Weekly Dig: Green is the new blegh

Unfortunately for me and the author of"Green is the New Black", the book I reviewed for Greenland this week, I hated every page of it. It was absolutely awful. After having gone through the book writing and editing process, I can only conclude that the editor of Blanchard's book must have either hated or feared her, because it's full of errors, nonsensical ellipses, non sequiturs, and rambling offshoots into Blanchard's personal life that have little to do with saving the planet. I don't know what I expected from a writer who uses the word "fashionista" without irony, but what I got was extremely irritated.

The published review is here, but unfortunately for me and the Dig readers, it also received a less than careful treatment in the editing process. So I'll print the uncut (albeit even more rant-y) version here:

Green is the New Blegh

When it comes to the environment, what you wear is nearly as important as what you eat. The pesticides that soak conventional cottons are as harmful to farmers as the pesticides that seep into the ground on conventional lettuce farms. The labor conditions under which fast-fashion clothing is produced overseas are often deplorable. The implications of highly disposable, cheap sweaters which will sojourn only briefly in your closet before spending the next few millennia not biodegrading in a landfill are as daunting as the ones we face daily every time we choose (or don’t choose) to eat a Big Mac wrapped in cardboard.

So why, asks Brit fashion writer Tamsin Blanchard, author of “Green is the New Black”, aren’t we doing more about it?

The reason is, partly, writers like Tamsin Blanchard.

It’s apparent from her badly-edited, sloppily turned-out “guide” to eco-consumerism that fashion writers like Blanchard, who’s worked the style beat for several leading London publications, still believe that “fashionistas” to be strongarmed into caring about the environment. That they don’t truck in measured, devastating arguments like the “foodies” who read Michael Pollan. That any innate curiosity or concern they might have about the origins of their clothing is likely to be eclipsed by their need for omigod shoes. That they’ll be able to sort through Blanchard’s self-indulgent, blowsy rambling to find the useful nuggets of information that the writer does present in her guide, such as pointing out that even mainstream chains like H&M and American Apparel feature organic cotton lines that are better than the less responsible alternative, or that UK company People Tree may actually have a workable model for Fair Trade, sustainable fashion.

What fashionistas need, it seems, is for a high-ranking insider to teach them about a new concept called “vintage” and to reassure them that it’s, like, totally posh to shop at “charity stores” and to buy hemp-based clothing from Marks & Spencer without becoming a “hippy-dippy”. (Did we mention this book is all in Brit-speak?)

Sigh. Is it any wonder that kids today have turned to those newfangled weblogs for real, useful information?

We recommend recycling your copy of “Green is the New Black” and turning to the paperless resource of IdealBite instead, which will deliver daily tips with links to products you can use, written in a style that non-fashionistas can read without retching on their “hippy-dippy” vegan fair trade shoes.

This was the first time in a long time that I've written something so unabashedly negative -- but you know what? It felt good. Some people see green and they don't think "saving the planet" -- they think "lining my pockets by jumping on this trend". Blanchard has come on the green scene and attempted to make a quick buck by purporting to tell environmental "fashionistas" what they already know (that vintage is green, that organic and bamboo-based materials are the way of the future, that we need to buy less and think more about our purchases).

Blanchard has also proven something about the fashion world that "fashionistas" need to know, and to fix: that the high rollers of the fashion world are becoming increasingly disconnected from the people they clothe and from the people who work for them all over the world. For example, this comment from Anna Wintour: "I see a lot of people in my industry who are over-reacting. Stores that are over-discounting, designers who are creating collections for the price and what sells rather than to reflect who they are." Replies Jezebel.com, "It takes a special understanding of the world — wasn't the Dow just below 8,000? And aren't advertising pages in this month's Vogue down 22% compared with last December's issue? — to frame the fashion industry's biggest problem right now as charging too little for its wares."

Even luxury conoisseurs are feeling a little ashamed of buying bling these days, but that emotion is not in the best interests of fashion magazines, which thrive on luxury ads -- so with tastemakers like Wintour wielding the whip, the consuming must go on, even when it makes no sense to the consumers themselves. The devil wears Prada, indeed.

While the luxury fashion world's "let them eat cake" attitude may infuriate the actual thrift shoppers among us, my feelings about this go beyond sour grapes to real moral outrage. As long as this reality-be-damned luxury continues to be defended, encouraged and even lauded by magazines like Vogue and Elle (and breezily passed over by the likes of Blanchard), the fashion world as it stands will continue to contribute to greater poverty and environmental degradation worldwide in the years to come while calling it "art". I doubt there's a designer or a consumer among us who would be willing to argue that authenticity and environmental responsibility are mutually exclusive, so let's get real. It's time to acknowledge that clothes are a commodity as well as an "art form", and their production needs to be managed more carefully and with greater conscience.

