I am not a blogger. This, however, is being said by a girl with a facebook, a private Xanga site, and now a Blogger site. I have never been one for putting myself out there for everyone to see. The Xanga is a private messaging board between my fiancé and me, and if anyone were to find the password, I am not sure whether the reader would throw up from our cutsie posts before or after I died of humiliation. The blogger site for me was always just for the class. I know that other people can find it, and may have, but I could not imagine someone out there really wanting to read my post on my cottage, or on endangered species. That is not to say I did not enjoy writing the posts – there were many I really enjoyed, I just could not see people outside of our colligate atmosphere caring much what I had to say on these topics. Because of this, I really geared my posts toward my classmates. I wrote them with the impact and discussion they would spur in mind. I always looked forward to receiving feedback in the form of comments.
The first post we wrote, I received nine very positive comments which to me evened out the ridiculous amount of time I spent writing that snippet that I did not even use in my reflective essay. However, the fact that many assignments were blog posts made them somehow less important in my mind. For example, though I always tried on the rhetorical strategy posts, had I known I were directly handing a copy into you, I do not doubt that my grammar and writing style would have changed drastically. I think those are my middle of the road posts – the daily assignments that I tried on, but did not really pour into.
My actual papers that were posted to the blog, however, were taken with just as much seriousness as any other paper. Those are my best posts – it is obvious that hours were poured into them. It is a strange balance, even to me. Being forced to look back through these posts is funny for me – it is so easy to see what took time and effort and what (like the examples of good and bad rhetoric) was left to the last minute. That post and my Cradle to Cradle post just were not great. The thing that I find slightly annoying is that even the posts I spent VERY little time on garnered many of the same positive comments that the ones I really spent time and effort on. This cold, I suppose, be taken as a great compliment to my writing style, but I would take it more to mean that people want to be reserved in their negative feedback when they then have to meet face to face. Maybe if this were a complete online course (which I think it easily could be) people would be more truthful in their blog comments.
Looking at my comments to others, I think I can be harsh. I know I can be harsh, actually. I appreciate constructive feedback and want people to say, “This is great, BUT…” so that is what I do for other people. I do not know if that is what other people like, though, so I have wondered throughout the class if others view me as judgmental or too harsh. However, I feel that a lot of what I had to say was very constructive, and, I can only hope, somewhat helpful to my classmates.
Overall I think I did a fairly good job on my blog. I think it is a fair representation of the amount of time I put into this class – it shows that sometimes I did not enjoy the readings as much (Cradle to Cradle) and sometimes I had a lot to say (Omnivore’s Dilemma). This setup did help me work on my rhetoric as well – I knew my classmates were going to read my posts and I knew if I did not express myself well that they would not agree with what I was saying. This forced me to push my rhetorical boundaries and expand my writing.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
I found a few cartoons that kind of represent what I want to do:
These kind of present a challenge for not only celebrities and politicians, but also ourselves. We talk a lot of talk but the tougher part is actually following through. A prime example of this is the Live Earth concert which people flew to in private jets and took hummers to - What are you raising funding for again? Oh, right, awareness of global warming. I could see a site that not only pointed this out, but had a good resource set for actually making changes...
These kind of present a challenge for not only celebrities and politicians, but also ourselves. We talk a lot of talk but the tougher part is actually following through. A prime example of this is the Live Earth concert which people flew to in private jets and took hummers to - What are you raising funding for again? Oh, right, awareness of global warming. I could see a site that not only pointed this out, but had a good resource set for actually making changes...
The Village Bakery and Cafe: The Recipe for Sustainability
Brianna
Eng 308J
The Village Bakery is not the average, run of the mill café, bakery combo. It was opened in 2002 by Christine Hughes who was later joined by her partner Bob O’Neil with the vision of providing affordable, local, and sustainable foods to Athens, Ohio. In 2007 Bob and Christine opened Della Zona in the space that the Village Bakery used to occupy and the Village Bakery ventured a few hundred feet to the east into the neighboring building (Hughes). The vision of these restaurants, namely the Village Bakery and Café, is to “sustain our community and provide exceptional dining by using locally grown organic vegetables, grassfed meats, free-range eggs, and farmstead cheeses,” (The Village Bakery). The real goal for the bakery was and is to buy from sustainable local farms that “produce a food with the kind of effect on the environment that is positive,” (Hughes). Locality is important for the environmental impact as well as the transparency of the methods used in raising the animal or crop that will become lunch. After all, as Bob said, “what what you eat eats is the basis of healthy eating.”
Both Bob and Christine worked at another local restaurant co-op known for using local foods, Casa Nueva. In their time there they moved from using 20% local foods to about 75% before Christine left. She knew when she branched out on her own that she wanted to start a business and not a non-profit organization. For one thing, she had experience in running a business and dealing with suppliers as that was her main role at Casa Nueva. The idea of relying on government grants and always having to answer to someone pushed her away from the non-profit scene and into owning a restaurant. This is not to say that The Village Bakery does no non-profit work. They often donate gift certificates and food to local non-profits. They are inundated with requests and being a business they must pick and choose the causes they want to contribute to. Most often, Bob and Christine choose to partner with non-profits working toward the same goals in the local area – local and sustainable food available to all people – such as the Community Action Initiative which sets aside land for anyone to plant a garden in a local park (Hughes).
Christine has also founded an organization, The Green Plate Club, which is involved in local schools. The goal of this organization is to teach school aged children and young adults to cook and eat not only what is healthy for their bodies, but also what is healthy for their planet. This group meets to discuss food and its impact, positive or negative, on the environment. A new chapter recently opened in Columbus, Ohio and the happiness and pride was easy to read on Christine’s face as she discussed it. She and Bob are so obviously dedicated to providing “real” food for every person (Hughes).
When asked if they encounter higher costs by buying from local providers and not off of a giant truck from a single provider, they did not initially speak of the financial cost. They spoke of the environmental cost of industrial food – that is food that is made in mass quantities, often using subpar and dangerous methods, then shipped across the country for sale. To them paying slightly more and putting in much more work in the growing season is worth everything they put into it. “America supports farmers…turns out 60% of the money [given out in subsidies] goes to Cargill, ADM, etc…What we’re really talking about is the cost of money. [Agriculture] is subsidized by the government…by war and keeping petroleum prices low,” Bob explained. He wanted to be sure that we understood the overarching implications of trucking food across the country and how unsustainable this is. He and Christine explained that the choices that they are making, and the ones we are making as well, affect everyone. The over-chemicalized fields not only create “virtual life” or pests and bacteria that are resistant to pesticides and antibiotics, but also leech into the water systems – and eventually into the water we drink. It is all needless – with the use of more and more stronger pesticides, costs are going up and yield is falling. This means that a local farmer practicing sustainable agriculture could produce as much if not more than the “agri-businesses” that Bob and Christine detest (Hughes).
The major obstacle the bakery has encountered is financial. Any additions must be planned very far in advance because of the difficulty obtaining funds. Since the Village Bakery and Café is a business any money used in renovations would come from loans issued by a bank. However, banks have a certain profit to spending ratio that they look for in the restaurant business and within this business it is lacking not due to poor sales, but their very commitment to serve local food. Since southeastern Ohio has such harsh winters most plants only can be harvested once per year. This means that serving marinara sauce in the winter entails buying an exorbitant amount of tomatoes, cooking them down in the summer, and freezing the sauce to be used in the winter. The same thing is done with many vegetables including bell peppers which are cleaned, diced, and frozen for use in the dead of winter. Because of this, spending peaks to a sharp high in the harvesting months and falls dramatically in the winter. This makes the business appear to the outsider as unstable and makes it nearly impossible for them to obtain loans. It is also this practice that makes freezer space a commodity. About a year after the Village Bakery was opened, the Undercover Market opened, selling excess produce, Snowville Creamery milk, fresh made yogurt and cheeses, and many gift items such as shirts and water bottles. All of the things found in the market are sustainable and free trade. Bob makes sure of it, even going as far as Paraguay to observe the conditions on the co-op sugar cane farm they obtain their sugar from. “We feel like food detectives,” laughed Christine.
Even though they struggle to gain funding, the owners say that the restaurant is doing quite well despite the struggling economy. They attribute this to the same values that started the Village Bakery – locality. Fair trade downplays the effects of fixation on the prices of many of products sold in the store and deli. This means that though prices are very high right now, even the sugar from Paraguay is fairly stable in price because they are paying for the actual sugar, not the idea of sugar found in corporate business. Closer to home, the local prices are not effected as dramatically by the boom in gas prices. Beyond this, there is no middle man in many of their business relationship which not only cuts costs, but also ensures that the farmers receive more money. This leads to a lot of savings for Bob and Christine overall for simply doing what they feel is morally right (Hughes).
One of the above discussed loans would allow Bob and Christine to pursue their next dream – to grow at least some of their own lettuce. Lettuce is something that they find themselves short on a lot, especially in the winter necessitating trips to Kroger for organic lettuce that they do not like to make. Their only other future plans for expansion are to help other activists to set up sustainable and local restaurants in other areas. “I really think this could work in any town…the college helps, but there are a lot of college towns,” Christine said. They hope to help others with their vast experience in dealing with local growers, in food choices, locations, and anything they could help with. Christine joked, “We need to write a book, maybe!” Overall Bob and Christine are not looking to expand their restaurant but are always trying to expand the consciousness of the impact of the food being eaten in America and more importantly to them, in Athens (Hughes). With food as good as theirs and the drive and passion visible and contagious to all who interact with them, Bob and Christine truly inspire their patrons to, as the sign near the entrance reads, “celebrate [their] power to change the world every time [they] pick up a fork.”
Works Cited:
Hughes, Christine and Bob O’Neil. Personal interview. 25 February 2009.
