Pet peeves

[Ekserb]

Control her or lose her!

You invite a utility worker into your home to fix a problem with your internet access. He's inside for not more than five minutes before your just-started-walking-so-let's-see-where-she-goes rugrat ankle-biter kid starts using the tools on his belt to steady herself while standing way, WAY inside his personal space.

He turns around and shoves his cable sheath cutter into her drooling, smiling mouth and hits her chin, forcing her jaw to clamp down on the blade and savagely cut her gums. She screams bloody murder and runs howling into the arms of Mom and Dad, who were watching TV and not paying any attention at all to the absolute stranger working in the other room.

I'm that telephone technician, and this is the fantasy that played over and over in my head for over a fucking hour as these people let their stinking, shrieking, pain in the ass kid pester me as I tried to work. Nothing would have made me happier than watching two halves of that kid's body fly through the air after being severed by the Samurai Sword Of Swift And Final Judgement.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor by locking your kids up when you have company. And by "company" I mean anyone who doesn't immediately and repeatedly profess an undying love of all children everywhere. I happen to hate kids, and yours should die.

 

[Vandren]

Another (came across recently):

People who don't understand basic grammar and whatnot in their native language (including things like verb conjugation and past/present tenses). Like the infamous "I is going." Scarily, this is sort of problem is even finding its way into the ranks of the supposedly well educated - I've recently had 30-something year old students (college level) who couldn't tell when a verb was present or past tense.

 

[trysail]

Population


Does it feel more crowded than it used to? Do you feel jostled? Are the roads, train stations, and airports congested?

If you said "yes," you're right and there's a simple reason that you should feel that way: there ARE more people. For some of us, there are a LOT MORE people. Population growth (and all small incremental change) is insidious. It creeps up on you until, of a sudden, one day it hits you in the face. It doesn't take much of a growth rate. If you look at the attached, you'll see that the population of the U.S. was 76 million in 1900; last year it hit 299 million (and, as you likely know, it passed 300 million this year).

From 1900 to 2006, U.S. population only grew at a compound average annual rate of 1.3% (that's right- one point three percent per annum). That doesn't sound like much, does it? Yet for every ONE person who lived here in 1900, there are now FOUR people!

Hell, the year I was born the U.S. had a population of roughly 160 million; there are now almost twice that many people. No wonder I feel crowded! There'd be something wrong with me if I didn't feel that way.

I'm beginning to feel like an aborigine (a/k/a a "Native American")- my land has been invaded. The population of my home state has MORE THAN DOUBLED since I've been alive! That's taken an enormous toll on the quality of life. The place has been transformed from once having had a nice mix of small towns and gorgeous rolling countryside inhabited by real people (like farmers and watermen) to a place that is increasingly urban and suburban and overrun with slicksters, bureaucrats, confidence men, phonies, and paper shufflers.

 

[bluebell]

Down with humanity. It's shooting season!

No wonder the movies are so crowded on Friday and Saturday nights.
Fuckers.
(Quoth I)

 

[LeChatNoir]

No wonder the movies are so crowded on Friday and Saturday nights.
Fuckers.
(Quoth I)

There is an answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree

-LCN

 

[bluebell]

"Pejorative" is a fun word.

There is an answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree

-LCN

Some of my favorite quotes:
(and bear in mind that Ekserb did, in no way, enter my mind while reading this...)

"Childfree" is regarded as offensive and pejorative in some circles, with the "-free" suffix held to imply that children are inherently bad or unwelcome.
I don't know anyone who could possibly think that children were inherently ba...
I have to stop typing now. My skin is burning.

The organization's most widely-distributed publication was "Am I Parent Material?"
I think the more important question is, "Am I just one gigantic dick?" (And that asked with no gender discrimination.)

Lack of desire for children
Lack of a compelling reason to have children
General dislike of the behavior of children.
Seeing the effects of children on family/friends.
Lack of maternal/paternal instincts.
Lack of interest in conforming to the social obligations of socially defined gender roles.
Consider raising children a poor use of human intellectual capacities.
Contentment with enjoyment of pets.
Belief that childhood is too traumatic.
...

