Sunday, July 29, 2007
Yard and Patio Revolutionaries
If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I like to think I was part of the French Resistance during World War II - sneaking around gumming up the works in order to cripple a hateful regime.
As I mentioned before in my Seed Savers post, according to Terry Glavin's "The Sixth Extinction," ten corporations own about half of all the world's seed stocks. I do believe this is a regime that needs overthrowing, and we might be able to do it in a sneaky way. Do you have a yard? If so, why not allow your lawn to become diverse? Quit killing the plants that you call weeds. That's a start. How about planting a few heirloom varieties in your flower beds and gardens?
Now, here's where you can get subversive. Don't worry if it takes time to accomplish this next step. What you want to do is make your yard an unkempt haven for both plants and critters. This is subversive because there will be local ordinances and picky-icky neighbors who want you to keep your yard neat for their comfort. To go about this without raising hackles, you'll have to pretend that you are doing this in an orderly and purposeful fashion. Plant high-growing shrubs or bushes around the perimeter of your property. That, or build a fence with some pass-through areas for animals. You're trying to build a haven, not a prison. The shrubs or fence are an effort to keep up the appearance of neatness, which should appease the rest of the locals. Once the barrier is established, let most of your lawn go. Plant whatever you like - vegetables, flowers, trees, fruit, etc. If you prefer a controlled look, go ahead and landscape, although you'll want to leave some areas open to spontaneity. Use as many heirloom varieties as you like and try to go organic. Pick stuff that's appropriate to your region and doesn't need a lot of care. We're going for self-sustaining biological diversity. If you like a wild "natural" look, this will be easier. Just plant stuff and let it go. That's our preference and thankfully, most of our yard already has a perimeter of bushes that allow for us to let things go. We still have to mow the lawn periodically (when it rains), but we don't spend time weeding and feeding it. Because of this, all sorts of plant varieties have volunteered to mix it up with the grass.
If you really want to be subversive, see if you can change your local lawn ordinance. Have it allow for natural prairie plantings and other unkempt areas. Use the environment and global warming as your excuse. Point to other cities - like Portland, Oregon - that allow for mixed vegetation in yards.
For those without a yard, you can become a revolutionary by planting heirloom varieties in pots on your patio or in your apartment or on your roof, or wherever. Collect the seeds and plant more, or store the seeds. Put your plants outside, if possible, so they can have some fresh air and access to pollinators.
All we need to do is convince people that the aesthetic of a large expanse of uniform turf is outmoded and not good for the environment, and pretty soon plant diversity will return to the masses. Vive le resistance!
As I mentioned before in my Seed Savers post, according to Terry Glavin's "The Sixth Extinction," ten corporations own about half of all the world's seed stocks. I do believe this is a regime that needs overthrowing, and we might be able to do it in a sneaky way. Do you have a yard? If so, why not allow your lawn to become diverse? Quit killing the plants that you call weeds. That's a start. How about planting a few heirloom varieties in your flower beds and gardens?
Now, here's where you can get subversive. Don't worry if it takes time to accomplish this next step. What you want to do is make your yard an unkempt haven for both plants and critters. This is subversive because there will be local ordinances and picky-icky neighbors who want you to keep your yard neat for their comfort. To go about this without raising hackles, you'll have to pretend that you are doing this in an orderly and purposeful fashion. Plant high-growing shrubs or bushes around the perimeter of your property. That, or build a fence with some pass-through areas for animals. You're trying to build a haven, not a prison. The shrubs or fence are an effort to keep up the appearance of neatness, which should appease the rest of the locals. Once the barrier is established, let most of your lawn go. Plant whatever you like - vegetables, flowers, trees, fruit, etc. If you prefer a controlled look, go ahead and landscape, although you'll want to leave some areas open to spontaneity. Use as many heirloom varieties as you like and try to go organic. Pick stuff that's appropriate to your region and doesn't need a lot of care. We're going for self-sustaining biological diversity. If you like a wild "natural" look, this will be easier. Just plant stuff and let it go. That's our preference and thankfully, most of our yard already has a perimeter of bushes that allow for us to let things go. We still have to mow the lawn periodically (when it rains), but we don't spend time weeding and feeding it. Because of this, all sorts of plant varieties have volunteered to mix it up with the grass.
