Food Not Lawns discussion (chapters 1 - 3)

Welcome to the first installment of the Food Not Lawns book club discussion post!

Let me first, right off the bat, state that I find this book both alternately inspiring and annoying. What do I find annoying? Mamble like the following:

"In the garden, by stepping outside economic and social constructs for a moment to envision ourselves in the cradle of nature, we can get to know the ecological self."

That kind of yammer just bothers me. And most of the exercises she suggests seem contrived. Particularly the water sports one. I don't envision myself cradling that one.

That said, I will ignore this kind of language and hooha and try not to let it distract me from the task at hand: discussing the actual content. Since this book's format is quite a bit different than the other ones in the book club, I won't be breaking it down by chapters, but just discussing a chunk of the book as a whole and throwing out questions where I see fit.

Okay, let's begin.

Lawns. Big ass lawns. Why do we have a culture of lawns? Well, the 18th century French aristocrats thought it good fun to rub it in the faces of the peasants that they were so darn wealthy than they could just grow grass. Not something functional, like food, but big swaths of green, grassy goodness. That cultural ideal has continued to modern America where a beautifully manicured lawn is equated with wealth and status.

I think of it as those covenants against laundry lines. Growing food, raising chickens and hanging out your laundry = poverty. Austere, pristine grassy nonsense = wealth. Put it another way, 58 million Americans spend about 30 billion dollars every year to maintain more than 23 million acres of lawn. Oh yeah, and use around 270 billion gallons of water a week. That's right folks, we're talking billions to maintain grass.

Let's not forget the incredible amount of pesticides and fertilizers being doused on those lawns that, ultimately, run off into the groundwater, evaporate into the air we breathe or run out into our waterways, poisoning our fish and aquatic life. The gas mowers, edgers and blowers don't exactly help either. Even if you don't water or fertilize your lawn, you still are preventing all sorts of habitat for critters by keeping a lawn.

So, what's an environmentally conscious citizen to do? Well, aside from the obvious alternative of returning the lawn to its natural habitat (by growing native plants and using permaculture techniques*), grow some food!

What to do if you don't have a lawn? Well, you have a couple of options. You can see if you can use a neighbor's lawn, rent a plot in a community garden, volunteer at a local farm (oftentimes they'll offer free produce to volunteers), garden in pots and containers, use the roof, depave a sidewalk or driveway, or (the most radical) take over a vacant lot.

If you do have the space you have some alternatives such as growing in raised beds, vertical gardening (growing up), or just reshaping your yard to take advantage of microclimates, rainflow and runoff and all sorts of other permaculture techniques*.

One of the discussion points in Chapter 3 is water-wise gardening. The author discusses mulching, irrigation, contouring and graywater. I'm a little unsure of the whole graywater thing as I believe it has to be done carefully (graywater can quickly become blackwater) and there are legal issues to be considered. She is extremely cavalier about this aspect, so tread carefully on how you want to proceed with using graywater.

After reading these sections are you inspired to tear up your lawn? What about the community aspects of growing food? Would you be willing to share you lawn with the neighbors for growing food for the community? Do you know your neighbors well enough to ask them to share their yard?

What about some of the suggestions she has for contouring your yard to grow food? Had you thought much about that when considering growing food before or was this new information for you?

Would you be willing to install some sort of graywater and/or pond system to irrigate your food crops or does it seem like too much work or too risky? What about rainwater capture?

Ok, that's it for now. The next book club post will be in two weeks.

*Ms. Flores goes into permaculture techniques in depth in the first section of the book, but I won't cover it here because I like to keep things somewhat briefish.

Fighting the beauty ideal

The last couple of days I've been toodling about town without makeup. Maybe because it's summer and I'm not going to work for a while, but it just seems dumb to bother getting all dolled up to hang out at the cancer clinic. One thing that I've noticed is that, after getting over the initial shock of not seeing myself in makeup, I look just as good without it, just different.

I started wearing more makeup when I briefly lived in Southern California mostly because everyone else wore a lot and I felt really under-dressed in comparison. The beauty standard there is quite different than Seattle and the pressure to pay attention to your appearance non-stop is oppressive. For the most part, I generally wear noticeable makeup only when going out on the town which happens, oh, once a year. In other words, I don't wear much makeup or, at least, it doesn't look like I wear much makeup.

Skimming it down is liberating. I save an extra 5 minutes and since I'm just letting my hair air dry, there's another 10 minutes in the morning. It strikes me as ridiculous those women who spend an hour doing their hair every morning. I'd rather be doing something else, but I'm sure some women can point to me and say that they'd rather be spending the extra 15 minutes every day doing something else. So, it's all relative.

There are some women who, admittedly, look better with makeup than without, but the majority of celebrities are trapped by the same beauty ideal, even though they look beautiful without makeup.

So, who is driving this standard? Industry, other women, men or a combination of them all? Is it because it's what we expect women to look like that we set these ideals? Or are the red lips and rimmed eyes some evolutionary throwback that stimulates some part of our primate brain that signals beauty?

For the women reading this post, do you wear makeup and, if so, do you feel better with it on? Do you feel ugly without makeup or is there one or two things that you absolutely have to wear in order to go out in public? For the men (and I know you won't answer but I'll try anyway), do you prefer your significant other or just women in general to wear makeup?

If it's really just industry driving this, why are we willing to spend thousands of dollars on beauty products and potentially poisoning ourselves with chemicals just to achieve some arbitrary "look" when, in fact, no one cares? If we really are programmed to respond to this artifice, can we ever escape it? I'd like to hear the opinions of those who didn't grow up under this beauty rubric... if any still exist.

What's your water footprint?

My kids have been intent on standing at the bathroom sink lately and letting the water run, and run, and run. They think it's water-works time. Hand washing turns into washing whatever toys happen to be in there with them (usually Legos) and I find myself yelling all day long "Turn off the water! You're wasting water!"

Then I still need to physically go in there and wake them from their water-stupor. Usually when they hear me coming the water goes off. Since I can't tell half the time if they are actually washing their hands or screwing around in there, it gets a little difficult.

So, I've been expecting my water bill to be higher than usual. It wasn't. It was actually 26 gallons per day less than this time last year. This is even more astounding since it's been hotter this year and, truth be told, the Slip 'N Slide was put into miserly use a few weeks back.

When I read recently that the average American uses about 100 gallons of water a day I figured we'd be right up there. For comparison, the French and Germans use about 60 gallons a day and people in some tribal villages use less than 10.

So, how did we compare? We use about 45 gallons a day per person, which still seems high to me. What am I doing different than last year? Well, the kids are getting bathed a whole lot less and we aren't flushing the toilets as often. I am wearing some clothes a few times before washing them. I never water the lawn, but that's nothing new. We do a lot of laundry, but we have one of those front-loader water saving kinds, but that's not new either. So, I have to chalk it up to less bathing and flushing.