David Foot of the University of Toronto concluded that the female's education is the most important determinant of fertility. The higher the education, the less likely for her to bear children.
Any naysayers? (Seriously asking. Not even being sarcastic. Well, maybe just a little bit.)

Some opponents of childfree individuals consider them "selfish" for neither having, nor wanting, children. The idea behind this is that, since raising children is a very important activity (childfree author Virginia Postrel calls it "the most important work most people will ever do"), not having children means living a hedonistic, consumption-based lifestyle that makes no contribution to the world, only to the self.
Ahem.

There is a growing corpus of slang terminology used by some childfree people, some of it borrowed from other groups or pop culture. The terms are often derogatory in nature, generally focusing on names for bad parents ("breeder"), lifestyle choices ("baby rabies" as a reference to the strong desire to have a child) and even terms for the children themselves ("sprog", "Bratley" and "crotch-dropping" are amongst negative terms to describe children).
Crotch-dropping?!

Childfree advocates argue that other forms of caregiving are not considered equal — that "only babies count." Caring for sick, disabled, or elderly dependents entails significant financial and emotional costs but is not subsidized in the same manner.
Hear, hear! Some of the geriatrics annoy me, but that doesn't mean they should get dropped on an iceberg and shoved out to sea.
Besides, at this rate, there might be no icebergs left. (I had to, Trysail. It was my duty.)

There has been a debate within religious groups about whether a childfree lifestyle is something to be condemned. Some religious conservatives have stated that it is a rebellion against God's will...In response, there are new churches being formed with the childfree movement. For example, a group called The Cyber-Church of Jesus Christ Childfree is a group of Christians who feel the call to have no descendants by fleshly means, just as Jesus had none.
Does it worry anyone else that the church name has the word "Cyber" in it?
Dirty, no?



LCN, this day I bow to you.

 

[bluebell]

Today's peeve made me swerve out of my lane. And I am indignant about it.

If you own a fucking Spyder, don't do forty on the damn highway.
What the hell is wrong with you people?

 

[MrHotnspicey]

Spyder? I am a car guy, what kind of Spyder do you refer to?

 

[bluebell]

Another Pffft

This.

 

[MrHotnspicey]

Hiya Bluebell,
I thought you might have meant a Mitsubishi. That Eclipse Spyder is pretty sharp, fun to drive and top down is great. They are fun on the crooked twisty roads also.
FYI, several other manufacturers over the years have had Spyders, Corvair, Fiat, Alfa, etc.
And then you have the many legged ones. lol.

 

[bluebell]

An' that's that

Hiya Bluebell,
I thought you might have meant a Mitsubishi. That Eclipse Spyder is pretty sharp, fun to drive and top down is great. They are fun on the crooked twisty roads also.
FYI, several other manufacturers over the years have had Spyders, Corvair, Fiat, Alfa, etc.
And then you have the many legged ones. lol.

But you see now why going forty on the highway is really stupid if you're driving that???
I mean, I'm all for cautious drivers, but it's a fucking Spyder.

And the many-legged ones can stay the hell away from me.
I have no mercy with them. They invade my space, they die. I am no bug pacifist.

 

[MrHotnspicey]

lol, We agree Bluebell, and the same goes for those no shouldered Bast--- snakes.

 

[AtFirstSight]

I hate the kids next door who keep letting off the screeching type of fireworks. They're scaring the shit out of my guinea pigs

 

[rootsfan]

But you see now why going forty on the highway is really stupid if you're driving that???
I mean, I'm all for cautious drivers, but it's a fucking Spyder.

And the many-legged ones can stay the hell away from me.
I have no mercy with them. They invade my space, they die. I am no bug pacifist.

I'm logged plenty of time in Boca Raton, Florida--old men driving slow in expensive sports cars is an everyday sight.

I had one apartment years ago where I dealt with spider bites regularly. No mercy.

 

[trysail]

Blame It on Mr. Rogers: Why Young Adults Feel So Entitled

© The Wall Street Journal (fair use exception, boldface and italics are mine)
________________________________________________________
Blame It on Mr. Rogers: Why
Young Adults Feel So Entitled
July 5, 2007

Don Chance, a finance professor at Louisiana State University, says it dawned on him last spring. The semester was ending, and as usual, students were making a pilgrimage to his office, asking for the extra points needed to lift their grades to A's.