If you really want to be subversive, see if you can change your local lawn ordinance. Have it allow for natural prairie plantings and other unkempt areas. Use the environment and global warming as your excuse. Point to other cities - like Portland, Oregon - that allow for mixed vegetation in yards.
For those without a yard, you can become a revolutionary by planting heirloom varieties in pots on your patio or in your apartment or on your roof, or wherever. Collect the seeds and plant more, or store the seeds. Put your plants outside, if possible, so they can have some fresh air and access to pollinators.
All we need to do is convince people that the aesthetic of a large expanse of uniform turf is outmoded and not good for the environment, and pretty soon plant diversity will return to the masses. Vive le resistance!
Labels: environment, extinction, french resistance, global warming, ordinances, patios, plants, seed savers, terry glavin, world war ii, yards
Monday, July 09, 2007
Sniping
Let the sniping begin. Aside from the fact that sniping is a great word sound-wise, the intent behind it isn't so nice. Petty, petty, petty.
I was coasting around in the blogosphere seeing what people had to say about Live Earth. A couple of people (Sierra Faith & Rick from LiveJournal) reminded the entire world about the dumping of sewage from a Dave Matthews Band tour bus onto a boat full of tourists and into the Chicago River in 2004. They suggested that because of the incident, Dave Matthews Band should not have been allowed to perform at Live Earth. Hmm.
Well, it certainly was a dramatic incident, what with poop and all, and people do love to point fingers and snipe at others, especially when those others are rich and famous. However, neither poster bothered to mentioned the eventual outcome of the investigation. First and foremost, none of the five members of Dave Matthews Band was on the bus at the time, so they didn't do the flushing. Their bus driver did and he was convicted of the act. The band took responsibility for the incident, ponying up at least $100,000 in order to clean up the river. I tried to find the result of the Illinois Attorney General's lawsuit against the band, but couldn't. That $100,000, which was certainly warranted, was given before legal proceedings began. How many giganto polluting corporations can you point to who willingly clean up their waste? So, then, we have an unfortunate incident, made even more unfortunate by the fact that the Dave Matthews Band has a conscience, as is evidenced by their other charitable and environmental works. (Apparently people like to hold that whole conscience thing against them. For shame!) If we leaned on other polluters so mightily, our world would be a much cleaner place.
For their attempt to quickly rectify the Chicago River incident, I think Dave Matthews Band was a perfect choice for Live Earth. Do we have conscience enough to quickly remedy our personal roles in global warming?
For the full story, here are some other links that refer to the Chicago River incident:
The Scout Report
Local6.com
NBC5.com
BBC
abc7Chicago.com (linked above - sentencing of driver)
I was coasting around in the blogosphere seeing what people had to say about Live Earth. A couple of people (Sierra Faith & Rick from LiveJournal) reminded the entire world about the dumping of sewage from a Dave Matthews Band tour bus onto a boat full of tourists and into the Chicago River in 2004. They suggested that because of the incident, Dave Matthews Band should not have been allowed to perform at Live Earth. Hmm.
Well, it certainly was a dramatic incident, what with poop and all, and people do love to point fingers and snipe at others, especially when those others are rich and famous. However, neither poster bothered to mentioned the eventual outcome of the investigation. First and foremost, none of the five members of Dave Matthews Band was on the bus at the time, so they didn't do the flushing. Their bus driver did and he was convicted of the act. The band took responsibility for the incident, ponying up at least $100,000 in order to clean up the river. I tried to find the result of the Illinois Attorney General's lawsuit against the band, but couldn't. That $100,000, which was certainly warranted, was given before legal proceedings began. How many giganto polluting corporations can you point to who willingly clean up their waste? So, then, we have an unfortunate incident, made even more unfortunate by the fact that the Dave Matthews Band has a conscience, as is evidenced by their other charitable and environmental works. (Apparently people like to hold that whole conscience thing against them. For shame!) If we leaned on other polluters so mightily, our world would be a much cleaner place.
For their attempt to quickly rectify the Chicago River incident, I think Dave Matthews Band was a perfect choice for Live Earth. Do we have conscience enough to quickly remedy our personal roles in global warming?