What's your water footprint? How does it compare to the average? What do you do or what suggestions do you have for reducing your water usage?

Finally, does anyone know of some contraption I could put on the kid's bathroom sink to, at the very least, limit the flow?

Plenty book winner

Congratulations to Just Ducky for her self-restraint. By some dumb luck, you actually won the drawing.

But, since you decided to be all mature and not sign up for the drawing, the book actually goes to Ave.

So, Ave, congratulations! You are the winner of the book Plenty: One Man, One Woman and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally!

Email me at crunchychickenblog@gmail.com with your info and I'll get it out to you sometime this month :)

Life without oil - Part 2

Last week, in Part 1 of Life with oil, I discussed what I was doing to reduce the amount of gas I use for transportation purposes. This week I want to bring up our other big use of oil-based products: home heating.

This is going to be more and more of a problem for us since we use heating oil to heat our house. Sure, we use BioHeat, which is a blend of biofuel and oil, so there is some environmental impact there on two fronts, but at least the emissions are less. I want to switch to something more sustainable long term as well as something that won't have huge cost run ups as the price of oil increases.

At our old house we had a natural gas furnace and it is a viable alternative for some people, but we do not have natural gas lines going through our current neighborhood and, since it is believed that we have already reached "peak" natural gas as well, I fully expect to see prices of natural gas going up, too. It may not be seen as quickly, but I don't want to switch to something new and then regret it in 5 - 10 years.

Burning stuff (wood, corn pellets, etc.) isn't very practical since most of the time there's a burn ban in the city and using wood doesn't seem sustainable for urban dwellers and I believe corn pellets are going to be harder and harder to come by and/or will go up in price.

So, what's left? Electric heat is an option. We are signed up for 100% Green Power, meaning that we are getting all our electricity from wind, hydro and the like. The only real issue that I see with switching to electric heat is possibly overtaxing portions of the grid, especially on cold days when the demand is already high. Of course, this is only a problem if everyone decides to jump onto electric heating. My super-frigid house temps aren't going to be taxing much of anything.

I'm really intrigued by these solar air heating panels where the energy collected is used strictly for heating the home and does not go into your electrical usage. It would be a cheaper solution than getting full-on solar panels since the energy is targeted specifically to home heating. It would be nice to eventually use solar for other energy usage, but I'm just not willing to spend the money on them yet.

I suppose we could switch to electric heat and then eventually look into doing full solar if the prices become more reasonable. That way we take advantage of cheap, green energy now and then can move to solar generated electricity later if that looks viable. That seems like a good option if other things don't pan out.

In the meantime, I'm going to look into the solar air heating panels since I think it would cost less than $5,000 for a home heating upgrade.

What about you? How do you heat your home? If you use heating oil or natural gas are you putting any thought into switching to something else when the costs run too high? What are your thoughts on wood and corn pellet heating?

Plenty book giveaway!

I won this book from Green Bean and I thought I'd pass it along to some other lucky winner now that I am finished reading it.

Plenty: One Man, One Woman and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally, is written by a Vancouver couple that, not too surprisingly, spends one year eating locally. Written in a similar vein as Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, this story is a little more apropos to those who don't have a lot of land or, really, any land to grow and store their own food.

Here's my mini review:

It was interesting reading how this couple struggled with keeping to their 100 mile diet and how they went about trying to find foods that fit within their criteria. On one hand it was admirable that they stuck to their guns (for the most part), but I was disappointed by the incredible amount of travelling they did during this time. Granted, much of it was work related, but still. It seemed to offset their efforts.

I found the format of authors switching between chapters confusing and half the time couldn't remember which one was writing when I picked up the book again. The crabbing about their relationship and each other was distracting and, even though it may have pertained to what they were experiencing, it came off as being really childish. I wasn't as inspired reading this one as opposed to the several other books out on the market that deal with the same content and the writing isn't nearly as good as with Kingsolver's, but that's a hard comparison.

I guess my recommendation is that if you haven't read Animal, Vegetable, Miracle or The Omnivore's Dilemma, then you will probably like this book. It isn't as good as the other two, but if you can borrow a copy, then give it a whirl.

Now that I've totally turned you off from reading this book with my fabulous review I must say that it is still worth a look-see if you are interested in reading about other's experiences with trying to eat locally. And, hey, it's free! So sign up if you want to win this copy by adding your name to the comments of this post. This contest closes on Friday, July 11th at 6:00 p.m. PST.

Good luck!

Independence Days update

I haven't been very good about keeping you all up-to-date on my participation on the Independence Days Challenge over on Sharon's blog. I generally haven't had time to make updates and/or I can't keep straight from one week to the next what I've been working on. Call it early senile dementia.

Either way, here's what I've been up to in the last week. For those of you unfamiliar with the challenge, these are things I have done to be more independent of the standard American food chain:

Harvested:

Kale, lettuce, spinach, chard

Red onion

Lavender, sage, rosemary, mint

Strawberries, cherries

Rose petals

Planted:

Peppermint

Grapes

Walla Walla sweet onion

Beets

Spinach, lettuce

Carrots, radishes

Anaheim pepper, Cayenne pepper

Meyer lemon tree (woohoo!)

Transplanted:

Marjoram, oregano

Preserved:

Vegetable stock

Dried rose petals

Drying lavender

Made 8 jars rose jam

Made 32 jars strawberry jam (more on that later)

Stored:

Bought extra beans, pasta and water for storage. Will continue to buy extras every week to create emergency supplies in addition to canning

I spent most of the afternoon yesterday canning strawberries. I made three different types of strawberry jam. I'll post the recipes up on my cooking blog once I get around to it, but for now, just know that I made:

Strawberry, Sangiovese and Spice Jam (cinnamon, clove, star anise, nutmeg)

Strawberry, Mint and Black Pepper Jam

Strawberry, Balsamic Vinegar, Vanilla Bean and Amaretto Jam

I know these sound weird, but they are fantastic and are loosely based on some French jam recipes. Yum!

Announcement: Tomorrow I'll be doing a book giveaway of the book Plenty: One Man, One Woman and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally by Alisa Smith and JB Mackinnon.

Also, look for the first book club post for Food Not Lawns coming up next Tuesday!

DivaCup super fold

For those of you participating in the 2008 DivaCup Challenge as well as you seasoned veterans, I am about to share with you something that will make you weep with joy.

Behold... the DivaCup super fold, aka the push-down fold. If you have had problems with inserting and getting the cup to open up and create a tight seal, well, look no further. This folding technique will change your life. Really.

You can thank me later. Now, go forth and fold. Try it even if you aren't having your period. It's okay, no one will know any different and I guarantee it will make you fall in love with this little fella all over again.