The Village Bakery and Cafe website. 1 March 2009
http://www.dellazona.com/villagebakery/villagebakery/about.aspx
Interview Questions:
1. What was your vision when you opened the Village Bakery? How has that vision evolved?
2. Has the tough economy effected business negativly at all?
3. Do you consider yourselves business people, activists, food lovers, or all of the above?
4. Can you talk a little more about Slow Foods USA?
5. Did your work at Casa inspire you at all?
6. Have you seen a lot of gratitude from local farmers?
7. Why did you name the Undercover Market as such?
8. Does the use of local products lead to higher costs as compared to getting everything from one company such as GFS?
9. What sorts of non-profits do you work with?
10. Do you think the view is shifting to that of a more sustainable approach?
11. Do you have any intentions of expanding?
12. What is your furthest import?
13. Why open the Undercover Market?
14. What is your most and least popular food?
Eng 308J
The Village Bakery is not the average, run of the mill café, bakery combo. It was opened in 2002 by Christine Hughes who was later joined by her partner Bob O’Neil with the vision of providing affordable, local, and sustainable foods to Athens, Ohio. In 2007 Bob and Christine opened Della Zona in the space that the Village Bakery used to occupy and the Village Bakery ventured a few hundred feet to the east into the neighboring building (Hughes). The vision of these restaurants, namely the Village Bakery and Café, is to “sustain our community and provide exceptional dining by using locally grown organic vegetables, grassfed meats, free-range eggs, and farmstead cheeses,” (The Village Bakery). The real goal for the bakery was and is to buy from sustainable local farms that “produce a food with the kind of effect on the environment that is positive,” (Hughes). Locality is important for the environmental impact as well as the transparency of the methods used in raising the animal or crop that will become lunch. After all, as Bob said, “what what you eat eats is the basis of healthy eating.”
Both Bob and Christine worked at another local restaurant co-op known for using local foods, Casa Nueva. In their time there they moved from using 20% local foods to about 75% before Christine left. She knew when she branched out on her own that she wanted to start a business and not a non-profit organization. For one thing, she had experience in running a business and dealing with suppliers as that was her main role at Casa Nueva. The idea of relying on government grants and always having to answer to someone pushed her away from the non-profit scene and into owning a restaurant. This is not to say that The Village Bakery does no non-profit work. They often donate gift certificates and food to local non-profits. They are inundated with requests and being a business they must pick and choose the causes they want to contribute to. Most often, Bob and Christine choose to partner with non-profits working toward the same goals in the local area – local and sustainable food available to all people – such as the Community Action Initiative which sets aside land for anyone to plant a garden in a local park (Hughes).
Christine has also founded an organization, The Green Plate Club, which is involved in local schools. The goal of this organization is to teach school aged children and young adults to cook and eat not only what is healthy for their bodies, but also what is healthy for their planet. This group meets to discuss food and its impact, positive or negative, on the environment. A new chapter recently opened in Columbus, Ohio and the happiness and pride was easy to read on Christine’s face as she discussed it. She and Bob are so obviously dedicated to providing “real” food for every person (Hughes).
When asked if they encounter higher costs by buying from local providers and not off of a giant truck from a single provider, they did not initially speak of the financial cost. They spoke of the environmental cost of industrial food – that is food that is made in mass quantities, often using subpar and dangerous methods, then shipped across the country for sale. To them paying slightly more and putting in much more work in the growing season is worth everything they put into it. “America supports farmers…turns out 60% of the money [given out in subsidies] goes to Cargill, ADM, etc…What we’re really talking about is the cost of money. [Agriculture] is subsidized by the government…by war and keeping petroleum prices low,” Bob explained. He wanted to be sure that we understood the overarching implications of trucking food across the country and how unsustainable this is. He and Christine explained that the choices that they are making, and the ones we are making as well, affect everyone. The over-chemicalized fields not only create “virtual life” or pests and bacteria that are resistant to pesticides and antibiotics, but also leech into the water systems – and eventually into the water we drink. It is all needless – with the use of more and more stronger pesticides, costs are going up and yield is falling. This means that a local farmer practicing sustainable agriculture could produce as much if not more than the “agri-businesses” that Bob and Christine detest (Hughes).
The major obstacle the bakery has encountered is financial. Any additions must be planned very far in advance because of the difficulty obtaining funds. Since the Village Bakery and Café is a business any money used in renovations would come from loans issued by a bank. However, banks have a certain profit to spending ratio that they look for in the restaurant business and within this business it is lacking not due to poor sales, but their very commitment to serve local food. Since southeastern Ohio has such harsh winters most plants only can be harvested once per year. This means that serving marinara sauce in the winter entails buying an exorbitant amount of tomatoes, cooking them down in the summer, and freezing the sauce to be used in the winter. The same thing is done with many vegetables including bell peppers which are cleaned, diced, and frozen for use in the dead of winter. Because of this, spending peaks to a sharp high in the harvesting months and falls dramatically in the winter. This makes the business appear to the outsider as unstable and makes it nearly impossible for them to obtain loans. It is also this practice that makes freezer space a commodity. About a year after the Village Bakery was opened, the Undercover Market opened, selling excess produce, Snowville Creamery milk, fresh made yogurt and cheeses, and many gift items such as shirts and water bottles. All of the things found in the market are sustainable and free trade. Bob makes sure of it, even going as far as Paraguay to observe the conditions on the co-op sugar cane farm they obtain their sugar from. “We feel like food detectives,” laughed Christine.
Even though they struggle to gain funding, the owners say that the restaurant is doing quite well despite the struggling economy. They attribute this to the same values that started the Village Bakery – locality. Fair trade downplays the effects of fixation on the prices of many of products sold in the store and deli. This means that though prices are very high right now, even the sugar from Paraguay is fairly stable in price because they are paying for the actual sugar, not the idea of sugar found in corporate business. Closer to home, the local prices are not effected as dramatically by the boom in gas prices. Beyond this, there is no middle man in many of their business relationship which not only cuts costs, but also ensures that the farmers receive more money. This leads to a lot of savings for Bob and Christine overall for simply doing what they feel is morally right (Hughes).
One of the above discussed loans would allow Bob and Christine to pursue their next dream – to grow at least some of their own lettuce. Lettuce is something that they find themselves short on a lot, especially in the winter necessitating trips to Kroger for organic lettuce that they do not like to make. Their only other future plans for expansion are to help other activists to set up sustainable and local restaurants in other areas. “I really think this could work in any town…the college helps, but there are a lot of college towns,” Christine said. They hope to help others with their vast experience in dealing with local growers, in food choices, locations, and anything they could help with. Christine joked, “We need to write a book, maybe!” Overall Bob and Christine are not looking to expand their restaurant but are always trying to expand the consciousness of the impact of the food being eaten in America and more importantly to them, in Athens (Hughes). With food as good as theirs and the drive and passion visible and contagious to all who interact with them, Bob and Christine truly inspire their patrons to, as the sign near the entrance reads, “celebrate [their] power to change the world every time [they] pick up a fork.”
Works Cited:
Hughes, Christine and Bob O’Neil. Personal interview. 25 February 2009.
The Village Bakery and Cafe website. 1 March 2009
http://www.dellazona.com/villagebakery/villagebakery/about.aspx
Interview Questions:
1. What was your vision when you opened the Village Bakery? How has that vision evolved?
2. Has the tough economy effected business negativly at all?
3. Do you consider yourselves business people, activists, food lovers, or all of the above?
4. Can you talk a little more about Slow Foods USA?
5. Did your work at Casa inspire you at all?
6. Have you seen a lot of gratitude from local farmers?
7. Why did you name the Undercover Market as such?
8. Does the use of local products lead to higher costs as compared to getting everything from one company such as GFS?
9. What sorts of non-profits do you work with?
10. Do you think the view is shifting to that of a more sustainable approach?
11. Do you have any intentions of expanding?
12. What is your furthest import?
13. Why open the Undercover Market?
14. What is your most and least popular food?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
To Meat or Not To Meat
The thing that stuck out the most for me in reading Pollan's chapter was the idea of an animals "characteristic form of life." It is an idea to which any animal right activist would quickly jump on ship with, yet their ideas would, most likely and in my view, differ significantly from those which irather than the individual is key in this argument. However, and I may be wrong, but I feel that most animal rights activists would say this is a great principle if implemented by not eating animals. This is to say that animals have a right to a happy life and for many animal rights activists that would mean not killing and eating them.
That idea makes sense in a general idea, but when viewed closer, the flaws emerge. Beyond the idea of species over individuals, the rightist, as Pollan calls them, fail to realize that domestication has led to a better life for farm animals on good farms. If not being raised on a farm, these animals would have to contend with much harsher predators that had no regard for the "feelings" of its prey.
One of the most interesting things to me is that this section about animals being benifited by domestification and the idea that eating meat is natural is closely followed by a rebuttel from the point of view of rightists. "Some people train their dogs and cats to become vegetarians. (Note: The cats will require supplements to survive.)" Where is the idea of "characteristic form of life" now? How is forcing an animal into an unnatural diet benificial for any party? It is a very strange idea that I feel is very disrespectful to the cat in this case, but overall to nature. Why are we as humans the ones to say that predation, which has occured since the beginning of multi-celled organisms with teeth, is "moral degredation?!" The idea is summed up in Pollan's statement, "A deep current of Puritanism runs through the writings of the animal philosophers, an abiding discomfort not just with our animality, but with the animals' animality, too."
I know I am not expressing myself wll here, but I wish I could. The paradox created by juxtaposing those two ideas - an animals right to be happy and live as good of a life as possible put right next to the idea of taking the animality away from animals makes it seem as if rightists don't care as much for animals as they do their own moral concious. I realize this will be taken the wrong way - I respect vegetarians very much and often wish I had the guts and perseverence to take on such a lifestyle. I also realize that industrialized farming sucks and have no problem boycotting it. It's terrible and inhumane. On the other hand, I come from a town where cows are grass fed on big plots of land for the most part and I have seen people do very well in the market with these types of animals. Yes, some of them are sent to be corn finished, but many are butchered locally. To me this is the most practical solution both morally and economically.
