[Blogger's note: if we lose our sense of humor, the terrorists win. Mine is still intact.]
By now you are all aware of the CIA foiling a plot by terrorists to detonate a newer, more modern underpants bomb on a plane bound for the USA. What is this world coming to? Who puts on exploding underpants (not to be confused with exploding in your underpants)? Just thinking about it makes me cringe.
Who are these guys, and how do they let themselves be talked into this? I'm picturing the recruiting posters used by Al Queda: "Blow your nuts off for Allah!" "Jihad your Junk!" "More than a Tickle Test for your Testicles!" Do these guys read the fine print? I mean, if you're signing up for martyrdom and the promise of 1,000 virgins waiting for you, don't you think about how pissed-off you'll be when you show up where all these virgins are waiting and suddenly realize you've just turned your equipment into millions of tiny droplets of flesh and blood?
If this wasn't so real it would be funny. Picture a movie about a bumbling terrorist trying to get his exploding underpants on without setting it off, having to use the men's room at the airport but the underpants bomb doesn't have a fly, sitting down oh-so-carefully in the waiting area, and etc. If it wasn't real, it would be funny.
Another part of this news story - really - is that this new Jockey Rocket has no metal in it. The experts think that the newer body scanners in the US might detect the Boom Boom Boxers, but the European scanners won't. This makes me reach the conclusion that the Portlander who was recently arrested for completely undressing at Portland Airport security (he claims he finally just had enough already) was on the right track. We will all be flying naked soon. Or at least we'll have to drop trou to prove that we're flying sans undies.
Remember the thing about boxers or briefs? Now it's boxers, briefs, or da bomb.
Oh well, I guess I'm the butt of this joke. See you in the Friendly Skies.
Whatever is on my mind: politics, the news, philosophy, poetry and satire. VISIT MY WEBSITE (click on The Some Times button, below) PRIVACY NOTICE/GDPR: SEE JAN. 4, 2019
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Sunday, May 06, 2012
THE ART AND ACCEPTABILITY OF POLITICAL PANDERING
Fact 1: politicians pander. Fact 2: we accept it.
I think that "panderer" has become an accepted part of a politicians job description. Pandering is most visible during election season, and it is in full bloom right now. Mitt "Etch-a-Sketch" Romney is a weather vane twirling in the winds of interest groups. Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a sharp right turn to the on-ramp to anti-immigrant and anti-Islam land in an effort to save his bid for a second term. Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, Dubya - they all pandered to their base and any other group with electoral muscle. Many of us voters recognize this, but we shrug it of as part of the game.
The column by Frank Bruni in the Sunday NY Times made me stop and think about my acceptance of political pandering. Bruni writes about Marsha Ternus, a former Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. "Former" because she was unelected three years ago, along with two other justices, because the Iowa Supreme Court they were part of ruled unanimously that an Iowa statute banning same-sex marriage violated the equal protection language of the Iowa Constitution. This ruling resulted in a firestorm fanned by out-of-state anti gay organizations that funded the campaign to toss these judges at the election box. Ms. Ternus was not a crusader for gay rights; she simply looked at the facts and made a logical decision based on a very strong legal foundation.
I understand that judges and politicians are different species, but the story of Justice Ternus made me realize that I long for political leadership that is based on logic and truth, not on the number of votes. I've seen the movie in which the political candidate or the elected official finally reaches the limit of tolerance and stands up for the truth, thereby dooming her/his chances. Reality is different, we say, because in order for "good" people to get or stay in office, they need to get the most votes. And part of playing the Get the Most Votes game is pandering to as many voters as possible without doing an unacceptable amount of damage to one's principles. After being elected, a politician can do the etch-a-sketch shake and put the election persona back in the box until the next election.
There are politicians who don't play the pandering game; I personally know some. But perhaps this is only possible because they have a clear majority of voters in their districts who clearly support them. In presidential politics, the voters are all over the map (literally and figuratively), and the game is won by those who pander best (and raise more money, of course - but this is also largely a result of pandering to the big money interests).
Is there a different and better way?
I think that "panderer" has become an accepted part of a politicians job description. Pandering is most visible during election season, and it is in full bloom right now. Mitt "Etch-a-Sketch" Romney is a weather vane twirling in the winds of interest groups. Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a sharp right turn to the on-ramp to anti-immigrant and anti-Islam land in an effort to save his bid for a second term. Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, Dubya - they all pandered to their base and any other group with electoral muscle. Many of us voters recognize this, but we shrug it of as part of the game.
The column by Frank Bruni in the Sunday NY Times made me stop and think about my acceptance of political pandering. Bruni writes about Marsha Ternus, a former Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. "Former" because she was unelected three years ago, along with two other justices, because the Iowa Supreme Court they were part of ruled unanimously that an Iowa statute banning same-sex marriage violated the equal protection language of the Iowa Constitution. This ruling resulted in a firestorm fanned by out-of-state anti gay organizations that funded the campaign to toss these judges at the election box. Ms. Ternus was not a crusader for gay rights; she simply looked at the facts and made a logical decision based on a very strong legal foundation.
I understand that judges and politicians are different species, but the story of Justice Ternus made me realize that I long for political leadership that is based on logic and truth, not on the number of votes. I've seen the movie in which the political candidate or the elected official finally reaches the limit of tolerance and stands up for the truth, thereby dooming her/his chances. Reality is different, we say, because in order for "good" people to get or stay in office, they need to get the most votes. And part of playing the Get the Most Votes game is pandering to as many voters as possible without doing an unacceptable amount of damage to one's principles. After being elected, a politician can do the etch-a-sketch shake and put the election persona back in the box until the next election.
There are politicians who don't play the pandering game; I personally know some. But perhaps this is only possible because they have a clear majority of voters in their districts who clearly support them. In presidential politics, the voters are all over the map (literally and figuratively), and the game is won by those who pander best (and raise more money, of course - but this is also largely a result of pandering to the big money interests).
Is there a different and better way?
Friday, April 20, 2012
ELECTRIC VEHICLES: HOW MUCH BETTER THAN GASOLINE POWERED?
I drive an EV (electric vehicle); actually, I like to call mine an UEV (urban electric vehicle) because I dare not take it on the freeway - and it wouldn't get me very far if I did.
I've always wondered about the reality of my UEV actually being better environmentally than a fuel efficient gasoline powered automobile, like my wife's Mini Cooper Clubman that gets probably in the upper 20's to lower-mid 30's mpg (depending on the kind of driving). There are certainly important questions about the cradle-to-grave environmental footprint of a small vehicle that runs on 6 car batteries and was made in China. In fact, maybe I don't really want to know!
But the Union of Concerned Scientists, of which I am a member, has recently published an interesting study: State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States. The article examines the emissions associated with producing the electricity used to charge an EV for every region in the USA. The Executive Summary is the place to start if you want to learn more. Here is a graphic from the UCS report:
As seen on the map, there are good, better and best regions to own, and charge, an EV. The "good" regions are those where electricity is typically generated by burning coal, and in those areas, an EV has associated emissions similar to those of a gasoline-powered car getting 31-40mpg. In other words, you would be greener if you drove a vehicle that got 40-50mpg or higher than driving an EV.
Well, it's not exactly that simple, but if this piques your interest, read the article.
I've always wondered about the reality of my UEV actually being better environmentally than a fuel efficient gasoline powered automobile, like my wife's Mini Cooper Clubman that gets probably in the upper 20's to lower-mid 30's mpg (depending on the kind of driving). There are certainly important questions about the cradle-to-grave environmental footprint of a small vehicle that runs on 6 car batteries and was made in China. In fact, maybe I don't really want to know!
But the Union of Concerned Scientists, of which I am a member, has recently published an interesting study: State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States. The article examines the emissions associated with producing the electricity used to charge an EV for every region in the USA. The Executive Summary is the place to start if you want to learn more. Here is a graphic from the UCS report:
As seen on the map, there are good, better and best regions to own, and charge, an EV. The "good" regions are those where electricity is typically generated by burning coal, and in those areas, an EV has associated emissions similar to those of a gasoline-powered car getting 31-40mpg. In other words, you would be greener if you drove a vehicle that got 40-50mpg or higher than driving an EV.
Well, it's not exactly that simple, but if this piques your interest, read the article.