Thanks to Madeleine at Lunapads for letting me know about this superior folding technique.

Affiliate links
Here's the DivaCup I use. Aside from loss or mystery melts, it should (honestly) last a lifetime:
DivaCup Medical Grade Silicone Cup

My country, 'tis of thee

For such a young country, we certainly have a lot of history to ponder on this Fourth of July. I am a huge fan of early American history and, while there is a lot to be proud of in our founding fathers, there are a lot of warts to be overlooked as well. No generation is perfect and everyone has their faults, but there are a few big things that concern me as to where our country is headed.

Our political process is so imbued with sensationalism, scandal and sound bites that no actual information is imparted by the general media. What happened to the Lincoln-Douglas style debates? Do you think the modern American would be able to stomach 3 hour long debates? Or really any real discussion of the issues?

I used to believe that the rest of the world looked to America, not as just a superpower both in economic and military might, but also as a friend in need. A country that held high standards for itself and hoped to help others achieve the same as well. The kind of friend you look up to as a model of behavior, leadership and strength and someone to lean on for comfort or even protection.

I haven't felt this pride in my country in almost a decade and it saddens me to see us slipping down even faster into the abyss of self-absorption and self-righteousness. I am, quite frankly, embarrassed by the current administration and how the rest of the world must view Americans. I only hope that others looking in don't think that all of us are the spoiled brats our popular media so loves to follow.

More frightening than the lack of acknowledgement that we've stepped down as a global leader by the leaders of this country is the complete apathy of its citizens. It angers me that, as a country, we sit idly by, letting the privileged few decide the fate of this nation. Yes, I realize it's called democracy, but is it really democratic if hardly anyone bothers to vote? Or if those in power take advantage and erode some of the basic principles of our nation such as civil rights and right to privacy?

When you think back to the blood, sweat and death that generations before us have endured to create a sovereign nation based on equality, freedom from religious persecution, and the right to achieve what is within our own abilities, it is a shame that our generation sits on our hands and, honestly, doesn't give a crap anymore as to whether or not these foundations are preserved.

What about all those Americans that fought against slavery and for civil rights and for suffrage for all Americans not just the landed, educated or wealthy? Why don't we take advantage of this gift and vote? It's fairly ridiculous when you think about it. If we were to go back and tell those who so desperately fought for the right to vote that future generations wouldn't even bother voting for president, let alone local elections, do you think they would be incredulous?

So, please, if you have any respect left for this country, pay attention to how we represent ourselves to the rest of the world. Fight to obtain information about how this country is run. Take advantage of the rights we have to make your say known in how you want this country governed. Then, and only then, can we instill a sense of ownership of our government, a sense of civic duty and participation and a pride in our country not just by its citizens, but by the rest of the world.

The other white meat

Last week The New Scientist reported the results of a study regarding the disease rates in organic pigs versus ones raised conventionally.

This is a no brainer, right? The organic pigs are by far going to be healthier, have less exposure to disease given their healthier living conditions and just generally be happier and shinier, right? Um, well, no.

According to the study, done by researchers from the College of Veterinary Medicine at The Ohio State University, of the U.S. pigs that were tested, they found traces of Salmonella in 39% of the conventionally raised pigs (which are routinely given antibiotics) and in 54% of organic pigs raised outdoors without the drugs. Did you just snort those pork rinds out yer snout? Well, read on.

Additionally, the study found that two of the organic pigs had signs of infection with Trichinella, our dear roundworm friend that can cause trichinosis when undercooked pork is eaten. Trichinella has been nearly eradicated in livestock in the the U.S. and Europe, although it still exists in wildlife. The rate they found it was 23 times the average frequency in conventional piggies.

And, just to wrap things up, the researchers also found traces of the parasite Toxoplasma, which is carried by cats and other animals, in 1% of conventional pigs and 7% of free-range animals. For those of you who have been pregnant, you will recognize this as the parasite that can damage developing fetuses.

Now, before you start throwing out all your organic pork products in fear for your life let me remind you that as long as pork is cooked thoroughly according to federal guidelines, the presence of these infectious agents in food animals should pose no risk to human health. So, what's one to do? Shooting pigs up with antibiotics prophylactically breeds antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but not giving them drugs means more animals carry Salmonella and other nasties.

This doesn't, of course, take into consideration animal welfare or other environmental impacts, but if we were to look strictly at food safety this poses a huge conundrum. Does eliminating antibiotic pre-treatment create an environment for the resurgence of diseases that we thought were somewhat under control? What does this all signify and can the same parallels be drawn in other animal stock? Will we see similar results if organic poultry and cattle operations are similarly studied and compared against conventional?

The obvious argument will be just to choose a vegan or vegetarian diet and you then eliminate all chance of meat-borne pathogens, but let's face it, that's just not a realistic answer.

Now comes the biggest question of them all, if you dig deep into the bowels of the original study article in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease you'll find this gem: "This project was funded by a grant from the National Pork Board (NPB-04-108)."

How significant is that? If you read the study it appears that the researchers are basically just reporting the numbers of animals found exhibiting the presence of certain pathogens, but we all know how numbers can be massaged to support one argument over another. How can we trust food safety research if there is the possibility of an ulterior motive funded by industry?

In either case, we are in a bit of a pickle. On one hand, organic pork appears to have more contaminants. If this isn't actually the case, then we are being bombarded by food safety studies that are skewed to smear the organic industry.

So, what should we do with this information?

Keepin' it cool

Well, this weekend really tested my techniques for staying cool without air-conditioning. We had highs of 91 both Saturday and Sunday and just about broke some records here in Seattle.

I realize this is pretty tame stuff as far as temperatures go, but we generally don't see these sorts of temps until August. Through June and most of July it's normally just gray and 60s. It will hit mid-70s if you're lucky.*

So, not only am I truly testing my new-found magic deodorant (I'm still fresh as a daisy by the way!), but I'm testing all my non-air-conditioning techniques as well.

Here are my hints and tips for keeping cool this summer while either forgoing air-conditioning or pushing up the thermostat a little at a time.

