Of the 100 biggest economies in the world, most are corporations, not countries. We also know that the richest corporations are oil companies. Chevron, for example, just reported a record 6 billion in profits. With this in mind, we shouldn’t be surprised that the corporate-owned-media is perhaps less critical of these corporations than they should. It’s dramatically more disturbing to see that, more and more, oil companies are actually sponsoring the news we receive. While perusing CBS today, I saw this ad for Exxon.

Then we see the so-called “progressive” Atlantic Monthly selling out to big oil with this banner ad alongside Andrew Sullivan’s column. Even public broadcasting is not outside the influence of corporate interests. Here is the sponsor for PBS’s Jim Lehrer’s News Hour.

That our media is dominated by advertising is nothing new. 100% broadcast revenues come from advertising; about 50% of magazine revenues come from ads; 80% of newspaper revenue comes from ads. And now the internet. Ads are everywhere and totally obnoxious. While in the 80’s, studies show that the average person was exposed to 1,500 commercial impressions a day. Today–with the internet, product placement, and advertising in places like school, sports, and many other unlikely places, that number has risen close to 4,000. They’re even talking about putting billboards in space now. Can you imagine gazing up at a beautiful Flagstaff starry night, and seeing a Nike logo?

So what we’ve done and what has become detrimental, both to the credibility and reliability of our media, is we’ve turned all of our systems of media, of journalism, as vehicles to sell us more and more commodities. Oil companies have no place in our media. Chevron claims, “Corporate Responsibility: The Power, the Power of Human Energy. Finding Newer Cleaner Ways to Power the World.” Reading this, one could easily forget they even sell oil. What they are selling, besides oil (which is, in part, actually causing all the problems it claims to be solving), they are selling an image. Are we really going to rely on Chevron, Shell, Exxon, and BP to “find newer cleaner ways to power our world.” They destroy communities and they sell oil. It doesn’t matter to whom, and it doesn’t matter the cost. And now our news is sponsored by these global terrorists?

For past and current information regarding this case, refer to savethepeaks.org

The case over the San Francisco Peaks has caused deep divides in Northern Arizona. The judicial pendulum, which temporarily favored indigenous rights and environmental justice, has radically swung back toward the advantage of those profiting off the destruction of environment and religious and spiritual identity. When I write of religious and spiritual identity, I’m referring to at least 14 different people’s cosmologies, all of which the San Francisco Peaks play a central role.

This is inadequate still. The Peaks do not “play a role” because if one plays a role, that person must stray from their true self for the service of others. The Peaks are perfect as they are. The Peaks are sacred. But even “sacred” is a European word, as is the etymology behind it. Yet it is the best word local indigenous people have found as a means to translate the emotional, spiritual, and religious connections they have with the mountain. The words available to me in my language will always fall short because they do not represent the same idea of sacredness that indigenous peoples intend. I believe this back and forth in the courts is largely a result of the dominant culture’s incapability or unwillingness to understand that which is “sacred.” But if we follow the word’s etymology all the way back before Christianity to Old Latin, we find that the definition could have encompassed the physical world. This connection needs to be rediscovered.

The word “Sacred” arrived in the 12th century from the Old French, sacrer, which came from the Latin, Sacrare, meaning “to make sacred, consecrate,” from sacer, the “sacred, dedicated, holy, accursed,” and finally prior to the influence of theocracy, it’s Old Latin origin, saq, “bind, restrict, enclose, protect.”

If one is in a non-binding commitment, it is one that cannot be broken. There are restrictions, like guidelines, and those restrictions must be protected. The metaphors indigenous peoples use in an attempt to bridge the gap are lousy, but it’s not their fault. Not since Old Latin, which became extinct in first century B.C., could our understanding of the word encompass something physical. It seems as though sometime during the 12th century, the word “sacred” became integrated into the Christian cosmology. Words like “holy” and “consecrate,” I believe, come straight from Christianity.

For example, Indigenous people will say, “putting waste water on our mountain is like pissing in a Catholic church.” Well, no it isn’t. What our civilization deems sacred is not something physical. This phrase might strike a chord because the church symbolizes the Christian faith. It is a place of community and worship. But lets face it; they are not sacred. Churches are bulldozed all the time. Churches are built all the time.

