Bob Garfield on My ooVoo Day, originally uploaded by Chris Abraham.

I got to host On the Media‘s Bob Garfield and represent crayon LLC and ooVoo today during My ooVoo Day today at the offices of MSHC Partners thanks to the kindness and generosity of Michael Bassik. The entire day went swimmingly and many a fine feathered friend ooVoo’d in to say hello and to participate. Very cool. You’ll see my cute-as-sin x61 ThinkPad with my cool wee notebook webcam by CREATIVE. Note the Caribou Coffee cup — there are still alternatives to Starbucks in this town, Washington, DC.

Scott Monty, BL Ochman, Mark Harrison, Christina Greene, and Jonathan Trenn, etc, are all lined up for mirth and happiness! Check out the sweet notie with the cool cammie and the hip offie! We’re attached via a brightly-colored lannie.

I met Lori Gottlieb years ago now and I am a passionate fan. There are even rumors that I will be mentioned in an upcoming Atlantic article, “Marry Him:  The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough,” which will be coming out in the March issue available online this Friday.Forget about me me me for a minute — this is about Lori.  Lori was just on NPR today and will be on the Today Show tomorrow.  Here’s an excerpt from her email:

“I’ll also be interviewed about the piece on The Today Show this Friday, 2/8 (NBC, between 8 & 8:30 a.m..).  And NPR ran my commentary today that speaks to some of the points in the Atlantic story.  You can hear that at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18751687.”

I think Lori is smashing and I am so happy to be a part of this article and this project.  When the article comes online on Friday, I will reveal all of the awful details of my interview — what I said about love, marriage, etc.  Egad! To quote Lori in her email:

“Thanks again for your great quotes and insight.  Either we’re all really cynical, or we’re just depressingly reality-based, and true love, like religion, is indeed the opiate of the masses.”

Amen, sister! Anyway, if you’re not yet a Fan of Lori Gottlieb, please check out her Official Lori Gottlieb Web Site. Also, check out all the magazine articles she has done in the past:

• Glamour UK (Jennifer Lopez cover profile) October 2007

• MSN (“Are You the Last One Single?”) October 2007

• Grazia magazine/UK (Nicky Hilton interview) September 2007

• Grazia magazine/UK (Courtney Love interview) July 2007

• MSN (“Left Out in the Cold”) April 2007

• The New York Times (“Teaching Movie Moguls to Wipe Drool”) March 2007

• Grazia magazine/UK (Eric Mabius “Ugly Betty” profile) February 2007

• MSN (“Valentine’s Day Survival Guide”) February 2007

• The Los Angeles Jewish Journal (“When D-A-T-E  Becomes a Four-Letter Word”) January 2007

• Women’s Health (“It’s All Relative”) December 2006

• The New York Times (“My Mother the TV Writer”) November 2006

• MSN (“First Date Fumbles”) November 2006

• Glamour UK (Sarah Michelle Gellar cover profile) November 2006

• Glamour UK (Christina Aguilera cover profile) October 2006

• MSN (“Got Kids?”) September 2006

• MSN (“Single Parent Pickup Tricks”) August 2006

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“Snips and Snapshots”) May 2006

• Glamour (“Party of Two and A Half”) April 2006

• The Atlantic Monthly (“How Do I Love Thee?”) March 2006

• Elle (“Who’s Your Daddy?”) February 2006

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “Sense and Sensitivity”) October 2005

• The Atlantic Monthly (“The XY Files”) September 2005

• Red magazine, UK (Teri Hatcher cover story) September 2005

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“Once Upon a Heeb”) July 2005

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“Mama Said…”) June 2005

• The Los Angeles Times (Calendar: “As Biological Clocks Go, His is More Like a Travel Alarm”) May 2005

• The Los Angeles Times (Calendar: “Please Leave a Hidden Message After the Tone”) April 2005

• Fresh Yarn (“Sleepless in JFK”)

• The Los Angeles Times (Calendar: “Don’t Make Me Laugh”) March 2005

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“The Court of Cupid”) February 2005

• Elle (“Insignificant Other”) November 2004

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“Political Bedfellows”) October 2004

• The Los Angeles Times (Calendar: “To Win With Defeatism”) September 2004

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“Guilty of Being Too Guilty”) September 2004

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“Wandering Back Into the Fold”) September 2004

• Glamour (“Little Black Book”) September 2004

• People (“Colors Insulting to Nature” Review) August 2004

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “SWF Seeks Same”) August 2004

• Redbook (“Sweet Revenge”) August 2004

• People (“Grosse Pointe Girl” Review) June 2004

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “Competitive Coupling”) June 2004

• People (“What to Keep” Review) May 2004

• People (“Like the Red Panda” Review) April 2004

• Glamour (“Why I Love Going to Work”) April 2004

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “Vanity Body Plates”) March 2004

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “V-Day Gestures”) February 2004

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “Full Disclosure”) November 2003

• People (“Save Karyn” Review) September 2003

• People (“Family Trust” Review) September 2003

• Glamour (“Bed Test”) August 2003

• People (“Sushi For Beginners” Review) June 2003

• L.A. Weekly (“French Fry Nation“) June 2003

• People (“Rescuing Patty Hearst” Review) March 2003

• The Los Angeles Times (Sunday Calendar: “A Degree of Humor“) March 2003

• The Los Angeles Times (Sunday Calendar: “Out of the Deep End“) February 2003

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “Prozac Jewess“) February 2003

• Farallon Films: Odds & Sods (“The Penis Diaries“) January 2003

• Glamour (“Tummy Troubles”) January 2003

• Redbook (“My Big Mistake that Turned Out Great”) December 2002

• Stanford magazine (“A Blonde’s Bombshell”) December 2002

• Minnesota Monthly (“Father Knows Best”) December 2002

• The New York Post (“Teens on Film”) November 2002

• People (“All is Vanity” Review) November 2002

• Redbook (“You Won’t Believe Who I Married”) October 2002

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“Inside the Cult of Kibu”) August 2002

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “Literary Speed-Dating”) August 2002

• People (“Confessions of a Sociopathic Social Climber” review) July 2002

• Elle (“The Ex-Girlfriends Club”) July 2002

• People (“Angels” review) June 2002

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (“Faith in Unique Places“) April 2002

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “Will the Real Jew Please Stand Up?“) April 2002

• People (“Slave to Fashion” review) April 2002

• People (“Advanced Sex Tips for Girls” review) March 2002

• This Side of Doctoring: Reflections From Women in Medicine December 2001

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “L.A. Jew”) November 2001

• People (“Last Year’s River” review) November 2001

• The New York Times (“A Home Office Needs Its Boundaries”) October 2001

• ChickClick (Interview with “7th Heaven’s”Beverley Mitchell) October 2001

• The L.A. Jewish Journal (Singles: “The Rabbi-Bad Boy Complex”) October 2001

• San Jose Mercury News (“The World Below” review) October 2001

• Mademoiselle (“Brunch With…” columns) September, October, November 2001

• People (“Long Time No See” review) September 2001

• Mademoiselle (“My Childhood Friends… Today”) September 2001

• Redbook magazine (“The Most Hated Women in America”) August 2001

• Modern Bride (“Destination San Francisco“) August 2001

• Seventeen Magazine (“Forgive or Forget?”) August 2001

• Mademoiselle (Health News) July 2001

• The San Francisco Chronicle (“High Maintenance” review) July 2001

• iLife (“Wired Women”) July 2001

• Farallon Films: Odds & Sods (“Fish Girl“) June 2001

• Time Magazine (“Thirtysomething meets ER“) April 2001

• The San Jose Mercury News (“A Stethoscope on the Soul”) April 2001

• Mademoiselle (“Cocaine in the Corner Office”) April 2001

• CosmoGirl! (“Disordered Eating”) April 2001

• The Industry Standard/Year In Review (“Inside the Cult of Kibu“) December 2000

• Time Digital (“Is There a Geek in the House?”) December 2000

• The Industry Standard (“Seeking Seclusion“) November 2000

• The New York Times (“When Six Figures Add Up to Zero“) October 2000

• The Industry Standard (“From Glitterati to Digerati“) September 2000

• Webdelsol Editor’s Pick (“All the King’s Horses”) July 2000

• Salon (“But Enough About Me: Does Writing a Memoir Give People Carte Blanche to Analyze Your Life”) June 2000

• Salon Table Talk (a week-long online chat with the author) June 2000

• Oxygen.com (Breakup Girl: “Hooking Up at 35,000 Feet”) May 2000

• DrDrew.com (“Liposuction Lessons”) April 2000

• Oxygen.com (Breakup Girl: “Club Med School”) April 2000

• Stanford magazine (“Left for Dead”) January 1999

• Selected Columns from Salon Magazine, 1998: •Bad Chemistry: When your lab partner is an obsessive compulsive, not even the data is safe •Breasts on the Brain: Anatomy is grueling enough without a gang of unweaned college boys drooling over the specimens •Horrible Harvard: An interview at Harvard Medical School reveals the ice behind the ivy •Behind Closed Doors: When my favorite professor revealed that he was human, too, I knew I’d never look at him the same way again •Survival of the Earliest: Competing for grades is one thing. But facing off for parking spaces means all-out war •Penile Ponderings: In search of vestigial vaginas and other ethical dilemmas •Ghosts on campus: Within the cozy community of campus life, there are plenty of cracks to fall through

• Slate (Guest Diarist) August 1998

• The Outlook (“15 Minutes”) February 1998

Check out this loving comment in response to Don’t Save the Whales,

“i’m not sure of what your point is?! whats wrong with trying to save the whales, or any animal for that matter? why are you saying that only whales shouldn’t be saved? why not all other endangered species? i think you are wrong as i know many do, but i do not see your selfish view as to be right, yes you can look after your family or whatever your trying to say, but why not doing things for other people or animals other than yourself? please enlighten me with your selfish attitude to life.”