On a random note, I think it is very ironic that the factory farmed discussed here was named Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. It just brought the connotation of concentration camps and other terrible things. Bad name choice...
That idea makes sense in a general idea, but when viewed closer, the flaws emerge. Beyond the idea of species over individuals, the rightist, as Pollan calls them, fail to realize that domestication has led to a better life for farm animals on good farms. If not being raised on a farm, these animals would have to contend with much harsher predators that had no regard for the "feelings" of its prey.
One of the most interesting things to me is that this section about animals being benifited by domestification and the idea that eating meat is natural is closely followed by a rebuttel from the point of view of rightists. "Some people train their dogs and cats to become vegetarians. (Note: The cats will require supplements to survive.)" Where is the idea of "characteristic form of life" now? How is forcing an animal into an unnatural diet benificial for any party? It is a very strange idea that I feel is very disrespectful to the cat in this case, but overall to nature. Why are we as humans the ones to say that predation, which has occured since the beginning of multi-celled organisms with teeth, is "moral degredation?!" The idea is summed up in Pollan's statement, "A deep current of Puritanism runs through the writings of the animal philosophers, an abiding discomfort not just with our animality, but with the animals' animality, too."
I know I am not expressing myself wll here, but I wish I could. The paradox created by juxtaposing those two ideas - an animals right to be happy and live as good of a life as possible put right next to the idea of taking the animality away from animals makes it seem as if rightists don't care as much for animals as they do their own moral concious. I realize this will be taken the wrong way - I respect vegetarians very much and often wish I had the guts and perseverence to take on such a lifestyle. I also realize that industrialized farming sucks and have no problem boycotting it. It's terrible and inhumane. On the other hand, I come from a town where cows are grass fed on big plots of land for the most part and I have seen people do very well in the market with these types of animals. Yes, some of them are sent to be corn finished, but many are butchered locally. To me this is the most practical solution both morally and economically.
On a random note, I think it is very ironic that the factory farmed discussed here was named Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. It just brought the connotation of concentration camps and other terrible things. Bad name choice...
The signs from my town. There were cooler ones earlier that had a chicken crossed out on it, but I couldn't fund that one.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Paraphrasing activity
Source: An environmental blog, Stop extinction Blog. "High Hopes for Endangered Species"
Source says: Immediately upon taking office, Obama stopped any Bush rules, not yet finalized, from going forward... Unfortunately, it is too late for one of the worst rules issued by the Bush administration--removing mandatory oversight of the Fish and Wildlife Service biologists on federal projects to ensure that they don't harm endangered species.However, Obama's Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar promises to review this midnight regulation.
Mine: However, as Obama took office January 20, 2009, he stopped any laws that had not yet been finalized, saving the ESA. Though some laws, such as the one granting power to politicians over biologists had already been finalized, the new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has said he will review this legislation (Huta).
Source says: Immediately upon taking office, Obama stopped any Bush rules, not yet finalized, from going forward... Unfortunately, it is too late for one of the worst rules issued by the Bush administration--removing mandatory oversight of the Fish and Wildlife Service biologists on federal projects to ensure that they don't harm endangered species.However, Obama's Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar promises to review this midnight regulation.
Mine: However, as Obama took office January 20, 2009, he stopped any laws that had not yet been finalized, saving the ESA. Though some laws, such as the one granting power to politicians over biologists had already been finalized, the new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has said he will review this legislation (Huta).
Is the Endangered Species Act Extinct? (Final)
Brianna
Eng 308J
8 February 2009
Is the Endangered Species Act Extinct?
What do you think of when you hear the phrase ‘endangered species?’ Perhaps you think of one of the more recently listed animals, polar bears, floating sadly on their ice chunks, separated from their crying cubs. Perhaps you think of bald eagles, soaring from captivity and off of the endangered species list. Perhaps you think of your favorite animal, be it the sea turtle, the Jamaican boa, the black howler monkey, or the grizzly bear, all of which are listed as endangered or threatened. But that is why we have the Endangered Species Act (ESA), right? To protect all of these majestic and wonderful creatures?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Time and time again we see proof demonstrating the painful truth of this English proverb. The Endangered Species Act is one of the best current examples which can be cited. Put in place in 1973 by President Nixon it was created as a declaration that the United States had “pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction (“Endangered Species Act of 1973,” 3).” The ESA protects these living things through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service as headed by the United States Department of the Interior. This protection is accomplished mainly through the setting aside of land into critical habitats. A critical habitat is one which must be set aside as a recovery environment for the endangered or threatened species. It is required that each listed animal have a critical habitat in which they can reproduce and live. This habitat is to be the areas which the animals are occupying at the time of the listing (“Critical Habitat”). That is to say that if a rare flower were to be blooming in your corn field, the government could tell you to set acres of land aside to allow the flower to thrive. Plants and animals are added directly by the FWS and the NOAA Fisheries, as well as through organization and private petition (wikipedia.org). This sounds just as wonderful and marvelous as the animals and plants it was written to save. What then, is the problem?
The problem is that since its inception, the Endangered Species Act has delisted, as of January 2009, a total of 39 animals. Though this sounds acceptable, one must consider that 9 of these species were delisted due to extinction and another 16 due to incorrect data. That leaves 14 species that have been delisted due to recovery. Still sound like an achievement? There are 1,359 species of plants and animals currently protected by the ESA (Klinkenborg, 106). That is a 1% recovery rate. This is not even accounting for the animals and plants with low numbers vying to get on the list.
Also, farmers and other land owners are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of incentive to keep land as a critical habitat. Ben Cone understands the dilemma this can cause. Cone is a responsible tree-farmer from North Carolina. He let his trees grow for 80-100 years before he harvested them allowing wildlife to flourish among them. It is for this reason the government wanted Cone to have a biologist check his trees to see if the endangered red cockaded woodpeckers had made his land home – they only nest in trees at least 80 years of age. The FWS stuck Cone with the $8,000 bill for the biologist and when woodpeckers were found in his farm, they required him to set aside 1,560 acres of his 7,200 acre farm for the woodpeckers. That does not sound unreasonable. It is less than one fourth his land and he still has room to farm. However, it cost Cone $1.8 million. He received no compensation. It also caused him to harvest younger trees from the area he could farm, driving countless other species away (Bailey). In the same vein, many landowners and homebuilders take the months between when a species is declared as endangered and the when critical habitats are actually established to destroy any habitat they may have to prevent government seizure. This is the case with the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl near Tucson, Arizona where landowners hurriedly cleared any land that could be considered critical habitat (Dubner, 2).
Because of these issues, groups have come together to reform the ESA. However, most of these prospective reforms have been at the expense of the plants and animals it is looking to protect. For example, the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition calls for more voluntary compliance and less government control (“Improving the ESA” 2-5). History proves that we as human beings rarely do things when not forced. Also, President George W. Bush tried as his time in office expired, to gut the ESA completely. This would open up all current critical habitats for farming, mining, and building, effectively killing the endangered species that live there (Dickinson, 1). Bush also pushed a de facto law allowing politicians rather than scientists to study and declare species as endangered or threatened. It would also “prohibit federal agencies from taking climate change into account in weighing the impact of projects that increase greenhouse emissions (Dickinson, 1).” Polar bears would be as good as dead. However, as Obama took office January 20, 2009, he stopped any laws that had not yet been finalized, saving the ESA. Though some laws, such as the one granting power to politicians over biologists had already been finalized, the new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has said he will review this legislation (Huta).
So where is the happy medium? The ESA cannot be scrapped completely being that, however flawed, it is the only safety net set in place for dwindling populations of fauna and flora. Still, we cannot leave the Endangered Species act as is, in a perpetual state of limbo, being renewed annually since 1992 for funding from Congress (Buck, 1) and taking land from unwilling citizens without compensation. If we want to continue to enjoy plants and animals, and more importantly, keep the ecosystem from spiraling, we need to try implementing new and innovative ideas – ideas in the plural. These ideas will, undoubtedly, anger some people. We as a human race gauge our success on our ability to overcome and conquer nature. When this is taken away, some will be irritated.
The first revision that needs to be made is a multiyear renewing of the act by Congress with amendments. A multiyear renewal will allow the FWS and NOAA to flex more muscle without having to worry about losing all funding from Congress. With this renewal needs to come adequate funding of the Act. The FWS and NOAA currently receive $407 million per year to execute the Endangered Species Act. It is estimated by the National Wildlife Federation that an increase over the next five years to $693 million would more sufficiently fund the program. This dramatic increase in funding would only take $1.59 per year for each United States citizen (DiSilvestro, 2). In comparison, the War on Terror is at an average cost of $341.4 million per day (“Cost of War”). With this funding, not only would the FWS and NOAA be more able to set aside critical habitats and do much needed testing of populations, but they would be more able to give grants to landowners. This could reverse the incentives from a program which inadvertently causes landowners to scrap what could be the home to endangered species and make it more practical for them to set aside land. Critical habitats have, after all, been proven to help the species recover (Mott, 2).
Another key change that needs to be made in the implementation of the ESA is proactive measures. We as citizens of the United States have conquered nature. We have proven that we are, in fact, dominant and can live in any environment. That said, we still like to think that we really care about nature, that we are doing our best to aid in the sustainment and recovery of these endangered and threatened species. But are we really? What is the cause of the endangerment of 1,359 species of plant and animal? The short answer? Us. It is because of the expansion of human beings into the habitats of these creatures that they are becoming extinct. For example, take the dusky seaside sparrow of Merritt Island. The only places to see them now are in photographs and small, clear bottles filled with alcohol. One of these bottles is in the Ornithology Collection in the Florida Museum of Natural History where an attached tag sadly reads in scrawled handwriting, “Last One.” The sparrows of Merritt Island were declared an extinct species in 1990. What led to this? Was it hunting or introduction of an invasive, nonnative species? No. It was humankind conquering nature with a wonder pesticide called DDT (Klinkenborg, 90).