"They felt so entitled," he recalls, "and it just hit me. We can blame Mr. Rogers."

Fred Rogers, the late TV icon, told several generations of children that they were "special" just for being whoever they were. He meant well, and he was a sterling role model in many ways. But what often got lost in his self-esteem-building patter was the idea that being special comes from working hard and having high expectations for yourself.

Now Mr. Rogers, like Dr. Spock before him, has been targeted for re-evaluation. And he's not the only one. As educators and researchers struggle to define the new parameters of parenting, circa 2007, some are revisiting the language of child ego-boosting. What are the downsides of telling kids they're special? Is it a mistake to have children call us by our first names? When we focus all conversations on our children's lives, are we denying them the insights found when adults talk about adult things?

Some are calling for a recalibration of the mind-sets and catch-phrases that have taken hold in recent decades. Among the expressions now being challenged:

"You're special." On the Yahoo Answers Web site, a discussion thread about Mr. Rogers begins with this posting: "Mr. Rogers spent years telling little creeps that he liked them just the way they were. He should have been telling them there was a lot of room for improvement. ... Nice as he was, and as good as his intentions may have been, he did a disservice."

Signs of narcissism among college students have been rising for 25 years, according to a recent study led by a San Diego State University psychologist. Obviously, Mr. Rogers alone can't be blamed for this. But as Prof. Chance sees it, "he's representative of a culture of excessive doting."

Prof. Chance teaches many Asian-born students, and says they accept whatever grade they're given; they see B's and C's as an indication that they must work harder, and that their elders assessed them accurately. They didn't grow up with Mr. Rogers or anyone else telling them they were born special.

By contrast, American students often view lower grades as a reason to "hit you up for an A because they came to class and feel they worked hard," says Prof. Chance. He wishes more parents would offer kids this perspective: "The world owes you nothing. You have to work and compete. If you want to be special, you'll have to prove it."

"They're just children."
When kids are rude, self-absorbed or disrespectful, some parents allow or endure it by saying, "Well, they're just children." The phrase is a worthy one when it's applied to a teachable moment, such as telling kids not to stick their fingers in electrical sockets. But as an excuse or as justification for unacceptable behavior, "They're just children" is just misguided.

"Call me Cindy."
Is it appropriate to place kids on the same level as adults, with all of us calling each other by our first names? On one hand, the familiarity can mark a loving closeness between child and adult. But on the other hand, when a child calls an adult Mr. or Ms., it helps him recognize that status is earned by age and experience. It's also a reminder to respect your elders.

"Tell me about your day."
It is crucial to talk to kids about their lives, and that dialogue can enrich the whole family. However, parents also need to discuss their own lives and experiences, says Alvin Rosenfeld, a Manhattan-based child psychiatrist who studies family interactions.

In America today, life often begins with the anointing of "His Majesty, the Fetus," he says. From then on, many parents focus their conversations on their kids. Today's parents "are the best-educated generation ever," says Dr. Rosenfeld. "So why do our kids see us primarily discussing kids' schedules and activities?"

He encourages parents to talk about their passions and interests; about politics, business, world events. "Because everything is child-centered today, we're depriving children of adults," he says. "If they never see us as adults being adults, how will they deal with important matters when it is their world?"

 

[monique1971]

<WSJ piece snipped>

I don't usually say this of things in the Wall Street Journal, but I could not possibly agree more.

 

[bluebell]

No more Cookie Monster

I'll be the first to line up and say that most kids (up through college-age) today are skeeving snipes who need a good walloping rather than the absentee coddling they seem to get from parents.
(Actually, Ekserb may be just before me in line, but that's a minor detail.)

But I'm not entirely sure I agree with the whole of this article.
I appreciate it, it was interesting to read, but I had the distinct feeling that a gimmick was in action: blaming Mister Rogers to make the article sound more lively.

