30 March 2007
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:
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?
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:
In other Starbucks news, BusinessWeek has a must-read: "Saving Starbucks' Soul." Remember my 8 am dessert hypothesis? I think this supports it:
And on a different tip, here is probably the funniest, most amazing piece of comedy ever involving Starbucks: Improv Everywhere's "The Moebius":
"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
27 March 2007
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).
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.
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
20 March 2007
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.
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.
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
14 March 2007
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!!!!!
Labels: bad coffee, free stuff, Starbucks
¶ 8:54 AM 1 comments
13 March 2007
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.
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
09 March 2007
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.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."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.
Labels: disaster in chief, spiritual cleansing
¶ 12:21 PM 0 comments
07 March 2007
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.
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:
Lay Down the Water
The act of pre-arranging events and scenery to be called upon at a future time. Derived from filling up a fish tank and assembling the gravel. - 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
06 March 2007
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
05 March 2007
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).
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.
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
04 March 2007
Sunday Funnies
Oh, there are some good ones in here. Especially W talking about his lawyer:
¶ 8:56 AM 0 comments
¶ 8:56 AM 0 comments