The Peaks are sacred; they do not represent or symbolize that which is sacred and intangible at the same time. The Peaks, in their physical and experiential presence, are sacred. They are “sacredness” incarnate. It has been a very long time since people from our civilization were able to experience the sacred in such a tangible way. In the dominant culture, what do we have that is sacred in its truest definition? What do we experience in our life that binds us to restrictions and orders our protection? Sure we have ideals such as liberty and freedom, but there is no collective understanding of these words. Liberty and Freedom have definitions that become more hollow with each administration. These are ideals that those in power have used as tools, the manipulations of these ideas have been used to spread great injustice through out the world. Remember, a logger is not deforesting and destroying eco-systems, rather he is “developing natural resources.” Similarly our country is not occupying another to secure a scarce resource, they’re spreading democracy, spreading freedom. Further, liberty and freedom might mean something different to me than it does to you. These ideals might pull at our heartstrings, but they are no longer sacred.

What about our economic system? On the surface, it might seem ridiculous to call our economic system, sacred. But consider the way we talk about it. The market is in “recession,” it “needs our help,” it is in decline, it is in recovery. The language we use to describe the ups and downs of our economic system is not far from the codlings of a mother to a child. But our economic system is not real either, so even if we do view it as sacred, it does not help local indigenous people translate a tangible sacredness.

Maybe our children are sacred. Children are our future right? They are tangible, they are our future and represent our past. As long as there are children, our people will live forever. But still we press on, further down this destructive, exploitive path; one that is leading our people off the edge of a cliff. If our children were sacred to us, we wouldn’t be destroying their home, their future, their communities.

In some cultures, nonhuman animals are sacred. Not just native cultures, but in Hindi traditions, for example, we’ve all heard of the “sacred cow.” Anyone who has seen the inside of a factory farm knows that in our culture, nonhuman animals are not sacred. They, like the San Francisco Peaks, are understood as objects, a resource to be exploited at our will. We are not terrible to all animals. Many families grow up with dogs and cats that are loved and considerd family. We recognize they have a spirit; they have preferences and personalities.

Perhaps that’s it. In our culture, in order for something to be sacred, for something to have value on it’s own, it must be recognized as having a spirit. I believe that if something or someone is to be sacred, this implies a great love. Unconditional love, not of an idea or ideology, but love first for the absolute singularity for who or what it is. What is it that we love? If we recognize that our pet dogs have preferences and a spirit that is unique to them, if their lives mean just as much to them as our lives mean to us, why can we not extend this respect to all animals? And is it really so much of a leap to see and understand that even trees and rivers and mountains have spirits? Even if this seems goofy at first, it’s a worldview that has sustained humanity for hundreds of thousands of years. This destructive civilization has only been around for the last 10k years or so, which is a blink in the eye of 300,000 years or more.

The truth is, everything in the physical world is sacred. It is here; it is present. We owe our lives to the world around us. We are both a part of the natural world and manifested as the natural world. That means that we are also sacred. In this civilization, we are provided with limited ways in which to express the sacredness of the world around us. The Peaks are sacred to native people because they have entered into a bind with the land, to protect it, not as an ideology, but as a necessity. If one protects the land that allows them to live, they holding up their end of the bargain, of the bind. Their blood has mixed with the soil and the mountain’s soil is in their blood. How can they possibly be able to express this sacred bond to foreign people, in a foreign language? And how are these foreign people, with no direct physical or emotional ties to the land, supposed to truly understand?

I’d like to think our children are sacred to us, but again, if something is sacred, it must be loved unconditionally for the singularity of who it is. Many of our parents love us unconditionally for who we are, but as a culture, we could care less. In our culture, of course we love our kids, but we don’t treat them as sacred. Good parents give most of their resources, their time, and their energy into their kids, but as a culture, our resources service corporations and the military (and if those things are sacred, we’re already fucked). Still, even if education were funded more, our understanding of education is in service of this culture, which is no longer run by well-meaning hearts like ours.