We need to think through our actions before we act. We need to set up a government program, implemented by nonprofit organizations, in which land is preserved BEFORE an animal is listed as threatened. The environmental impact of decisions needs to be weighed with as much care as the economical.
In closing, I ask that you care. If not for the animals and plants themselves, then for the warning sign they stand for. Animal and plant health is a good indicator of where we are headed. We may be more adept at handling the consequences of our actions, but if we continue on this road, we as the human race will be our ultimate demise.
Works Cited
Bailey, Ronald. “Who Pays for the Delhi Sands Fly?” Hawaii Reporter. 27 July 2005. 3
February 2009
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2908d135-6ebf-4647-8310-a7c0416ce86a.
Buck, Eugene et. all. “CRS Report for Congress: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) the
110th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices.” Federation of
American Scientists Website. 10 October 2007. 3 February 2009
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33779.pdf.
“Critical Habitat.” NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. 2008. 3 February
2009
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.html.
Dickinson, Tom. “Bush’s Final F.U.” Rolling Stone. 25 December 2009. 3 February 2009
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24991066/bushs_final_fu/1.
DiSilvestro, Roger and Kathrine Furey. “Fair Funding for Wildlife: Investing In Our
Commitment To Save America’s Endangered Wildlife.” National Wildlife
Federation Website. March 2007. 3 February 2009 http://www.nwf.org/endangered/pdfs/FairFundingForWildlifeFullReport.pdf.
Dubner, Stephen J. and Steven D. Levitt. “Unintended Consequences.” The New York
Times Magazine. 20 January 2008. 3 February 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=unintended%20consequences&st=cse&scp=1.
“Endangered Species Act.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 4 February 2009. 8
February 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act.
“Endangered Species Act of 1973 As Amended Through the 108th Congress.” United
States Fish and Wildlife Services Website. 24 November 2003. 3 February 2009
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/ESAall.pdf.
Huta, Leda. “High Hopes for Endangered Species.” Weblog entry. Stop Extinction Blog. 3 February 2009. 8 February 2009
http://stopextinctionblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/high-hopes-for-endangered-species.html
“Improving the ESA: A Potential New Approach.” National Endangered Species Act
Reform Coalition Website. 16 November 2004. 3 February 2009
http://www.nesarc.org/newapproach.pdf.
Klinkenborg, Verlyn. “Last One.” National Geographic. January 2009: 88-107.
Mott, Maryann. “U.S. Endangered Species Act Works, Study Finds.” National
Geographic News. 18 April 2005. 3 February 2009
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0418_050418_endangered.
html.
Sabater, Liza. “4,000 Deaths by the Numbers.” Weblog entry. Awearness Blog. 25 March
2008. 8 February 2009
http://awearnessblog.com/2008/03/4000-deaths-by-the-number.php.
Eng 308J
8 February 2009
Is the Endangered Species Act Extinct?
What do you think of when you hear the phrase ‘endangered species?’ Perhaps you think of one of the more recently listed animals, polar bears, floating sadly on their ice chunks, separated from their crying cubs. Perhaps you think of bald eagles, soaring from captivity and off of the endangered species list. Perhaps you think of your favorite animal, be it the sea turtle, the Jamaican boa, the black howler monkey, or the grizzly bear, all of which are listed as endangered or threatened. But that is why we have the Endangered Species Act (ESA), right? To protect all of these majestic and wonderful creatures?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Time and time again we see proof demonstrating the painful truth of this English proverb. The Endangered Species Act is one of the best current examples which can be cited. Put in place in 1973 by President Nixon it was created as a declaration that the United States had “pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction (“Endangered Species Act of 1973,” 3).” The ESA protects these living things through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service as headed by the United States Department of the Interior. This protection is accomplished mainly through the setting aside of land into critical habitats. A critical habitat is one which must be set aside as a recovery environment for the endangered or threatened species. It is required that each listed animal have a critical habitat in which they can reproduce and live. This habitat is to be the areas which the animals are occupying at the time of the listing (“Critical Habitat”). That is to say that if a rare flower were to be blooming in your corn field, the government could tell you to set acres of land aside to allow the flower to thrive. Plants and animals are added directly by the FWS and the NOAA Fisheries, as well as through organization and private petition (wikipedia.org). This sounds just as wonderful and marvelous as the animals and plants it was written to save. What then, is the problem?
The problem is that since its inception, the Endangered Species Act has delisted, as of January 2009, a total of 39 animals. Though this sounds acceptable, one must consider that 9 of these species were delisted due to extinction and another 16 due to incorrect data. That leaves 14 species that have been delisted due to recovery. Still sound like an achievement? There are 1,359 species of plants and animals currently protected by the ESA (Klinkenborg, 106). That is a 1% recovery rate. This is not even accounting for the animals and plants with low numbers vying to get on the list.
Also, farmers and other land owners are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of incentive to keep land as a critical habitat. Ben Cone understands the dilemma this can cause. Cone is a responsible tree-farmer from North Carolina. He let his trees grow for 80-100 years before he harvested them allowing wildlife to flourish among them. It is for this reason the government wanted Cone to have a biologist check his trees to see if the endangered red cockaded woodpeckers had made his land home – they only nest in trees at least 80 years of age. The FWS stuck Cone with the $8,000 bill for the biologist and when woodpeckers were found in his farm, they required him to set aside 1,560 acres of his 7,200 acre farm for the woodpeckers. That does not sound unreasonable. It is less than one fourth his land and he still has room to farm. However, it cost Cone $1.8 million. He received no compensation. It also caused him to harvest younger trees from the area he could farm, driving countless other species away (Bailey). In the same vein, many landowners and homebuilders take the months between when a species is declared as endangered and the when critical habitats are actually established to destroy any habitat they may have to prevent government seizure. This is the case with the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl near Tucson, Arizona where landowners hurriedly cleared any land that could be considered critical habitat (Dubner, 2).
Because of these issues, groups have come together to reform the ESA. However, most of these prospective reforms have been at the expense of the plants and animals it is looking to protect. For example, the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition calls for more voluntary compliance and less government control (“Improving the ESA” 2-5). History proves that we as human beings rarely do things when not forced. Also, President George W. Bush tried as his time in office expired, to gut the ESA completely. This would open up all current critical habitats for farming, mining, and building, effectively killing the endangered species that live there (Dickinson, 1). Bush also pushed a de facto law allowing politicians rather than scientists to study and declare species as endangered or threatened. It would also “prohibit federal agencies from taking climate change into account in weighing the impact of projects that increase greenhouse emissions (Dickinson, 1).” Polar bears would be as good as dead. However, as Obama took office January 20, 2009, he stopped any laws that had not yet been finalized, saving the ESA. Though some laws, such as the one granting power to politicians over biologists had already been finalized, the new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has said he will review this legislation (Huta).
So where is the happy medium? The ESA cannot be scrapped completely being that, however flawed, it is the only safety net set in place for dwindling populations of fauna and flora. Still, we cannot leave the Endangered Species act as is, in a perpetual state of limbo, being renewed annually since 1992 for funding from Congress (Buck, 1) and taking land from unwilling citizens without compensation. If we want to continue to enjoy plants and animals, and more importantly, keep the ecosystem from spiraling, we need to try implementing new and innovative ideas – ideas in the plural. These ideas will, undoubtedly, anger some people. We as a human race gauge our success on our ability to overcome and conquer nature. When this is taken away, some will be irritated.
The first revision that needs to be made is a multiyear renewing of the act by Congress with amendments. A multiyear renewal will allow the FWS and NOAA to flex more muscle without having to worry about losing all funding from Congress. With this renewal needs to come adequate funding of the Act. The FWS and NOAA currently receive $407 million per year to execute the Endangered Species Act. It is estimated by the National Wildlife Federation that an increase over the next five years to $693 million would more sufficiently fund the program. This dramatic increase in funding would only take $1.59 per year for each United States citizen (DiSilvestro, 2). In comparison, the War on Terror is at an average cost of $341.4 million per day (“Cost of War”). With this funding, not only would the FWS and NOAA be more able to set aside critical habitats and do much needed testing of populations, but they would be more able to give grants to landowners. This could reverse the incentives from a program which inadvertently causes landowners to scrap what could be the home to endangered species and make it more practical for them to set aside land. Critical habitats have, after all, been proven to help the species recover (Mott, 2).
Another key change that needs to be made in the implementation of the ESA is proactive measures. We as citizens of the United States have conquered nature. We have proven that we are, in fact, dominant and can live in any environment. That said, we still like to think that we really care about nature, that we are doing our best to aid in the sustainment and recovery of these endangered and threatened species. But are we really? What is the cause of the endangerment of 1,359 species of plant and animal? The short answer? Us. It is because of the expansion of human beings into the habitats of these creatures that they are becoming extinct. For example, take the dusky seaside sparrow of Merritt Island. The only places to see them now are in photographs and small, clear bottles filled with alcohol. One of these bottles is in the Ornithology Collection in the Florida Museum of Natural History where an attached tag sadly reads in scrawled handwriting, “Last One.” The sparrows of Merritt Island were declared an extinct species in 1990. What led to this? Was it hunting or introduction of an invasive, nonnative species? No. It was humankind conquering nature with a wonder pesticide called DDT (Klinkenborg, 90).
