The Official Website of Felicia Day

Consumer Consequences

Share on Google+0Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

I listen to NPR almost exclusively while driving.  That and XM radio, usually Fred because I like New Wave Rock.  The news shows have always plugged some website of theirs called Consumer Consequences and I finally sat down to check it out.   Oh boy.  Guilt trip. 🙁

It’s a little game-type website to show you how many Earths it would take to sustain the world population if every human on earth lived the way you do.  Now, I’m a rabid environmentalist, but after taking this test, “Hollywood Liberal” now has a new hypocritical member I guess.    According to this website, it would take 10.2 earths to sustain the world population on my “rich, extravagant” lifestyle.  I’m not rich and I didn’t think I was that bad!  I recycle everything, what more can I do?!

The game breaks it down for you pretty well by category.  The main thing wrong with my lifestyle, according to this chart, is my car driving habits.  I never take public transport, I rarely carpool, and despite my hybrid car, I’m still guzzling up acres of the earth like some rabid locust in a cornfield.

Well, look here, well intentioned avatar!  Were there public transport to be HAD in LA, believe me, I would take it! The thrills of my vacations are when I go places with an efficient subway or a trolley.  I always want to move to those places, because it’s obviously the civilized way to live.  Unfortunately, LA has horrible public transit, and it takes a real leader to push things through like subway systems and parks (Ever read the story of how Central Park came to happen?  Really breathtaking leadership) and we don’t have that many leaders willing to make people sacrifice for the greater good.  Long-term isn’t popular.  It doesn’t get votes.

Anyway, between this game and reading this book, it’s hard to feel like anything you do will really help the environment at all.

“The World Without Us” is a fascinating book, that imagines the planet if every human were to disappear tomorrow off the earth, and what would happen to our infrastructure, to the environment as a result of our actions, even after we are gone.   I’ll be honest, it’s a downer.  We’ve pretty much ruined it all, and the only way out is to get rid of all CO2 and get some negative population growth going on, which I’m a huge fan of.   Getting everyone on earth on board this though?…

I just can’t see there ever being a real, concerted effort to bring about change.  There are just too many damn people already, and we’re all basically motivated by self-interest.  I think part of our problem as a society is that the more people there are in a nation, the less we feel connected to each other, the harder it is to comprehend the scale of how we live and the impact it has.   This interview is very interesting in demonstrating the phenomenon of how the statistics of numbers effect the way we emotionally react to things.   An interesting quote from it:

: One of the experiments that you have done… is to show people a picture of a seven year old child in Africa who is starving and comparing their response to that to people who are shown the same picture, but are also given a statistical summary of the hugeness of the problem with millions of others who suffering. What was the outcome of that?

PAUL SLOVIC: When we showed just the picture of the child, the child’s name, and the information that they were suffering from malnutrition, and gave people the opportunity to donate money that would go to this child, we got a fairly strong response. These were actual donations that were made. Then we had a condition that we did not show a child, but we just gave a statistical picture of the large numbers of the starving children in Africa and ask people to donate to an organization that will transfer the money to deal with this problem – we got a rather small response. The third condition, another group of people, we combined the two conditions. We gave the statistical summary, but then we asked the people to donate to the individual who is one of the millions, but the money would go to the individuals, with the statistics, as putting the background of size of the problem. We got a very poor response. Not much different than the statistics alone. So, bringing the numbers in seemed to depress the willingness to donate. Our interpretation of that is, in order to donate you have to make an emotional connection with the person or the cause and you can do that with when there is one child. You can kind of focus and you can then make that connection. The numbers seem to distract from our attention and weaken that emotional connection, therefore; the donations are not as great.

Fascinating how our brains were probably built to work within small tribes and now we’re thrown into huge vats of humanity.  No wonder we need psychologists!

Back to Consumer Consequences, I also had to break down my meals, and if I wanted to be honest, I eat maybe 10-15 percent of my diet in fruits and veggies.  Ugh, not only a consumptive pig, but an unhealthy one at that!

