What does this video tell about human nature?
Watch this video carefully. Now I'm sure you'll be saying "Oh the poor kids" throughout the video, but do pause and think about what it means for the understanding of human nature. I'd appreciate if you could comment below on the video.
Enjoy
Oh, The Temptation from Steve V on Vimeo.
Did you know you consumed 3000 gallons water/day?
How much water you consume through the day?
MORNING:
2 Poo-Poo Flushes: 12 gallons
10 min in shower: 38 gallons
5 min Faucet use: 25 gallons
TOTAL MORNING USE: 75 gallons
BREAKFAST (to get it to your table):
1 cup coffee: 37 gallons
1 egg : 36 gallons
1 apple : 18 gallons
TOTAL : 91 gallons
LUNCH (to get it to your table):
1 bottle soda: 33 gallons
1 hamburger : 634 gallons
TOTAL : 667 gallons
DINNER (to get it to your table):
1 pound beef: 1500 gallons
1 glass wine: 31 gallons
2 bread slice:22 gallons
Dish washing: 20 gallons
TOTAL : 1573 gallons
MISCELLANEOUS:
Energy, faucets, flushes: 500 gallons
TOTAL WATER CONSUMED DURING DAY: 2906 (~3000 gallons)
AMOUNT THAT CAN BE SAVED USING BETTER ALTERNATIVES: At-least 2270 gallons
Please see the image below for details and sources
Source: http://www.good.is/post/transparency-how-much-water-do-you-use/
Some more Resources to aid your research:
1) Virtual Water
2) Water Footprint
3) Deja Poo: Converting Waste water to Non-potable water
All these links thanks to FlowingData
Obama's upcoming school speech stirs up more lunacy
Obama was supposed to give a harmless talk on how school children should own up their responsibilities and start acting more maturely. According to a White House spokesman (according to CNN):
"The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate. This isn't a policy speech. It's a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."
In other words, this is something Obama is deeply committed for and has spoken about that several times even during his election campaign. But the lunatic right wing has begun to oppose the speech even before it is read out. Why? Because they feel Obama will try to push his "socialist" agenda through children and try to indoctrinate them with this "communist" ideology. Several fringey parents are supposedly calling up their childrens' schools and asking them not to show the online address to the kids. And need I talk about Glenn Beck and Hannity jumping into this?
Anyways, this entire episode reminded me of George Bush's approach to educating the youth of America. Doesn't anyone still remember how remarkably hilarious it was? Well, here's a sampler...
Why Jaswant Singh fell and what it means for the BJP
Why Jaswant Singh fell:
1) He had served in the party for 30 long years. He was also the external minister in BJP's rule. His support base was big, he had made several contributions to the party and India during his time in the govt and he was well-liked and respected even outside his party. Poor Mr. Singh must have thought that he was an indispensable cog in the party, more so being an honest party worker. He thought he was an important part of BJP.
2) But the so-called "Next Generation" of the BJP had little regard for that (or maybe it was just Rajnath Singh with his desire to seem macho, or maybe some "invisible" forces acting in the party??).
3) Jaswant Singh antagonized too many people at one time. He antagonized Advani and Jaitley by putting forth his logic of "Parinam" and "Puraskar". No one uses Hindi terms now a days in logic. He also antagonized Sushma Swaraj by pointing out that she was more junior than her and still she got the Deputy Leader post in Lok Sabha. He antagonized the RSS and the hard-liners in BJP by his book on Jinnah.
In politics, this is a strict no-no. Antagonizing so many people in one shot? Maybe it works if you kill two birds in one shot. But if you are just going to hurt them, and the birds are in politics, you better watch out.
4) Singh thought he was saying the same thing that Advani said a couple of years back, so he could take shelter in that argument. But Advani was essential then, he was the PM-in-waiting, Jaswant Singh was clearly dispensible. MP from Darjeeling? Who cares a damn for that? With 116 MPs anyways, who cares if it becomes 115?
5) Suprise, Suprise! The same leaders who were antagonized by Jaswant Singh now form part of the very committee that decides the future direction of the party! Under the garb of ridding party of factionalism and bringing the crumbling party together after its Lok Sabha loss, they act on Jaswant Singh. And boy, do they show all the others who dare to disagree with the "High Command" !
What to watch out for now in the BJP:
1) Watch out for a more hypocrite BJP.
2) Watch how BJP becomes more Hindutva-oriented and tries to dangle some carrots of development now and then, without really doing it anywhere except Gujarat. Also watch out for some statements about "National movement against price rise" and "Nation-wide agitation against UPA's collusion with terrorists" and such garbage...
3) Watch out for the executions of the likes of Arun Shourie and maybe, Yashwant Sinha next (if he doesnt keep his bloody mouth shut!)
4) Watch out how several development-minded, educated youngsters feel discouraged and disillusioned by the acts of the party. If difference of opinion is not being tolerated in the name of maintaining party discipline, should all the workers be doing only what a dozen people in the High Command think?
