Good way to get on SportsCenter   ¶ 3:05 PM 2 comments

  Peanuts, parrots, and brownies Since 9/11, much has been made of the heroism of the "first responders" - police, fire, EMTs. Without a doubt, they deserve our utmost respect and appreciation. However, I'd like to bring attention to the "first responder" of the animal kingdom, Peanut the Parrot:

Shannon Conwell, 33, said he and his 9-year-old son fell asleep on the couch while watching a movie. They awoke about 3 a.m. Friday, Oct. 19th to find their home on fire after hearing the family's Amazon parrot, Peanut, imitating a fire alarm.

"He was really screaming his head off,'' Conwell said.

The smoke alarm had activated, but it was the bird's call that caught Conwell's attention.

This story reminds us that, in this post 9/11 age, we need to think outside of the box in terms of our personal security. Much as the government has created the Department of Homeland Security, we should all create our own Departments of Household Security. In fact, I was able to hire former FEMA director Michael "Heckuva Job" Brown to lead mine! I have also hired a staff of five parrots to work closely with Brownie on creating a repeater system for the one fire alarm I do have. Brownie convinced me this made more sense than getting more fire alarms, because, to quote him, "Parrots are the smartest people there are, and they can smell fire a mile away." Anyway, he's great, and I've never felt safer.

Labels: brownie, disaster in chief, escape

  ¶ 8:55 AM 0 comments

  On Russert and soft support, and Gore as the New Sputnik It took this quote from NBC political hack Tim Russert to wake me up (blog-wise):

But right now the Democratic primary base is very happy with their field of candidates.

Tim, you are an idiot. How do you get off making that statement? It is an outrage that your network presents you as some sort of political-know-it-all when clearly you are anything but. Anyone, even the most ardent Hillary supporter, would admit that support at this point in the Democratic primaries is very soft (see this extensive explanation for more).

Huge percentages of potential voters remain totally undecided, even in the early primary states. And among those that have already "made up" their minds, on average OVER HALF are open to supporting another candidate. How can one conclude from that that the "Democratic base is very happy with their field of candidates"?

Yes, media men like Russert might be pulling for a Hillary candidacy. It would, after all, make their jobs far easier. They could simply pull out their notes from the late 1990s and happily regurgitate the same old "Clintons vs. the Angry Right" and "where is Monica" storylines. Russert might relish the opportunity to ponder, "Would Monica be given a cabinet position a hypothetical Clinton administration, given her extensive internship experience?" "David Broder, tell us the answer, as your words are fact and all else fiction."

Therefore, Russert chants to the Democratic base, "You are HAPPY with your candidates. So Happy. Don't worry: Be Happy, Democrats. Stay stuck in your media-centric world of hype."

Tim's statement, of course, was presented as part of his overall argument that Al Gore will not run. In Tim's uber-simplified world, satiation equals inaction, and he wants to slow our collective political metabolism to the point that Al Gore sees no need. After all, an Al Gore candidacy would be a disaster for Tim: it would likely bypass the traditional media, and it would focus on actual problems and solutions (how novel!) and not Monicagate Redux. Ratings would plummet.

I hope Al Gore stands up, shimmering with his various golden awards, hot, bothered, and ready to fight. I hope he jumps in. His entrance would not add to existing race; it would reformulate it entirely, recycling its contents into a entirely new, and ever-so-necessary dialogue on the future of the planet.

An Al Gore Campaign, and the ensuing Al Gore Presidency, would be a paradigm shifter. Moving from the Politics of Negative Definition (the scorched earth, destroy your opponent and avoid the issues paradigm), we would enter a post-political Age of Positive Action. The United States, and thus the planet, would never be the same.

Fifty years ago, when the USSR sent Sputnik up and thus launched the Space Age, the global perception of mankind's role in the universe was forever altered. I propose that an Al Gore presidency would be such an occasion, another, much-needed, point of no return.

For that I say: Run, Al, Run.

Labels: al gore, russert, sputnik

  ¶ 1:16 PM 1 comments

  Our own Pinochet? Yes, the Disaster in Chief is pretty much done as a relevant political force. I think Tuesday night's Republican debate, in which virtually every one of the 36 Republican candidates for president distanced his white, wrinkled self from W, was the final nail in the coffin. Every single major and minor domestic effort he has recently made in Congress has died on the vine (immigration now, too). His popularity is at rock bottom. He's even losing some of his base. Certainly he has zero chance at attaining a level of popularity that might in any way give him even the smallest amount of political capital. So, point is, he's not even a lame duck, he's a dead duck.

That said, he's still got his somewhere between 28 and 35 % support out there. They're not going away. To stand with this guy now, after everything he's done, you have to really really love him, deify him even, see him as some sort of savior, or at least, noble defender of some core belief or principal. If Bush went on TV tomorrow and declared HIMSELF the Worst President in History, these people would still love him.

Hold that thought a second, and consider something. Today, a grouping of the world's most important and effective human rights organizations have used the media to call for the end to the secret detentions of 39 people. Among these are several children. Yes, we have reached the point where the United States is disappearing people, pulling them from their homes and jobs and whisking them away, destination unknown.

This might seem like a strange and terrible new trend, but it is not new to many countries. Among them, Chile suffered from this practice for decades under Pinochet. I have a particular knowledge of what happened in Chile, as I studied there and have read and written extensively about it. The family with whom I lived there was exiled shortly after Pinochet's coup; they were lucky to get out in time, lest they too become disappeareds (a fate which tragically befell many of their friends). They lost contact with so many people when they left, and upon their return, found that many people had figured they (the family) were themselves disappeared.

The loss of a loved one is a tough thing for anyone to deal with. But what happens when a loved one is disappeared is far worse: he or she is brutally kidnapped at the hands of government thugs, often in front of children. No cause for detention is given. No information on whereabouts is provided. The family and friends of the disappeared go weeks, then months, then years without knowing anything. It is like death, but without the closure that death provides. It is in itself a horrific form of torture.

Pinochet's henchmen did this in the name of "saving democracy" and the Chilean people, ostensibly from the looming Marxist threat supposedly presented by the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. Bush's henchmen do this in the name of "saving democracy" and "freedom" from the looming terrorist threat supposedly presented by these men and women whose language they do not speak and whose culture they do not understand. I do not dispute that the US government might have good reasons to think these people are involved in terrorism against the United States; what I do dispute, wholeheartedly, is the need to defy the very ideals our nation was founded upon in the process of detaining, questioning, and holding them.

Now returning to those unwavering Bush supporters: clearly, this news will not sway them, will not turn them against our near-authoritarian president. They believe in him, and trust everything he does. As I consider them, try to understand them, and our role in our society, I cannot help but see so many parallels with what I saw in Chile. There, during the 1973 Pinochet coup, the same arguments were made. Slowly, many people realized how horribly Pinochet had led the country astray. When "democracy" began the process of reestablishing itself, in the late 1980s and early 90s, many citizens utilized the (semi) free press and the (semi) independent judiciary to spread the truth about the past and to seek justice. The truth did indeed begin to sway even some who had supported Pinochet. But, just as many ignored it, or continued to try to discredit the truthspeakers. They continued to stand by Pinochet.

Over time, this amount of people dropped to somewhere between 20 and 30% of the population (though another 20% called Pinochet a bad man but sought no justice). But those supporters continued to deify him, hold them up as a savior, a model Chilean. They fought every single effort to undo his policies and to correct the historical record. They were what Dick Cheney might call "dead-enders". To this very day, with Pinochet dead, with a largely strong and free government in place, and with the true whereabouts of many of the disappeared finally discovered, they continue to praise him.

