A Christmas card from one of the in-laws was unintentionally soaked in irony. I'll skip the rant about celebrating Christ and mass, the two components of Christ's mass (i.e., Christmas) in which I don't believe, much less celebrate. And, too,…
As I indicated in a previous post, the word “resources” is problematic because it implies materials are placed on this planet for the use of humans. We see finite substances and the living planet as materials to be exploited for our comfort. Examples of intense anthropocentrism are so numerous in the English language it seems unfair to pick on this one word from among many. And, as with most other cases, we don’t even think about these examples, much less question them (cf. sustainability, civilization, economic growth). My only justifications for singling out “resources” are the preponderance with which the word appears in contemporary media, the uncritical acceptance of resources as divine gifts for Homo sapiens, and previous posts on a few of the other obvious examples.
First Rahm Emanuel — Barack Obama’s chief of staff — said torture is okay, as long as we’re the ones doing the torturing. In a sharp turn toward an ethical position, Obama himself actually concurred with the rule of law, indicating we just might prosecute those responsible for torturing alleged terrorists (which, according to the Bush administration, includes anybody Dubya says … because he says).