There is no cause so noble that you should sacrifice your children to its altar. Shame on you.

After 15-years in DC, I have noticed that those noble activists who are saving the world have yet to save themselves, their marriages, their families, and their children.

The children of many of the founders of these organizations are a mess, with boys and girls as scared and abandoned as the children of their more celebrated Hollywood celebrities and New York robber barons. They are cared for by nannies and oftentimes never see their parents for weeks at a time.

All because one or more of their parents are making sacrifices for a higher, nobler cause: saving the whales. Or some similar cause celebre.

The illusion of nobility associated with saving pagan babies, the rain forest, the whales, or the trees is pure distraction from the things that matter most in this life which is saving yourself, protecting and loving your children, your spouse, your parents, your family, and your community.

If you have all of your ducks in a row, if your children are happy and well-adjusted, if your health is good and you get enough sleep and exercise, if you still chase your spouse around the bed pretty regularly, and you call your mother, with energy to spare for yourself, then you have the right to save the whales.

Otherwise, you are chasing phantoms, you are wasting your time, and you had better still yourself enough to remember why you got married, why you had children, and whether the whales really matter to you any more or if you’re just used to saving the whales.

Otherwise, let the whales fend for themselves for a little while while you get yourself together.

If you disrespect your own family enough to abandon them for your noble cause then the whales are better off without you. Resign from your save the whales campaign immediately, move to New York, and settle in to a life on Wall Street.

If you’re going to be ignoble, you might as well do it for money. The entire order cetacea recognize hypocrisy when they see it and they don’t want any of your filthy lucre anyway.

(Special Thanks to Paul Roberts of P.R.A.D.E. (Paul Roberts Amateur Design Enthusiast The blog for the untrained but discriminating design eye) — the Photoshop God — who hooked me up with the Don’t Save the Whales graphic)

Related Posts

• Will Subliterate 17-Year-Olds Save the Whales?
• Wisdumb of Crowds: SAVE THE WHALES
• Kill the Humans Who Save the Whales

Some great comments follow:

Comments

Understandable sentiment, and an easy crutch for our own apathy, but life is not so black and white.

To continue with a racial theme and abuse an overused metaphor, would you have had Dr. King abandon his quest for civil rights in favor of couples therapy?

Granted, whales and trees are not sentient beings like the African Americans who were fire-hosed in Selma, but it’s naieve to write off noble ambitions because one’s self is not already enlightened.

In many of the great religious traditions service is actually means to personal salvation. Through serving others, we can learn to help ourselves and our families.

It is a shame that such impulses are not instinctual (hence the reason why airlines have to remind to you put on your oxygen mask before assisting your neighbor), but we are contradictory beings.

Accept the ambiguity and respect both service to others and our quests for personal virtue. They go hand in hand.

Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 10:32 AM

There is no apathy in my life. And there are also many distractions. I have spent years dancing with dolphins and whales as a SCUBA diver and know them more than many and for this I am grateful.

What is more noble than the ambition of saving oneself?

Doctor King was a whale, if you will. He was saving himself, his family, and his community. I am surprised that you overlooked that.

So, maybe I am not so naive.

And the most valuable lessons are in fact gleaned from serving others, but try to keep it local. As in your spouse, your children, your parents, your family, your friends, your community. If you have energy left over, then spend it along the same vein.

The nature of the world is not really as it seems. Try to only serve others you can touch, see, feel, help, interact with, and live with.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 10:47 AM

Dr. King was a philanderer saint.

Beethoven was an abusive genius.

Ghandi…well, he was all good.

The point is that we can’t put our life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers.

I know you’re neither naieve nor apathetic, so don’t come off like it by saying, “saving pagan babies, the rain forest, the whales, or the trees is pure distraction from the things that matter most in this life which is saving yourself, protecting and loving your children, your spouse, your parents, your family, and your community.”

If people don’t save the trees there will be no more familes to save.

Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 10:57 AM

As for one’s life’s work, it makes more than more sense to me now that Roman Catholic priests are celibate. There are fewer distractions.

I am not saying that one should not perform one’s life’s work. But not to the harm of what really matters.

And I am not talking about one’s life’s work, nor am I talking about destiny. What I am saying is that no matter how noble one’s life’s work may seem and no matter how important one’s destiny is, it is not remotely as important as serving your spouse, your children, your family, and your community.

There is nothing as modest, as honest, as life-affirming, and life-changing as that.

There is more harm done by a man who has a destiny, a noble aim, a a life’s work than anything else.

You mentioned Dr. King, Beethoven, and Ghandi.

I will mention some other men who have had life’s work and noble aims who lost site of themselves, their children, their family, and their community:

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Hideki Tojo, Kim Il-Sung, Chiang Kai-Shek, Moammar Al Qadhafi, Pol Pot, Francisco Franco, and Mao Zedong.

All men who didn’t put their “life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers.”

To take it one step further, these men, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Hideki Tojo, Kim Il-Sung, Chiang Kai-Shek, Moammar Al Qadhafi, Pol Pot, Francisco Franco, and Mao Zedong, might have turned out differently if their mom, dad, family, and friends where better parents to them.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 11:34 AM

cop out.

Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 11:56 AM

There are many highly-gifted people in the world who have been treated like the young Gautama.

They are coddled, protected, and spoiled so that they may be allowed to focus on their destiny.

They distiny is as likely to be that of a surgeon, a scientist, a lawyer, a competitive skater, an athelete, a beauty queen, a pianist, a painter, a poet, or a priest as it is the King of the Whales.

There needs to be balance in all things. And what is the saddest part of this entire conversations is that the same man who said, “The point is that we can’t put our life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers” is also the man who spent months living in India.

I have never focused this on not saving the whales or not saving the forests but rather how much easier it is to forgive the distraction from the truth if that distraction is in fact popular or noble.

It’s neither nuclear family and Wall $treet, nor domestic abuse and whales.

There are countless great parents who are plenty involved with money, and plenty of awful parents who do invaluable work for their communities but are awful husbands and wives, who are awful parents to their children, and who are able to rationalize their entire failure because they have done some things that really don’t matter too much at the end of life really anyway.

There is another black and white annoyance: that money equals bad and activism equals good.

Sometimes entropy isn’t death. very often, it isn’t. Sometimes to struggle so hard for something that is so far removed and so not part of one’s life is like struggling in quicksand.

Not only is it a waste of energy, but the unintended consequence — sinking faster and being alienated from a helping hand — is worse than anything you could ever imagine.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 1:16 PM

there will always be that group of people bordering on lunacy who are dependent on a false sense of altruism to prop up their self-esteem, which suffers from things like failing to take care of their families or failing to succeed in relationships. it’s a shame, really.

Posted by: sam | April 12, 2005 8:30 AM

Sam, that’s the perfect way of saying it. And I can even make it more generic to better support my point, if you don’t mind, “there will always be that group of people bordering on lunacy who are dependent on a false sense of destiny to prop up their self-esteem.” The same stuff that makes the chairman of GE great and successful is the stuff that makes up the chairman of WWF as well.

My concern — and the reason I wrote the piece — is that the chairman of GE doesn’t suffer from the “noble aim” aspect, which might make the avarice and work ethic and profit motive more authentic and honest.

And is that better than a false sense of altruism?

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 9:32 AM

Yes, the avarice and work ethic may be honest and authentic, but avarice is a product of disappointment toward selfless service. Avarice and profit are easy. They come naturally, but so does the violence instinct. It is the mark of a civilized human to control such instincts.