So where will Bush's own dead-enders wind up? Now, I realize that Bush has not disappeared American citizens (at least to our knowledge) and that we do not have American families dealing with grief on the level of what hundreds of thousands of Chileans had to. However, the Bush apologists are just as bad as those of Pinochet. Even as we as a country try to move forward, beginning in 2009 with our Democratic president, these dead-enders will still be a vocal force in our society. They will fight efforts to examine the truth about 9/11, the Iraq Debacle, Abu Ghraib, and our own policy of disappearing people. Our nation will continue to deal with the consequences of all of these things as well (as many often point out, our policies have become a better terrorist factory than anything Osama could have hoped to himself build).

What will be our own process of national reconciliation? Chileans have largely been unable to fully reconcile their past, and it continues to haunt them today. I fear that much the same will happen here. That 30% will do whatever it takes to falsify the legacy of our own Pinochet.

Labels: disaster in chief

  ¶ 12:45 PM 2 comments

  moment of zen

For that moment, that one, solitary moment, he could forget. Forget about the war. The lies. The inept Attorney General and the quite-possibly-Devil-incarnate Veep. The 30% approval rating and clearing brush on the ranch. He could feel the rhythm, lose himself in the chants. And he could, for that one moment, live.

Labels: drums, escape

  ¶ 12:30 PM 2 comments

  What can we do? In response to the two previous entries (and ensuing comments) Anonymous said (bolding is mine):

Dearest Cicero,
While I completely agree with your point (and it is one that Rosie O’Donnell makes several times a week on The View), I have to present the other side as I see it. Yes, the media makes money with the art of distraction. However, Americans in general, have so many venues to choose from to receive their news: newspapers, magazines and tv programs that span the entire political spectrum, npr, endless websites, your blog. And while all of these are skewed, we have the basic option to choose what we want to read and when. And sometimes we just like to be distracted with Anna Nicole’s baby daddy because there is nothing we can do about the 4 year mess in Iraq. It’s not pleasant feeling so defeated all the time. I do admire your belief in achieving something better though, and if you have suggestions as to how the everyday citizen can help tackle mountains, please tell us.

J-lo responded:

I'd like to quickly comment on what anonymous had posted regarding the unpleasantness of feeling defeated. It is true that most of us may indeed feel defeated after the precarious situation our beloved president has entered us in, however, as Americans we can do something. There is a great quote by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr that states "The Greatest sin of our time is not the few who have destroyed, but the majority who have sat idly by." This is the case in point for most Americans who prefer to watch the next episode of twisted shows like 24 than take to the streets, join groups like MoveOn.org, send a heated letter to their representative, or simply vote. As Americans we've forgotten the power of voice and action. It's necessary that we demand action on the part of those politicians who claim they represent the public. Educate and speak your mind - teach your neighbor about the realities of Iraq and that 233 people dead in a single day is not a sign of success, but rather pandemonium - hell on Earth. Every little thing we do as activists, voters, citizens, does have an impact whether we believe it or not. We need to quit feeling defeated by a government that thrives on their ability to curb our civil liberties!

I understand where Anonymous is coming from. Sometimes it all becomes overwhelming. Many times, in fact, I can't even blog about things because I'm so frustrated and feel like I'm shouting into a black hole. But, as he or she mentions, there are plenty of media outlets for us to choose from - so how can it be a problem?

It is a problem because a singular media narrative seems to penetrate all of those different options. Take, for example, the lead up to the Iraq war. In the shadow of 9/11, the media just embraced Bush, his concept of an Axis of Evil, and the totally fabricated notion of Iraq posing some sort of imminent, Al Qaeda-linked threat to the United States. Over 80% of the American public bought this, because every single media outlet was selling it, and there was very little dissent. All of those scary graphics showing radical Islamist fighters running through obstacle courses and Saddam Hussein firing off a rifle made for good ratings, after all.

The point is then: what is variety when there is no diversity contained within it? This, in turn, brings me to J-lo's point, and his reference to MLK Jr. We cannot sit on our hands here and just say, "Oh well, it's the only thing on TV, so I'm gonna watch it." We have to be proactive. Action is as simple as speaking up, loudly and clearly, within your own group of friends. Action is going door to door as part of an organized voter education campaign (if you've never tried it, you'd be surprised at how easy and fun it is, and how many interesting people you'll meet along the way). Action is also being aware of the economics of media: don't be afraid to contact advertisers and let them know what you think about them associating themselves with certain networks or shows.

Above and beyond everything else, don't be afraid. Don't be afraid that you might step on someone's toes, or get yourself into a debate that might lead to some heated moments. It's your country too, and no matter the forum, you have a voice.

Labels: action

  ¶ 8:30 AM 3 comments

  The Sun never sets on tragedy While Americans (and our loving media) continue to allow the killer to play out his fantasy by endlessly obsessing over him and his massacre, the rest of the world falls father from our radar. The obsession is no surprise of course; the killer himself anticipated it in developing his fantasy and in executing his plan. In fact, he cared so much about the media exposure that he paused his killing spree to head to the Post Office so that he himself could mail his own personal media kit to NBC. Death is news, after all, and damned if he wasn't gonna cut out the middleman.

32 people killed anywhere at anytime is certainly a tragedy. Luckily for Americans it is a tragedy that does not befall us with any great frequency. Can you imagine if such a massacre were to occur every day for years and years? Resulting in thousands, then tens of thousands, and maybe even hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed while undertaking innocent pursuits like shopping, working, and even studying? In a country like that, a boy like Cho wouldn't be news at all. Lucky for Cho, then, that he wasn't from Iraq.

Yes, as America went about developing its latest tragic obsession today, more Iraqis died. 233, as a matter of fact. 183 in Baghdad alone, a city in which we have been told we need invest only a bit more blood in order to surge our way to victory. There, 32 is nothing. And our own troops? Our own young men and woman who did not happen to find themselves in a college classroom, but instead on the dusty streets of a city whose residents they did not know? They are dying, too:

From October 2006 through last month, 532 American soldiers were killed, the most during any six-month period of the war. March also marked the first time that the U.S. military suffered four straight months of 80 or more fatalities. April, with at least 58 service members killed through Monday, is on pace to be one of the deadliest months for American forces.

While the media continues to throw THE GREATEST MASSACRE IN AMERICAN HISTORY up on it's blinking flashing scrolling headline bars (making plenty of ad dollars in the process), we should be sad. We should be outraged that such a killing spree was able to happen, that so many innocents died. Outraged that so many students will never be able to realize their dreams, and outraged that even more students will never be able to learn from the several brilliant professors who were also slaughtered. However, we should not forget. We should not lose perspective. Death in Iraq may be far less surprising than death in Virginia, but it does not mean that it should be any less subject to our outrage nor to our demands that it must stop.

Labels: iraq, outrage, virginia

  ¶ 9:52 PM 3 comments

  On Virginia, and blame Longtime Cicero Jones reader, frequent comment, and sometimes contributor Chosun has been kind enough to provide us with some thoughts on the tragic crimes against humanity committed on the Virginia Tech campus. As a Korean-American (like the killer), Chosun offers a unique perspective.

From Chosun:

We’ve all heard about the killings in Virginia Tech by now, which is undoubtedly a horrible and horrific incident. Interestingly enough, Cicero sent me an article which had a comment that I found to be very disturbing. The subheading states, “THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history” and has a picture of the first victim of the shooting—eighteen-year-old Emily Jane Hilscher. Disgusted by this subheading, I immediately posted a comment about how ridiculous and thoughtless this subtitle is. Apparently, I wasn’t alone in feeling this way—there are currently 379 comments slamming the article for this as well.

Oddly enough, only about 10 minutes before reading this article, I had been contacted by a Korean friend of mine (I am Korean) in NYC who warned me that a Korean Association in NYC had been contacted by the Korean Consulate’s office warning that Koreans (and Asians in general) should be careful in case of retaliations. I took it as a big joke and nothing to worry about, and Cicero and I even joked about how stupid people would have to be to try to “retaliate” against Koreans. It was right around this point when Cicero said something that made me consider this a little more seriously—he said something like, “wait until Fox News has a headline like, ‘South Korea: the source of the crazed gunman.’” I’m wondering if a headline like this would cause retaliations from people (especially in VA) against Koreans. Likewise, is it possible that Emily Jane Hilscher’s family will suffer from attacks from the families of the other victims/friends as a result of this article?