Home Cooling Tips

Open windows at night and/or in the early morning and shut them once the outside temperature rises above the inside temps

Close the drapes or blinds on the side of the house where the sun in shining in. So that means the East side of the house in the morning and the West side in the afternoon and evening. Consider purchasing insulated window curtains (these will also help hold heat in during the winter) or install inexpensive heat-reflecting film on windows that face the sun

Turn off lights, electronics or appliances that you aren't using and generate heat

Fans, fans, fans

Put in a window fan and blow the air out of the room while keeping the doors to the room open

Recreate your own air-conditioner by blowing a fan across a bowl of ice. This will simulate the same sort of cool air but without the energy involved

Longer term home solutions include better attic/roof venting, getting a lighter colored roof or planting shade trees

Keeping Cool

Drink ice water (or sit on a huge block of ice)

Stay hydrated and avoid caffeine, alcohol and heavy, high-fat meals. All of these will increase your internal body temperature

Stay in the shade and out of direct sunlight

Wear loose-fitting, light-colored and lightweight clothes

Do like they do in the tropics and eat spicy food. This stimulates sweat and, therefore, will cool you off

Soak your feet in cool water or even throw in a few ice cubes

Soak a rag or tea towel in ice water and wrap around your neck

Sit outside in the evening to enjoy the cooling temperatures

Sleeping in Comfort

Take a cool (not cold) shower before bed. Why cool and not cold? Well, if you lower your body temperature too much you'll exert extra energy (aka heat) trying to warm up

Soak a t-shirt in ice water and wear to bed or wet your hair before bed

Dig out that rice bag you made last winter and put it in the freezer for a couple of hours before bed

Use linen sheets as they stay cooler than other fabrics

Put your pillowcase (or sheets!) in the freezer a few hours before bed

Sleep downstairs or outside if you can

For more ideas, check out this little how-to video on How To Survive Without Air-Conditioning.

If you really must use air-conditioning, or something like an evaporative cooler won't work for you, try to avoid central air-conditioning as you're spending a ton of money to heat up the whole house when in fact you probably only need to cool down a few rooms at best. Window air-conditioners are one way of getting around this problem as you can set them up in the most heavily used portions of the house and assist with fans if need be.

What are your favorite methods of keeping cool when the temperature rises? Which ones did I miss?

Note: I'm fully aware that I'm probably the worst person to give advice on keeping cool since I don't exactly live in an area that experiences heat like others. But I did spend many summers in Brooklyn with no air-conditioning and that certainly left a resounding impression on me. So, I commiserate with your pain.

Edible eco-lawnscaping

Who knew that by neglecting my lawn, all sorts of really pretty things would start to take over? And, who knew they were all edible? Now, I'm not saying that it looks like a complete weedfest out there, but I refuse to water my lawn and am really bad at dethatching and fertilizing and all that.

So, it got a little patchy and other things decided to take root. But I keep the dandelions under control otherwise they'll completely take over. I call it my "eco-lawn" but it looks more like a very trim meadow.

Mixed in with the grass are lots of interesting little flowering plants that I keep trim with a weekly mow job. As the kids and I were sitting out on the "lawn" last Sunday, we watched the huge amount of bug and critter activity going on. You see, since my lawn hasn't been sprayed and isn't just a vast expanse of grass, I've created quite a little habitat out there for spiders, ladybugs, bumblebees and all sorts of other things I'm sure I can't see.

The most exciting is watching all the bees. I figure I get some sort of karmic bee pollination action for giving them all those flowers. In fact, the local nurseries around here sell a mix of lawn seed that includes much of what I already have growing. So, I didn't really need to bother with reseeding the lawn this year with a purchased mix.*

What do I have growing, you ask? And how are they edible?

Well, after doing a bit of research online, the lawn is sporting the following:

Oxalis, aka sourgrass - All parts of this plants are edible and are sour due to high levels of oxalic acid (hence, the name, sourgrass). The leaves and flowers can be used in a salad or can be used as a garnish for any dish such as fish or fruit salads.

The leaves can be eaten year round and stay tender and tart when cooked. Just don't eat too much of this plant as it will give some people a stomach ache if eaten in large quantities.

White clover - Besides making an excellent forage crop for livestock, clovers are a valuable survival food since they are high in protein, widespread, and abundant. White clover is not easy to digest raw, but this can be easily fixed by boiling them for 5 - 10 minutes. Dried flowerheads and seedpods can also be ground up into a nutritious flour and mixed with other foods, or can be steeped in hot water for a healthy, tasty tea-like infusion.

Purple clover - Purple (or red) clover can be used in salads, soups, as a cooked green, ground to flour, or made into tea. This clover is also high in protein. The most common things to eat on the clover are the flowerheads and the leaves, but are easier to eat if soaked for about an hour or boiled. The sprouted seeds are edible in salads and have a crisp texture and robust flavor.

Common Vetch - This legume has pretty purple flowers and little pea-like pods that grow from its far reaching stems. The seeds from this plants are not very palatable nor very digestible but they are very nutritious. The seeds can be dried, ground into a powder and mixed with cereal flour to make bread, biscuits, and cakes. The beans compliment the protein in the cereal making it more complete.

The leaves, young shoots and young pods can be cooked and the leaves can be in used tea. There is some evidence that the seed may be toxic but this has only been shown under laboratory conditions, there are no recorded cases of poisoning by this plant.

Common Vetch has been part of the human diet, as attested by carbonised remains found at early Neolithic sites in Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia. It has also been reported from predynastic sites of ancient Egypt, and several Bronze age sites in Turkmenia and Slovakia

Dandelion - Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably already know by now that dandelions, in all their prolific glory, are edible. In fact, all parts of this plant are edible. Dandelions are high in vitamins A and C, iron and calcium.

You can eat the leaves raw or cooked. You can boil the roots as you would a vegetable or roast and grind them for use as a coffee substitute. The flowers can be used to make jam and if you want to go real crazy you can use the flowers to make dandelion wine!

As with all food plants make sure if you decide to go grazing, that your greens haven't been sprayed or sprinkled with something you would want to ingest.

---

Since I was doing all this reading on edible weeds I have a list of quite a few other ones that are found in my yard that I'll cover in another post.

Anyway, what do you all do with your lawns, if you have one? Do you maintain it with water during the summer and weed n' feed, or do you let it go a little more natural? If you keep it natural, would you or have you eaten the "weeds" that grow there?

*For those of you interested in a no-mow lawn or an eco-turf mix you can check into these different products: Nichols' Ecology Lawn Mix or Hobbs & Hopkins' Fleur de Lawn. Or you can just let nature take its course and come up with its own mix.

Keep Yer Cool Challenge

I know the rest of you are probably already sweating it out, but I'm a little slow to respond given the Arctic temperatures that Seattle tends to sport up until the end of June. But that's no excuse for failing to launch the summertime equivalent of the Freeze Yer Buns Challenge!

Last fall and winter there was a tremendous turn out of people, well, turning down their thermostats to save money and energy. So, for those of you with or without air conditioning, I'd like to offer the same sort of challenge for summertime.

I'll do check-ins called The Sweat Lodge (look for it every other Sunday) to see how you are surviving the heat and give everyone the opportunity to share hints and tips on how to keep cool. I'll also share information that I've found to work in keeping cool. Clothing is optional.

If you have air conditioning in your car, it is up to you to decide whether or not to use it this summer as well. I'll discuss the environmental impact of using auto air conditioning in a future post.

