Sketch Week 5, # 2

I’m in the kitchen. The sound of laundry turning over in the drier can be heard throughout the kitchen. Every few seconds a button hits and makes a ding. All the lights reflect off the granite. A blueberry pie sits on the table next to me and in front off it a bag of soft cookies with a clothespin keeping them sealed. An OXO napkin holder is on the table too. A big pot lid sits in the drying rack reflecting every thing up side down. For some reason I can’t see where I am though. Weird. All the appliances are off except the Keurig coffee maker. I use it to make chai tea every morning. For some reason we have two phones in the kitchen. Ones wired so maybe it’s there in case we loose electricity. The trashcan sits behind me reflecting a strange light onto the food closet. I zoom in on my computer and type so I can only see the writing and nothing else. It’s pretty big and blurry. Bigger than the regular dots. When I zoom out it makes everything look so small and not regular. My dad walks up stairs looking for me but he doesn’t realize I am right here. I grab some TLC crackers that my Mom just bought at the store in New London. They are crunchy but not super crunchy. Overall they taste pretty good. I put the crackers back and try some of the candy my mom made today. Its great like usual. It taste kind of salty. The candy is usually gone within the next three days. I bang my computer on the table slightly and the CD drive makes an eject sound. I look at the time, 9:02 and stop because I have tones of other home work.

The wise list sketch

Green proctor sine
Blue couch
Green chares
White tables
Carpet around the would floor
Black and white pictures around the room
Big windows
Puple gray venting on the sealing
White washed out walls
Green exit singes
Wig Eain speakers
Sound deadening wall made out of coconut shelves

In class freewrite

I sit down on worm gravely gray garnet. Just high enough to hop up on with a bike. I am looking at the Intense Socom for a new downhill bike because it is efficient with the VPP linkage system, while still having 8 inches of travel. I think to cycling today. I don’t really want to go because I was sick last night with a fever and don’t feel that rested. I need to get my mountain bike fixed so I can ride again. Booby just left and I am and I don’t think Tom will think I am working diligently because I don’t have allot of writing but I need to get to sports.

freewrite

The fan in my window blows a chilling breeze that cools my room. I didn’t sleep well last nigh because it was too worm. My thermostat says 70 but I think it is cooler. I take another sip of vitamin water. I look on my wall to the drawing that I drew to scale of a full suspension bike that reduces stand over height while maintaining maxim travel. I wonder what it would look like built up. Now it is 9:46. My parents like me in bed around 10:10pm. I was invited to play a system link E-Box game at ten agents Looy and Bertrand and a few other campus people but my parents probably wont let me. I still am not close to a page. I take the last sip of vitamin water and look at my fan that is still chilling by room. I wonder how cold it is. My computer says it is 52 degrees in Andover right now. I feel stupid I spelled now wrong 6 times. I fiddle with my cycling glasses and think about dounhilling at Attitash last year. This year I hope to be on a different bike; the one I am thinking almost definitely about buying. It is the most expensive thing I have ever bought so I am making sore I don’t waist my money. I have been talking to bike shops and friends about the right frame and or bike. I think I am going to get the Intense Socom. That’s wearied by computer cant spell Socom. I look back a my glasses and then at the fan. My cat approaches the window and then retreats, probably because he can’t get in it with the fan. 10:03 Tom said a hale page. I check the syllabus to make extra sore. O no a quote response too. That’s a drag.

Quote Responce 4/24/07

“The machines are going to bury all those burrows, and everything inside.” When Roy said this to the class I thought it was a smart move because bad news spreads like a brush fire in schools. Then the community could find out threw the kids and help the cause. Now Roy is going to try legal ways to stop the pancake house while Mullet Finger fights with vandalism. Now they have a better chance because they are fighting in many ways to stop the pancake house.