These thoughts have made me want to pose a question to my fellow Cicero Jones readers: What safeguards are there that some media outlets wouldn’t be so attention-starved and/or careless to say something completely ridiculous as “THIS is the face of the girl who may have sparked the worst school shooting in US history”? Should journalists, reporters, and/or companies be held personally liable for crimes committed as a result of careless/sensational reporting tactics?

On a side note, two plays written by Cho Seung Hui can be found here and here. They show how disturbed he actually was.

Labels: blame, virginia, what's next from fox

  ¶ 8:51 AM 4 comments

  Bagel to Go by: J-lo
Honestly can you think of a better way to reuse a cd container than this:

I encourage you all to utilize that aging cd container next time you contemplate bringing a toasted bagel and pastrami sandwich to work. Who knows, maybe you'll see Starbucks start a new hip movement with old garbage!

Furthermore, for those concerned about toxic plastics - no worries since cd spindles are made from the same plastic used in food containers meaning no vinyl or other toxins!

Labels: Bagels, Reduce Reuse Recycle

  ¶ 9:21 PM 1 comments

  Coffee as pretext Buried in this Slate article, about the explosion of the green tea phenomenon, is this gem:

The unappreciated business genius of Starbucks is not charging $4 for a latte but rather giving adults permission to drink milkshakes, on the pretext that they are merely tea or coffee.

Amen.

Labels: 8 am dessert, Starbucks

  ¶ 11:54 AM 0 comments

  Respek!

To The Nancies Pelosi!

Courtesy of Phoenix Woman over at Daily Kos. Her text in it's entirety follows:

Labels: nancy pelosi: whatta broad, syria

  ¶ 12:05 AM 0 comments

  Where there's fire... Where were you on September 7, 2006? I can't recall exactly where I was, though I assume I went to work and then watched the Mets beat the Dodgers 7-0. One thing I CAN say with absolute certainty that I was NOT involved in a firefight with Iranian troops somewhere on the Iran-Iraq border. Not all Americans can say the same:

The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more.
(Time.com)

The article goes on to give a few details around a largely hush-hush firefight that was, in all probability, not provoked by either side. U.S. and Iraqi troops, operating in tandem, might have crossed into Iranian territory. Iranians might have crossed into Iraqi territory. People from any or all three of the nations involved might have died, and might have done so on either side of the border. The Pentagon does not wish to discuss this. The Iranians have not mentioned it. The only reports, sketchy ones at that, come from the few people who were involved. So, who cares?

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the facts, we simply cannot ignore the fact that American and Iranian troops exchanged fire along the Iraqi border. This is hugely significant. Iran has been, for several years, on that flame-broiled rotisserie grill that is the BushCo. Axis of Evil. Several well-documented intelligence battles have been fought between Iran and the U.S. in the past year, with the kidnapping of the 15 U.K. troops being only the latest in a series of strikes from both sides. A chain of escalation has been established and it shows no signs of abating.

As noted in the Time.com article linked to above, the past several months have seen American troops pulled off of the Iranian border in order to provide more "security" for Iraqi cities, primarily Baghdad. Though we cannot be certain as to the Disaster in Chief's next step in his brilliant Iraq strategy, we ought to assume that someday in the near future American troops will return, with whatever Iraqi soldiers they have access to, to the Iranian border. What will happen then?

Over two years ago, in this post, I suggested that a primary American goal of the occupation of Iraq was to create a proxy army (that being Iraq's) with which to fight Iran.

But, does anyone really believe that anytime in the next 30 years an Iraqi government will be able to stand up to the United States (and the thousands of U.S. troops based there)? The Iraqi leaders in power will most likely have received significant U.S. help to get into power in the first place. They might even possibly see a war with Iran as a way to stoke "Iraqi" nationalism and, in doing so, create some semblance of unity among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds who have been cursed by the boundaries of colonialism into sharing a nation-state.

Unfortunately, I still see this as becoming a reality. It makes too much sense. Anyone who has studied even a bit of world history knows one of the most common ways to unify a divided country is to create a common enemy. Just look at Yugoslavia, a conglomerate of multiple religions and ethnicities. Tito gave his people a dual enemy - the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. - and painted over centuries of ethnic bloodshed to form a new nation-state. As that common enemy melted away, so too did the bonds that held the state together.

As a nation, Iraq's greatest struggle has been against Iran. The two countries share a massive border, and the divisions internally among the Shia seem to make any sense of a greater "Shia Alliance" between Iraqi Shia and the Iranians impossible. That doesn't mean that there won't be people in the Iraqi government who are pro-Iran. However, the combination of the Sunni and Kurds (firmly anti-Iranian) with Iraqi nationalist Shia and other anti-Iran Shia could easily help this reach critical mass. Further factor in the behind the scenes work of the Americans (clashing with Iran on all fronts, building the Iraqi military in an American model, stepping up border patrols against Iran) and you have the perfect recipe for a regional conflagration.

Obviously, the Iraqi state is not currently in a position to fight a war with another state. However, the calls from both Republicans and Democrats for the Iraqis to begin doing more seem to further us down this path. Stoking Iraqi nationalism may be the only way to create any sort of multi-ethnic consensus (and real government) in that country, and Iran is the natural target (not to mention one that is fully sanctioned by Disaster in Chief). Adding American troops to the mix just fuels the fire. A chain of escalation has already been established. Where will it end?

Labels: disaster in chief, Iran, iraq

  ¶ 7:30 AM 0 comments

  Save the Seahorse '08 by: J-lo


In addition to having raised over $26 million, Hillary Clinton has declared that a major focus for her presidential campaign is the seahorse. Clinton states that she was deeply moved by a personal experience she shared with one of 35 endangered species of seahorses.

Typically, I would avoid forming an opinion in line with Clinton's, however, I cannot agree more with her and the fact the United States, and the world alike need to take urgent action to protect the world's delicate and majestic seahorses.

Seahorses are also threatened by over-fishing, Dr Koldewey said. They are being targeted for use in traditional Asian medicine, as live pets, and for the souvenir trade.

An estimated 30 million seahorses are traded every year, by between 70 and 80 countries - which makes this the largest wildlife trade issue, in terms of numbers.

I hope readers can understand the urgency of this issue and the fact that we are contributing to the extinct of a mysterious creature that ignores the norms of biology, and practices both strict monogamy and the most extreme form of male prenatal care (the male seahorse, rather than female, becomes pregnant). Act now and save the seahorse, and maybe our species can learn a thing or two from them about relationships or even parenting.

Labels: Cites, clinton, seahorses

  ¶ 11:22 PM 0 comments

  RIP Tonic It is with heavy heart that I pass on some sad news to those New York-based readers out there: Tonic is closing. Yes, the same Tonic that Kevo and I named our "Best of 2006" in this post:

Sometimes there are 5 people in the place 20 minutes into the show, with musicians marching on to the different drummer of their own sound, which might or might not involve eastern chants, household appliances, and a brass section. Other times, you've got new-age flamenco-funk moving the ceiling and walls with a house that's been packed since 11. Music is and should be experimentation. It should be new. The old and battered Tonic always is.

Brooklyn Vegan posted on this yesterday, and when I read the news my heart sank. Tonic is closing because the real estate value of it's Lower East Side location has skyrocketed (keep in mind that this area was pretty much considered a slum not even a decade ago) and it has essentially been priced out of the neighborhood. New luxury condos are going up next door.

I don't know if there is anything out there that can takes its place; Tonic has pushed the envelope continually but not many other clubs have followed suit. How many more of these places can NYC lose?