“Education,” coming from the root, educere, means to “lead forth, to draw out.” In other words, if we were true to the definition of education, children should be led in ways that allow them to become their true selves and enact their own lives. I would argue that the reality of industrial education stems from a different but similar word seduction, which essentially means to “lead astray.” (for more on this, read Jensen’s “Walking on Water: Reading, Writing, and Revolution”). We teach our children, not how to be a human on this planet, but as a citizen in this country, a consumer, one of many well-greased and easily replaceable cogs in a machine that doesn’t serve them.

Yet, this is the only world we know. There are good, kind, loving people that run this exploitive and destructive system. Ask someone with 4 kids, a 50 hour a week job, credit card bills, and a mortgage to “start identifying with the needs of the physical world,” they will laugh at you. In this culture, you don’t feed and house your kids with meaningful connections to the land, or empathy for those communities your culture systematically destroys.

Local indigenous groups will never translate “sacredness” to these people in the courts. Even if the most destructive, insane members of this culture started giving a rat’s ass about the land, about local communities, they don’t live here. Most of the people that ski on the Peaks are from Phoenix. Snowbowl itself is owned by rich people that live on the east coast. Why would they give a damn about what sacred means? All they know is they could make a grip of cash by putting fake sewage snow on the mountain and deforest some of the last pristine old growth that exists in our country.

But as long as we’re arguing about what “sacred” means or how safe or unsafe reclaimed water is, we’re forgetting the bigger picture on this issue. In the southwest, we’re in the middle of an extended drought. If the water is safe, pumping 1.5 million gallons of water up a 15-mile-pipeline to be turned into snow is a really shitty waste of water. Further, the world is warming. Whether humans are causing it or not is irrelevant. It’s happening. So here we have a proposal that will not only desecrate a sacred site and disrespect communities that have been living here since the beginning of time and potentially permanently alter a fragile eco-system, but it will temporarily make a few east coast assholes a bit richer for a bit longer.

The comments here are amazing. Racism is alive and well in Flagstaff.

This isn’t over. Save the fucking Peaks.

The following quote is attributed to a Hopi Elder from Oraibi, AZ, but does anyone know who said it specifically and in what context?

You have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour. Now you must go back and tell the people that this is the Hour. And there are things to be considered: Where are you living? What are you doing? What are your relationships? Are you in right relation? Where is the water? Know your garden.

It is time to speak your Truth. Create your community. Be good to each other. And do not look outside yourself for the leader.

This could be a good time! There is a river flowing now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid.

Know the river has its destination. The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open, and our heads above the water. And I say, see who is there with you and celebrate.

At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally, least of all ourselves! For the moment we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.

The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves! Banish the word “struggle” from your attitude and your vocabulary. All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

Is Barak Obama co-opting and manipulating this sentiment here?

You were born a Stone Age baby into the chaotic maelstrom of whirling confusion that is characterized by modern, western, first-world existence. You have millions of years of collective memory stashed away in your unconscious. Every now and then, and rather unexpectedly, the knowledge of your ancestors, of my ancestors, appears in your waking life. You know things you don’t remember learning. You are beautiful. You are perfect. Your whole life has led you to this moment. And your next step will determine the rest of your life. What will you do with this moment? What of you will your descendants, my descendants, recall and take with them?

Here is what I got for the December issue of The Noise, though it’s not just mine. This is the first time I’ve been able to co-write an article. I wrote this with fellow Noise compatriot, Sara Gamble. If the University simply said, “yeah, we test on animals; what r’ you gonna do about it?” this would have been much easier to write…

The atrocities discovered at Columbia University in 2003 revealed invasive surgeries leading to the death of baboons, other nonhuman primates, and many other animals. Some of the horrors include strokes artificially induced in baboons by removing their left eyeball to access and clamp a critical blood vessel, and monkeys with metal pipes surgically implanted in their skulls for the sole purpose of inducing stress in order to study connections between stress and women’s menstrual cycles. These animals were given nothing but aspirin for the pain, during or after the surgeries.