Happy green driving!
And btw - feel free to cruise around on the Union of Concerned Scientists web site, also.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
EXPORTING COAL FROM THE USA: SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT
There are presently a number of proposals in the works to export coal and liquified natural gas (LNG) from the United States to overseas markets. Some of these export facilities are proposed for the lower Columbia River on both the Oregon and Washington sides. It was only a few years ago that there were at least 3 proposed facilities in Oregon to import LNG; however, the development of new natural gas sources in Canada using the technique of fracking (fracturing shale rock formations deep underground to release gas) has resulted in an abundant supply of cheap natural gas. The demand for natural gas in places like Japan and China makes exporting it from here a lucrative endeavor.
While there is plenty of opposition to building LNG plants here (whether for export or import), the prospect of shipping coal from lower Columbia River ports is really getting a lot of opposition and media play. The reasons given for opposing coal export are primarily environmental concerns and disruptions of local traffic and communities caused by mile-long trains from the coal fields of Montana to lower river ports. One of the primary stated environmental concerns is that we are trying to reduce the burning of coal to produce electricity in the USA in order to combat global climate change, so why would we export it so it can be burned in China? This seems to be the over-arching reason for opposing coal exports. Other reasons include the potential effects of coal dust from open train cars on human health and fish and wildlife, and issues of environmental justice.
But I wonder if this is as simple as some want it to appear. I'm not taking sides on this one yet because I think the topic needs a lot of thought first. So for the sake of discussion, let me lay out a few reasons why we might want to export coal.
1. China's growing economy demands greater production of electricity to power the existing and future factories where domestic and export goods are made. Keep in mind that the US demand for computer and other home electronics, sport shoes and many other commodities is a main driver for Chinese industrial expansion. The Chinese government is trying to reduce the carbon footprint of it's industrial base, and one way to do this is to import relatively clean (i.e. low-sulfur, high BTU) coal from the Montana coal fields and reduce the use of their domestic dirty coal. We need to do the math on this to determine if the carbon footprint of mining and shipping coal from the USA to China is a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when compared to the life-cycle of the Chinese using their own coal.
2. In the present economic environment, increased mining and exporting of coal from the US will create jobs and stimulate some local economies.
3. Alternative methods of shipping and handling coal, in covered barges for example, could reduce the potential for harmful environmental and human health impacts, traffic disruptions, and other impacts to communities along rail lines.
For each of the above reasons, and many others, there are opposing arguments.
I'm always interested in why some topics get a lot of play in the public arena while others remain off the public radar. Exporting coal is a hot topic right now, but let me present another similar topic that I'm sure most of us have never considered: the global impact of exporting animal feed from the USA.
Below is a table that shows containerized cargo exports (and imports) from the lower Columbia River ports. The number one containerized export is hay and animal feed, representing 32% of containerized exports and weighing in at 615,400 metric tons (1 metric ton = 2,205 pounds) annually (I'm not sure what year is represented in these data).
(Source)
This really surprised me. But so what? Well, an article in the NY Times (2008) examined the real cost of growing animals for food, which is increasingly done in factory-type operations.
Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.
The author cites estimates that about 30% of the ice-free land on this planet is involved in meat production, and this generates almost 1/5th of the world's greenhouse gases - more than transportation sources. US agriculture, which is increasingly dominated by growing livestock feed, is estimated by the USEPA to be responsible for about 3/4 of the water quality problems in our rivers and streams.
The social and environmental justice impacts are also high due not only to the environmental impacts cited above, but by the demand and high price for corn and soy for growing meat that makes it less available as food for people, particularly in developing nations.
Shall I continue? No, I think it best for you to read the article yourself. My point is that I have never heard anyone opposing the export of hay and animal feed from the lower Columbia River ports, even though these exports directly support livestock operations overseas that have very real and very high environmental, human health and social justice impacts.
As you can tell, I like to examine all facets of a topic before leaping to a conclusion. Perhaps this is a result of my years spent as an ecological consultant, during which I worked on a large variety of projects, even one of the LNG terminals on the lower Columbia River (as part of the team hired by the company proposing to build the facility). Doing the research needed to plan a development, or even to write an ordinance to protect natural resources (I've done a lot of those, also) requires looking at a lot of alternatives, including not doing the project at all, and then making a reasoned selection of the best alternative. The selected alternative is not necessary the one that every side wants - but it rarely can be.
So, as you chew your steak, chop or chicken leg tonight, think about the above - maybe you'll start eating coal instead!
While there is plenty of opposition to building LNG plants here (whether for export or import), the prospect of shipping coal from lower Columbia River ports is really getting a lot of opposition and media play. The reasons given for opposing coal export are primarily environmental concerns and disruptions of local traffic and communities caused by mile-long trains from the coal fields of Montana to lower river ports. One of the primary stated environmental concerns is that we are trying to reduce the burning of coal to produce electricity in the USA in order to combat global climate change, so why would we export it so it can be burned in China? This seems to be the over-arching reason for opposing coal exports. Other reasons include the potential effects of coal dust from open train cars on human health and fish and wildlife, and issues of environmental justice.
But I wonder if this is as simple as some want it to appear. I'm not taking sides on this one yet because I think the topic needs a lot of thought first. So for the sake of discussion, let me lay out a few reasons why we might want to export coal.
1. China's growing economy demands greater production of electricity to power the existing and future factories where domestic and export goods are made. Keep in mind that the US demand for computer and other home electronics, sport shoes and many other commodities is a main driver for Chinese industrial expansion. The Chinese government is trying to reduce the carbon footprint of it's industrial base, and one way to do this is to import relatively clean (i.e. low-sulfur, high BTU) coal from the Montana coal fields and reduce the use of their domestic dirty coal. We need to do the math on this to determine if the carbon footprint of mining and shipping coal from the USA to China is a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when compared to the life-cycle of the Chinese using their own coal.
2. In the present economic environment, increased mining and exporting of coal from the US will create jobs and stimulate some local economies.
3. Alternative methods of shipping and handling coal, in covered barges for example, could reduce the potential for harmful environmental and human health impacts, traffic disruptions, and other impacts to communities along rail lines.
For each of the above reasons, and many others, there are opposing arguments.
I'm always interested in why some topics get a lot of play in the public arena while others remain off the public radar. Exporting coal is a hot topic right now, but let me present another similar topic that I'm sure most of us have never considered: the global impact of exporting animal feed from the USA.
Below is a table that shows containerized cargo exports (and imports) from the lower Columbia River ports. The number one containerized export is hay and animal feed, representing 32% of containerized exports and weighing in at 615,400 metric tons (1 metric ton = 2,205 pounds) annually (I'm not sure what year is represented in these data).
This really surprised me. But so what? Well, an article in the NY Times (2008) examined the real cost of growing animals for food, which is increasingly done in factory-type operations.
Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.
The author cites estimates that about 30% of the ice-free land on this planet is involved in meat production, and this generates almost 1/5th of the world's greenhouse gases - more than transportation sources. US agriculture, which is increasingly dominated by growing livestock feed, is estimated by the USEPA to be responsible for about 3/4 of the water quality problems in our rivers and streams.
The social and environmental justice impacts are also high due not only to the environmental impacts cited above, but by the demand and high price for corn and soy for growing meat that makes it less available as food for people, particularly in developing nations.
Shall I continue? No, I think it best for you to read the article yourself. My point is that I have never heard anyone opposing the export of hay and animal feed from the lower Columbia River ports, even though these exports directly support livestock operations overseas that have very real and very high environmental, human health and social justice impacts.
As you can tell, I like to examine all facets of a topic before leaping to a conclusion. Perhaps this is a result of my years spent as an ecological consultant, during which I worked on a large variety of projects, even one of the LNG terminals on the lower Columbia River (as part of the team hired by the company proposing to build the facility). Doing the research needed to plan a development, or even to write an ordinance to protect natural resources (I've done a lot of those, also) requires looking at a lot of alternatives, including not doing the project at all, and then making a reasoned selection of the best alternative. The selected alternative is not necessary the one that every side wants - but it rarely can be.
So, as you chew your steak, chop or chicken leg tonight, think about the above - maybe you'll start eating coal instead!
