No Impact Man: The strength of individual action

Last night Chris and I sat down and watched No Impact Man, a fascinating documentary about Colin Beavan and his family who, in the midst of the chaos of New York City, decided to revolutionize their lifestyle and eliminate their environmental impact for one year. They gave up everything from using toilet paper to riding escalators, set up a compost bucket in their apartment, and eventually stopped using household electricity (which meant no refrigerator, television, or lights). The Beavan family used their individual power to challenge systems of unsustainability and to inspire greater collective action.

What's fascinating about Colin's project is that in the process of lessening his impact on the environment, he drastically improved his own life. He ate healthier by eating fresh, local (non processed) food and he was able to spend more quality time with his family by eliminating most digital technology from his household. He saved his family a substantial amount of money by reducing uneccesary purchases and buying used goods instead of new goods.

However, Colin also faced severe criticism. Some claimed he was doing the project for fame and fortune (he wrote a book about his experience) instead of for altruistic reasons. Other environmentalists claimed that his radical actions tainted their imagine. I found it easy to join the critics at first, as his plan wasn't flawless and included some hypocrisies. Yet in many cases, it's easier to criticize than to take action.

Colin was contributing to the dialogue in green living and using his individual power to create change. The purpose of the book and documentary was to inspire collective action. As he says, "The fact of the matter is that if only I change, it's not going to make a difference, but the hope is that if each of us as individuals change, it's going to inspire everybody to change. So I believe the most radical political act there is, is to be an optimist. The most radical political act there is, is to believe that if I change, other people will follow suit."

It will take decades to revolutionalize corporate and political institutions for the maximum benefit of the environment. However, as Vaclav Smil said, "There is no faster, easier fix for America's energy crisis than to simply begin living with rational limits." We can't wait for the system to change, we must change it ourselves by thinking globally and acting locally.

Since watching the film, Chris and I have talked about committing a week to the No Impact Project this January. Although it wasn't directly addressed in the movie we've also considered eliminating high fructose corn syrup from our diets because of the disaster it reeks on your health (obesity), the economy (corn subsidies), and the environment (food processing). We also hope to have a Green Christmas by wrapping our Christmas packages with recycled materials like newspapers or paper bags and purchasing mostly eco-friendly and fair trade items.

For more information on the No Impact Experiment and a trailer from the movie, check out this video.

Voter Registration Apathy

Though I haven't posted much recently, have no fear, as I have lots of pent up political angst!

In the meantime, here's a link to an editorial I wrote for UVa's newspaper, The Cavalier Daily, entitled "The privledge of voting" regarding voter registration apathy among college students.

So, if you live in Virginia and aren't registered to vote, print out a form from the Virginia State Board of Elections and mail it in by October 12th!

Inception- "Your mind is the scene of the crime"

I saw the movie Inception twice last week. It had it all- an excellent storyline, great special effects and cinemotography, superb acting, and a quality original soundtrack. If you haven't seen it yet, Inception presents a world in which your enemies can break into your dreams and steal ideas from (or maybe even plant ideas into) your subconscious. The theme central to the movie is Perception and Reality, as the main character, Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), struggles with distringuishing between the dream world in the real world.

It just so happens that the issue of perception and reality is just as relevant to many current events. The media can plant ideas into your mind more easily than Cobb and his team can. Magazines and news shows have been slyly photoshopping images since the term was invented, and biased news crews have been taking quotes out of context even before then.

Earlier this summer, The Economist was criticized for photoshopping a photo of Obama to make it look more emotionally appealing for its cover story "Obama v BP: The damage beyond the spill." A local parishoner, Charlotte Randolph, was edited out of the photo. After The New York Times exposed the photoshopping, deputy editor of The Economist responded by saying "We removed her not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers [. . . ] it is to bring out the central character. We don’t edit photos in order to mislead." Honestly, I don't feel like The Economist was trying to misinform its readers, but the image without Mrs. Randolph has a different emotional appeal to anyone that sees it. The cover (including the text) infers that Obama was damaged by the oil spill, especially in light of the edit, yet the editor claims that "I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated [. . . ] "The damage beyond the spill” referred to on the cover, and examined in the cover leader, was the damage not to Mr. Obama, but to business in America." However, I didn't percieve that message when I got my Economist in the mail and saw the cover.

