Blog about Tomi

I just finished taking a mini tour of the new WebMD Pain Management Health Center! I am very happy to see the ease in site navigation. Many features are now easier to identify and locate. There are a variety of topical headlines that catch your eye. Hot topics and direct links make searching faster. Locating boards and blogs just got easier! I really like the Pain Management Glossary. This is really great! So many things on the site to explore. Have you taken a look yet? Let me know what you think!!

Technorati Tags: WebMD preview

running shoes seems to be a hard choice. Most people simply go to big sporting goods stores and think that any major-brand name shoes with pretty designs will make suitable . You should be more careful when buying a pair of because it is easy to get injured and ache all over your body just from running with the wrong shoes. Many shoe companies are spending considerable amounts of money and using the latest technology to develop high-quality running shoes. But what you have to remember is that every runner is different and different people need different running shoes that best fit their needs and prevent injuries. These are some tips to find the right shoes for you.

Thanks to Richard for his comments in my last blog entry, I was going to reply in the comments section but thought it worthy of its very own blog post.

This is what Richard had to say…

“…but it’s interesting that you object to their phone number being so prominent.

I understand why you object - you might lose commission if people who click through from your site phone to order rather than ordering online.

But how many people are so reassured by seeing the phone number there that the order online when otherwise they may not have ordered at all?

TBH, I don’t know which is greater - the loss or the gain - but I wouldn’t discount linking to a merchant just because they show a phone number.

Of course, the ideal is to have the call centre track the affiliate code and log a commission, but will the volume of sales justify the cost of implementation and training?”

Merchants who have their phone number displayed prominently on their homepage often say that it “reassures” customers. If that was the case then how come the biggest ecommerce site in the world, Amazon doesn’t have a phone number displayed anywhere? And never has. Dixons and Next don’t either, and neither does Marks and Spencer. So I really don’t buy into the “inspires customer confidence” argument. I’m not saying don’t display a phone number at all, just put it in the “contact us” page of your site along with your address, privacy policy, terms and conditions - all of which should be enough to satisfy even the most doubting online shoppers.

In fact I think that we don’t give typical Internet users the credit they deserve. Its is predicted that the UK will spend £40 billion this year on items bought online, up from £18.1 billion in 2004. A figure that shows without doubt that we are becoming more confident in using the internet to purchase goods.

If you *really* must have your phone number on the homepage then the most acceptable way is the method Flowers Direct have employed. They used to have a huge in-your-face freephone number splattered at the top of their homepage, now its displayed nice and quietly at the bottom of the page.

So why do I not like phone numbers on merchant sites? Well, I promote broadband merchants quite heavily and some of them have given me a dedicated tracked phone number so that customers can either order online or on the phone. What percentage do you think order through the phone line? 5% 10%? 20%? 30%? No, its always around the 50% mark. Now I know that ordering broadband and signing up to a yearly contract is a much more considered purchase than buying flowers for £9.99 and that people will be more likely to phone but still, 50% is a lot by anyones standards. So even if half that (25%) or even 10% of your hard earned customers go through to a merchants site and order via the huge phone number at the top of the page, isn’t that too much? I think so.

What really annoys me is that in 9 cases out of 10 it is sooooo easy for merchants to remove this phone number for affiliate clicks. All they have to do is insert some code that tracks where the visitor has come from, and if it is from an affiliate site then they don’t show the phone number. Easy. Yet despite this there are tons of merchants who aren’t interested in going down this route. And what really amazes me is that there are so many affiliates who just sit back and accept it. Why is this? I don’t. Case in point, a very well known merchant has a huge phone number on the top and bottom of their homepage, and every page for that matter. I contacted them and said I would promote them if they removed the phone number. They said they would, for me but not for other affiliates, it took them less than a day to implement it. So here I am promoting this merchant with no phone number while some of you reading this are promoting them with a huge horrible phone number splattered all over the site. Are you happy losing those commissions?

So what can be done about this? The obvious thing is to vote with your feet, if a merchant is doing this then don’t promote them unless they remove the number, simple as. Or if you are generating large volumes for this merchant ask them for a dedicated phone number, you will be surprised that some will agree. If not, lose them and move on to the next merchant.