As global climate change affects us all, producing a hotter experience than we are used to, it will take creativity and learning from other cultures to figure out a better way to cope than just slamming on the aircon. So, I'll explore what our brothers and sisters in tropical climes do to help beat the heat.

You can sign up by stating how high you'll keep your thermostat before the air conditioning kicks in. 80 degrees? 85? 90? No air conditioning? The choice is yours. If you are already feeling weak at the knees just thinking about this challenge, you can choose to do one "keepin' cool" day a week or hour a day. For those anal retentive types (unlike moi), you can compare your energy consumption to last year and see if it makes a difference.

If you don't have air conditioning (like moi), you can still participate because you'll be needing the support more than anyone! Just sign up with "No aircon" as your pledge. Does that sound like cheating? Hell, no! Because you can just as easily go out and install some air conditioning and you aren't, are you?

To sign up for the challenge, add your pledge to the comments of this post.

As usual, you can grab the badge to help spread the love. Just copy and paste the following code:

<a href="http://crunchychicken.blogspot.com/2008/06/keep-yer-cool-challenge.html"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpZu1OWOHyaV2im-GN2h2F9GlLwWH1tgglKjmg44pbhxWzvXsglIzUbj6UQX4PDBBb8DXlPQo9Vci-d9iAOZK3KMocoydxnOj9K6iMvdnty7pTAfQtwz4VoxdRt8LoGCYL_OeBZVS7KK4/s1600-r/CoolBanner.jpg" alt="Keep Yer Cool Challenge"/></a>

Wherein I air my dirty laundry

It's been a while since I've covered any of the personal changes I've made whilst trying to live a little lighter on the Earth. Well, if you don't count my fixation of peeing all over my plants. For the most part, we've been discussing general topics and I'd like to share with you a recent change I've made.

Let me tell you, I'm most excited about this one. Let me also forewarn you that this is probably more information than you want to hear but, as usual, I'll spare no expense as there are always others out there wondering about the what ifs.

I've been hearing a lot lately about people switching over to non-aluminum based deodorants rather than the standard antiperspirant products. One of the alternatives that people are trying is the crystal deodorant rock.

Now, while I wouldn't mind rubbing The Rock on my armpits or other sweaty areas, I've been doubtful that it will help much with perspiration. And, I don't think he'll fit in my bathroom cabinet.

Anyway, many switch products to reduce the amount of packaging and plastic and many do it for health reasons, believing that the ingredients in standard antiperspirants are harmful. Some people believe that these ingredients may lead to breast cancer or may contribute to Alzheimer's. While none of these claims, as yet, have been backed up by any existing scientific or medical evidence, people are avoiding these products just in case.

I've been intrigued by other's experiences with the crystal, but haven't had the courage to try it. Until now. You see, the chemo my husband is on (or, rather, the four drug combo) has been causing him to have a severe reaction to the Ban roll-on that he's been using forever.

So, he went out and bought a Crystal Body Deodorant, mostly because it claims that it is recommended by Cancer Treatment Centers. I'll let you go through the trouble of reading how it works, but just know that there are a number of different manufacturers that make them and they come in a rock format as well as roll-on. Obviously, The Rock is going to have less plastic involved with it.

I was eyeballing this little gem in the bathroom for about a week before I got the nerve to give it a try. Under controlled circumstances. In other words, on a day when I knew I would be home. With backup nearby. And perhaps a blowtorch.

Now, let me back up and share a little too much about my lifelong challenge with antiperspirants. I come from a long line of highly sweaty individuals. Ever since, well puberty, perspiration has been an enormous problem for me. I've tried a bajillion different antiperspirant combinations over the years and finally settled on using Mitchum as it was pretty much the only stuff that would keep things under control. Barely.

I am not the type of person that can wear a shirt more than once. Something combines with my sweat and the ingredients in these products and creates a hazardous substance that is impossible to remove. In other words, I destroy clothes. If I wanted to get the stains out of my shirts I need to use a bike chain degreaser. Or a pair of scissors. There. Now you know. I've aired what little dirty laundry I have.

So, while I've been reading about other people trying out these alternative methods, I'm thinking, yeah, right. There's no way. It probably works for those non-sweating, hairless people who can wear a shirt for a week straight and no one will notice. I can barely wear a shirt for more than a few hours and I'm ready to change it. Why, God, why?

But, I digress. Let me just tell you that underarm sweating has been the bane of my existence. I cannot wear white. Are you getting the extent of the picture yet, because I really don't want to draw it anymore.

Well, last week I tried it out and holy shit, I can't stop sniffing my pits. No, seriously! Usually a couple hours after taking a shower and applying antiperspirant I start smelling a little. Usually just a mix of whatever fragrance is in the stuff I'm using and a little sweat. Nothing bad, mind you, but there's a smell there.

With this stuff there is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Not a whiff of fragrance, pit or anything. It's a fucking miracle. Even after weeding in the garden in the sun for the afternoon, it's a regular sniff-fest around here.

My armpits are so delightful, you can eat off of them and lick them clean!

If you've been thinking of giving the crystal a try, but have been afraid that it wouldn't meet your stink standards, I am hereby endorsing this elixir of the gods. Your pits will thank you. And so will the person sitting next to you on the bus this summer.

What do you use? Does it work and do you like it?

Raw milk gets a raw deal

Sometimes local media, well, grinds my crackers.

Back in 2005, in the Pacific NW, there was an E. coli outbreak in people who had drank (drunk?) raw milk from a local producer. The health impact for these people was serious and a number of people were hospitalized. Last week, the owners of the dairy that sold the tainted milk pleaded guilty in federal court in Seattle to the charge of distributing adulterated food.

Yesterday's front page news in a major Seattle paper went on to discuss whether or not the legalization of raw milk in the state of Washington should continue.

Now, let's back up for a moment and look at some of the facts. First of all, the milk sold was from a dairy that was not licensed to sell raw milk. In their plea agreements, the owners acknowledged that "the milk was prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health."

Can you cannibalize a whole "industry" based on an incidence by an unlicensed producer? That's like making dental surgery illegal in the state because a number of people sought dental care from an unlicensed dentist and were harmed because of it.

I, for one, have never had raw milk so I cannot speak to its deliciousness or otherwise friendly virtues. The argument for it is that high heat processing (aka pasteurization) kills off a bunch of nutrients so drinking milk in its more natural state is better. There is also the claim that those people who are lactose intolerant can drink raw milk because it still has the lactose-digesting Lactobacilli bacteria intact.

The CDC reports that in the last ten years, there were only 39 outbreaks nationwide in which raw milk or cheese made from it were implicated. Of those outbreaks, about 830 people fell ill, 66 were hospitalized and one died. Doug Powell, the scientific director for the International Food Safety Network, states that "the numbers of illnesses from outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk are not that high."