Sketch Week 5, # 1

I walk up stairs to do my reading homework for elements as the landscapers start to redo our walk in front of the steps. They start with shovels and pickaxes, which seems normal. After about a half hour of reading, I come down stairs because the house is vibrating, to find in shock, a mini backhoe on our front lawn and no fence. My mom said, “ The walk was thicker than they thought.” That’s an understatement. After about an hour of trying and failing the mini backhoe reaches over the walkway and pries up the cut out sections of the walk and flips them over onto the dirt, which used to be grass, as of yesterday. The walk was about, a foot thick, maybe a little more. Whoever made it had put a layer of rock down and poured way too much cement over it making a walk that would survive an earthquake off the Richter scale. Great, now we gave admissions another thing to watch and ask us about. The landscapers now start using their destructive pavement cutter, with looks kind of like a chain saw, except with a circular blade to tear up our driveway between the garage and the house. I can’t wait to see what their going to tear up next, after their lunch brake. Not.

Final Final Draft

The issue regarding the justification of vandalism for an individual or environmental organization really becomes a question of whether or not the end justifies the means. At the end of the day, can any of us look ourselves in the mirror and, without hesitation, feel that our actions were justified and in line with our values. If the vandalism evolved to the level of bombings, the loss of life or extensive property damage can we still look ourselves in the eye and feel comfortable with our actions. Real character and integrity is not what we appear to be to the outside world; integrity is the way that we act when no one is watching.
Vandalism can justified to protest issues hurting the environment only when we do not cross the internal line that defines who we are and how we want to interact with people and the world as a whole. Before using vandalism I think that protesters should approach the issue legally and economically and try to find unique solutions that do not involve vandalism. All other options should be tried before resorting to vandalism. If all else fails a certain amount of vandalism is justified to make a statement. The line is crossed however when someone gets hurt or more harm is done to the environment than caused by the issue being protested. The use of vandalism must not cross the line into eco-terrorism which “The FBI defines as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, sub-national group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." (James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI; Feb. 12, 2002. http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror.htm on April 19, 2007)
First, the protesters need to attempt to solve the environmental issue through the legal system. By using the judicial system protesters can clearly communicate their objections without the risk of getting in trouble for vandalism. If the protesters can get their point proven in court, they have an almost guaranteed win. For example, if protesters collected water samples around a company that they thought was contaminating the environment, and sent the samples to a lab, the lab could then write a legal report documenting the pollution. The protesters could bring the evidence to court and ask for a temporary halt on the company’s operations (a cease and desist order), until the contamination problem is removed. A recent example of the use of the legal system that gained international acceptance and approval is the Kyoto Protocol. “On the Kyoto Protocol, I think Russia's ratification means and the agreement's entry into force mean that the regime is more likely to gain strength. I believe that there is much good that may come from the Russian ratification. It will put allow many countries to make changes that they might have been "scared" to make otherwise. Also, I think it will create normative pressure (that is, "moral" or social pressure) on countries like the USA that do not ratify” (Chat Session with Prof. Ron Mitchell, March 16, 2005. http://idl.stanford.edu/news/chatMitchell-March16.html April 19, 2007) The Kyoto Protocol demonstrates how the legal system can be used to the advantage of the environmental movement.
Secondly protestors can look to economic strategies to damage a company or individuals that they believe are damaging the environment. Economic sanctions can have an immediate detrimental effect on an entity. For example, a boycott of a company’s products until they responded in a way that was satisfactory to the protestors, is a way to effect change without using vandalism. Boycotting an oil company that refuses to clean up an oil spill is an example of an action that should cause the desired reaction. "Most people think that you've got to reduce sales a lot, but if you reduce any company's sales from between two to five per cent you've won. Having said that, it is very hard to reduce a company's sales by five per cent because it takes a massive degree of organization.” (Ralph Nader, Co-op America, 1989, http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/successfulboycotts.htm April 19, 2007).

