And so it seems that I was too quick to judge Ms. Emilie Lee, who wrote me off as uneducable yesterday owing to my criticism of her choice to recycle vegetable oil as fuel in order to, as it said in the Patagonia catalog in which she was featured, �absolve �the guilt involved with being a modern human and caring for this planet on which we play .� (To be fair, those were not her words, but those of her partner, and Ms. Lee was quick, in her response to me, to attribute the smug tone to the Patagonia editorial staff.)

She is not, as I suggested might be the case, supported by indulgent parents but instead cleans �rich peoples toilets,� as she put it, to finance her spontaneous rock-climbing adventures. In addition, she also flouts consumerist convention by receiving free Patagonia clothing in exchange for appearing in their catalog. It sounds like a great way to go, except for the lack of health insurance, but no plan is perfect. I do think that the emphasis on toilet-cleaning lends an undeserved air of martyrdom to the endeavor. After all, she is an able-bodied, college-educated white American, and I would guess that there is other employment available to her, employment that would offer, perhaps, health insurance. Still, there is something poetic about the toilet-cleaning aspect�the image of her toiling over a porcelain bowl, saving her pennies for the day she can jump into her adventure bus and climb rocks. It begs the question of why a college-educated adult might choose to earn a living that way, or why, exactly, she would set herself up to clean toilets, seemingly exclusively, when she might just as easily vacuum carpets or wash dishes. The image is charmingly debasing, perhaps fueled by a the need for absolution of the guilt involved with being a modern human and caring for the planet on which we play.

I feel no guilt for existing on the planet, nor for being a �modern human.� If I did, I don�t see how receiving high-end leisure clothing at no cost would help. Ms. Lee was very clear on two points: One, that the clothing she wore was made of recycled plastic bottles (a point that I did not raise, and about which I hold no negative opinion); and two, that she did not pay for the clothing (which is beside the point). One might as well argue that Heidi Klum is an environmental activist because designers send her clothing for free. The cost to the wearer was not my point, rather, I questioned the necessity of manufacturing, say, a �moisture-wicking skirt.� Further, I still take issue with the curious statement that there is any guilt involved in caring for the planet. She had another point, too, which is that my opinions, which differ from hers, are a sign that I am uneducable and not worth �wasting� time on. In that opinion, too, we differ.

And so what of it? Why criticize, to paraphrase one comment, someone who is at least trying to do something good? I suppose I was offended by the celebration of what struck me as an empty gesture, but in the end, I guess I agree with the comment. There�s no harm celebrating in Ms. Emilie Lee�s rock-climbing adventures. She feels good about them, Patagonia gets to feel good about supporting her efforts, and Ms. Lee gets to feel good about her association with a prestigious clothing manufacturer. Hooray for everything! Hooray for me! Everything is beautiful, in its own way.

For a more articulate take on the celebration of the empty gesture, read Joan Didion�s essay on the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

Star of the day. . .Orion and his mighty sword