Despite my ranting it has to be said that there are some merchants who need to be congratulated for either not displaying the phone number for affiliate links or even removing their phone number altogether. Well done three, LowCostBeds, ThePhoneSpot and all the others I don’t have time to mention. BTW if you click on those links and you see a phone number its because they aren’t affiliate links, try them with your own links to see how easy it is for these guys to hide the phone number when they want to

What I’m listening to right now: Snoop Dogg - “Tha Blue Carpet Treatment”

It doesn’t take a doctor of semantics to decipher the fact that Planned Parenthood’s tag-line, “Every child a wanted child,” carry’s absolutely no substance at all. The phrase is used to justify abortion, which is by definition, the killing of an unborn baby. Planned Parenthood touts the phrase around and around the country, and we, the really educated citizens of the states have not united in coming up with cogent rhetoric as to why there is no such thing as “unwanted children.”

Before we deconstruct the idea of “unwantedness,” let’s recognize the appeal of the tag-line. It is appealing to consider that every child will be absolutely cherished by his or her birth parents upon birth. The appeal comes from the imbedded notion that “wanted babies” will live a life of giggling while the so-called “unwanted babies” will live a life of crying.

Giggling vs Crying.

“I want you, therefore thou shall giggle.”

“I just wanted sex and now I have a new, little, pooping human, therefore thou shall cry.”

Planned Parenthood likes the giggles, right? There’s where it gets the tag line, right? If only that were remotely true, I could be writing blogs about fashion or celebrity divorces, or something else Really Important. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood isn’t thinking giggling vs crying. Planned Parenthood is a business and it wants your money. The way it gets your money is by scraping the lining of your uterus with a curette and emptying the “contents of the uterus” (read: YOUR BABY) out into a collection bottle. (I am not trying to be crass. I am seriously just telling the truth.)

Let’s go deep. The entire idea of “unwanted children” is a FICTIONAL IDEA. As in, it’s fake. There’s actually no such thing as unwanted children. A human being in and of his or herself cannot be ‘unwanted.’ The basic reason for this is the fact that every human being has human dignity! (Dignity means “worth.”) You’ve got it. I’ve got it. The babies of Papa New Guinea have got it. It is The Reason why we can’t abort babies.

Human dignity is understood to be inherent; something that is “inherent” is integral to our very being. The U.S. government does not grant this unto us, the National Education Association doesn’t vote on our dignity, and Kofi Annan has no part in the delineation of dignity. Human beings have the right to live solely on the basis of being human.

Furthermore, since unborn humans are human, they have the same inherent right to live as humans that are born. The unwanted state of being pregnant and the human inside of a pregnant woman is often confused. We transfer the idea that when being pregnant is not the desired outcome of sex, that a child is unwanted as well. This false correlation of ours does not strip the baby of his or her inherent human dignity. Just because we don’t “get” that sex makes babies, does not give us license to kill babies.

Remember that in-utero and out-of-utero, we are talking about the same child. Just as we cannot kill a child that is, for example, orphaned, out-of-utero, we cannot kill a child who is theoretically orphaned while he or she is still in-utero. Killing is still killing even if the location has changed.

The following may illustrate more clearly why ‘wanted-ness’ is not a measure by which we can justify the legality of abortion. You are walking down the street and come upon an infant lying on the sidewalk with a sign above him or her that states, “Unwanted, do not disturb.” How many people would keep walking past the baby because the sign says “unwanted?” I truly think that whether you are a business man speed walking to a meeting, a fourth grader in route to the park, or a grad student on the way to defend a doctoral thesis, you would stop in your tracks, pick up the baby, call the police, and hold the baby until the police arrive.

Consider another angle. “Wanting” someone is a changeable feeling from one human to another human. Human feelings change. Monday: I “want” you. Tuesday: I don’t “want” you. We cannot have legal abortion based upon a sentiment that changes. It is often argued that it is “not fair” to bring a child into the world under particular circumstances. So is dismemberment the answer? Being killed is “more fair?” Besides, the unborn are already in the world. They are “brought in” by sex, not by birth. Birth is an event that happens in life, it does not give life.

Randy Alcorn, in the book, “Pro-Life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments,” comments on why it is invalid to assert that abortion is in the best interest of the child.

“One of the most misleading aspects of prochoice argumentation is that it makes it appear that abortion is in the best interests of the baby. This is so absurd that it would be laughable if it were not so tragic. A little person is torn limb from limb, never to see the light of day, for her benefit? Slave owners argued that slavery was in the best interest of the blacks, since they couldn’t make it on their own. Today people say, “I can’t have this child because I can’t give it a good life.” And what is the solution to not being able to give him a good life? To take from him the only life he has. Exploiting people and stripping them of their rights is always easier when we tell ourselves we’re doing it for their good rather than our own.” (page 142)

It is our adult assumption that babies born into particular circumstances are destined to be unhappy. It is then our assumption that we should kill people who are destined to unhappiness. We forget that the babies are already in the world and are alive. We forget that it is our adult problem of not loving enough, our adult problem of not wanting, and our adult problem of not seeing that unhappiness is not a true destiny, it is a projected assumption. How dare we assume another person’s life is doomed based upon circumstances of his or her parents.

