Those old designations between Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative are so, like, "20th Century". Our long-term exploitation of finite natural resources (oil, coal, forest, water, soil) without regard to environmental impact is soon coming to an abrupt halt. American history seen through the lens of gaining and protecting access to these natural resources is not a pretty picture (from the Spaniards on up). The ever-excessive pursuit of wealth and mindless consumption have led us to the economic precipice. The only difference between Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan is...rhetoric.
Long live AmazingPlanet!
Monday, May 3, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
signs of the collapse
Two fantastic articles on our impending cultural doom (thank the gods!):
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-catabolic-collapse.html
>http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2010/04/collapse-competitively.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-catabolic-collapse.html
>http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2010/04/collapse-competitively.html
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
education commentary
Another commentary on Vermont Tiger. For the questions click here.
question 1: There needs to be some dollar amount allotted to the student. If enrollment goes down, money goes down, people get laid off. That's life. Also, the topic of health care is inextricably tied to the increase of education costs. No valid solution can be made without creating a solution that stabilizes health care costs.
Question 2: I don't really care what Tennessee or Missouri spend on their students. We Vermonters will value the education of our children the way we value it. BUT we do need to get control of our spending. It is unsustainable and must be remedied. 1. Decouple healthcare from the rapacious insurance market. It is not a free market and should not be given the respect of one. (Yes, like our roads and our military, let's socialize it) 2. Eliminate the requirement to attend the last two years of high school. For anyone spending time in a modern high school, there are enormous amount of hours that are completely wasted, where nothing is learned and nothing is done. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of human energy. Many students are ready to work and be a part of society by the time they are 16. Let them. Provide centralized schools for the ones who are academically motivated and who want those last two years to prepare for their life. We will eliminate 1/2 the student population for the last two years of school. Plus, academically motivated students are much easier to teach and exhibit many less behavior issues which would allow much higher student to teacher ratios.
question 3. Are you kidding me? This question is so myopic. Let's just not teach them anything about the world, because they might want to see it. If people want to leave, let them. Vermont is not an easy place to live. While young people are leaving Vermont, older boomer baby types who complain about school taxes and wind turbines are moving in. The gentrification of Vermont. You can't talk about one without the other. (oh yeah, is there any study on young Vermonters who move away and then RETURN?)
Although I accept your general point of declining educational expectations, the Kansas test is bunk for two reasons and here is a good explanation why: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp
I think the real reason is television and marketing, but that is a story for another day.
And please, quit ranting against the arm-waving psychobabble when 2/3's of your post is just that.
question 1: There needs to be some dollar amount allotted to the student. If enrollment goes down, money goes down, people get laid off. That's life. Also, the topic of health care is inextricably tied to the increase of education costs. No valid solution can be made without creating a solution that stabilizes health care costs.
Question 2: I don't really care what Tennessee or Missouri spend on their students. We Vermonters will value the education of our children the way we value it. BUT we do need to get control of our spending. It is unsustainable and must be remedied. 1. Decouple healthcare from the rapacious insurance market. It is not a free market and should not be given the respect of one. (Yes, like our roads and our military, let's socialize it) 2. Eliminate the requirement to attend the last two years of high school. For anyone spending time in a modern high school, there are enormous amount of hours that are completely wasted, where nothing is learned and nothing is done. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of human energy. Many students are ready to work and be a part of society by the time they are 16. Let them. Provide centralized schools for the ones who are academically motivated and who want those last two years to prepare for their life. We will eliminate 1/2 the student population for the last two years of school. Plus, academically motivated students are much easier to teach and exhibit many less behavior issues which would allow much higher student to teacher ratios.
question 3. Are you kidding me? This question is so myopic. Let's just not teach them anything about the world, because they might want to see it. If people want to leave, let them. Vermont is not an easy place to live. While young people are leaving Vermont, older boomer baby types who complain about school taxes and wind turbines are moving in. The gentrification of Vermont. You can't talk about one without the other. (oh yeah, is there any study on young Vermonters who move away and then RETURN?)
Although I accept your general point of declining educational expectations, the Kansas test is bunk for two reasons and here is a good explanation why: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp
I think the real reason is television and marketing, but that is a story for another day.
And please, quit ranting against the arm-waving psychobabble when 2/3's of your post is just that.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
nuclear waste=evil part 2
And here is a continuation of the previous conversation:
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/02/take-a-breath.html?cid=6a00d834519c3c69e2012877903b84970c#comment-form
Daniel Foty says:
"That health care is a "right," but electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance?"