Threatening legal action through the media can also be another economic strategy. If the entity that is damaging the environment is a public company (its stock is bought and sold publicly), then any negative press can affect the price of their stock. Simply threatening a major legal action could cause investors and stockholders to fear the cost of a lawsuit. As a result, stockholders may try to sell the company’s stock and drive the stock price down. Typically, corporate executives are compensated with stock and/or stock options and they have an interest in keeping the stock price high. The company may stop the action that is compromising the environment in order to maintain an image that will help ensure the value of their stock. “The World Resources Institute warned that future actions to curb global warming and limit drilling for oil and gas in environmentally sensitive areas could cause investments in energy companies to drop. "Investors ignore environmental issues at their own peril," said Duncan Austin, WRI economist and co-author of the report. "Environmental issues can have a significant impact on a company's bottom line and stock price." (Green Issues could Hurt energy Stocks, Reuters, July 25, 2005, Tom Doggett, http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17005/story.htm April 19, 2007). Clearly investors are sensitive to the financial impact that environmental issues can have to a company’s value.
A third option would be to come up with an agreement whereby the environmental issue is resolved and the company benefits as well. Recent examples of a mutually beneficial solution would include large storage dumps of used tires. “Waste tires have been a major management and disposal problem for decades. Recapping of passenger vehicle tires, once a viable business utilizing millions of tires, has all but ceased. In the past some property owners have dumped, or have allowed others to dump, tires on their property, awaiting the day when tires would be valuable for their petroleum content.” (Waste Tire Management, Alan Lassister, Virginia Department of Environment Quality, http://www.deq.state.va.us/wastetires/ April 19, 2007). Some of these storage dumps have begun to burn and others leach toxic chemicals into the soil. The used tires can be purchased and hauled away by other firms that can recycle the rubber into other products (such as running track surfaces). The company that owns the dump is relieved of the problem of storing the tires and is paid by the removal company. The removal company only does this if they have a use for the tires that is economically viable for them. Solutions whereby everyone benefits and the environmental issue is resolved are great for all parties. Sometimes it requires a great deal of thought to find these “win/win” solutions but it is worth the effort.
Over the course of history, significant change has sometimes required revolution or revolt. Vandalism can be viewed as a type of revolt against a force that will not otherwise change. The only type of vandalism that I feel is acceptable is vandalism that does not involve violence or bring physical harm to any individual. The type of vandalism that I am referring to is a type which usually results in a negative financial impact to the company or entity. Vandalism that involves bombings, fires, or other forms of destruction are not acceptable, as the risk to human life is too great and it crosses the ethical and moral line for me. The example of vandalism in the book “Hoot” whereby the “Running Boy” removes stakes from a construction site to slow down development, is the type of vandalism that I find acceptable. The vandalism is not exactly passive in that some action is taken but the action is not violent and does not physically harm anyone. “Thus the acts of Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and other extremist nature-saving networks, are clearly terrorism and eco-terrorism under the law. Contrary to claims of their partisans that they are not terrorists because they have not killed or injured any living being (and thus their acts are mere vandalism and not terrorism), the murder of Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn by an animal rights extremist, and their use of arson and pipe bombs, contradicts claims of innocence, and their intent is to influence policy by intimidation and coercion.” (http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror.htm on April 19, 2007). Actions such as murder and bombings go beyond vandalism and are not acceptable solutions.
If the threat to the environment is great enough and all legal, financial and mutually beneficial solutions have been exhausted, then vandalism can be justified. Any action taken to affect change must fit with a person’s sense of values and integrity. Employing vandalism as a solution to an environmental issue is a gray area, as you are no longer guided by laws or the legal system. By resorting to vandalism you have gone outside of what is legally correct and you are relying on your own sense of justice and ethics to guide your actions. “Environmentalists have protested by acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins and chaining themselves to trees; others have upped the ante by using violence and massive destruction to convey their messages and beliefs.” (Eco-terrorism, A New Kind of Sabotage by Cheryl Runyon, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/freedom/ecoterrorism.htm April 19, 2007) Protestors must be careful not to cross the line from vandalism to eco-terrorism even in the most egregious situations as they jeopardize their sense of values in the name of a cause.