I think they took a tenuous link and then braided a shitload of cord into it to try and make it look stronger.
Obviously they aren't coming down hard on Mister Rogers seriously, but just the fact that it's supposed to be a main slant of the article is sort of ridiculous.
How many kids even watched Mister Rogers in the last decade or so?
Or even more?

I take issue with the fact that they say kids today, up through college-age were even around and able to watch Mister Rogers. I know I did, but it certainly didn't stick other than the fact that I get to make a fantastically scathing joke about a librarian being Lady Elaine Fairchilde every now and then.
And even more implausible, that the kids would have chosen to watch Mister Rogers over another show. It's preposterous, really. The numbers of kids who did are probably pretty scant.
Even Sesame Street is completely different today.

I do agree that these kids have a sense of entitlement, but I think this:

In America today, life often begins with the anointing of "His Majesty, the Fetus," he says. From then on, many parents focus their conversations on their kids. Today's parents "are the best-educated generation ever," says Dr. Rosenfeld. "So why do our kids see us primarily discussing kids' schedules and activities?"

He encourages parents to talk about their passions and interests; about politics, business, world events. "Because everything is child-centered today, we're depriving children of adults," he says. "If they never see us as adults being adults, how will they deal with important matters when it is their world?"

is much more culpable.

Sure, there can be ties between the child-exaltation and Mister Rogers, but if we're going to stop here then why don't we blame the parents' sense of entitlement on Mister Rogers as well?
That's much more believable to me. Because these parents grew up feeling "special", that would automatically transmute to their children and all that they do, including being indefatigable cunt-puckers.

The fact is, you don't have to look far to see that they do feel entitled and they do honestly think that their behaviors are okay. Today, making kids do anything they "don't wanna do" is seen as borderline child-abuse.
Including a quantifying effort in schoolwork.

It's as if when these kids are called upon to put in some kind of "uncharacteristic" effort, there must be something wrong with the thing requiring the effort, not the child. Which screws them in every aspect of life, not just academically.

But aside from the cryingly bad, less-than-stellar parenting these people have recieved, I would be more inclined to call it entitled laziness.
They don't do the work and yet they think that because they took the time to show up and pump the teacher for an A, that constitutes some sort of praiseworthy work ethic.

Which is shit. Obviously.

 

[Ekserb]

(Actually, Ekserb may be just before me in line, but that's a minor detail.)

I wasn't going to mention this, just because I've ranted about shit-ass little kids before, but I had another work-related run-in with death-deserving children the other day and I feel the need to relate it to you all. (Praise be to Allah for hyphens.)

I was in the local county juvenile delinquent lock-up ... I mean ... um ... day care facility ... [stifles a laugh] ... installing a broadband connection for the newly acquired network of ten cheaper-than-dirt PCs they had installed so these fatherless fucks can spend their days downloading illegal music instead of yelling at each other across a table during a game of cards, which is exactly what they were doing when I arrived.

I said yelling? I meant screaming. As loud and as annoyingly as possible. Continuously. For the entire seventy minutes I was trapped in the room.

Every few minutes one of the keepers would raise his voice and tell the inmates to sit down and stop yelling. This resulted in what can best be described as an infinitesimally short period of relative calm, but the word "calm" in this context is akin to the time between muzzle blasts from an M16 with the selector lever set to Rock and Roll. Within seconds the screaming would resume and there would be young humans (I'll describe them as I would the offspring of any other zoo animal) running amok in the classroom.

I was perilously close to butchery. Of the handlers first (for their ineffectual attempts at control followed by their tacit acceptance of this raucous behavior), then the noisemakers. Had I video evidence of the scene I feel no jury would convict me. Unless I were charged with Doing Society a Favor™.

 

[trysail]

"Private Jets For Climate Change"

If I can't say it any better than someone else, I might as well just reproduce it. Here 'tis, lifted from The Daily Mail. The boldfaced italics are mine.
___________________________________________________
Live Aid is promoting green to save the planet.
What planet are they on?

As Madonna bounds on to the huge Wembley stage to save the planet, how the assembled Greenies will cheer. The superstar is today fronting the massive Live Earth event, with nine concerts played over 24 hours across seven continents before an audience of two billion.