Well, you got it half right. I do believe that health care should be considered an inalienable right. It is not an issue that our founding fathers dealt with and I feel we, the people, need to protect the equitable access to that right (which is NOT happening now with the private/public mess that we have now).
In concerns to electricity, I never claimed that “electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance”. What I did mean to convey is that we can be a lot less dependent on the corporate/state to provide this need when independent sources and local production of electricity are available and through CONSERVATION which means that we can learn to use less. I believe in the decentralized view of INDEPENDENT or town-based sources of electricity. I believe that this is one of the core values of a libertarian/conservative view of governance: the promotion of individual freedom and local control of our mechanisms of survival. Dependence on large centralized corporate/governmental organizations is something I associate with the Democratic philosophy.
It is the discrepancy conservatives present that we need less gov’t influence and we need to eliminate the welfare/nanny state, but make sure you give me the cheapest electricity in the world. How can a conservative/libertarian view favor centralized top-down control of one of our modern day resources when independent, decentralized sources are available to the average citizen? I want my gov’t working on providing decentralized sources of energy and moving away from the centralized positions that are being currently advocated by people on this site and within our Republican administration.
The Brattleboro Conservative says: “Where were you and your enviro-twit friends when the plant was first proposed, in diapers perhaps?”
Well, your enviro-twit comment is quite rude and disrespectful. I am too young to have been an influence on the building of VY, but I am not too young to remember swimming between the turds that use to float on our local rivers. You and I can thank the “enviro-twits” (you can include such luminaries as George Aiken and David Deane among many other traditional conservatives in that category) to raising awareness and taking action to clean our rivers and waterways, and to clean the air we breathe and to clean the sides of our roads. They have produced real, beneficial results for our society, which is more than I can say about your attitude.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/02/take-a-breath.html?cid=6a00d834519c3c69e2012877903b84970c#comment-form
Daniel Foty says:
"That health care is a "right," but electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance?"
Well, you got it half right. I do believe that health care should be considered an inalienable right. It is not an issue that our founding fathers dealt with and I feel we, the people, need to protect the equitable access to that right (which is NOT happening now with the private/public mess that we have now).
In concerns to electricity, I never claimed that “electricity is an optional and unnecessary extravagance”. What I did mean to convey is that we can be a lot less dependent on the corporate/state to provide this need when independent sources and local production of electricity are available and through CONSERVATION which means that we can learn to use less. I believe in the decentralized view of INDEPENDENT or town-based sources of electricity. I believe that this is one of the core values of a libertarian/conservative view of governance: the promotion of individual freedom and local control of our mechanisms of survival. Dependence on large centralized corporate/governmental organizations is something I associate with the Democratic philosophy.
It is the discrepancy conservatives present that we need less gov’t influence and we need to eliminate the welfare/nanny state, but make sure you give me the cheapest electricity in the world. How can a conservative/libertarian view favor centralized top-down control of one of our modern day resources when independent, decentralized sources are available to the average citizen? I want my gov’t working on providing decentralized sources of energy and moving away from the centralized positions that are being currently advocated by people on this site and within our Republican administration.
The Brattleboro Conservative says: “Where were you and your enviro-twit friends when the plant was first proposed, in diapers perhaps?”
Well, your enviro-twit comment is quite rude and disrespectful. I am too young to have been an influence on the building of VY, but I am not too young to remember swimming between the turds that use to float on our local rivers. You and I can thank the “enviro-twits” (you can include such luminaries as George Aiken and David Deane among many other traditional conservatives in that category) to raising awareness and taking action to clean our rivers and waterways, and to clean the air we breathe and to clean the sides of our roads. They have produced real, beneficial results for our society, which is more than I can say about your attitude.
Monday, February 8, 2010
nuclear waste=evil
This is a response to the conservative blog VermontTiger:
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/02/take-a-breath.html
I am disturbed by this conversation on several levels:
1. First and foremost; how can anyone talk about nuclear power without even mentioning radioactive waste? This is irresponsible to the core. The fact of the matter is that our self-indulgent, short-sighted, me-now culture cannot even talk about how we are creating a radioactive dead zone that will stay here on the beautiful banks of the Connecticut River for MILLENIA. There is no action that we are taking that is so profoundly bad for our future generations then the creation of such an evil by-product. This factor alone should eliminate any desire to build more nuclear power plants.
