Yoga teaches couples to love better
By Emily Elizabeth Anderson
http://www.yogajournal.com/lifestyle/2575?print=1
http://www.yogajournal.com/lifestyle/2575?utm_source=MyYogaJournal&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=MYJ_296
Sianna Sherman fell in love with Kenny Graham in a parking lot. Sherman, a
Berkeley, California, Anusara Yoga instructor, had just left a late-night
kirtan (devotional chanting). Public transit was no longer running, and
just as she realized she’d need to find another way home, Sherman saw
Graham leaving the event and walking toward his red Jetta. She recognized
him from a yoga workshop in New Jersey she’d attended three years earlier,
and after they reintroduced themselves, Graham was kind enough to drive
Sherman home. They talked about music and yoga and made plans to see the
popular kirtan leader Krishna Das the next night. That was two years ago;
they’ve been together ever since.
“We had a natural connection from the beginning,” Sherman says.
“There were messages and signals showing me that I should explore it.”
Following such signs and listening to her intuition are a natural extension of Sherman’s yoga practice. “Through yoga, I learned to step into a world of love and energy,” she says. “It gave me hope of being connected to
another person in a meaningful way, and it gave me the courage to try.”
Finding love through the yoga community makes perfect sense, according to
Meredith Haberfeld, a life coach and Esalen Institute retreat leader.
“Once you begin the journey of self-awareness, you become more open to
possibilities,” she says. “You open your heart and clear your mind with
yoga, so it stands to reason that you’d be attracted to another who is
experiencing and embracing the same thing.”
For Yoga Works L.A. instructors Melanie Lora and Sky Meltzer, a yoga
practice not only helped bring them together, but it also encourages
balance within their three-year relationship. “The Yoga Sutra helps us
with our relationship and shows us how to handle obstacles and challenges,
how to give each other compassion and space,” Lora says. “The sutras have
been a road map for us.”
Of course, disagreements are bound to come up in even the most blissed-out
relationship. There, too, a yoga practice can help. “I know that if Sky
does something I don’t like, such as leaving his papers all over the
house, I need to be aware of my intention before I launch into an attack,”
Lora says. “It’s like Hanumanasana: Is it my goal to wreck my hamstrings
in order to get deeper into the pose, or is my intention to create more
space in my body, more freedom and openness? Within my relationship, is it
my intention to have conflict or is it to find harmony?”
“Together,” Lora says, “Sky and I have found balance in ourselves, our
bodies, our minds, and most importantly with each other.”
Friday, February 13, 2009
Mass-Transit Fares Should be Eliminated, Not Increased
Mass-transit transit fares should be eliminated, not increased
By Irwin Kellner, MarketWatch
Feb. 9, 2009
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mass-transit-systems-taking-wrong/story.aspx?guid={7D3B4CEB-8C3A-4D5F-83FD-D26CA33FA5F9}&print=true&dist=printMidSection
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mass-transit-systems-taking-wrong/story.aspx?guid={7D3B4CEB-8C3A-4D5F-83FD-D26CA33FA5F9}
PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y. (MarketWatch) -- All across the country, mass-transit systems are raising fares and reducing service when our national priorities suggest that they should be doing just the opposite.
In doing this, these systems are taking a very narrow view of their reason for being. They are looking at themselves the way a private business does -- balancing costs versus revenues.
Because they think like a private concern, they are responding to rising costs and reduced subsidies from their governments by increasing fares and, in some instances, cutting back on service, as well.
Instead, they should consider themselves in a broader context. They are organizations whose mission is more than simply transporting people from their homes to their offices in the morning and back in the evening. They exist to provide the best quality of life for everyone who lives in the regions they serve.
By raising fares and cutting service at this time, they are doing a disservice to the communities they serve.
For one thing, ridership is up. This is in response to last year's surge in gas prices to $4 a gallon and more. And even though such costs have since fallen, most riders are sticking with their trains and busses, having discovered the joys of reading, writing or simply napping while commuting.
Raising fares is hardly the way to reward new customers much less hold onto one's existing customer base.
What's more, they come at a time when what is arguably the worst recession in at least a quarter of a century is squeezing those who rely on mass transit the most -- people of modest means whose incomes are on the low end of the scale. And when accompanied by service cuts, this is depressing buying power even more by forcing many people to resort to a car as a means of getting to work -- assuming they can afford to do this in the first place.
Keep in mind that Washington wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and is trying to get cities to clean up their air. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that forcing commuters back into their cars will have just the opposite effect, both on our use of foreign oil and in polluting the air.
Not only should fares be lowered and service improved there is a good case that can be made to eliminate fares altogether. That's right, Virginia, make mass transit free!
This is not as far-fetched as it looks. On average, the fare box covers only one-third of the cost of a typical mass transit ride. The rest is made up with dedicated taxes, subsidies from state and local governments, and tolls.
Clearly, if these sources cover two-thirds of a ride, how much do you think taxes, subsidies and tolls would have to rise to take over the remaining third? The answer: not much.
Some of these funds can come from Washington's stimulus package.
Right now federal money for states and local governments is aimed at big capital projects such as buying new trains or busses. But what is the point of buying new transit equipment if the local systems are mothballing their fleet because of service cuts?
Better to use these funds to help eliminate fares and maintain or increase service. It also avoids the government giving people tax cuts with one hand while taking them away with the other.