We need to think through our actions before we act. We need to set up a government program, implemented by nonprofit organizations, in which land is preserved BEFORE an animal is listed as threatened. The environmental impact of decisions needs to be weighed with as much care as the economical.
In closing, I ask that you care. If not for the animals and plants themselves, then for the warning sign they stand for. Animal and plant health is a good indicator of where we are headed. We may be more adept at handling the consequences of our actions, but if we continue on this road, we as the human race will be our ultimate demise.
Works Cited
Bailey, Ronald. “Who Pays for the Delhi Sands Fly?” Hawaii Reporter. 27 July 2005. 3
February 2009
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2908d135-6ebf-4647-8310-a7c0416ce86a.
Buck, Eugene et. all. “CRS Report for Congress: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) the
110th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices.” Federation of
American Scientists Website. 10 October 2007. 3 February 2009
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33779.pdf.
“Critical Habitat.” NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. 2008. 3 February
2009
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.html.
Dickinson, Tom. “Bush’s Final F.U.” Rolling Stone. 25 December 2009. 3 February 2009
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24991066/bushs_final_fu/1.
DiSilvestro, Roger and Kathrine Furey. “Fair Funding for Wildlife: Investing In Our
Commitment To Save America’s Endangered Wildlife.” National Wildlife
Federation Website. March 2007. 3 February 2009 http://www.nwf.org/endangered/pdfs/FairFundingForWildlifeFullReport.pdf.
Dubner, Stephen J. and Steven D. Levitt. “Unintended Consequences.” The New York
Times Magazine. 20 January 2008. 3 February 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=unintended%20consequences&st=cse&scp=1.
“Endangered Species Act.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 4 February 2009. 8
February 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act.
“Endangered Species Act of 1973 As Amended Through the 108th Congress.” United
States Fish and Wildlife Services Website. 24 November 2003. 3 February 2009
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/ESAall.pdf.
Huta, Leda. “High Hopes for Endangered Species.” Weblog entry. Stop Extinction Blog. 3 February 2009. 8 February 2009
http://stopextinctionblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/high-hopes-for-endangered-species.html
“Improving the ESA: A Potential New Approach.” National Endangered Species Act
Reform Coalition Website. 16 November 2004. 3 February 2009
http://www.nesarc.org/newapproach.pdf.
Klinkenborg, Verlyn. “Last One.” National Geographic. January 2009: 88-107.
Mott, Maryann. “U.S. Endangered Species Act Works, Study Finds.” National
Geographic News. 18 April 2005. 3 February 2009
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0418_050418_endangered.
html.
Sabater, Liza. “4,000 Deaths by the Numbers.” Weblog entry. Awearness Blog. 25 March
2008. 8 February 2009
http://awearnessblog.com/2008/03/4000-deaths-by-the-number.php.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Is the Endangered Species Act Extinct?
Brianna
Eng 308J
3 February 2009
Is the Endangered Species Act Extinct?
Eng 308J
3 February 2009
Is the Endangered Species Act Extinct?
What do you think of when you hear the phrase ‘endangered species?’ Perhaps you think of one of the more recently listed animals, polar bears, floating sadly on their ice chunks, separated from their crying cubs. Perhaps you think of bald eagles, soaring from captivity and off of the endangered species list. Perhaps you think of your favorite animal, be it the sea turtle, the Jamaican boa, the black howler monkey, or the grizzly bear, all of which are listed as endangered or threatened. But that is why we have the Endangered Species Act (ESA), right? To protect all of these majestic and wonderful creatures from their harsh and foreboding environments?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Time and time again we see proof demonstrating the painful truth of this English proverb. The Endangered Species Act is one of the best current examples which can be cited. Put in place in 1973 by President Nixon it was created as a declaration that the United States had “pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction (“Endangered Species Act of 1973,” 3).” The ESA protects these living things through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service as headed by the United States Department of the Interior. Animals can be added directly by the FWS and the NOAA Fisheries, as well as through organization and private petition (wikipedia.org). This sounds just as wonderful and marvelous as the animals and plants it was written to save. What then, is the problem?
The problem is that since its inception, the Endangered Species Act has delisted, as of January 2009, a total of 39 animals. Though this sounds acceptable, one must consider that 9 of these species were delisted due to extinction and another 16 due to incorrect data. That leaves 14 species that have been delisted due to recovery. Still sound like an achievement? There are currently 1,359 species of plants and animals currently protected by the ESA (Klinkenborg, 106). That is a 1% recovery rate. This is not even accounting for the animals and plants with low numbers vying to get on the list.
As well, farmers and other land owners are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of incentive to keep land as a critical habitat. A critical habitat is one which must be set aside as a habitat for the endangered or threatened species. It is required that each listed animal have a critical habitat in which they can reproduce and live. This habitat is to be the areas which the animals are occupying at the time of the listing (“Critical Habitat”). That is to say that if a rare flower were to be blooming in your corn field, the government could tell you to set acres of land aside to allow the flower to thrive without compensation. Ben Cone understands this dilemma all to well. Cone is a responsible tree-farmer from North Carolina. He let his trees grow for 80-100 years before he harvested them allowing wildlife to flourish among them. It is for this reason the government wanted Cone to have a biologist in to see if the endangered red cockaded woodpeckers had made his trees home – they only nest in trees at least 80 years of age. The FWS stuck Cone with the $8,000 bill for the biologist and when woodpeckers were found in his farm, they required him to set aside 1,560 acres of his 7,200 acre farm for the woodpeckers. That does not sound unreasonable. It is less than one fourth his land and he still has land to farm. It cost Cone $1.8 million. He received no compensation. It also caused him to harvest younger trees from the area he could farm, driving countless other species away (Bailey). In the same vein, many landowners and homebuilders take the months between when a species is declared as endangered and the when critical habitats are actually established to destroy any habitat they may have. This is the case with the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl near Tucson, Arizona where landowners hurriedly cleared any land that could be considered critical habitat (Dubner, 2).
Because of these issues, groups have come together to reform the ESA. However, most of these prospective reforms have been at the expense of the plants and animals it is looking to protect. For example, the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition calls for more voluntary compliance and less government control (“Improving the ESA” 2-5). History proves that we as human beings rarely do things when not forced. Also, President George W. Bush has tried as his time in office expired, to gut the ESA completely. This would open up all current critical habitats for farming, mining, and building, effectively killing the endangered species that live there (Dickinson, 1). Bush also pushed a de facto law allowing politicians rather than scientists to study and declare species as endangered or threatened. It would also “prohibit federal agencies from taking climate change into account in weighing the impact of projects that increase greenhouse emissions (Dickinson, 1).” Polar bears would be as good as dead.
So where is the happy medium? The ESA cannot be scrapped completely being that, however flawed, it is the only safety net set in place for dwindling populations of fauna and flora. Still, we cannot leave the Endangered Species act as is, being renewed every year since 1992 for funding from Congress (“CRS Report for Congress,” 1). If we want to continue to enjoy these plants and animals, and more importantly, keep the ecosystem from spiraling, we need to try implementing new and innovative ideas – ideas in the plural. These ideas will, undoubtedly, anger some people. We as a human race gauge our success on our ability to overcome and conquer nature. When this is taken away, some will be irritated.
The first revision that needs to be made is a multiyear renewing of the act by Congress with amendments. With this renewal needs to come adequate funding of the Act. The FWS and NOAA currently receive $407 million per year to execute the Endangered Species Act. It is estimated by the National Wildlife Federation that an increase over the next five years to $693 million would more sufficiently fund the program. This dramatic increase in funding would only take $1.59 per year for each United States citizen. In comparison, the War on Terror is at an average cost of $341.4 million per day (“Cost of War”). With this funding, not only would the FWS and NOAA be more able to set aside critical habitats and do much needed testing of populations, but they would be more able to give grants to landowners. This could reverse the incentives from a program which inadvertently causes landowners to scrap what could be the home to endangered species and make it more practical for them to set aside the critical habitats that have been proven to help the species recover (Mott, 2).
Another key change that needs to be made in the implementation of the ESA is proactive measures. We as citizens of the United States have conquered nature. We have proven that we are, in fact, dominant and can live in any environment. That said, we still like to think that we really care about nature, that we are doing our best to aid in the sustainment and recovery of these endangered and threatened species. But are we really? What is the cause of the endangerment of 1,359 species of plant and animal? The short answer? Us. It is because of the expansion of human beings into the habitats of these creatures that they are becoming extinct. For example, take the dusky seaside sparrow of Merritt Island. The only places to see them now are in photographs and small, clear bottles filled with alcohol. One of these bottles is in the Ornithology Collection in the Florida Museum of Natural History where an attached tag sadly reads in scrawled handwriting, “Last One.” The sparrows of Merritt Island were declared an extinct species in 1990. What led to this? Was it hunting or introduction of an invasive, nonnative species? No. It was humankind conquering nature with a new wonder pesticide called DDT (Klinkenborg, 90). We need to think through our actions before we act. We need to set up a government program, implemented by nonprofit organizations, in which land is preserved BEFORE an animal is listed as threatened. The environmental impact of decisions needs to be weighed with as much care as the economical.
In closing, I ask that you care. If not for the animals and plants themselves, then for the warning sign they stand for. Animal and plant health is a good indicator of where we are headed. We may be more adept at handling the consequences of our actions, but if we continue on this road, we as the human race will be our ultimate demise.
Works Cited
Dickinson, Tom. “Bush’s Final F.U.” Rolling Stone. 25 December 2009. 3 February
2009.
<>.
“Critical Habitat.” NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. 2008. 3 February
2009.
<>.
“Endangered Species Act of 1973 As Amended Through the 108th Congress.” United
States Fish and Wildlife Services Website. 24 November 2003. 3 February 2009.
<>.
Dubner, Stephen J. and Steven D. Levitt. “Unintended Consequences.” The New York
Times Magazine. 20 January 2008. 3 February 2009.