Unfortunately, Blanchard does not tackle this topic, or many others of substance. Like Bush, she simply tells us to shop to solve the world's problems, albeit in the Marks & Spencer organic section. It's not good enough. Blanchard's book is lazy, indulgent, and worst of all, not useful. I sincerely hope that she makes very little profit from her book sales -- because those books will most certainly all end up in the trash, which will only make the problem worse. Blegh!

Weekly Dig: eat gooder

I forgot to post this quick writeup I did for the Weekly Dig's Greenland column, which is out this week. I interviewed Kenji Alt, the co-founder of GoodEater.org, a new Boston and New York-based blog that features interesting stories about the intersection of food, politics and the environment. (Coincidentally, I'm thinking about buying a house at that intersection, cause I spend so much time there.)

My meetup with Kenji had to be quick -- he was racing from his job at Cook's Illustrated to the kitchen of Rialto, where Jody Adams was going to be demonstrating a recipe for his upcoming blog feature, Great Chefs @ Good Eater (which I mentioned in my writeup, but that bit was unfortunately cut from the Dig piece). While we sat down to chat and split a plate of sweet potato cod fritters at Green Street, the manager stopped by to talk about a seasonal cocktail recipe for the feature. Before his stint as a food writer, Kenji spent a while cooking in the Boston restaurant scene (at No. 9 Park, Clio and Uni), so he Knows People. I think his blog will be very successful, and I hope to see it rolled out in several cities beyond Boston and NYC in the coming years.

I'm propping Kenji's blog now not because I think it'll be novel to the best and brightest among Boston's food-conscious readers -- it won't be. But I know there are still people out there who have yet to get the memo. Sometimes it seems to me like everyone and their mother is caught up inside this local-seasonal-organic triangulation, but then I'll visit a restaurant in the North End, where veal is in every other dish and they're serving caprese salads with tasteless tomatoes and imported asparagus in effing November, and realize that this food revolution still has a ways to go. And I'm hoping that Kenji's methods (did I mention he killed a duck and posted the photos on his blog? Or that he advocates patronizing a startup mobile chicken slaughterhouse? Or that his co-founder, Josh, has suggested that, in the event of a major doomsday scenario in which our traditional communications and food systems break down, we all emulate the bartering methods of a little African country called Lesotho, where they communicate by colored flags?) might just get the message across.

My friends

...are full of mad style, apparently!

First, the Sartorialist-style street blog Beyond Boston Chic snapped photos of my friend Morgan outside her booth at the SoWa craft market...



...And then photographed her boyfriend Tyler (who is generally dressed like a rock star, but apparently Morgan can take credit for picking out these shorts...and yeah, they're ridiculously cute together)...



...And also my college buddy Vin.



Then, the Globe featured Morgan again in their biker style article (this math checks out, since Morgan is 200% more stylish than I am).



Then, the Weekly Dig featured our dear Alexis for both his personal style (he was apparently "Sipping a drink at a chic Newbury Street café, sporting pinstripes, rimless glasses and square-toed shoes" at the time of his interview) and his artistic style, as he put together the public music program Make Music Cambridge, inspired by those he's seen in his native France...



Then, the Globe named our friend Keyse as one of their 25 most stylish Bostonians of 2008. (Keyse's a jewelry maker and an avid Craigslist furniture hunter who loves bright colors - I'm betting it's her Brazilian blood.)



And just to prove that their photographed outfits were far from one-offs, I present to you Morgan and Alexis last night, at a Second Glass party hosted by Tyler and Morgan, at the Dig (so it all comes full circle).


I am so lucky to be surrounded by such stylish, creative, intelligent people, who are beautiful inside and out!

Another rare political post - on Prop 8

Because the main purpose of this blog is to serve as a record of my professional work, I don't always feel that it's appropriate to use it for my personal musings. However, I recently contributed to this Bostonist post on the large Prop 8 protest that took place in several cities today, including one in Boston, which I attended. So I believe this merits an additional comment from me that gives some context to my position on this issue, especially since I am in the unique and fortunate position of being able to consult both my GLBT friends and my Mormon friends directly on this issue, rather than relying on the press or blogs. I hope that both groups will take this as an opportunity to start a dialogue with the other side, as I am trying to do -- no matter how much anger or distrust they may feel right now.



Okay. Here goes.