  • Mia

    Wow. Even though I live with my parents and my sister, I take the train and walk to the university, and I barely ever go shopping, I would still need 3 whole earths!

    I don’t feel like I like such a polluting lifestyle, but I suppose if close to 7 billion people were doing it, there’d be trouble.

    I guess the problem with population reduction at this point is that it would be hard to take care of an aging population if there weren’t as many ‘young’ people. (Problem we’ll be facing in Quebec soon as the baby boomers get older)

    We’re doomed! Everybody panic!

  • Courtney

    Bah… I was doing great until you hit the Food section. 1.6 Earths for food, 1 earth for everything else. I’m single, can’t cook, no car so I can’t shop often, eat out a ton, and eat nowhere near enough fruits and veggies. I take the bus everywhere, recycle, and am cheap (so I don’t shop often) so that helped lower my score.

    Mia’s right about the aging generation. Italy’s undergoing a similar problem, and China will be hit hard by it soon due to the 1 child/family thing. Since I went to a hippie school (Berkeley), I took hippie classes like Geology and Sociology there. Very interesting subjects, but basically were non-stop doomsday prophecies. Definitely cool to see these subjects getting press now and having people start to think about how they can make a difference.

    Here’s an interesting article from Fark relating to this:

  • Stefan

    2,1 earths was the result for me; but.. I’m not sure if I got the conversions right – you still use feet and all those strange units to measure stuff :P.
    But well… most of it was used up by food. I gues ists only natural – but i needed nearly an earth for that alone (and I’m not sure how accurate the estimation was).

  • Jason

    5.2 worlds, what a wasteful shit I am. 😛

    Seriously, though, what scientific data do you honestly think they have to back up this game? I eat too much meat and not enough vegetables and we don’t have recycling in my neighborhood. But I know people that live far less green than I do. If this test were accurate the world would’ve exploded twenty years ago just from the general unhealthy ungreen lifestyles of americans alone.

    I think it’s kind of silly, personally. It’s obviously a huge overexaggeration.

    P.S For any research study Al Gore shows you that says Global warming is destroying our planet, the right wingers have one that says global warming either doesn’t exist and/or it’s just a natural phenomena. Most of this crap is based more on politics than on science, don’t read more into it than there really is.

  • Jason

    I just reread what I said and realized it sounded kind of uncaring and ignorant, so just let me add that I do understand that the world as a whole is overpopulated and very wasteful (America in particular on that wasteful part). It’s just that nothing will really be done about it until the world’s government’s start passing mandatory recycling laws, emissions laws, population laws…and restricting how many children someone can have opens up a whole new can of worms. Hard to say if we’ll ever get it right.

  • Carl

    Felicia, you can relax (a little).

    I’m very skeptical about the game scoring. For example, all my electrical power is from renewable hydro-electric, but my usage of these renewables “consumes” an extra 0.3 Earths.

    Playing the game, I scored 4.4 Earths.

    Almost 6 better than yours….Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah :p


    I’m not sure we can trust this metric.

    But, our modern lifestyle does contain a tremendous amount of enforced waste. I have hydro-electric power over here, but how many have to take it from a coal burning plant? How many people live in “LAs” where the public transit system is MIA?

    Here in NZ, we produce much more meat and dairy than we consume. We export over 95% of our dairy production. We have less than 1/10th of one percent of the world’s population (only 4 million people here), but we produce about 3% of the world’s dairy. The best part of it is that it’s almost all free range, pasture grazing production. We’re not wastefully converting grain into animal protein: it’s mainly grass and hay.

    New Zealand is not huge: its about the size of the state of California. It’s not 100% arable land either. So, it seems like it should be possible to squeeze about 35 New Zealands out of the arable land of the planet; thereby producing enough dairy and meat for everyone….with plenty of space left over to raise grains and veggies, too.

  • Carl

    And another thing….

    The largest increases in population haven’t occurred in the countries with the highest standards of living.