Labels: best of 2006, sad sad news, tonic

  ¶ 9:33 AM 1 comments

  Starbucks update I know, you're probably all waiting for the big roll out of the Starbucks branding on this site. Well, I regret to inform you all that it will not happen. The reasons why are complex and not particularly interesting, but they do involve Radiohead. As you might or might not know, Radiohead was rumored this week to be signing to the Starbucks music label. However, Thom Yorke set everyone straight:

"Radiohead are currently in the studio working on their next record," singer Thom Yorke said in a statement. "They are not negotiating a new record deal with anyone, and will not even consider how to release their new music until the album is finished. The rumor that they are about to sign with Starbucks is totally untrue."

I am here to also declare that the rumors of Cicero Jones signing on with Starbucks are also "totally untrue." Yes, I do admit that I was also the central figure perpetrating those rumors. However, they were just that: rumors. I will not even consider how to release my blogged content until it is totally finished.

In other Starbucks news, BusinessWeek has a must-read: "Saving Starbucks' Soul." Remember my 8 am dessert hypothesis? I think this supports it:

On Apr. 3, Starbucks launches a pair of confections called Dulce de Leche Latte and Dulce de Leche Frappuccino. A 16-oz. Grande latte has a robust 440 calories (about the same as two packages of M&M's) and costs about $4.50 in New York City—or about three times as much as McDonald's (MCD ) most expensive premium coffee. Starbucks Corp. (SBUX ) describes its latest concoctions, which took 18 months to perfect, this way: "Topped with whipped cream and a dusting of toffee sprinkles, Starbucks' version of this traditional delicacy is a luxurious tasty treat."

The article goes on to discuss the process of turning Starbucks from a coffee mecca into morning-time ice cream shop, and the CEO's desire to bring it back to its roots. Good luck, buddy.

And on a different tip, here is probably the funniest, most amazing piece of comedy ever involving Starbucks: Improv Everywhere's "The Moebius":

On Saturday, March 22, 2003 Improv Everywhere agents created a living moebius strip in the Astor Place Starbucks. Seven undercover agents meticulously repeated a five-minute slice of time for twelve consecutive repetitions. Starbucks employees and patrons were frightened, confused, and ultimately entertained as they found themselves stuck, without escape, in the middle of a time loop.

Go check it out, and imagine what you would do if this happened at your local Starbucks.

Labels: Starbucks

  ¶ 9:18 AM 0 comments

  Saharan Style Golf by J-lo

Normally I wouldn't share special days (no it's not Cicero's b-day) with reader, however, I felt that here on Cicero Jones we should acknowledge an event that occurred on March 22. Today, though I have yet to receive approval from the editors, we are celebrating post World Water Day (March 22), or better known as Saharan Style Golf.

Understandably water is the very under appreciated (who has their 8 glasses of water a day?)and undervalued resource in the world. Rarely, as we are singing in the shower and producing an abundance of suds do we consider the importance of water and its scarcity for most people. Honestly, if Gallup were to conduct a poll today asking people what is more important - water or oil, I can gander that more than 60% would respond oil.

Besides the usual importance of H2O I quickly wanted to share something that makes me perspire a little and wonder what Tiger Woods would say. Though not a golfer (I'd prefer to utilize my senior years playing a good game of bocce), I couldn't help but see these numbers as staggering (please read).

San Antonio’s 56 golf courses alone suck up 6.4 billion gallons of water per year. To put that figure in perspective, consider that in Africa, average daily human consumption is 47 liters, or about 12.5 gallons. That means the San Antonio golf courses’ annual water consumption equals about that of 1.5 million Africans.

As an act of protest I demand that all golf courses halt their watering for the course of Summer '07 and send an open invitation to individuals and families from water deprived nations to enjoy the exclusivity of US country clubs. The US can easily mend diplomatic relations with countries through an act such as free access to golf course - just imagine a plethora of Sudanese, Bolivians, and Uzbeks picnicking and playing 18 holes on a plush American golf course!

UPDATE (by Cicero): I think J-lo did a real nice job here, don't you? However, I would caution against the golf course idea above. For all those who have seen Borat: J-lo, why would you advocate letting "Uzbeki assholes" into this country. Borat would not like.

Labels: agua, golf, special days

  ¶ 7:52 PM 0 comments

  Starbucks Annual Meeting: Calm Down, Mr. Investor Tomorrow Starbucks' Chairman Howard Schultz will go before shareholders at the company's annual meeting. Starbucks shares have lost 20% since last November and there is some unease about the company's direction. This, of course, puts me in a bit of a weird position. Though I am on their payroll, and thus would like them to continue to operate with soaring profits, I cannot help but get a bit of satisfaction knowing that I am at least partially responsible for this decline in share prices. Clearly, some of the things that I've pointed out on this blog have snowballed into large-scale concerns shared by industry analysts. I have not been asked to address the shareholders tomorrow, but be assured that Cicero Jones will have a full response right here.

In a related note, the Starbucks branding will be applied to this website within the next two weeks - the contract is still being finalized and I don't want to do anything until it's all set in stone.

Also one final note: the article I linked to above says that McDonald's coffee beat Starbucks in a recent taste test. This is no surprise. McDonald's has good coffee, you should try it. You might think I am being sarcastic, but I am not; it's amazing what a little animal fat can do for the taste of your joe.

Labels: Starbucks

  ¶ 9:20 AM 2 comments

  500,000 Strong Al Gore will testify in Congress tomorrow regarding global warming, as previously discussed on this blog. Click this link to add your name to his message (quick and easy). He's at somewhere over 400,000 strong now, and needs you to get him to half a million.

In a related note, the Politico asks: Can Gore Let it Rip? The conclusions is, essentially, that Gore should run, and probably will, barring a definite tilt of the race toward either Obama or Clinton. As long as they are pretty much neck and neck, there is room for Gore.

Labels: al gore, global warming

  ¶ 8:41 AM 0 comments

  Fox News Reports Critical Threats by: J-lo
Almost certainly we all know by now that global warming is not a pressing issue, at least not like it is in other countries!



I can understand why global warming is not a center piece of American politics, particularly considering our continued success in Iraq, the recent capture of Osama, and political honesty; however, on the bright side we did come ahead of the Ukraine when asked if global warming is an immediate threat. According to the survey , about 46% of those Americans question regarded global warming as a critical threat, whereas only 33% in the Ukraine agreed.

What caught my eye as the diamond in the rough was that similar to other developing countries, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 61% of Iranians surveyed had strong opinions of global warming and viewed it as something urgent. Though not disclosed in the article, the survey also found that over 86% of Iranians considered global warming more of ominous than the threats of President Bush and Co. I wonder how the President is receiving that?

Maybe some teamwork will help, and force us to be a little more concerned about global warming than the Iranians or Aussies! At the least we can pretend on Earth Day.

UPDATE:
I would like to respond to a brief comment that was posted regarding the above survey. The reader stated:

uh, we also came ahead of most of the countries on that chart, including israel, not just the ukraine. plus there's no EU representation on your chart so I don't get the point.

Clearly the US did come ahead of some countries, however, my point and the point of the survey was to address those who viewed global warming as a critical issue or threat. If we examine the portion of the graph that is in blue then we see that most of the countries surveyed do feel global warming is a critical threat rather than just another fly on the wall. As for the Ukraine, I think they are still concerned more about contamination and birth defects due to Chernobyl than global warming - and trust me I don't blame them!

As for the E.U. comment, I have no ability of addressing that since I was not called in as a consultant to conduct the survey. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs though, the survey was originally conducted in the US, India and China, and as a result several organizations in the remaining countries expressed an interest in participating. End result - the 17 countries involved and no E.U. Though disappointing that the E.U. cared not to participate I think it is important to note that the 17 countries listed represent over 55% of the world population and are some of the leaders in greenhouse gas production. For those interested in numbers I suggest looking here.