Also, I do believe that banning something does not remove the demand for it. Driving a product underground does no one any favors. Allowing it, with licensing, regulations and testing, provides that at least some semblance of quality control is adhered.

Washington state law requires that all raw milk carry the following warning: "This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria. Pregnant women, children, the elderly and persons with lowered resistance have the highest risk of harm from use of this product."

One of the issues for many people is the idea that parents will purchase this product and give it to their children, thereby endangering them. But, is this reason enough to ban it?

What's your opinion on raw milk?

Floating fecal funship

Let me tell you, I can't begin to describe how excited I am regarding the news that the biggest, or rather, most big-ass, cruise ship ever created is being launched on the public.

Royal Caribbean International's Oasis of the Seas, which will set sail in the Caribbean starting December 2009, has the carrying capacity of 5,400 passengers, has 16 decks and will sport a Central Park style open-air space the size of a football field, an attraction that will give guests the option of a sea or tree view from their cabin balconies.

Most excitingly, this boat will introduce the cruise line's new neighborhood concept, which will provide vacationers with the opportunity to seek out relevant experiences in seven themed areas based on their personal styles, preferences or moods. So, if you are looking for singles, drug dealers, hookers, swingers, pedophiles, scrapbooking or even the family friendly "neighborhood" you're in luck.

Oasis of the Seas will debut a new portfolio of 37 categories of accommodation options, so for those of you who can't exactly afford the penthouse or the 545 square foot loft suite, then perhaps the "trailer park" or "slave" berths are within your price range.

This 220,000 gross tonne floating poopmobile will also boast some exciting features:

The ship will be so enormous that it will have its own micro-climate

Even whilst faced with never-ending buffets you can still stick to your diet as the Norwalk virus will be able to run extraordinarily quickly through the large number of passengers

The opportunities for being mugged in Central Park are endless

The ship can alternate between being a floating prison, detention camp or a plague ship, depending on the government's needs

It's every man for himself to the rescue boats

Thousands of gallons of shit being dumped into the waters of the ports of call

No, seriously, some of the waste streams generated by cruise ships include bilge water (water that collects in the lowest part of the ship’s hull and may contain oil, grease, and other contaminants), sewage, graywater (waste water from showers, sinks, laundries and kitchens), ballast water (water taken onboard or discharged from a vessel to maintain its stability), and solid waste (food waste and garbage). There is significant concern about the potential environmental impacts of these waste streams.

A typical cruise ship (and we're not even talking about the big-ass Oasis) on a one-week voyage generates more than 50 tons of garbage, one million gallons of graywater (waste water from sinks, showers, galleys, and laundry facilities), 210,000 gallons of sewage, and 35,000 gallons of oil-contaminated water.

Most of this waste is dumped directly into the ocean, some treated, some not. In addition, luxury liners spew a range of pollutants into the air that can lead to acid rain and contribute to global warming. They can also spread invasive species by dumping untreated ballast water in coastal zones.

The rapidly expanding size and number of cruise ships in US waters has triggered a national cruise ship pollution crisis. Environmental laws have not kept pace with growth of the industry. Cruise lines travel the most pristine waters of America, dumping all the way.

I don't know about you, but if this ship visits my area I'll be pretty excited to see the thousands of gallons of waste water pouring out the side like a fire boat.

...
Poop, life's sweetest reward.
Let it flow, it floats back to you.

The Poop Boat soon will be giving you the runs
The Poop Boat promises cramping for everyone
Set a course for Lomodil,
Your mind on a new poop dance
...

Vacation from oil

How has the increased gas prices affected your summer vacation plans? Since petroleum prices are up, the airline industry is hurting and people are rethinking those long drives.

What used to be an inexpensive road trip is now costing an arm and a leg. I keep seeing tons of articles about vacationing close to home to help save on costs. The Onion had some great alternatives for your vacation:

Maybe trying that Mexican-looking place over on Butterfield Road

Rediscovering the attic

Foregoing tour of Ireland in favor of an afternoon at O'Shaughnessy's

Packing the station wagon, piling into the station wagon, sitting in the station wagon, getting out of the station wagon

Family bath

Staring uncomfortably at one another closer to home

Celebrate Summer!

What better way to celebrate the first day of summer than to feel more at one with the rest of the animal kingdom? And what better way to do that than to mark your territory and spread some liquid gold?

That's right, people, today is the day (if you haven't started already) to help fertilize your plants with some all natural nitrogen and phosphorus rich urine! Stop buying that expensive Miracle Gro when you have your very own Miracle Flo! No petroleum or packaging needed.

It's not too late to sign up and be one with Mother Nature.

P.S. On behalf of myself and those who have already tried this, I must warn you that, once you enter the Liquid Gold Lovers Club, you will find that it is totally addicting. No hangover, shakes or brain damage required.

Stop drilling the American public

As I'm sure you've heard this week, President Bush has asked Congress to end the federal ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along much of America’s continental shelf and open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, asserting that those steps and others would lower gasoline prices and "strengthen our national security."

I can't even begin to tell you how incredibly queasy making this whole business is. My crackers are beyond ground. They have been reduced to such a fine powder, it's as if they didn't exist in the first place. Let me tell you, I will be wearing my nightguard tonight because there's gonna be plenty of teeth gnashing going on.

Let's start with the positive spin arguments about why drilling now is better than when Bush's own father signed a presidential executive order in 1990 banning coastal oil exploration. In addition to the executive order there is a Congressional moratorium that was first enacted in 1982, and has been renewed every year since. It prohibits oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf (3 miles to 200 miles offshore).

Here are some popular arguments for opening up previously protected land:

1. $4 a gallon for gas is reason enough to start drilling. Since we won't actually be seeing the oil until about a decade from now, how does that affect today's prices? The Energy Information Administration says that even if both coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies.

Senator Reid (D-NV) responded to this by saying, "There is not enough oil in America to make that the salvation to our problems. Even if we open the coasts to oil drilling that won’t have a significant impact on prices. The facts are clear."

2. Bush stated that Democratic leader's past opposition to drilling for oil has helped drive gas prices to record levels. This is complete malarkey. The idea that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off by environmentalists and Democrats is untrue.

Senator Reid stated:

Oil companies have already had ample opportunity to increase supply, but they have sat on their hands. They aren't even using more than half of the public lands they already have leased for drilling. And despite the huge tax breaks President Bush and Republican Congresses have given oil and gas companies to invest in refineries, domestic production has actually dropped.

Of the estimated 36 billion barrels of oil on federal lands, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

So, why is Bush asking for more drilling in protected areas and why is he asking for more land when the oil companies aren't using what's already available and not protected? Because it's a completely empty gesture to make it appear as though he's doing something to help with the energy crisis when, in fact, it won't do much of anything besides line the pockets of his industry supporters.