    Increased energy and resource efficiency by the first world is definitely required. But birth control in the third world is even more important. It’s one thing to ask a wealthy person to share with an impoverished neighbor who’s having a run of bad luck…but when that impoverished neighbor insists on having another 5 children that they cannot feed and then expects 5 more shares of the wealth…well, something is seriously amiss.

  • How do these thoughts fit with you being an actor?

  • hoo

    The big killer is airline travel. Full flights is a pretty economical way of moving a lot of people vast distances. You can’t take trains in the United States except for the eastern seaboard and a few other select places. I got crushed b/c I fly to visit family and friends.

    Have few other nits to pick but it’s a fun, little comparison item.

  • Ben

    Hi Felicia and Floggers–I was afraid to take this test. Very afraid.

    I have really enjoyed reading all the posts at this site and in honor of all you nice folks, I am going to be 100% honest. I say this in the hopes that someday I too will be thought of as one of the “nice ones.” However, the current truth is staggering and the more I re-read this post, the more I think they may name a landfill for me after I die. The ugly truth:

    I never use silverware or ceramic plates. Everything is disposable. Every 6 months or so, I purchase a gross (144) each of plastic forks, knives and spoons. I use disposable plates (Chinette). I throw all my bottles, cans and paper packages in the trash. I drive my car (alone) and refuse to take public transportation because it’s not safe (and smells like pee). I usually throw away 30%-40% of the food I purchase (either tossed left-over’s or perishables that have perished). I let my air conditioning run all the time in the summer. The list goes on and on.

    So now that I’m all worked up about this and super self conscious (not to mention slightly ashamed/embarrassed) of my behavior, I have issues with that “test.” With all my bad habits, I got a 9.9 earth score. How in the world did Felicia get a 10.2? Did you add up the numbers on those columns at the end? Or did it say 10.2 at the top in big letters? If you added up the scores, I would crush a 10.2 with a mighty 29 Earths. If that was the summary number, I’d say this test is messed up.

  • Carl

    hoo: that airline metric is also problematic. Contemporary airliners have per-passenger fuel efficiency that works out to about 20mpg.

    Now, the Airbus 380 SuperJumbo has a 131,000 liter fuel capacity and with that amount of fuel, it can carry 555 passengers 15,000kms. That works out to 63 passenger-kms/liter or 137 passenger-mpg! A hell of a lot better than the most efficient form of ground transportation.

  • J.K.

    Ben wrote about the two sets of numbers at the end. The number in the top left is how many Earths it’ll take. The tallied number at the end (the one where you got 29) is how many acres of resources it takes to sustain you.

    I was happy to learn that my home state of Washington gets more than %75 of its electricity from hydroelectric and wind generation. That being the case, I’m not entirely sure what the Hanford nuclear facility *does*, other than generate waste and get on the news for failing to properly treat said waste.

    I need 6.3 earths to sustain me. There seem to be three solutions to this dilemma.

    A) Change my lifestyle to reduce the amount I’m taxing global resources.

    B) Impoversh others to complement my overall lifestyle. (By my reckoning, reducing 11 others to sufficient squalor such that only 0.5 earths are needed, I’ll actually come out ahead.)

    C) I need to reduce the global population by a factor of 6.3. Since I live in a household of two, with similar lifestyles, this means that I’ll need to exterminate at least 13 people to promote global sustainablity.

    See there? Turns out those folks who you think are going to war over oil actually ARE promoting sustainability of resources.

  • J.K.


    I don’t know the numbers, but I’d be suspicious about that airline efficiency. Jets take aviation gas, which is more refined than gasoline. I imagine that a gallon of jet fuel must also take into account both the quanitity of crude oil needed to produce one gallon of jet fuel, as well as the material and power consumption needs of the refinement process.

    I’m not saying the numbers are right, I’m just saying that comparing car fuel to jet fuel requires accounting for additional variables.

    But… turns out, that’s way more technical than I want to be, so I guess I’ll stop there.

  • Carl


    JP10 Jet fuel only has about 10% higher energy density than gasoline.