Monday, April 09, 2012
WHY I ENDORSE EILEEN BRADY FOR MAYOR OF PORTLAND, AND DISAGREE WITH THE OREGONIAN EDITORIAL BOARD
The Oregonian has endorsed
Charlie Hales for the next Portland Mayor, and I strongly disagree. The Oregonian
endorsement is based on specific qualities of their candidate: "a mayor
who's ready to lead...experience on the Portland City Council...a record of
accomplishment on jobs, transportation, parks and public
safety...leadership." This sounds all too familiar, like this
Oregonian endorsement of another former City Council member: "City
Commissioner Sam Adams has delivered on his promises to businesses, bicyclists
and other Portlanders. He has the drive, political savvy and vision to be mayor"
(2008).
The mistake made by the
Oregonian is to choose a candidate based on a stereotype of what qualities the
right candidate should have. Leadership, accomplishments and experience are
certainly admirable qualities, but are these the only things a good mayor needs?
I think not, as history has shown. Each of the three mayoral candidates has
her/his own unique set of experiences, accomplishments and leadership
qualities. Choosing between them on this basis doesn't get us very far. The
Oregonian would have us only elect someone who has already served on the City
Council; this is a very limiting proposition.
Portland is a good city
aspiring to be a great city. There are certain things that hold us back, some
of them inherent in our specific form of government, some based in the
different visions of people in city management positions, and others based in
the agendas of the multitude of interests and groups that make up our
citizenry. What can a mayor do with this mix to move Portland forward? What
qualities need a mayor have to change our direction on those pathways that need
a new direction? I have seen the qualities needed in Eileen Brady.
Paul Hawken, the
businessman, author and sustainability guru who spoke at an Eileen Brady for
Mayor event, used the term "reimagine" when discussing how to effect
change in our society. That word stuck with me, and the following day I
realized that it is the perfect word for articulating a major quality Eileen
has, the ability to reimagine. Eileen's experience, accomplishments and
leadership are forged from her ability to bring people together to not merely
solve a problem, but to reimagine an issue in a way that avoids problems rather
than having to solve them because they can't be avoided.
As a business owner in
Portland for the past few decades, I've experienced first hand the multitude of
issues one often hears from our business community when it comes to doing
business here. As a consultant to both the public and private sectors,
including contracts with the City, I've seen these issues from all sides.
Portland does a lot right, but it also does a lot wrong, and this holds us back
in many ways. Eileen Brady talks about the issues that she sees not only
holding us back as a city, but, more importantly, holding us back as individuals
who are the moving parts of the city. She voices concerns about the future,
based on her view of the pathways leading forward from the place we are now.
This is not a message of doom and gloom; this is a message of hope based on her
firm belief that working together, we Portlanders can steer a course to a
vibrant and thriving future.
The Oregonian endorsed
Charlie Hales because his set of experiences, accomplishments and leadership as
a City Council member resulted in his knowledge of where the levers of city
government are and which ones need to be pulled in order to keep the City that
Works machinery working. That's fine, if what we want is yet another political
lever-puller.
I endorse Eileen Brady for
Portland Mayor because she understands that moving Portland forward from these
troubled times into a better future for everyone simply cannot be accomplished
by keeping the old machinery running. We need a leader of a different kind, one
who can help us reimagine the City of Portland as a great city, a city that
works for everyone because we all make it work together.
Friday, March 02, 2012
THE GREAT SHAME OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
I've had it! I'm pissed! The Congress of the United States of America is a body that needs electric shock therapy. In spite of the efforts by those in Congress who understand that their job is to "promote the general welfare" (Constitution of the United States of America), our governing body has been hijacked by those who see their job as un-electing a president and getting their hands on the levers of power.
What has our vaunted governing body been doing lately? Political theater over contraception and the supposed wounded feelings of the Catholic Church. The "War on Religion!!" Oh give me a f*cking break!! How is this promoting the general welfare?
Members of Congress: read this. I dare you! This column by John Canzano, a sports writer for the Oregonian newspaper, is about a 16-year old girl who is battling osteosarcoma - bone cancer. Her doctor has told her that she maybe has a year left. The only treatment for this killer cancer is to remove affected body parts. One leg is gone, parts of both lungs have been taken, and next week the entire lower half of one lung will be cut out. Natalie has a bucket list, and shooting baskets with the Portland Trailblazers was checked off yesterday. The photo in the paper shows a beautiful, smiling, bald and very, very brave teenager. Read this column and then tell us how you can justify your childish behavior. Compared to this teenager - to all of our children - you look like a bunch of spoiled, name-calling children fighting over a pile of toys. Stop it! Do your job!
Members of Congress - what are you thinking? While you posture and pontificate and blabber away about the insults to the church of this or that, thousands and thousands of our kids, like Natalie, are bravely fighting for their lives and futures. They are fighting disease, they are fighting hunger, they are fighting poverty, they are fighting abuse, they are fighting schools that are way too crowded and underfunded, they are fighting for basic health care, they are fighting for a chance to get a meaningful job when they grow up. They are fighting for the future; what are you fighting for? If you can't put aside your petty partisan politics and fight for the future of these kids, then you are failing to perform the job you were elected to do, and you need to step down.
I am so sick and tired of the crap coming out of this Congress. What will it take to change it? I don't have many illusions left about the strength of our democracy; I'm afraid it's been lost. There is a great divide in this country, and it's not just the politicians in Congress. We are now living in a mean society, where people cheer when a political candidate says that people who can't afford health care are on their own and who cares if they die because it's their own fault. A society in which we have devolved to name-calling and demonizing. And yes, a society in which yelling people down about who should and shouldn't pay for birth control is more important than helping our children live, grow and thrive.
---
What has our vaunted governing body been doing lately? Political theater over contraception and the supposed wounded feelings of the Catholic Church. The "War on Religion!!" Oh give me a f*cking break!! How is this promoting the general welfare?
Members of Congress: read this. I dare you! This column by John Canzano, a sports writer for the Oregonian newspaper, is about a 16-year old girl who is battling osteosarcoma - bone cancer. Her doctor has told her that she maybe has a year left. The only treatment for this killer cancer is to remove affected body parts. One leg is gone, parts of both lungs have been taken, and next week the entire lower half of one lung will be cut out. Natalie has a bucket list, and shooting baskets with the Portland Trailblazers was checked off yesterday. The photo in the paper shows a beautiful, smiling, bald and very, very brave teenager. Read this column and then tell us how you can justify your childish behavior. Compared to this teenager - to all of our children - you look like a bunch of spoiled, name-calling children fighting over a pile of toys. Stop it! Do your job!
Members of Congress - what are you thinking? While you posture and pontificate and blabber away about the insults to the church of this or that, thousands and thousands of our kids, like Natalie, are bravely fighting for their lives and futures. They are fighting disease, they are fighting hunger, they are fighting poverty, they are fighting abuse, they are fighting schools that are way too crowded and underfunded, they are fighting for basic health care, they are fighting for a chance to get a meaningful job when they grow up. They are fighting for the future; what are you fighting for? If you can't put aside your petty partisan politics and fight for the future of these kids, then you are failing to perform the job you were elected to do, and you need to step down.
I am so sick and tired of the crap coming out of this Congress. What will it take to change it? I don't have many illusions left about the strength of our democracy; I'm afraid it's been lost. There is a great divide in this country, and it's not just the politicians in Congress. We are now living in a mean society, where people cheer when a political candidate says that people who can't afford health care are on their own and who cares if they die because it's their own fault. A society in which we have devolved to name-calling and demonizing. And yes, a society in which yelling people down about who should and shouldn't pay for birth control is more important than helping our children live, grow and thrive.
---
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
FISHING (NOT PHISHING)
Do you like to fish? If yes, I've built a fishing pond just for you. Yep, that's it just to the right of this text box. See the little fishies swimming around? Place your curser in the pond, let it sit for a few seconds, then slowly move it around. Hours and hours of fun - just for you!!
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
HEALTH CARE ACT, BIRTH CONTROL, AND THE CHURCHES
Here's the situation: the Affordable Health Care Act, passed by the US Congress in 2010, requires health insurance providers to include contraceptives as part of preventative health care coverage. The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a statement to this effect, and includes non-profit religious organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. The Catholic Church and a number of others have loudly protested this requirement, and are joining together to work towards repeal of the health care law. The Republic Party has jumped on this attack on "Obamacare" with all four feet!