Furthermore if we look at the chart below, one can conclude that the E.U. has been taking measures to curb greenhouse gas production since 1990, whereas for the US and China there has been a jump.

Of course I do not want to blame the American people for such, as we are not at fault. What is necessary is that our government quit giving out royalties to nasty polluters and begin taxing them heavily for the amount of CO2 produced. Though unlikely, President Bush needs to provide more incentives to companies to go green and further investigate the option of capturing and storing CO2 emissions.

Labels: fun surveys, global warming, Iran

  ¶ 9:37 PM 4 comments

  All Starbucks, all the time The (kind of) non-stop Cicero Jones Starbucks coverage has been a resounding success. Unprecedented amounts of comments, several emails, and lots of interesting discussion. So, I am quite happy to announce Cicero Jones will now be going All Starbucks, all the time!

I spoke yesterday with Starbucks' Senior Vice President of Blogger Outreach, Juan P. Valdez (they co-opted him several years back) and the company has graciously agreed to sponsor this blog. What does it mean? Well, some badly needed cash for me. And also, within the coming weeks this blog will be reincarnated as the STARBUCKS cicero jones VENTI BLOG. We will be hosted on the Starbucks servers and will also be offering a two for one coupon (limited time only) for a double macchiato caramel latte spectacular explosion of flavor (as it's known in Japan). I should also note that this does not mean I will stop being critical of their brand - apparently, my criticizing them is actually good for their business, and they would like me to continue. Their only request is that I blog about them after having had a large (ok I know that's not the right word, but I'm a maverick, what can I say) Starbucks coffee.

On that note, here is your daily Starbucks news round up:

• Starbucks Launches Record Label (!!)

I kid you not folks, they have actually launched a record label, called Hear Music (click the link of you don't believe me). I did a quick look through the site to see their new releases: it appears all of their artists are quite old, and I am concerned that if they were to drink this coffee the caffeine might kill each and every one of them. Which, come to think of it, would probably just help record sales. You gotta love those guys, always thinking of the next big thing. Oh, and their first real "target" to actually sign to the label: none other than the hippest man in music, Paul McCartney.

• Starbucks wanted OUT of Forbidden City

Back in 2000, when a Starbucks opened up in Beijing's apparently significant Forbidden City, people thought it was the end of the world. In fact, they were right: George Bush was (s)elected President of the USA, the Kyoto Treaty was torn to shreds, several wars were started, and American Idol was born. Now some member of the Chinese parliament has submitted a bill to revoke their license to operate there. That's nice, but last time I checked, Starbucks had better access to the Chinese premier than the parliament did.

• And the BIG BIG news: FREE STARBUCKS THIS THURSDAY FROM 10 AM to 12 NOON!!!!!

Go to the site, where it even tells you how to set up a text message reminder to get your fix on! Of course, this does not apply to any of the dessert drinks - which are 99% of the menu. No, this means you get a free 12 oz. cup of Starbucks "premium drip" coffee. Personally, I think this is a brilliant marketing strategy. Why? Because people will still go tomorrow morning, and get their normal $5 dessert drink at 8 am. Then they'll go back for the free cup at 10, realize this "premium drip" coffee tastes like absolute shit, and buy another $5 dessert drink. Score another one for the mermaid.

Labels: bad coffee, free stuff, Starbucks

  ¶ 8:54 AM 1 comments

  More on Gore, Iraq I don't have time for links but wanted to give a quick update on my perceptions regarding Al Gore entering the presidential race. I still think he will; however, some of his critics have raised what I'll admit is a relevant point: Al Gore's view on Iraq. Yes, back in 2002, when it was certainly not "cool" and at times labeled "treasonous," Al Gore spoke out against the BushCo plan for invading Iraq. His primary objection to the invasion was not one along the lines of the Dennis Kucinich "Let's build a Department of Peace Instead" approach. Gore framed his own objections in a national security context: Afghanistan is far from a finished job and we simply can't abandon that endeavor. Furthermore, Gore pointed out that Bush would go into Iraq, take out Saddam, and then leave a huge mess behind that would cause even more problems. Prescient, certainly, but what else would you expect from a man who had served several terms in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President (during which he probably made more national security decisions for the country than his boss did).

The point here is that Gore in 2002 was already worrying about the consequences of making war in Iraq and then abandoning its people. Which brings us to the question at hand: what would Al Gore do in Iraq now? For a man who has had years and years of White House war room realism welded onto an idealistic soul, it would be a torturous issue. Certainly he does not want the United States to be in Iraq, something that now the vast majority of the American public agrees with him on. I think it's also likely that he does not want to abandon the Iraqi government, in what many might see as a "throwing them to the wolves" scenario. And for a man with a cause (global warming) and, above that, a new found popular relevance (not to mention, lots of new money), would seeking the White House and inheriting all of these problems really be a desirable mission?

His critics see someone who will probably back down from this challenge. I, on the other hand, do not. I believe Gore has already established himself as one of the greatest patriots our modern country has known. His tireless dedication to public service cannot be questioned. His ability to see "further down the road" than his peers has been consistently noted (for all the jokes about inventing the internet, without a doubt Gore did more to make it a reality than any other public servant). His diplomatic skill is second to none and would be essential for getting the entire region together for action on Iraq. Domestically, Gore would have to deal with negotiating a course that would be both acceptable to the anti-war majority and those who raise rightful concerns about leaving behind a terrorist hotbed. I have no idea how I would approach such a political minefield myself, but then again, I'm not the guy who single-handedly tackled global warming.

Labels: al gore

  ¶ 8:27 AM 0 comments

  Spring cleaning I can't say I blame them:

GUATEMALA CITY --Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.

I think that the Democratic party needs to get in touch with these guys. We will need them to perform a similar ritual on the White House in early 2009.

Labels: disaster in chief, spiritual cleansing

  ¶ 12:21 PM 0 comments

  Fresh language The Morning News has announced the winner of their Contest for Total Idioms. The idea of the contest was to come up with some handy new idioms that could potentially be useful for reinvigorating the English language.

I liked this one:

Throw Down Some Flowers
Casual act of buying a floral bouquet to appease a girlfriend out of obligation, not desire. E.g., “Yeah, she was angry at me for getting drunk at her parents’ place on Thanksgiving, but I threw down some flowers and she forgave me pretty quickly.”—Daiv Whaley

And the winner was:

If a Bird Can’t Fly, It Walks

Used to suggest someone should stop making excuses why they can’t do something.—Kevin Cornell

They have a request: "So please, help us invigorate the world. Use this phrase in your daily conversation, include it in your Harper’s essays; if you know Tony Snow, try and get him to say it on TV. " I highly suggest you click through to check out the bumper sticker they are selling.

And I am happy to be leaving you with one of my personal favorites, from long-time reader and commenter, DG:



DG has been using that one for a long time and it's really come in handy.

Labels: idioms

  ¶ 10:49 PM 1 comments

  Mr. Gore goes back to Washington On March 21, Al Gore will go to Washington to testify before Congress on global warming. This will be a media bonanza, and in that way, extremely important to further raise awareness on an issue that is already approaching the tipping point. As an introduction to his testimony, Gore is planning to hand deliver postcards to individual representatives from the constituents, demanding action global warming. Fill out your own postcard for Gore to deliver here (it's fast).

Labels: global warming

  ¶ 11:15 AM 0 comments

  The Ethanol Revolution by J-lo



With President Bush traveling to Brazil this Thursday to discuss with Brazilian President Lula the opportunities of an international market for ethanol, we are left to wonder when the ethanol revolution will make its appearance before citizens of the US and furthermore, will it truly make an environmental difference.