  • Carl

    My link didn’t make it, lets try again:

    Comparative Energy Densities of Various Fuels

  • I always made the comparison – going from 10 mpg to 30 mpg in 1 vehicle is like wearing scuba gear during a tidal wave. It MIGHT help but the biggest help is also the most difficult. BESIDES changing the white house and most of congress – it is changing the corporations. THAT is the MOST important AND most difficult challenge. And talking to them will not work 99% of the time. The whole face of the nation and the planet would need to go from a selfish based “ME” system to a selfless “WE” system in order to better things.
    If YOU change your car to an environmentally sound vehicle that is great but what about the other 200 million drivers on the road in this country that eat fast food, run their air conditioners in their houses all summer, put on mass amounts of chemicals by way of perfume, conditioners, vanity make-ups, and other products, consume enormous amounts of unhealthy beverages like soda and beer and drive more then 15 or 20 miles each way to and from work?
    I am not saying it is useless but don’t beat yourself over the head because some website is trying to tell you how to live your life. I mean how much electricity does it take to keep a website like that going all the time? Then there is something to be said about the electrical useage of video gaming. Imagine how much power would be saved if for 1 week ALL video gamers shut off their game systems and all youtubers/myspacers shut off their computers – what kind of impact would THAT have on electric usage across the country? Then imagine if all of them in unison went and did something else at the same time environmentally sound? Like pray for rain. So what I am getting at in the end is the REAL change will take powerful people changing things or LETTING us change things. The heads of corporations have a tight grasp and as long as they want money and they are making money the way they are doing things – things will not change. You think that the cattle industry will stop slaughtering cows just because vegetarians beg them to? No they laugh at them and tell them to piss off. For the sake of full disclosure I am not nor do i ever plan on being a vegetarian.

  • Carl


    Unsustainable systems simply do not endure. The world as we know it will end.

    Theoretically, we could make voluntary changes and select the sustainable system or our choice. However, for the very reasons that you’ve cited, that’s not likely to happen. There are too many powerful institutions with a vested interest in the currently unsustainable status quo: their paradigms and institutions are structured to deny physical reality.

    So, when Homo Petro-Industrialus Urbanus finally runs off the cliff of finite energy resources, he’ll come crashing down into a new world order. Hopefully, when the institutions previously mentioned go through their death throes, they won’t use too many nuclear and biological weapons in their last paroxysms of blood-thirsty greed.

  • Mia
  • Mia

    *frowns* Can’t html code in an image.



    the most recent video here talks about global warming
    I find something like the documentary “The Corporation” to be a bit interesting in conjunction with alot of this kind of stuff.

    Without looking at how corporations act and work – we really are missing alot of the environmental issues.

  • Luke

    I scored 7.0 earths. To Jason and Carl and others that think the game is using fake statistics or made up numbers, because “how could it sustain all of the people living on it right now?”

    These figures are very real. If everyone on the planet lived like we do in the US the planet would collapse. The vast majority of the 6 billion people on this earth live very simple lives in agrarian societies and have little impact on the earth, other than the rice they eat to live, which they farm themselves.

    I don’t find it hard to believe at all that the resources we consume are not sustainable. Think about the resources involved in making a car. Tons of steel are mined out of the earth, heated to 3500 degrees, and molten into the shape of the vehicle you drive. This takes probably the same amount of energy that could be used to fuel a tiny village for a year.

  • Virginia

    If you’re interested in checking out another interesting read, try Margaret Atwood’s “Oryx and Crake”. It’s a fictionalized version of the future, but really disturbing with the way society segregates itself into rich bubble dome populations of genetic experimentation, and the pleeblands, basically the heavily polluted, overpopulated urban wastelands that the rich people use as a consumer market.

    As for population control, not gonna happen with how individualist we are. Now, if a country had a minimal risk of sterilizing a good portion of it’s citizens at birth, then undoing the process when they have a license (from taking proper classes on money management and nutrition) to have children, the population boom of the rest of the planet could be reduced… or the rest could follow suit.