Take each point in this discussion to the extreme. If tomorrow you woke up and walked outside to a world composed of either selfless service or “avarice and work ethic and profit motive”, which would you prefer?

Posted by: Bryan | April 12, 2005 9:49 AM

Chris, Dickens had the same reservations as you about what he termed Telescopic Philanthropy. You’re not alone!

Posted by: Mike | April 12, 2005 10:38 AM

In their purest form, I would choose service. I have a dear friend who is Mormon and she told me that service is the most important thing to the LDS. But when it comes to service, nobody is a professional and the service is inclusive of the family.

I like that. That makes sense to me.

I am also not saying that there is anything wrong with an obsessive workaholic president of Save the Whales.

I mean, there needs to be sacrifice in life and pain in order to grow and evolve.

But when a child is involved — when a family is being made — then things indeed should change.

Take each point in this discussion to the extreme. If tomorrow you woke up and walked outside to a world in which you would have to choose between saving all the whales and saving one child, which would you choose?

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 11:05 AM

With regards to Telescopic Philanthropy, I see the same thing with Mr. Margaret Thatcher. The thing is, with spouses, there is a certain level of conscious or unconscious choice in the matter.

With children, there is no choice in the matter. Although the subsumed spouse might become toxic and bitter — or not — at the loss of self to the shining qualities of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, there is still no less of a choice, really, in the matter.

It boils down to, if you’re unhappy, leave.

But choosing to have children is an entirely different matter.

Having children can either be the most generous or the most selfish act in the entire world.

An additional note is that psychologically-speaking, the same people who end up in a role such as Mrs Jellyby’s or Mrs Thatcher’s tend also to have narcissistic qualities.

And narcissists are the most compelling mates and the most incapable of being partners and parents. Funny how that works.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 11:16 AM

Without reading each entry and assimilating them all to produce a cogent statement (because I’m busy at work), let me make the following observations and then close with the greatest quote ever spoken.

1) There are causes noble enough that you should sacrifice your children. Chief among them is service to your nation in a time where its existence is threatened. As Abraham Lincoln once said to women grieving the loss of their children during the civil war,

“I cannot refrain from tendering to you the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our heavenly father may assuage the anguish of your bereavements and leave you only the cherished memories of the loved and the lost and the solemn pride that must be yours to have made so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom.”

2) Nobody (worth hearing) is suggesting that saving the whales is more important, or equally important, to tending to our social fabric. What they are saying, if you listen with a carefully bent ear, is that through fostering care for things other than ourselves we create a society that by virtue of its interest in things besides itself, takes good care of itself. Without a strong social network, these other less paramount causes could garner no attention.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Theodore Roosevelt (26th U.S. president (1901-09), 1858-1919)

Posted by: Justin | April 12, 2005 12:44 PM

could we change “whales” to “the unborn”?

Posted by: max solon | April 12, 2005 12:48 PM

I fully agree with you, but isn’t that called duty? And isn’t that the choice of the child? The child is not being sacrificed for the parent but rather the child is sacrificing his own life. That soldier is a whale. That soldier is sacrificing his life for his spouse, his children, his family, his friends, his community, and his country.

Entirely different, in my opinion, but important none-the-less.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 3:56 PM

Yea. I see the problem.

We should take control of our families and sort out all our family problems.

What about taking them to the ocean? We could all look for the whales together!

No, waste of time. What if we don’t sort out our problems when we’re there? We might all get lost in some sadly transient awe at the beauty of the whales – or probably just the idea of whales. For precious moments we’d forget the problems we went there to sort.
My family is not weak!
And who’s driving?

And if all the whales are gone anyway because of whalers, or depleted fish stocks from crazy fishing, or deafening submarine engines interfering in their songs, we’re only going to get frustrated at humanity’s impotence in the face of these vital industries.
I can do without that.
And they have no rhythm as far as I can tell.

Let’s relax with the tv newstoons and a healthy tuna salad, and save up the money from work for a good holiday one day. Disney? Hope we don’t use it all up on therapy first.
Or they grow up.

Forget the whales. You only live once.

Posted by: Hugh Whiting | April 12, 2005 9:48 PM

I think you’ve got your focus slightly wrong here, because you’re centering on “activists” when you should be thinking of all parents.

I know several handfuls of people who were scared and abandoned children, and the few who were raised by nannies were the lucky ones. Some of those abandoned children had parents at home, but they were so involved in business that they never saw their kids. It’s not about “activism,” it’s about abandoning your family for anything, and we shouldn’t confuse the two.

All the actual activists I’ve known share their activism with their families (I used to work for the Sierra Club, so I’ve known a few).

P.S., and this is a note for everybody, because this is the third time I’ve seen the error today: IT’S SPELLED “GANDHI.” G. A. N. D. H. I.

Posted by: Rika Youngblood | April 12, 2005 10:28 PM

i disagree with your assessment that the whales can fend for themselves .. they have no chance at all when their home is polluted, their food depleted, and their migration paths are congested with oil tankers .. what’s worst, we have the power to wipe out the planet (not just a single species) with just a push of the button (in 2002, we were just seven minutes away from midnight on the doomsday clock).

i have yet to run into children of the green movement who “are a mess”. on the contrary, having attended an ultra-liberal college of a progressive town [santa cruz], i have met and befriended many of these second-generation hippies who continue to uphold the various -ISMs (re: liberalism, idealism, etc) and values of their parents. what a wonderful gifts these hippies of yesteryears have given to their children.

this legacy echoes the teachings of the wisdom keepers of the mohawk nation, who teach their people to respect the land, and that “… everything they do affects the Seventh Generation and we must think of the unborn faces looking up from beneath Mother Earth”.

though my parents were not part of the green movement, i do believe in it .. and i will save the whales for the both of us.

Posted by: nam lamore | April 13, 2005 4:20 PM

Hugh, the entire time I read your comment I thought of the dolphins from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy! — thanks for that. But I have to tell you that I don’t really give a rat’s twat what you get up to.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 13, 2005 8:23 PM

What absolute twaddle.

Where is your evidence to back up the existence of these orphans of ecology? Don’t you think that there are people that put work before their family in all walks of life?

You’re being deliberately provocative. Get a life. Spend some time with your own family and friends instead of wasting your time attempting to bait people on the internet for your own pathetic amusement.

Posted by: Vilnius Terence | April 14, 2005 10:59 AM

I think you are bang out of order the people that save the whales are good people and are doing good. I am sure 9 out of ten would not neglected there families because of it and the ones that do are yes in the wrong when I was a little girl saving the whales was my dream
whales are mammals just like we are they are getting killed by there own species which is not right you are saying we should be stopping the robberies and the murders but by killing the whales you are doing the same to them you are murdering them and robbing them of a family something’s need looking after and at least there are SOME descent people out there that will do it not everyone sees life in the same way you do. if you had a pet dog for example and someone was trying to kill it you would do everything you could to save it because it is part of the family some people see whales in that way. How would you feel if you were just sitting at home with your family and someone shot a harpoon at you? Well that’s what it is like for them.
just imagine(I don’t no if you have kids) that you were sitting at home with your kids and someone captured you or killed you just think about what it would do to your kids but at least they would have other family or they would have the opinion of foster care or adoption. but those poor whales probably don’t have help like that they would be all alone and maybe too young to know how to survive on their own so I think in the future instead of being lost in your own little world and think its the saving the whales that is doing it think again because they need as much help as we do. And if you are so bovered about the community I hope you are out there doing something for it. Infact why don’t you go out there and do something now instead of wasting your time writing this web site moaning about there whale savers and do something for the community yours sincerely jess

Posted by: jess | May 13, 2005 9:31 AM

this is sick we can save ourslevs we have a voice of our own but the whales dont so if they cant speak to stick up for themslves who will? because it is clear u wont. i would and that is a fact u mybe should listen because it is your people that is causing the problem with the whales.

Posted by: stephanie | May 23, 2005 4:41 AM

If the vast majority of people who aren’t inclined towards saving the whales and such, were instead spending their free time trying to truly take care of their families, spouses & communities I might see validity to your argument…as it is this post just looks like liberal-baiting to me.

Whatever. You guys are right. We suck. Money is king. Whatever.

Posted by: Cary | June 21, 2005 2:53 PM

You can always catch a liberal if you use a whale as bait!

Posted by: Chris Abraham | June 21, 2005 4:44 PM

what a stupid article.

Posted by: Urb | June 21, 2005 9:05 PM

Your argument is astonishing to me. If you can honestly re-read it two times and not see the mile-wide holes in your reasoning you might need to take some time to think things over. Really.

Suffice to say that if this is the way you feel then I’m thinking that you have some learning to do about what a relationship is, what a marriage is and what raising a child is. Let’s set your gloss on activism == children raised by nannies aside. That is a deep issue with a whole spectra of situations that you are lumping into the most negative terminus.