3. Domestic drilling is the way to end American dependence on foreign oil. This is a national security issue. The pittance of oil that will be drilled out of these areas will barely make a dent in the total amount consumed by Americans. No one knows for certain how much oil is in the moratorium area but the federal Energy Information Administration estimates that roughly 16 billion barrels of oil is covered by the offshore moratorium. Right now there's roughly 95 billion barrels of oil in unprotected areas that aren't being pursued by the oil industry. These additional 16 billion barrels are a drop in the bucket towards our consumption.

To put it another way, America contains less than 3% of the world's oil resources yet we consume almost 25% of the world's oil production. Clearly, we can't drill our way to energy independence.

4. Techniques for drilling offshore are much more safe and environmentally friendly than they were in the past. Well, let's assume that this is true. So what? That doesn't mean we need to drill everything in sight for a few billions barrels of oil given the amount of effort it will take. And, just for fun, let's assume that this is not true. Is it worth the risk to drill out sensitive areas with the potential for huge loss when the gain is so low?

How are you responding to this latest push to open up drilling? If you want to make an impact, urge Congress for conservation, better fuel standards and increased energy efficiency rather than more oil.

Let Congress know how you feel
Similar to what I did with the Farm Bill, I'm starting a campaign to get the message across to Congress. Please let them know how you feel about this issue. Please post the "Stop Drilling Americans" banner* on your blog, linking back to the following letter for readers to copy and paste and send to their local members of congress. Feel free to write your own letter if you like, this is just a starter to get you going.

Dear Sir or Madam,

President Bush's latest move to lift the federal ban on offshore oil drilling is deeply disturbing and comes at a time where little benefit can come of it. The arguments regarding energy independence are deeply flawed and there is little impact that opening up these protected areas will have on current gas prices. It is an empty gesture towards helping alleviate the strain on Americans grappling with increased oil costs.

Given the huge resources currently available to the energy industry, there is no reason to undo the environmental protections that are in place. The risk to these sensitive areas is too great and the gain is too little to warrant drilling in the areas under protection.

Conservation and increased energy efficiency is a far more powerful tool than drilling for easing the demand for oil. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently projected that new technologies and conservation alone will decrease American demand for oil by 100 billion barrels through 2050.

As my local representative, I urge you to protect our natural resources by upholding the federal laws to ban drilling in these sensitive areas and push towards adopting better policies on conservation and supporting the development of new technologies.

Sincerely,

John Q. Public
Your address here
City, State Zip
Email address

*Here is the code for the banner to add to your blog:

Update: If you tried using the code earlier and it wasn't working, I fixed it, so it should work for you now.

<a href="http://crunchychicken.blogspot.com/2008/06/stop-drilling-american-public.html"> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVruSU0JDXiesmsbYgpgBplMEysx_8EJWOhU1poE0QNAkGrqBP8A84WUT8MC0ZrOjzaW8rn6cr687_hQq_ih561RXhdmB3RRilIxShczXx2fTayTZ5mT9fn6pnyXgDiiej_9lry9pfoxk/s320/banner.jpg" alt="Stop Drilling Americans"/></a>

A piddling post

For those of you who have already signed up to participate in the Golden Showers Garden Party, have you been able to, um, hold it until Saturday or have you gotten too excited and piddled in the garden already?

I, for one, was too excited to wait and already spread some liquid love. I must admit, once you get started it's addicting. Here's some more nifty information that may kick you in the rear and convince you to give it a whirl:

If you are using commercial nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers, you are helping drive food prices up. Since oil prices are hitting all-time highs, the cost to transport food and make nitrogen-based fertilizers has also risen. Couple that with the fact that sources of phosphate fertilizers are running out.

So, by adding your own demand to that of farmers, instead of using your own liquid gold, you are not helping the food crisis. Think that's a bit of a stretch? Well, perhaps, but it certainly doesn't help. How soon will it be before the deposits of phosphates are exhausted? Well, when that happens, if you are already a card carrying club member you'll be ready with your own homegrown fertilizer.

As Chile so eloquently called it: "Miracle-Flo - it's better than the corporate fertilizers and the packaging is all natural."

For those of you who have not yet signed up, it's not too late! Just add your name to the comments and I'll link you up in the sidebar. And, for those of you about to type in "Yuck!" into the comments, you might want to spend a few minutes looking into how your food is fertilized. It's not all petroleum based... I suspect there's a hearty amount of tasty dry aged, grass-finished manure mixed in there as well.

Fool sell

Honda announced this week that they are ready for mass production of their hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the FCX Clarity. Hooray! Sort of. Not really.

Well, it turns out that "mass production" means that they will be producing a whopping 200 vehicles over the next three years. These cars will mostly only be available in Southern CA as that is where the fuel cell station infrastructure is being built.

Here's another point that makes this wholly ridiculous as a transportation alternative. Currently these vehicles cost several hundred thousand dollars to make. So, "special" people such as film producers and Jamie Lee Curtis have been chosen to receive one of the first 5 off the production line. You see, Honda is essentially underwriting the cost of the car to be able to lease it for $600 a month. And they certainly aren't going to waste that on us regular people.

Honda predicts that the price will eventually drop to under $100,000 so that it's, you know, more affordable. Within a decade. A decade? Frankly, if Honda can't produce an affordable fuel cell vehicle in less than ten years (and these guys have been working on this technology longer than any other car manufacturer - 16 years) then the whole fuel cell industry sounds doomed as a viable option. And how is $100K affordable? It's not. How about $10K?

Honda argues that electric vehicles (EV) take too long to charge and that the energy being used is usually generated from coal burning power plants, so their fuel cell vehicle is a better option. In spite of the website declaring that "it runs on clean, domestically produced hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe", it's not mentioned exactly where the energy for distilling the hydrogen is coming from, but I suspect that the energy input is still more than the energy output. And more likely than not it will be from fossil fuel driven power plants.

So, what does get burned or used to generate the hydrogen sold at the hydrogen refueling stations? Even the CA Air Resources Board is a little sketchy on that point (for those of you who have watched Who Killed the Electric Car, you'll remember the CA Air Resources Board as being the dimwits that helped to kill it): "When operating directly with hydrogen, there are no polluting emissions and no greenhouse gases from a fuel cell, only water and heat. If the hydrogen is generated by reforming fossil fuels, some greenhouse gases are released..."

Honda also observed that a big remaining hurdle to true mass production is the lack of filling stations that sell hydrogen. Even in California, where the state government has led a push to build hydrogen stations, there are still very few public stations. That will make it hard to drive the car far from home, limiting its appeal. You think? And they complain that EVs don't go far enough.

So, why are we chasing fuel cell vehicles down the rabbit hole when there exists a technologically feasible alternative today with an EV? Well, because there is this misperception that people want and need a car that will go more than 100 miles per charge. Most people looking for a car are not travelling huge distances and have the ability to recharge their cars overnight. More recent EVs have a simple plug-in technology that allows users to plug their car into a standard outlet.