Besides help from Washington, local governments can raise tolls, perhaps by charging congestion pricing, as a means of both raising revenue and convincing motorists to switch to mass transit.
Regional economies would benefit from the increased purchasing power that comes from free transit. Cities would have no trouble complying with federal clean air rules. And those who must use their cars to get to work would be allowed to, only they would have to pay more.
Best of all, no new infrastructure would be required. To avoid overcrowding existing transit facilities, businesses could stagger the work day and maybe even the work week.
A win-win solution, if I ever saw one. End of Story
Irwin Kellner is chief economist for MarketWatch, and is Distinguished Scholar of Economics at Dowling College in Oakdale, N.Y.
By Irwin Kellner, MarketWatch
Feb. 9, 2009
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mass-transit-systems-taking-wrong/story.aspx?guid={7D3B4CEB-8C3A-4D5F-83FD-D26CA33FA5F9}&print=true&dist=printMidSection
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mass-transit-systems-taking-wrong/story.aspx?guid={7D3B4CEB-8C3A-4D5F-83FD-D26CA33FA5F9}
PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y. (MarketWatch) -- All across the country, mass-transit systems are raising fares and reducing service when our national priorities suggest that they should be doing just the opposite.
In doing this, these systems are taking a very narrow view of their reason for being. They are looking at themselves the way a private business does -- balancing costs versus revenues.
Because they think like a private concern, they are responding to rising costs and reduced subsidies from their governments by increasing fares and, in some instances, cutting back on service, as well.
Instead, they should consider themselves in a broader context. They are organizations whose mission is more than simply transporting people from their homes to their offices in the morning and back in the evening. They exist to provide the best quality of life for everyone who lives in the regions they serve.
By raising fares and cutting service at this time, they are doing a disservice to the communities they serve.
For one thing, ridership is up. This is in response to last year's surge in gas prices to $4 a gallon and more. And even though such costs have since fallen, most riders are sticking with their trains and busses, having discovered the joys of reading, writing or simply napping while commuting.
Raising fares is hardly the way to reward new customers much less hold onto one's existing customer base.
What's more, they come at a time when what is arguably the worst recession in at least a quarter of a century is squeezing those who rely on mass transit the most -- people of modest means whose incomes are on the low end of the scale. And when accompanied by service cuts, this is depressing buying power even more by forcing many people to resort to a car as a means of getting to work -- assuming they can afford to do this in the first place.
Keep in mind that Washington wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and is trying to get cities to clean up their air. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that forcing commuters back into their cars will have just the opposite effect, both on our use of foreign oil and in polluting the air.
Not only should fares be lowered and service improved there is a good case that can be made to eliminate fares altogether. That's right, Virginia, make mass transit free!
This is not as far-fetched as it looks. On average, the fare box covers only one-third of the cost of a typical mass transit ride. The rest is made up with dedicated taxes, subsidies from state and local governments, and tolls.
Clearly, if these sources cover two-thirds of a ride, how much do you think taxes, subsidies and tolls would have to rise to take over the remaining third? The answer: not much.
Some of these funds can come from Washington's stimulus package.
Right now federal money for states and local governments is aimed at big capital projects such as buying new trains or busses. But what is the point of buying new transit equipment if the local systems are mothballing their fleet because of service cuts?
Better to use these funds to help eliminate fares and maintain or increase service. It also avoids the government giving people tax cuts with one hand while taking them away with the other.
Besides help from Washington, local governments can raise tolls, perhaps by charging congestion pricing, as a means of both raising revenue and convincing motorists to switch to mass transit.
Regional economies would benefit from the increased purchasing power that comes from free transit. Cities would have no trouble complying with federal clean air rules. And those who must use their cars to get to work would be allowed to, only they would have to pay more.
Best of all, no new infrastructure would be required. To avoid overcrowding existing transit facilities, businesses could stagger the work day and maybe even the work week.
A win-win solution, if I ever saw one. End of Story
Irwin Kellner is chief economist for MarketWatch, and is Distinguished Scholar of Economics at Dowling College in Oakdale, N.Y.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Incorporating Yoga into Daily Routine Can Help Relieve Stress
Incorporating yoga into daily routine can help relieve stress
By CONNIE MIDEY
Gannett News Service
Monday, November 29, 2004
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/November/29/HElist2.htm
This is multitasking to relax instead of frazzle us: doing yoga while
showering, standing in a checkout line at the store or reaching for the
telephone.
"Yoga has so many benefits in terms of stress relief and flexibility,"
Michele Stanten, fitness director for Prevention magazine, says from
Emmaus, Pa. "It can energize us, get our circulation going, and decrease
levels of the stress hormone cortisol."
If finding time for a class or even a structured workout session at home
seems impossible, Stanten suggests incorporating these simple,
one-minute-or-less yoga poses in your daily activities.
• In the shower: belly breaths. In the warm, moist air of the shower,
close your eyes, put your hands on your belly and inhale. Your belly
should push your hands outward. Then exhale, contracting your bellybutton
toward your spine to force air out of your belly and lungs. Say "love,"
"amen" or "om" as you exhale.
• In line: modified tree pose. If you’re worried about getting funny
looks, you may want to do only the first part, which is assuming a
simplified mountain pose.
