I feel saddened when I overhear/see people’s broad stroke judgment of another (or when I catch my own) because of how they’re dressed or how they look.
This goes beyond someone being overweight or not traditionally attractive or…(fill in the blank).
Lets say, a woman who wears flowy pants that flair at the bottom and likes to wear clothes from “Free People”, etc (which I love, btw).
I’ve literally heard this brought up – someone’s mind upon seeing them writes that person off as ‘must be woo-woo’, ‘probably feels entitled’, ‘must be bad at business’, etc.
(yes, these perceptions exist, even though they often could be furthest from the truth)
Or, some man dressed with slicked hair in an impeccable business suit and the flip side of stereotypes and judgment comes up: “Full of himself”, “Must be uptight and selfish”, “Probably greedy and would willingly screw you over to get what he wants”.
(and yet some of the most caring, brilliant, giving people I know are massively successful and dress impeccably)
How we cut ourselves off from possibility because we’re so quick to put people in boxes of interpretation of who they are because of how they look.
I recently met a multi-millionaire who is kick-butt at business and yet looked like a ‘wanna-be’.
His teeth are rotted and in sore need of a complete overhaul. He has a pronounced beer belly. He talks with an Appalachian accent (like he’d be the stereotype of ‘redneck’). His hair is sloppy and his clothes sometimes wrinkly.
You’d never know who he really is beyond that first impression.
Yet if you took the time and care, you’d discover that he comes from being committed to making a difference, is a philanthropist and happens to be a brilliant investor who many of those in impeccable suits and slicked hair seek guidance from.
I know someone who dresses and speaks like a yoga instructor and dresses like she’s on her way to Burning Man – yet she started and runs a multi-million dollar business that’s making a difference in people’s lives and is a huge giver to meaningful charities – actively involved in helping others.
Where’s the ‘entitlement’ stereotype of that kind of look that some assume?
(FYI, that is NOT mine, but many I’ve overheard many who leap to that kind of assessment when seeing someone dressed like that).
I know a stunningly, tall, beautiful woman, who openly displays her beauty (fashionable, high heels, sexy clothes) and though some might look at her and think ‘she’s just a model type, must have air for brains and has someone to take care of her”, etc
This woman happens to be incredibly successful, featured in leading magazines, BRILLIANT, playfully hilarious, is training executives around the world about the latest and greatest technology – Oh, and she also happens to be passionate about being of service, doing an abundance of hands-on work in Africa to support creating self-sustaining villages for the people there.
The examples are endless and they extend beyond what people choose to wear or their level of beauty or not.
Lets turn these false perceptions upside down.
Someone may be overweight, short, tall, gay, ‘disabled’, unable to speak, messy, ‘too old’, ‘too young’ – you name it – and yet beyond those stereotyped exteriors can lie some of the most brilliant minds, giving hearts, accomplished leaders, creative talents, massively successful or beautifully impactful souls.
What judgments come up for us with who we see?
What are we cutting ourselves off from by staying hooked into these kind of preliminary judgments?
What might we be cutting other people off from because of our judgment?
How might we be judging ourselves with how WE show up?
And (this is KEY):
How might we, instead, be compassionate with ourselves and others as to how we are programmed to judge and NOT make it mean they (or we) are bad people for it?
We need to spark our awareness so we go beyond the surface.
We need to remind ourselves that the world is not actually as we initially see it because we are all mired in our own self-created filters.
What opportunities, what access to more connecting, more unity, more understanding might there be if we could catch that dynamic going on in our awareness, shift it and remain more open?
And, I believe, how much freer might we feel if we gave ourselves that gift of shifting automatic judgment?
I think we would start being less hard on ourselves as well, in addition to seeing far more beauty and possibility and fullness in life.
By the end of today, all 19 government requests for bans of GM crop cultivation are expected to go unchallenged by biotech companies, pathing the way for two thirds of the EU’s farmland and population to remain GM-free. The growing opposition to GM crops coincides with a new Greenpeace report reviewing evidence of GM environmental risks, market failures, and increased pesticide use.
According to information obtained from the Commission, biotech companies have so far accepted all requests for opt-out bans, except for Denmark, Luxembourg and Malta, for which the deadline expires today.
Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said: “Over the past 20 years, GM technology has only been taken up by a handful of countries for a handful of crops, so no wonder two thirds of Europe have decided to ban it. Where GM crops are grown, they lead to increased pesticide use and the entrenchment of industrial farming systems that in turn exacerbate hunger, malnutrition and climate change.”
Around 85 per cent of GM crops are cultivated in just four countries in the Americas (US, Brazil, Argentina and Canada), representing only three per cent of global agricultural land. The Greenpeace report – 20 years of failure – highlights the main problems associated with GM crops, including:
GM crops increase pesticide use – Practically all GM crops are either engineered to produce a pesticide or to withstand the spraying of certain herbicides. Pests and weeds are developing resistance to these toxins, creating new superbugs and superweeds. This leads farmers to use even more chemicals.