    While I am deeply disturbed by what humans are doing, I try to look at it from a geologist’s point of view. Species exploit their environments until their population can no longer sustain itself. After this there is a collapse and rebuilding, and the cycle continues. This goes on and on until the species goes extinct. Makes me curious to see what future archaeologists will think after our first collapse. Oh, another book I just thought of is called “New Year’s Tale” by uh, Valdimir Dudintsev (not sure on last name spelling). It’s actually much shorter than the one by Atwood, sort of different in nature, but equally mind stimulating.

  • There are so many great comments here, I’ll have to be intellectual more often!
    I agree that change does not happen unless it is FORCED to happen. Look at the New Deal, all those social programs etc. only rose out of the disaster of the depression. Plague and War before were the only reasons that a real upheaval happened. And just living through 9/11, I can feel that the potential for great change was possible at that moment in our history. We just had an incompetent leader at the helm, lol.

    I have more to say about this later, but Ben, PLEASE, if you live in LA, I’ll meet you at a Crate and Barrel and I’ll help you pick out a set of dishes. I think you’ll like eating off real silverwear, I swear! 😀

  • Carl

    Ok Felicia, you are now officially one of my favorite people. 😀

    I’ve been loath to broach the subject of politics on your website, because I wasn’t sure of where you stood. You seemed to be an intelligent person, but one can never be too sure. The author Orson Scott Card (whom I’ve referred to in another thread) is one of those otherwise intelligent people, who seem to have lost their minds because of 9/11.

    Im glad to see that you’re a member of the Reality Based Community. 🙂

    On to the topic of FORCED change.

    As a mathematician, I think you would really appreciate Ilya Prigogine’s Order out of Chaos. It’s a bit like non-linear dynamic systems/chaos theory for poets…. poets who are scientifically and mathematically literate. Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his Theory of Dissipative Structures: it explains how you can have complex systems emerge from chaos, without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

    In a nutshell, if you have a very steep thermodynamic gradient at the boundary between very hot and very cool regions, then a system at the boundary might evolve into a new and more complicated structure, in order to more efficiently dissipate the heat energy. Tornadoes are an excellent example of this principle: they occur at the cold front boundaries between regions of low thermal energy, cold/dry air and high thermal energy, hot/humid air.

    The power of this theory is that it was generally applicable to other kinds of systems, such as termite mounds and traffic jams.

    Anyway, the reason why I bring up the theory of dissipative structures is that new structures emerge only when the old structures can no longer maintain equilibrium with their environment.

    In general, before a new structure emerges, the old structure has to first FAIL.

    Revolutionary movements exploit this principle, by destabilizing the structure of the society that they wish to take over. We can see this currently being applied to post-invasion Iraq.

    The German Nazis took power by exploiting the chaos of a German society that was seriously destabilized by an economic upheaval.

    The Bolsheviks of 1917 Russia also fomented and exploited a state of chaos. The first Russian revolution in February 1917 resulted in a new structure that they had to destabilize: the Constituent Assembly. So, the Bolsheviks forced a second revolution in October 1917.

    The key in all these revolutionary movements is the so-called “Butterfly Effect”. Prigogine explains how tiny perturbations are amplified at the “bifurcation points” of system evolution.

    When the old system fails, we will be in a time of chaotic change. When that time comes, we’ll have to be vigilant and engaged. As the new system emerges, it will be up to all of us to ensure that the latest incarnation of oppressive evil does not seize that crucial moment in history and create a living hell on Earth.


  • Carl, I like the “Reality Based Community” label, I hadn’t heard the term before! Your post articulates what I cannot articulate as well, but instinctively believe, so thank you for that!
    The sad part is that it isn’t very motivating to try to act against the status quo at all when you know that a monumental event has to happen in order for change to begin. I guess the more believers the easier to come together when there’s an opportunity for change. Too bad a candidate hasn’t inspired me enough to go work for them this year 🙁 I was hoping Obama was my man, but I’ve become jaded about him too.