5) Watch out for some farcical statements out of the "Chintan Baithak"
Maybe I am being too pessimistic. Polyticks is a rapidly changing game. Who knows, maybe Jaswant Singh may be re-inducted on the condition of being more passive? Maybe things will go in the right direction, with the new leaders showing some vision for the party in the future? Its possible, but given the recent happenings, it seems highly unlikely.
Another interesting observation is how devastated the party becomes after each defeat in the LS polls....crumbles further. On the other hand, since BJP came to be established in 1980, it lost several LS elections before finally coming to power in 1998. But everytime, after every loss, the party emerged stronger. What we see now is exactly the opposite.
I wonder what you - the readers - think are the reasons why this is happening. Hunger for power? Visionless leadership? Lack of tall leaders? Normal cycle of politics? Anything else? Please post a comment noting your view.
UPDATE:
Here's a nice cartoon by Shreyas Navare, a cartoonist at Hindustan Times on the Singh fiasco.
Beautifully made infomercial: Eat Local campaign
Its one thing when you have the figures and another thing when you have to make a convincing case out of it. After watching this video, if you get pumped up to eat local,here's a link to try out:
Eat Local Challenge which gives you the list of Farmers Markets in your area.
Enjoy the video
Hellmann’s - It’s Time for Real from CRUSH on Vimeo.
Media's role in the downfall of #iranelection
The Eye of the Sauron was supposed to be the most evil being on Middle Earth. Few could endure it. Those who could lost their minds and their will to live. We do not really have an exact equivalent of The Eye in the real world, but the media is the closest thing possible. Anything "The Media" lays its gaze upon finds itself in deep $#it. The power of The Media is infinite. It can change people's destinies,bring down governments and usher in revolutions that can change the course of mankind.
We have been witnessing that power, and the mockery made of it, for the past few months now.
It all started with the elections in Iran and the utter joke that was made of democracy in that country. The media,which was present in large numbers in Iran,was very enthusiastic in reporting the first few days of the retaliation. These few days - the seas of green it showed - were enough to trigger an international show of support for the Iranians. The animosity towards Iran soon turned into sympathy and people began to learn that Iranians are so much similar to those anywhere else in the world! #iranelection became the most popular hashtag on Twitter and the outpouring of tweets loaded with emotions and support for the Iranians seemed to have no end. People here in the US created multiple proxies which allowed the Iranians to blog and post pictures and videos even while the Iranian caliphate was vying for their blood.
Then arrived the news of Michael Jackson's death. The "Eye of Sauron" turned from Tehran to the Neverland Ranch. Stories about dying Nedas and beaten protestors took a backseat, and speculations of how Jackson may have been extra-drugged and reports of hordes of fans camping outside the Ranch enduring the absence of toilets became rife. In no time, the world forgot what was happening in Iran.
Ayatollah Khameini and Ahmedinejad must have probably looked at Jackson's death as a blessing. #iranelection had paved way to "Michael Jackson" as the trending topic. In Iran, the government got more violent and successfully clamped down on protestors, Ahmedinejad gave a public address patting himself on the back and thousands of arrested protesters continued to be tortured in the prisons. With the collapse of the moral and the infrastructural support from the western public, whatever remained of the online resistance came down rapidly.
Soon the media was onto something more interesting (or maybe not!). Sarah Palin! Her bummer of a resignation statement on the eve of the Independence Day was enough to get the speculators excited. Why is she doing it? 2012 presidential run? Lawsuits? Money problems? Moral issues? FBI investigations? Some of the speculators went berserk with wild theories.
Then the pundits had a field day in analysing Obama's visit to Russia. Why didnt the Russians praise Michelle's dress, as everyone does? Why werent the Russians wowed by Obama's charm, as everyone is? Why wasnt Obama able to draw huge crowds in Russia, as they turn up everywhere else he goes? One headline went to the extent of stating "Obama girls take Russia by storm" when the contents of the news spoke about how they looked around the Kremlin and how the younger one was excited about seeing Russia.
One might argue that the media has been dutifully reporting incidents like the Uyghur uprising in China, the protestors march in Iran, the killing of militants in Pakistan and so on. Yes it has, which is good, but the proportion is disproportionately low. As a proof, just scroll down all the way to the bottom of this page and take a look at the "Newsmap" on the right hand sidebar.
It needs to be noted that in these 2 months, the world has changed dramatically.
It is foolish to suggest that if Michael Jackson had not died, the Iranian resistance would have swelled into a revolution,displaced the Islamic rulers and changed the world order. It is also pointless to say that the media should not report these news. It just needs to be remembered though that we need to be sensitive to whats happening in the world, and know what constitutes real news.
Ultimately, the media churns out only the things that the consumers want. Once WE realise whats important and not let go of the focus, we can ALSO make the media not loose focus...And keep the "Eye of the Sauron" looking intently at what can potentially change the world.