We are being lied to by Planned Parenthood. The lie is, “You don’t have the capacity to love children that did not spring from your very own loins.” However, as the example of coming across a baby with an “unwanted” sign illustrates, we do truly have the capacity to put aside our very important lives and care for the smallest, most defenseless among us. We must recognize the lies of Planned Parenthood, we must ignore the signs above unborn babies heads that figuratively read, “Unwanted,” and we must publicly and confidently acknowledge that the standard of being “wanted” is an invalid measure when it comes to the legality of killing a little baby.

What does endpoint security actually cover? It should cover all the countermeasures necessary to protect endpoints, but it should particularly concentrate on those countermeasures that address the threats unique to endpoints. For example, a notebook can travel to an internet café or hotel where the organization’s perimeter firewall is irrelevant, so there is a specific need for a firewall solution that resides on that endpoint. Similarly, you can’t ever rely on organizational-infrastructure solutions to control wireless on the endpoint, or the use of thumb-drives, so these fall perfectly under the umbrella of ‘endpoint security’. How has endpoint security evolved during the last few years? Two points: Endpoint security is a relatively new field, and so in the last few years we’ve seen a maturing of the technologies. For example, a few years ago almost no-one thought that endpoint security solutions should be network-location-aware, and the popular thought was that it was enough to have a ‘trusted’ and ‘untrusted’ state. Now it’s become universally acknowledged that solutions need to be more intelligent and granular than that, and that solutions should be able to auto-sense their network environment and apply a security solution that is appropriate for that context.Security has to evolve in synch with the underlying technology, so, for example, the introduction of wireless networking has driven a number of endpoint security issues. As thumbdrives, etc., have grown in capacity, it becomes more important to control their use to keep it in accordance with the organization’s security policy. What security approaches does endpoint security entail? Overall, we need to remember that the endpoint is not some completely different universe; just a new place where we need to do the right thing. That means that the ideal endpoint security solution will be a mechanism for enforcing the organization’s security policy. That means it should be centrally-managed, rather than an end-user-driven solution, and it should integrate with existing mature solutions such as anti-virus software and the like. The solution should be broad enough to control (among others): Connectivity (via firewalls and policy-based blocking of network access for unauthorized apps);Control over all aspects of wireless technology usage;Control over devices such as thumb-drives, iPods, etc.;Control over what executables can be activated;Control the integrity of the endpoint, making sure that AV sig files, etc, are up to date. What should small and medium sized companies look for in an endpoint security solution? Another point is that security always needs to avoid ‘fighting’ with the productivity requirements of people’s work. To avoid that, you need an endpoint security solution that: Is smart enough and granular enough to capture and enforce YOUR security policy, not something provided by the vendor as a ‘hope this fits’ solution.Flexible enough to enforce the right security solution for each network environment. You need to be productive and safe at work, AND at home, AND at a hotel, etc.

