Letters to the Editor
hermesloin
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 17
-
Where is this coming from?
[Read the article: I, Nanobot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reading other letters who say they extrapolated great advice from this article as a sound starting point for a discussion on bionantechnology have lost me. The first page sounds like the architect's monologue from the Matrix movies. He references a string of key players in the field as if they were household names, but they are not. Arthur Kaplan is not Camille Paglia. The rapid pace of discussion and total lack of explanation assumes that the reader considers most of this a foregone conclusion. His disintiction between nanobots and nonabiobots is not a satsifactory explanation for someone who truly wants to understand this topic but isn't fluent in Oracle-speak. I seriously thought the first page was actually a short story and that this may not be an article at all. Not to get hung up on the writing style because this is an important topic, but if you want people to understand the magnitude of this issue, then the article should be as well written and systematic as any other article in salon, not this mess.
-
Memory Lane
[Read the article: When Keillor met Altman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I grew up in Austin and O'Hehir's description of the Paramount Theater is right on. Growing up I saw "Rent," "Stomp," Carol Channing in "Hello Dolly," and many other wonderful productions grace the stage of the Paramount. My family would always go around the corner after the shows and eat chocolate cake and watch horse-drawn carriages clop down the streets of downtown Austin. Lovingly preserved indeed.
-
Six Feet Under
[Read the article: The oil is going, the oil is going!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I discovered the "Life After the Oil Crash" website in late 2003, and for a few months I was obsessed with it. I bought into the dark anarchy it foretold and likened it to the impending presidential election. Shortly thereafter I read "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins that warned about how much energy goes into making food out of animals. I then became a vegan for some time. I grew out of those phases and now I happily eat as many animals products as I please, and I try to keep a healthy mental distance from hyperbolic, eerie websites because even though what they say about Peak Oil probably contains some truth, there's a certain amount of self-righteousness in which they hold onto this belief that we're all doomed that makes me think this is more about what's going on in their heads than what is actually going on in the reality of any impending energy crisis. Season 4 of SIX FEET UNDER addressed this paranoia with the character of George, Ruth's husband. He made portobello mushroom "steaks" for dinner and lectured anyone who would listen about the impending water shortage. He became addicted to chat rooms and blogs about the subject and reported his findings back to Ruth late into the night as if his life depended on it. He told her that if such and such a reservoir dried up, there would be no more water left. Her response, [paraphrased] "Well then we'll all be dead, but until then can we try to enjoy our life just a little bit." George ended the season by locking himself into a vintage nuclear bomb shelter and mumbling psychotic rants. As I grow older I find myself siding with Ruth more and more. We're frail, frail creatures in extremely vulnerable bodies that perish easily from moderate climate changes or just from going a few days without water. The earth is a physically violent place to live (before you factor in human violence) and people die every day from food and water shortages. There's always going to be some looming crisis for humanity, running out of oil is just one of many. So until the apocalypse comes knocking at our doors, can't we just enjoy our kung pao chicken and grass-fed Australian steak and eggs and do what we can now (recycle, get out of debt as quickly as possible) and let Mother Nature take its course. She's much smarter than us anyway.
-
The Statue of Liberty Just Went Green
[Read the article: The oil is going, the oil is going!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Posted today from the huff post via the Christian Science Monitor: Something to be hopeful about...
By the end of this month, 100 percent of the electricity that powers the Statue of Liberty in the Harbor and Ellis Island, where millions of Americans first set foot in America, will be "green power." Windmills in West Virginia and Pennsylvania will supply the electricity that powers up the floodlights that shine on Miss Liberty's torch and the air conditioning that keeps all those immigration records from mildewing.
"It's a powerful public-policy statement to fuel such an important symbol in that way," says Jim Coyne, a renewable energy expert at FTI Consulting in Cambridge, Mass.
In some ways, shifting away from the heavy use of oil and natural gas is part of the US government's energy strategy. President Bush said wind power could provide up to 20 percent of the nation's electricity.
The General Services Administration (GSA), which runs US government facilities, has been switching over to green power for some time. In the Northeast and Caribbean (Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands) regions of the country, 33 percent of the electricity usage, or about 75 million kilowatt hours, are now renewable energy. These include buildings such as the Peter Rodino Office Building in Newark, N.J., and New York's 26 Federal Plaza, which houses the GSA and the FBI. Until the latest contract was signed, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island received half their electricity from green sources.
The GSA also notes that going green is not costing taxpayers more money, because it buys electricity in bulk. "It's a wash," says Emily Baker, a spokeswoman for the GSA in New York. "Plus, there are so many other benefits such as the money farmers get from leasing their land for windmills."