Some might argue that the torture of these animals is necessary for the progress of medical science, still the investigations revealed experiments that would be unnecessary by anyone’s standards. Experiments on the affects of nicotine (like we need to know nicotine is bad for us), morphine, as well as scores of pharmaceutical drugs (many of which are already on the market) continue to characterize animal research at Columbia.

Though Columbia University, a major research institution, may seem like the obvious poster-child for animal cruelty, the widespread use and abuse of animals in laboratories is dreadfully prevalent. Beyond the white walls and sterile atmosphere of many top research institutions, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, and commercial facilities that provide test results to industry, the horrors do take place.

Nonhuman primates have been found with their brain exposed, some kept in isolation chambers wearing sensory deprivation devices that were installed at birth to study mental illnesses. Beagles have been found “debarked,” a procedure that basically rips the vocal chords out of dogs so researchers are not, as one website put it, “disturbed by the dog’s cries for attention.” Dogs, cats, rats, and others may have toxic chemicals poured on their skin, their eyes, and any other orifice that will yield quantifiable results that look pretty on research grant applications.

A nine-month investigation of IAMS dog food company revealed experiments involving chunks of muscle surgically removed from the thighs of dogs, and other experiments resulting in kidney failure, obesity, malnutrition, and severe allergic reactions. Proctor & Gamble, who owns IAMS, has been in the spotlight for their malicious tests on animals in the name of household chemicals and cosmetics as well.

Those working on this issue know that this list, unfortunately, goes on and on.

Many groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (P.E.T.A.), Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (S.H.A.C.) and the Animal Liberation Front (A.L.F.) have brought significant and necessary attention to the way in which animals are treated behind locked doors. Northern Arizona University student and Animal Rights Now! (ARN!) campus president, Melanie Mauller has been a devoted animal rights activist for as long as she can remember and has helped to bring attention to this issue in Flagstaff.

“Growing up, I was always surrounded by all kinds of animals and never really viewed them as any different from myself.” After meeting like-minded folks in high school, and going vegan, she became active—educating people about the mistreatment of animals.

Not even a year old, ARN! has already accomplish a lot. Among other activities, ARN! has hosted a talk by Peter Young, who was recently released from prison after serving time for liberating thousands of mink from fur farms across the Midwest; they are also currently working with Sodexho, who provides campus food, to offer more vegan and vegetarian options, and they are also volunteering with Paw Placement.

Recently ARN! fell under Northern Arizona University’s paranoia radar (that’s NAU PR) when Ms. Mauller and others began asking questions about the University’s treatment of animals in its research labs.

Ever since ARN!’s questions have gained attention, the Biology Annex on Northern Arizona University’s campus has been shrouded in mystery. Even the University paper, The Lumberjack, referred to it as a building that “hardly resembles any of the other buildings; it is windowless apart from one widow on the side, shielded over by blinds” with signs that read “’DO NOT ENTER. THIS IS NOT A HALLWAY.’” Others have commented on the building’s cold cement floors and its locked, unmarked metal doors.

After weeks of persistence, ARN!’s questions were left unanswered. In fact, Ms. Mauller said that animal care supervisor Thomas Greene told her he was “indefinitely busy.” Eventually, Lisa Nelson of NAU Public Affairs responded, apologizing for the delay.

“Please know that any hesitation you may have encountered in getting a response from others is because people have legitimate safety and security concerns for themselves, the facility and the animals based on past acts of violence and vandalism around the country.” Not to discount Ms. Nelson’s concerns, but this is a good time to remind readers that even the most radical of activists, even those who have served prison time, have never harmed a living thing—human or nonhuman.

Ms. Nelson’s sentiments reflecting faculty concern for vandalism, however, hold more water. Laboratories across the country have been spray painted, smashed up, or even burned to the ground in an effort to free the animals and ensure the cruelty will not continue. In the film, Behind The Mask, the illuminating documentary on the Animal Liberation Front, animal rights icon Rod Coronado, who served four years for a series of fur farm raids in the early 90’s, explains the reasoning behind such vandalism. If animals are taken from laboratories, “all a researcher has to do is get on the phone…and order more research animals and they’ll be there within a week. It was because of that that we started employing arson.”