A few weekends ago The Independent on Sunday published a pull-out under its “The Information” banner entitled “The 50 Best Food Websites”. I found the feature really interesting because, as someone who’s gradually getting more familiar with the websites and blogs out there, it provided me with a good source of information on sites I had not previously discovered. It’s taken me quite a long time to sort out the list by type and here is my shot at it.
The sites in the 50 Best List divide into six categories (I hope I’ve got them all right):
On-Line Farmers
Riverford Organic Vegetables, Islay Fine Food Company, Northfield Farm, Damhead Organics, Jekka’s Herb Farm, Nudo Italia, East Coast Organics
On-Line Shops And Producers
Hobbs House Bakery, Scotherbs, Shipton Mill, La Fromagerie, L’Artisan du Chocolat, Daylesford Organic, Meg Rivers, Demijohn, Wing Yip, Simple Simon’s Perfect Pies, Plaisir du Chocolat, Wensleydale Foods, Donald Russell
Food Wholesalers and Virtual Supermarkets
Traidcraft Shop, Solstice, Merchant Gourmet, Foodfullstop, Forman And Field, Caledonian Connoisseur, Natoora, Cool Chile Co., Ocado, Abel & Cole
Food Bloggers/Writers
Chocolate & Zucchini, Dos Hermanos, Cupcakes Take the Cake, 101 Cookbooks, Opinionated About Dining, Chez Pim, The Amateur Gourmet, Delicious Days
Cookery Schools, Pro/Celebrity Chefs & Consultants
CIA ProChef, Delia Online, Dan Lepard, Michael Ruhlman, River Cottage
On-Line Magazines, Resource Centres and Culinary Organisations
Chow, BBC Food, Eat the Seasons, Epicurious, Slow Food, eGullet, FoodLovers BritainThree of these groups are traders in culinary produce and three are writers and communicators. Groups 1-3 make their money through business-to-business or business-to-customer food sales, whereas Groups 4-6 make their money through advertising, sponsorship, referral fees, membership fees or, indeed, not at all. Many of us operate websites as amateurs, for the love of food.
The first group comprises farmers who have developed their businesses through e-commerce. Readers in the US will be familiar with farm box schemes, where farmers pick seasonal vegetables and fruit and offer customers a surprise selection, or a choice of boxes with an indication of the contents. Either way there’s always something unexpected and that makes the whole scheme fun. It’s not something we’ve traditionally done in the UK, but I’m predicting a huge rise in the popularity of such schemes in the next few years. I was pleased to see Northfield Farm on this list - they run a popular outlet in my local Borough Market.Group 2 comprises food retailers with individual shops or outlet networks who, like the farmers, have discovered the advantages of e-commerce. Chocolate, cheese, pies, bread and wine are amongst the specialities available from the websites of these traders. Although some (such as Wing Yip with its Chinese food superstores) are based in city centres, most are in rural locations where they contribute to the regional food production that makes any country’s cuisine so great. The coming of the internet has opened new markets to these producers, some of whom now export all over the world from their bases in remote villages.Rather different are the “virtual supermarkets” - wholesalers and retailers whose operations were created (like Amazon.com) on the back of the internet. Although they have premises for warehousing, dispatch and admin, they don’t trade face-to-face but sell exclusively over the web. With leading supermarkets providing web-based home delivery services, it was only a matter of time before e-traders followed suit. These are gradually becoming more popular, at a time when the leading supermarkets are increasing their share of the in-shop business.We’re all familiar with most if not all of the selected bloggers in Group 4. The 50 Best Food Websites selection reflects a balance between the most widely read food sites and some interesting, newer bloggers. Similarly, Group 5 contains pro chef and celebrity sites that many of us link to and use regularly, plus one or two that are less familiar. CIA ProChef sounded a bit spooky to me, until I discovered that CIA is an acronym for the Culinary Institute of America. No covert operations there, hopefully, everything completely above chopping board!The final group are in some ways the most interesting. It’s hard to define this group exactly as they all differ in what they offer. Some are basically on-line versions of what would otherwise be (and in some cases actually are) printed magazines. Other sites in this group are membership organisations or resource forums such as billboards. All of these sites offer a wide diversity of services to their readers and are well worth a visit.
So it was a good read and a useful one. Obviously you could argue about Rhiannon Batten’s selection, with some great food websites not on the list. The only criticism I’ll make, however, is she seems not to have noticed the existence of humorous food blogs. That’s a shame, because in today’s very serious world it’s nice to read food writers who make us laugh. But lists like this are a source of inspiration. You never know - you might find a life-long reading companion amongst the links above.Posted by Trig - a 19-year-old trainee chef from London’s East End.

The Cubs had to be careful with Chad Fox. He had a history of arm injuries. They didn’t want to push him too much and use him in back to back games unless absolutely necessary.

So what happened?

The Cubs had a 4 run lead in the bottom of the 8th. Chad Fox had pitched the night before, getting the save. Who’s up in the bullpen? Chad Fox.

Neifi Perez, after making a deal with the devil, hits his third home run of the year. A three run shot that turns the game into a laugher, 10-3. There’s one out in the 8th. Fox is still throwing. Dusty now decides to get Mike Remlinger up in the pen.

The next two batters see a grand total of two pitches, and now a Cubs pitcher is needed to pitch the top of the 9th in a 10-3 game. Only Chad Fox is loose on this cold night. In he goes.

Fox walks Sean Casey on four pitches. Then he walks Joe Randa on five pitches. Fox, pitching on his second straight day clearly doesn’t have it. In he stays. Adam Dunn hits a three run home run. 10-6. Fox is still in the game.

Fox gets Austin Kearns to pop out to record his last out.