I have not always been sure about what I believe when it comes to amendments dealing with marriage. I find much of the rhetoric on both sides to be problematic.

I don't entirely believe that marriage is a "human" or a "civil" right, and furthermore, I think this rhetoric is somewhat beside the point.

I don't think that defining something as a "human right" is in and of itself a necessary step in helping make something, whether it's water or food or a life free of violence or discrimination, more available to those who clearly deserve it.

I don't think marriage should be defined as a "civil right". While many religious people are offended by the idea that anyone should seek to define "marriage" as something other than the union of man and woman described in the Bible, I am bothered by the fact that the U.S. government should have any say in matters of the heart. I am bothered by the idea of allowing a majority of people to vote on a metaphysical aspect of reality such as the origins of life or the validity of certain kinds of love. I am bothered by the thought that our government, which once allowed slavery and allowed women to be treated as property and deprived of a vote, should now lay its heavy, hairy hand on the shoulders of my friends and tell them that they, too, must wait another generation for Democracy to determine their "rights".

However, the U.S. government has opted to extend civil protections to couples. And so I do not believe we can extend these to some couples but not all.

Unfortunately, rather than redefining what these civil protections are called -- defining what the government provides as a "civil union" and what a spiritual institution provides as a "marriage" or any other word, which I believe would greater sanctify the idea of "marriage" -- GLBT advocates have decided on a different tack. They seek to redefine the word "marriage" without reforming the way the government gets involved in the institution itself.

The reason why they've opted for this strategy, it seems, is because if marriage as it relates to the government's actions were defined as a bond between two persons, rather than a bond between a man and a woman, the 14th Amendment would protect it, and the 14th Amendment is a powerful ally. If this redefinition were achieved, it would then guarantee the equality which gay couples are currently, tragically lacking in most parts of the country. The relevant text here reads:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As this amendment is one of the most important in our nation's history, on which my own right to vote is partially dependent (the Constitution never mentioned women's rights, either, but they exist now), I do not take it lightly, and I'm sure that GLBT activists also recognize its resonance. I think that regardless of one's stance on Prop 8, every person should take this legislation's rise to prominence as an opportunity to meditate on what the 14th Amendment really means, and to decide for him or herself whether or not Prop 8 truly upholds the ideals inherent in this amendment.

---
The problematic part of using this tactic is that it has led people to believe that GLBT activists want to "force" them to recognize the emotional validity of their unions, to "force" churches to send priests to marry gay couples, to "force" teachers to teach about the existence (the mere existence) of gay unions. Not so fast, folks.

Setting aside the fact that there are still those who hold views about women and people of color that predate the civil rights and feminist movements, despite much legislation being passed in their favor, this is not the point. Most couldn't care less about what some random Utahn or Texan or Californian thinks. Remember, many GLBT folks do not even have the acceptance of their families, and no big gay wedding is going to change that. If a GLBT person has the courage to be out in the first place, he or she already has the courage to put up with those with differing beliefs about homosexuality.

The most attractive prizes at the bottom of this crappy little Cracker Jack box, as one lesbian friend of mine put it, are far more "boring". They want access to a partner's healthcare so one of them can stay at home with the new baby. They want to know that they'll be allowed in the ambulance and the ICU should the 911 call come one day. They want joint tax returns. And they want the incredible privilege of being able to take all that for granted one day, like straight folks do. That's what "equality" means in this circumstance.


And so, while I don't believe the government has a role in regulating what is for most a deeply spiritual and emotional bond, I don't believe that it's appropriate for those who are religious to be applying their definition of marriage to what is essentially a secular process, designed to provide protections and support to all citizens under the law.

As a person raised by a pair of divorced parents and a pair of devoted grandparents, I have always known that families come in all shapes and sizes, and they don't have to be "traditional" to be effective and loving. As a person who has come to know many gay persons and couples, I see no difference between the way GLBT persons support their partners and parent their children and the way straight persons do, inasmuch as there can be similarities at all (since parenting itself has become an ideological minefield). As a person who has loved and lived with all sorts of people, I've never doubted for a moment that you can't always choose whom you love. And as far as I can tell, being a child of a "traditional marriage" between a mother and a father has not made me any less confused about love. So I believe that all families, in all their forms, deserve the same protections and support -- as do their children, who often have little say in the matter.

I also find it problematic that members of the religious community have employed statistics - often uncited ones - to support their claims that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marry or raise natural or adopted children because they are somehow less likely to succeed at it. Homosexual people are more promiscuous, they say. Their children will be more likely to be "confused", they say. And furthermore, families with gay parents will even affect the success of other marriages and other children.

