Here's another previously unpublished photo from my archive.
No flash, No reflector, No fill, No frills, just skills and Kodachrome 64 on a nice day.
Approximately 176 million pounds of cigarette butts are discarded in the United States every year. Usually they end up on the ground or in a landfill and leach their toxic chemicals into the water table. Assemblyman Michael G. DenDekker, of Queens New York, wants to do something about that. He recently found out that cigarette butts can be turned into all kinds of useful things, so he proposed a bill for a cigarette recycling program for New York City. It would charge a 1 cent deposit on each cigarette — similar to the current bottle recycling system — to fund the recycling program and get those butts off the street.If you've been reading this blog for a while you know how i hate people just tossing their butts in the street as though they are not litter, so i'll be happy if this bill actually changes things.
If you live in New York City and you love the earth, you’re probably as furious as we are when you see those little discarded butts hanging out in the gutters and on the sidewalks. Well, the same can be said for the constituent who turned Assemblymen DenDekker onto this idea. After the idea was proposed, DenDekker found lots of uses for recycled cigarettes. If soaked in water they create a solution that can keep steel pipes from eroding, they can be made into sealants and glues, and a clothing maker in Brazil turns them into fabric.
The bill would put the departments of Environmental Conservation and Health in charge of the recycling program, and it would be funded partially by the 1 cent deposits payed by smokers when they purchase a pack. It would be the first recycling initiative of its kind in the country. DenDekker was a smoker for 30 years, but has since quit and doesn’t mind seeing smokers pay more for their habit, especially because of the waste they cause in our cities. “This is something that is going to be a long process,” DenDekker noted, “but imagine if we had started cleaning them up 20 years ago.”
Thanks, Chris!In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.
Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.
The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.
Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."
The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.
In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)
The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.
Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.
On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility."
Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.
In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.
A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.
The case is disturbing because:
1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.
2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."
3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.
Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.
Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man."
When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.
Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.
As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials."
Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com.
GreenPeace UK is also running a "Logo competition" contest "A few years ago, BP rebranded themselves as ‘beyond petroleum’. And yet BP wants to invest billions of pounds into the Canadian tar sands – the dirtiest oil there is. They are threatening the Canadian wilderness, indigenous people, and the climate at precisely the time we should be cutting carbon emissions.Here's a few favorite entries i've seen so far:
That’s why we want you to rebrand them. Your brief is to create a logo for BP which shows that the company is not ‘beyond petroleum’ – they’re up to their necks in tar sands."
Dressing well is not necessarily all it takes to have style. So what is the relationship between being stylish and wearing clothing? Listen to what Dr. Cornel West has to say on the subject
John Robbins was heir to the vast Baskin Robbins ice cream fortune and walked away from it in favor of making his own way in the world. Moving to a small island home with his wife and their son, Robbins lived happily for a decade on less than $500 a year, redefined what wealth and happiness meant to him, and became a leading spokesperson for personal and planetary health. Many in the media called him the "rebel without a cone" and the "Prophet of Non-profit." Robbins' books sold millions, and he earned monetary wealth doing what he believed in.Get the book here at Amazon and let me know what you think. I'm going to order mine tonight.
Then on December 11, 2009, he awoke to the news that most of his hard-earned life savings had been lost to the Madoff scam.
In recent years, millions have watched their American Dreams go up in smoke. The international financial collapse, inflation, massive layoffs, and burgeoning consumer debt have left people in dire financial straits-including John Robbins. But having already gone through many of the shocks and adjustments that so many people must now navigate-and come out even more grounded-Robbins realizes that there is a potential upside to our collective financial downturn: a world in which our necessarily curtailed consumerism can lead to a healthier planet, and legions of more deeply satisfied people living on it.
Thanks to agricultural subsidies, the least healthy foods are also the cheapest to buy.
