Sometimes the Good Guys Win
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just halted all
oil exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Beaufort Sea for this year.
The ruling stops a fleet of Shell ships dead in Alaskan waters. They had been
poised to drill and do seismic testing right in the migration path of mother
bowhead whales and their calves. The court agreed with Earthjustice's urgent
challenge to the exploration permit, and set hearings to begin in December on
whether federal agencies failed to properly assess environmental impacts.
Endangered whales, polar bears, and other marine animals are gravely threatened
by Shell's large-scale industrial activities.
Shabbat Shalom!
posted by kate @ 8:05 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
Thankfully my guilt has been assuaged even though our society can never undo what we have done to the earth.
If my great ancestors could have only seen what their procreation would bring, I may have been spared the anguish I feel today by not being born. The inhumanity of it all - genocide for all who are oil dependent is the only answer for the rest of us to live in peace.
Oh lord, someone in my family someday will spill the beans about me, and then it's all over. Lots of hurt feeligns, shame, embarassment, the whole bit.
BTW, speaking of blogging .... to see what can happen, check this out ...
http://www.fortcollinsweekly.com/article/20070817/NEWS/70816007
great story, includes smoking marijuana through a pipe made of Village Inn sausage.
You can't make this stuff up.
but I thought it was Bush's wiretapping that we should afraid of. Are lawyers that prowl the internet depriving us our right to free speech? Those toe sucking scum bags. oops - no -- yes - I will print this out so I will never have to be stuck in jury duty. What lawyer in their right mind would select a person who has openly called lawyers scum suckers - no, maybe they would both want me. Here I am having fun - and next thing you know what I said was held against me in a court of law - hope it's a Democrat DA is all I can ask for.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/us/17spy.html?ei=5090&en=54ee7068cc313140&ex=1345003200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Spy satllites are watching us from above - internet spys are watching us here- while we are saving the environment who is going to save us? I feel so guilty for existing.
I wish the Shell company was trying to drill for oil in Florida - they are going to kill a thousand (at least) alligators there -- the State is getting $300 for in-state permit and $1000 for out-of-state permit. Those bastards. If only Florida had oil, the alligators would be saved.
Why go anonymous? That's my question. Let your freak flag fly, sweetie.
You're among friends.
And don't feel guilty about anything. Guilt is a wasted emotion.
The ability of an idea to be explored in the world of abstraction is hindered when it is grounded in concrete reality.
Does not the interpretation of art change when one understands the creator of same?
Standing up for your ideals is admirable and patriotic and...ummm...cool.
Besides, knowing your identity - being able to pick you out of a lineup, that sort of thing - doesn't mean you'd be understood.
Trust me. I know that of which I speak.
What a small world, I'm heading up to Barrow, AK this week to fly a Bowhead whale project. Should be fun if not a bit cold. Beats dodging hurricanes down here I guess.
Anon, nature abhors a vacuum, likewise philosophizing for philosophy's sake is of limited utility to the living. If not the interpretation, certainly the value of art is quite dependent on the identity of the creator, be that right or wrong.
Interesting perspective that an idea or concept has value based on the identity of the creator, not the substance or content.
still processing - I hope philosphy majors don't drop dead simply because philosophizing for philosophy's sake is of limited utility to the living.
If we were to read a political platform statement, would the value of the statement be based on content or the identity of the author?
All products ever made are symbols of oppression. Therefore, we should buy nothing and live in caves and eat plants even though they don't like to be eaten and not talk to each other because all oppression begins when two people communicate. We will then be pure and world peace will arrive.
Long live the revolution! Long live ideological purity. Long live those who refuse to sell out. We shall inherit the dirt of the earth and revert back to apes.
Oh, excuse me, "revert" is a politically incorrect term, an example of specie-ism gone amok. Hopefully, the apes will eat us and put an end to the human race which has done nothing but cause trouble.
Long live mass suicide! Long live the absolutely unfettered and pure liberalism that recognizes that life itself is an act of oppression since no creature can survive without eating another and freedom will not reign until the earth is a cold lifeless rock floating aimlessly through space.