You don’t raise a child by commiting yourself to voluntary servitude to him or her — nor do you ‘make a family’ by staying home and staring at them 24/7. Strong people with strong convictions raise children that share these traits. Strong marriages are not made by two people who spend all their time on each other. The best thing you can do for a child is to inspire her by setting an example of what a person can do in this world.

To hold the opinions that you express within the context of your personal mores is one thing, but to insult *activism* at large and to call people who give a damn and are doing somehting about it bad parents bullshit on stilts.

Posted by: anon | June 22, 2005 12:09 PM

You have the honor of missing my point entirely. I think you might be suffering from some sort of deep-seated guilt.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | June 22, 2005 1:29 PM

we as humans have a responsibilty to care for all living creatures of this earth as they all have a right to live and we are the ones who have destroyed their homes and species. So it is a responsibility of ours to try protect those species in danger because of the selfish act of others.

Posted by: Amy | July 9, 2005 1:47 AM

you obviously is idiot, u must be someone who cares only about urself. please open u eyes and see what people like u are doing to animals. IDIOT

Posted by: lin jia yi | July 11, 2005 8:13 AM

first of all Mr.Abraham does make a point, if your life isn’t well put together you shouldn’t particate in any other extra curricular activities. However,he fails to mention other activities people particate in that aren’t for the environment,anmails/endangered species,or other worthwhile cause that never the less can disrrupt homes,childhoods,& break families such as:homeless, needy, abuse, disabiled, & feed the children. but these aren’t mentioned, why . . .?

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:14 PM

Mr.Abraham I must say you speak of neglected children,& husbands. can you prove anything you say? And if you can tell us how many people are neglected because of their parents jobs, hobbies, and everyday life who aren’t rooted in some cause and are just living in a regular town, would you? There are problems in life & marriage due to nothing but their own faults, to not think so & live in a perfect world is denial.I suggest you open your eyes.

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:35 PM

Mr.Abraham,I respect other people’s opinions.You do not.That I refuse to respect,the lives of others & how the are lived are not yours to dictate to.You probley have a nice apt. in a upscale N.Y. neighborhood. Must be nice. You’ve had everything handed to you in a silver spoon. I don’t discriminate agianst the rich even though i am not. But for the poor who live in the wild or country nature is greatly loved,respected,&cared for.

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:49 PM

Mr.Abraham, you must watch your views & how you express them because you can offend many people,I was very offended by your statements and took it personally.It hurt,and I thought of all the others you’ve hurt by this. I suggest you apologize to the envirnmental community.I don’t apphreciate your calling Dr.King a “philanderer saint” and suggest you appologize to the black community as well.One day you may wake up and see how precious our world is.

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 5:01 PM

Mr.Abraham, this is my last post.I know your thinking “thank god”. But in short i will speak a quote of love ,honesty,& truth. ” The wonderous world under sea & land, in the big scheme of things one life may seem insugnifficant but it’s the greatest gift we know and we cannot let this world of light, love ,and beauty perish.”

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 5:09 PM

Mr Abraham, YOU ARE A CRAZY, CRAZY TOOL.

Posted by: Mad Anne Bonney | July 11, 2005 10:20 PM

Mr Abraham, YOU ARE A FREAKY FREAKY FREAK.

Posted by: Mad Anne Bonney | July 11, 2005 10:21 PM

My ex long ago abandoned our son for native american/worker/prison issues. The worst part is my 18-yr-old son who was dragged to the W.T.O. when he was 13(although it makes for a good story to say he’s been teargassed)-my son only sees the hypocrisy in the hardcore activists–thinking of them as angry and sad without any stability or truth.

Posted by: christina | July 12, 2005 7:19 PM

Your thoughts are disturbing because if you cannot enjoy the utter beauty we have in our world you are really disturbed. This page is sick and unfortunatly I visited this sight BLAH….SAVE THE WHALES

Posted by: Crystal | July 12, 2005 8:22 PM

Save the Earth, KILL YER SELF!!!!

Posted by: Martin Jones | July 26, 2005 4:17 PM

love animals keep them safe. would if u were a whale oh yeah lets just 4get u. u r nothing.GOD put thing here 4 a reson life is a leason. u will get whats coming.SAVE WHALES,CARE 4 THEM.

Posted by: ryah | July 26, 2005 8:59 PM

i have only 1 thing 2 say about ur article

“THE HELL”

Posted by: emman | July 27, 2005 5:32 AM

i have only 1 thing 2 say about ur artical

“THE HELL”

Posted by: emman | July 27, 2005 9:50 AM

Sorry I don’t think like you At ALL!!!

Posted by: Bobbie | August 1, 2005 3:48 AM

You are really twisted aren’t you. so you think we should focus on other things no we shouldn’t im 13 and i am trying to save the animals from people like you. Sick people who are self centered and don’t care for others. You need to get your head out of your *** and open your eyes. You wouldn’t like for someone to kill you without question and make lipstick or shampoo out of you would you??? Animals that live in the water are being killed for your convience so you can have shampoo. i don’t think so buddy. I bet you go out there and kill them so you can be satified. Well you know what we’ll stop people like you from hurting the animals we love. Without or with out your help. So when all the animals are gone we’ll start making shampoo and lipstick out of people like you so you know what it fells like to be them. So you know how much pain people put tem through. Woould you like a harpoon explosive shot into your brain and blow up and kill you then hit you repeatedly with an axe. So you need to get your head out of your***

Posted by: Cayla Rene | January 31, 2007 12:50 PM

You are really crule huh? dude you have to save the whales. they are killing the whales just so they can make soap to rub all over your body .well i am 13 and i am trying to save the whales . so people like yuo dont get to kill them. you are really wrong and dont care one bit about the animals under the sea. well you should.whales , orcas , sharks and other mammals die just to make new and stupid improved products. you are a *** and you need to care about the animals they have dont nothing to you and you want to kill them well dont. cause me and my friends cayla will beat your ***
you need to care. well would you want to die just to make lipstick and shampoo.

write back and i will tell you more abourt the animals you need to car eabout what they do for you there are only a hundred remaining in the world .soon there will be no more and then it will make you happy huh well you need to get your head out of the gutter . when all the animals are gone what are u gonna do we are gonna blame you!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: ALexa RAe | January 31, 2007 12:50 PM

you might think that whales dont matter but your wrong. ya you need to take care of your family but we also need to save are world. all of you that sont think that the whales arent important than you SUCK.

Posted by: chalsea | February 15, 2007 6:44 PM

What are you talking about> Yes its important to have a stable life at home for your family and children, but if the enviroment itself isn’t saved by these noble people an other people around the world then that home you are trying to stabilze and love will not exists and the ones you love will suffer, because people like you thought it was unimportant to save the whales!!! So if we dont start repairing our enviroment now we will end up suffering for it later on!!! So wake up and save the Whales ASSHOLE

Posted by: Someone | February 20, 2007 8:53 PM

Dont blame the whales or conservationists for human frailities and faults.

I have a great husband and marriage, great kids with whom i spend alot of my tme, I also support Whale conservation with time and money i have availiable. Get a grip!! Its not the Whales fault thatthey are being slaughtered… It is HUMAN GREED and arrogance. It is not the whales fault the people lose sight of everything but their cause….It is HUMAN STUPIDITY and again arrogance. Dont blame the whales and their plight for human faults after all it happens with more than just save the whales.

Miri Furlong
Graphic Artist
design@ethnic-aotearoa.co.nz
www.ethnic-aotearoa.co.nz

Posted by: Miri Furlong | February 21, 2007 2:21 AM

you are so self centered!! how would you feel if some body wanted to kill you!!!! don’t even try to say you wouldn’t care!! I’m elizabeth christian and i think everyone should help save the whales!!! LOSER!! FREAK!! WEIRDO!!

Posted by: Elizabeth Christian | February 28, 2007 1:59 PM

you are the biggest idiot on the face of the earth!!! you don’t understand the value of life its self!!! tou are so retarted!!!!!!!

YOU IDIOT!!

Posted by: Elizabeth | February 28, 2007 2:02 PM

YOU ARE SO RETARDED!! hope you choke on a piece of beef jerky!!

Posted by: elizabeth | February 28, 2007 2:20 PM

your stupid!!!
dont say dont save the whales because you need to save yourself first. i love whales and im trying t save whales and im only 17 i have loving parents who are also trying to save whales and were not disfunctional or falling apart or any thing you said were just fine and to generalize that all people who try and save our planet are neglecting their families is BULL. your just pissed that you cant save the world and you probably cant fix your own family.