2. My Confusion: It is here, on the VermontTiger, that I was first introduced to the controversy that CO2 may not even be a factor in climate change (Thanks to Daniel Foty). But while my skepticism grows (I’m not totally convinced), there are others that are using reduced CO2 emissions to promote the growth of the nuclear industry. Which is it, VermontTiger? You can’t have it both ways (without being hypocritical).
3. Green Jobs: This moniker has become completely meaningless since it means whatever the speaker wants when they want it.
4. The rap against renewable energy: While, yes, the creation of solar panels is not the “greenest” of processes, much of that is tied to the use of aluminum as well as purifying silicon. Do the opinionators of this website suggest we shut down all industry that is reliant on these two resources? What would that do with our business/technology industry as a whole? Anyways, anything in the manufacturing of solar panels is small potatoes compared to the hazards of uranium mining and purification. Solar panels when they are installed will produce very clean energy for an undetermined time (the first commercial panels from the 70’s are still producing). Renewable energy also means hydropower, biomass, passive solar and solar hot water, all technologies with a low chemical footprint.
5. Probably the most disappointing aspect of this conversation is the sense of ENTITLEMENT people feel to endlessly receive unlimited amounts of cheap electricity. Vermonters survived quite well without electricity for nearly 200 years. Now, we feel the state must guarantee us cheap limitless power. Plus, there are many who feel that through measures of private and public CONSERVATION, we could significantly reduce our electricity needs. But, of course, our Republican administration favors cuts in our energy efficiency programs. And in regard to wind turbines marring our landscape, have you ever heard anyone refuse to come to VT because of those hideous powerlines scarring our mountainsides? Or those terrible scars cut by ski areas into the sides of our mountains? Or how we’ve criss-crossed our entire state with that black gooey tar?
It seems natural to me that CONSERVATIVES would be into CONSERVATION, not a technology that will leave a poisoned landscape for millennia of generations.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/02/take-a-breath.html
I am disturbed by this conversation on several levels:
1. First and foremost; how can anyone talk about nuclear power without even mentioning radioactive waste? This is irresponsible to the core. The fact of the matter is that our self-indulgent, short-sighted, me-now culture cannot even talk about how we are creating a radioactive dead zone that will stay here on the beautiful banks of the Connecticut River for MILLENIA. There is no action that we are taking that is so profoundly bad for our future generations then the creation of such an evil by-product. This factor alone should eliminate any desire to build more nuclear power plants.
2. My Confusion: It is here, on the VermontTiger, that I was first introduced to the controversy that CO2 may not even be a factor in climate change (Thanks to Daniel Foty). But while my skepticism grows (I’m not totally convinced), there are others that are using reduced CO2 emissions to promote the growth of the nuclear industry. Which is it, VermontTiger? You can’t have it both ways (without being hypocritical).
3. Green Jobs: This moniker has become completely meaningless since it means whatever the speaker wants when they want it.
4. The rap against renewable energy: While, yes, the creation of solar panels is not the “greenest” of processes, much of that is tied to the use of aluminum as well as purifying silicon. Do the opinionators of this website suggest we shut down all industry that is reliant on these two resources? What would that do with our business/technology industry as a whole? Anyways, anything in the manufacturing of solar panels is small potatoes compared to the hazards of uranium mining and purification. Solar panels when they are installed will produce very clean energy for an undetermined time (the first commercial panels from the 70’s are still producing). Renewable energy also means hydropower, biomass, passive solar and solar hot water, all technologies with a low chemical footprint.
5. Probably the most disappointing aspect of this conversation is the sense of ENTITLEMENT people feel to endlessly receive unlimited amounts of cheap electricity. Vermonters survived quite well without electricity for nearly 200 years. Now, we feel the state must guarantee us cheap limitless power. Plus, there are many who feel that through measures of private and public CONSERVATION, we could significantly reduce our electricity needs. But, of course, our Republican administration favors cuts in our energy efficiency programs. And in regard to wind turbines marring our landscape, have you ever heard anyone refuse to come to VT because of those hideous powerlines scarring our mountainsides? Or those terrible scars cut by ski areas into the sides of our mountains? Or how we’ve criss-crossed our entire state with that black gooey tar?