Final Draft

I think that the vandalism is justified to a certain point as a way to protest issues hurting the environment. Before using vandalism I think that protesters should approach the issue legally and economically and try to find unique solutions that do not involve vandalism. All other options should be tried before resorting to vandalism. If all else fails a certain amount of vandalism is justified to make a statement. The line is crossed however when someone gets hurt or more harm is done to the environment than caused by the issue being protested. The use of vandalism must not cross the line into eco-terrorism which “The FBI defines as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, sub-national group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." (James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI; Feb. 12, 2002. http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror.htm on April 19, 2007)
First, the protesters need to attempt to solve the environmental issue through the legal system. By using the judicial system protesters can clearly communicate their objections without the risk of getting in trouble for vandalism. If the protesters can get their point proven in court, they have an almost guaranteed win. For example, if protesters collected water samples around a company that they thought was contaminating the environment, and sent the samples to a lab, the lab could then write a legal report documenting the pollution. The protesters could bring the evidence to court and ask for a temporary halt on the company’s operations (a cease and desist order), until the contamination problem is removed. A recent example of the use of the legal system that gained international acceptance and approval is the Kyoto Protocol. “On the Kyoto Protocol, I think Russia's ratification means and the agreement's entry into force mean that the regime is more likely to gain strength. I believe that there is much good that may come from the Russian ratification. It will put allow many countries to make changes that they might have been "scared" to make otherwise. Also, I think it will create normative pressure (that is, "moral" or social pressure) on countries like the USA that do not ratify” (Chat Session with Prof. Ron Mitchell, March 16, 2005. http://idl.stanford.edu/news/chatMitchell-March16.html April 19, 2007) The Kyoto Protocol demonstrates how the legal system can be used to the advantage of the environmental movement.
Secondly protestors can look to economic strategies to damage a company or individuals that they believe are damaging the environment. Economic sanctions can have an immediate detrimental effect on an entity. For example, a boycott of a company’s products until they responded in a way that was satisfactory to the protestors, is a way to effect change without using vandalism. Boycotting an oil company that refuses to clean up an oil spill is an example of an action that should cause the desired reaction. "Most people think that you've got to reduce sales a lot, but if you reduce any company's sales from between two to five per cent you've won. Having said that, it is very hard to reduce a company's sales by five per cent because it takes a massive degree of organization.” (Ralph Nader, Co-op America, 1989, http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/successfulboycotts.htm April 19, 2007).

Threatening legal action through the media can also be another economic strategy. If the entity that is damaging the environment is a public company (its stock is bought and sold publicly), then any negative press can affect the price of their stock. Simply threatening a major legal action could cause investors and stockholders to fear the cost of a lawsuit. As a result, stockholders may try to sell the company’s stock and drive the stock price down. Typically, corporate executives are compensated with stock and/or stock options and they have an interest in keeping the stock price high. The company may stop the action that is compromising the environment in order to maintain an image that will help ensure the value of their stock. “The World Resources Institute warned that future actions to curb global warming and limit drilling for oil and gas in environmentally sensitive areas could cause investments in energy companies to drop. "Investors ignore environmental issues at their own peril," said Duncan Austin, WRI economist and co-author of the report. "Environmental issues can have a significant impact on a company's bottom line and stock price." (Green Issues could Hurt energy Stocks, Reuters, July 25, 2005, Tom Doggett, http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17005/story.htm April 19, 2007). Clearly investors are sensitive to the financial impact that environmental issues can have to a company’s value.
A third option would be to come up with an agreement whereby the environmental issue is resolved and the company benefits as well. Recent examples of a mutually beneficial solution would include large storage dumps of used tires. “Waste tires have been a major management and disposal problem for decades. Recapping of passenger vehicle tires, once a viable business utilizing millions of tires, has all but ceased. In the past some property owners have dumped, or have allowed others to dump, tires on their property, awaiting the day when tires would be valuable for their petroleum content.” (Waste Tire Management, Alan Lassister, Virginia Department of Environment Quality, http://www.deq.state.va.us/wastetires/ April 19, 2007). Some of these storage dumps have begun to burn and others leach toxic chemicals into the soil. The used tires can be purchased and hauled away by other firms that can recycle the rubber into other products (such as running track surfaces). The company that owns the dump is relieved of the problem of storing the tires and is paid by the removal company. The removal company only does this if they have a use for the tires that is economically viable for them. Solutions whereby everyone benefits and the environmental issue is resolved are great for all parties. Sometimes it requires a great deal of thought to find these “win/win” solutions but it is worth the effort.
Over the course of history, significant change has sometimes required revolution or revolt. Vandalism can be viewed as a type of revolt against a force that will not otherwise change. The only type of vandalism that I feel is acceptable is vandalism that does not involve violence or bring physical harm to any individual. The type of vandalism that I am referring to is a type which usually results in a negative financial impact to the company or entity. Vandalism that involves bombings, fires, or other forms of destruction are not acceptable, as the risk to human life is too great and it crosses the ethical and moral line for me. The example of vandalism in the book “Hoot” whereby the “Running Boy” removes stakes from a construction site to slow down development, is the type of vandalism that I find acceptable. The vandalism is not exactly passive in that some action is taken but the action is not violent and does not physically harm anyone. “Thus the acts of Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and other extremist nature-saving networks, are clearly terrorism and eco-terrorism under the law. Contrary to claims of their partisans that they are not terrorists because they have not killed or injured any living being (and thus their acts are mere vandalism and not terrorism), the murder of Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn by an animal rights extremist, and their use of arson and pipe bombs, contradicts claims of innocence, and their intent is to influence policy by intimidation and coercion.” (http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror.htm on April 19, 2007). Actions such as murder and bombings go beyond vandalism and are not acceptable solutions.
If the threat to the environment is great enough and all legal, financial and mutually beneficial solutions have been exhausted, then vandalism can be justified. Any action taken to affect change must fit with a person’s sense of values and integrity. Employing vandalism as a solution to an environmental issue is a gray area, as you are no longer guided by laws or the legal system. By resorting to vandalism you have gone outside of what is legally correct and you are relying on your own sense of justice and ethics to guide your actions. “Environmentalists have protested by acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins and chaining themselves to trees; others have upped the ante by using violence and massive destruction to convey their messages and beliefs.” (Eco-terrorism, A New Kind of Sabotage by Cheryl Runyon, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/freedom/ecoterrorism.htm April 19, 2007) Protestors must be careful not to cross the line from vandalism to eco-terrorism even in the most egregious situations as they jeopardize their sense of values in the name of a cause.

