Weyerhaeuser is one of the largest pulp and paper companies in the world and the world's largest private owner of softwood timberland. They employ 41,000 people in 18 countries.
I changed the logo in a way to respresent that the Weyerhaeuser Corporation isn't doing anything for living plants and wildlife but can only prosper and profit once they (trees, specifically but they obviously impact the global environment) are dead.
I think it's really interesting that while I haven't seen any of it, the pairing and apparent duel or "war" between two politically-based TV anchors on Comedy Central's The Daily Show had a ton of coverage on just about every other news network. It deserved much of the hype because many of its viewers feel that Stewart basically ripped Cramer a new one, pointing out his flaws in mis-advising the American public when they were repeatedly told by Cramer and the CNBC network to put trust in Cramer and his financial expertise. What we get, however, is a nice resolution at the end of the segment that yes, Cramer realizes his mistakes and while he realizes them, and "really tries to make good choices" (which is what he's paid to do, right?) and agrees to Stewart's urging to reclaim really catering to the everyday American's needs and not playing with rhetoric the way, not Cramer himself but largely CNBC does.
It's funny to look at other news segments' coverage of this "war of words" amounting to Cramer's appearance on CC and understand that its like a web, or almost a copy of a copy in that all they're doing is promoting the interets of other news networks when they could be concentrating on reporting the news.....like they're paid to do! Because really, why would I want to turn to a news network who is offering coverage on a difference in opinion from two guys who are also paid to report the news. I could just watch these guys on their own networks and get (what I think is) the true story.
After watching most of The Celluloid Closet, it was both interesting and heartbreaking to consider than we (heterosexuals) are so normalized of our portrayals in film that it's hard to believe that homosexuals will accept even negative coverage of their subculture. I thought that actor and I think producer Harvey Fierstein (he was my fave in Independece Day) who put this most eloquently when he says that they [homosexuals] have become to desensitized to not being adequately portrared to the point where they will take "visibility at any cost" because "negative coverage is better than nothing." Another commentator points out that "all minority audiences watch movies with hope" and that while we experience a movie as particular to us, the individual, in our oun social and cultural context, "everybody sees a different movie."
More LGBT contributers to the film commented that they are "pathetically starved for images of ourselves" and like everybody, have a "hunger to not be alone." We, as the heterosexual majority, are so normalized of seeing our own actions and behaviors regarding gender and sexuality that anything that deviates from that has always been under scrutiny. With 100 years of film under it's belt, filmmakers and largely, Hollywood, still do not give the LBGT community the voice and image in film as they deserve. We see, though, in this film that it has not always been their fault, that since the first images of gays in film were very...tip-toed around and given strong regulations and rules of censorship against the embodiment of their lifestyle.
What's even more interesting to see is the interpretation of homosexual behavior in the larger cultural lens. Dating back to the 1910's and 20's, the film shows clips that show homosexuality largely as an entity to be "feared, pitied and laughed at." We soon see the prototype of "The Sissy," an image that still pervades modern film as an attempt to make men feel more manly and women feel more womanly.
I recently watched a documentary that social activist, fisherwoman and marine biologist brought to Durango about the ExxonValdez spill that has caused the longest running lawsuit in history, entitled Black Wave.
In the wake of a film like this, it is so easy to become frusterated with American law, corporations (acting as individuals) and the regulatory processes that stifle us everyday. It just drives me crazy how we are shown CEOs and the big cheeses and what have you literally not giving second thought to consequences that don't pertain to their own lives. It is so clear to me that the people of Cordova and the surrounding area of Prince William Sound were directly harmed by the actions of ExxonMobil --financially, emotionally, physically, spiritually--and though Exxon hires people to issue impact statements and such, no one pays these detrimental impacts any attention. It is ludicrous how all that can just simply have the other cheek turned to it, let alone the seven-hundred-and-some repiratory issues reported by Exxon's workers in 1989 ALONE. It is CRAZY not to acknowledge that you, and I say you because corporations have so clearly defined themselves within limitations of the "individual," have been the direct cause of someone's death. How did we come to compromise these values.
If, in part (b) of Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), it says:
"(b) Continuing responsibility of Federal Government to use all practicable means to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may - (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources." (http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sac/2008/081508/nepa101.pdf)
...then who do we have to talk to to point out that many corporations, not just Exxon in this situation, are in total violation of a federal law?! The statements that corporations must now make up before proposing a project like oil drilling or logging are totally pointless...the plan should stop in its tracks when you consider that these actions aren't legally allowed to "attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences." By LAW, they are not allowed to pose risk to health or safety to we can assume humans, but also to animals and environment.
What is productivity without degredation? Whatever it is, it is seemingly impossible in this culture for productivity and progress are hinged upon linear growth and profit, while ignoring what we take from the land in this process. It's insane. It really is...