< pagewanted="1&_r="1&sq="unintended%20consequences&st="cse&scp="1">.
Bailey, Ronald. “Who Pays for the Delhi Sands Fly?” Hawaii Reporter. 27 July 2005. 3
February 2009.
<>
Buck, Eugene et. all. “CRS Report for Congress: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) the
110th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices.” Federation of
American Scientists Website. 10 October 2007. 3 February 2009.
<>.
“Improving the ESA: A Potential New Approach.” National Endangered Species Act
Reform Coalition Website. 16 November 2004. 3 February 2009.
<>.
DiSilvestro, Roger and Kathrine Furey. “Fair Funding for Wildlife: Investing In Our
Commitment To Save America’s Endangered Wildlife.” National Wildlife
Federation Website. March 2007. 3 February 2009.
<>.
Mott, Maryann. “U.S. Endangered Species Act Works, Study Finds.” National
Geographic News. 18 April 2005. 3 February 2009.
A few more sources need to be added!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Good and bad rhetoric
BAD:
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/endangered_species_act.htm
This is a website maintained by a group called "Montanans for Multiple Use." While there are some elements of effective argumentation, there are definite pitfalls. The site prevails upon the readers pathos with an entire section of stories, personal and otherwise, that explain the negative impact the Endagered Species Act has had on life and industry. Under the heading "ESA Reform," this section in particular allows the reader to see the negative impact of the ESA. However, this site lacks any ethos. No where does it have sponsoring groups, political leaders involved, or any idea of who is behind this movement besides the "irrate, tireless minority" referred to in the header quote by Samuel Adams. To me, language such as "WE FINALLY WON ONE AND IT IS ABOUT TIME," leads to more of a mistrust of the authors of the site. Overall, the language seems very unscientific to me as a biology major. Logos is somewhere in the middle, with definite evidence presented, but without ethos, it is difficult to trust any support of the ideas presented here.
GOOD:
http://www.nesarc.org/
While hard to navigate their site, this organiztion does what that last fail to - establish ethos right off the bat. They have a listing of supporters on their main page and on several of the linked pages they discuss other groups and politicians they have supporting their cause. Also, there is an entire page of op-eds and articles that have been contributed to by this cause. This leads to a more trusting embrace of their logos which is dotted throughout their webpage. The reform they propose is clearly outlined and reasons for each change are readily available. As well, the site appeals to the average reader with a section headed, "The ESA is incredibly complex.Get answers to your mostfrequently asked questions!" Although the pathos is less obvious, it is nonetheless obvious. Throughout the pages, the impact of the ESA is noted, with stories and hard facts.
I had a lot of trouble finding video/photo commentary on this issue.
BAD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VME9cGkm_TA
This video is very funny, but does not, once again, give any ethos. The joking manner in which it approaches the issue almost makes me as the viewer trust its integrity even less. The pathos is definitely there with cute fuzzy animals, but it lacks some logos as well.
GOOD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1tI8szusZA
While I obviously did not watch the entire 1 hr. 28 min presentation, it has ethos in that it is a lecture series given at UC Santa Barbra by professors and leaders in environmental fields. As for logos, almost any lecture given by a professor is going to have logos - we love logos! However, as it is more of a review of the past 30 years of the ESA, it definitely lacks some pathos. It is a good review on the past and a look at what can be done.
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/endangered_species_act.htm
This is a website maintained by a group called "Montanans for Multiple Use." While there are some elements of effective argumentation, there are definite pitfalls. The site prevails upon the readers pathos with an entire section of stories, personal and otherwise, that explain the negative impact the Endagered Species Act has had on life and industry. Under the heading "ESA Reform," this section in particular allows the reader to see the negative impact of the ESA. However, this site lacks any ethos. No where does it have sponsoring groups, political leaders involved, or any idea of who is behind this movement besides the "irrate, tireless minority" referred to in the header quote by Samuel Adams. To me, language such as "WE FINALLY WON ONE AND IT IS ABOUT TIME," leads to more of a mistrust of the authors of the site. Overall, the language seems very unscientific to me as a biology major. Logos is somewhere in the middle, with definite evidence presented, but without ethos, it is difficult to trust any support of the ideas presented here.
GOOD:
http://www.nesarc.org/
While hard to navigate their site, this organiztion does what that last fail to - establish ethos right off the bat. They have a listing of supporters on their main page and on several of the linked pages they discuss other groups and politicians they have supporting their cause. Also, there is an entire page of op-eds and articles that have been contributed to by this cause. This leads to a more trusting embrace of their logos which is dotted throughout their webpage. The reform they propose is clearly outlined and reasons for each change are readily available. As well, the site appeals to the average reader with a section headed, "The ESA is incredibly complex.Get answers to your mostfrequently asked questions!" Although the pathos is less obvious, it is nonetheless obvious. Throughout the pages, the impact of the ESA is noted, with stories and hard facts.
I had a lot of trouble finding video/photo commentary on this issue.
BAD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VME9cGkm_TA
This video is very funny, but does not, once again, give any ethos. The joking manner in which it approaches the issue almost makes me as the viewer trust its integrity even less. The pathos is definitely there with cute fuzzy animals, but it lacks some logos as well.
GOOD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1tI8szusZA
While I obviously did not watch the entire 1 hr. 28 min presentation, it has ethos in that it is a lecture series given at UC Santa Barbra by professors and leaders in environmental fields. As for logos, almost any lecture given by a professor is going to have logos - we love logos! However, as it is more of a review of the past 30 years of the ESA, it definitely lacks some pathos. It is a good review on the past and a look at what can be done.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Cradle to Cradle
This piece is another that does a great job of taking part not only in the solution, but also in the blame. The authors have a rapport with any reader knowing of the company they run trying to find more environmentaly friendly, sometimes off the wall strategies for approaching everyday life. Companies can even get cradle to cradle awards for being especially eco-friendly/innovative. In this exerpt, the authors manage to convey ideas that some may look at as inveasable and show that they can, in fact, be acheived. They do this by admitting that it seems like it cannot be done, then going on to explain not only how it can be done, but also the benifits, as it is with the garden rooftops. This writing contains a lot of stories of successes the authors have had - every person likes proof of a working model. Overall, a more friendly tone is taken - a lot of collective we's are used. The metaphor of the cherry tree is powerful in showing that there is a way to create useful waste if we would just stop being comfortable in what we do. As well, the inclusion of small seemingly insignificant facts such as the biomass of ants leads to meaningful facts such as though ants have a much larger biomass, they have almost no negative impact on the Earth.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Monbiot
Monbiot has received many awards for his work. There is no doubt that he is a source to be trusted, having recieved a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement presented by Nelson Mandella. He is an intellegent guy. His sucess lies not only within the environmental field, but many others.
However, Monbiot knows his audience. He knows what people have heard about global warming, what they don't believe, what they don't understand, and what they are just tired of hearing about. Monbiot begins and ends this chapter with his discussion of Faust. This is to draw the reader in, to make them interested in what he is about to say. Also within this metaphor we can realize what we feel about Faust before we realize Faust is representing human kind.
The introduction begins with a story which is self-effacing. It shows that Monbiot, for all of his awards and acclaim, is very humble and willing to call himself hypocritical and point out that he does not know everything. He allows us to know that he doesn't want everyone to go back to running the Earth in loin cloths - which immediatly disarms the reader and quelches any feeling that they are about to be judged. He points out where he falls short - he points out that he is one part in the collective we which, if not checked, will drive this planet to destruction.
While maintaining this feeling - as if you are talking to a collegaue, Monbiot throws in an extreme amount of research and a general feeling that he knows his stuff. Just his preface of the research to come in the intro allowed the reader a glimpse into how much time and frustrations were spent fashioning this book. He quotes reliable, yet easily accesible works such as Nature and Science.
The author does a good job of revisiting the impact of the small change in temperature. While it is easy to think it is not a big deal since day to day can differ by this much, Monbiot does a great job of repeatedly hitting the importance of it. He also drives home the point that this was our doing as industrialized nations. We like to push the blame onto others, but Monbiot becomes "one of us" and brings the blame with him.
However, Monbiot knows his audience. He knows what people have heard about global warming, what they don't believe, what they don't understand, and what they are just tired of hearing about. Monbiot begins and ends this chapter with his discussion of Faust. This is to draw the reader in, to make them interested in what he is about to say. Also within this metaphor we can realize what we feel about Faust before we realize Faust is representing human kind.
The introduction begins with a story which is self-effacing. It shows that Monbiot, for all of his awards and acclaim, is very humble and willing to call himself hypocritical and point out that he does not know everything. He allows us to know that he doesn't want everyone to go back to running the Earth in loin cloths - which immediatly disarms the reader and quelches any feeling that they are about to be judged. He points out where he falls short - he points out that he is one part in the collective we which, if not checked, will drive this planet to destruction.
While maintaining this feeling - as if you are talking to a collegaue, Monbiot throws in an extreme amount of research and a general feeling that he knows his stuff. Just his preface of the research to come in the intro allowed the reader a glimpse into how much time and frustrations were spent fashioning this book. He quotes reliable, yet easily accesible works such as Nature and Science.
The author does a good job of revisiting the impact of the small change in temperature. While it is easy to think it is not a big deal since day to day can differ by this much, Monbiot does a great job of repeatedly hitting the importance of it. He also drives home the point that this was our doing as industrialized nations. We like to push the blame onto others, but Monbiot becomes "one of us" and brings the blame with him.
Monday, January 19, 2009
No Love For the Dairy Air? (Final Draft)
Brianna
Eng. 308J
No Love for the Dairy Air?