Posted by: Zayna | May 18, 2007 8:00 PM

You are very stupid. No more comments.

Posted by: Gabriel | May 28, 2007 9:07 AM

I may well be stupid, but I am not alone. Thanks for joining me.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | May 28, 2007 12:22 PM

SAVE THE WORLD! SAVE THE WHALES!

Posted by: Mauricio J. Solórzano | June 6, 2007 12:27 PM

God Agrees with Chris Abraham That We Should not Save the Whales (well, at least Paul does… but then, he’s a rabid homophobe and a chauvinist pig, so…)

In any case, it’s in the scriptures, so it’s right.

1 Timothy 3

This saying is trustworthy: “If anyone aspires to be a leader of his community, he desires a noble work.” Such a leader, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not addicted to wine, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy; one who manages his own household competently, having his children under control with all dignity. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of God’s house?) He must not be a new convert, or he might become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the Devil. Furthermore, he must have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he does not fall into disgrace and the Devil’s trap.

Posted by: Mark Harrison | August 13, 2007 7:13 AM

I am surely and indeed a Godly man. Fuck the whales.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | August 14, 2007 11:19 PM

i’m not sure of what your point is?! whats wrong with trying to save the whales, or any animal for that matter? why are you saying that only whales shouldn’t be saved? why not all other endangered species? i think you are wrong as i know many do, but i do not see your selfish view as to be right, yes you can look after your family or whatever your trying to say, but why not doing things for other people or animals other than yourself? please enlighten me with your selfish attitude to life

Posted by: Save The Whales | August 17, 2007 1:06 PM

I got a scolding from Chalsea, “you might think that whales dont matter but your wrong. ya you need to take care of your family but we also need to save are world. all of you that sont think that the whales arent important than you SUCK,” because I wrote an article called Don’t Save the Whales.

For your amusement, here are all of the comments from Don’t Save the Whales:

Understandable sentiment, and an easy crutch for our own apathy, but life is not so black and white.

To continue with a racial theme and abuse an overused metaphor, would you have had Dr. King abandon his quest for civil rights in favor of couples therapy?

Granted, whales and trees are not sentient beings like the African Americans who were fire-hosed in Selma, but it’s naieve to write off noble ambitions because one’s self is not already enlightened.

In many of the great religious traditions service is actually means to personal salvation. Through serving others, we can learn to help ourselves and our families.It is a shame that such impulses are not instinctual (hence the reason why airlines have to remind to you put on your oxygen mask before assisting your neighbor), but we are contradictory beings.

Accept the ambiguity and respect both service to others and our quests for personal virtue. They go hand in hand.

Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 10:32 AM

There is no apathy in my life. And there are also many distractions. I have spent years dancing with dolphins and whales as a SCUBA diver and know them more than many and for this I am grateful.

What is more noble than the ambition of saving oneself?

Doctor King was a whale, if you will. He was saving himself, his family, and his community. I am surprised that you overlooked that.

So, maybe I am not so naive.

And the most valuable lessons are in fact gleaned from serving others, but try to keep it local. As in your spouse, your children, your parents, your family, your friends, your community. If you have energy left over, then spend it along the same vein.

The nature of the world is not really as it seems. Try to only serve others you can touch, see, feel, help, interact with, and live with.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 10:47 AM

Dr. King was a philanderer saint.

Beethoven was an abusive genius.Ghandi…well, he was all good.

The point is that we can’t put our life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers.

I know you’re neither naieve nor apathetic, so don’t come off like it by saying, “saving pagan babies, the rain forest, the whales, or the trees is pure distraction from the things that matter most in this life which is saving yourself, protecting and loving your children, your spouse, your parents, your family, and your community.”

If people don’t save the trees there will be no more familes to save.

Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 10:57 AM

As for one’s life’s work, it makes more than more sense to me now that Roman Catholic priests are celibate. There are fewer distractions.

I am not saying that one should not perform one’s life’s work. But not to the harm of what really matters.

And I am not talking about one’s life’s work, nor am I talking about destiny. What I am saying is that no matter how noble one’s life’s work may seem and no matter how important one’s destiny is, it is not remotely as important as serving your spouse, your children, your family, and your community.

There is nothing as modest, as honest, as life-affirming, and life-changing as that.

There is more harm done by a man who has a destiny, a noble aim, a a life’s work than anything else.

You mentioned Dr. King, Beethoven, and Ghandi.

I will mention some other men who have had life’s work and noble aims who lost site of themselves, their children, their family, and their community:

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Hideki Tojo, Kim Il-Sung, Chiang Kai-Shek, Moammar Al Qadhafi, Pol Pot, Francisco Franco, and Mao Zedong.

All men who didn’t put their “life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers.”

To take it one step further, these men, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Hideki Tojo, Kim Il-Sung, Chiang Kai-Shek, Moammar Al Qadhafi, Pol Pot, Francisco Franco, and Mao Zedong, might have turned out differently if their mom, dad, family, and friends where better parents to them.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 11:34 AM

cop out.

Posted by: David Gelles | April 11, 2005 11:56 AM

There are many highly-gifted people in the world who have been treated like the young Gautama.

They are coddled, protected, and spoiled so that they may be allowed to focus on their destiny.

They distiny is as likely to be that of a surgeon, a scientist, a lawyer, a competitive skater, an athelete, a beauty queen, a pianist, a painter, a poet, or a priest as it is the King of the Whales.

There needs to be balance in all things. And what is the saddest part of this entire conversations is that the same man who said, “The point is that we can’t put our life’s work on hold to get in the zen of changing diapers” is also the man who spent months living in India.

I have never focused this on not saving the whales or not saving the forests but rather how much easier it is to forgive the distraction from the truth if that distraction is in fact popular or noble.

It’s neither nuclear family and Wall $treet, nor domestic abuse and whales.

There are countless great parents who are plenty involved with money, and plenty of awful parents who do invaluable work for their communities but are awful husbands and wives, who are awful parents to their children, and who are able to rationalize their entire failure because they have done some things that really don’t matter too much at the end of life really anyway.

There is another black and white annoyance: that money equals bad and activism equals good.

Sometimes entropy isn’t death. very often, it isn’t. Sometimes to struggle so hard for something that is so far removed and so not part of one’s life is like struggling in quicksand.

Not only is it a waste of energy, but the unintended consequence — sinking faster and being alienated from a helping hand — is worse than anything you could ever imagine.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 11, 2005 1:16 PM

there will always be that group of people bordering on lunacy who are dependent on a false sense of altruism to prop up their self-esteem, which suffers from things like failing to take care of their families or failing to succeed in relationships. it’s a shame, really.

Posted by: sam | April 12, 2005 8:30 AM

Sam, that’s the perfect way of saying it. And I can even make it more generic to better support my point, if you don’t mind, “there will always be that group of people bordering on lunacy who are dependent on a false sense of destiny to prop up their self-esteem.” The same stuff that makes the chairman of GE great and successful is the stuff that makes up the chairman of WWF as well.

My concern — and the reason I wrote the piece — is that the chairman of GE doesn’t suffer from the “noble aim” aspect, which might make the avarice and work ethic and profit motive more authentic and honest.

And is that better than a false sense of altruism?

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 9:32 AM

Yes, the avarice and work ethic may be honest and authentic, but avarice is a product of disappointment toward selfless service. Avarice and profit are easy. They come naturally, but so does the violence instinct. It is the mark of a civilized human to control such instincts.

Take each point in this discussion to the extreme. If tomorrow you woke up and walked outside to a world composed of either selfless service or “avarice and work ethic and profit motive”, which would you prefer?

Posted by: Bryan | April 12, 2005 9:49 AM

Chris, Dickens had the same reservations as you about what he termed Telescopic Philanthropy. You’re not alone!

Posted by: Mike | April 12, 2005 10:38 AM

In their purest form, I would choose service. I have a dear friend who is Mormon and she told me that service is the most important thing to the LDS. But when it comes to service, nobody is a professional and the service is inclusive of the family.

I like that. That makes sense to me.

I am also not saying that there is anything wrong with an obsessive workaholic president of Save the Whales.

I mean, there needs to be sacrifice in life and pain in order to grow and evolve.

But when a child is involved — when a family is being made — then things indeed should change.

Take each point in this discussion to the extreme. If tomorrow you woke up and walked outside to a world in which you would have to choose between saving all the whales and saving one child, which would you choose?

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 11:05 AM

With regards to Telescopic Philanthropy, I see the same thing with Mr. Margaret Thatcher. The thing is, with spouses, there is a certain level of conscious or unconscious choice in the matter.

With children, there is no choice in the matter. Although the subsumed spouse might become toxic and bitter — or not — at the loss of self to the shining qualities of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, there is still no less of a choice, really, in the matter.

