
The study also shows that LGBTQ+ women characters outnumbered LGBTQ+ men on broadcast TV for the first time ever... There was also an increase in the number of transgender characters. But GLAAD doesn't want to stop there.
It's challenging the TV world to get to 20% by 2025. And that within the next two years, all platforms should make sure at least half of the LGBTQ+ characters in shows are people of color.
of course, 20% is still very small compared to 80%, but with any over representation you're in a sense discrimination against the other. I don't care if there are fewer straight characters on tv, but what if we were to request the same representation of other minorities?
asians make up about 6% of the general population of america; should we ask for 1 in 4 of characters in media to be asian? that may not be a problem, but hispanics make up 16.7%, so 4 times that would be nearly 67%. we're out of percentages if we add all up all the non-whites in america and multiplied that by four, so there would be negative caucasians on tv.
Monday, November 4, 2019
harm vs harm
I've been thinking a lot about harm lately, and unintended consequences. you cannot live life without causing harm. and it's not even as easy as trying to live causing the least amount of harm possible because sometimes it's impossible to weigh.
at our office, sometimes even deciding where to eat brings up a lot of questions. do we get slightly better tasting burritos at whole foods which is owned by amazon which annually produces nearly as much carbon as swizerland or denmark? not to mention all their terrible workers' rights issues, and lack of paying taxes. or do we get not as tasty burritos at chronic taco which probably also does a lot of terrible things that we just don't know about because they're not as closely scrutinized as amazon?
and that's just lunch! where do you stand on bioplastics or the conventional kind?
a lot of people would say, bioplastics, of course, because it doesn't come from petroleum, and it has a smaller carbon footprint because most oil doesn't come from america anyway. but that's just the oil aspect. most bioplastic in the states is made from corn since we have govt subsidies for that. but it's those same subsidies which ultimately led to high fructose corn syrup in everything because we have too much corn and the govt asked scientists to come up with ways to use it up. and, while both oil and corn require water, corn requires more land and possibly causes more water pollutants because of fertilizers and pesticides. oil has led to war, which farming hasn't as much, but our modern conventional farming has led to hella cancers and also involves migrant workers / illegal immigration issues which oil likely has too much definitely on a smaller scale.
end of life is murky too. bioplastics are rarely recycled or composted. in fact, they actually contaminate regular plastic recycling and most waste haulers don't even want it. almost all bioplastics end up in landfill where they don't biodegrade at all, but do release methane, which regular plastic doesn't. methane, of course, contributes to increased greenhouse gases which aggravates climate change.
so, which is better? well, they both suck. just in different ways.
I tell the customers to decide what matters most to them (for me, i sacrifice taste and eat at chronic because i don't like to support amazon), and not worry too much about the rest. i also suggest they do research so they can make informed decisions, but as demonstrated above, sometimes it's the knowing too much that makes it impossible to make decisions!
articles about bioplastic here and here
fact sheet about bioplastic
i also want to emphasize that a lot of the bioplastic on the market isn't even 100% plant based plastic. something is considered bioplastic even if it's a blend of plant based and petroleum based plastics.
at our office, sometimes even deciding where to eat brings up a lot of questions. do we get slightly better tasting burritos at whole foods which is owned by amazon which annually produces nearly as much carbon as swizerland or denmark? not to mention all their terrible workers' rights issues, and lack of paying taxes. or do we get not as tasty burritos at chronic taco which probably also does a lot of terrible things that we just don't know about because they're not as closely scrutinized as amazon?
and that's just lunch! where do you stand on bioplastics or the conventional kind?
a lot of people would say, bioplastics, of course, because it doesn't come from petroleum, and it has a smaller carbon footprint because most oil doesn't come from america anyway. but that's just the oil aspect. most bioplastic in the states is made from corn since we have govt subsidies for that. but it's those same subsidies which ultimately led to high fructose corn syrup in everything because we have too much corn and the govt asked scientists to come up with ways to use it up. and, while both oil and corn require water, corn requires more land and possibly causes more water pollutants because of fertilizers and pesticides. oil has led to war, which farming hasn't as much, but our modern conventional farming has led to hella cancers and also involves migrant workers / illegal immigration issues which oil likely has too much definitely on a smaller scale.
end of life is murky too. bioplastics are rarely recycled or composted. in fact, they actually contaminate regular plastic recycling and most waste haulers don't even want it. almost all bioplastics end up in landfill where they don't biodegrade at all, but do release methane, which regular plastic doesn't. methane, of course, contributes to increased greenhouse gases which aggravates climate change.
so, which is better? well, they both suck. just in different ways.