My opinion - tough luck non-profit religious organizations, just obey the law. If individual employees don't want contraceptives because of their religious beliefs, they won't get them. But what about your employees who do want them? Why is it any of your business? Do your employees have to be members of your religion? Why do you think you have the right to control what individual people do about their own health care and reproductive practices? I understand that birth control is against your religious doctrine, but we do (still) live in a democracy.
This is all a bunch of smoke that will help obscure the true values and benefits provided to millions of people under the new health care legislation. The media love it - it's a controversy! Talking heads and blabbing bloggers are filling the mediasphere with this stuff.....oh, um, wait a minute......OK, goodbye for now.
My opinion - tough luck non-profit religious organizations, just obey the law. If individual employees don't want contraceptives because of their religious beliefs, they won't get them. But what about your employees who do want them? Why is it any of your business? Do your employees have to be members of your religion? Why do you think you have the right to control what individual people do about their own health care and reproductive practices? I understand that birth control is against your religious doctrine, but we do (still) live in a democracy.
This is all a bunch of smoke that will help obscure the true values and benefits provided to millions of people under the new health care legislation. The media love it - it's a controversy! Talking heads and blabbing bloggers are filling the mediasphere with this stuff.....oh, um, wait a minute......OK, goodbye for now.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
TAXING THE WEALTHY: A QUICKIE
I like numbers. Here are a few I gleaned from the media this week about taxes and some famous wealthy people. And btw, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against wealthy people in general.
Mitt Romney 2010 income tax return:
Income: $20,000,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $3,000,000
Tax rate: 13.9%
Charitable donations: $3,000,000 (15% of income)
Barack Obama 2010 income tax return:
Income: $1,800,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $454,000
Tax rate: $26%
Charitable donations: $250,000 (13.9% of income)
Newt Gingrich 2010 income tax return:
Income: $3,100,000
Taxes paid: $994,708
Tax rate: 31.6%
Charitable donations: $80,600 (2.6% of income)
What do I think about this? Mr. Romney makes a lot of money - good for him. Because most of his income is returns on investments - or capital gains - it is taxed at a rate of 15%. This is the standard rate for this kind of income, and I think it was established during the G.W. Bush years.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Gingrich make good money also, and they each pay taxes in the 30% range, which is where many Americans are.
I'm a bit shocked that Mr. Gingrich seems a bit stingy with his charitable donations, paying well below the national average for people in his income bracket.
Now, what if wealthy folks like these three were taxed as much as 5% more on their income per year? Here is the additional amount they each would pay:
Romney: $1,000,000
Obama: $ 90,000
Gingrich: $ 155,000.
Would this extra amount break these people? Hardly. Would the extra tax mean that they would each create fewer jobs (a favorite "fact" of the Republicans)? Well, not directly, because these guys don't create jobs. Maybe indirectly in terms of them spending less money and thus less demand for goods translating into fewer jobs? Nope - they each would be left with plenty of cash to spend. So why don't we want to rescind the Bush tax cuts on these guys and help reduce the federal deficit?
Making money and being wealthy isn't a crime, and neither is paying taxes based on the government tax code. The issue here is the lack of a level playing field for all Americans, and the rightness of asking the more fortunate to pay their fair share.
Mitt Romney 2010 income tax return:
Income: $20,000,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $3,000,000
Tax rate: 13.9%
Charitable donations: $3,000,000 (15% of income)
Barack Obama 2010 income tax return:
Income: $1,800,000 approx.
Taxes paid: $454,000
Tax rate: $26%
Charitable donations: $250,000 (13.9% of income)
Newt Gingrich 2010 income tax return:
Income: $3,100,000
Taxes paid: $994,708
Tax rate: 31.6%
Charitable donations: $80,600 (2.6% of income)
What do I think about this? Mr. Romney makes a lot of money - good for him. Because most of his income is returns on investments - or capital gains - it is taxed at a rate of 15%. This is the standard rate for this kind of income, and I think it was established during the G.W. Bush years.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Gingrich make good money also, and they each pay taxes in the 30% range, which is where many Americans are.
I'm a bit shocked that Mr. Gingrich seems a bit stingy with his charitable donations, paying well below the national average for people in his income bracket.
Now, what if wealthy folks like these three were taxed as much as 5% more on their income per year? Here is the additional amount they each would pay:
Romney: $1,000,000
Obama: $ 90,000
Gingrich: $ 155,000.
Would this extra amount break these people? Hardly. Would the extra tax mean that they would each create fewer jobs (a favorite "fact" of the Republicans)? Well, not directly, because these guys don't create jobs. Maybe indirectly in terms of them spending less money and thus less demand for goods translating into fewer jobs? Nope - they each would be left with plenty of cash to spend. So why don't we want to rescind the Bush tax cuts on these guys and help reduce the federal deficit?
Making money and being wealthy isn't a crime, and neither is paying taxes based on the government tax code. The issue here is the lack of a level playing field for all Americans, and the rightness of asking the more fortunate to pay their fair share.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
KEYSTONE PIPELINE: WHAT IS THE REAL ISSUE?
The U.S. State Department today decided today not to approve, for now, the Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada to Texas. Keystone XL would carry crude oil from the Canadian oil sands in Alberta to coastal Texas. Keystone XL is an extension of an existing network of pipelines (see map).
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has generated a tremendous amount of controversy, with a host of groups choosing sides: environmentalists, tribes, states, private companies, politicians, and national governments. President Obama has been under a lot of pressure to deny or approve the project, and he tried to put a decision off until after the 2012 elections; however, Congress placed a 60-day ticker on the decision as a rider on a recent must-pass bill.
Speaker of the House John Boehner had this to say about the State Department decision: “President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really no other way to put it. The President is selling out American jobs for politics." Ah yes....politics.
So what is really going on here? What's the big deal, anyway? It's not as if Keystone XL is the only oil pipeline in the USA. The map on the left shows the major existing oil/fuel pipelines in the U.S. The next map shows the regional pipelines. According to the Association of Oil Pipelines there are 168,000 miles of liquid pipelines in the USA, and these are the "safest, economical and environmentally favorable way" to transport oil and petroleum products, other liquid fuels and chemicals. Pipelines, most of them underground, are a fact of life, and we rely on them for the fuels we consume every day.
Do pipelines have spills? Yes, all the time. So do trucks, trains, ships, barges and etc. Fact of life in the modern world.
Am I supporting the Keystone XL pipeline in this post? Not necessarily; I don't know enough about it to make that kind of decision. It's one of those knowing what I don't know moments!
My main question is this: how should our government make this kind of decision? (The astute reader now knows that I'm not in the "keep government out of the way of free enterprise" camp; government absolutely needs to regulate this stuff.) The environmental and cultural issues are a matter of risk assessment; how much risk are we willing to take on in order to get the benefits of the proposed project? We assume risks every day in everything we do.
Other environmental aspects include the negative impacts of recovering oil from oil sands, and the relatively large greenhouse gas emission factor of this type of oil recovery and refining.
What about economics, including jobs? A project of this size will create thousands of construction jobs, and a smaller number of long-term jobs. And US companies could make money supplying materials and equipment for the project. (An interesting sideline: Evraz Steel, a major employer in Portland, Oregon is counting on a major order of steel pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline. An interesting twist - Evraz is a Russian company that bought Oregon Steel a few years ago.)
There is also a geopolitical issue: should the US allow a Canadian company to build a major pipeline through the United States? What if the main use of this pipeline is to get Canadian oil to a seaport so it can be shipped overseas (this is one claim by project opponents who cite recent data showing that the US is now a net exporter of petroleum products)?
And energy security. Does this project make the United States more secure in terms of energy resources and supplies, and reduce our dependence on oil from less-friendly or stable countries than Canada (we get a lot of our oil from Nigeria and Venezuela, although Canada is our largest supplier)?
Complicated, eh what? I think part of the answer lies in the energy policy of the United States. Unfortunately, I don't know that we have a comprehensive energy policy, although I am confident that President Obama will try to push one through in his second term. (Remember the Bush Energy Policy crafted by Cheney and his oil industry cronies behind closed doors?)