It boils down to, if you’re unhappy, leave.

But choosing to have children is an entirely different matter.

Having children can either be the most generous or the most selfish act in the entire world.

An additional note is that psychologically-speaking, the same people who end up in a role such as Mrs Jellyby’s or Mrs Thatcher’s tend also to have narcissistic qualities.

And narcissists are the most compelling mates and the most incapable of being partners and parents. Funny how that works.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 11:16 AM

Without reading each entry and assimilating them all to produce a cogent statement (because I’m busy at work), let me make the following observations and then close with the greatest quote ever spoken.

1) There are causes noble enough that you should sacrifice your children. Chief among them is service to your nation in a time where its existence is threatened. As Abraham Lincoln once said to women grieving the loss of their children during the civil war,

“I cannot refrain from tendering to you the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our heavenly father may assuage the anguish of your bereavements and leave you only the cherished memories of the loved and the lost and the solemn pride that must be yours to have made so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom.”

2) Nobody (worth hearing) is suggesting that saving the whales is more important, or equally important, to tending to our social fabric. What they are saying, if you listen with a carefully bent ear, is that through fostering care for things other than ourselves we create a society that by virtue of its interest in things besides itself, takes good care of itself. Without a strong social network, these other less paramount causes could garner no attention.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Theodore Roosevelt (26th U.S. president (1901-09), 1858-1919)

Posted by: Justin | April 12, 2005 12:44 PM

could we change “whales” to “the unborn”?

Posted by: max solon | April 12, 2005 12:48 PM

I fully agree with you, but isn’t that called duty? And isn’t that the choice of the child? The child is not being sacrificed for the parent but rather the child is sacrificing his own life. That soldier is a whale. That soldier is sacrificing his life for his spouse, his children, his family, his friends, his community, and his country.

Entirely different, in my opinion, but important none-the-less.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 12, 2005 3:56 PM

Yea. I see the problem.

We should take control of our families and sort out all our family problems.

What about taking them to the ocean? We could all look for the whales together!

No, waste of time. What if we don’t sort out our problems when we’re there? We might all get lost in some sadly transient awe at the beauty of the whales – or probably just the idea of whales. For precious moments we’d forget the problems we went there to sort.
My family is not weak!
And who’s driving?

And if all the whales are gone anyway because of whalers, or depleted fish stocks from crazy fishing, or deafening submarine engines interfering in their songs, we’re only going to get frustrated at humanity’s impotence in the face of these vital industries.
I can do without that.
And they have no rhythm as far as I can tell.

Let’s relax with the tv newstoons and a healthy tuna salad, and save up the money from work for a good holiday one day. Disney? Hope we don’t use it all up on therapy first.
Or they grow up.

Forget the whales. You only live once.

Posted by: Hugh Whiting | April 12, 2005 9:48 PM

I think you’ve got your focus slightly wrong here, because you’re centering on “activists” when you should be thinking of all parents.

I know several handfuls of people who were scared and abandoned children, and the few who were raised by nannies were the lucky ones. Some of those abandoned children had parents at home, but they were so involved in business that they never saw their kids. It’s not about “activism,” it’s about abandoning your family for anything, and we shouldn’t confuse the two.

All the actual activists I’ve known share their activism with their families (I used to work for the Sierra Club, so I’ve known a few).

P.S., and this is a note for everybody, because this is the third time I’ve seen the error today: IT’S SPELLED “GANDHI.” G. A. N. D. H. I.

Posted by: Rika Youngblood | April 12, 2005 10:28 PM

i disagree with your assessment that the whales can fend for themselves .. they have no chance at all when their home is polluted, their food depleted, and their migration paths are congested with oil tankers .. what’s worst, we have the power to wipe out the planet (not just a single species) with just a push of the button (in 2002, we were just seven minutes away from midnight on the doomsday clock).

i have yet to run into children of the green movement who “are a mess”. on the contrary, having attended an ultra-liberal college of a progressive town [santa cruz], i have met and befriended many of these second-generation hippies who continue to uphold the various -ISMs (re: liberalism, idealism, etc) and values of their parents. what a wonderful gifts these hippies of yesteryears have given to their children.

this legacy echoes the teachings of the wisdom keepers of the mohawk nation, who teach their people to respect the land, and that “… everything they do affects the Seventh Generation and we must think of the unborn faces looking up from beneath Mother Earth”.

though my parents were not part of the green movement, i do believe in it .. and i will save the whales for the both of us.

Posted by: nam lamore | April 13, 2005 4:20 PM

Hugh, the entire time I read your comment I thought of the dolphins from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy! — thanks for that. But I have to tell you that I don’t really give a rat’s twat what you get up to.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | April 13, 2005 8:23 PM

What absolute twaddle.

Where is your evidence to back up the existence of these orphans of ecology? Don’t you think that there are people that put work before their family in all walks of life?

You’re being deliberately provocative. Get a life. Spend some time with your own family and friends instead of wasting your time attempting to bait people on the internet for your own pathetic amusement.

Posted by: Vilnius Terence | April 14, 2005 10:59 AM

I think you are bang out of order the people that save the whales are good people and are doing good. I am sure 9 out of ten would not neglected there families because of it and the ones that do are yes in the wrong when I was a little girl saving the whales was my dream
whales are mammals just like we are they are getting killed by there own species which is not right you are saying we should be stopping the robberies and the murders but by killing the whales you are doing the same to them you are murdering them and robbing them of a family something’s need looking after and at least there are SOME descent people out there that will do it not everyone sees life in the same way you do. if you had a pet dog for example and someone was trying to kill it you would do everything you could to save it because it is part of the family some people see whales in that way. How would you feel if you were just sitting at home with your family and someone shot a harpoon at you? Well that’s what it is like for them.
just imagine(I don’t no if you have kids) that you were sitting at home with your kids and someone captured you or killed you just think about what it would do to your kids but at least they would have other family or they would have the opinion of foster care or adoption. but those poor whales probably don’t have help like that they would be all alone and maybe too young to know how to survive on their own so I think in the future instead of being lost in your own little world and think its the saving the whales that is doing it think again because they need as much help as we do. And if you are so bovered about the community I hope you are out there doing something for it. Infact why don’t you go out there and do something now instead of wasting your time writing this web site moaning about there whale savers and do something for the community yours sincerely jess

Posted by: jess | May 13, 2005 9:31 AM

this is sick we can save ourslevs we have a voice of our own but the whales dont so if they cant speak to stick up for themslves who will? because it is clear u wont. i would and that is a fact u mybe should listen because it is your people that is causing the problem with the whales.

Posted by: stephanie | May 23, 2005 4:41 AM

If the vast majority of people who aren’t inclined towards saving the whales and such, were instead spending their free time trying to truly take care of their families, spouses & communities I might see validity to your argument…as it is this post just looks like liberal-baiting to me.

Whatever. You guys are right. We suck. Money is king. Whatever.

Posted by: Cary | June 21, 2005 2:53 PM

You can always catch a liberal if you use a whale as bait!

Posted by: Chris Abraham | June 21, 2005 4:44 PM

what a stupid article.

Posted by: Urb | June 21, 2005 9:05 PM

Your argument is astonishing to me. If you can honestly re-read it two times and not see the mile-wide holes in your reasoning you might need to take some time to think things over. Really.

Suffice to say that if this is the way you feel then I’m thinking that you have some learning to do about what a relationship is, what a marriage is and what raising a child is. Let’s set your gloss on activism == children raised by nannies aside. That is a deep issue with a whole spectra of situations that you are lumping into the most negative terminus.

You don’t raise a child by commiting yourself to voluntary servitude to him or her — nor do you ‘make a family’ by staying home and staring at them 24/7. Strong people with strong convictions raise children that share these traits. Strong marriages are not made by two people who spend all their time on each other. The best thing you can do for a child is to inspire her by setting an example of what a person can do in this world.

To hold the opinions that you express within the context of your personal mores is one thing, but to insult *activism* at large and to call people who give a damn and are doing somehting about it bad parents bullshit on stilts.

Posted by: anon | June 22, 2005 12:09 PM

You have the honor of missing my point entirely. I think you might be suffering from some sort of deep-seated guilt.

Posted by: Chris Abraham | June 22, 2005 1:29 PM

we as humans have a responsibilty to care for all living creatures of this earth as they all have a right to live and we are the ones who have destroyed their homes and species. So it is a responsibility of ours to try protect those species in danger because of the selfish act of others.

Posted by: Amy | July 9, 2005 1:47 AM

you obviously is idiot, u must be someone who cares only about urself. please open u eyes and see what people like u are doing to animals. IDIOT

Posted by: lin jia yi | July 11, 2005 8:13 AM

first of all Mr.Abraham does make a point, if your life isn’t well put together you shouldn’t particate in any other extra curricular activities. However,he fails to mention other activities people particate in that aren’t for the environment,anmails/endangered species,or other worthwhile cause that never the less can disrrupt homes,childhoods,& break families such as:homeless, needy, abuse, disabiled, & feed the children. but these aren’t mentioned, why . . .?

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:14 PM

Mr.Abraham I must say you speak of neglected children,& husbands. can you prove anything you say? And if you can tell us how many people are neglected because of their parents jobs, hobbies, and everyday life who aren’t rooted in some cause and are just living in a regular town, would you? There are problems in life & marriage due to nothing but their own faults, to not think so & live in a perfect world is denial.I suggest you open your eyes.

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:35 PM

Mr.Abraham,I respect other people’s opinions.You do not.That I refuse to respect,the lives of others & how the are lived are not yours to dictate to.You probley have a nice apt. in a upscale N.Y. neighborhood. Must be nice. You’ve had everything handed to you in a silver spoon. I don’t discriminate agianst the rich even though i am not. But for the poor who live in the wild or country nature is greatly loved,respected,&cared for.

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 4:49 PM

Mr.Abraham, you must watch your views & how you express them because you can offend many people,I was very offended by your statements and took it personally.It hurt,and I thought of all the others you’ve hurt by this. I suggest you apologize to the envirnmental community.I don’t apphreciate your calling Dr.King a “philanderer saint” and suggest you appologize to the black community as well.One day you may wake up and see how precious our world is.

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 5:01 PM

Mr.Abraham, this is my last post.I know your thinking “thank god”. But in short i will speak a quote of love ,honesty,& truth. ” The wonderous world under sea & land, in the big scheme of things one life may seem insugnifficant but it’s the greatest gift we know and we cannot let this world of light, love ,and beauty perish.”

Posted by: integra | July 11, 2005 5:09 PM

Mr Abraham, YOU ARE A CRAZY, CRAZY TOOL.

Posted by: Mad Anne Bonney | July 11, 2005 10:20 PM

Mr Abraham, YOU ARE A FREAKY FREAKY FREAK.

Posted by: Mad Anne Bonney | July 11, 2005 10:21 PM

My ex long ago abandoned our son for native american/worker/prison issues. The worst part is my 18-yr-old son who was dragged to the W.T.O. when he was 13(although it makes for a good story to say he’s been teargassed)-my son only sees the hypocrisy in the hardcore activists–thinking of them as angry and sad without any stability or truth.

Posted by: christina | July 12, 2005 7:19 PM

Your thoughts are disturbing because if you cannot enjoy the utter beauty we have in our world you are really disturbed. This page is sick and unfortunatly I visited this sight BLAH….SAVE THE WHALES

Posted by: Crystal | July 12, 2005 8:22 PM

Save the Earth, KILL YER SELF!!!!

Posted by: Martin Jones | July 26, 2005 4:17 PM

love animals keep them safe. would if u were a whale oh yeah lets just 4get u. u r nothing.GOD put thing here 4 a reson life is a leason. u will get whats coming.SAVE WHALES,CARE 4 THEM.

Posted by: ryah | July 26, 2005 8:59 PM

i have only 1 thing 2 say about ur article

“THE HELL”

Posted by: emman | July 27, 2005 5:32 AM

i have only 1 thing 2 say about ur artical

“THE HELL”

Posted by: emman | July 27, 2005 9:50 AM

Sorry I don’t think like you At ALL!!!

Posted by: Bobbie | August 1, 2005 3:48 AM

You are really twisted aren’t you. so you think we should focus on other things no we shouldn’t im 13 and i am trying to save the animals from people like you. Sick people who are self centered and don’t care for others. You need to get your head out of your *** and open your eyes. You wouldn’t like for someone to kill you without question and make lipstick or shampoo out of you would you??? Animals that live in the water are being killed for your convience so you can have shampoo. i don’t think so buddy. I bet you go out there and kill them so you can be satified. Well you know what we’ll stop people like you from hurting the animals we love. Without or with out your help. So when all the animals are gone we’ll start making shampoo and lipstick out of people like you so you know what it fells like to be them. So you know how much pain people put tem through. Woould you like a harpoon explosive shot into your brain and blow up and kill you then hit you repeatedly with an axe. So you need to get your head out of your***

Posted by: Cayla Rene | January 31, 2007 12:50 PM

You are really crule huh? dude you have to save the whales. they are killing the whales just so they can make soap to rub all over your body .well i am 13 and i am trying to save the whales . so people like yuo dont get to kill them. you are really wrong and dont care one bit about the animals under the sea. well you should.whales , orcas , sharks and other mammals die just to make new and stupid improved products. you are a *** and you need to care about the animals they have dont nothing to you and you want to kill them well dont. cause me and my friends cayla will beat your ***
you need to care. well would you want to die just to make lipstick and shampoo.

write back and i will tell you more abourt the animals you need to car eabout what they do for you there are only a hundred remaining in the world .soon there will be no more and then it will make you happy huh well you need to get your head out of the gutter . when all the animals are gone what are u gonna do we are gonna blame you!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: ALexa RAe | January 31, 2007 12:50 PM

you might think that whales dont matter but your wrong. ya you need to take care of your family but we also need to save are world. all of you that sont think that the whales arent important than you SUCK.

Posted by: chalsea | February 15, 2007 6:44 PM

Built like a woman should be!

Katharine Hope McPhee (born March 25, 1984) is an American singer who is a finalist on the fifth season of American Idol.

Early career

Born in Sherman Oaks, California, McPhee has been singing since the age of two. Her mother, Peisha Burch McPhee, a vocal coach and accomplished cabaret singer, recognized a talent for music in her daughter and started training her. McPhee graduated in the class of 2002 from Notre Dame High School after which she attended The Boston Conservatory for three semesters with a concentration in musical theater. She left because she met a manager who wanted her to try out for parts during the television pilot season in Los Angeles. She did a pilot and an independent film.[1] At the Cabrillo Music Theater in Thousand Oaks, California, she performed the title role in a musical theatre production of Annie Get Your Gun. In June 2005 she played Anna Muir in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, a musical by Scott DeTurk and Bill Francoeur, based on the book by R.A. Dick, at NoHo Arts Center in California.

Trivia

* McPhee lists Whitney Houston and Brian McKnight as her favorite artists.
* McPhee has a sister named Adriana, who is one year older.
* McPhee is left handed.
* McPhee is 5’7″ (170 cm).
* McPhee was rumored to be a Scientologist. In the past, McPhee had attended and completed two individual courses in Scientology.[2] However, according to an May 12, 2006 interview on Los Angeles radio station KROQ 106.7, McPhee stated she “dabbled in Scientology” because of a former love interest but is not a Scientologist; according to her, she was “quickly out the door.”[3]
* McPhee has a dog named Lily.
* McPhee has a goddaughter who was born during McPhee’s run in Hollywood.

During her initial audition for American Idol in San Francisco, she sang “God Bless the Child.” Judge Randy Jackson said she was the best voice he had heard so far that season, judge Paula Abdul praised her looks, and judge Simon Cowell said she was amazing and “current.” McPhee’s mother had gone with her to the audition, and Cowell made a comment about the possibility that the elder McPhee was a stage mother.

In the final cut-down show for the Top 24, McPhee was the first to be put through and, in excitement, kissed all three judges on the lips. She cried both when she passed her initial audition and when she made it into the Top 24.

In the first round of the semi-finals, she sang Barbra Streisand’s version of Buddy Johnson’s “Since I Fell for You,” again earning high praises as Cowell said that out of the four “very, very good vocalists” of the night, she was the best.

During the week leading to the third round of the semi-finals, where McPhee sang Aretha Franklin’s “Think,” she was rumored to be quitting due to pregnancy. However, during the performance show on March 7, 2006, she denied this accusation, later attributing it to a poor choice of clothing. Host Ryan Seacrest, with tongue-in-cheek, asked about her and fellow Idol contestant Kevin Covais.

During the week preceding the top 3 show, McPhee visited her former high school for her hometown celebration.[4]

On the May 23, 2006, edition of NBC’s Today Show, Katie Couric mentioned news reports saying that Katharine’s greatest assets are her looks and strong fan base, while her greatest liability is the fact that her performances suffer when she is under pressure.

Performances

Semi-finals

* February 21, 2006 – “Since I Fell for You,” Barbra Streisand version.
o Cowell said that she was the best singer of the night.
* February 28, 2006 – “All in Love Is Fair,” Stevie Wonder
o The judges stated that they thought this performance fell victim to poor song choice, but Abdul thought that she was “still a star.”
* March 7, 2006 – “Think,” Aretha Franklin
o The judges stated that they loved this performance because she “had fun with it.”

Finals

* March 14, 2006 – “Until You Come Back to Me,” Stevie Wonder
o The theme was Stevie Wonder, and the judges stated that they loved this performance. Jackson said that the McPhee he “met during the auditions” was back. Cowell compared her gaining of momentum to Kelly Clarkson in the show’s first season.
* March 21, 2006 – “Come Rain or Come Shine,” Ella Fitzgerald
o The theme was 1950′s, and once again the judges were very impressed. Jackson noted that it wasn’t her best vocal performance, but it was still great. Abdul agreed wholeheartedly. Cowell noted that it was the performance that made her a star.
* March 28, 2006 – “The Voice Within,” Christina Aguilera – (Bottom 3)
o The theme was songs of the 21st century. Jackson thought she should have changed the performance up to make it her own. Abdul said she wouldn’t change a thing. Cowell said it was the best that night so far, and almost as good as Aguilera. During the results show, however, McPhee was placed in the bottom three, and Cowell stated that upon viewing the playback, she wasn’t nearly as good as he thought.
* April 4, 2006 – “Bringing Out The Elvis,” Faith Hill
o The theme for the night was country. McPhee was the eighth of nine performers that night. Jackson said: “Kind of bluesy country, yeah? I like it. You sang it very nice, very nice. Good job, dawg, good job.” Abdul said: “That is your style; that’s your niche. You look sexy, hot. You’re cool.” Cowell, looking a bit bewildered, said: “I don’t know what to say anymore; I really don’t. That song was just so peculiar.” At this point McPhee spoke up and said: “Simon, you just don’t like country music. It’s okay. Just say it,” with which Cowell agreed, saying: “You’re right, I don’t, I don’t. I hate it.”
* April 11, 2006 – “Who Wants to Live Forever,” Queen
o The theme was songs by Queen, and McPhee performed fifth out of eight contestants. The judges’ reactions were as follows: Jackson said: “This is your element, I mean a little Broadway, big song, kind of big voice. It was a little pitchy in spots, and I thought at some points it was a little big for you, but you did a good job, I think, all in all.” Abdul said: “You made the right decision to just stand there and be glorious, with your glorious voice. I mean it’s a song that big singers like Celine Dion and Barbra Streisand take on; and you, Katharine McPhee, can handle it, and you did a great job.” Cowell said: “Katharine, I mean that was almost the moment. You know, I agree with Randy [Jackson], I think there were some tuning problems at parts. I think you owe a big kiss to the director and the lighting director there, because they made you look amazing — I mean really good. But overall I think it was probably one of the strongest tonight. Yeah. Very good.” McPhee then responded, “Thank you, I know, I do. Thank you, guys,??? in response to Cowell’s comment about owing the directors a kiss, as she turned and thanked them.
* April 18, 2006 – “Someone to Watch Over Me,” George Gershwin
o The theme was “The Great American Songbook” by Rod Stewart. McPhee performed last that night. Jackson said that McPhee was in her “element.” Abdul believed that she picked the perfect song and told her that it was like watching her for the very first time, and that she had fallen in love with her all over again. Cowell said that she made the others look like “good amateurs.” He told her she was the best of the night, and that she was elegant and sang like a returning pro. Rod Stewart himself told her that he believed she was born to sing the Standards, and that he couldn’t think of anything else to say about her, other than the fact that she was brilliant.
* April 25, 2006 – “I Have Nothing,” Whitney Houston – (Top 2)
o The theme was “Greatest Love Songs.” Jackson said that it was a good song choice but it was too big for her. Abdul said she was stunning but believed it was too pitchy. Cowell said that by coming out and singing that song she was saying she is as good as Whitney Houston. Seacrest jokingly remarked that McPhee would get votes from anybody with the volume turned down. The following night, Cowell took back his statement, saying that when he watched it back, it was a good performance. Jackson also apologized by saying that he had been a little bit “too harsh.” McPhee was among the top two vote getters on elimination night along with fellow contestant Chris Daughtry.
* May 2, 2006 – “Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now)”, Phil Collins; “Black Horse and the Cherry Tree,” KT Tunstall
o The theme for the night was for them to pick a song from the same year they were born, and a song from this week’s Billboard charts. For “Against All Odds,” Jackson thought her performance may have been in the wrong key for Katharine’s voice, but it was OK. Abdul said it wasn’t her favorite song choice for her. Cowell said that in parts the song was a mess, and that it ran away from her. They all thought she looked stunning in her dress. For “Black Horse and the Cherry Tree,” Jackson liked seeing the old McPhee back. Abdul loved the intimacy and the choreography. Cowell said the song choice was great for her and it really showed her personality. He liked how her toes matched her top.
* May 9, 2006 – “Hound Dog/All Shook Up” and “Can’t Help Falling in Love”, Elvis Presley – (Bottom 2)
o The theme was Elvis Presley. For “Hound Dog/All Shook Up”, Jackson asked if she forgot the lyrics but Abdul said she handled it well and that the performance was “really fun”. Cowell said it was a “desperate manic audition” and that the song was also “shrieky” and for him, he just thought that it “wasn’t a great performance”. For “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” she received mixed reviews, as well as Abdul commenting that she preferred “Katharine having fun” and Simon noting the song as being “pitchy.” On May 10, 2006, McPhee was in the bottom two with Chris Daughtry. Daughtry was eliminated from the competition.
* May 16, 2006
o Clive Davis chose R. Kelly’s “I Believe I Can Fly” for McPhee. Jackson thought she did well, but the song choice was bad and she wasn’t “that singer.” Abdul, after some pause and inspiration from an audience member, said that McPhee was incredible, and that she looked fabulous. Cowell enjoyed the performance.
o Cowell chose “Over the Rainbow” (originally made famous by Judy Garland) for McPhee. Jackson was blown away, calling her “a hot one,” and declaring that she had the best song of the season. Abdul was also impressed, saying that song was her “element.” Cowell said that he was very happy for Katharine and, putting the fact that he chose the song aside, he thought it was the best performance of the competition to date. He also added that it was brilliant.
o McPhee chose Ella Fitzgerald’s “I Ain’t Got Nothin’ But the Blues” for her final song. Jackson said it was good, but not to the extent of her second song. Abdul agreed, once again saying that McPhee’s second song was her “element.” Cowell said it was okay, and he wished America had seen her second song last instead. McPhee made it to the final two, along with Taylor Hicks.
* May 23, 2006
o McPhee’s first song was Black Horse and the Cherry Tree from the Final 5. Randy Jackson said it was better than the first time. Paula Abdul said that Katharine was brilliant. Simon Cowell said it was good, but not big enough for this event.
o McPhee’s second song was Somewhere Over the Rainbow from the Final 3. Jackson said it was amazing and hot. Abdul said it was great. Cowell said it was her best performance of the season.
o McPhee’s third song was an original single called My Destiny written by singer/songwriter Hanne Sorvaag. Jackson said McPhee looked and sounded amazing, but she was better than the song. Abdul agreed that Katharine sounded amazing. Cowell said that this song made her go from “brilliant” to only “quite good”, but her second song was where she truly shined.

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies.
I’m not cute or built to suit a fashion model’s size
But when I start to tell them,
They think I’m telling lies.
I say,
It’s in the reach of my arms
The span of my hips,
The stride of my step,
The curl of my lips.
I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please,
And to a man,
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees.
Then they swarm around me,
A hive of honey bees.
I say,
It’s the fire in my eyes,
And the flash of my teeth,
The swing in my waist,
And the joy in my feet.
I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

Men themselves have wondered
What they see in me.
They try so much
But they can’t touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to show them
They say they still can’t see.
I say,
It’s in the arch of my back,
The sun of my smile,
The ride of my breasts,
The grace of my style.
I’m a woman

Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

Now you understand
Just why my head’s not bowed.
I don’t shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud.
When you see me passing
It ought to make you proud.
I say,
It’s in the click of my heels,
The bend of my hair,
the palm of my hand,
The need of my care,
‘Cause I’m a woman
Phenomenally.
Phenomenal woman,
That’s me.

Christina gets Don’t Save the Whales. She wrote, “My ex long ago abandoned our son for native american/worker/prison issues.”

She continues, “The worst part is my 18-yr-old son who was dragged to the W.T.O. when he was 13(although it makes for a good story to say he’s been teargassed)-my son only sees the hypocrisy in the hardcore activists–thinking of them as angry and sad without any stability or truth.”

Now that is what I am talking about.

Sadly, nobody else can really see the whales for the ocean. Not even one of my best friends.

The only person besides Christina who gets it is my mum.

Thank you, Christina.