For the full story, here are some other links that refer to the Chicago River incident:
The Scout Report
Local6.com
NBC5.com
BBC
abc7Chicago.com (linked above - sentencing of driver)
Labels: chicago river, dave matthews band, environment, global warming, live earth, livejournal, sewage, sniping
Saturday, July 07, 2007
7/7/07
A fortuitous day, numbers-wise, seven being considered so lucky and all, although I'm not quite sure why. I do know that there were lots of weddings planned for today. I figured it was so that couples could easily remember their wedding day. That's the only reason I'd ever plan a wedding for this day anyway.
It was also Live Earth day. We've been half-watching the concert most of the day, really concentrating when someone interesting to us comes on. It doesn't seem to have much of the flavor of other cause concerts, perhaps because they're not raising any money, but I think it goes deeper than that. Maybe people are burned out by all these mass concerts and they just don't have the effect they once had. Not too many fire-and-brimstone preachers among the performers either. In my opinion, the only one who captured the essence of the cause was Melissa Etheridge. When that woman spoke, I really wanted to do something.
Al Gore came on directly after Melissa and quickly ran down the Live Earth pledge. I'm not holding out any hope that Kanye West is going to live up to that pledge. Something about that Gold Digger song might just be affecting my judgment, though.
Madonna performed in London, looking quite matronly in her black dress with all the British school children singing with her dressed in their school uniforms. During her performance of Ray of Light, she played the electric guitar in an uncomfortable fashion. It's obvious that she hasn't had that much practice with the instrument, although her action in the matter is understandable. From what I've heard, she likes to have total control over her performances and is a stickler for perfection. She has a personality that will insist that she try the guitar.
We saw Duran Duran this morning, playing from London. Very good form, that group. They played a couple of oldies - from my day oldies - Planet Earth and Girls on Film. I was surprised to see Simon LeBon chewing gum. In fact, there were a few other singers that were also chewing gum. Does this help keep the mouth moist?
Kelly Clarkson did a great set. She seems so natural and down-to-earth, as did her back-up singers. Solid performance.
Two great little surprises were Blue Man Group, with their funny earth-is-an-airplane-on-a-collision-course video, and Nanatuk, the group of scientists on Antarctica who got together to play specifically for Live Earth. They did a great job, although we wondered if they pre-taped their session. There were no cords leading from their instruments to any power source that we could see. They played outside, so doing a non-plugged-in version is understandable (unless they buried their cords under the snow?).
The band I was waiting for was Dave Matthews Band. They played One Sweet World, Don't Drink the Water (one of my personal favorites) and Too Much. Quite fitting, actually. We were all a little worried about Dave's voice on Don't Drink the Water, at the point where he does this scream-yell. My daughter said, "Get that man a cough drop." That, or a piece of gum. Really, it was that serious. I'm not sure how any of these singers get up night after night to perform without getting permanent laryngitis. I do three school tours in a row at work and I'm frogging up like mad. I have every confidence that the Dave Matthews Band, along with Melissa Etheridge, will live up to the Live Earth pledge, as they are already doing so to a great extent. Dave even said something along the lines of hoping that everyone would walk home from the concert. Nice touch.
It remains to be seen how all this shakes out. But, hey, it's 7/7/07. That's gotta count for something, doesn't it?
Correction (7/8/07): Well, then . . . it seems I've spelled the Antarctic group's name wrong. According to a Reuters article, it's Nunatak. Whoops. Sorry.
It was also Live Earth day. We've been half-watching the concert most of the day, really concentrating when someone interesting to us comes on. It doesn't seem to have much of the flavor of other cause concerts, perhaps because they're not raising any money, but I think it goes deeper than that. Maybe people are burned out by all these mass concerts and they just don't have the effect they once had. Not too many fire-and-brimstone preachers among the performers either. In my opinion, the only one who captured the essence of the cause was Melissa Etheridge. When that woman spoke, I really wanted to do something.
Al Gore came on directly after Melissa and quickly ran down the Live Earth pledge. I'm not holding out any hope that Kanye West is going to live up to that pledge. Something about that Gold Digger song might just be affecting my judgment, though.
Madonna performed in London, looking quite matronly in her black dress with all the British school children singing with her dressed in their school uniforms. During her performance of Ray of Light, she played the electric guitar in an uncomfortable fashion. It's obvious that she hasn't had that much practice with the instrument, although her action in the matter is understandable. From what I've heard, she likes to have total control over her performances and is a stickler for perfection. She has a personality that will insist that she try the guitar.