The much-hyped bid to save the world is being masterminded by former U.S. vice president Al Gore - who helped focus attention on the environmental movement with his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth - and features artists including The Police, Red Hot Chili Peppers, UB40 and Metallica.

No doubt to rapturous applause, Madonna will call for mass global change to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle 'climate crisis'.

Watching the veteran star lap up the adoration, her entourage could, however, be forgiven for exchanging slightly jaded glances - having witnessed her jet in for the concert from New York.

For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.

Welcome to Planet Pop

Hypocrisy: Madonna will strut on stage today preaching at her viewers to save the planet - yet she herself produces more than 100 times the average amount of waste produced by Britons in a year

Indeed, Madonna's carbon footprint is dwarfed only by her ego - she has vowed that she will 'speak to the planet' at Wembley. In fact, an apology might be in order - for the superstar's energy consumption is only the tip of the iceberg in this epic vanity-fest.

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".

For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it "private jets for climate change."

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

Moreover, the pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote - with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world.

Sepermodel Kate Moss, another profligate polluter through her use of private jets, is producing a T-shirt for the event. Yet, Gore is touting the concerts as 'carbon neutral'. So how can that be?

Let us start with some facts. Worldwide, an audience of around 1,268,500 is expected to attend the concerts - making it one of the largest global events in history.

Dr Andrea Collins, an expert in sustainability from Cardiff University, has researched the impact of such mass gatherings on the environment.

"An event of this size at Wembley - which holds 65,000 at a rock concert, will generate around 59 tonnes of waste," she says. "That is largely composed of the rubbish from food and drink consumption."

She found that a Wembley-sized football match generated an 'ecological footprint' of 3,000 global hectares - an area the size of 4,166 football pitches. This is the amount of bioproductive land required to absorb the C02 emissions produced by such an event.

The concert organisers are preaching carbon neutrality - but isn't that just a guilt-free excuse?

Dr Collins estimates that the global audience for Live Earth will generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste. An extraordinary one million people are expected at the free concert at Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana beach, featuring Lenny Kravitz, Macy Gray and Pharrell Williams.

Other venues including the Coca-Cola Dome in Johannesburg - where Joss Stone is performing - will cater for audiences of tens of thousands.

Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.

Travel forms the vast majority of the 'carbon footprint' talked of by ecological campaigners - contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental 'cost'.

Collins says: "It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn't have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel - precisely what we are trying to reduce.

"There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world - that is absolutely huge."

Indeed, an audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth, reveals that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets billow thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.

The Daily Mail has found that five of the top performing acts together have an annual output of almost 2,000 carbon tonnes. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes, according to John Buckley.

Remember, the average Briton produces just ten tonnes.

The veteran pop singer's Confessions tour last year produced 440 tonnes of carbon pollution in just four months, simply in flights between venues. This does not include the trucks required to transport equipment, the power needed to stage each show, or the transport for fans travelling to each concert.

Rock group Genesis re-formed last year and are in the middle of their European tour. The three-man band will fit their Live Earth performance into a tour of at least 47 locations across the world. Their carbon footprint last year totalled 195 tonnes.

James Blunt, another Wembley performer, completed his world tour of the U.S. last year, racking up a carbon footprint of 195 tonnes.

American band Red Hot Chili Peppers have, like Madonna, flown in to Wembley from the U.S.. They have produced 220 tonnes of carbon dioxide with their private jet alone over the last six months.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has learnt that Bon Jovi left the UK this week to travel back by private jet to the U.S. to perform at the New York stadium for the American leg of Live Earth.

Music impresario Andrew Lloyd Webber's ex-wife Sarah Brightman is being flown out to sing at the Shanghai concert in China. This is a distance of 5,679.95 miles, producing one tonne of carbon dioxide pollution.

Two other acts have already been criticised for being paid to promote fuel-guzzling cars. John Legend is featured in a Lexus advert, while Sheryl Crow's hit Everyday Is A Winding Road is used to sell Subaru 4WDs.

Plans for concert organiser Al Gore to appear at the event in both Britain and America on the same day were scuppered due to fears of the backlash it would cause.