I tell the customers to decide what matters most to them (for me, i sacrifice taste and eat at chronic because i don't like to support amazon), and not worry too much about the rest. i also suggest they do research so they can make informed decisions, but as demonstrated above, sometimes it's the knowing too much that makes it impossible to make decisions!
articles about bioplastic here and here
fact sheet about bioplastic
i also want to emphasize that a lot of the bioplastic on the market isn't even 100% plant based plastic. something is considered bioplastic even if it's a blend of plant based and petroleum based plastics.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
best for baby
I was at a baby shower over the weekend and boy did i feel out of place. it's been hitting me more often lately how my consumerist ways and therefore whole mindset has changed, and in the last year especially.
it's not just that I had to take out my reusable spork (to avoid plastic cutlery), use my water bottle (solo cups), not eat candy (plastic wrapping), or take a party favor (the absolute cutest fox cookies, but, alas, in a plastic bag with a metallic plastic twisty tie). one of the games (guessing prices of baby things) was especially hard. not just because i've never really looked at baby stuff before, but because I have, but the stuff I look at is all nearly plastic free and therefore at a different price point. also, these less waste people I now spend the majority of my time with make due with what they have using handmade all purpose salves instead of special nipple cream, wooden clothes pins you also use for chip bags and laundry instead of special plastic clips for binkies.
my major social circle is my work people. therefore, we're all pretty like minded. the people at the party are on a completely separate path. parents and soon-to-be-parents at the party were talking about a $1300 sound activated vibrating crib that is only good for about 6 months since your baby gets too heavy for it. they were talking about breast pumps where you pump into single use plastic bags and about subscribing to meal kits because you're so so so tired the first few months.
besides the financial impediments, i would likely never even consider these things because of the environmental effect. single use plastic bags for breast milk?! meal kits that use a ridiculous amount of packaging!! but everyone kept saying "you don't understand how tired you'll be..." but, I dunno man. i'm not saying it's ever easy, but maybe these people are tired because they think they HAVE to do this and that. so many women around the world give birth and go back to pretty much their regular lives the next day. so many kids live perfectly happy childhoods without millions of toys and clothes and binkies and absolutely adorable but pretty much unnecessary stuff.
when my boss gave birth she said something about how women innately know what's good and bad for babies. we've been having them for thousands of years, after all. and you know what? i pretty much agree. of course times are different now and there is different "bad" stuff that we just don't know about yet. but basically, I think a lot of knowledge is innate.
someone said how we're of the first generations where we have access to so much more info that what just our small community knows. we've got experts and their books and studies, mommy blogs, parenting chat rooms, the internet at large... there's no shortage of people telling you the what's best for baby.
the whole thing just makes me tired. it's like society is constantly telling you that you're just not good enough, that you can't do it right, and that, therefore, you will raise unhealthy, stupid, and unhappy children. ...unless you buy that $1300 vibrating crib thing.
it's not just that I had to take out my reusable spork (to avoid plastic cutlery), use my water bottle (solo cups), not eat candy (plastic wrapping), or take a party favor (the absolute cutest fox cookies, but, alas, in a plastic bag with a metallic plastic twisty tie). one of the games (guessing prices of baby things) was especially hard. not just because i've never really looked at baby stuff before, but because I have, but the stuff I look at is all nearly plastic free and therefore at a different price point. also, these less waste people I now spend the majority of my time with make due with what they have using handmade all purpose salves instead of special nipple cream, wooden clothes pins you also use for chip bags and laundry instead of special plastic clips for binkies.
my major social circle is my work people. therefore, we're all pretty like minded. the people at the party are on a completely separate path. parents and soon-to-be-parents at the party were talking about a $1300 sound activated vibrating crib that is only good for about 6 months since your baby gets too heavy for it. they were talking about breast pumps where you pump into single use plastic bags and about subscribing to meal kits because you're so so so tired the first few months.
besides the financial impediments, i would likely never even consider these things because of the environmental effect. single use plastic bags for breast milk?! meal kits that use a ridiculous amount of packaging!! but everyone kept saying "you don't understand how tired you'll be..." but, I dunno man. i'm not saying it's ever easy, but maybe these people are tired because they think they HAVE to do this and that. so many women around the world give birth and go back to pretty much their regular lives the next day. so many kids live perfectly happy childhoods without millions of toys and clothes and binkies and absolutely adorable but pretty much unnecessary stuff.
when my boss gave birth she said something about how women innately know what's good and bad for babies. we've been having them for thousands of years, after all. and you know what? i pretty much agree. of course times are different now and there is different "bad" stuff that we just don't know about yet. but basically, I think a lot of knowledge is innate.
someone said how we're of the first generations where we have access to so much more info that what just our small community knows. we've got experts and their books and studies, mommy blogs, parenting chat rooms, the internet at large... there's no shortage of people telling you the what's best for baby.
the whole thing just makes me tired. it's like society is constantly telling you that you're just not good enough, that you can't do it right, and that, therefore, you will raise unhealthy, stupid, and unhappy children. ...unless you buy that $1300 vibrating crib thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)