  • The most effective solution to fight for the just causes might very well be doing what Bush did to fight freedom – weed yourself into the middle of whatever system/establishment you want to control and destroy it from the center.
    The best way I would think would be to control parts of these large corporations. That way they would have to take your own opinion into the account. Imagine the changes that would be made if someone like PETA bought 51% of Pepsi (who owns KFC, Taco Bell, A&W and Pizza Hutt).
    What if Greenpeace ended up buying 51% of each of the nation’s power companies? Though that is like if I were to buy 51% of any company – not finanacialy feasible but you get the idea.
    I always said it is easy to rule the world – just but the majority stock in like 4 media companies – TIME/Warner, News Corp, The Walt Disney Company and Viacom. If you had the few billions to own those then you would be able to control how the world sees ANYONE and ANYTHING. YOUR president would certainly be elected in EVERY country as well as the companies you like would be the ones who would get the advertising and that leads to getting the consumer dollars.
    Whoever owns the media owns the world.
    Though like I said – it would take Billions. But for Billions you would not only take over the world but you could also save it almost instantly.

  • Carl

    Felicia: you are most welcome and I thank you for your appreciation.

    I tend to agree: it is very hard to be motivated under these circumstances. But, there are two kinds of evolutionary change: the incremental/linear type and the revolutionary/non-linear type. The first kind does permit us to modify the existing system. Sometimes it actually works: the Civil Rights movement was not preceded by system collapse and chaos. However, that might explain why there are still systematic violations of Civil Rights (eg: the Florida purge of African-Americans from voter rolls, prior to the 2000 election).

    The most threatening aspect of our current system is its dependence on fossil fuels. Migrating to a different energy structure does not necessarily have to be revolutionary. We could incrementally move to increased energy/resource efficiency and alternate fuels; then we wouldn’t have to go through the kinds of dislocations and upheavals that we dread.

    The main obstacles to incremental and rational change are the institutions which have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Unfortunately, those very same institutions are deeply embedded into the money corrupted US political system.

    The American people desperately want a different kind of leadership: they know that the current system is broken. Obama eloquently spoke to that need. Unfortunately, he seems to be just another creature of that same system.

    To my view, the best person to lead us out of this mess isn’t even running: Wes Clark.

    None of the candidates really inspire me, either. Well, there is one, but it’s the wrong kind of inspiration. In the interests of not starting a flame war on your blog, I’ll keep my unflattering opinion of her to myself. ;0)

  • Ben

    I say we go kick Mars’ ass next!

    Thanks for the offer Felicia–I’m a Midwestern boy so no L.A. Crate and Barrel’s but if I’m ever heading that way, I’ll be sure to give you an opportunity to help me mend my ways and save the Earth.

    I still don’t get how I ended up with 9.9 Earths to your 10.2 Earths.

  • Luke

    Felicia, I’m just impressed to learn that you’re also a fellow NPR listener. NPR is one of the truly great sources for news out there, and you probably are lucky enough to get KCRW Santa Monica which is like the best NPR station in the world. Their music is just awesome. No other radio stations play such great music.

    So sad that here on the East Coast all of the public radio stations think we want to listen to Classical music all day. They need to get with the program like KCRW and share NEW music that isn’t being heard on mainstream Clearchannel crap radio stations.

  • 8.2, but its a bit biased. I live in the country, so there is no public transportation, and i do have to drive to get anywhere. Sure i could ride my bike to work (its close enough), but its kinda hard to install 15 pcs using a bike.

    It doesn’t take into account the hundreds of trees i plant every year, or other ‘green’ efforts. Its just using guilt to green me up.

    Remember, String theory is popular in physics. Not cause its the answer but rather cause its what the majority wants the answer to be. There are plenty of smart people who say its bogus and a cop out and won’t ever be figured out, but they just get shouted down cause its what the people in charge want everyone to believe in. Global Warming is the same way, politics and opinion over truth. We’ll never get an true answer behind it cause everyone has an agenda.

    Maybe we need to take the Futurama approach ‘turns out nuclear winter cancelled out global warming’

  • Carl

    Felicia, I think you’ll find the following to be populated by kindred political spirits.

    I believe that it’s an alternative news source that is superior to NPR. It’s also a gateway to Net 2.0 political activism: the netroots movement.