Unsatisfied with the glossy answers she received, which the NAU Public Affairs office called “well worded responses to inquiries,” and a lack of meaningful dialogue with those directly involved in research, Mauller and ARN! decided to hold a demonstration in front of the Biology Annex on November 5th.

Before the demonstration, NAU’s Public Affairs office sent an email out to faculty. “In recent months animal rights activity has increased here at NAU.” The email went on to warn faculty about the upcoming protest and suggested faculty “avoid these protesters if possible” and that police dressed in plain clothes would be keeping an eye on the protest.

Ms. Mauller, who also works at NAU, was forwarded an email that was sent to her boss that referred to her as a “threat to the university” and advised that if her activities continued she should be fired. The email also mentioned that President Haeger shares these views.

Still there are two big differences here that maybe NAU doesn’t see. ARN! wanted straight forward answers to simple questions and Melanie is not Rod Coranado. The demonstration was obviously peaceful and even included several faculty members who share ARN!’s concern for the animals and frustration with the lack of communication from the University on this issue.

Even after the demonstration, the intimidation and threats continued. A few days later Ms. Mauller attended a demonstration against Snowbowl and was approached by a police officer who, without knowing Melanie personally, said, “how are you doing today, Ms. Mauller?” Though the officer approached her in a friendly way, the message was clear: We’re watching you; we know who you are. It was “totally creepy,” said Mauller. “We are not given answers, we are ignored, we are intimidated…all of which would lead most people to become very suspicious of what’s really going on.”

This is how research facilities bring vandalism and threats of sabotage upon themselves. Every single instance where a lab has been raided and vandalized, first people simply asked questions. When questions are left unanswered, and activists are ignored and intimidated, it is quite predictable that they will look to more radical approaches.

So, what exactly is going on with the animals at NAU? Despite not talking to ARN!, research faculty at NAU did address questions from The Noise.

The first issue worth addressing is the difference between animal testing and animal research. At first, one might suspect this to be a cop out. For example, a logger who makes a living by deforesting the world’s remaining old growth isn’t going to admit their actions are “deforestation” at all. In order to sleep at night, they are “developing natural resources.” Still, the trees end up dead no matter what. On the surface, it seems as though a similar rhetorical trick might be at work here. However, this is not the case.

According to a recent editorial to The Lumberjack, signed by seven members of NAU’s research faculty, “There is no “animal testing” at NAU, in the sense of using animals as surrogates for humans in testing the safety or efficacy of different products. There is, however, a wide variety of research that uses animals.”

Although university research is held to more stringent animal care standards than other private firms or for-profit companies, there is an element of ambiguity surrounding the issue because the public cannot see what’s going on inside the Biological Sciences Annex. “There’s an important reason why those doors are locked” according to Lee Drickamer, NAU Interim Vice President for Research and Regents’ Professor, “Nowhere in the country are people allowed into, at universities, the animal quarters or approved facilities and that’s for two reasons: one is to protect your health, and perhaps even more importantly to protect the health of the animals.” According to NAU’s Assistant Director of the Office of Public Affairs, Thomas Bauer, “federal regulations prohibit visitors to the [animal research] facility.”

Animal research at NAU is funded by grant money, mostly from the federal government and institutions like the National Science Foundation. Drickamer estimates that about 100-200 laboratory mice, 100 laboratory rats, six ducks, 12-15 varieties of reptiles and amphibians, a small colony of opossums and several dozen fish are currently in use at the University. Rodents come from companies such as Jackson Laboratories, while other animals are brought in from the wild, or bred on site. Research on these animals includes the study of the development and evolution of the jaw apparatus, the role of uranium as an estrogen blocker and oxygen levels in the respiratory systems and hearts of ducks.

According to Drickamer, much of the animal research at NAU is done for the further conservation and understanding of animals, the rest of it is bio-medical, wherein animals are used as models for understanding the functions of human beings. “The welfare of the animals is our primary concern, because we don’t get good answers, we’re essentially wasting the lives of some of those rats or mice if we’re not doing things properly—caring for them properly, doing all the other parts of the research process properly.”