For example, in "The Divine Institution of Marriage", an often fascinating essay on church and state issues authored by the LDS church, one paragraph reads:

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

I do not agree that a heterosexual marriage, based as it would likely be in dishonesty, would be a much better option for these gay parents than living their lives openly with partners of their choosing. Just ask Alison Bechdel, whose father remained closeted his entire life, until he was finally outed after it was discovered that he'd had affairs with several of his male students. The miserable guy then committed suicide, and his daughter still went on to become a lesbian. (And a talented writer and artist, and a heckuva nice person to boot.)

Here's the thing: outside of Utah's Mormon majority, there is no such thing as a "well-established social identity", whatever that means. We're all apt to belong to dozens of groups, clubs, communities, and churches and even sexual orientations over time, and that's a good thing. As for "gender identity"? Meh. It's a mistake to be nostalgic for the days when Men Were Men and Women Were Women. Women, if you'll recall, got the shit end of that deal. I'd love to have my feminist mom and my egalitarian dad weigh in on what it means to be a "real man" or a "real woman" in 2008. Or better yet, Hillary Clinton.

And what about our "social fabric"? It's more like a patchwork quilt these days, with some kids coming to school with Islam-mandated headscarves, some with yamukas, some with cornrows and some with pigtails -- and ain't that America, home of the free. Personally, I think that if my friends' marriages can survive the parenting examples of Britney Spears and Angelina Jolie, we can probably stand the sight of two loving, healthy, non-anorexic, non-umbrella-wielding moms taking their kids to soccer practice.

I also think that if "what's best for the children" is the all-important question, then we must also look at which lifestyles the LDS church promotes and which it decries, using these suddenly-very-important statistics. Many of my friends in Utah are encouraged to marry in their late teens or early 20s, and to begin their families as soon as possible, as as the custom in the LDS community. Many statistics show that young marriages such as these are far more likely to end in divorce than those which begin later (as they do in liberal, secular places like Massachusetts). Others studies (including one done at BYU) show that the academic performance and overall success of a child is strongly linked to the age of the mother at the time of birth. The older the mother, the more successful the child (as older mothers are more likely to be educated, financially stable and/or independent, and emotionally mature). So, based on these statistics, the LDS church might consider encouraging its members to marry and procreate later -- or even supporting legislation making it illegal for people under 25 to marry, as it would be "better" for society. But it's not likely to do so.

In the meantime, my dear friends in Utah are forming incredible marriages, raising beautiful children, and are as committed if not more committed to making their marriages work and their children successful as any 30something post-grad pair in Massachusetts (and so, for the record, I have often defended their life choices as vehemently as I now defend the life choices of my GLBT peers).

Therefore, while the church and its members have gone out of their way to declare their love for the sinner and not the sin, and while many of the young LDS members I have seen commenting on blogs and Facebook take care qualify their arguments with, "I'm not bigoted", it is in fact a kind of bigotry to highlight scientific research when it supports your point of view, and to ignore it when it does not. It is bigotry to rely on these statistics rather than reaching out to the people behind them and actually observing the relationships and parenting habits of GLBT persons. It is bigotry to draw conclusions about people and lifestyles with which you have no direct experience, even if they are conclusions based in Scripture. It is my belief that if there is a God, He or She would prefer that you do your own research.

The truth is that GLBT people were hurt by the religious community's involvement in the issue, despite individual members' best intentions. They do feel less safe in the world thanks to Prop 8's passing, and for good reason. They certainly do not feel loved by the proponents of the Yes on 8 campaign.

And while some church members feel that GLBT persons should not now or ever gain the ability to marry, they will not now or ever be able to silence, erase or permanently marginalize the people, gay and straight, whom they have just engaged over this issue. The same process of democracy that approved this amendment could someday overturn it. We went from Jim Crow laws to President-elect Obama in less than a lifetime. The trend of democracy points toward greater acceptance of GLBT persons and gay marriage with every new generation. Elton John, Ellen and their peers are not ever going back in the closet. Best to start accepting this now.

I would also think that if you are someone who feels you must claim that you are "not bigoted" before you declare your views, then you must already realize that you have as your political bedfellows large swaths of people who are, in fact, deeply bigoted. And that's worth a thought, because I doubt that anyone I saw at the peaceful Prop 8 protest in Boston today would have been ashamed to be seen or associated with any of their fellow protesters, despite their philosophical differences (which do exist, even in the land of kumbaya secular liberalism). In fact, it was quite the opposite. Everyone was proud as hell to be there, standing by their neighbors, holding their children, and waving their flags in the rain.