We saw Duran Duran this morning, playing from London. Very good form, that group. They played a couple of oldies - from my day oldies - Planet Earth and Girls on Film. I was surprised to see Simon LeBon chewing gum. In fact, there were a few other singers that were also chewing gum. Does this help keep the mouth moist?
Kelly Clarkson did a great set. She seems so natural and down-to-earth, as did her back-up singers. Solid performance.
Two great little surprises were Blue Man Group, with their funny earth-is-an-airplane-on-a-collision-course video, and Nanatuk, the group of scientists on Antarctica who got together to play specifically for Live Earth. They did a great job, although we wondered if they pre-taped their session. There were no cords leading from their instruments to any power source that we could see. They played outside, so doing a non-plugged-in version is understandable (unless they buried their cords under the snow?).
The band I was waiting for was Dave Matthews Band. They played One Sweet World, Don't Drink the Water (one of my personal favorites) and Too Much. Quite fitting, actually. We were all a little worried about Dave's voice on Don't Drink the Water, at the point where he does this scream-yell. My daughter said, "Get that man a cough drop." That, or a piece of gum. Really, it was that serious. I'm not sure how any of these singers get up night after night to perform without getting permanent laryngitis. I do three school tours in a row at work and I'm frogging up like mad. I have every confidence that the Dave Matthews Band, along with Melissa Etheridge, will live up to the Live Earth pledge, as they are already doing so to a great extent. Dave even said something along the lines of hoping that everyone would walk home from the concert. Nice touch.
It remains to be seen how all this shakes out. But, hey, it's 7/7/07. That's gotta count for something, doesn't it?
Correction (7/8/07): Well, then . . . it seems I've spelled the Antarctic group's name wrong. According to a Reuters article, it's Nunatak. Whoops. Sorry.
Labels: al gore, blue man group, dave matthews band, duran duran, global warming, guitar, kanye west, kelly clarkson, live earth, luck, madonna, melissa etheridge, music, nunatak, wedding
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Break It Down
Now that the word is out about the human connection to global warming and how we've royally screwed up the planet, it's time to move out of overwhelm - or, as my daughter likes to call it, the "We're all gonna die!" feeling. We know the problem is a big one and that we're going to have to act fast to reverse climate damage, but many of us also feel like the problem is so big that there's not much hope we can change things. We're paralyzed. Now, it's time to break it down into manageable chunks. How much CO2 would we keep out of the atmosphere if every household replaced one regular lightbulb with a flourescent one? What if we all changed two or three light bulbs? What if we decided to run one load of laundry per week on cold water, rather than warm or hot? What if we hand-washed the dishes once a week (turning off the faucet while scrubbing), rather than running a load through the dishwasher? What if, in the warmer, sunnier months, we dried one load of clothes each week outside on the clotheslines? (Do you even remember clotheslines?) I'd like to see someone do an analysis of the cumulative effects of these small actions on global warming. We can't all rush out and buy a hybrid car, much as we might like to. We can't all erect windmills in our yards. Climatecrisis.net suggests these small changes that we can all make, but there is no exacting analysis to show us the effects of these changes. The other thing we need to do is set a goal of how much we want to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere in one year's time. If we have a measurable goal, we have something to work for. If we have the effects of the small changes, we know how we're going to get to that goal.
Labels: carbon dioxide, climate, global warming, idea, light bulbs, problem
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Empathizing with Al
I'm putting two and two together, here. Having watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, I see how long he has worked to bring global warming to humanity's conciousness, and still he is met with skepticism (mostly by big-moneyed interests). I know just how Al must have felt for all those years that no one was listening to him.
In my post called Eighty-nine Dollars, I talk about field trips scheduled by our school district. What with all the field trips, fundraisers, and class fees, our public school is nickel-and-diming us to death. It's an issue I've been dealing with ever since our children started school. When we were on the PTA of the elementary school, we urged those planning fundraisers to tell people that they could give a donation in lieu of buying high-priced merchandise. By accepting direct donations, the full amount given goes to the district. When purchasing merchandise, typically the company offering the stuff gets 50-60 percent of the proceeds. This is money that leaves the district and isn't used for our children. I have many other objections to fundraisers promoted by outside companies, like the fact that they get free child labor, take away from class time, and pull a pump-up swindle job to get our kids to participate by telling them they'll get prizes, which are junk. (Of course, the companies don't tell the kids the prizes are junk.)