In 1933, Congress passed a cornerstone of New Deal reform, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers to cut the production of commodities like wheat and corn in an effort to lift farms out of the depths of the Great Depression. Since then, government farm programs have evolved into a confusing labyrinth of tax reductions, price supports, and direct payments designed to help farmers deal with fluctuating weather patterns and market prices—all to ensure a stable supply of food.
Just mention subsidies and most people’s eyes glaze over. But government subsidies transfer hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to large farmers who grow just a few types of crops, creating some of the country’s least deserving welfare recipients. Subsidies set price minimums and ensure that corn, soy, wheat, and rice producers get paid regardless of how low prices for their crops are or whether they even need assistance in the first place. These subsidies support the cheap and unhealthy domestic food that shows up in the aisles of the supermarket. And they’re the reason why a salad costs more than a Big Mac.
Earlier this month, the Environmental Working Group, an environmental nonprofit, released its annual assessment of farm subsidies (which, because of changes in the law, is actually less transparent than in years past). The EWG’s president Ken Cook says, “Even after the bitterly contested new health insurance reforms eventually take effect, most crops could fairly be said to have better coverage than many people in this country.”
If the Obama Administration is serious about Let’s Move, its obesity-reduction initiative, then the country needs a better Farm Bill in 2012—one that places a priority on better health care and nutrition. Even the Wall Street Journal applauded Let's Move in its op-ed pages, saying, “The best outcome would be if ObamaCare dies and the first lady's anti-obesity campaign results in some modest success.”
The problem with the existing subsidies is that they don’t to favor the majority of fruit and vegetable growers (nor the school kids that eat their produce). These farmers will need to at least double their acreage to reach Let's Move's proposed nutrition guidelines, writes The Washington Post’s Jane Black. What if the money to pay for those new acres of fresh produce was taken from subsidies that make unhealthy foods artificially cheap?
So far, the House Agriculture Committee appears to be making modest inroads towards this goal by replacing some conventional subsidy programs with crop insurance programs, so that farmers might grow more diversified crops and be encouraged to stop overproducing. As Paula Crossfield of the blog Civil Eats writes, “If the new Farm Bill includes this change, it could spur farmers to diversify their crops, spreading out their risk, thereby creating new opportunities for local food systems.”
Still, the next Farm Bill should aim for the heart of the problem, and lawmakers need to consider substantial reform. Spend a little time on EWG's database and then weigh in on the process before June 14. There’s little doubt, judging by both the effects of subsidies and the looming federal budget deficit, that we need anything less than a complete overhaul.
"Skateboard Kings" is a news documentary that was made by a British program called "The World About Us". This episode is about the Skateboard Kings of Southern California, and in particular riders such as the World Champion Tony Alva are featured in their daily lives and exploits in and around DOGTOWN. Ray Flores, Billy Yeron, Paul Constantineau, Jerry Valdez, Shogo Kubo, Kent Senatore, Ellen O'neil, Bob Mohr, Elen Berryman, Kim Cespedes and others. Russ Howell and Stacy Peralta are featured in a bizzare freestyle and safety demonstration. La Costa segment with Henry Hester, Bob Skolberg and John Hutson. There's visits to SkateBoarder Magazine, a few empty pools, a new skatepark, typical DogTown house party, demo's, a visit to the infamous Arizona Pipes, and a skate board manufacturer. This is a "cult classic" special that is hard to find, that's why we've posted here for you all to enjoy and share, for the oldschool hard core skate fanatic.
My friend, and serious collector of my work, Philippe Petit sent me a photo of the page (actually a signed page proof from the original printing) to post here, since i'm out of town and don't have access to the original. Thanks!
So apparently Kevin Costner (yes, that Kevin Costner) has spent millions of dollars over the last eight years developing a centrifuge-like device called Ocean Therapy that removes oil from seawater.Thanks Tara!
Placed on a barge, it sucks in large quantities of polluted water, separates out the oil and spits back 97% clean water....
His scientist brother, Dan Costner, helped develop the device, and together, the brothers formed Costner Industries Nevada Corp. to pursue various energy projects, including a non-chemical battery that could last 15 years.