For over a quarter of a century, Brazil has been processing sugar cane to produce ethanol, a viable alternative to petroleum, that in recent years has nearly equaled petroleum as a source of automobile fuel for Brazilian commuters. Yet, if the United States were to import and produce sufficient ethanol to compensate 20% of our petroleum consumption like Bush is proposing, will countries like Brazil, and farmers like Old MacDonald be able to keep stride? According to studies the US currently consumes over 250 BILLION gallons of fuel in transit alone. How is it that something like corn or sugar cane can even approach that number when current corn ethanol production is a meager 5.58 billion gallons per year or 2.6 billion bushels?

I'm not arguing that ethanol is not a viable alternative to petroleum since it's been proven to produce less CO2 than current petroleum emissions, and offers struggling campesinos and local US farmers the opportunity to access a new and growing market. Ethanol may provide the answer to how countries in Central and South America can further develop and expand there economies, and lastly can assure some energy security and permit the U.S.A to slowly break ties with OPEC while strengthening relationships with several Latin American nations.

Yet does driving a flex-fuel automobile make one more environmentally friendly or more American? We've all heard about the wonders of biofuels, but have we ignored the fact that 20% of current petroleum consumption would require the equivalent of 50 billion gallons of corn or cane ethanol (how many acres of monoculture farming would that require)? Considering current agricultural techniques there is no possible way a farmer could sustainably cultivate a monoculture farm of solely corn and be heavily dependent on petroleum derived fertilizers and hazardous pesticides. Something has to give. Turning our attention to Brazil, we can already witness the impact of ethanol based crops in the destruction of virgin forests and contamination of watersheds solely to meet national demand for ethanol (please note Brazil is currently unable to export ethanol due to extraordinary high US tariffs).

"Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states, these vast monocultures have replaced important eco-systems," he said. "If you see the size of the plantations in the state of Sao Paolo they are oceans of sugar cane. In order to harvest you must burn the plantations which creates a serious air pollution problem in the city."

The debate over ethanol as a sustainable U.S. energy supply can continue for months by bringing into question the food versus fuel debate and "the tortilla crisis" that subsequently sparked protests in Mexico City. In summary ethanol is good but not good enough to save the Earth and the atmosphere. I agree with Bush and Lula that an international market for ethanol is necessary; however, it must be done sustainably and in a manner that will not destroy necessary food systems, and social and ecological environments. Ethanol, perhaps, is only a temporary solution to our present predicament of oil dependency and global warming and not as some would state the future of automotive fuel. The President and Congress must continue pushing for more research and development into alternative renewable sources such as hydrogen fuel cell and electric and discuss opportunities for designing cheaper versions of the sporty $100k Tesla!

Labels: ethanol, global warming, politics

  ¶ 8:50 PM 0 comments

  "I think hating Starbucks is almost as cliche as loving it" Such was the comment received on this post, in which J-lo and I discussed Starbucks and its intent to destroy the world as we know it.

First of all, yeah, I agree. For those of you who watched the video included in that post, Bryant Simon, the Temple professor who is writing a book on Starbucks, talked about this. Essentially Starbucks has come to symbolize what a lot of people think is wrong with America. Back in the Mythical Old Days, people used to buy their cup of coffee from a local coffeeshop, a place where: a) they enjoyed good conversation and community; b) knew their money was going to support a local establishment; and c) the coffee actually tasted good, was not superloaded with caffeine, and did not eat a hole through their stomach lining.

We all know this transition away from the local and to the global has various causes. It has plenty of negatives, many of them very serious. It also has a wide array of benefits (you like having weird Brazilian fruits in your smoothies? me too). Of all of these various causes and effects, very few are directly related to the Starbucks brand itself.

You know, there's a new joke that is kicking around in my head that I think would apply here. It is this: Two Americans are walking around in Red Square, in Moscow. They see an enormous line of Muscovites, several hundred meters in length. One says to the other, "This is terrible, look at all of these people waiting in line, what is this for, just to see the embalmed Lenin? Surely communism is on the rise again and we are all doomed." The other, slightly more aware, says, "Friend, don't worry, communism is deader than ever. Capitalism is thriving. How do I know? They're actually all in line for their morning latte from Starbucks."

In that, you can see the generalization: the spread of Starbucks is instantly associated with the liberalization of markets and with old ways fading away, for good. So, in saying, "I hate Starbucks, I don't drink Starbucks, Starbucks is evil," we are actually saying, "I reject the future, with all of its robotic tastes and globalized identity."

I do not feel as strongly as some may on this issue. I do not drink Starbucks, except in situations in which there is no realistic alternative. But my principal objection to Starbucks is not, in fact, something very "macro" or global. Instead, it is as local as possible. Their coffee absolutely sucks.

Very few Starbucks fans that I know actually go in there and say, "One cuppa coffee please." Really what they are doing is going in and ordering desserts. Desserts that are socially acceptable to have at 8 am. As I suggested to my pro-Starbucks friend recently, his ordering habits are more akin to stopping by the ice cream shop for a sundae than they are sipping a nice homebrew joe on a Sunday morning. In fact, Prof. Simon makes the argument that Starbucks itself serves as a sort of reward ritual, whereby people get in rhythms of "treating themselves" on a daily basis.

So, going back to the comment that spurred this post: yes, love it or hate it, Starbucks has grown to exist not only on every block in your city, but also in the rich land of metaphor.

Labels: bad coffee, Starbucks

  ¶ 8:00 PM 5 comments

  Sunday Funnies Oh, there are some good ones in here. Especially W talking about his lawyer:

  ¶ 8:56 AM 0 comments

  A war we can win

Some of you might remember this past summer when a hot topic here on Cicero Jones was the War Against Manliness. Floyd Landis, American Hero, was subjected to vicious attacks from primarily French antagonists, upset that a Frenchman had still not won the Tour de France since the time of Napoleon (when the Emperor himself won it during every year of his reign, despite not actually competing). They accused him of having too much testosterone in his blood, compared to the standard levels found in the modern French male.

My defense of Landis, at the time, seemed to fall on deaf ears. But, to everyone's surprise but my own, it turns out I was right. The charges against Landis remain unsubstantiated. And now, according to Outside magazine, the tests of Landis' A and B samples were conducted by the same lab technicians - a big no no in the world of drug testing, as this gives the technicians the power to validate their own work.

Floyd also received the support of Phil Ligget, the "Voice of the Tour" and, apparently, a very well-respected dude in the cycling world:

"I ran into Floyd and we had a very quiet one-on-one around the dinner table," said Phil Liggett, a sports journalist who covers the Tour de France for Versus (formerly OLN) and CBS Sports. "He's so angry. During the week he announced his defense policies. There have been mistakes made on the testing and I believe he will win his appeal."

Also of note is the Floyd Fairness Fund, whose mission is:

• To support Floyd Landis against unsubstantiated doping allegations
• To provide the means to attain fairness for Floyd
• To bring justice to those responsible for misconduct in the case

So, it seems to me that our counterattack in the War Against Manliness is proceeding nicely. Soon, the Anti Man forces will be vanquished, Floyd will return to his rightful throne, and everyone can have a cold, 'merican beer to celebrate.

Labels: french people, lab technicians gone wild, war against manliness

  ¶ 8:31 PM 1 comments

  A Coffee Conundrum by: J-lo

Although Cicero nor I are advocates of Starbucks and the coffee they produce, I felt I should share this piece from another blog that discusses Howard Schultz's, chairman of Starbucks, own personal conundrum. When Schultz began Starbucks back in '87 he had a vision of a coffee shop similar to those found in Italy and meant to broaden social experiences and the feeling of community. Unfortunately, as most of us are aware, that is no longer the case for Starbucks.

In a February 14 internal corporate memo,“The Commoditization of the Starbucks Experience,” Schultz laments how the company’s fierce expansion and efficiency measures “have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience, and, what some might call the commoditization of our brand.”