Stand with your feet hip-width apart. Lift the balls of your feet and
spread your toes, then gently set them back on the floor and balance your
weight evenly. Tip your tailbone toward the floor. Pull your shoulder
blades back and straight across and relax them slightly downward. Let your
arms hang. Hold your head so the underside of your chin is parallel to the
floor, keeping your mouth, throat and eyes relaxed.
If you’re feeling brave, hold onto the shopping cart or a sturdy shelf and
move into the modified tree pose. Rest the sole of your right foot against
the inner thigh of your left leg or, less conspicuously, against the
inside of your left ankle. Repeat, resting left sole against right thigh
or ankle.
• On the telephone: six-second tranquilizer. Let the phone ring two to
three times while you close your eyes and picture yourself in a relaxing
spot. Sit up tall, take a nice deep breath, relax and smile. Then reach
for the phone and say hello to the person waiting patiently on the other
end of the line. Yoga teachers call this "mouth yoga," Stanten says.
By CONNIE MIDEY
Gannett News Service
Monday, November 29, 2004
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/November/29/HElist2.htm
This is multitasking to relax instead of frazzle us: doing yoga while
showering, standing in a checkout line at the store or reaching for the
telephone.
"Yoga has so many benefits in terms of stress relief and flexibility,"
Michele Stanten, fitness director for Prevention magazine, says from
Emmaus, Pa. "It can energize us, get our circulation going, and decrease
levels of the stress hormone cortisol."
If finding time for a class or even a structured workout session at home
seems impossible, Stanten suggests incorporating these simple,
one-minute-or-less yoga poses in your daily activities.
• In the shower: belly breaths. In the warm, moist air of the shower,
close your eyes, put your hands on your belly and inhale. Your belly
should push your hands outward. Then exhale, contracting your bellybutton
toward your spine to force air out of your belly and lungs. Say "love,"
"amen" or "om" as you exhale.
• In line: modified tree pose. If you’re worried about getting funny
looks, you may want to do only the first part, which is assuming a
simplified mountain pose.
Stand with your feet hip-width apart. Lift the balls of your feet and
spread your toes, then gently set them back on the floor and balance your
weight evenly. Tip your tailbone toward the floor. Pull your shoulder
blades back and straight across and relax them slightly downward. Let your
arms hang. Hold your head so the underside of your chin is parallel to the
floor, keeping your mouth, throat and eyes relaxed.
If you’re feeling brave, hold onto the shopping cart or a sturdy shelf and
move into the modified tree pose. Rest the sole of your right foot against
the inner thigh of your left leg or, less conspicuously, against the
inside of your left ankle. Repeat, resting left sole against right thigh
or ankle.
• On the telephone: six-second tranquilizer. Let the phone ring two to
three times while you close your eyes and picture yourself in a relaxing
spot. Sit up tall, take a nice deep breath, relax and smile. Then reach
for the phone and say hello to the person waiting patiently on the other
end of the line. Yoga teachers call this "mouth yoga," Stanten says.
Are Non-Stick Pans and Aging Dads worse for Babies than Cocaine?
Are Non-Stick Pans And Aging Dads Worse for Babies Than Cocaine?
by Brittney Andres
http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_blog/archives/2009/02/12169_are_nonstick_ch.html
Last week the New York Times printed good news about a worrisome issue in childhood development. As it turns out, children whose mothers used cocaine during pregnancy have only slightly lower IQ scores than children whose mothers didn't use. The difference between the children's scores was so low it was deemed "scientifically insignificant." In fact, the effect of alcohol on the fetus is more detrimental than cocaine's, while tobacco's is about the same.
But potential parents have some other science to consider this week. In the latest issue of Human Reproduction scientists found that women with higher levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs, or the chemicals that make products "non-stick") in their blood had more trouble getting pregnant. Women with higher levels of the two main chemicals—PFOA and PFOS—were up to 154 percent more likely to be infertile. Exposure is a particular problem in developed countries like the US, where eight percent of women of childbearing age have consulted a doctor about infertility. Like we've said before, Teflon is forever.
Also this month, the February issue of Scientific American notes that while the risks and difficulties for mothers over 40 and their babies have long been studied, journalist Paul Raeburn points out that babies born to men over 40 are six times more likely to have autism and twice as likely to have schizophrenia than babies whose fathers are under 30. For fathers age 50 and older, the risk of having an autistic child increases to nine times the rate of fathers under 30.
In other words, "A 40-year-old man's risk of having a child with schizophrenia is the same as a 40-year-old woman's risk of having a child with Down syndrome," says Raeburn. Looks like it's time to stop pinning women with the blame for a baby's health.
by Brittney Andres
http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_blog/archives/2009/02/12169_are_nonstick_ch.html
Last week the New York Times printed good news about a worrisome issue in childhood development. As it turns out, children whose mothers used cocaine during pregnancy have only slightly lower IQ scores than children whose mothers didn't use. The difference between the children's scores was so low it was deemed "scientifically insignificant." In fact, the effect of alcohol on the fetus is more detrimental than cocaine's, while tobacco's is about the same.
But potential parents have some other science to consider this week. In the latest issue of Human Reproduction scientists found that women with higher levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs, or the chemicals that make products "non-stick") in their blood had more trouble getting pregnant. Women with higher levels of the two main chemicals—PFOA and PFOS—were up to 154 percent more likely to be infertile. Exposure is a particular problem in developed countries like the US, where eight percent of women of childbearing age have consulted a doctor about infertility. Like we've said before, Teflon is forever.