GM crops do not feed the world – Studies show that GM crops do no increase yields and can affect the livelihoods of small-scale farmers, representing a threat to food security.
There is no scientific consensus about the safety of GM crops – Despite the biotech industry’s attempts to reassure consumers about the safety of GM crops, over 300 independent scientists dispute these claims . Genetic engineering remains a risky technology that can trigger unintended and irreversible impacts on the environment and human health.
While GM crops struggle to live up to the claims of the biotech industry, innovative sustainable farming methods offer a viable alternative. Modern ecological farming practices are a proven and sustainable solution to the challenges facing farming. They prevent soil erosion and degradation, increase soil fertility, conserve water quality and protect biodiversity. Moreover, scientific evidence shows that growing different crops and single crop varieties in one field, as is done in ecological farming, is highly reliable in increasing resilience to erratic weather changes.
Similarly, modern biotechnology, like Marker Assisted Selection (MAS), can produce crops which resist floods, droughts and diseases and presents limited safety concerns compared to GM crops. MAS is also faster than GM in delivering new crops onto the market . However, these alternatives will continue to be ignored if we get locked in the GM-industrial agriculture system, says Greenpeace.
Scientists have recently made critical new discoveries about some of the most ecologically significant waters in the United States: the Bering Sea canyons. With new information in hand, the case for Bering Sea conservation has never been stronger.
In more good news for ocean conservation, scientists have recently made critical new discoveries about some of the most ecologically significant waters in the United States: the Bering Sea canyons. Two new studies have mapped the area and its teeming “Green Belt” like never before, pinpointing the locations of fragile coral and sponge habitat in need of protection.
With this new information in hand, the case for protecting these key regions in the Bering Sea has never been stronger.
Two Studies Confirm Importance of the Green Belt
The first new study, by the Marine Science Institute at the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) and Greenpeace, found that the Pribilof canyon is the most significant location for deep-sea corals and sponges along the entire eastern Bering Sea shelf. It also found that restricting destructive bottom-contact fishing methods in Bering Sea canyons would not have significant negative impacts on the fishing industry. With protections in place for coral and sponge habitat, Bering Sea fish and king crab populations could increase, as well.
“Despite comprising a very small percentage of the total study area, Pribilof canyon contains roughly half of the soft corals and sponge habitat in the entire region we examined,” said Robert Miller, a research biologist at UCSB and the paper’s lead author. “It’s clear that this remarkable habitat warrants protections to ensure the health of the surrounding ecosystem into the future.”
Shortraker rockfish, crinoids, brittle stars, basket stars, anenones and more, seen on the sea floor by a manned submersible, during undersea research of Zhemchug Canyon in the Bering Sea, off the Greenpeace support vessel M/V Esperanza.
Days earlier, NOAA scientists released another report with the results of their camera-drop survey of the Bering Sea slope—the highly productive zone known as the Green Belt. The study, requested by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, found that Pribilof canyon appears to contain half of the region’s coral, despite making up just 10 percent of the Green Belt zone. The habitat makes the canyon an important home for rockfish and king crab. Parts of Zhemchug canyon also stood out for their high amounts of sponge habitat.
All of this confirms the unique nature of the Green Belt area: nearly all of the coral and sponge habitat in the Bering Sea is found here, yet none of it has been protected.
Inside the Battle to Protect the Bering Sea
Managing America’s fisheries is big business—in 2011 the U.S. landed over 10 billion pounds of fish, worth more than 5 billion dollars. It’s also critical to the health of our oceans. If we take too many fish, the whole population can crash. If we destroy fish habitats, the ecosystem that wildlife and people alike depend upon could be irreversibly altered.
In Alaska’s Bering Sea, which accounts more than half of the seafood caught in the U.S., conservation groups have been urging protection for the Bering Sea canyons for more than a dozen years. In 2006, fishery managers concluded that little was known about the area, so they upheld status quo fishing and made learning more about the area a high priority for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
For the first time in 2007, and again in 2012, Greenpeace led the first in-situ exploration of the canyons. The results of those studies should play an important role in informing the Council on this issue.
But it wasn’t until more than 200,000 individuals, indigenous organizations, NGOs and businesses urged the Council to do more that it called for additional government research.
Significantly, the Council heard from a group of stakeholders that have everything to gain from ensuring the conservation of our most valuable fishery resources—supermarkets. Eleven of our nation’s largest supermarket chains have called on the Council to address protections for the area, including Ahold, Costco, Giant Eagle, Hy-Vee, Roundy’s, Safeway, Southeastern Grocers, SUPERVALU, Trader Joe’s, Wegmans, and Whole Foods Market. Bon Appétit recently brought the issue to Huffington Post readers, and arguably the largest purchaser of Alaskan pollock for filet-o-fish fare—McDonald’s—is the most recent company to call for action.