    The Daily Kos is probably one of the most influential political blogs on the center-left and it now boasts over 125,000 members. Members of the Democratic leadership (and some of the candidates) occasionally post diaries here. You can become a member and, after a one week waiting period, begin posting your own diaries.

    dKos was started by former Reagan Republican Markos Moulitsas. Kos considers himself a “Libertarian Democrat”, which is actually more of a Center-Right than Center-Left position. But in the Bushiverse, dKos is considered Far-Left….go figure.

    Kossacks (as we like to call ourselves) were amongst the earliest supporters of dark horse, insurgent candidates like John Tester and Jimm Webb*. Tester and Webb weren’t given much of a chance by the political establishment; but with the help of netroots support, they ended up beating two incumbent Republican Senators in 2006: Allen (R-VA) and Conrad (R-MT).

    *Webb is another former Reagan Republican: he was actually Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and he hates Bush. Webb’s son is a currently in Iraq.

    I hope you find something on dKos that appeals to you and invigorates your political activism.

    If you are interested, you can find my dKos diaries by googling my email address along with the keyword “dailykos”. But, be prepared for a lot of snarkiness. BTW, most Kossacks share my feelings about HER. 😉

  • I got a 7.0 btw – but that is because I drive everywhere and usually put about 30,000 miles on my car or more a year. However that is only because I do not just drive to and from work (which is 15 miles from my home and I get 28 to 30 mpg) i drive from Atlanta to places like Ohio and New Orleans and New York.
    And if I were able to be home cooking more often I would. THAT however IS changing. I need to eat better.

  • Dustin

    I don’t wanna get started because then I won’t shut up. I just wanted to quickly comment on your “Incompetent Leader at the Helm” comment. You cited The New Deal as a social program for change that stemmed from adversity. I’d like to use a couple other social changes to prove my point of the leader means little in a democratic society (this won’t be long I already have to write enough papers on these subjects).

    The Civil Rights movement. Many people look at the Civil Rights movement and think fondly of Martin Luther King Jr. and also about President JFK. This movement began with people though, protesting, riding buses in the south and organization. Then a leader is put forward as a spokesman, Dr. King was that spokesman. He wouldn’t have been able to make any speeches or talk about anything to anyone unless the people did a ton of work all over the place. These things don’t just happen, and it isn’t leaders and people of privilege that cause them to happen. The historical record also shows that JFK didn’t want to deal with MLK in the least, but popular pressure convinced him as it should in democratic societies. Two other programs like Medicare and Medicaid, the were pushed by Johnson into being a law, Johnson didn’t create them and he didn’t spearhead the idea. His “Great Society” thinking came out of protest in the 60’s, tons of people working very hard to turn the wheels as it were, the leaders in this country don’t act on their own usually, it’s other people who facilitate social change.

    Back to the point about the Leader after 9/11. We had the ability, we had history to refer back to. We had the people as well, never before in history has their been so much mass protest even before an invasion of a country. But it didn’t continue, instead of like the 60’s where it started infinitesimally small, and built over the course of years and years with a lot of hard work. The Iraq protest hasn’t done nearly as well. We can argue as to why, but the idea is that the people have to be active, and demand a choice. Not just accept the choices that we are given.

    Another example is East Timor and the final defunding of the genocide their. I have to give a presentation about it tomorrow, I’ll tell you how it goes.

Upcoming Appearances!


Comicon Schedule!

00Hey all, here’s my COMICON SCHEDULE! Thursday: 12-1pm Geek and Sundry Panel at Indigo Ballroom (Badge needed)...


Paperback Book Tour April 19-30th!

00 Just a heads up I’ll be on paperback book tour starting next week! A lot of...


Goodreads Award Finalist: Please Vote!

20Hey all! So I’m on a hiatus, of sorts. Meaning I burnt out after book tour due...


Embrace Your Weird


This is Book Release Week!

10ITS HERE! I’m on a plane to NYC right now to start my book tour. 12 cities,...


Signed Book Copies

40A lot of people want to know how they can get a signed copy of a book...