Interesting how a vision to strengthen community and share the experience of coffee with customers has become a parable of the tragedy of the commons. My simple suggestion for poor Mr. Schultz is that he spends an hour in one of his metropolitan stores, "experiences" the coffee, and lastly judges for himself if the environment and the customers are truly "communal". Maybe then he will realize his vision is a failure and his coffee cannot even compare to something offered in Italy.

Unfortunately for his company, Starbucks is doomed to become a disgraced coffee empire (40,000 stores) that colonizes even those countries where coffee is produced - but then again I could be wrong considering the growing number of Starbucks loyalists. In my opinion though, it is truly a tragedy.

UPDATE (from Cicero): For those who are interested in this, I have some good YouTube viewing. Bryant Simon, a professor of history at Temple University, has spent several years visiting Starbucks all over the world and studying how they draw people back for more and more. You can read more about his work in The Guardian. This is his presentation to the recent Taste3 Conference in San Francisco:

Labels: bad coffee, Starbucks

  ¶ 10:09 AM 4 comments

  Pro portions How many calories do you think you average per course when you go out to eat a chain restaurant? Everyone knows it is "a lot'" - but what does that really mean? This:

A 2,000-calorie appetizer, a 2,000-calorie main course, another 1,700 calories for dessert - those aren't typos. It's more like par for the course at Ruby Tuesday, On the Border, the Cheesecake Factory and countless other top table-service chain restaurants.

But since those chains make almost zero nutrition information available on menus, their customers don't have a clue they might be getting a whole day's worth of calories in a single dish, or even several days worth in the whole meal.

The article also contains one of my favorite new phrases in journalism (bolded):

Uno Chicago Grill's "Pizza Skins." "We start with our famous deep dish crust, add mozzarella and red bliss mashed potatoes, and top it off with crispy bacon, cheddar and sour cream," says the menu. The menu doesn't disclose that this fusion of pizza and potato skins - which is meant to precede a meal of pizza - packs 2,050 calories, 48 grams of saturated fat and 3,140 milligrams of sodium - more than a day's worth.

Wow, I don't even know what to say. One thing I would ask is that this be something we keep in America and really don't try to export. Because if I'm abroad someday and encounter an American chain restaurant pushing this dish on the previously unaware culture I am visiting, I will spontaneously combust.

Labels: combustion, fat americans

  ¶ 9:25 PM 3 comments

  “Paper or Plastic, Mr. Gore?” by J-lo



My recent journey to Whole Foods may have shed some light on that age-old dispute between the Gozdilla and Mothra of the grocery industry, Paper and Plastic. Typically, when at the cash register you expect the timeless question of “Paper or Plastic?” However, it seems Whole Foods - and possibly more supermarkets - are doing away with the paper and only supplying the plastic. But, why? Is plastic, a derivative of petroleum, honestly more sustainable, greener and more granola than paper?

A simple side-by-side comparison and one would anticipate paper the champion of grocery bags (of course I am excluding from this test canvas, which is the true champion of greens). Think for a second about the history of each, the lives of Plastic and Paper. Paper’s dates back to its birth on a monoculture tree plantation, most likely in the Northwest region of the U.S.A or possibly B.C., Canada. Plastic, on the other hand, was born in a factory and created by the virtues of petroleum. As their lives dwindle, Paper typically sees its role reutilized, whereas Plastic finds itself as a decoration of sorts around the neck of a seagull or leatherback turtle.

For years, I have personally chosen Paper as the more earth-friendly option; however, after my Whole Foods experience and recent investigation I have discovered Plastic as the true winner. According to a life-cycle energy analysis conducted by Franklin and Associations, Ltd, Plastic outmaneuvers Paper two to one. In order to achieve the results, Franklin and Associations analyzed total energy used to manufacture a bag, and the amount of pollutants produced. The results of the the analysis stated:

A single paper bag uses the energy equivalent of 550 kJ of wood as feedstock. It also uses 500 kJ of petroleum and 350 kJ of coal for process energy. The total amount of energy used by a single paper bag is 1,680 kJ…Two plastic bags use 990 kJ of natural gas, 240 kJ of petroleum, and 160 kJ of coal. The energy used for two plastic bags is 1,470 kJ. Two plastic bags use 87% the amount of energy used by one paper.

Now for the all-important question we must all ask ourselves next time we are at the check out counter of the local grocers:

“What would Al Gore do?”

Clearly, there is one simple answer: refuse both paper and plastic and bring along your favorite canvas bag. I'm a canvas-user but I must admit that there are moments when I am on my way home from work and have an itch to pick up some groceries yet never thought to bring along the Canvas. On the other hand, the grocery bag industry could take it upon them self and manufacture biodegradable bags made from starches. Yet once again, we face obstacles that may result in individuals becoming too litter friendly, or witness more energy utilized for the creation of a “biodegradable bag.”

Being sustainable is difficult; however, each of us must attempt to do our part and at a minimum utilize Canvas and save our Plastic and Paper. However if one truly wants to be an eco-warrior the only solution is growing your own veggies and knitting yourself a sustainable hemp bag. In short B.Y.O.B. – bring your own bag, bake your own bread!

[ed. note (Cicero): that's not the fun kind of byob, man]

Labels: global warming, sustainability

  ¶ 5:12 PM 0 comments

  How do you score this one? Just watch:
Just watch:  ¶ 6:42 PM 0 comments

  Obamania

Barack Obama drew 20,000 people to hear him speak in Austin yesterday. Howard Dean drew 3,000 people in Austin at this point in the '04 campaign and that was considered off the charts. To put it mildly, this guy is doing something right. Oh yeah: it was raining the whole time.

Word:

Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.

"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

How many will he get in Cleveland on Monday?

[photo credit: mr. wright, who says obama wore this hat for only 10 seconds]

Labels: obama

  ¶ 6:09 PM 0 comments

  Hillary/Obama, 2008, and what it all means


So, what's the deal with the whole David Geffen-slams-Hillary-who-slams-Obama thing? Everyone is weighing in. Some people think Hillary "won" because she got Obama to look a little less like the new Messiah. Some think Obama did because he is showing that his campaign is not afraid to attack the "dirty" elements of the Clintonian past. Others say that the Democrats lost because it just reinforces the whole Democrats in Hollywood meme.

If any of the above, I have to go with Obama being the one to gain something from this - and I definitely don't think it did any damage to the Democrats in general. Let me explain.

My problem in general with the Democratic primary field is that NO ONE is really taking on Clinton head on. I don't get it, because there is a HUGE part of the Democratic electorate that is looking for such a candidate. As I often make clear, I am a very partisan Democrat. I believe the Democratic party is the single best vehicle for changing American society for the better. Hillary has done many good things in the past, both for the party, and for affecting positive social change. However, on the Single Biggest Issue of the day, and what some might call the Only Issue, she is wrong wrong wrong.

She thought she could embrace a new identity once she got into the Senate - Hillary the Hawk. Talk tough on terror, go after Saddam, etc. Well, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. A lot of people screwed up back in 2002 - screwed up very badly, with terrible consequences. Of course, the Disaster in Chief is #1 on this list, and no one else can come close to his level of culpability. However, that doesn't mean there aren't many, many more names on that list. Lieberman might be #2, but Hillary the Hawk is certainly in the top 10. And, like the two men I just mentioned, she is obstinate in her refusal to admit she screwed up. Which is bad, very bad, and could kill us in the general election (keep in mind the electorate is now approaching 70% anti-war).

My nightmare scenario for the Dems is Hillary vs. Mitt Romney. Unlike McCain and Giuliani, Romney is not really identified in voters' minds as a super Pro Iraqi War guy. Yeah he talks the talk, but he doesn't have too much blood on his hands. Hillary does. As 2008 rolls around, and American troops continue to die there, we'll eventually hit the general election matchup. In debate after debate, press release after press release, ad after ad, Iraq will be the central issue. And if we have Hillary in our corner, and they have Romney in theirs, how is the Democratic party going to look? Like the War Party, I guess, with our nominee still refusing to apologize, to admit a mistake. Such a matchup would effectively neutralize the Only Issue. Which is not only bad for the Democrats, but absolutely terrible for the American people.

