The past few weeks we're having to read how Governor Arnold is "off-setting" his travels (new term "off-jet-setting?") by paying someone in Northern California to plant more trees at a rate of $10 per ton of carbon monoxide produced or something.
Is it just me, or this an idea whose time has dumb? Maybe I should be more upset at people who jet around the world for their convenience, but I know I'd do it in a heartbeat if I had the time and money. However, it's clear that such travel patterns eat up a tremendous amount of fossil fuel and generate a corresponding amount of pollution.
Even so, is there any way in which paying people to plant trees even begins to truly "offset" this pollution? And doesn't this whole notion just increase the idea that rich people get to consume as much of the world's resources as they want (now they just need to be even richer to do it?)?
My husband (Bill Magavern of the Sierra Club) has pointed out to me that if Arnold really wants to do something about pollution he could recant his endorsement/creation/obsession of the hummer--or at least stop driving one. Maybe that would off-set my nausea.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
When Mom and Dad are lawyers--PJ Day Raises Policy Questions
Our 10 year old daughter EM yesterday: so um I didn't wear my pajamas to school on Friday, but other kids did, and Mr. C***** did because we thought it was pajama day and last month there was a lollipop day and we think there is a violation of the Brown Act.
Mom and Dad: what??
EM (looking at us like we're dense): Weren't you listening? I'm concerned because Pajama Day at my school may violate the Brown Act--you know the California Public Meetings Law?
Dad: Yes. We know what the Brown Act is.
EM: Well you didn't act like you did.
... (we tend not to respond to such accusations from her)
EM: So, C*** in my class is the school treasurer. And he was at every meeting of the student
council and it was decided at the last student council meeting that last Friday would be Pajama Day. And so he announced it to our class, and a lot of kids wore their jammies and so did Mr. C****** and it turned out it wasn't Pajama Day and no other kids or teachers had pajamas!
So this means that either there was a meeting that C*** wasn't invited to at which time the date of Pajama Day was changed, or there was a failure to post the agenda or adequately advertise the meeting--both of which are violations of the Brown Act--so we're protesting and writing letters. Do you think that this was a violation of the Brown Act?
Bill (cautiously): well, it sounds like you've got a good case, my only question would be whether your school Student Council is considered one of the public bodies whose meetings are subject to the Brown Act.
EM (looking at us incredulously again): Well, we don't know if it's subject to the Brown Act, but we think that even if they don't have to follow this law, they should.
Whereupon Mom and Dad launch into a brief exigesis on the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law with some fascinating examples of situations where people argued both. During which time EM seemed largely to be reading her Kids Almanac and not listening.
Stay tuned...
Mom and Dad: what??
EM (looking at us like we're dense): Weren't you listening? I'm concerned because Pajama Day at my school may violate the Brown Act--you know the California Public Meetings Law?
Dad: Yes. We know what the Brown Act is.
EM: Well you didn't act like you did.
... (we tend not to respond to such accusations from her)
EM: So, C*** in my class is the school treasurer. And he was at every meeting of the student
council and it was decided at the last student council meeting that last Friday would be Pajama Day. And so he announced it to our class, and a lot of kids wore their jammies and so did Mr. C****** and it turned out it wasn't Pajama Day and no other kids or teachers had pajamas!
So this means that either there was a meeting that C*** wasn't invited to at which time the date of Pajama Day was changed, or there was a failure to post the agenda or adequately advertise the meeting--both of which are violations of the Brown Act--so we're protesting and writing letters. Do you think that this was a violation of the Brown Act?
Bill (cautiously): well, it sounds like you've got a good case, my only question would be whether your school Student Council is considered one of the public bodies whose meetings are subject to the Brown Act.
EM (looking at us incredulously again): Well, we don't know if it's subject to the Brown Act, but we think that even if they don't have to follow this law, they should.
Whereupon Mom and Dad launch into a brief exigesis on the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law with some fascinating examples of situations where people argued both. During which time EM seemed largely to be reading her Kids Almanac and not listening.
Stay tuned...
Monday, March 05, 2007
Four Snouts up for the Pillowman at Berkeley Rep
(:)(:)(:)(:) for The Pillowman by Martin McDonagh which just closed (sob) at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre.
Oh. My. God.
Where has McDonagh been on all my life? After dropping out of school at 16 and lying around watching television and drinking beer for 20 years, this amazing young (London working class) Irish playwright cranked out 7 plays in one year--five of which have been produced to critical acclaim in the London West End and Broadway.
I absolutely loved this play, but, as the usher who tore my ticket warned, it's not for sissies. This alternately cruel, hilarious and tragic "something-esque" piece defies categorization. Many of the audience members hated it. Several left at intermission.
Admittedly, it's hard to take the vivid descriptions of cruelty, dismemberment and horror to children--fortunately, it's supposed to be. However, the clever patter, smooth direction, brilliant writing and acting of this production allowed this viewer to simultaneously be horrified, drawn in, concerned and yet strangely distant from the material.
For me it helped a lot that the playwright cleverly frames the narrative so as to cast doubt on whether several of the horrors are real or only imagined--and you don't have to see most of them, just hear about them.
I for one, can't wait to see/read more McDonagh. The only other playwright that he reminds me of a bit is my erstwhile college friend Gordon Dahlquist--I played a violent lesbian pirate in his play Dangercave many years ago, but that's a different post.
Oh. My. God.
Where has McDonagh been on all my life? After dropping out of school at 16 and lying around watching television and drinking beer for 20 years, this amazing young (London working class) Irish playwright cranked out 7 plays in one year--five of which have been produced to critical acclaim in the London West End and Broadway.
I absolutely loved this play, but, as the usher who tore my ticket warned, it's not for sissies. This alternately cruel, hilarious and tragic "something-esque" piece defies categorization. Many of the audience members hated it. Several left at intermission.
Admittedly, it's hard to take the vivid descriptions of cruelty, dismemberment and horror to children--fortunately, it's supposed to be. However, the clever patter, smooth direction, brilliant writing and acting of this production allowed this viewer to simultaneously be horrified, drawn in, concerned and yet strangely distant from the material.
For me it helped a lot that the playwright cleverly frames the narrative so as to cast doubt on whether several of the horrors are real or only imagined--and you don't have to see most of them, just hear about them.
I for one, can't wait to see/read more McDonagh. The only other playwright that he reminds me of a bit is my erstwhile college friend Gordon Dahlquist--I played a violent lesbian pirate in his play Dangercave many years ago, but that's a different post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)