I don't know about you, but I'm banking on fusion over fuel cells as my energy panacea. In the meantime, I'll be awaiting the documentary, "Who Pulled the Plug on the Plug-in Hybrid?"

If you're depressed over today's post, here's something to cheer you up: the Th!nk Ox electric car. Coming soon to a road near you. For somewhere around $25,000.

The feminization of the American male

At what point did the standard for male sexuality switch from muscular, hairy men to androgynous, hairless ones? What am I talking about and what does this have to do with the environment? Well, bear with me and I'll 'splain.

Think back to the 1970s and before (I know, that far?) and, using the all important media as our meter of society, take a gander at the men who were considered sex symbols. The standard was tall, dark and hairy. Facial hair, hairy chests, the whole shebang.

Think of Gregory Peck, Cary Grant, Dean Martin, Sean Connery, Tom Selleck or even (yikes!) Burt Reynolds. Sure there was the occasional boyish heartthrob thrown in to titillate the younger crowds, but for the most part the male sex symbols were men. Manly men.

Starting in the 1980s, the male sex symbol started being neuterified. Yes, I made that word up. Can we blame Miami Vice and Don Johnson's hairless chest and preoccupation with looking good? That perpetual 5 o'clock shadow that screams "Yes! I'm a man, but not enough to have real facial hair"?

Fast forward to today and the list of sex symbols is more of a mix. Now, I'm not discounting the likes of Gerard Butler, Clive Owen, Hugh Jackman and the rest, but there's been a serious trend towards celebrities with elfin magic such as Jude Law, Justin Timberlake, Orlando Bloom and Leonardo DiCaprio (the early years).

Wait a minute, can we go back and think about Gerard Butler, Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman again. Ok. Anyway, I've been masturbating, I mean masticating over this for a few weeks now. Good lord, where was I going with this?

Damn, the research on this is excruciating!

Now, before you think I'm some Bonobo getting all hot and bothered over the hairy Pan paniscus in the crowd, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a big fan of body hair. But, I do like my men to look like men and not little boys.

So, what's the deal with the recent pressure on adult men to be metrosexual? There's nothing wrong with a little manscaping here and there, but men are being subjected to the same beauty pressures that women have had to endure for the last several hundred years and longer.

Aside from the personal pressure to live up to some standard of beauty and the self-doubt and criticism that follows, the impact of trying to achieve an unnatural state is no light matter. It's bad enough that half the population is condemned to rely on beauty products, haircare (coloring and hair products), body hair maintenance and the rest. Now men are feeling like they have to do the same. That means more waste in a number of ways.

I'm not suggesting that men don't take care of their appearances. Keeping the eyebrows, nose and ear hair under control is one thing. Plucking, waxing and altogether altering one's appearance to maintain a boyish look is another.

Not too surprising, even Brad Paisley is commenting on the trend in one of his latest songs, I'm Still a Guy:

These days there’s dudes gettin' facials
Manicured, waxed, and botoxed
But with deep spray on tans and creamy lotioney hands
You cain’t grip a tackle box
Yeah, with all of these men linin' up to get neutered
It’s hip now to be feminized
But, I don’t highlight my hair
I’ve still got a pair
Yeah, honey I’m still a guy

Oh, my eyebrows ain’t plucked
Theres a gun in my truck
Oh Thank God, I’m still a guy

What is the real opinion on the metrosexual trend. I want to hear from both men and women on how they feel about the pressure for men to focus so much on their appearance.

Men: Do you feel a pressure to get all "prettified" to meet a new standard?

Women: Do you prefer a more natural looking guy or one that's well manicured?

Blogs of Note

Hey look! I'm today's Blog of Note on Blogger. Welcome everyone!

No child left behind

In yesterday's post, someone commented on how not having children was one of the most environmentally friendly things a person could do and that those who didn't have kids really didn't need to do anything else for the environment.

One woman, Toni Vernelli, 35, who was sterilized when she was 28 states:

Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.

Another couple that has chosen not to procreate believes:

[We] live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. That's why [the husband] had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for us to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

What think ye? Is it morally wrong to have children?

Some have argued that if humans were to follow this line of thinking, then suicide, natural disasters and other catastrophes man-made or otherwise, no matter how devastating to the population, would be of benefit to the environment. Does thinking of man as a plague on the Earth send us down a slippery slope of treating people as pests?

At what point is it considered acceptable to reduce human population? Attrition only? Government restrictions a la China? What of wars over food and water? Who gets to decide the survivors? A panel of experts or survival of the fittest (and richest)?

I drink your milkshake!

I hate to steal a line from the movie, There Will Be Blood, but this post is about oil. And since the quote explains how one character has been sucking up the oil from another's land, it seems fitting. The question I want to pose in today's post is this: have the last few generations essentially stolen the oil resources from future generations?

I've started reading James Howard Kunstler's, The Long Emergency, and, although I haven't gotten very far yet, I've been struck by the thought that over the last 150 years or so our generation and the few ones preceding it have taken one of the Earth's greatest resources and completely squandered it. On the most inane crap.

Granted, the industrial revolution and the industry, discoveries and innovation that were fueled by petroleum have been phenomenal in a number of ways. And, it certainly can be argued that during most of this time it was unknown how much oil existed underground, so I suppose we should give ourselves just a tiny bit of a break. But, on the other hand, we have taken what took millions of years to create and used it for suchly highly laudable activities such as driving around in behemoth vehicles to purchase cheap plastic crap and generally indulge ourselves in whatever flights of fancy it afforded.

Well, party people, methinks the fantasy is coming to a close. The age of petroleum is on the down slope. Now, being Ms. Positively, I'm fairly certain that there will be some sort of energy replacement. We most definitely won't be living as high on the energy hog anymore, but I don't believe that destitution and civil unrest is a guarantee as a result. But, either way, it distresses me that the billions of barrels of oil that we had at our disposal was used (outside a few innovations) for such stupid means.

Why didn't anyone have the forethought to conserve this amazing resource? Of those who did, why didn't anyone listen to them? Why do we still not listen to them and blithely piss away what we have left on "gas efficient" personal SUVs and trucks (now getting an amazing 20 MPG!), pleasure travel, extra trips to the store, etc. etc. ad naseum.

It's as if humanity had been handed this most valuable and precious item and all we did with it was ruin our atmosphere, water and wildlife and got fat in the process. I suppose it just shows how ridiculously self-serving and short-sighted we are. It makes me angry that we've taken something that could have potentially lasted thousands of years and just drank it up with the same amount of greed and ambition and paranoia as the character in the movie I quoted from above.

Have any of you thought of peak oil in this context or am I just lagging behind?