Turning back to the original focus of this post: thank you Obama! For at least taking some shots at this woman, this enabler of war. I am not so enthusiastic about Obama, but at least he did not back down when her camp demanded he publicly rebuke David Geffen. I really hope the next step is for him to start hitting her harder on the war (and hey, Obama, there's a market for this!). I'm not really sure that Obama is offering much effective leadership on the issue, but I do feel that he knows what's up, and wants us to get the hell out of there. I also think he'd be the most able to devise a sensible, multilateral approach to the situation the would result from an American withdrawal (because, let's be honest, Iraq is in rough rough shape no matter what).

One last point: I don't buy for a second the worries about the Democrats being too Hollywood-friendly. Yes, it certainly mattered in 2000 when we had just had 8 years of Democratic governance and were facing a "folksy" (hah!) "straight-shootin'" (double hah!!) Texan who based his campaign on making the Democrats look disconnected from the American heartland. But that is so so far from the situation we face now, that the Hollywood worries should be left in the past. It is the Republicans who seem totally detached from reality, and the Democrats who just swept into Congressional power on a very real wave of popular discontent. Why the bigwig political analysts can't grasp this, I don't know. But I guess that's why we have the blogs now, right?

Labels: clinton, obama, politics

  ¶ 10:40 AM 0 comments

  Style Has anyone been paying attention to this Iranian president? You know his name, it's right on the tip of your tongue...yeah that's it: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. One thing about this guy - even if you don't like his politics, you gotta admire his style. Seriously, they try and make this guy out to be a bad guy (and, sure, he kinda is) but still, in this media-driven world we live in, it's kinda hard, because he actually looks more "in style" than our own Disaster in Chief, as well as most Euro leaders. I'm not joking about this either. Take a look:



Ok, this guy is giving a speech to the United Nations (!) and he decides to forgo the tie, yet still rock the blazer in a show of respect for the dress code. And should he get done with his speech and have a few hours that might be best killed in a downtown bar, well, he's already wearing the right clothes!

And let's be honest, check out this picture of him chilling with Chavez below. My gut feeling looking at this picture: we should be worried more about Venezuela right now instead of all this Iran garbage:



Astute readers will not the image of Simon Bolivar proudly displayed in the background. Yes, the same Bolivar whom Chavez has named his "revolution" after. Chavez loves to cheaply exploit Bolivar's image, so why not throw the stylish Iranian guy in the picture too - however you can bolster your dictatorship, right?

Anyway, I guess this is an ad hoc foreign policy plea: let's worry more about Chavez, and start talking to the stylish Iranian dude to see if we can't just work something out after all.  ¶ 9:59 PM 1 comments

  The Real McCain You gotta love what the YouTube era is doing for accountability in politics:

  ¶ 4:58 PM 0 comments

  John McCain is an idiot He lost the "straight talk" and maverick reputation a long time ago. Earlier this week, when the Washington Post revealed that McCain was seeking out the same $$$ he had once so stridently opposed with his campaign finance reform legislation, he lost perhaps the last thread of credibility he had. However, where McCain has most greatly failed his country is in the realm of Iraq. As John Madden would say, "now here's a guy who looks lost out there." In the midst of one of the worst blunders in American foreign policy history, McCain has actually out-Bushed Bush! Yes, he was calling for an escalation before Bush had even taken off his flight suit.

So now, Presidential-wannabe McCain makes the following statement about his concerns for Iraq:

"By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, 'Tet Offensive.' You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did," the Arizona senator said.

Yeah, you read that right. McCain is worried that a series of large, coordinated insurgent attacks will "switch American public opinion" against the war. Guess his presidential campaign is cutting into his time to talk with real Americans, because he doesn't seem to have a clue what they are thinking.

Reality check: over 2/3 of Americans are against the war. 70 percent oppose adding more troops.

John McCain, you are an idiot, you have no credibility, and you can count on 2/3 of Americans voting against you and your war.  ¶ 10:24 AM 1 comments

  J-lo Op-ed: Hasta Luego Chacaltaya
J-lo brings us the first in what I hope are a series of op-eds dealing with Global Warming.

While some Americans may be glorifying in the rich powder of Aspen or Vail, certain Bolivians are appreciating the last days of dying giant – Chacaltaya. Situated in the majestic peaks above the sprawling slums of La Paz, scientists and ski aficionados are beginning to consider Chacaltaya as the next victim of global climate change.

Bolivia, unlike its neighboring superstar Chile, is not a country most skiers would consider when planning their next ski trip; however, it is home to the highest ski resort (17,388 ft) in the world. Regrettably, what was the vision of dreamer is becoming a mountain of arid land via rampant glacial melting.
  ¶ 10:11 AM 0 comments

  Outrageous claims from Texas I was shocked this morning to receive an email from a friend containing a link to an outrageous news story: "Texas, Connecticut Battle over Birthplace of Burger." "What is there to battle over?" I thought. Everyone knows that, in addition to being my birthplace (primary claim to fame), New Haven is home to Louis' Lunch, the birthplace of the Hamburger.

I will leave it to fellow blogger (and one of my childhood heroes, as he is CT's top weatherman and frequent predictor of school cancellations) Geoff Fox to give the lowdown on Louis':

The action at Louis' takes place behind the counter, where burgers are broiled vertically, over an open flame, in three cast iron grills. The grills themselves are ancient - actually dating from the 1890's!

You can have onions, cheese and tomato, but no ketchup! No French Fries either. At Louis' it's their way or no way, and that includes toast, not a bun.

There are two reasons Louis' is still around. First, it's the burger, of course. It is unbelievably tasty. Second, and more important, Louis' is an anachronism. In this Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Amazon.com world, Louis' operates without consultants and accountants and p.r. flacks. There aren't rounding errors or spoilage. Each individual burger counts.

Now, New Haven has been around since the 1600s, and by the late 1800s was significantly more developed than Texas. I doubt that, among the dusty, dirty nothingness that was Texas during this time, Texans were in a position to be thinking about making ground beef patties and serving them on bread.

I am sure this is all just an attempt to knock down what Geoff Fox points out is a great American landmark, an institution that has held its ground against the tide of Walmartization. The Texans are down, and they're desperately flailing for some sort of positive recognition. Well, they're not gonna find it here.

I call on the Connecticut congressional delegation to step in and preserve the place of Louis' at the center of the hamburger universe. (Yes, I know what will probably happen - all of the CT politicians will jump on board and then at the last minute, Lieberman will defect and claim that it is in the nation's best interest to name Texas as the originator of the burger, in the name of national security).

The more I think about it, maybe the hamburger has something in common with our great President Bush. What could that possibly be? Well, like Bush, the hamburger seems like it wants to pretend it was born in Texas, when really it was born in New Haven.

Oh, by the way, did you hear that Tex Mex cuisine originated in Hartford?

Labels: burgers

  ¶ 9:18 AM 0 comments

  Cicero Jones RSS Feed / Firefox I feel that I need to bring this up again:

For those wishing to subscribe to this page via an RSS feed, this is the link:   ¶ 8:34 AM 0 comments

  Is Obama the Messiah? We have all witnessed the worshipful media coverage Barack Obama has been getting the last few months. The stories are endless: Obama saves baby from drowning, Obama teaches Man to fish, Obama saves Earth from giant asteroid. Well, now Timothy Noah at slate has started "The Obama Messiah Watch" during which he will chronicle the Media's proclamations of Obama Redeemer and Savior. Stay tuned, I am sure there is plenty of messianic fawning to last for months.

Labels: obama, politics

  ¶ 9:14 AM 0 comments