In conclusion, the decision to allow or not allow the Keystone XL pipeline will most likely be a political decision, and this is unfortunate. We have now, and will always have many of these kinds of decisions to make. Local examples where I live: several proposals to build export facilities on the Columbia River to ship Montana coal to China, and other proposals to ship liquefied Canadian and US natural gas to Asia. It seems that the Canadians and Americans have large reserves of coal, oil and gas and prices are high in other parts of the world. And by the way, the companies wanting to build these export facilities are not all American companies.
We need to think and act more globally, and our government needs to have a solid set of policies that will guide these kinds of decisions. Can we ever wrest these decisions out of the political arena? Sometimes. Maybe.
are the safest, most reliable, economical and environmentally favorable way to transport oil and petroleum products and other energy liquids and chemicals throughout the U.S.
 |
| Source: indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com |
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has generated a tremendous amount of controversy, with a host of groups choosing sides: environmentalists, tribes, states, private companies, politicians, and national governments. President Obama has been under a lot of pressure to deny or approve the project, and he tried to put a decision off until after the 2012 elections; however, Congress placed a 60-day ticker on the decision as a rider on a recent must-pass bill.
Speaker of the House John Boehner had this to say about the State Department decision: “President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really no other way to put it. The President is selling out American jobs for politics." Ah yes....politics.
 |
| Source |
 |
| Source: Energy Information Administration |
Do pipelines have spills? Yes, all the time. So do trucks, trains, ships, barges and etc. Fact of life in the modern world.
Am I supporting the Keystone XL pipeline in this post? Not necessarily; I don't know enough about it to make that kind of decision. It's one of those knowing what I don't know moments!
My main question is this: how should our government make this kind of decision? (The astute reader now knows that I'm not in the "keep government out of the way of free enterprise" camp; government absolutely needs to regulate this stuff.) The environmental and cultural issues are a matter of risk assessment; how much risk are we willing to take on in order to get the benefits of the proposed project? We assume risks every day in everything we do.
Other environmental aspects include the negative impacts of recovering oil from oil sands, and the relatively large greenhouse gas emission factor of this type of oil recovery and refining.
What about economics, including jobs? A project of this size will create thousands of construction jobs, and a smaller number of long-term jobs. And US companies could make money supplying materials and equipment for the project. (An interesting sideline: Evraz Steel, a major employer in Portland, Oregon is counting on a major order of steel pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline. An interesting twist - Evraz is a Russian company that bought Oregon Steel a few years ago.)
There is also a geopolitical issue: should the US allow a Canadian company to build a major pipeline through the United States? What if the main use of this pipeline is to get Canadian oil to a seaport so it can be shipped overseas (this is one claim by project opponents who cite recent data showing that the US is now a net exporter of petroleum products)?
And energy security. Does this project make the United States more secure in terms of energy resources and supplies, and reduce our dependence on oil from less-friendly or stable countries than Canada (we get a lot of our oil from Nigeria and Venezuela, although Canada is our largest supplier)?
Complicated, eh what? I think part of the answer lies in the energy policy of the United States. Unfortunately, I don't know that we have a comprehensive energy policy, although I am confident that President Obama will try to push one through in his second term. (Remember the Bush Energy Policy crafted by Cheney and his oil industry cronies behind closed doors?)
In conclusion, the decision to allow or not allow the Keystone XL pipeline will most likely be a political decision, and this is unfortunate. We have now, and will always have many of these kinds of decisions to make. Local examples where I live: several proposals to build export facilities on the Columbia River to ship Montana coal to China, and other proposals to ship liquefied Canadian and US natural gas to Asia. It seems that the Canadians and Americans have large reserves of coal, oil and gas and prices are high in other parts of the world. And by the way, the companies wanting to build these export facilities are not all American companies.
We need to think and act more globally, and our government needs to have a solid set of policies that will guide these kinds of decisions. Can we ever wrest these decisions out of the political arena? Sometimes. Maybe.
are the safest, most reliable, economical and environmentally favorable way to transport oil and petroleum products and other energy liquids and chemicals throughout the U.S.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
THE AMERICAN UN-CIVIL WAR: 2012 - 20??
I've stopped laughing at the Republican presidential candidates comedy show; it's not funny anymore. I now realize that this bizarre episode in U.S. history is only one of many indicators of a war brewing within our country, the Un-civil War.
The signs have been right in front of us for a few years, most evident since the election of President Barack Obama. Our Congress has devolved into a snake pit of partisanship, with the minority leadership pledging to uphold only one goal - to beat Barack Obama in 2012. Both sides of the aisle play the game; the losers are the American people.
There is a large and widening chasm running down the middle of the American people, dividing us into mostly two camps - the left and the right. But "left" and "right" are terms that are too simplistic, and not really correct. The divide runs along a seam of what Americans think about who we are or should be. The geographic features on either side of this chasm have labels like religion/secularism, capitalism/socialism, gay/straight, 1%/99%, big government/small government, private/public, basic rights/survival of the fittest, union/non-union and others.
When G. W. Bush was President, I often talked about taking back our country from what I considered to be dangerous men in control of our government. Now I hear people interviewed on the radio saying that we have to take back our country, except they mean from Obama and his supporters. Obama is characterized as a European-style socialist who, according to Mitt Romney, is using the "politics of envy" as part of his attack on and deconstruction of free enterprise.
What I initially considered to be loony tunes statements and ideas expressed by candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are actually serious, and supported by many voters. Some examples (and these are actually mild compared to others):
- Ron Paul was endorsed by a pastor who once spoke about executing homosexuals,
- Rick Perry pledged to devote predator drones and thousands of troops to protect the U.S. - Mexico border
- Governor Perry also said that voters should serve god by voting for him,
- Rick Santorum promised not to be cowed by "the craven secularists who believe that a stable, healthy household need not be headed by god-fearing moms and dads,"
- and Newt Gingrich stated that only people of faith should have the right to be citizens of this country.
The lack of civility in the national discourse has reached great heights. The Congress is a prime example, and a number of congressional old-timers have talked about this sea change in how members of Congress relate to one another. Some have announced their retirement, citing this new lack of civility and collaboration as a primary reason.
I think this is serious. I think this is more than election year rhetoric. I think the United States of America is headed for an Un-civil War within, the result of which will be a great tear in the fabric of our society. We are slipping from greatness. We are devolving into a country of meanness in which many good people will be hurt economically, socially, politically and, yes, even physically. I fear for our future.
Does this sound dire? I think it is, and the lack of leadership in this country at this critical time does not bode well for the American future.
The signs have been right in front of us for a few years, most evident since the election of President Barack Obama. Our Congress has devolved into a snake pit of partisanship, with the minority leadership pledging to uphold only one goal - to beat Barack Obama in 2012. Both sides of the aisle play the game; the losers are the American people.
There is a large and widening chasm running down the middle of the American people, dividing us into mostly two camps - the left and the right. But "left" and "right" are terms that are too simplistic, and not really correct. The divide runs along a seam of what Americans think about who we are or should be. The geographic features on either side of this chasm have labels like religion/secularism, capitalism/socialism, gay/straight, 1%/99%, big government/small government, private/public, basic rights/survival of the fittest, union/non-union and others.
When G. W. Bush was President, I often talked about taking back our country from what I considered to be dangerous men in control of our government. Now I hear people interviewed on the radio saying that we have to take back our country, except they mean from Obama and his supporters. Obama is characterized as a European-style socialist who, according to Mitt Romney, is using the "politics of envy" as part of his attack on and deconstruction of free enterprise.
What I initially considered to be loony tunes statements and ideas expressed by candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are actually serious, and supported by many voters. Some examples (and these are actually mild compared to others):
- Ron Paul was endorsed by a pastor who once spoke about executing homosexuals,
- Rick Perry pledged to devote predator drones and thousands of troops to protect the U.S. - Mexico border
- Governor Perry also said that voters should serve god by voting for him,
- Rick Santorum promised not to be cowed by "the craven secularists who believe that a stable, healthy household need not be headed by god-fearing moms and dads,"
- and Newt Gingrich stated that only people of faith should have the right to be citizens of this country.