Fox walks Rich Aurilia on 9 pitches. He has thrown 25 pitches so far.

Larry Rothschild stands up in the dugout and raises one finger to indicate that Fox will only face one more batter. He has no idea how right he is.

Fox runs the count to 2-1 on Jason LaRue. On his 29th pitch of the night, Fox throws a ball and immediately turns away from the plate walking off the mound.

He has reinjured his elbow. He’s put on the DL the next day. His career might be over.

If I’m Chad Fox, I’m asking these questions to Dusty Baker.

- Since I was named the new closer, why am I even up in the bullpen with a 4 run lead?

- Why am I the only one up with a 4 run lead? Isn’t it possible the Cubs will score another run or three?

- So I had to go in to start the inning because Remlinger wasn’t ready. Why didn’t you bring him in the game when I walked the first batter? walked the second batter? gave up a home run to the third batter? walked the fifth batter? threw 25 pitches?

- What do I tell my family when I have to retire from the game I dedicated my life to?

Once a year I’m fortunate enough to be asked to teach at Creative Spark, a learning center for children and teens in Mount Pleasant, SC. Here are details of my latest class, which starts on Monday July 30:

How to Audition for Films, Television and Commercials

Hundreds of locals are cast each year in films, commercials and television shows.If you aspire to get paid jobs acting, even non-speaking roles require that you…

- know the terminology and etiquette
- learn how to recite a monologue
- improvise
- follow direction.

Learn from a pro, Nick Smith, who founded the Film School Scotland and has worked on dozens of film and TV productions, including “Gulliver’s Travels” and “The Little Vampire.”

July 30 to August 3

Tuition is $85.

Ages 8 to 12 from 1:00 to 3:00 PM
Ages 13 and up from 3:00 to 5:00 PM

Phone: 843-881-3780
Fax: 843-881-8487

ScienceDaily reports on a new study that gives some evidence for the hypothesis that walking on two legs is more energy efficient than than dragging your knuckles while walking.

Study Identifies Energy Efficiency As Reason For Evolution Of Upright Walking

A new study provides support for the hypothesis that walking on two legs, or bipedalism, evolved because it used less energy than quadrupedal knucklewalking.

When I read that last night, while rather tired, my first thought was that that it sounded inplausible - if walking upright is more energy efficient, then why does most mammals walk on two legs. Rereading it today, I of course realized that walking upright, like a Home Sapiens, is more energy efficient than walking on your legs and knuckles, like our fellow apes does. That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily more efficient than walking on four legs, like the majority of mammals do.

Bipedalism marks a critical divergence between humans and other apes and is considered a defining characteristic of human ancestors. It has been hypothesized that the reduced energy cost of walking upright would have provided evolutionary advantages by decreasing the cost of foraging.

“For decades now researchers have debated the role of energetics and the evolution of bipedalism,” said Raichlen. “The big problem in the study of bipedalism was that there was little data out there.”

The researches collected metabolic, kinematic and kenetic data from five chimpanzees and four adult humans walking on a treadmill. The chimpanzees were trained to walk quadrupedally and bipedally on the treadmill.

Humans walking on two legs only used one-quarter of the energy that chimpanzees who knuckle-walked on four legs did. On average, the chimpanzees used the same amount of energy using two legs as they did when they used four legs. However, there was variability among chimpanzees in how much energy they used, and this difference corresponded to their different gaits and anatomy.

Interesting result, and it certainly explains why bipedalism became the movement of choice for Homo Sapiens and our ancestors. Or at least, it does so, once we moved down from the trees - I would expect that if we looked at movement in trees, the energy use would be somewhat reversed.

The study is published in PNAS, but unfortunately it’s behind a pay-wall. The abstract can be found here though.

Al Gore, global warming doomsday prophet, was looking for a place in Washington, D.C. to hold his Live Earth doomsday concert.

He couldn’t make it happen.

From The Washington Post:

Washington has given Al Gore’s global-warming concert the cold shoulder, so the former vice president has decided to move “Live Earth” to more hospitable climes: the swamplands of New Jersey.

The event will take place July 7 at Giants Stadium in the New York suburb of East Rutherford, N.J., with the Police, the Dave Matthews Band, Alicia Keys, Fall Out Boy, Akon, Melissa Etheridge, Kanye West and Bon Jovi among the 16 scheduled performers. It will be one of seven massive concerts staged around the world that day to bring attention to Gore’s effort to raise concern about global climate change.