Second Draft

I think that the vandalism is justified to a certain point as a way to protest issues hurting the environment. Before using vandalism I think that protesters should approach the issue both legally and economically and first try to find unique solutions that do not involve vandalism. All other options should be existed before resorting to vandalism. If all else fails a certain amount of vandalism is justified to make a statement. The line is crossed however when someone gets hurt or more harm is done to the environment than caused by the issue being protested.
First, the protester needs to go at the issue legally. By using the judicial system protesters can get the message sent clearly and strictly without the risk of getting in trouble for vandalism. If the protesters can get their point proven in court, they have an almost guaranteed win. For example, if protesters collected water samples around a company that they thought was contaminating the environment, and sent the samples to a lab, the lab could then write a legal report documenting the pollution. The protesters could bring the evidence to court and ask for a temporary halt on the company’s operations (cease and desist), until they fixed the pollution problem.
Secondly protestors can look to economic strategies to damage a company or individuals that they believe are damaging the environment. Economic sanctions can have an immediate detrimental effect on an entity. For example, a boycott of a company’s products until they responded in a way that was satisfactory to the protestors, is a way to effect change without using vandalism. Boycotting an oil company that refuses to clean up an oil spill is an example of an action that should cause the desired reaction.
Threatening legal action through the media can also be another economic strategy. If the entity that is damaging the environment is a public company (its stock is bought and sold publicly), then any negative press can affect the price of their stock. Simply threatening a major legal action could cause investors and stockholders to fear the cost of a lawsuit. As a result, stockholders may try to sell the company’s stock and drive the stock price down. Typically, corporate executives are compensated with stock and/or stock options and they have an interest in keeping the stock price high. The company may stop the action that is compromising the environment in order to maintain an image that will help ensure the value of their stock.
A third option would be to come up with an agreement whereby the environmental issue is resolved and the company benefits as well. Recent examples of a mutually beneficial solution would include large storage dumps of used tires. Some of these storage dumps have begun to burn and others leach toxic chemicals into the soil. The used tires can be purchased and hauled away by other firms that can recycle the rubber into other products (such as running track surfaces). The company that owns the dump is relieved of the problem of storing the tires and is paid by the removal company. The removal company only does this if they have a use for the tires that is economically viable for them. Solutions whereby everyone benefits and the environmental issue is resolved are great for all parties. Sometimes it requires a great deal of thought to find these “win/win” solutions but it is worth the effort.
Over the course of history, significant change has sometimes required revolution or revolt. Vandalism can be viewed as a type of revolt against a force that will not otherwise change. The only type of vandalism that I feel is acceptable is vandalism that does not involve violence or bring physical harm to any individual. The type of vandalism that I am referring to is a type which usually results in a negative financial impact to the company or entity. Vandalism that involves bombings, fires, or other forms of destruction are not acceptable, as the risk to human life is too great and it crosses the ethical and moral line for me. The example of vandalism in the book “Hoot” whereby the “Running Boy” removes stakes from a construction site to slow down development, is the type of vandalism that I find acceptable. The vandalism is not exactly passive in that some action is taken but the action is not violent and does not physically harm anyone.
If the threat to the environment is great enough and all legal, financial and mutually beneficial solutions have been exhausted, then vandalism or eco-terrorism can be justified. Any action taken to affect change must fit with a person’s sense of values and integrity. Employing vandalism or eco-terrorism is a gray area, as you are no longer guided by laws or the legal system. By resorting to vandalism you have gone outside of what is legally correct and you are relying on your own sense of justice and ethics to guide your actions.