More controversially, AMERICABlog has analyzed three photos from BP's crisis response and found that they have photoshopped screens into them to make it look like the employees were busier than they actually were.  AMERICABlog has circled the areas where the edits are visible in one of the images (for more details click the link above), which are featured on BP's website. The Washington Post recently picked up the story, and now BP is scrambling to defend itself... yet again.

However, more than just the media doctor images. When the Chinese government built a railway in an area that environmentalists claimed would endanger local antelope, it photoshopped antelope into photos of the completed railway. Two summers ago during the Summer Olympics, China broadcasted a computer-generated clip of a complicated fireworks routine during its live footage of the fireworks in the opening ceremony. While the second of these two stories is more innocent, both are two examples of the government of China intentionally attempting to deceive its people. While China gets political capital out of such instances, there are businesses out there that make big bucks on photo-editing. Take Digital Retouch, an entire company based on retouching, shaping, and manipulating photos of models (the Beauty & Hair and Shaping sections are the most dramatic, see for yourself).

Still, photoshopping is only one way to plant false ideas into a media consumer's mind. You may be tired of hearing about this by now, but it's an easily identifiable and recent example of news networks taking a quote directly out of context. What happened was Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger, posted a segment of 4-month old video of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod speaking at a Georgia NAACP gathering. Sherrod's father was murdered by a racist, and in her speech Sherrod talked about overcoming her racism to help a poor white farmer. However, the quote about her racist past was taken out of context and exploded over conservative media. Before anyone thought to review the entire speech, Sherrod was fired from her job in the Department of Agriculture, and the President of the NAACP even condemned her speech. It wasn't until someone thought to actually review the entire video that Sherrod was vindicated. Although some complain that this received too much news coverage, I believe it's a clear example of bias in the media. Think of the consequences for Sherrod and race relations as a whole if no one had though to check up on Breitbart's original claim.

The tagline for Inception is "Your mind is the scene of the crime." In this modern day, the criminals are everyone from respectable periodicals like the Economist to corporations like BP to governments like China to mega news networks like Fox News. Thankfully, other journalists and bloggers have called them out on their crimes against the honest mind. However, it's scary to think of the misinformation that hasn't been uncovered. At least Cobb is stuck in the dream world of Inception so he can't plant anymore false ideas into people's minds.

Recession Blues (Song)

This week's blog post comes in the form of a satirical song I wrote about current events and the economy. Enjoy. :)

"Recession Blues" by Krista O'Connell


Lyrics:
Well I'm broke, ain't got no money in the bank
Except for six lonely dollars at a low interest rate
Benny B, give me some good news
Cause I've got recession blues

Finding a good job is harder than winning the lottery
I'd rob a bank, but they're in more debt than me
I'd beg on the street but I'm afraid to get mugged
By some greedy, unemployed corporate thug.
I hear BP is looking for lawyers,
But maybe they'll take me.

I'm waiting for a paycheck to come in the mail...
Maybe the Postal Service stole it to bail
Itself out of this sinking, sad sorry economy
Benny B, give me some good news
Cause I've got recession blues

These days it'd be easier to fake a degree
Than to pay tuition at a university (UVa *ahem*)
And forget about retiring before I'm dead
Cause my Social Security check is gonna be negative
Guess I'll have to take a loan from Japan
Just like you Uncle Sam

On the bright side:
Wrecked my car, don't hafta pay for gas
Can't shop online since my computer crashed
Got no money to spend and nothing to buy
But hey, I'm gonna be just fine
Since I got you boy and you're lovin is free
And that's the most valuable thing to me

Was America really founded on Christianity?

So I've got a lot to blog about, but this is the most seasonally appropriate. On the Fourth of July, my dad convinced me (and my boyfriend and his sister as well) to go to church with him and the rest of the family. The church service started thirty minutes early to make time for a special Fourth of July play by the children. As a whole, the entire one and a half hour service was a bold display of the persistent forced marriage of church and state, and the pastor used the sermon to more acutely articulate his conviction that our nation was founded on Jesus Christ, and, unless the USA returns to her Christian roots, we will no longer be the land of the free and the home of the brave. To paraphrase the pastor, "today (July 4th) is a commemoration of our nation's independence from tyranny, but dependence on God."

I've heard conflicting stories about exactly what role the Founding Fathers wanted the church to play in America, but after doing some research I've discovered that many of our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams, specifically called for a separation of church and state. While they were undoubtedly devout Christians, they had no intentions for America to be a theocracy.