Also this month, the February issue of Scientific American notes that while the risks and difficulties for mothers over 40 and their babies have long been studied, journalist Paul Raeburn points out that babies born to men over 40 are six times more likely to have autism and twice as likely to have schizophrenia than babies whose fathers are under 30. For fathers age 50 and older, the risk of having an autistic child increases to nine times the rate of fathers under 30.
In other words, "A 40-year-old man's risk of having a child with schizophrenia is the same as a 40-year-old woman's risk of having a child with Down syndrome," says Raeburn. Looks like it's time to stop pinning women with the blame for a baby's health.
Are Pig Farms More Dangerous Than Terrorists?
Are Pig Farms More Dangerous Than Terrorists?
Monday, February 09, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490025,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,490025,00.html
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," February 6, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GLENN BECK, HOST: Sometimes, you need a little propaganda, you know, to sell people on global warming. In a hearing this week, Congressman Steve King from Iowa asked environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to confirm or deny — confirm or deny — something that Mr. Kennedy allegedly said a few years ago:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA: "Large scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States and democracy than bin Laden's terrorist network."
Is that an accurate quote?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. ENVIRONMENTALIST: I don't know if that's an accurate quote, but I believe it and I support it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Holy cow. What the question was, "Did you say that pig farms are more dangerous than Usama bin Laden?" He's not sure that he said it, but he agrees with it and he supports it.
Now, here's somebody who actually believes in global warming and actually has the courage of his convictions and will change his life because of it: PETA spokesperson Matt Prescott joins me now.
• Video: Watch Beck's interview
Matt, I've got to tell you. I had you on my show — I don't know, about a year or so ago.
MATT PRESCOTT, SPOKESPERSON, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: Yes.
BECK: And I couldn't believe that I have respect for you. You're crazy.
BECK: Every time I'm down here, I think you start with the same thing. I think you've got to start believing.
BECK: Well, I believe in you, and I believe —
PRESCOTT: That's a start.
BECK: You know, look, here's the thing. I have no problem with people who actually believe in something and are not hypocrites about it, actually will do something in their life. The IPCC report says that animal farms, just if we all became vegans, that we would dramatically change global warming. Do they say it is the fastest solution or the biggest problem or both?
PRESCOTT: It's the biggest contributor to global warming that — the U.N. report found that the meat industry causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks, planes, ships — all of the world's transportation systems combined.
BECK: Could you say that again, Matthew, please?
PRESCOTT: Yes. Well, I'll emphasize it here for you. The U.N. report found that the meat industry causes more global warming emissions than all of the world's transportation combined.
BECK: So why do you suppose that when we called RFK, Jr.'s office today — by the way, he didn't come on the show. When we called RFK, Jr.'s office and we asked him if he was a vegan, he said no. He is not a vegetarian.
PRESCOTT: Oh, it's very surprising. Shocking. Shocking.
BECK: Yes. Why do you suppose that people like Al Gore who is also not a vegetarian or a vegan — why are they eating meat if they truly believe that, you know, the world is going to come to an end in some sort of a fiery flood?
PRESCOTT: You know, we've been trying to find that out for years and we've never actually gotten an answer. I mean, personally, I've got to say, you know, if you've got a belief and out there trying to change the world and make it a better place, I got to give you support.
But I also have to ask questions. I mean, why, if somebody who is so vigorously fighting against global warming — they haven't even looked at their own plate. There is another report out of the University of Chicago that found that if you switch from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius, it's not even as good as switching from a meat-based diet to a vegetarian diet.
So just switching from meat to vegetarian food, you can save more greenhouse gas emissions from going up there into the atmosphere than you could by switching to a hybrid car.
BECK: So wait a minute. You said a minute ago — you said, "I have respect for you if you're out there trying to change the world." I don't have respect if you're trying to change the world if you're not living by your own principles, if you're being dishonest.
PRESCOTT: Well, yes. Yes, and hat's the key thing here. I think Gore and others who aren't vegetarian, who are fighting this fight, need to look at their own plate before they go out and, you know, tell anybody else to change their ways. Because, really, it's the biggest thing that you could do.
There is a major environmental group found recently that if every American just replaced one meal of chicken, just one meal of chicken one time each week with vegetarian food, it would be the same as taking about 500,000 cars off of American roads. That's a huge number.
BECK: May I ask you, could I replace it with a bowl of ice cream or are you going to take my ice cream away?
PRESCOTT: Well, if it's soy ice cream -
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: Let me ask you this question — do you think that pig farmers are more of a danger than Usama bin Laden?
PRESCOTT: Well, I think it's two totally separate issues here. I mean, we seem to have done pretty well fighting Al Qaeda threat.
BECK: Well, I will give you that.
PRESCOTT: But we haven't done anything — we haven't done anything to start tackling what is a very serious threat, effect of farming. I mean, this industry is the leading cause of global warming. This industry is the biggest threat to Americans' health that causes — the meat and cheese and yogurt...
BECK: Yes. Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
You're still a crazy PETA person, Matthew. Come on.