Razorlight frontman Johnny Borrell has been criticised for urging people to drive electric eco-scooters - but buying a 1,000cc Moto Guzzi bike - described as 'a monster-revving beast'.

Such is the level of disquiet felt about Live Earth in New Zealand, that a pressure group called the Climaction Coalition, is urging people to protest against it on July 7. Radiohead, who are pioneers in eco-friendly performing, have refused to appear. Of course, Live Earth is doing its utmost to ensure the event is 'green' in appearance at least - stars will be ferried between the stage and dressing room by energy-efficient Smart Cars and biodiesel fuelled Mercedes.

A proposal for Gore to appear at concerts in Britain and America on the same day - something that Phil Collins, the Genesis drummer and singer, was able to do at the original Live Aid in 1985, courtesy of Concorde - has been dropped because of the anger that the 'gas-guzzling' flight would provoke.

Andrea Robinson, Live Earth's green manager, says her message to celebrities is: "Leave the Learjet at home - fly commercial."

Wembley Stadium will be lit using low energy fluorescent lightbulbs, while the backdrop is composed of recycled tyres and oil drums. The organisers tried to introduce re-usable cups for interval refreshments, but found that - like many green strategies - this was not practical on such a huge scale.

Some bio-produced plastic, made from corn, will be used, and artists' changing rooms will be fitted with energy-saving lightbulbs - all rather a drop in the ocean compared to the pollution generated by fans traveling across the UK to the concert or using the stadium's 2,618 toilets. Plans to ask the British public to turn off their electrical appliances during the Live Earth broadcast were scuppered when the National Grid pointed out that as everyone switched on again, a giant power surge could cripple the country.

Some stadiums are greener than others. The Aussie Stadium in Sydney will run the event on 100 per cent green energy supply. Each Australian Live Earth ticket comes with a free public transport voucher, while all the bathrooms will be waterless with waste being composted into fertiliser.

Conversely, in New York's Giants Stadium, trade unions have blocked Live Earth's attempts to recycle, and the 52,000-seater arena is not situated near public transport. The smallest - and least polluting - concert will be held at the British Antarctic Survey's base in Rothera.

Bizarrely, the concerts are also being 'independently audited' by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers over the next seven weeks, to assess the level of pollution they will have generated.

It is unclear what benefit this exercise will have, although the Live Earth organisers talk in terms of providing a 'legacy' for future events, showing how recycling and low-impact travel can be encouraged, and carbon-offsetting used. But the fact remains - massive rock concerts are hardly eco-friendly.

So just how does Gore claim that Live Earth will be carbon neutral? He does so by convenient use of 'carbon offsetting' - a trendy new method of absolving yourself of guilt.

Carbon offsetting involves 'neutralising' the emissions you are responsible for by buying 'credits'.

A spokesperson for Live Earth says: "This might involve buying environmentally sound lightbulbs for a Third World school, planting trees, or installing solar panels in a developing country."

A huge industry has sprung up to provide corporations with carbon credits.

However, critics say that the practice is simply a way for consumerist industries and nations to export their responsibility to developing countries. Others say it simply does not work.

Carbon-offsetting is, it turns out, how celebrities square green issues with their extravagant lifestyles and use of private jets.

Jon Bon Jovi has said: "We wrote a cheque, we took care of our footprint and raised awareness, blah blah blah."

When Gore - who himself spent eight years flying on Air Force Two - was asked if he had persuaded Madonna to stop using private jets, he said: 'Well, I appreciate and respect her as an artist and as a person, and there are many artists who are offsetting their role in contributing to the CO2 build-up, and I understand that.' A rather longwinded way of saying 'no'.

Madonna has, however, been given an instruction handbook on climate crisis by Live Earth.

John Rego, the environmental director of Live Earth, says he expects to purchase at least 3,000 tonnes of carbon credits to off-set the event. It is believed the organisers will spend in excess of £1million on carbon offsetting to counter criticism.

Rego explains: "All the events are carbon neutral. We have chosen a reforestation and reagricultural project in Mozambique. It is a credible certifiable carbon-diffused project. We are in the process of purchasing a carbon offset."