It seems natural to me that CONSERVATIVES would be into CONSERVATION, not a technology that will leave a poisoned landscape for millennia of generations.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
I Am an Environmentalist
Here are a couple of comments I posted on the conservative vermont tiger website.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/01/jihad-greened.html
Post #1
I consider myself an environmentalist because I want to leave the best looking planet that I can for my children. I take great offense at being associated with "fascism". To associate people who are trying to leave a better future for our children by taking care of our world deserve better than to be associated with the likes of Hitler and Mussolini. It's a cheap shot. I remember swimming between the effluence of untreated sewage during the 70's in Vermont and am encouraged by the successes of the environmental movement in my lifetime. I thought this website was about the future of Vermont, not the "how many creative names can I come up with against Gore and anyone possibly associated with 'the left'" website. Disappointing.
PS. Not that I am a fan of anyone who holds the Imperial Throne of America, but do people not remember that Bush left our economy in a very scary freefall, massive deficits (remember when those eviro-fascist democrats balanced the budget?), and two unending wars? It seems every Republican has chosen to forget that to try to paint Obama as the anti-Christ. Pathetic.
Post #2
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/01/jihad-greened.html
“but the factual realities on the ground are sound on this one.”
Really? While I can see your point regarding media manipulation, and in creating a fear monster (drastic climate change), they are a long way from the brutal, vicious thuggery exhibited by the fascists (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco). What are the “environmentalists” being charged with? Trying to manipulate gov’t policy for their own monetary gain? There is a long historical list that can be put into that category (the defense industry comes to mind). Are they being charged as totalitarians because of their wanting to change our oil addicted society into a culture that is more harmonious with its surroundings? Hardly Hitlerian. This conversation will make more sense when our soldiers have Sierra Club badges sewn into their uniforms. But if you want to find fascism, start with looking at who is funding all the private security firms that are now taking over many of the roles that our military once did.
“I was also in Nairobi not that long ago - and the contrast is stark. Every vehicle in Nairobi belches black smoke, the roads are in such poor shape that traffic kicks up vast clouds of red dust, poverty makes "civic cleanliness" impossible, etc.”
This statement is so out of whack of any kind of context, cultural, governmental or historical that it is difficult to take it all in. How about good gov’t regulation? How does Kenya compare to the US’s? What about corruption? What about the historical context of an exploited people who’s only westernizing efforts only extended as far as the white masters verandah? What about the individual’s right to property? What about the civil liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights? Are these things present, or historically present in Kenya? Did you spend time in the SouthEast district of DC? What about the back streets of Baltimore? I suppose its all in your perspective.
“they know where they need to go - and "green jobs" weren't on the agenda. It was quite refreshing to hear.”
Why is it ok to subsidize oil and coal industries, vast centralized electrical grids, small businesses, large corporations and our usurious banking system, yet not technologies that support independent de-localized energy production? I thought conservative ideology believes in individual freedom and localized power structures (instead of centralized structures) and I support efforts of our government to help secure those localized individual freedoms. Solar panels on my roof help free me from my dependence on large corporate entities to spoon feed me my essential needs.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/01/jihad-greened.html
Post #1
I consider myself an environmentalist because I want to leave the best looking planet that I can for my children. I take great offense at being associated with "fascism". To associate people who are trying to leave a better future for our children by taking care of our world deserve better than to be associated with the likes of Hitler and Mussolini. It's a cheap shot. I remember swimming between the effluence of untreated sewage during the 70's in Vermont and am encouraged by the successes of the environmental movement in my lifetime. I thought this website was about the future of Vermont, not the "how many creative names can I come up with against Gore and anyone possibly associated with 'the left'" website. Disappointing.
PS. Not that I am a fan of anyone who holds the Imperial Throne of America, but do people not remember that Bush left our economy in a very scary freefall, massive deficits (remember when those eviro-fascist democrats balanced the budget?), and two unending wars? It seems every Republican has chosen to forget that to try to paint Obama as the anti-Christ. Pathetic.
Post #2
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/01/jihad-greened.html
“but the factual realities on the ground are sound on this one.”
Really? While I can see your point regarding media manipulation, and in creating a fear monster (drastic climate change), they are a long way from the brutal, vicious thuggery exhibited by the fascists (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco). What are the “environmentalists” being charged with? Trying to manipulate gov’t policy for their own monetary gain? There is a long historical list that can be put into that category (the defense industry comes to mind). Are they being charged as totalitarians because of their wanting to change our oil addicted society into a culture that is more harmonious with its surroundings? Hardly Hitlerian. This conversation will make more sense when our soldiers have Sierra Club badges sewn into their uniforms. But if you want to find fascism, start with looking at who is funding all the private security firms that are now taking over many of the roles that our military once did.