PRESCOTT: Well, I —
BECK: OK. Hang on. Hang on. I just want to show you something. This is what I would like — if we're going to have a spit, I just say, Oh, no, is that the guy from Guantanamo Bay? That's just — now, would that be bad for global warming or — I don't know.
PRESCOTT: Well, make it vegetarian. Try out it vegetarian. Get some vegetarian barbecue. They actually make them. They're good.
BECK: Oh, I have a feeling he's chicken. All right. Matthew, thank you. I appreciate it, man. Thank you for being on the program.
And you know what? As much as I disagree with you, Matthew, thank you for actually living what you believe. I appreciate that.
PRESCOTT: I do my best, Glenn.
BECK: And I respect you for that.
Monday, February 09, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490025,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,490025,00.html
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," February 6, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GLENN BECK, HOST: Sometimes, you need a little propaganda, you know, to sell people on global warming. In a hearing this week, Congressman Steve King from Iowa asked environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to confirm or deny — confirm or deny — something that Mr. Kennedy allegedly said a few years ago:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA: "Large scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States and democracy than bin Laden's terrorist network."
Is that an accurate quote?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. ENVIRONMENTALIST: I don't know if that's an accurate quote, but I believe it and I support it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Holy cow. What the question was, "Did you say that pig farms are more dangerous than Usama bin Laden?" He's not sure that he said it, but he agrees with it and he supports it.
Now, here's somebody who actually believes in global warming and actually has the courage of his convictions and will change his life because of it: PETA spokesperson Matt Prescott joins me now.
• Video: Watch Beck's interview
Matt, I've got to tell you. I had you on my show — I don't know, about a year or so ago.
MATT PRESCOTT, SPOKESPERSON, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS: Yes.
BECK: And I couldn't believe that I have respect for you. You're crazy.
BECK: Every time I'm down here, I think you start with the same thing. I think you've got to start believing.
BECK: Well, I believe in you, and I believe —
PRESCOTT: That's a start.
BECK: You know, look, here's the thing. I have no problem with people who actually believe in something and are not hypocrites about it, actually will do something in their life. The IPCC report says that animal farms, just if we all became vegans, that we would dramatically change global warming. Do they say it is the fastest solution or the biggest problem or both?
PRESCOTT: It's the biggest contributor to global warming that — the U.N. report found that the meat industry causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks, planes, ships — all of the world's transportation systems combined.
BECK: Could you say that again, Matthew, please?
PRESCOTT: Yes. Well, I'll emphasize it here for you. The U.N. report found that the meat industry causes more global warming emissions than all of the world's transportation combined.
BECK: So why do you suppose that when we called RFK, Jr.'s office today — by the way, he didn't come on the show. When we called RFK, Jr.'s office and we asked him if he was a vegan, he said no. He is not a vegetarian.
PRESCOTT: Oh, it's very surprising. Shocking. Shocking.
BECK: Yes. Why do you suppose that people like Al Gore who is also not a vegetarian or a vegan — why are they eating meat if they truly believe that, you know, the world is going to come to an end in some sort of a fiery flood?
PRESCOTT: You know, we've been trying to find that out for years and we've never actually gotten an answer. I mean, personally, I've got to say, you know, if you've got a belief and out there trying to change the world and make it a better place, I got to give you support.
But I also have to ask questions. I mean, why, if somebody who is so vigorously fighting against global warming — they haven't even looked at their own plate. There is another report out of the University of Chicago that found that if you switch from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius, it's not even as good as switching from a meat-based diet to a vegetarian diet.
So just switching from meat to vegetarian food, you can save more greenhouse gas emissions from going up there into the atmosphere than you could by switching to a hybrid car.
BECK: So wait a minute. You said a minute ago — you said, "I have respect for you if you're out there trying to change the world." I don't have respect if you're trying to change the world if you're not living by your own principles, if you're being dishonest.
PRESCOTT: Well, yes. Yes, and hat's the key thing here. I think Gore and others who aren't vegetarian, who are fighting this fight, need to look at their own plate before they go out and, you know, tell anybody else to change their ways. Because, really, it's the biggest thing that you could do.
There is a major environmental group found recently that if every American just replaced one meal of chicken, just one meal of chicken one time each week with vegetarian food, it would be the same as taking about 500,000 cars off of American roads. That's a huge number.
BECK: May I ask you, could I replace it with a bowl of ice cream or are you going to take my ice cream away?
PRESCOTT: Well, if it's soy ice cream -
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: Let me ask you this question — do you think that pig farmers are more of a danger than Usama bin Laden?
PRESCOTT: Well, I think it's two totally separate issues here. I mean, we seem to have done pretty well fighting Al Qaeda threat.
BECK: Well, I will give you that.
PRESCOTT: But we haven't done anything — we haven't done anything to start tackling what is a very serious threat, effect of farming. I mean, this industry is the leading cause of global warming. This industry is the biggest threat to Americans' health that causes — the meat and cheese and yogurt...
BECK: Yes. Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
You're still a crazy PETA person, Matthew. Come on.
PRESCOTT: Well, I —
BECK: OK. Hang on. Hang on. I just want to show you something. This is what I would like — if we're going to have a spit, I just say, Oh, no, is that the guy from Guantanamo Bay? That's just — now, would that be bad for global warming or — I don't know.
PRESCOTT: Well, make it vegetarian. Try out it vegetarian. Get some vegetarian barbecue. They actually make them. They're good.