Part of the tension between animal researchers and animal rights activists lies in this understanding of “welfare.” Wherein researcher’s primary concern for the animals lies in the quality of “answers” received from test results, animal rights activists see animals’ lives as no less important than our own. Indeed, nobody can claim that the life of a lab rat means any less to that rat than our own lives mean to us. The “welfare” of the animals lies in understanding that all animals, whether they are born in the wild or in a laboratory, have a right to an autonomous life. This logic applies to zoos, to factory farms, and any other scenario where nonhuman animals are exploited.

Drickamer went on to say, “If we accept the premise that animals are necessary as testing or research models for doing things related to human health or their own health or to conservation, then there will be animals used in research, but our first goal then is to make sure that they’re healthy.”

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) requires that an animal-use protocol be completed and approved before the acquisition of any vertebrate animal for laboratory purposes. Locally, a committee including a community member and non scientists will review these protocols. The Animal Welfare Act, on which this protocol is partially based, covers only warm-blooded, vertebrate animals but excludes laboratory raised mice and rats among other animals, however NAU’s policy extends to all vertebrate animals, warm or cold blooded, born in a laboratory or in the wild. (More information on the regulations and procedures can be found at the University’s research page.

Another, more obvious, point of tension between animal researchers and animal rights activists lies in a difference in perception. Animal rights activists, by and large, do not accept the premise that “animals are necessary as testing or research models.”

On the one hand, researchers will tell you that there is work being done to find alternatives to using animals. Included in the IACUC protocol are provisions to prevent unnecessary animal research— this includes avoiding redundant, excessive, or unduly painful research. ‘The Three R’s of Animal Research’ are followed: 1. Reduce—use the fewest animals necessary to obtain statistical significance. 2. Refine—use less painful or invasive techniques. 3. Replace—replace animals with non-animal systems (computer models, tissue culture, etc.).

Still the clash of perception runs deeper than the content of any protocol. For example, as mentioned above, many of the mice delivered to NAU for research are from Jackson Laboratories; according to their website, they aren’t actually individual mice with individual, autonomous lives at all. Instead they are branded “JAX® Mice.” As long as they are JAX® Mice, they will be treated like JAX® Mice. But of course they are rodents just the same, no different than one you might find scurrying into a hole as you approach in the woods. The difference is this: the one you see in the woods is living the life it was meant to live, while JAX® Mice are bred specifically for the use of humans.

Drickamer echoed the sentiments of many of those who support animal research. “You go to the doctor and you get a prescription for an antibiotic, in an indirect sense, you’re saying that animal research is okay.” Applied to other scenarios, however, major holes in this logic are revealed. For example, if you go to the store and purchase toilet paper, does that mean you think deforestation is okay? If you’re cold and need to buy a jacket, does that mean you’re okay with child labor?

As Mauller explained, we’re privileged enough “not to realize that [our] actions have costs and we live in a society that tells us it’s okay to be naive to those consequences.” This ‘priviledged life’ depends on a profound disconnect between production and consumption, which means that even discovering the social and environmental ramifications of our choices and purchases is often difficult to do, and avoiding products or actions that directly cause harm to other living beings is even more challenging.

In his book, The Culture of Make Believe, author and activist Derrick Jensen wrote, regarding our inescapable and systematic connection with exploitation, “No matter how clear my perception or how pure my intent, as a consumer in a global economy I’m still drawn into situations that as a human I find abhorrent.”

The point is, just because we’re dependent on a system that is based on exploitation doesn’t make us personally accountable for it. Illuminating this exploitation, however, does give us the responsibility to stop it.

About a year ago, I realized that I often use the word “girl” when I really mean “woman.” Ever since I realized I was doing that, I’ve recognized it every where I go. Everyone, it seems does this and I’m curious as to what that means.

Once upon a time, men were boys and women were girls. Once I reached a certain age, I wasn’t a boy, but a man—or more regularly, a “guy.” But in the way we continued to speak of the opposite sex, the girls stayed “girls.”