Sketch week 4, #2

The hum of the TV although it is turned off can be heard throughout the room. Next door the TV can be seen through the window. Noche our cat sits in his basket. A light aluminates the street from the neighbors garage. A click occurs from the TV as my dad turns it on a 9:09pm. Before I move to the other room Lost turns on and a baby starts crying as a group thwacks threw the jungle. Then it switches to CSI Miami where two guys fight to the death in an act for a movie. Noche roles over onto his back and falls back to sleep. The TV is turned off. My Dad turns back to his book. He finds his place and settles in to read. Looking out the window I notice that the neighbor’s TV still flickers. I wonder what must be captivating them.

Sketch Week 4, #1

Raindrops fall onto the street. Into the puddles and cracks in the rode. Pitter-patters of impact. The rivers must be roaring with rain and snow melt off. I think to my science homework and then back to my Sketch. I eat another skittle. I switch the song on my I-tower to the next. The little streams of water wash down the rode in strange paths. I look at a new sticky. I have a number from where I am going to order a new bike sometime in the next few weeks. Hopefully an Intense Socom Pro. I also have marches schedule marked off. Yes half day on Friday. Another bike shop should have my other bike done. They were changing shock oil on my Fox 32.

First draft

I think that the vandalism is justified to a certain point as a way to protest issues hurting the environment. Before using vandalism I think that protesters should approach the issue legally, economically and try to find unique solutions that do not involve vandalism. They need to exhaust all other options before resorting to vandalism. If all else fails vandalism is justified up to a point. This point is crossed when someone gets hurt or more harm is done to the environment than caused by the issue being protested.

First, the protester needs to go at the issue legally. Using the Judicial system protesters can get the message sent clearly and strictly without the risk of getting in trouble for vandalism. If the protesters can get their point proven in court they have an almost guaranteed win. For example, it protesters collected water samples around a company that they thought was contaminating the environment and sent the samples to a lab; the lab could write a legal report documenting the pollution. The protesters could bring the evidence to court and ask for a temporary halt on the company’s operations (cease and desist), until they fixed the pollution problem.

Secondly protestors can look to economic strategies to damage a company or individuals that they believe are damaging the environment. Economic sanctions can have an immediate detrimental effect on an entity. For example a boycott of a companies products until they responded in a way that was satisfactory to the protestors is a way to effect change without using vandalism. Boycotting an oil company’s products that refuses to clean up an oil spill is an example of an action that should cause the desired reaction.