Anon-
On the first point, we do not exist in the abstract and as individuals we have not infinite time available to devote to cogitation(abstractly we humans as a thinking collective might exist perpetually to ponder ideas transgenerationally but, I digress), therefore the usefulness of exploring any idea is certainly limited to some extent by the utility of the idea itself and it's potential for implementation.
As for art, certainly, monetary or utilitarian value is dependent on the creator. A truly starving artist taken to it's culmination leaves the artist dead never to create more(again arguable I suppose depending on one's thoughts on transcendence) so art for art's sake might be a self-defeating premise if it doesn't sell. *Tangent warning* Which does spark the thought that perhaps art behaves as a virus, whose existence relies on the infection of new hosts, so in that respect perhaps a starving-to-death artist is acceptable so long as that artist exists long enough to inspire other carriers. At least "Art will go on." (cue Celine Dion?) In any event, does a work carry a different interpretation if it was created by someone with true life experiences tied to the work vice the artist was say a horse with a paintbrush on it's tail? I posit that it does. Is Vanilla Ice rap or pop, does it matter for art's sake?
As for a political platform, which premise regarding politicians must we assume? All politicians are liars? How much difference can one candidate make? The value of a platform is quite certainly dependent on the author in the respect that any platform's worth lies in the change it might enact. Again the train of thought is a bit derailed as I believe Kate was referencing the value of attaching yourself to your ideas instead of shirking responsibility for your words in a mask of anonymity. For discussion's sake even using a consistent, unique, yet still anonymous moniker at least gives merit to you as an individual that is not afraid to support or defend your ideas within the arena instead of detaching yourself from your suppositions on a whim using "Anonymous" to fog your escape. Doing such is akin to lobbing "conversation hand grenades" into a crowd. I consider such WMD's of debate.
You won't believe it, but I had chosen an anonymous moniker. I missed the consistent and unique part perceived by others, although it was consistent and unique to me all along.
I thought I was being clever by not giving someone a moniker to focus on instead of the idea. I was afraid that if I were a gender, a race, a religion, a political persuasion or identified with any group at all, the discussion would devolve into supporting or defending same.
Obviously I was wrong, because the issue is now framed about me anyway.
Signed,
Anonymous
I dunno - anonymous postings are done by several different people at different points for a variety of reasons. Gets a bit confusing - only because I have no idea if the anon poster at 2:59pm is the same as the one from 3:52am.
There's a blogger and person who comments here all the time - goes by "tiny." I have no clue if tiny is male/female/Christian/atheist/vegetarian/beer drinker. And it's never been an issue.
Primarily becuase of his or her ideas and how easily it is to clarify to whom I am speaking or responding.
If you didn't want it to be about you - you'd have done the same thing as tiny. You'd have come up with some kind of name and that would be that.
You didn't. And I still have no idea why.
OK - I see the light by which to fly.
"How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!" e.d.
Ok I now have an identity
where were we?
>>where were we?<<
You were making some great points.
But keep in mind that this ruling is from the 9th Circus, the most overturned Court of Appeals in the country, mainly because they tend to legislate from the bench rather than intrepret the law.
We'll see how the hearing goes. In the meanwhile, no doubt Shell has others areas slated for testing.
thanks for the recognition - not sure what points I made, although I was trying to make some.
I guess the orphaned alligators are collateral damage. I just hope they get the same respect as bowheaded whales. (does bow rhyme with hoe or cow?) I was afraid that since they are not in the way of oil drilling, they do not matter.
and there was squires's post- I was trying to draw attention to the fact that what we say and do online places all of us at risk for unintended consequences. The fact that attorney's find information about us to defend or prosecute us, depending on the circumstance, should be sent home in red letters with a note attached. Although some might want to cry protection of freedom of speech, it appears the reality is that what you say on line can and will be held against you. Technology is what it is.
Just the other day I read where a lawyer used a man's toll booth pass history to demonstrate that the man was not where he said he was at the time of question.
And there was my quip about genocide for all of those who are oil dependent to make life better for us to live in peace.
Examining the pronouns used, it is obvious I separated myself from those that were oil dependent since I included myself in the group that could live in peace.
When I look at my life, I honestly must say that a lot of what I do is dependent on oil, either directly or indirectly. Just being honest with myself in what I do everyday is the first reality for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home