Dr Collins says: "Taking a flight and planting a tree does not add up. It does not make it all right. It is having your cake and eating it."

Dr John Barrett, from the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, says: "There is a huge irony in flying halfway across the globe in a private jet, eating up fossil fuel.

"The idea that you can offset the pollution you cause is just ridiculous. What these people at Live Earth have done is defined their boundaries to suit themselves, but there is no sense in which this concert is carbon neutral.

"Planting trees or investing in renewable energy does not reverse the damage of releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the environment.

"It is far better not to pollute in the first place. Carbon offsetting can be a removal of guilt, but it is not an effective one."

Live Earth is encouraging 'citizens of the world' to take small steps: share a car, plant a shrub, turn off a light or hang out washing rather than use a dryer.

But Dr Barrett says: "It would be far better for these celebrities to stay at home. Holding large concerts to highlight environmental concerns and cut carbon emissions just seems ridiculous. What planet do these people live on?"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=466775&in_page_id=1879

 

[Ekserb]

"Stop rolling around on those, please."

Apparently providing space for retailers like Brookstone and Abercrombie and Fitch to peddle their wares is pretty lucrative. So much so that one of the local shopping malls has their security team members riding around on Segway Personal Transporters. Okay, so they've got the scratch to spend nearly six grand each on a few luxuries, but I guess they blew the budget on the Segways, because they have only a couple anal-retentive octogenarians riding the damned things at a slower-than-my-dead-grandmother pace. With helmets! And one of them had the nerve to tell some kid to stop rolling around on her skate shoes. (Okay, I hate those dumb shoes, too, but I have to sell this peeve.)

 

[Ekserb]

"A-hah! No wonder there was no dial tone."

I went into a home today in a very nice neighborhood. The kind of place I've driven by in the past and wondered how it must look on the inside, because the outside is magnificent.

The door was answered by some guy looking and sounding like Keanu Reeves in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

When I walk up to a four million dollar house, you know what I want to see? I want fucking Ward Cleaver to answer the goddamned door. Not some stoner who looks like he can't figure out how to operate a toaster. I want to know that the fucker who lives here has the brains to do better than me at something. I can think of one of those "somethings" right off the bat: Don't call for technical support before you check to make sure your modem is plugged in, Retard.

 

[monique1971]

Apparently providing space for retailers like Brookstone and Abercrombie and Fitch to peddle their wares is pretty lucrative. So much so that one of the local shopping malls has their security team members riding around on Segway Personal Transporters.

<snippage>

Maybe I should jump this to the Favorite Things thread, because I love those Segway things. I've never actually ridden one, but I still am fascinated by them. I just like the concept, and the name.

 

[monique1971]

I went into a home today in a very nice neighborhood. The kind of place I've driven by in the past and wondered how it must look on the inside, because the outside is magnificent.

The door was answered by some guy looking and sounding like Keanu Reeves in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

When I walk up to a four million dollar house, you know what I want to see? I want fucking Ward Cleaver to answer the goddamned door. Not some stoner who looks like he can't figure out how to operate a toaster. I want to know that the fucker who lives here has the brains to do better than me at something. I can think of one of those "somethings" right off the bat: Don't call for technical support before you check to make sure your modem is plugged in, Retard.

Haha.

Maybe it was the homeowner's wastrel brother.

 

[bluebell]

And one of them had the nerve to tell some kid to stop rolling around on her skate shoes. (Okay, I hate those dumb shoes, too, but I have to sell this peeve.)

I hate those shoes. Just a new way of turning children into crappy drivers early on.
Dammit.
Can you tell I'm bitter? One of those little pissers will probably kill me one day.

 

[Ekserb]

Why do some porn starlets recoil when they take a blast of cum in the face? You'd think someone dumped toxic waste into their eyes or something. Cowboy Up™, for fuck's sake! What did you think was going to happen when he put his cock right next to your mouth? This was your decision when you stopped paying attention in school, so you'd better start embracing it and smile a big toothy grin when you feel the hot spunk hit your lips.

I hate it when people can't act like professionals.