A beautiful sun sets among a pink, blue, and purple sky, the colors consuming the skyline. The sun seems big, close enough to touch as it ducks behind the old, white, chipping barn. To the left is a small wood where childhoods were spent plotting survival tactics and was always the place to run from angry parents. Across the road is an empty field, empty in the sense that there are no buildings for half a mile, yet full in the sense that trees are growing in rows. The government pays a man down the road not to farm this land and to let trees grow. This all occurs what seems like two hundred yards away, just on the other side of the cornfield which blocks the sunset in the height of summer and creates a beautiful mirror in the snowy frigid winters.
This was my playground. This was my booming metropolis. I grew up with about fifteen corn or soybean fields within a mile of me. The white barn was home to a herd of bleating sheep, always anxious to remind you of their presence. A mile up the county road, or “busy-road” as I grew up calling it, was a farm with four horses, all brown with a white diamond on their heads, all with white socks crawling up their legs. It was those horses which I first fell in love with. I loved watching them gallop the length of their fence in the summer and huddle together in the winter so closely that the only way to tell one from another was to look for the trail of condensed air escaping from their snorting noses, reminiscent of a Franz Marc picture in live color.
And since this was my playground, I took it for granted. It was not until the ripe age of nineteen, when I first stepped foot on a college campus that I realized that every school district in the country did not get a day off of school to go to the county fair. Apparently they also could not get excused absences to go hunting on the first day of deer hunting season. Along with these differences, I began to learn what a unique childhood I had. The majority of people I met in college grew up in the city – they could not possibly share my love for farmland, just as I could not share their love for architecture. Agriculture is where I come from. I may not live on a farm, but country air still fills my lungs.
That is why we all laughed when the sign went up, amazed that someone would actually feel the need to post it. My family had lived there, in the shallow country side dotted by small towns, for twenty-five years. Why, at this point, was it necessary to nail this aluminum sign to a telephone pole?
“CAUTION: This land has been zoned for agriculture! With some uses come smells, dust, and noise! Please consider this when moving near.” Our general first reaction was all the same – shock. We all knew that every time a window was thrown open, the car air conditioner switched on, every time we stepped out of the door, there was a distinct chance of nostrils being filled with the aroma of cow dung, mixed with water and spread on the fields. My parents explained to me at a young age that this was called “manure” and that it was spread on fields to help things grow.
However, whenever we smelled this sour reek, laced with a certain sweetness only country air can bring, one of us would scream, as only angelic adorable children can, “WHO FARTED?! JARED FARTED AND IT STINKS!” This was one of our favorite ways to perplex my poor parents. With all of our childhood games, it remains, as I said, covalently linked into my DNA. It is as potent as the smell of home when you have been away. When school gets to be too much, I drive into the countryside of Athens, Ohio, partially just to drive, but partially to fill my lungs with that smell. The smell of hay and manure and life. It is my drug, my comfort, my love.
Why then, must a sign be posted to warn against it? Because the farmers that tilled that land, that poured their time, sweat, and toil into that land owned about seven fields throughout our area and were told that if they did not warn the people living in proximity to their fields of the dangers of living near agriculture, they could be sued. They could be sued for not “disclosing” this information. As if this smell, this use of the land were not natural. As if signs needed to be posted outside of Chicago that read, “CAUTION: This area is zoned for city use. With some uses come smog, carcinogens, and noise! Please consider when moving into this area.” Is it fair for us to decide that carbon emissions smell better than manure and hay? This is not to say that the city is bad. It has been the heart and epicenter of America since the Industrial Revolution. This is to say that the country is necessary. To say that the country is not an inconvenience, something to be “expanded” into. To say that though the city is necessary and beautiful in its own ways, sustainability can be learned from those occupying its borders.
It was when that sign was posted that I realized the countryside was not only my home, but something sacred, something in need of protection. We, in being gifted with the beauty and majesty of the outdoors, have also been bestowed with the responsibility to protect it. Without this land that can so easily be viewed as open and waiting to be built upon, America would lose some richness and I would lose a piece of myself.
Eng. 308J
No Love for the Dairy Air?
A beautiful sun sets among a pink, blue, and purple sky, the colors consuming the skyline. The sun seems big, close enough to touch as it ducks behind the old, white, chipping barn. To the left is a small wood where childhoods were spent plotting survival tactics and was always the place to run from angry parents. Across the road is an empty field, empty in the sense that there are no buildings for half a mile, yet full in the sense that trees are growing in rows. The government pays a man down the road not to farm this land and to let trees grow. This all occurs what seems like two hundred yards away, just on the other side of the cornfield which blocks the sunset in the height of summer and creates a beautiful mirror in the snowy frigid winters.
This was my playground. This was my booming metropolis. I grew up with about fifteen corn or soybean fields within a mile of me. The white barn was home to a herd of bleating sheep, always anxious to remind you of their presence. A mile up the county road, or “busy-road” as I grew up calling it, was a farm with four horses, all brown with a white diamond on their heads, all with white socks crawling up their legs. It was those horses which I first fell in love with. I loved watching them gallop the length of their fence in the summer and huddle together in the winter so closely that the only way to tell one from another was to look for the trail of condensed air escaping from their snorting noses, reminiscent of a Franz Marc picture in live color.
And since this was my playground, I took it for granted. It was not until the ripe age of nineteen, when I first stepped foot on a college campus that I realized that every school district in the country did not get a day off of school to go to the county fair. Apparently they also could not get excused absences to go hunting on the first day of deer hunting season. Along with these differences, I began to learn what a unique childhood I had. The majority of people I met in college grew up in the city – they could not possibly share my love for farmland, just as I could not share their love for architecture. Agriculture is where I come from. I may not live on a farm, but country air still fills my lungs.
That is why we all laughed when the sign went up, amazed that someone would actually feel the need to post it. My family had lived there, in the shallow country side dotted by small towns, for twenty-five years. Why, at this point, was it necessary to nail this aluminum sign to a telephone pole?
“CAUTION: This land has been zoned for agriculture! With some uses come smells, dust, and noise! Please consider this when moving near.” Our general first reaction was all the same – shock. We all knew that every time a window was thrown open, the car air conditioner switched on, every time we stepped out of the door, there was a distinct chance of nostrils being filled with the aroma of cow dung, mixed with water and spread on the fields. My parents explained to me at a young age that this was called “manure” and that it was spread on fields to help things grow.
However, whenever we smelled this sour reek, laced with a certain sweetness only country air can bring, one of us would scream, as only angelic adorable children can, “WHO FARTED?! JARED FARTED AND IT STINKS!” This was one of our favorite ways to perplex my poor parents. With all of our childhood games, it remains, as I said, covalently linked into my DNA. It is as potent as the smell of home when you have been away. When school gets to be too much, I drive into the countryside of Athens, Ohio, partially just to drive, but partially to fill my lungs with that smell. The smell of hay and manure and life. It is my drug, my comfort, my love.
Why then, must a sign be posted to warn against it? Because the farmers that tilled that land, that poured their time, sweat, and toil into that land owned about seven fields throughout our area and were told that if they did not warn the people living in proximity to their fields of the dangers of living near agriculture, they could be sued. They could be sued for not “disclosing” this information. As if this smell, this use of the land were not natural. As if signs needed to be posted outside of Chicago that read, “CAUTION: This area is zoned for city use. With some uses come smog, carcinogens, and noise! Please consider when moving into this area.” Is it fair for us to decide that carbon emissions smell better than manure and hay? This is not to say that the city is bad. It has been the heart and epicenter of America since the Industrial Revolution. This is to say that the country is necessary. To say that the country is not an inconvenience, something to be “expanded” into. To say that though the city is necessary and beautiful in its own ways, sustainability can be learned from those occupying its borders.
It was when that sign was posted that I realized the countryside was not only my home, but something sacred, something in need of protection. We, in being gifted with the beauty and majesty of the outdoors, have also been bestowed with the responsibility to protect it. Without this land that can so easily be viewed as open and waiting to be built upon, America would lose some richness and I would lose a piece of myself.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
No Love for the Dairy Air? (Rough Draft)
Brianna
Eng. 308J
No Love for the Dairy Air?
A beautiful sun sets among a pink, blue, and purple sky, the colors consuming the skyline. The sun seems big, close enough to touch as it ducks behind the old, white, chipping barn that has always been there and fifty feet from that stands a white farm house. To the left is a small wood where childhoods were spent plotting survival tactics and was always the place to run from angry parents. Across the road is an empty field, empty in the sense that there are no buildings for half a mile, yet full in the sense that trees are growing in rows. The government pays a man down the road not to farm this land and to let trees grow. This all occurs what seems like two hundred yards away, just on the other side of the cornfield which blocks the sunset in the height of winter and creates a beautiful mirror in the snowy frigid winters.
This was my playground. This was my booming metropolis. I grew up with about fifteen corn or soybean fields within a mile of me. The white barn that had always been there was home to a herd of bleating sheep, always anxious to remind you of their presence. A mile up the county road, or “busy-road” as I grew up calling it, was a farm with four horses, all brown with a white diamond on their heads, all with white socks crawling up their legs. It was those horses which I first fell in love with. I loved watching them gallop the length of their fence in the summer and huddle together in the winter so closely that the only way to tell one from another was to look for the trail of condensed air escaping from their snorting noses, reminiscent of a Franz Marc picture in live color.
And since this was my playground, I took it for granted. It was not until the ripe age of nineteen, when I first stepped foot on a college campus that I realized that every school district in the country did not get a day off of school to go to the county fair. Apparently they also could not get excused absences to go hunting on the first day of deer hunting season. Agriculture is where I come from. I may not live on a farm, but country air still fills my lungs.
That is why we all laughed when the sign went up, amazed that someone would actually feel the need to post it. My family had lived there, in the shallow country side dotted by small towns, for twenty-five years. Why, at this point, was it necessary to nail this aluminum sign to a telephone pole?