The 55-year-old actor eventually sank $26 million into the Ocean Therapy oil separator project. He obtained a license for the device from the Department of Energy in 1993 and has been trying for years to promote it.
BP has agreed to start testing Costner's inventions in the Gulf. The biggest Ocean Therapy unit can clean water at a rate of 200 gallons per minute, which is faster than the oil is leaking. If it works, this will totally make up for Waterworld.
"We have studies that show [zero-energy buildings] are practical for approximately 62% of buildings in the U.S., based on technologies we have today," he said. "That's mostly one and two-story buildings and still leaves out a lot that can't reach it, but those buildings can be low energy.In fact, Peterson said that currently available energy efficiency technologies alone (not even looking at generating power from wind or solar sources) could reduce the amount of energy used by the total U.S. building stock by 50%.
"It's just controlled by my computer in my house, and it cuts power to specific outlets either by timer or click of a button. So I can cut power to my TV overnight, and automatically reduce phantom loads. That system had a bigger impact on my home energy use than all my other energy saving projects combined."
Chris Farrell of NPR’s Marketplace Money program interviewed about his anti-consumerist manifesto, The New Frugality: How to Consume Less, Save More, and Live Better. Living within your means is not only better for you on so many levels (less stress for instance) but it’s also better for the planet if we would just cut back on all the stupid stuff we consume.
This BBC News interview with [Sir] Mick Jagger on the 40th anniversary of the Rolling Stones' Exile on Main Street contains a few really choice grafs about the myth that the internet has robbed artists of their livelihoods. He seems pretty chill about the perceived threats of downloading, and explains that for a long time, the record labels did a fine job of robbing artists:From our friend Xeni at BoingBoingBBC: What's your feeling on technology and music?Here's the entire interview.
Jagger: Technology and music have been together since the beginning of recording. [The internet is] just one facet of the technology of music. Music has been aligned with technology for a long time. The model of records and record selling is a very complex subject and quite boring, to be honest.
BBC: But your view is valid because you have a huge catalogue, which is worth a lot of money, and you've been in the business a long time, so you have perspective.
Jagger: Well, it's all changed in the last couple of years. We've gone through a period where everyone downloaded everything for nothing and we've gone into a grey period it's much easier to pay for things - assuming you've got any money.
BBC: Are you quite relaxed about it?
Jagger: I am quite relaxed about it. But, you know, it is a massive change and it does alter the fact that people don't make as much money out of records.
But I have a take on that - people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn't make any money out of records because record companies wouldn't pay you! They didn't pay anyone!
Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.
So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn't.
Emergent Architecture and Kokkugia have designed an incredible Oceanic Pavilion for the Yeosu 2012 Expo in Korea, which will provide another showcase of amazing architecture once the Shanghai Expo has wound to a close. Intended as a centerpiece for the expo, the Oceanic Pavilion is a “celebration of the ocean as a living organism and the co-existence of human culture and ocean ecosystem.” Designed with the help of computer scripts, the amphibious pavilion is made from a series of ETFE membranes and armature that take on a life of their own through their organic layout.
While the 2010 Shanghai Expo is focused on the theme of “Better City, Better Life,” Yeosu’s theme is the living ocean and her coastlines. Deep pleats and mega-armatures composed of fiber composite form the structure of the pavilion, while ‘air beams’ spread over and stabilize the ETFE membranes. Then micro-armatures (also called Mohawks) spread out over the structure like veins, adding additional structural stiffness and ornamentation. Color also plays an important role in the design of the pavilion and is used to intensify transformations in structural behavior – mega-armatures tend towards purple and pink, while ‘Mohawks’ tend towards orange and yellow.
The ETFE membrane bubbles allow natural daylight to seep into the interior of the building and also provide a bit of a thermal barrier and insulation. They are also remarkably lightweight and ensure that the crazy organic structure can be easily deconstructed at the end of the celebration.