BECK: Oh, I have a feeling he's chicken. All right. Matthew, thank you. I appreciate it, man. Thank you for being on the program.
And you know what? As much as I disagree with you, Matthew, thank you for actually living what you believe. I appreciate that.
PRESCOTT: I do my best, Glenn.
BECK: And I respect you for that.
EU Says Livestock Emissions May Mean Less Meat
EU Says Livestock Emissions May Mean Less Meat
http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/20310/eu-says-livestock-emissions-may-mean-less-meat
EU - The European Parliament warned about the livestock industry’s emissions while stopping short of urging a reduction in meat consumption to fight global warming.
The European Union assembly’s balancing act highlights the potential conflict between tackling climate change and ensuring adequate food supplies, writes Jonathan Stearns for Bloomberg.com. The livestock industry accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions including methane from manure, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels to make fertilizers for feed crops and CO2 from forest clearing, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
According to the Bloomberg article, the EU Parliament said changes in behavior by consumers and the consideration of targets for reducing agricultural emissions should accompany regulations to cap industrial greenhouse gases and improve energy efficiency. At the same time, the assembly deleted a part of the text that called for a cut in worldwide meat consumption particularly in rich countries.
The livestock industry is responsible for “substantial” emissions, the 27-nation Parliament said in its resolution today in Strasbourg, France. The 80-page document, based on the final report of the assembly’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change, includes dozens of other recommendations and options for tackling global warming until 2050.
The EU aims to reduce its greenhouse gases at least 20 percent in 2020 compared with 1990 and spur UN members including the U.S. and China to back a new accord this year to counter global warming. The Parliament resolution said industrialized countries as a whole should plan to cut emissions 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels and deepen the target to at least 80 percent by 2050.
http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/20310/eu-says-livestock-emissions-may-mean-less-meat
EU - The European Parliament warned about the livestock industry’s emissions while stopping short of urging a reduction in meat consumption to fight global warming.
The European Union assembly’s balancing act highlights the potential conflict between tackling climate change and ensuring adequate food supplies, writes Jonathan Stearns for Bloomberg.com. The livestock industry accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions including methane from manure, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels to make fertilizers for feed crops and CO2 from forest clearing, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
According to the Bloomberg article, the EU Parliament said changes in behavior by consumers and the consideration of targets for reducing agricultural emissions should accompany regulations to cap industrial greenhouse gases and improve energy efficiency. At the same time, the assembly deleted a part of the text that called for a cut in worldwide meat consumption particularly in rich countries.
The livestock industry is responsible for “substantial” emissions, the 27-nation Parliament said in its resolution today in Strasbourg, France. The 80-page document, based on the final report of the assembly’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change, includes dozens of other recommendations and options for tackling global warming until 2050.
The EU aims to reduce its greenhouse gases at least 20 percent in 2020 compared with 1990 and spur UN members including the U.S. and China to back a new accord this year to counter global warming. The Parliament resolution said industrialized countries as a whole should plan to cut emissions 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels and deepen the target to at least 80 percent by 2050.
Pentagon Issues Credits to Offset Wildlife Harm - Payouts draw Criticism
Pentagon Issues 'Credits' To Offset Harm to Wildlife
Payouts to Landowners Draw Criticism
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 9, 2009; A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR2009020802128_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR2009020802128.html
[Read comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR2009020802128_Comments.html ]
The Pentagon has been funding Texas A&M University to pay landowners near a Texas military post to protect endangered bird species on their land under a secretive program designed to free the military to conduct training activities that would damage the birds' habitats inside the post's boundaries, documents show.
Despite complaints that the program is a boondoggle for the landowners, some federal officials are pushing to replicate it at other military sites and in federal highway projects. The program's effectiveness has been questioned by several military officials, federal wildlife authorities and an independent consulting firm, which recommended that the Army cancel it.
Initially championed by former president George W. Bush and some of his political allies, the "recovery credit system" at Fort Hood in central Texas has so far paid out nearly $4.4 million to contractors and landowners.
Under the program, the Army accumulates "credits" that correspond roughly to the acreage that landowners agree to conserve for between 10 and 25 years. After banking sufficient credits, the military can use them to offset the habitat loss or harm that would stem from its activities. It must set aside 10 percent of the credits to foster the recovery of a target species.
At Fort Hood, the program -- which does not disclose the landowners' identities, the amounts they receive or precisely where their properties are located -- aims to provide ranchers with expertise and financial incentives to expand habitat for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler.
Neal Wilkins, who directs Texas A&M's Institute of Renewable Natural Resources and oversees the Fort Hood pilot project, said imperiled animals such as the warbler will survive only if experts can persuade private property owners to provide them with a haven.
"If we don't figure out how to manage private lands . . . we've lost the battle," Wilkins said, dismissing criticism of the program. "Those are the little turf battles, the little petty arguments that go on in the background."
But according to more than a hundred pages of e-mails, internal reports and other documents obtained by The Washington Post, the criticism has come from several Army officials as well as some biologists with the Fish and Wildlife Service who study imperiled species. These officials, as well as others who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue, questioned the wisdom of using federal money to secure temporary habitat on private property when permanent easements that bar development in perpetuity are known to be more effective in protecting vulnerable species.