“CAUTION: This land has been zoned for agriculture! With some uses come smells, dust, and noise! Please consider this when moving near.” Our general first reaction was all the same…”You think?” We all knew that every time a window was opened, a vent in the car opened, every time we stepped out the door, there was a distinct chance of nostrils being filled with the aroma of cow dung, mixed with water and spread on the fields. My parents explained to me at a young age that this was called “manure,” not poop, and that it was spread on fields to help things grow. This was also why we had to wash our vegetables before eating them.
However, whenever we smelled this sour reek, laced with a certain sweetness only country air can bring, one of us would scream, as only angelic adorable children can, “WHO FARTED?! JARED FARTED AND IT STINKS!” This was one of our favorite ways to perplex my poor parents. With all of our childhood games, it remains, as I said, covalently linked into my DNA. When school gets to be too much, I drive into the countryside of Athens, Ohio, partially just to drive, but partially to fill my lungs with that smell. The smell of hay and manure and life. It is my drug, my downer, my love.
Why then, must a sign be posted to warn against it? Because the farmers that tilled that land, that poured their time, sweat, and toil into that land owned about seven fields throughout our area and were told that if they did not warn the people living in proximity to their fields of the dangers of living near agriculture, they could be sued. They could be sued for not “disclosing” this information. As if everywhere should smell like the city. As if signs needed to be posted outside of Chicago that read, “CAUTION: This area is zoned for city use. With some uses come smog, carcinogens, and noise! Please consider when moving into this area.” Have we so taken over the land that we are to decide how the air smells? Are we so conceded as to think that those actually using the land, rotating crops without chemicals, are the enemy? Is it fair for us to decide that carbon emissions smell better than manure and hay?
Not to me. For me, the country is home. The air is sweet and clean and the stars are actually visible. It is foggier, the snow falls harder, and the rain smells cleaner. This is the norm. The loud horns and annoyed people zipping a thousand miles an hour, leaving carbon footprints the size of Sasquatch cannot decide that the air in the country smells “dirty.” That is my air, my home, my drug, my downer.
Eng. 308J
No Love for the Dairy Air?
A beautiful sun sets among a pink, blue, and purple sky, the colors consuming the skyline. The sun seems big, close enough to touch as it ducks behind the old, white, chipping barn that has always been there and fifty feet from that stands a white farm house. To the left is a small wood where childhoods were spent plotting survival tactics and was always the place to run from angry parents. Across the road is an empty field, empty in the sense that there are no buildings for half a mile, yet full in the sense that trees are growing in rows. The government pays a man down the road not to farm this land and to let trees grow. This all occurs what seems like two hundred yards away, just on the other side of the cornfield which blocks the sunset in the height of winter and creates a beautiful mirror in the snowy frigid winters.
This was my playground. This was my booming metropolis. I grew up with about fifteen corn or soybean fields within a mile of me. The white barn that had always been there was home to a herd of bleating sheep, always anxious to remind you of their presence. A mile up the county road, or “busy-road” as I grew up calling it, was a farm with four horses, all brown with a white diamond on their heads, all with white socks crawling up their legs. It was those horses which I first fell in love with. I loved watching them gallop the length of their fence in the summer and huddle together in the winter so closely that the only way to tell one from another was to look for the trail of condensed air escaping from their snorting noses, reminiscent of a Franz Marc picture in live color.
And since this was my playground, I took it for granted. It was not until the ripe age of nineteen, when I first stepped foot on a college campus that I realized that every school district in the country did not get a day off of school to go to the county fair. Apparently they also could not get excused absences to go hunting on the first day of deer hunting season. Agriculture is where I come from. I may not live on a farm, but country air still fills my lungs.
That is why we all laughed when the sign went up, amazed that someone would actually feel the need to post it. My family had lived there, in the shallow country side dotted by small towns, for twenty-five years. Why, at this point, was it necessary to nail this aluminum sign to a telephone pole?
“CAUTION: This land has been zoned for agriculture! With some uses come smells, dust, and noise! Please consider this when moving near.” Our general first reaction was all the same…”You think?” We all knew that every time a window was opened, a vent in the car opened, every time we stepped out the door, there was a distinct chance of nostrils being filled with the aroma of cow dung, mixed with water and spread on the fields. My parents explained to me at a young age that this was called “manure,” not poop, and that it was spread on fields to help things grow. This was also why we had to wash our vegetables before eating them.
However, whenever we smelled this sour reek, laced with a certain sweetness only country air can bring, one of us would scream, as only angelic adorable children can, “WHO FARTED?! JARED FARTED AND IT STINKS!” This was one of our favorite ways to perplex my poor parents. With all of our childhood games, it remains, as I said, covalently linked into my DNA. When school gets to be too much, I drive into the countryside of Athens, Ohio, partially just to drive, but partially to fill my lungs with that smell. The smell of hay and manure and life. It is my drug, my downer, my love.
Why then, must a sign be posted to warn against it? Because the farmers that tilled that land, that poured their time, sweat, and toil into that land owned about seven fields throughout our area and were told that if they did not warn the people living in proximity to their fields of the dangers of living near agriculture, they could be sued. They could be sued for not “disclosing” this information. As if everywhere should smell like the city. As if signs needed to be posted outside of Chicago that read, “CAUTION: This area is zoned for city use. With some uses come smog, carcinogens, and noise! Please consider when moving into this area.” Have we so taken over the land that we are to decide how the air smells? Are we so conceded as to think that those actually using the land, rotating crops without chemicals, are the enemy? Is it fair for us to decide that carbon emissions smell better than manure and hay?
Not to me. For me, the country is home. The air is sweet and clean and the stars are actually visible. It is foggier, the snow falls harder, and the rain smells cleaner. This is the norm. The loud horns and annoyed people zipping a thousand miles an hour, leaving carbon footprints the size of Sasquatch cannot decide that the air in the country smells “dirty.” That is my air, my home, my drug, my downer.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Williams rhetorical stratagies
In the snippets of 'An Unspoken Hunger' read for class, there was definite rhetorical strategies. In the story Erosion, Williams pulls the reader into the person of Kinji Kurumada then betrays the reader by taking away his son in a completely unexpected twist.
In Winter Solstice at the Moab Slough, however, Williams draws the reader in a different way - through description. "It is quiet and cold. The heat of the summer has been absorbed into the core of the redrocks." His description of not only the surroundings, but also the blue herons and the hawk and the emotions those creature conjure. The use of quotes also shows the reader that the love of this land is not only his, but a shared venture, as if each person who has visited is irreversibly tied by that fact. Finally, his comparison of nature and love bring a strong emotion in the reader.
In Yellowstone: The Erotics of Place, the author uses yet another strategy in wordplay, specifically that of 'ecosystem' and 'Echo System.' Also, the repetition of short, often fragmented sentences both at the beginning and end create a certain rhythmic cadence that draw the reader in. The personification of nature is also a very interesting approach - the use of 'pansexual' and 'erotic' in terms of the forest are new and interesting. In addition, Williams uses the universal 'we' in his story, not blaming, merely bringing up the issues 'we' need to remedy.
In Winter Solstice at the Moab Slough, however, Williams draws the reader in a different way - through description. "It is quiet and cold. The heat of the summer has been absorbed into the core of the redrocks." His description of not only the surroundings, but also the blue herons and the hawk and the emotions those creature conjure. The use of quotes also shows the reader that the love of this land is not only his, but a shared venture, as if each person who has visited is irreversibly tied by that fact. Finally, his comparison of nature and love bring a strong emotion in the reader.
In Yellowstone: The Erotics of Place, the author uses yet another strategy in wordplay, specifically that of 'ecosystem' and 'Echo System.' Also, the repetition of short, often fragmented sentences both at the beginning and end create a certain rhythmic cadence that draw the reader in. The personification of nature is also a very interesting approach - the use of 'pansexual' and 'erotic' in terms of the forest are new and interesting. In addition, Williams uses the universal 'we' in his story, not blaming, merely bringing up the issues 'we' need to remedy.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Waves of Memory
I jump in and out of the water as the waves dance upon the beach, leaving their short-lived traces in the wet sand. “Don’t let the white part hit you or you’re dead!” I scream at my brother as we run down the beach. Seagulls have, by this time, caught my attention. They stand together, squawking, looking for any morsel they can eat, whether edible or not. I tear after them, watching as they take flight and land somewhat gracefully upon the rolling waves.
As I grow beyond my seagull torturing phase, I still enjoy going to our cottage in Oscoda, Michigan, yet every few years my motivation changes. For a few years in junior high school my yearning for the cottage was not the glorious horizon, often picturesquely dotted with sailboats. It was not the sunset, the fiery sun being quenched by the waves. It was boys. The two down the beach from me to be specific.
I matured once again, moving past the boys and finally realizing the beauty the shoreline of Lake Huron holds. Countless nights were spent lying on the cold sand, one side near the fire, the other freezing cold, seeing stars more clearly than I ever have before. I have been to the white shores of Alabama and swam in the Atlantic Ocean, but in my mind, nothing compares to the beauty of the endless waters of Lake Huron.
As I grow beyond my seagull torturing phase, I still enjoy going to our cottage in Oscoda, Michigan, yet every few years my motivation changes. For a few years in junior high school my yearning for the cottage was not the glorious horizon, often picturesquely dotted with sailboats. It was not the sunset, the fiery sun being quenched by the waves. It was boys. The two down the beach from me to be specific.
I matured once again, moving past the boys and finally realizing the beauty the shoreline of Lake Huron holds. Countless nights were spent lying on the cold sand, one side near the fire, the other freezing cold, seeing stars more clearly than I ever have before. I have been to the white shores of Alabama and swam in the Atlantic Ocean, but in my mind, nothing compares to the beauty of the endless waters of Lake Huron.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)