The lack of civility in the national discourse has reached great heights. The Congress is a prime example, and a number of congressional old-timers have talked about this sea change in how members of Congress relate to one another. Some have announced their retirement, citing this new lack of civility and collaboration as a primary reason.
I think this is serious. I think this is more than election year rhetoric. I think the United States of America is headed for an Un-civil War within, the result of which will be a great tear in the fabric of our society. We are slipping from greatness. We are devolving into a country of meanness in which many good people will be hurt economically, socially, politically and, yes, even physically. I fear for our future.
Does this sound dire? I think it is, and the lack of leadership in this country at this critical time does not bode well for the American future.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
CHANUKAH: EARLY ORIGINS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST?
Because this is the eighth, or last night of Chanukah, it is fitting for me to delve into some historic secrets that might link people in different parts of the world. To do this, we need to dial time back to the early 19th century and Thomas Jefferson's preparations for what would be known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Jefferson was at heart an explorer and scientist. In early 1803, he wrote to three prominent Philadelphia scientists, including Dr. Benjamin Rush, asking each to send him their thoughts "in the lines of botany, zoology, or of Indian history which you think most worthy of inquiry and observation." Rush prepared a long list for Jefferson with questions aimed at many aspects of Indian culture, health, diet and habits. Among these, Rush included questions about Indian languages and ceremonies that might prove or disprove an old, persistent academic theory about the origins of native people in the American west, that they might be one of the lost tribes of the children of Israel.
We now know that Lewis and Clark did not find any direct evidence linking Native Americans with early Israelites; however, there are some interesting possibilities. Let's start with the anchovy. Lewis and Clark described and wrote about the "anchovy" in the lower Columbia River. They found this to be the most delicious fish they had encountered during their travels. They learned that these small fish migrated into the river from the sea every year, and were harvested by the native people. They also learned that these are very oily fish, and that the Indians rendered them for their oil, which they used and traded.
In fact, this fish is not an anchovy but is a smelt that is usually called the eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). It also goes by numerous local names, including hooligan and candlefish. The fish is so oily that, when dried, it can actually be ignited.
And so we get (finally) to the point. If Native Americans had been one of the lost tribes of the Israelites, how would they have celebrated Chanukah? If we combine the materials available to these people before European/Russian contact, and add a bit of over-active imagination, we might come up with something like the illustration below.
A bit far-fetched? Perhaps. But.....
Postscript: the eulachon is now listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. They still migrate into the lower Columbia River where they spawn in some of the larger tributaries.
Jefferson was at heart an explorer and scientist. In early 1803, he wrote to three prominent Philadelphia scientists, including Dr. Benjamin Rush, asking each to send him their thoughts "in the lines of botany, zoology, or of Indian history which you think most worthy of inquiry and observation." Rush prepared a long list for Jefferson with questions aimed at many aspects of Indian culture, health, diet and habits. Among these, Rush included questions about Indian languages and ceremonies that might prove or disprove an old, persistent academic theory about the origins of native people in the American west, that they might be one of the lost tribes of the children of Israel.
We now know that Lewis and Clark did not find any direct evidence linking Native Americans with early Israelites; however, there are some interesting possibilities. Let's start with the anchovy. Lewis and Clark described and wrote about the "anchovy" in the lower Columbia River. They found this to be the most delicious fish they had encountered during their travels. They learned that these small fish migrated into the river from the sea every year, and were harvested by the native people. They also learned that these are very oily fish, and that the Indians rendered them for their oil, which they used and traded.In fact, this fish is not an anchovy but is a smelt that is usually called the eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). It also goes by numerous local names, including hooligan and candlefish. The fish is so oily that, when dried, it can actually be ignited.And so we get (finally) to the point. If Native Americans had been one of the lost tribes of the Israelites, how would they have celebrated Chanukah? If we combine the materials available to these people before European/Russian contact, and add a bit of over-active imagination, we might come up with something like the illustration below.
 |
| Ancient lower Columbia River Chanukah menorah. Materials used: board made from Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), candle holders made from Two-spot keyhole limpet (Fissurellidea bimaculata) shells and a Red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) shell, candles are dried eulachon, or candlefish. |
Postscript: the eulachon is now listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. They still migrate into the lower Columbia River where they spawn in some of the larger tributaries.
Monday, November 21, 2011
MEMORANDUM TO THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU'RE FIRED!
Your job description as members of the Congress of the United States is "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...." (Constitution of the United States Article I, Section 8). You have not met the basic requirements of your job; therefore, as your employers, we the people of the United States terminate your employment.
You have one hour to clean out your desks before you are escorted off the premises by Capitol Security. We suggest that you try to find meaningful and gainful employment elsewhere. And by the way, you will need to shop for your own health insurance and retirement plan, we will not be funding those for you anymore.
You have one hour to clean out your desks before you are escorted off the premises by Capitol Security. We suggest that you try to find meaningful and gainful employment elsewhere. And by the way, you will need to shop for your own health insurance and retirement plan, we will not be funding those for you anymore.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
THE 99-PERCENT DILEMMA
Before I begin, I need to give you some relevant data: I am the Director of a Corporation, and the sole employee thereof. This concerned me a bit until I checked the official government figures, and I can tell you that this married-couple-filing-jointly is definitely part of the Ninety Nine Percent (the NNP). Also, I was born in 1944 (you do the math) and therefore have lived through several popular Movements, including the Civil Rights Movement (I did not go to the south to participate, but was a supporter) and the Anti-War Movement (Vietnam War, in which I did not serve, but against which I did participate in various marches, rallies and etc.). I also participated in union labor actions (I spent a night in jail as a teacher's union vice-president when all the striking workers and supporters on a factory picket line were busted by the Anaheim, CA cops who were in full riot gear and practicing for something real (I think that arrest record was expunged when I signed a statement, in order to get released the next morning, that I would not sue the Anaheim Police Department for false arrest. (There's an interesting side story here that is still germane: I was video taping (note to young people, this was an ancient way of recording video) the strike when the Darth Vader-like cops came marching in. I kept the camera rolling as a 6+ ft clad-in-black-armor cop marched towards me slapping his riot club into his thickly-gloved hand. I looked up - way up - at him and asked clearly "You're not going to hit me with that, are you?" His very clear clenched-teeth reply was "I'd love to beat your fucking brains out!!" At which point I beat a hasty retreat.))
OK, so you're now thinking that I digress, but I'm not. All of this is to set the stage for my following remarks about the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWSM). Everything I have to say has certainly already been said by pundits, bloggers and various talking heads, but you're reading my opinion (and you're entitled to it).
I'll start with the conclusion (this is a method used by many public speakers/presenters - I always thought it was just insurance in case they ran out of time and got yanked off stage). OWSM, what is the message? We the NNPers need to know what to do that will change things. And please don't tell us that sleeping in the park is the message.
I'm really not being harsh; in fact, I support what the park-sleepers and other activists have been doing because I have seen that it has made a difference. After a few weeks of those dirty not-just-going-away hippies being in many parks around the country, suddenly politicians - both Democrats and (gasp!) Republicans - started talking about how the OWSM was an important expression of public concern about the state of the economy and the excesses of the financial sector. Large, legitimate institutions like labor unions, as well as prominent politicos and others of the famous around us expressed their support (and sought photo ops). This thing is real, and looks like it's serious. Uh oh! Now whadda we do?
Look, the main messages of the Civil Rights, Anti-War, and now Gay Rights Movements were that very specific societal changes had to happen, and the changes had to be rooted in law. The right to vote for all citizens, the ending of hostilities in a war, the end to discrimination because of sexual orientation - these were the concrete actions. What doesn't work is trying to get the Wall Street One Percenters to change their behavior by taking over a city park for weeks or months and spending tens or hundreds of thousands of local tax dollars to deal with it. Wall Street doesn't give a shit about that, it's not THEIR money!
So I'll lay out a couple or so ideas of specific messages and actions that I think the OWSM can use.