Fundraisers are ostensibly done so that our children can take field trips. Here's where I get a little crotchety. When I was a kid, there was one big field trip that finished off elementary school for us. Because we only got one big trip in fifth grade, everyone looked forward to it. We did not have constant field trips throughout our school years. This trend has reversed, with each teacher seeming to make field trip decisions on his/her own. There is no input from parents (that I can see) on the necessity of these field trips.
Finally, with all the budget cuts our state has undergone, there no longer seems to be enough money to pay for classroom supplies. We have paid for vocabulary books, art supplies, shop supplies, and home ec (now called Family & Consumer Science) supplies, in addition to the garden variety school supplies required at the beginning of the school year. Perhaps some of that fundraising money could go into classroom supplies rather than into field trips.
Oh, wait a minute, that might actually be a sensible idea. I had another sensible idea along these lines, one that I emailed to our school board members. I suggested that the district create a clearinghouse for The Three F's, field trips, fundraisers and fees. Instead of having individual teachers plan field trips, they should be discussed at a district wide level and spread out among the various schools and grades. Fundraisers, which overlap each other and endlessly take place throughout the year, would be consolidated, too. As for fees, if classroom supplies are needed, the cost should be run through the clearinghouse so that the school board, parents and State Legislature have a true understanding of the cost of educating our kids.
Here's where I empathize with Al Gore. I have not received a single reply to my email. Of course I'm not foolish enough to think that my idea will be accepted as presented. It's still in sketch form and there'd have to be a heck of a lot of discussion for this to be implemented in a meaningful fashion. The point is that not one of the school board members so much as sent me a "Thank you for expressing your concerns," which means that they can pretend that my concerns don't even exist. No one has to do anything if there isn't a problem, right?
Cheers to you, Al, for your patience and thick skin.
In my post called Eighty-nine Dollars, I talk about field trips scheduled by our school district. What with all the field trips, fundraisers, and class fees, our public school is nickel-and-diming us to death. It's an issue I've been dealing with ever since our children started school. When we were on the PTA of the elementary school, we urged those planning fundraisers to tell people that they could give a donation in lieu of buying high-priced merchandise. By accepting direct donations, the full amount given goes to the district. When purchasing merchandise, typically the company offering the stuff gets 50-60 percent of the proceeds. This is money that leaves the district and isn't used for our children. I have many other objections to fundraisers promoted by outside companies, like the fact that they get free child labor, take away from class time, and pull a pump-up swindle job to get our kids to participate by telling them they'll get prizes, which are junk. (Of course, the companies don't tell the kids the prizes are junk.)
Fundraisers are ostensibly done so that our children can take field trips. Here's where I get a little crotchety. When I was a kid, there was one big field trip that finished off elementary school for us. Because we only got one big trip in fifth grade, everyone looked forward to it. We did not have constant field trips throughout our school years. This trend has reversed, with each teacher seeming to make field trip decisions on his/her own. There is no input from parents (that I can see) on the necessity of these field trips.
Finally, with all the budget cuts our state has undergone, there no longer seems to be enough money to pay for classroom supplies. We have paid for vocabulary books, art supplies, shop supplies, and home ec (now called Family & Consumer Science) supplies, in addition to the garden variety school supplies required at the beginning of the school year. Perhaps some of that fundraising money could go into classroom supplies rather than into field trips.
Oh, wait a minute, that might actually be a sensible idea. I had another sensible idea along these lines, one that I emailed to our school board members. I suggested that the district create a clearinghouse for The Three F's, field trips, fundraisers and fees. Instead of having individual teachers plan field trips, they should be discussed at a district wide level and spread out among the various schools and grades. Fundraisers, which overlap each other and endlessly take place throughout the year, would be consolidated, too. As for fees, if classroom supplies are needed, the cost should be run through the clearinghouse so that the school board, parents and State Legislature have a true understanding of the cost of educating our kids.