One federal official familiar with the program said that unlike other conservation initiatives the military has developed, the three-year pilot project at Fort Hood does not benefit either soldiers' training or the species in question.
"From my perspective, the bottom line is, it was all political pressure to take a slug of money every year and put it toward this program, and no was not an answer," the official said. "We should spend money on soldiers preparing to go to war. And instead it appears this was about making sure this money was devoted to a specific constituency in Texas."
LMI Government Consulting, an independent firm hired to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the project, produced a report in August that concluded that the military should instead devote resources to the Army Compatible Use Buffer Program, which allows the military to buy permanent conservation easements from willing landowners.
"The Army has less expensive ways to protect accessibility, capability, and capacity for soldier training at Fort Hood," the report said, adding that the project is "unnecessary." The Army has yet to release the report.
Internal Army documents and communications echo that theme. In a Jan. 15 e-mail to several colleagues, Brig. Gen. Richard C. Longo, who helps oversee military training for the Pentagon, wrote of the recovery credit system: "BOTTOM LINE: RCS is not good unless you are a local landowner in the Fort Hood area." His commander, three-star Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, replied, "ROGER AGREE HOLD THE LINE ON THIS. NO FREE CHICKEN!"
Officials as senior as Army Secretary Pete Geren also questioned the approach: In a July 2008 document, Geren hand-wrote, "I am very concerned about 'term' easements." He ordered Army officials to "brief me before anything further [is] done on them."
It remains unclear whether the program is succeeding in expanding the number of golden-cheeked warblers in central Texas. A biological evaluation issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service on Aug. 2, 2007, agreed with the Army that the project's impact would not necessarily boost the bird's numbers because the contracts with landowners were "not in perpetuity. . . . Thus, golden-cheeked warblers would receive short term benefits from the proposed action with no guarantee of future protection."
As it happens, the Army has made tremendous strides in rebuilding the population of the birds at Fort Hood over the past decade and a half. As a result of cultivating trees and shrubs that the birds depend on and driving off cowbirds that infiltrate the warblers' nests, there are now roughly 5,400 warbler pairs -- more than twice what is called for under the federal recovery plan for the species.
Texas comptroller Susan Combs, a longtime political ally of Bush's, helped start the Fort Hood pilot project while serving as the state's agriculture commissioner. She said she pushed for the funding because she wanted to promote "a tremendously important installation" while helping and educating area ranchers.
"The real issue was how could we persuade landowners to do the right thing for endangered species and also help Fort Hood," said Combs, a cattle rancher whose son spent time on the post before serving in Iraq.
Both Combs and Wilkins said they had made the decision to shield the landowners' identities in order to enlist ranchers in the program. Wilkins -- who said the program had paid $460,522 directly to property owners and spent another $1.9 million on "conservation actions" on their land -- said groups including the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association and the Texas Farm Bureau have embraced the project.
"The participation rate would be really low" if ranchers' names became public, because Texans feel passionately about their privacy, Wilkins said, adding that landowners are "lining up" to participate in part because they only have to commit to temporary rather than permanent easements. The landowners have spent $450,000 of their own money on improving their land for the warblers, he said.
Some military and Fish and Wildlife officials are hoping to apply the recovery credit system to other federal programs. Joy Nicholopoulos, Fish and Wildlife's state administrator for ecological services in Texas, said she was hoping it would "catch on" elsewhere, adding that the Federal Highway Administration is researching whether to use it. And senior officials with the Marines are exploring whether to institute it at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, in an effort to move nesting pairs of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker off the base.
But John Hammond, a Fish and Wildlife biologist in Raleigh, N.C., who works on protecting the woodpeckers, said the current plan to try to relocate the birds onto private land several miles away does not take the species' foraging habits into account.
"You don't go out 10 miles away and start planting trees. You've got to do it on adjacent territory," he said. "It needs to be guided by the science that pertains to the biology of the bird."
Pentagon officials, for their part, said they will decide whether to continue the new conservation approach once Fort Hood's three-year pilot program ends this year.
"After its conclusion, DoD natural resource and program management personnel at all levels will review the results and consider whether, and how, DoD may be able to apply recovery crediting under applicable US Fish and Wildlife Service regulations as a tool to help address compatible land use issues at DoD installations and ranges," spokesman Chris Isleib wrote in an e-mail.
Payouts to Landowners Draw Criticism
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 9, 2009; A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR2009020802128_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR2009020802128.html
[Read comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR2009020802128_Comments.html ]
The Pentagon has been funding Texas A&M University to pay landowners near a Texas military post to protect endangered bird species on their land under a secretive program designed to free the military to conduct training activities that would damage the birds' habitats inside the post's boundaries, documents show.
Despite complaints that the program is a boondoggle for the landowners, some federal officials are pushing to replicate it at other military sites and in federal highway projects. The program's effectiveness has been questioned by several military officials, federal wildlife authorities and an independent consulting firm, which recommended that the Army cancel it.
Initially championed by former president George W. Bush and some of his political allies, the "recovery credit system" at Fort Hood in central Texas has so far paid out nearly $4.4 million to contractors and landowners.
Under the program, the Army accumulates "credits" that correspond roughly to the acreage that landowners agree to conserve for between 10 and 25 years. After banking sufficient credits, the military can use them to offset the habitat loss or harm that would stem from its activities. It must set aside 10 percent of the credits to foster the recovery of a target species.