Restaurant previews begin on Bostonist: L'Espalier

Sure, it’s an overdone publicity stunt, and many a foodie has been burned by the snooty service, tiny portions and unimpressive fare served to those who step out for Restaurant Week in Boston.

That pretty much sums up how I feel about RW, and that's what I wrote in Bostonist today.

However, if these things were enough to keep me away from good food at cut rate prices, well, I'd be a skinnier human than I am now. So I was still happy to do a RW preview series for the 'ist. This writeup of L'Espalier is the first of five.

Nor'easter inspiration

I love snowstorms.

Perhaps it is the fact that for the first time, I own one of those wonderful, knee-length, quilted coats that makes one feel invincible in the cold.

Perhaps it is the fact that I am a hot yoga enthusiast, and the intense cold is the best possible foil for the fabulous heat I feel inside the studio.

Perhaps it is the fact that I now have a dog, and he loves fresh-fallen snow; he loves to jump in it and dig in it, kicking up big skiffs and making lumpen snow-angels as he staggers drunkenly through the drifts.

Perhaps it is the fact that I have not driven a car for over a year, and have forgotten what it's like to spend the morning warming up the engine, clearing off the wipers, digging out the driveway. (I simply put on my coat, walk out the door, and there is the train station, just down the stairs.)

Perhaps I am finally getting used to Boston winters.

Whatever it is -- I find snowstorms inspiring.

I love the cold rush of air after a languid morning spent inside in the heat. I drink it in; it is like cold icy water on a summer day. I love the moist sweaty mist that rises up out of my coat and gathers around my neck as I stomp through the snow, working up a sweat despite the cold flakes falling around me. I love the condensed moisture dripping from the tips of my bangs. I love the rosy cheeks on my reflection as I pass fogged-up windows. I love snuggling down into the scruff of scarf around my neck, peering out over the top at a world in white.

I love being inside during a storm as well. I love the sound of distant snowplows, early in the morning, charging past on the streets below us, flashing their lights. I love waking to the dim light of the morning on the dawn of a snowstorm, the sense that the sky is hanging low, the new frank coldness in the air inside our apartment. I love the patter of hard icy flakes on the windows as I stand inside, humming to the music I'm playing as I stand in stocking feet, frying up hash browns. I love curling up inside a blanket on my boyfriend's lap, snuggling like a child in the crook of his elbow, listening to the sound of the wind whining and the television humming, the earnest voices of the news programs speaking slowly, cheerfully. I love having an excuse to go back to bed, to pull the covers up under my chin, to bid the dog to come lay in my lap, and to read the last of a suspenseful book, one I might have saved for later if the snow had not come.

I always like an excuse to drop the usual routines of our shared adult life for something more innocent, languid and natural.

It was during a very serious snowstorm that my boyfriend and I decided to live together for the first time. I was living with a few friends from my freshman year, and it was not working out very well. I often spent nights at his tiny apartment in Beacon Hill, washing up with his rough men's soap, leaving bare-faced and wet-haired, changing into my own clothes once I returned to the dorm. I liked his place; his bed was soft and big, not narrow and hard like the ones in the dorm, and I never felt as though I might come face-to-face with a nasty note if I left a dish in the sink or a pair of shoes in the hallway. On this night, I had once again decided to stay, although I planned to come "home" in the morning.

During this snowstorm, we were literally trapped inside the apartment; in Beacon Hill, the plows come through rarely, and the streets are so narrow that when they do, the cast-aside snow piles up in enormous drifts. It is difficult to walk up or down the steep hills, and most businesses that serve the hill, being mom-and-pop establishments, simply close in the face of harsh weather. We had no where to go, and no reason to leave. So instead of going back to the dorm, I stayed with my boyfriend. I don't remember how we passed the time; perhaps we watched movies and made breakfast, perhaps we just lay in bed for most of the morning. I do know that in a moment of boredom and pent-up energy, we decided to re-arrange the furniture, and the result was inspiring: suddenly, there was twice as much room in the small space. Enough, we realized, for two.

In this way, snowstorms can have the potential to bring about major changes, important decisions, and spurts of resourcefulness. It is this resourcefulness that I like the best -- the sense that you must rely on yourself and what you have on hand to make things work. To me, it's as fun as using a house full of blankets to make a fort out of pillows. There's a childish, comfortable joy that comes from battening down the hatches, hiding out, making do. I will post soon about a project that came about today because of our most recent snowstorm. I am so happy that we had one today; in fact, I am almost always delighted when extreme weather forces us to seal ourselves off from the outside world and to be still. I don't think that we as civilized humans are forced to do this enough.