“I was also in Nairobi not that long ago - and the contrast is stark. Every vehicle in Nairobi belches black smoke, the roads are in such poor shape that traffic kicks up vast clouds of red dust, poverty makes "civic cleanliness" impossible, etc.”
This statement is so out of whack of any kind of context, cultural, governmental or historical that it is difficult to take it all in. How about good gov’t regulation? How does Kenya compare to the US’s? What about corruption? What about the historical context of an exploited people who’s only westernizing efforts only extended as far as the white masters verandah? What about the individual’s right to property? What about the civil liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights? Are these things present, or historically present in Kenya? Did you spend time in the SouthEast district of DC? What about the back streets of Baltimore? I suppose its all in your perspective.
“they know where they need to go - and "green jobs" weren't on the agenda. It was quite refreshing to hear.”
Why is it ok to subsidize oil and coal industries, vast centralized electrical grids, small businesses, large corporations and our usurious banking system, yet not technologies that support independent de-localized energy production? I thought conservative ideology believes in individual freedom and localized power structures (instead of centralized structures) and I support efforts of our government to help secure those localized individual freedoms. Solar panels on my roof help free me from my dependence on large corporate entities to spoon feed me my essential needs.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
health care debate returns
This is part of a response I posted on The Vermont Tiger (http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/01/the-message-for-montpelier.html)
Food is a need. I can grow my own. Shelter is a need. I can build my own. Health care is a need. I cannot cure sickness. I hear the criticisms of gov’t run anything, but the fact of the matter is that my father recently walked into the VA hospital in White River and described it as the best hospital experience he’s personally experienced and my mother recently completed successful lung cancer surgery (she’s a non-smoker, by the way) with the benefit of Medicaid. I would hate to think of what the experience would have been like if she had only the health insurance she could afford at 70 years of age with her earnings from her self-employed full time housecleaning work. Now, while I’m not a big fan of anecdotes to prove a point, these personal experiences do color my beliefs. The gov’t system worked. No generality can change that experience. Frankly, I would rather entrust my health care to a system that is designed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people” than to greedy capitalists who are only in it for the buck. Face up to it; insurance companies sacrifice people’s lives to save money. One of the ironies of our national discussion is the Republican fear that our gov’t will ration our care. What they don’t recognize is that insurance companies already do ration our care. But that is a topic for a different time. What we are talking about is the role of the gov’t in our health care system. We define what that role is because it is our gov’t. Does Tom Jefferson’s expression of “inalienable rights endowed by our Creator” only refer to political rights? That is illogical. Our Creator has created more “inalienable rights” than are listed in the Bill of Rights. Our gov’t’s role is to provide protection to the right of equitable access to our modern health care system. Our current system of depending on capitalists is failing in that protection. Too many people go without equitable access. Depending on private industry has failed. It’s time to move on.
Food is a need. I can grow my own. Shelter is a need. I can build my own. Health care is a need. I cannot cure sickness. I hear the criticisms of gov’t run anything, but the fact of the matter is that my father recently walked into the VA hospital in White River and described it as the best hospital experience he’s personally experienced and my mother recently completed successful lung cancer surgery (she’s a non-smoker, by the way) with the benefit of Medicaid. I would hate to think of what the experience would have been like if she had only the health insurance she could afford at 70 years of age with her earnings from her self-employed full time housecleaning work. Now, while I’m not a big fan of anecdotes to prove a point, these personal experiences do color my beliefs. The gov’t system worked. No generality can change that experience. Frankly, I would rather entrust my health care to a system that is designed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people” than to greedy capitalists who are only in it for the buck. Face up to it; insurance companies sacrifice people’s lives to save money. One of the ironies of our national discussion is the Republican fear that our gov’t will ration our care. What they don’t recognize is that insurance companies already do ration our care. But that is a topic for a different time. What we are talking about is the role of the gov’t in our health care system. We define what that role is because it is our gov’t. Does Tom Jefferson’s expression of “inalienable rights endowed by our Creator” only refer to political rights? That is illogical. Our Creator has created more “inalienable rights” than are listed in the Bill of Rights. Our gov’t’s role is to provide protection to the right of equitable access to our modern health care system. Our current system of depending on capitalists is failing in that protection. Too many people go without equitable access. Depending on private industry has failed. It’s time to move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