When the first colonists came to America, they came escaping religious persecution and state religion. Hypocritically, many colonies went on to officially establish their own religions, and some jobs and political offices required applicants to pass a religious test. However, this all changed once the Article 6 of the Constitution prohibited the use of religious tests and the First Amendment protected the free exercise of religion. Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were very clear in their writings that it for their best interest that the church and state be separated.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 articulating his beliefs (along with  citing the first amendment) about the relationships between church and state

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

In fact, many historians claim the Jefferson was the one to coin the term "separation of church and state." Jefferson went on to design the University of Virginia (holla!) to further reflect his faith in the separation between church and state. As an architect and founder of the school, Jefferson placed the Rotunda as the center of his public university, ostensibly choosing to place a library modeled after the Parthenon at the nucleus of the UVa grounds instead of a church.

James Madison, our Father of the Constitution, was also a fierce advocate of the separation of church in state, as you can see from many of his letters. Many times he refers to the desire for a "total separation of the church from the State" and also writing that, "a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822). I don't think it's possible to have a clearer framer's intent.

Perhaps the most blunt assertion of the idea of the separation of church and state comes from a clause in The Treaty of Tripoli, as ratified by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797. The treaty was a part of the set of Barbary Treaties crafted to address pirating on the Barbary Coast. Recognizing that the area was dominated by the Islamic faith, Article 11 of the treaty reminds the world that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

And it's a good thing that our nation wasn't founded on Christianity, especially as the US becomes increasingly diverse. According to an extensive 2007 survey by the Pew Form on Religion & Public Life, 78.4% of American adults are Christian, and a shrinking 51.3% of them are Protestants. That's a pretty big number, but it also means that 21.4% of American adults practice other religions or none at all. Thus, to say that America was founded on and perseveres because of Christianity effectively excludes and marginalizes the religion of nearly one fourth of Americans, whether they be Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, or atheists. Even among those Americans who are Christian, there are so many different denominations and interpretations of Christianity that I doubt there could be a national agreement to what exactly "the church" is and how to apply it to policy. Just sit a Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, and Greek Orthodox down at a table and I'm sure they can come up with more ways that they're different than similar (come to think of it, this is exactly what Thanksgiving at my dad's house sounds like). After all, some of the worst wars and violentest of conflicts are between people of the same religion whether Catholics versus Protestants or Sunnis versus Shias.

Walking into a church full of children waving flags and streamers singing "God Bless America" is cute, but powerful imagery. While I don't think it's wrong for churches to celebrate the Fourth of July, it's factually inaccurate for anyone to claim that America was founded on Christianity and the marriage of church and state.

As long as voters or politicians erroneously believe that our country was founded on Christianity, we will get policy that is poisoned with homophobia and sexism, intolerance of other beliefs, government funding of religious initiatives, restrictions on sex ed and birth control, and Creationism in the schools. Ultimately, basing policy on religion is dangerous, because it needs no justification other than "because the Bible says so." There is little critical thinking in religious fundamentalism, and it's unfair to subject an entire country to any group's misguided beliefs.

For further reading check out Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or click on any of the links/ citations in this article.

Photo credit to Monque

"Daddy, girls can't play the guitar!"

Although it's easy to overlook or forget about, sexism is alive in well in modern America. Just today I went in to a local music shop to get my guitar checked out since my pickup's been misbehaving. As I was carrying my guitar in, a little girl who was about four years old stared at me and exclaimed loudly to her father, "Daddy, girls can't play the guitar! It's only for boys."

Now I was shocked. I've been playing the guitar for almost 8 years, and I am certifiably a girl. I'm no Jimmy Page, but I can also certifiably rock out. Where was this girl, with her pink Barbie dress and blonde hair, getting the message that women are physically incapable, or at least discouraged, from playing the guitar? It's bad enough to hear men put women down, but I think it's even worse when sexists can convince girls and women put themselves down.

Why are there so few women lead guitarists? There are famous female vocalists, pianists, and violinists, but there are very few famous women guitarists, much less lead guitarists. Rolling Stone's famous 2003 list of the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time only includes two female guitarists, Joni Mitchell at #72 and Joan Jett at #87, neither of whom is known for their solos. Looking at Rolling Stones' 100 Greatest Guitar Songs of All Time, only one song written and played by a woman makes the cut, Joan Jett and the Blackheart's "I Love Rock and Roll" coming in at #89.