Occupy Congress - with meaningful work that promotes the general welfare (this last part is the job description for Congress found in our Constitution). Enough already with no new taxes on the wealthy. Enough already of enabling the Wall Street financiers, the health insurance companies, and the drug manufacturers to make obscene profits at the expense of the 99%. Enough already of cutting funding for education, police and fire departments, public infrastructure while maintaining or increasing the subsidies to big industry. Enough already of gutting the laws that regulate the financial industry and letting the "free market prevail." And enough already of partisan politics and gang warfare between elected officials to win the next election. Congress: do meaningful work for the people of this country; that is your job!
Occupy the Courts - with legal actions against the corporate greedmeisters who engineered this global economic meltdown. Go after them, take away their money (give it back to us, by the way), and put them in jail - the regular jails, not the country club ones. Make the message very clear that if you commit fraud, if you game the system, if you cheat your customers, you will go directly to jail. Period.
Occupy Businesses - with meaningful work that will employ working people in living-wage and meaningful jobs. The business community needs to step up and help make this happen (and by the way, more and more businesses are stepping up). Government stimulus money is a good thing if it is wisely used for public infrastructure, education, health and safety projects. We haven't forgotten how to be a great nation of ideas and manufacturing; we've just let those get moved elsewhere to boost shareholders' and corporate executives' massive profits. Is the future in America really one in which the average worker is either making lattes or selling Made-in-China chatchkes at a department store? I hope not.
Finally, a few words about who the NNP - the 99% - really are. The 99% are not just people whose income is not in the top 1% category. No. The 99% are people who think a certain way. We are people who think that society should be equitable and just. We are people who think that everyone should have (actually, has a right to have) good, affordable health care, an excellent education, a good-paying and meaningful job. There are people in our society who are in the top 1% based on their income, but in the 99% based on the way they think. I recently read an article about Jerry, of Ben and Jerry Ice Cream. He said that corporations and the people who run them can be socially and environmentally progressive and still make a profit. His company is and does, and there are many more who follow that business philosophy. So let us not get into class warfare along the simple lines of 99 vs. 1, us vs. them. That won't work. People of like minds need to work together, no matter what their income or position in society.
The Occupy Wall Street Movement is a beginning, not an end. We need to find our common voice and together articulate a clear message. We can do it. History tells us that it has been done, and can be done again. As we used to say in the day: Right ON brothers and sisters!
OK, so you're now thinking that I digress, but I'm not. All of this is to set the stage for my following remarks about the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWSM). Everything I have to say has certainly already been said by pundits, bloggers and various talking heads, but you're reading my opinion (and you're entitled to it).
I'll start with the conclusion (this is a method used by many public speakers/presenters - I always thought it was just insurance in case they ran out of time and got yanked off stage). OWSM, what is the message? We the NNPers need to know what to do that will change things. And please don't tell us that sleeping in the park is the message.
I'm really not being harsh; in fact, I support what the park-sleepers and other activists have been doing because I have seen that it has made a difference. After a few weeks of those dirty not-just-going-away hippies being in many parks around the country, suddenly politicians - both Democrats and (gasp!) Republicans - started talking about how the OWSM was an important expression of public concern about the state of the economy and the excesses of the financial sector. Large, legitimate institutions like labor unions, as well as prominent politicos and others of the famous around us expressed their support (and sought photo ops). This thing is real, and looks like it's serious. Uh oh! Now whadda we do?
Look, the main messages of the Civil Rights, Anti-War, and now Gay Rights Movements were that very specific societal changes had to happen, and the changes had to be rooted in law. The right to vote for all citizens, the ending of hostilities in a war, the end to discrimination because of sexual orientation - these were the concrete actions. What doesn't work is trying to get the Wall Street One Percenters to change their behavior by taking over a city park for weeks or months and spending tens or hundreds of thousands of local tax dollars to deal with it. Wall Street doesn't give a shit about that, it's not THEIR money!
So I'll lay out a couple or so ideas of specific messages and actions that I think the OWSM can use.
Occupy Congress - with meaningful work that promotes the general welfare (this last part is the job description for Congress found in our Constitution). Enough already with no new taxes on the wealthy. Enough already of enabling the Wall Street financiers, the health insurance companies, and the drug manufacturers to make obscene profits at the expense of the 99%. Enough already of cutting funding for education, police and fire departments, public infrastructure while maintaining or increasing the subsidies to big industry. Enough already of gutting the laws that regulate the financial industry and letting the "free market prevail." And enough already of partisan politics and gang warfare between elected officials to win the next election. Congress: do meaningful work for the people of this country; that is your job!
Occupy the Courts - with legal actions against the corporate greedmeisters who engineered this global economic meltdown. Go after them, take away their money (give it back to us, by the way), and put them in jail - the regular jails, not the country club ones. Make the message very clear that if you commit fraud, if you game the system, if you cheat your customers, you will go directly to jail. Period.
Occupy Businesses - with meaningful work that will employ working people in living-wage and meaningful jobs. The business community needs to step up and help make this happen (and by the way, more and more businesses are stepping up). Government stimulus money is a good thing if it is wisely used for public infrastructure, education, health and safety projects. We haven't forgotten how to be a great nation of ideas and manufacturing; we've just let those get moved elsewhere to boost shareholders' and corporate executives' massive profits. Is the future in America really one in which the average worker is either making lattes or selling Made-in-China chatchkes at a department store? I hope not.
Finally, a few words about who the NNP - the 99% - really are. The 99% are not just people whose income is not in the top 1% category. No. The 99% are people who think a certain way. We are people who think that society should be equitable and just. We are people who think that everyone should have (actually, has a right to have) good, affordable health care, an excellent education, a good-paying and meaningful job. There are people in our society who are in the top 1% based on their income, but in the 99% based on the way they think. I recently read an article about Jerry, of Ben and Jerry Ice Cream. He said that corporations and the people who run them can be socially and environmentally progressive and still make a profit. His company is and does, and there are many more who follow that business philosophy. So let us not get into class warfare along the simple lines of 99 vs. 1, us vs. them. That won't work. People of like minds need to work together, no matter what their income or position in society.
The Occupy Wall Street Movement is a beginning, not an end. We need to find our common voice and together articulate a clear message. We can do it. History tells us that it has been done, and can be done again. As we used to say in the day: Right ON brothers and sisters!
Saturday, November 05, 2011
The Bowmer Theater at OSF: We're the Problem
It's us! We've done it again. The last time we were in the Bowmer Theater at Oregon Shakespeare Festival, during June of this year, the main support beam of the building cracked and the theater was shut down for many weeks. I wrote about the experience on this blog (see June 19, 2011).
Well here we are back at OSF for the closing weekend, and we attended the last performance of the season of the production "The African Company Presents Richard III." As we entered the theater, the ticket taker was telling people that there would be a short delay due to an electrical problem. After a delay of some minutes, the doors opened, the audience filed in, and we sat in anticipation of another fine OSF production. An OSF staff member came out on stage to announce that there was a problem with the sound system, and they were trying to reboot it; however, in true theatrical tradition, the show would go on. And it did, without what we imagine are the various sound effects for the production.
The show was wonderful. The acting, directing, costuming, sets and props and lighting were highest quality - this is, after all, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival! The original music and sound design by Todd Barton was, well... we'll never know.
We hope that OSF doesn't banish us or bar us from ever entering the Bowmer again. I don't think we could bear that. After all, despite what some people and politicians think, art is not a luxury, it is the true essence of being human. Thank you OSF for keeping us alive.
And, um, we're sorry.
- posted from the fisheyepad
Well here we are back at OSF for the closing weekend, and we attended the last performance of the season of the production "The African Company Presents Richard III." As we entered the theater, the ticket taker was telling people that there would be a short delay due to an electrical problem. After a delay of some minutes, the doors opened, the audience filed in, and we sat in anticipation of another fine OSF production. An OSF staff member came out on stage to announce that there was a problem with the sound system, and they were trying to reboot it; however, in true theatrical tradition, the show would go on. And it did, without what we imagine are the various sound effects for the production.
The show was wonderful. The acting, directing, costuming, sets and props and lighting were highest quality - this is, after all, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival! The original music and sound design by Todd Barton was, well... we'll never know.
We hope that OSF doesn't banish us or bar us from ever entering the Bowmer again. I don't think we could bear that. After all, despite what some people and politicians think, art is not a luxury, it is the true essence of being human. Thank you OSF for keeping us alive.
And, um, we're sorry.