Threatening legal action through the media can also be another economic strategy. If the entity that is damaging the environment is a public company (its stock is bought and sold publicly) then any negative press can affect the price of their stock. Threatening a major legal action could cause investors and stockholders to fear the cost of a lawsuit. As a result stockholders may try to sell the company’s stock and drive the stock price down. Typically corporate executives are compensated with stock and/or stock options and they have an interest in keeping the stock price high. The company may stop the action that is compromising the environment in order to maintain an image that will help ensure the value of their stock.

A third option would be to come up with an option for the company or individuals whereby the environmental issue is resolved and the company benefits as well. Recent examples of a mutually beneficial solution would include large storage dumps of used tires. Some of these storage dumps have begun to burn and others leach toxic chemicals into the soils. The used tires can be purchased and hauled away by other firms that can recycle the rubber into other products (such as running track surfaces). The company that owns the dump is relieved of the problem of storing the tires and is paid by the removal company. The removal company only does this if they have a use for the tires that is economically viable for them. Solutions whereby everyone benefits and the environmental issue is resolved are great for all parties. Sometimes it requires a great deal of thought to find these “win/win” solutions but it is worth the effort.

Over the course of history significant change has sometimes required revolution or revolt. Vandalism can be viewed as a type of revolt against a force that will not otherwise change. The only type of vandalism that I feel is acceptable is vandalism that does not involve violence or bring physical harm to any individual. The type of vandalism that I am referring to usually results in a negative financial impact to the company or entity. Vandalism that involves bombings, fires or other forms of destruction are not acceptable as the risk to human life is too great and it crosses the ethical and moral line for me. The example of vandalism in the book “Hoot” whereby the “Running Boy” removes stakes from a construction site to slow down development, is the type of vandalism that I find acceptable. The vandalism is not exactly passive in that some action is taken but the action is not violent and does not physically harm anyone.

If the threat to the environment is great enough and all legal, financial and mutually beneficial solutions have been exhausted then vandalism or eco-terrorism can be justified. Any action taken to affect change must fit with a person’s sense of values and integrity. Employing vandalism or eco-terrorism is a gray area as you are no longer guided by laws or the legal system. By resorting to vandalism you have gone outside of what is legally correct and you are relying on your own sense of justice and ethics to guide your actions.

Sketch Week 3, #2

Just after playing an intense game Halo. Bertrand, Looy, Macy and Osarczuk were over. Much yelling and screaming were going on as my mom tried to pay bills in the next room. All of a sudden someone checked the time. 7:30 something. They flew out one late for a test, one late for study hall and two on time. I now write sitting in my old spiny gray desk chare. Two days earlier it stopped being able to go up and down. I put some chain loob on it. Now it is so smooth. My friend calls jugging by the caller ID, but it is his mother. O well. She of coerce asks to talk to my mom. Now I can here them talking about moving companies. My black razor sits on my desk on without any mist calls or messages. Weird. I always have messages. My mom walks by saying, “is there any certain time you have to move” into my silver desk phone. We have that system where you bye one antenna and all the phones go to that one. My dad has been silent for about an hour typing quietly. Some snickerdootles lay on my desk. My ant made them. There wicked good. Not exactly healthy, but good. I go down to get a snack in the kitchen, but first I save.

Quote Responce

“When the emergency room clerk asked Beatrice for here stepbrother’s name, address, and phone number, Roy impulsively had stepped forward and blurted his own.” (page140) This was a quote that seemed stupid. I new that Roy was going to get in trouble with his parents just after he said it. It temporarily worked but was going to tern bad in the long run. Roy should have had a plan going into the emergency room on what to say.

Sketch Week 3, # 1

Out of no where Andrew says szszszszszszszszsooooooooooooooooosssssssss. Cars go by with rumbling engines making the ground shutter. The stall and then a vroom of a car changing gears. Someone yells Johnny as mutable birds chip in the same tone. Someone walks by and says haahaa directed at Andrew. A chunk of show makes a chuhaaa sound as it hits the ground. Chuck drops the a clipboard making a sharp fast closh. Andrew tryes to make good noises by clapping on the bench. An tennis ball makes a sound as it hits that pavement with a short thwap. A sound of penies make a chiny chiny chiny as someone shakes them.