Yet there are women out there who can shred, just check out Venus Magazine's response to the Stones article, The Greatest Female Guitarists of All Time. Or listen to Susan Tedesci, Orianthi (who was scheduled to be Michael Jackson's guitarist in his This is It tour and is pictured on the right), Bonnie Rait, Melissa Etheridge, Jewel, Joan Jett, Ann Wilson of Heart, and even Avril Lavigne. If you don't believe me that these girls are talented, watch Orianthi shred Eddie Van Halen style or Susan Tedesci play some (original) old school blues.

However, the few girls that do play guitar get more attention for their appearance than their talent. For example, when I searched "famous women guitarists" on Google, the second site was "Top 12 Hottest Female Guitarists Ever," implying that the women that do play guitar don't even get credit for their talent, only for their sex appeal. Just look at any of the comments of videos of girls playing guitar on YouTube and you'll see a lot of comments about their looks and not about their music. Here are just some of the comments on the Orianthi video I posted. iRewel says, "I'd blow a few loads in that whore." Meanwhile, Lemonsongthe writes, "She should practice more instead of doing her hair and her make up that was sloppy as fuck." NJguitarnewbjk muses that she "should have gone into the porn industry."

Let's not forget IxMAKExUxGoXLOL's analysis, "A woman trying to do something that a man has already done several times better... Typical." True, there are also many people who have praised Orianthi for her talent (including legends Steve Vai, Michael Jackson, and Carlos Santana), but you can also find comment boards full of people picking apart her every riff and insulting her every move and hairdo. Maybe Sinead O'Connor's strategy is the best- to avoid being successful because of her looks alone, Sinead shaves her head and wears humble clothes in all of her appearances. By the way, Sinead plays the guitar as well as sings.

Maybe it's that the guitar is a phallic symbol, or at least more entrenched in the male identity than the female experience. In fact, it seems like it's a rite of passage for every teenage boy to learn at least "Smoke on the Water" on the guitar. Girls, on the other hand, are taught to copy the moves from the latest music video. For guys, playing the guitar is a cliche way to "get all the chicks," though by no means is the reverse true. In Guitar World's analysis of the Top 10 Reasons to Play Guitar one of the reasons is for playing guitar is "Mating." The article details:

Boys, admit it. Whatever your purportedly purist goals were, you had visions of female affection racing through your mind when you figured out the riff to “Enter Sandman.” After all, it pays off when the fairer sex sees how well you can use your hands. Conversely, girls, though you often don’t get proper recognition as players, you automatically have the rapt attention of every male music-nerd who dreams of dating a guitar heroine."

I've played a lot of shows, and I've never found that being a girl that plays guitar has made guys attracted to me (singing, on the other hand, is completely different if you're a girl). In fact, it's clear that being a good girl guitarist intimidates guys most of the time, and they find it embarrassing if a girl can play better than them. The best compliments I've ever received while playing is that "you play like a guy." Being a girl who can play guitar is about constantly trying to prove yourself, even if you're not trying to be the next Hendrix. Check out Being a Female Guitarist Takes Balls for a good narrative by girl in the music industry.

Why can't girls play guitar? Ultimately, it's a combination of societal factors. There is no precedence of women being famous for playing the guitar, and sex appeal is more important than talent to succeed the music industry, especially if you're female. It's because girls like the one I encountered in the store don't think that girls are supposed to play the guitar. However, sexism is not limited to the music industry. I originally had included sexism in politics and religion in this post, but I think I'll save it for another time. It'll still be around when I have the time to write about it later.

Start the klo'c

So I've been blogging since I was in middle school on Xanga (don't laugh too hard!), though my posts have mainly been concerned with my personal life, occasionally dabbling in causes that concerned me. I've considered starting a second, more serious blog for a while, and since I've found myself with a lot of extra time and political frustration this summer I'm finally going to do it.

Thus I present Like Klo'cwork, a blog I want to use to focus on issues in the world, nation, Virginia, and my community. Klo'c stands for my initials, and, in case you didn't catch it, is a homophone for clock. I hope to only include researched and meaningful posts that function like clockwork (shout out to Chris for help with the name). But don't get your hopes up.

For anyone that may be interested, here are some of my political posts from my previous blog. Though some of the issues are outdated, I hope for this blog to contain similar content:

Crisis in Zimbabwe: What You Need to Know July 1, 2008

A Moment for Activism in Darfur August 10, 2007

Finding Meaning in Nicaragua July 25, 2007

Important Child Soldier Legislation July 12, 2007

Peace,

klo'c