Gore and the Live Earth producers had hoped to bring the North American Live Earth show to Washington, but finding a suitable venue here proved difficult. The obvious choice — the Mall — was booked for the Smithsonian Folklife Festival as well as a Christian festival called Together One Unity, and a bipartisan resolution to bring the concert to the Capitol grounds ran into Republican roadblocks. A last-ditch effort to find an alternative location in Washington proved futile.

So yesterday, Gore and Live Earth Executive Producer Kevin Wall announced that they were going to the Garden State.

“I would have loved to have been in Washington,” Wall said. “We’re disappointed it didn’t work out, but we’re also happy to be at Giants Stadium.”
Why have the concert in Washington?

Was the idea to make Gore king for a day?

King Al had problems finding a suitable venue in D.C.

…Last month it appeared that Live Earth might come to the Capitol through an act of Congress. After organizers ran into scheduling problems on the Mall, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced a resolution authorizing use of the Capitol’s west side for the concert.

But when Reid tried to pass the measure by unanimous consent, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) objected, saying more time was needed to review the resolution. (”The senator thinks it’s important, before you vote on a resolution, to be able to read it,” McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said yesterday.)

Several days later, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, vowed to block Live Earth from coming to the Capitol, telling the Hill newspaper that “there has never been a partisan political event at the Capitol, and this is a partisan political event.”

…Snowe, who co-authored the measure to bring Live Earth to the Capitol, was “disappointed” by the outcome, according to her spokesman, David Snepp. “This is the perfect venue to focus attention on what Senator Snowe calls one of the most pressing issues of our day,” Snepp said. “She tried hard to convince her colleagues that this was an appropriate and fitting venue….”
Are the “colleagues” that Snowe supposedly tried to convince to support the political rally and concert at the Capitol Republicans?

When I think of Snowe’s colleagues, I don’t think of Republicans.

She doesn’t seem to want to be a Republican. She often seems to think that the grass is greener on the other side of the aisle, preferring to lean to the Left.

At least some Republicans, like McConnell and Inhofe, had the good sense to prevent the Dems and their RINO allies from staging a political event on the Capitol grounds.

…Wall said: “I was a little shocked by what happened in Washington. I’m not a political guy at all. The only politician I know is Al Gore. I didn’t want it to be politicized. It’s not a political show. I think it’s a red alert about an environmental issue that the world has to come together on.”
Give me a break!

“I’m not a political guy at all.”

Yeah, right.

Not a political show?

Wall has to be kidding.

Is he so naive to think that Kanye West isn’t going to say something like, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people or the planet”?

A Bush bash fest isn’t going to bring people together. Well, I suppose it would band some together. The concert would unite the far Left Lefties with the less Left Lefties for at least a day.

As one, they could worship their supreme environmental leader, Al Gore, in the name of melting glaciers and drowning polar bears.

They could join in one voice to spout their alarmist, hysterical, inaccurate “facts” about the earth being on the brink of destruction, with Armageddon Al leading the chorus.

Tickets to the Giants Stadium concert will go on sale Monday. Pricing hasn’t been set, but Wall estimated that they’d “average around $100 or $125.” Had Live Earth been staged on the Mall or at the Capitol, admission would have been free, he said. Ticket revenue will help cover the facility fee at the Meadowlands sports complex.
Funny how that worked out, isn’t it?

The concert would have been free if it were held in Washington, as though there would have been no costs for security, crowd control, etc.

All of that would have been free of charge in D.C.

Question: How?

But at the Meadowlands Gore will charge $100+ per person.

That’s an awfully steep price for just a facility fee.

Will ticket revenue also cover gift bags for those environmentally conscious artists donating their time for this important cause?

Remember Live Eight in July 2005?

That event was meant to raise awareness about eradicating poverty. It was kind of embarrassing when it was revealed that some performers received lavish gift bags valued at $3000, packed with designer items.

Way to tackle poverty! Personal indulgence gets the job done!

In the case of Live Earth, I wonder about similar instances of counterproductivity.

For instance, how much energy will be consumed to put on this concert?

Will there be carbon offsets purchased to make up for the footprint left behind by the performers’ private jets and other pampering?

Think of all the CO2 emissions resulting from tens of thousands of people traveling to Giants Stadium for the concert.

Worse yet, think of all the CO2 the audience will exhale during the concert!

Gore’s Live Earth probably will serve to take a few years off the earth as we know it.

I guess raising consciousness comes at an environmentally unfriendly price.

Gluttonous Gore doesn’t seem to care.