Here's where I empathize with Al Gore. I have not received a single reply to my email. Of course I'm not foolish enough to think that my idea will be accepted as presented. It's still in sketch form and there'd have to be a heck of a lot of discussion for this to be implemented in a meaningful fashion. The point is that not one of the school board members so much as sent me a "Thank you for expressing your concerns," which means that they can pretend that my concerns don't even exist. No one has to do anything if there isn't a problem, right?
Cheers to you, Al, for your patience and thick skin.
Labels: al gore, fees, field trip, fundraisers, global warming, idea, inconvenient truth, problem, school, three f's
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Sobering
The hubby and I just watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" movie last night. Sobering. Our daughter said she didn't want to watch it because the subject of global warming is depressing to her. Or, as she puts it, "We're all gonna die!" Al Gore has been working on this topic for decades and we could have made some progress by now, if it hadn't been for the ostrich-like politicians and the short-sighted petroleum companies. (Of course, GREED is their middle name.) And, now we get to live with the results. Glaciers disappearing. Antarctica & Greenland breaking up and raising the level of the oceans. We're seeing the effects first-hand in Minnesota, with the dreadful lack of snow this winter.
Do we really think that Earth is wedded to having homo sapiens living on her surface? Or, are we a bad case of dandruff she wants to shake off? Can't say as I blame her, really. (What did those Neaderthals do to tick her off?)
The good thing about the movie's popularity is that global warming is now undeniable and if we pull together, we can help Earth to heal herself. The trailer for the movie shows a bunch of small steps we can take that will drastically cut global warming emissions. In watching them flick by, I realized that we're already doing about half of them. We have a ways to go. If we could just put a windmill in our yard . . . .
Do we really think that Earth is wedded to having homo sapiens living on her surface? Or, are we a bad case of dandruff she wants to shake off? Can't say as I blame her, really. (What did those Neaderthals do to tick her off?)
The good thing about the movie's popularity is that global warming is now undeniable and if we pull together, we can help Earth to heal herself. The trailer for the movie shows a bunch of small steps we can take that will drastically cut global warming emissions. In watching them flick by, I realized that we're already doing about half of them. We have a ways to go. If we could just put a windmill in our yard . . . .
Labels: al gore, daughter, earth, glaciers, global warming, homo sapiens, husband, inconvenient truth, minnesota, snow, winter
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
A Thought on Global Warming
I don't mean to diminish the severity of our role in contributing to global warming here, and I don't want people to get on their high horses and say that the situation will fix itself, but I had a thought.
With our warmer than usual Minnesota winter, we aren't burning as many fossil fuels to keep our houses warm. Hmmm. Almost as though Earth is forcing us to quit contributing to global warming by warming us up. How passive-aggressive is that? What do you think Earth will do to get us to stop using engines to move around?
With our warmer than usual Minnesota winter, we aren't burning as many fossil fuels to keep our houses warm. Hmmm. Almost as though Earth is forcing us to quit contributing to global warming by warming us up. How passive-aggressive is that? What do you think Earth will do to get us to stop using engines to move around?
Labels: earth, fossil fuels, global warming, minnesota, winter
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
FtTP - Bill Clinton + Rupert Murdoch
Verbatim, here's a Frankensteining the Talent Pool post from my brother:
"Here's one that wouldn't have been possible prior to the year 2000...Bill Clinton & Rupert Murdoch working together on a global warming initiative.
Now, with it being 2006 & the specter of politics removed, they are now working together on just such a project through the Clinton Global Initiative ( http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=346&srcid=-2 ).
Here is a link to a Fortune Magazine article on the CGI site about the CGI: http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=628&srcid=346
I wonder what could have been accomplished when he was in office, with the politics removed. It's proof positive that politics are nothing more than a grab for power by the power-hungry, damn anyone who gets in their way & fuck the people that they are supposed to be serving.
Cheers with beers,
Nick"
Clinton was just on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, with repeats running today, talking about his Global Initiative. He said that Barbra Streisand and Rupert Murdoch, neither of whom were likely to ever work together, were both donating to the cause. Snaps to President Clinton for his FtTP.
Clinton was just on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, with repeats running today, talking about his Global Initiative. He said that Barbra Streisand and Rupert Murdoch, neither of whom were likely to ever work together, were both donating to the cause. Snaps to President Clinton for his FtTP.
Labels: barbra streisand, bill clinton, daily show, frankensteining the talent pool, FtTP, global warming, jon stewart, rupert murdoch
