like the last samoa cookie in the box...

Catching you up on cool tid bits of info that I've been hoarding like the last samoa cookie in the box...

* When was the last time you thought about how sustainable your undies were? Well, apparently if this is something you were concerned about, you could head on over to the fashion forward starting with your ass backwards company called Uranus Apparel. With a tag line reading, "Help save planet Earth, starting with Uranus" the company makes boy-short underwear for women from the protein byproducts of soy foods that would otherwise be thrown away. Apparently, buttery soft and machine washable undies, these undies are available in sizes from extra small to large, come in sets of three in eco friendly colors and are bundled in a biodegradable burlap drawstring sack! Reviewers call the undies "warm and snug, yet they remain breathable enough for more sweltering temps."

* Recently, the State of New York, led by Governor David A. Paterson, signed Executive Order No. 18, which basically phased out the purchase and use of bottled water at state agency facilities. Interested in getting your local government or work place to follow suit? Go to this nice site for more information on how to get plastic out of mainstream America. As well, here is a good informational video by Captain Charles Moore, who started researching the plight and effect that discarded plastic has on our oceans.

photo from a Life Magazine article in 1955 about "Throwaway Living", glorifying the idea of disposability.

*The other week, CocaCola announced a new development in their packaging of their beverages. Across North America, Coke will start using a new plastic bottle for it's Dasani brand this year and then expand to some of its carbonated brands and Vitaminwater. The bottle is said to be made from a blend of petroleum-based materials and up to 30% plant-based materials that are by-products of sugar production. Coke also said the bottle has a lower reliance on a non-renewable resource, reducing carbon emissions by up to 25%, compared with other petroleum-based PET plastic bottles. As an added plus, the new bottle is fully recyclable and can be processed through existing manufacturing and recycling facilities. Personally, I applaud the Coca Cola Company for realizing that they are a huge contributer to the problem of plastic trash in our environment and are taking key steps to not be part of the problem anymore, but part of the solution.

*Similarly, did you know that three billion of the world's 200 billion-plus paper cups, that start as trees and end up at the dump each year, have the Starbucks logo emblazoned upon them? The Starbucks Company's Ben Packard, the vice president of Global Responsibility and Jim Hanna, Starbucks director of Environmental Impact, are taking on the responsibility to have all of the company's iconic coffee cups will be recyclable by 2012. Even though many coffee cups in today's market are readily repulpable and recyclable, many are made with a wax finish that is unable to truly and effectively break down or be handled by smaller recycling centers. Read up on the cup summit here.

* Much like how the uber recycling company Terracycle is trying to collect all the energy bar wrappers in the US to have a second life, they are also trying to collect all your used Frito Lay chip bags to be turned into tote bags, purses and pencil cases for sale later this year at retailers like Walmart. Eventually, TerraCycle plans to take a leap into the building materials market with a few new processing techniques it's developed, one of which fuses together shreds of bags, wrappers and pouches, turning them into a thick slab that can be used as tile, insulation or other study material.

* Planning on visiting NYC anytime soon and you're looking for a safe, enjoyable and affordable way to get around town? Well, thanks to New York City's Downtown Alliance they are currently hosting Bike Around Downtown. From May 13, 2009 to September 30, 2009, workers, residents and visitors can take advantage of free bicycle rentals. However, there are only 30 available bikes, so be sure to sign up in advance!

we need to play the game...

In regards once again to recent supreme court action in California, which never fails to rally the troops when it comes to equality and being able to join in holy matrimony with the person you love, I state my opinion when it comes to "gay marriage".

My opinion is mainly about rewriting the law books when it comes to how we view and define two people becoming committed to one another, regardless of their sexual orientation. 

I am a firm believer that we as a nation need to separate church and state. I am aware that the original phrase "separation between church and state" was made as a reference to not having a national church that everyone had to belong to, but, that phrase still sticks strongly to how religion and government should mix and not mix. Basically, we need to separate the two ideologies and take religion completely out of the government hands. 

As a result, we need to identify "marriage" as a term derived from religion, while "civil union" is a term reserved from the federal government. No one in the United States, regardless of orientation, should be getting "married" in the eyes of the government. Everyone, on the other hand, should be eligible to gain "civil unions" with the same rights guaranteed for all and this is the terminology that would be legit and fully recognized by the state. 

I think most people agree that everyone regardless of sex, race or orientation should be treated equally and have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, ask them if they think gay people should get married and they'll say, hands down, that it doesn't agree with their said church, religion, moral upbringing, etc. As a result, if we took the hurtle of religion off the table by removing the word "marriage" from the legislation, then none of anyone's reservations about religion and marriage would be valid and relevant to the measure. As a result, voting on the issue would come down to human rights instead of religion and would undoubtedly pass. 

And, if folks wanted to be seen as "married" in the eyes of their church or their god (as well as being recognized by the state), then that is a separate matter that should be taken up with those respective religious institutions at a later point in time. Marriage, as a term and an idea, is a peripheral discussion that does not need to take up the valuable time of our federal government. And while we're at it, take "one nation under God, In God We Trust, and swearing on the bible" out of the government too.

That being said, I am in support of people being able to be with whomever they want to be with in the eyes of the government, but until we remove the word "marriage" from any legislation we put before voters, these measures, rights, and securities will never be seen as equal and will never pass across the great divide of our nation. I am in favor of the idea, just not the legislation. I agree it's all semantics, but we need our legislators to play the semantics game.