What is the female equivalent to “guy?” Lady? Who says that? “Lady” goes with “gentleman” and nobody says that unless they’re addressing a crowd. And even then, nobody really means it. I’m 27; the girls my age aren’t girls, they’re women. Still, they’re referred to as girls, even though I’m referred to as a man or a guy. Nobody would call me a boy, so I don’t understand why, in the great age of equality (at least ideologically) and political correctness, we still call women, girls.

I’ve been interested in dating again, but I don’t want to date a girl, I want to date a woman. If someone asks me if I’m dating a girl, it makes me feel creepy, like I’m trying to be with a 14 year old or something.

This might seem like I’m making a big deal out of nothing, at first I thought I was doing just that. But language is important and meaningful and the impact of language is always underestimated. Our world is shaped by the language we use to describe it. Our identities are shaped around the words we use to describe ourselves and what we do.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had a student say, “That’s gay” in class, to which I always immediately address: “is that an appropriate way to describe this topic? What is homosexual about the issue of water usage in Arizona?” They always say that they didn’t mean “gay” literally and of course they didn’t.

Our culture is notorious for using language in a way that produces a disconnect between what we say and what we actually mean. This also helps to produce a similar disconnection between our ideologies and our actions. We’re not deforesting, of course (who wants that?), instead we’re “developing natural resources.” We can buy all the “green” products we want, but that doesn’t realistically mean we’re doing anything positive for our environment. The Bush Admin is fantastic at this. Lets forget that the “clear skies act” allows for more air pollution, that the “healthy forests initiative” results in increased deforestation, that the “no child left behind act” does nothing to address individual needs, cuts funding from schools that need it the most, and that every teacher I know hates this with a passion.

So if we use the word “girl” to describe women, what are the implications of this? Why do we do it? What are we hiding?

the events keep rollin’

For all your language geeks out there, a lecture entitled: “Derrida from Now On: From Deconstruction, Secularism, and Faith” will take place at 6:30, in NAU liberal arts building, rm 135.

Let me know if you want to get hammered beforehand.

Just kidding.

I’ve written many times about my frustration with those touting global warming alleviations as solutions. An article titled, “Garlic and Cow Belching: A Global Warming Cure?” further propagates this mindset.

Several months ago a UN study came out that concluded that “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” 

Belching farm animals account for 16% of our planet’s methane, a gas even more responsible for global warming than carbon dioxide.Apparently, feeding garlic to cows minimizes their release of methane. 

Further, and I’ve been trying to emphasize this a lot lately, global warming is just one of many environmental problems. Granted it’s an important and significant problem, but it is certainly not the only one. Focusing on this issue to the extent that we have detracts from all the others.

Flagstaff’s new Sustainability Commission meets at 4:30 on the second Wednesday of every month at City Hall. The commission is in its first year and they’ve got some big plans. I went to last night’s meeting and I was one of 3 citizens that attended. I’m going to start going regularly (and you, faithful reader, should as well!).

I was impressed with the dedication and passion of its volunteer members; they’re all wonderful people, many of which I recognized from around town. Knowing that the issue of sustainability is a new concept (for our civilization anyway), members of the commission are obviously learning as they go. It is a pretty exciting time because they’re developing short-term and long-term plans, defining terms, reaching out to the public, building coalitions, and introducing legislation.

One of the first things on the table is a plastic bag ban. I’ve been on board with this since the beginning….I even wrote about it for the August issue of The Noise. They will begin reaching out to the community and helping to make them aware….getting as many people to support the ban as possible. Most of the discourse around sustainability is focused on development and sustainable design. I think that is realistically, however, a secondary priority. I’m behind this plastic bag ban because of what it represents, because of the line of thinking that it promotes. Part of what it means to move to a sustainable society should include an evaluation of details about our society that will never be sustainable. Many things need to go: plastic bags are just the tip of the melting ice berg (who didn’t like that analogy?).

I would like to address the city’s working definition of sustainability. I think they’re a little off still, but I recognize the tension inherent in coming up with a definition that is agreeable with our social and economic systems. I recognize the tough position of city council members in trying to configure sustainability in a society that was never meant to be sustainable. Here is the working definition of sustainability for the City of Flagtaff: