Filipino Star - December 2010 Edition

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 EarthTalk® From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: I see more and more organic wines on store shelves these days, but what options are out there today for organic beer? -- Ken Strong, Wichita, KS Some 80 million Americans drink beer, yet organic beer represents still only a sliver of the $7 billion U.S. craft beer market. But this sliver is quickly turning into a slice: Between 2003 and 2009, according to the Organic Trade Association, U.S. organic beer sales more than quadrupled from $9 million to $41 million. According to Seven Bridges Cooperative, which has been selling organic brewing ingredients for a decade already, organic beers tend to feature exceptional clarity and a clean, flavorful taste. “On a more technical side, organic malts on average have a lower protein content which produces a clear mash and less haze problems in the finished beer,” reports Seven Bridges. “Organic malts and hops have no chemical residues to interfere with fermentation to give the organic brewer a clean, unadulterated beer.” Seven Bridges mail you all the ingredients you need to brew your own organic beer at home, but most of us would rather just enjoy the finished product. Depending on where you live, you might have dozens of organic beer brands available in bottles and even on tap at your favorite watering hole. One of the most visible is Fortuna, California-based Eel River Brewing Company, founded in 1996. Eel River has the distinction of being America’s first certified organic brewery. Their IPA, Pale Ale, Porter, Amber Ale, Blonde Ale, Old Ale and Imperial Stout are all crafted from organic hops from New Zealand and organic grains from the Pacific Northwest and Canada. Butte Creek Brewery, established in 1998 in Chico, California, brews organic Pilsner, Porter, Pale Ale and India Pale Ale. Their award-winning beers are distributed internationally. Olympia, Washington-based Fish Tale Organic Ales has been brewing ales, porters and stouts to rave reviews since 1993, and introduced its first certified organic beer in 2000. And Otter Creek Brewery in Middlebury, Vermont produces a line of organic ales called Wolaver’s, which includes an Oatmeal Stout and a Pumpkin Ale. The UK’s Samuel Smith Brewery turns out a full line of acclaimed organic ale, lager and fruit beers. Other popular choices include Pinkus Organic Munster Alt, Peak Organic, New Belgium’s Mothership Wit Wheat Beer, and Lakefront Organic ESB, among others. And Whole Foods Markets now produces its own private label organic beer called Lamar Street, which is known for its rich flavor and low cost. Not surprisingly, even the big boys are beginning to jump in. Anheuser-Busch is pushing its Stone Mill, Wild Hops and Green Valley organic beers. And Miller’s Henry Weinhard’s Organic Amber, on store shelves since 2007, is brewed with local ingredients by the Full Sail Brewery in Hood River, Oregon. One way to sample dozens of organic beers at once is to attend the North American Organic Brewers Festival (NAOBF), held every June in Portland, Oregon. Whether you clue into organic beers at this event or just at your local pub you can't go wrong by spreading your eco-consciousness to your beer drinking. CONTACTS: Organic Trade Association, www.ota.com; Seven Bridges Cooperative, www.breworganic.com; Eel River Brewing, www.eelriverbrewing.com; Butte Creek Brewing,www.buttecreek.com; Fish Brewing, www.fishbrewing.com; NAOBF, www.naobf.org. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial. Dear EarthTalk: In my business courses in college, we were taught that ecological degradation was an “externality”—something outside the purview of economic analyses. Now that the environment is of such concern, are economists beginning to rethink this? -- Josh Dawson, Flagstaff, AZ By definition, economic externalities are the indirect negative (or positive) The North American Filipino Star www.filipinostar.org side effects, considered unquantifiable in dollar terms, of other economic acts. For example, a negative externality of a power plant that is otherwise producing a useful good (electricity) is the air pollution it generates. In traditional economics, the harmful effect of the pollution (smog, acid rain, global warming) on human health and the environment is not factored in as a cost in the overall economic equation. And as the economists go, so go the governments that rely on them. The result is that most nations do not consider environmental and other externalities in their calculations of gross domestic product (GDP) and other key economic indicators (which by extension are supposed to be indicators of public health and well- being). For decades environmentalists have argued that economics should take into account the costs borne by such externalities in order to discern the true overall value to society of any given action or activity. The company or utility that operates the polluting factory, for instance, should be required to compensate the larger society by paying for the pollution it produces so as to offset the harm it does. So-called “cap-and-trade” schemes are one real-world way of monetizing a negative externality: Big polluters must buy the right to generate limited amounts of carbon dioxide (and they can trade such rights with other companies that have found ways to lower their carbon footprints, thus creating an incentive for polluters to clean up their acts). While cap-andtrade was invented in the U.S. to clean up acid rain pollution, it is a model used in Europe but not yet in America, which has yet to pass legislation mandating it. Until Congress acts to regulate the output of carbon dioxide in the U.S.—via cap-and-trade means or others—such emissions will remain “external” to the economics of carrying on business. Recent news that has many greens excited is that the World Bank, the leading financier of development December 2010 projects around poorer parts of the globe, is starting to think outside the traditional economic box. This past October, World Bank president Robert Zoellick told participants at a conference for the Convention on Biological Diversity (an international treaty signed by 193 countries—not including the U.S.—that went into effect in 1993 to sustain biodiversity) that “the natural wealth of nations should be a capital asset valued in combination with its financial capital, manufactured capital and human capital.” Zoellick’s comments are the first sign from the World Bank of its recognition of the need to consider externalities in any overall economic assessment. “[We] need to reflect the vital carbon storage services that forests provide and the coastal protection values that come from coral reefs and mangroves,” he added. Critics are still waiting to see if the World Bank will walk its talk. “It’s a fine rhetorical start,” says the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin in his blog. “But the announcement by the bank of a $10 million ‘Save Our Species’ fund, with the United Nations Global Environmental Facility and International Union for Conservation of Nature, seems quite piddling in a world where money flows in the trillions,” he adds. Indeed, we may still be a ways off from including our environmental impacts into our measures of social wealth and health, but at least the World Bank has gone on record as to the need to do so, and you can be sure that environmental advocates will be working to hold its feet to the fire. CONTACTS: World Bank, www.worldbank.org; Convention on Biological Diversity, www.cbd.int. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial. Advertise your business in the Star and reach your potential customers Call 514-485-7861
December 2010 The North American Filipino Star 7 From Page 5 Any Which Way Doon naman sa September 16- October 15, 2010 edition ng kanyang Forum, nababaliw na pinalabas n’ya na si Mrs. Zeny F. Kharroubi ang iresponsableng journalist gayong s’ya itong nahatulan na nagkasala ng pagkairesponsable sa journalism. Doon din sa nasabing edition, sinabihan n’ya ako na tuwirin o tamain ko raw muna ang aking mga facts bago ko ilathala ang aking mga artikulo. Ugok s’yang talaga dahil mismong ang kanyang mga artikulo ang punung-puno ng mga kuwentong kutsero at kasinungalingan. ******* RENEGADES (“RATS” TO SOME PEOPLE) OF THE FCBL – People who had keenly followed the eight-month travails of the FAMAS Constitution and Bylaws (FCBL) Committee dubbed Marlene Birao-Schachter, Felix Salazar, and Denie and Paz Guloy “Four Rats of the FCBL” for deep-throating to Frauderico Crass Magallanes information that he would later use to malign FAMAS and the FCBL Committee. At the outset, I was reluctant to subscribe to that depiction of the four. I even insisted that the Guloys were decent people despite strong objection from those who knew them better. But after the “un-Christed” couple, together with Marlene and Felix, tried all the tricks they could come up with, even quoting Biblical passages, to derogate Mandy Tolentino’s and his supporters’ steadfast and trenchant stand against Magallanes, and then tried to emend what to them was a faulty letter written in response to Magallanes’ malicious article, and then ultimately reneged on their promise to sign the letter on the flimsy excuse that it wasn’t in accordance with their principles or beliefs (as if they had principle to speak of in the first place), I had a better grasp why some people likened those four to said loathsome rodents. In fact, I don’t object anymore if people would like to label them “Rats of the FCBL.” I’ve realized, to my disappointment, that Marlene, Felix, Denie and Paz are the type of people who don’t have any qualm leaving you in the lurch for their selfish motives. Worse yet, they, particularly the Guloys, have been using the name of God in vain. Frankly, I hadn’t met such hypocritical people until now. ******* LATEST MEMBER OF FILIPINO ASSOCIATION OF HYPOCRITICAL CITIZENS OF QUEBEC (FAHCQ) – Long time ago, Demosthenes D. Guloy talked to the editor-in-chief of this newspaper about submitting an article to the Filipino Star. Reasonably cautious, the good editor told Guloy that Magallanes would not allow that, but he bragged to her that he was not being paid so he could do whatever he wanted. Then he had to back out and admitted to her that Magallanes did not want him to write for the Star. Still later on, Guloy offered to write a few articles in the Star as he claimed he did not want to write for Magallanes anymore. She eventually allowed him to contribute an article but it did not last long as he probably ran out of ideas. Guloy then crawled back to Magallanes and started to write for him again. Apparently ingratiating himself to Magallanes, he even sponsored his request to take pictures of the FCBL Committee while it was in session. Amid objection from already “Magallanestraumatized” members of the FCBL Committee who knew Magallanes’ dirty ways and mean streak, Guloy volunteered to guarantee that Magallanes wouldn’t write anything derogatory about FAMAS. Ensuing development would render his guaranty useless because Magallanes would later write an offensive article against FAMAS. When this writer, a member of FCBL Committee, confronted Guloy about the guaranty he gave in Magallanes’ behalf, he denied having given one. As soon as I heard him deny that, I decided, “This guy isn’t a man of his words.” Obviously, Guloy was principled only in words, but never in deeds. Could it be the reason he and his wife aren’t with the Couple for Christ anymore? Or is there another reason? Well, God bless! Right, Denie? ******* MARLENE BIRAO SCHACHTER: DENSE AND SPINELESS – Whatever little respect I had for Marlene Birao- Schachter has vanished without any trace, particularly after she impetuously and empathically told the FCBL Committee during its meeting of October 23, 2010 that it was Magallanes’ right to write whatever he would like to write even if it was to the detriment of FAMAS and the FCBL Committee of which she’s a member. Her shocking and emetic statement sent a jolt down the spine of all discerning FCBL Committee members and some observers who were at that meeting. Not only that, Birao-Schachter (rhymes with “Shockter”) refused to sign the FCBL Committee letter to Magallanes in the pretext that it was against her principle, as if she had one to begin with. But when asked, for the sake of argument, what principle of hers was adversely affected, she couldn’t cite any. It is truly thought-provoking that someone who never had the ability to make insightful judgment was once president of both FAMAS and the whilom respectable Federation of Filipino- Canadian Associations of Quebec (FFCAQ). I’m now more convinced than ever that life is indeed full of ironies and paradoxes. Marlene Birao-Schachter is definitely one of them. She is fond of saying “I know” or “I understand,” but the truth is she doesn’t know, and she doesn’t understand anything either! And the fact that she allows herself to be Frauderico’s virtual myrmidon and remains rabidly loyal to him despite the outrageous things that he has been doing over the years is an indication of her very low self-esteem and masochistic tendency. But then again, it could be merely her stupidity. I can’t think of a more plausible explanation. Can you? Why do you think Frauderico and Marlene get along with each other very well? It’s elementary, Mr. Watson! He’s a sadist and she’s a masochist. He’s narcissistic and she’s a narcissistic supply. They’re the equivalent of mortise and tenon in carpentry. And the list goes on. (Readers’ comments are welcome. Send your e-mail at badosarmiento@yahoo.com) Common mistakes and confusing words in English By Budz Sarmiento www.filipinostar.org disinterested vs. uninterested DISINTERESTED and UNINTERESTED share a confused and confusing history. DISINTERESTED was originally used to mean “not interested, indifferent”; UNINTERESTED in its earliest use meant “impartial.” By various developmental twists, DISINTERESTED is now used in both senses. UNINTERESTED is used mainly in the sense “not interested, indifferent.” It is occasionally used to mean “not having a personal or property interest.” Many object to the use of DISINTERESTED to mean “not interested, indifferent.” They insist that DISINTERESTED can mean only “impartial”: A disinterested observer is the best judge of behavior. However, both senses are well established in all varieties of English, and the sense intended is almost always clear from the context. REDUNDANT WORDS AND PHRASES added bonus: This is one that I see frequently in Internet marketing sales letters and infomercials. Since the word “bonus” implies that an additional good is being included with the existing product, the “added” part is redundant. In most cases, you can just write “bonus.” free gift: This one is also very common in the Internet marketing world as well as in offline retailing. If something is truly a gift, it is not supposed to cost anything and is automatically free. On the other hand, if something is NOT free, then it is not actually a gift; instead it would be considered as a purchase or trade. This should simply be written as “gift” or “free X”, where X is the name of the product you’re giving away. past (or prior, previous) experience: Experience already refers to things that you have done in the past, so you do not need to include “past”, “prior”, or “previous” in your résumé here. future planning, plan in the future: A plan is always something that you are thinking about doing in the future; you cannot plan to do something in the past or present. Therefore, you just need to say “plan” or “planning.” revert back: The word revert means “to go back to”, making the “back” part of this phrase redundant. Other words in this same category include refer, return, and repay — you don’t need to use “back” with any of these. completely surrounded, surrounded on all sides: The word surrounded implies that something is enclosed on all sides and the notion of completeness is already included here. So just use “surrounded.” advance warning: A warning is something given in advance, usually in the form of a notification that unfavorable circumstances may occur in the future. The “advance” part is not needed. unexpected emergency, unexpected surprise: Neither an emergency nor a surprise can occur if you’re actually expecting it. Drop “unexpected.” completely (or totally, utterly) destroyed: If something is destroyed, this means that it has been rendered completely unusable or inoperable. An item cannot have a “partially destroyed” status any more than one can be “partially pregnant.” If something is still partially functioning, the proper word to use is damaged, not destroyed. absolutely (or completely) essential: This is another case where the modifiers are not necessary. Something is either essential or not essential; there is no such thing as “partially essential.” Link (or join, assemble, collaborate) together: All of these verbs relate to bringing things together, making the “together” part superfluous. Simply use the word that best fits the context of the sentence. round (or square, triangular, etc.) in shape: If something is round, this already refers to its shape, making the “in shape” part redundant. large (or small) in size: Similar to the above situation, both large and small already refer to size. Drop “in size.” few (or many) in number: The “in number” part is redundant. Just use “few” or “many.” filled to capacity: If something is filled or full, it has already reached its capacity. So we only need to say “full” or “at capacity” depending on context. 12 (o’ clock) noon, 12 midnight: Both noon and midnight always occur at 12:00, so we don’t need the “12? part. Just say noon or midnight. discuss about: Discuss means “to talk about”, so it is preferable to simply write either “discuss” or “talk about” but not both. See Page 10 Common Mistakes MEN AND WOMEN HOMMES ET FEMMES Hair Cut / Wash & Dry / ColorRoots / Permanent / Highlighs / Streaks 4661 Van Horne Suite 5, Montreal, QC Tel.: 514-884-2925
Page 1 and 2: Call us for more details 514-485-78
Page 3 and 4: December 2010 The North American Fi
Page 5: December 2010 The North American Fi

Filipino Star - December 2010 Edition

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?