April 30, 2006 at 12:36 am
(Culture)
I see that it’s just about time to flip the calendar yet again. I decided to take a look at what I was up to a year ago by checking the district30 archives for May ‘05. Last year at this time I was talking about the Real ID act, corporate social responsibility and the troubles of American auto makers.
Have we progressed in the past year? Real ID hasn’t been making much of a splash–I’d all but forgotten about it. Surely just the way They want it. It’s impossible to generalize, but the particular corporation I work for has been doing a fine job not only saying the right things to the public and its employees but also by communicating those priorities through the organization. It’s still pretty far from perfect, but I’ll count it as a positive. And the automakers seem to be getting the right message…The Chevy Cobalts that I’ve been renting recently have shown signs of being somewhat higher quality than the Cavaliers they replaced (although it may be too late–the rental agency seems to be switching to Hondas and Toyotas).
Not everyone is on the ball though. I also came across a tragic story (and probably the one I remember most clearly from the entire month) about a woman who was hit and killed while crossing a busy Aurora street. People are still jaywalking, virtually non-stop, at the very location where Alicia Larson was killed (within view of the sign put up in her memory.) Of course they are–we haven’t made their walk any easier. But developers are continuing to build with little apparent change in planning to help relieve that situation. Despite the obvious need for humanism in planning and development, it is still driven by money and hence what people want ahead of what we need. We won’t see progress with this until we push the balance more toward people.
Comments
April 26, 2006 at 11:39 pm
(Uncategorized)
For a whole host (ha ha) of reasons (not the least of which is current ISP reliability,) I’m trying to stop self-hosting this site…other than this posting, you shouldn’t notice a difference. But in case you’re wondering why I’ve been scarce…
Comments
April 20, 2006 at 10:42 pm
(Social/Economic)
Hmm. Someone has decided to report on a “grassroots” effort to boycott certain gas stations.
Doesn’t this happen every year? And it must be from the same people who bring us the war on drugs, attacking supply when the bigger problem is, of course, demand.
Want to save on your fuel costs? Live somewhere where you can bike/walk/take the bus to work.
(Note to self: It’s good to take one’s own advice occasionally.)
Comments
April 11, 2006 at 6:44 pm
(Culture)
Via Slashdot, an article describing Wal-Mart’s influence on the video game industry. Which would be troubling all by itself if it were true…you know, single editorial voice and all.
But it would really bug me because…
I remember in 1994 or 1995 when Wizards of the Coast changed the artwork on several of their Magic:The Gathering cards. The story on the street was that it was because Wal-Mart wouldn’t sell them unless they got rid of what was viewed as Satanic content. Of course, we uber-geeks were really in danger of becomming satan-worshippers.
But still, it would surprise me to learn that Wal-Mart is flexing their muscle in this arena…if that were true, then why did my recent informal audit of PC games (at another store) turn up that something like 90% of the games on the shelf were related to senseless killing? (Are war, sports and building amusement parks the only three things that can be depicted in a video game?)
In fact, in fairness to Wal-Mart, although those war games are still well-represented on their shelves (at least the virtual ones–I guess in their eyes, war is still kinda righteous) violence doesn’t have quite the level of representation as it does in the more frequent haunts of dedicated “gamers.”
My guess is that Wal-Mart’s influence isn’t as great as the article makes it out to be. Too bad. It’s so much fun, blaming them for the ills of the world.
1 Comment
April 9, 2006 at 10:40 pm
(Uncategorized)
The news that Iran is already considered a target by the US is creating a stir.
This seems to indicate that this is not the overarching political theory that is at work here.
Comments
April 7, 2006 at 3:33 pm
(Social/Economic)
I was a little dismayed to read that an Irish doctor is critical of the government for not regulating the food industry as tightly as he’d like.
But, Dr O’shea has a point with his example of the large candy bar that M&M/Mars simply cut into two pieces but kept in the same package.
Ok, let’s be real. No one buys a candy bar expecting health food. But, food companies like the “serving size” trick, in which they let you know the nutritionals based on, say, 2 servings per package when the package naturally lends itself to one serving. Do they think that someone is going to buy a candy bar or a small bag of potato chips and think “ok, I’ll have half now and half tomorrow?” Not likely. So the expectation is pretty clear that in some cases the company intends to trick the consumer with regard to the caloric/fat/sodium/etc. content of their product. That is cynical and the industry does need to wise up in that regard if they don’t expect heavier regulation.
I’m ready to move on from the food rants now. But before I do, I find it terribly interesting that there are so many candy and junk food websites. Wow!…lots of people ready to show their junk food pride. What the world needs now is a drinking water blog!
Comments
April 6, 2006 at 3:35 pm
(Social/Economic)
What is up with this? An amendment to the National School Lunch Act that would eliminate junk food from schools is getting bipartisan support. And of course it is. To the average congressman, it’s another chance to prove that Senators and Representatives are the only people left in the US capable of making their own decisions.
Why is this being legislated at a national level? School districts should be making these decisions, and they should not be spending a lot of time on them. I’d be ok with letting them spend a little more time educating students on healthy lifestyles (instead of, y’know, mandating them). The article provides some evidence that schools may be willing to shift on their own (and the suggestion that there may be financial benefit to doing so indicates that students are well-equipped already to make good eating decisions.)
A survey by the Agriculture Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that of 17 schools that began offering healthful options, 12 actually increased revenue while only one lost, marginally; the four others reported no change.
Comments