1st Parigraph

I think that the destruction or vandalism is justified to a curtain point as a way to protest issues hurting the environment. The protests should not give off more pollutants than the issue that is being protested. If this happened protesters would be defeating the purpose. Instead they should do little things that have a big meaning. For example, if the protester wrote letters and did some small vandalism to show there devoting to the environment and to show their feeling about the issue, that would be ok.

free write

So far, I am 50 pages into Hoot, and I like the book. It has been a set up so far and has not told anything about the running boy or anything about whom the construction site was vandalized by. I like this because I can make my own prediction on how the book ends up. So far I think the running boy and the construction site are linked in some way. I think the running boy might be the one who is pulling the stakes out and filling the holes but I am not sure how he managed all the alligators. I also predict that the policeman will solve the case of the construction site, when know one else could. This would probably promote him one step closer to detective (his dream).

I think the motive for the vandalism on the construction site is to save the owls. If the construction site was built the owls would definitely die or be fewer in number. The running boy probably has a tie with the conservation committee or has a love for nature because I assume he is vandalizing the land. He is also the perfect person because he can escape fast by running and no one can catch him because he cuts through private property where cars cannot go.

I do not think the bully on the bus has anything to do with the construction site but he might know about the running boy. I think he is a bully because he seems to have an insecure family. As he was wrestling his mom, I started to think about how weired his childhood must have been.

The girl in the cafeteria is kind of a bully but not. She seems to only bully somebody if they do anything to her. I think she knows the running boy and maybe about what he is doing because she was really defensive after she thought someone might find out about him.

I also think if the mother finds out that her son has been sneaking out to find the running boy she will be furious. Most parents don't want their son or daughter to sneak off. Considering he is sneaking off right before dark, into thick woods, where know one knows where he is, could be dangerous. I think he is in for a rude awakening. AKA majorly grounded.

Reading Responce

My favorite quote was, “The policeman nodded grimly. ‘Alligators,’ He declared.” This quote caught me totally by surprise probably because I don’t live in Florida. I was expecting something like they spray painted the walls inside or a died animal was rotting in one but not alligators.

Sketch Week 2, # 1

Birds cover the brownish yellow grass chirping and squawking loudly. All of a sudden as I look at my computer as a noise erupts and as all the birds fly away at once. All black, all silent except for the sound of they’re wings. I can see bobby sitting on a rock and curtain walking up the street in an almost neon orange coat. A man walks up the street and then does a wacky limp run thing. Bobby doesn’t know but he is being approached, by a slow waking bird, that is mostly brown with a few white feathers. It was the size of a pair and nibbling at some leftover crumbs on the grass. The flow of cars has not changed. They are still coming at the same rate. Now my fingers are so cold I can barley type. I look over out of the pagoda and realize I am in the center of town. I can see 12 businesses across the street on my left and nine houses on my right. The town hall is behind me and a wired churchlike building is on in front of me. I walk over and sit6 on a bench with an air soft BB under it. I look into the college café and see ant blue tables and chares. It is 2:21 so I still have nine minutes. I look back to the pagoda and the birds are back. My hands are so cold I can barley type so I start to head back.

Sketch 3

Up in learning skills above the library. Posters hang all around the room. Most are exotic travel spots like desserts and pyramids. A drop selling is instilled. I wonder how tall the sealing would be without it. A loud tick comes from a staples white clock reading 8:46am. Crayola crayons, a hole punch, two stapler and a internet cord lay on the desk. Five stickiest hang on the wall. They make a short timeline that hairs and I made. Each has a wacky picture and a little not in a bubble about a certain time of the year. All the outlets are have mettle plates. One has my computer charger in it. My dock is filled with icons, 26 in all. Last night my dock disappeared for an hour or so and I had to use finder. Two learning skill mottos hang on the wall from another teacher. “Lack of planning on your part will not become my emergency” and “Good planning requires: thinking, witting/speaking, acting (in that order!) I don’t really like the second one. There is also a list of 18 “little Golden Rules” that I am not going to right. I then start to pack up because learning skills is almost over.