At Fort Hood, the program -- which does not disclose the landowners' identities, the amounts they receive or precisely where their properties are located -- aims to provide ranchers with expertise and financial incentives to expand habitat for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler.
Neal Wilkins, who directs Texas A&M's Institute of Renewable Natural Resources and oversees the Fort Hood pilot project, said imperiled animals such as the warbler will survive only if experts can persuade private property owners to provide them with a haven.
"If we don't figure out how to manage private lands . . . we've lost the battle," Wilkins said, dismissing criticism of the program. "Those are the little turf battles, the little petty arguments that go on in the background."
But according to more than a hundred pages of e-mails, internal reports and other documents obtained by The Washington Post, the criticism has come from several Army officials as well as some biologists with the Fish and Wildlife Service who study imperiled species. These officials, as well as others who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue, questioned the wisdom of using federal money to secure temporary habitat on private property when permanent easements that bar development in perpetuity are known to be more effective in protecting vulnerable species.
One federal official familiar with the program said that unlike other conservation initiatives the military has developed, the three-year pilot project at Fort Hood does not benefit either soldiers' training or the species in question.
"From my perspective, the bottom line is, it was all political pressure to take a slug of money every year and put it toward this program, and no was not an answer," the official said. "We should spend money on soldiers preparing to go to war. And instead it appears this was about making sure this money was devoted to a specific constituency in Texas."
LMI Government Consulting, an independent firm hired to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the project, produced a report in August that concluded that the military should instead devote resources to the Army Compatible Use Buffer Program, which allows the military to buy permanent conservation easements from willing landowners.
"The Army has less expensive ways to protect accessibility, capability, and capacity for soldier training at Fort Hood," the report said, adding that the project is "unnecessary." The Army has yet to release the report.
Internal Army documents and communications echo that theme. In a Jan. 15 e-mail to several colleagues, Brig. Gen. Richard C. Longo, who helps oversee military training for the Pentagon, wrote of the recovery credit system: "BOTTOM LINE: RCS is not good unless you are a local landowner in the Fort Hood area." His commander, three-star Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, replied, "ROGER AGREE HOLD THE LINE ON THIS. NO FREE CHICKEN!"
Officials as senior as Army Secretary Pete Geren also questioned the approach: In a July 2008 document, Geren hand-wrote, "I am very concerned about 'term' easements." He ordered Army officials to "brief me before anything further [is] done on them."
It remains unclear whether the program is succeeding in expanding the number of golden-cheeked warblers in central Texas. A biological evaluation issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service on Aug. 2, 2007, agreed with the Army that the project's impact would not necessarily boost the bird's numbers because the contracts with landowners were "not in perpetuity. . . . Thus, golden-cheeked warblers would receive short term benefits from the proposed action with no guarantee of future protection."
As it happens, the Army has made tremendous strides in rebuilding the population of the birds at Fort Hood over the past decade and a half. As a result of cultivating trees and shrubs that the birds depend on and driving off cowbirds that infiltrate the warblers' nests, there are now roughly 5,400 warbler pairs -- more than twice what is called for under the federal recovery plan for the species.
Texas comptroller Susan Combs, a longtime political ally of Bush's, helped start the Fort Hood pilot project while serving as the state's agriculture commissioner. She said she pushed for the funding because she wanted to promote "a tremendously important installation" while helping and educating area ranchers.
"The real issue was how could we persuade landowners to do the right thing for endangered species and also help Fort Hood," said Combs, a cattle rancher whose son spent time on the post before serving in Iraq.
Both Combs and Wilkins said they had made the decision to shield the landowners' identities in order to enlist ranchers in the program. Wilkins -- who said the program had paid $460,522 directly to property owners and spent another $1.9 million on "conservation actions" on their land -- said groups including the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association and the Texas Farm Bureau have embraced the project.
"The participation rate would be really low" if ranchers' names became public, because Texans feel passionately about their privacy, Wilkins said, adding that landowners are "lining up" to participate in part because they only have to commit to temporary rather than permanent easements. The landowners have spent $450,000 of their own money on improving their land for the warblers, he said.
Some military and Fish and Wildlife officials are hoping to apply the recovery credit system to other federal programs. Joy Nicholopoulos, Fish and Wildlife's state administrator for ecological services in Texas, said she was hoping it would "catch on" elsewhere, adding that the Federal Highway Administration is researching whether to use it. And senior officials with the Marines are exploring whether to institute it at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, in an effort to move nesting pairs of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker off the base.
But John Hammond, a Fish and Wildlife biologist in Raleigh, N.C., who works on protecting the woodpeckers, said the current plan to try to relocate the birds onto private land several miles away does not take the species' foraging habits into account.
"You don't go out 10 miles away and start planting trees. You've got to do it on adjacent territory," he said. "It needs to be guided by the science that pertains to the biology of the bird."
Pentagon officials, for their part, said they will decide whether to continue the new conservation approach once Fort Hood's three-year pilot program ends this year.
"After its conclusion, DoD natural resource and program management personnel at all levels will review the results and consider whether, and how, DoD may be able to apply recovery crediting under applicable US Fish and Wildlife Service regulations as a tool to help address compatible land use issues at DoD installations and ranges," spokesman Chris Isleib wrote in an e-mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