Now that fishery managers have the science they were waiting for, will they finally put conservation measures in place?
What Are We Waiting For? Protect the Bering Sea Canyons
Alaska’s fisheries hold a stellar reputation for being some of the best-managed resources in the world and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council prides itself on using the best available science to guide its decisions.
Well, the science is in. We know where the coral and sponge habitat is in the Bering Sea and we know it is extremely vulnerable to destructive fishing methods. The public—for whom these resources are managed—has spoken.
Now, the Council needs to listen to the people and to our government. NOAA’s strategic guidance instructs it to “protect areas containing known deep-sea coral and sponge communities from impacts of bottom-tending fishing gear.” The Mid-Atlantic Council took the lead on conserving corals and sponges in its canyons last month.
Now all eyes are on the North Pacific to do the same.
Jackie Dragon is a senior oceans campaigner at Greenpeace USA. Jackie has been campaigning to protect important places in the ocean since 2008. Her current focus is on the Bering Sea, where she fights to conserve the largest submarine canyons in the world from destructive industrial fishing practices.
Stop the Voyages to Hell: Whale-Friendly Tourists are not Welcome in the Danish Faroe Islands
Commentary by Sea Shepherd Founder, Captain Paul Watson
The ‘special’ new Grind Laws of the Faroe Islands make it a criminal offense for anybody to not report a pod of whales to the whalers. Photo: Sea Shepherd/Rosie KunnekeOne of the pods of pilot whales exterminated by the Faroese whalers earlier this summer was spotted and reported by a tourist because the “special” new Grind Laws of the Faroe Islands make it a criminal offense for anybody to not report a pod of whales to the whalers.
When tourists have been recruited into being accessories to the slaughter, it is time to discourage more tourists from being recruited.
The issue of cruise ships calling into the Faroes is fast becoming international news and now even the trade publications are pointing out the bad publicity for the cruise ship industry if they continue to call into the Faroe Islands.
Basically it’s, “Come to the Faroe Islands and help us kill whales and if your ship is opposed to whaling, you are not welcome in the Faroe Islands.”
The Sea Shepherd ship Bob Barker is an EU Dutch-flagged ship that has arrived in the Faroe Islands from an EU Germany port with EU crew, but was denied entry. Never before has a ship from an EU nation been denied clearance by an EU nation (Danish Immigration).
What the Faroese are saying with this denial is that any ship opposed to the slaughter of the pilot whales is not welcome in the Faroe Islands, and this automatically makes any cruise ship that arrives in the Faroe Islands to be understood to support the horrific slaughter of pilot whales and dolphins.
In the Faroes, a ship now has no choice. Support the Grindadráp (murder of whales) or else. And if the cruise ships continue to stop at Faroese ports the public will begin to equate them with supporting this murderous Faroese obscenity.
AIDA, Hapag-Lloyd, P & O and Disney have already decided to avoid the Faroe Islands. We now have to convince the other cruise ship lines, and considering that Faroese law now makes tourists and cruise ship lines complicit in the slaughter it should not be hard to convince these corporations that docking in the Faroes is not a wise business move.
The text below is from the most recent newsletter by Jim Walker of Jim Walker’s Cruise Law News.
“There is a widespread and well-organized movement to boycott the Faroe Islands for its barbaric and heart-wrenching slaughter of pilot whales. Trouble is that most cruise lines tout the Faroes as a key port of call for their cruise ships. But an international coalition of mammal lovers, environmentalists and decent-hearted concerned citizens, organized by non-profits and the powerful and media-savvy Sea Shepherd organization, is making a change. Disney abandoned its plans to go there and three other lines, all European companies, announced that they will no longer support the Faroes in response to social media campaigns geared toward educating the public about the despicable whale slaughter.
But U.S.-based cruise lines are still sailing there regularly. Royal Caribbean, Azamara, NCL, Oceania, and Carnival-owned HAL and Princess all still plan on calling on the Faroe Islands. I have written about the deadly and disgusting practice here. The Faroese locals slit the throats of the little whales and rip the babies from their mothers. Don’t read the article if you are squeamish.
Disney was smart enough to get out of the way of the oncoming media blitz. It will maintain its reputation because of its awareness, just like it wisely assigned lifeguards to its pools and installed automatic man-overboard systems on its ships. But the Carnivals and Royal Caribbeans and NCLs are too CEO-egocentric and arrogant to figure out to avoid the train of public opinion coming their way.”
We need to make all the cruise ship lines that go or plan to go to the Faroes aware that there is a powerful movement to save the whales from being cruelly butchered on the beaches of the Faroe Islands.