- posted from the fisheyepad
Location:4th St,Ashland,United States
Friday, October 21, 2011
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY: THE BAD EXAMPLE OF OREGON FORESTRY COMPANIES
A cover story in the Oregonian newspaper today reports that several Oregon forestry companies hired foreign workers for contracts won under the federal stimulus program. The story tells how these companies used loopholes in federal regulations and deceptive practices to avoid hiring local workers and instead obtained temporary visas for foreign workers.
This story is easy pickings for Republican politicians to rail about wasteful Obama administration programs and the stimulus program. But I have a different take: this is yet another story about corporate greed and the widespread lack of corporate responsibility for the condition of our economy and the well being of Americans.
Here's the list of the Oregon companies implicated in this unforgivable episode: Medford Cutting Edge Forestry, Summit Forestry, Ponderosa Reforestations, and G. E. Forestry. All I can say to these companies, if the allegations are true, is shame on you!
Sunday, October 16, 2011
GETTING CHARGED UP AT NATIONAL PLUG-IN DAY, PORTLAND
As I walked down Electric Avenue in Portland, Oregon today, I realized that the smile on my face was because I suddenly didn't feel like an oddball. I had driven my Zap electric truck to National Plug-in Day, and I was surrounded by about three dozen electric vehicles (EVs), including two other Zaps. It's always a good feeling to be among people like yourself.
Everyone there is interested in EVs. Many brought their EV to display and talk about. The vehicles ranged from mass-produced Nissan Leafs, Chevy Volts, and Toyota plug-in electric models to home-made conversions (converting a brand name gasoline vehicle to electric) and everything in between. The common denominator is a conviction that the gasoline-centric transportation in the USA is not sustainable, and EVs offer kind of a no-brainer solution.
Here are a few examples of the EVs at the event today.
Of course I'll start with a picture of my Zap Xebra PK truck next to a TWIKE pedal-assist EV (http://www.evalbum.com/1886). There was another Zap PK at the event, and a zebra-striped Zap 4-door sedan. The TWIKE brand, now being built in Germany, gets about 40 miles to a charge, configured like this one at 336 volts, compared to the 18 miles I get on the 72 volt Zap PK.
This prototype EV is made by Arcimoto in Eugene, Oregon. It's also a 3-wheeler that the company plans to have in production by next year, and will have 4 different models (http://www.arcimoto.com/products). Range will vary from 40 to 80 miles, depending on the type of battery pack, and the cost will be under $20,000. These EVs seat two people in tandem position. Cool machines!
Next up, a late 1990s (1997?) factory-built Chevy EV pickup truck. Yes, GM built these in the late '90s for the California market, as mandated by that state. Only a few of these were sold, the remainder were leased, and all of those were pulled back by GM a few years later, never to be seen again. GM was ahead of the times with these vehicles, and this one is still running strong.
How about a home-built conversion, a Saturn EV? Here it is, converted about three years ago by a young man I chatted with. He packed a bunch of lead acid batteries in the front and back, added electric motor, controller and other components, and has run the car gas-free since.
Something that impressed me at the event was talking with people who are very knowledgeable about EVs and their technoology. I have a lot to learn from these folks!
And if you get the bug for EVs, how about an EV Beetle? There were two conversion companies represented at the event who were showing converted 1970s VeeDubs. These are really sweet. I talked with Ernest from Voltwagen EPC (Electric People Car http://voltwagenepc.com/ ) who converted the red one, and found out that it has a decent range (40-100 miles per charge, depending on battery pack), and you can even shift gears if needed. I didn't see the owner of the green Bug, but it's by Green Scene in Milwaukie, Oregon (http://www.thegreensceneev.com/contact.html).
It's that time of year when leaves are all over the street, and Electric Avenue was no exception. There were more Nissan Leaf EVs than any other brand. Although I didn't talk to a Leaf owner, these are very nice, "normal" looking cars, and they seem to be selling well in Portland.
And, OK, who wouldn't be green with envy over this green (in more ways than one) beauty, a MG ragtop conversion. This is a beautiful car, and the conversion looks to me like a marvelous job.
And finally, here's a crowd stopper: an electric monocycle. I only overheard part of a conversation with the owner/builder, but it uses technology similar to the Segway, with the driver's body movements acting as controls. It even sounds like the Portland Police are interested in these for local patrols.
There's a paradigm shift starting to build in this country. More and more people are looking for alternatives to petroleum-fueled vehicles, and electric vehicle technology has made tremendous strides in the past few years. I'm a proponent of small, medium-range EVs for urban use - commuting to work, going shopping, taking the kids to soccer practice, etc. A vehicle with a range of 30-40 mpc (miles per charge) would work for most folks. I'm encouraged by what I saw today. Thanks EV community!
Everyone there is interested in EVs. Many brought their EV to display and talk about. The vehicles ranged from mass-produced Nissan Leafs, Chevy Volts, and Toyota plug-in electric models to home-made conversions (converting a brand name gasoline vehicle to electric) and everything in between. The common denominator is a conviction that the gasoline-centric transportation in the USA is not sustainable, and EVs offer kind of a no-brainer solution.
Here are a few examples of the EVs at the event today.
Of course I'll start with a picture of my Zap Xebra PK truck next to a TWIKE pedal-assist EV (http://www.evalbum.com/1886). There was another Zap PK at the event, and a zebra-striped Zap 4-door sedan. The TWIKE brand, now being built in Germany, gets about 40 miles to a charge, configured like this one at 336 volts, compared to the 18 miles I get on the 72 volt Zap PK.
Something that impressed me at the event was talking with people who are very knowledgeable about EVs and their technoology. I have a lot to learn from these folks!
And if you get the bug for EVs, how about an EV Beetle? There were two conversion companies represented at the event who were showing converted 1970s VeeDubs. These are really sweet. I talked with Ernest from Voltwagen EPC (Electric People Car http://voltwagenepc.com/ ) who converted the red one, and found out that it has a decent range (40-100 miles per charge, depending on battery pack), and you can even shift gears if needed. I didn't see the owner of the green Bug, but it's by Green Scene in Milwaukie, Oregon (http://www.thegreensceneev.com/contact.html).
There's a paradigm shift starting to build in this country. More and more people are looking for alternatives to petroleum-fueled vehicles, and electric vehicle technology has made tremendous strides in the past few years. I'm a proponent of small, medium-range EVs for urban use - commuting to work, going shopping, taking the kids to soccer practice, etc. A vehicle with a range of 30-40 mpc (miles per charge) would work for most folks. I'm encouraged by what I saw today. Thanks EV community!
Monday, September 05, 2011
OREGON: WE'RE NUMBER ONE! (and it's shameful)
I watched some of the Oregon LSU football game the other day (the Ducks lost badly). I enjoy watching sports once in awhile, but I'm increasingly bothered by the high level of hype, and the very big dollars that are associated with college sports (men's).
But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the fact that, according to a recent report released by Feeding America, the national food bank organization, the State of Oregon leads the nation in the percentage of children who are food insecure. In my state, 29.2 percent of people under the age of 18 years don't get enough to eat, and don't always know where their next meal will come from (based on 2009 data). This is not a "being number one" that we are proud of.
Food insecure kids don't do well in school, and this can harm them for life. It also harms our society and our economy. A number of organizations are helping get food to kids at school that they can eat there, and also take home for the weekend. School staff will tell you (and my wife saw this when she was working in schools) that some kids come to school because they know they'll get a meal there (some parents do, too).
Let's work together to put an end to this problem. Donate money and/or time to organizations that help feed kids. Let your congresspersons know that this isn't right and needs to be fixed.
And when you are cheering for the Ducks, or whatever team you like, as they run onto the field or court, in their shiny new uniforms and shoes and gear, show your team spirit by putting a little more cash in that envelope to the Food Bank.
But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the fact that, according to a recent report released by Feeding America, the national food bank organization, the State of Oregon leads the nation in the percentage of children who are food insecure. In my state, 29.2 percent of people under the age of 18 years don't get enough to eat, and don't always know where their next meal will come from (based on 2009 data). This is not a "being number one" that we are proud of.
Food insecure kids don't do well in school, and this can harm them for life. It also harms our society and our economy. A number of organizations are helping get food to kids at school that they can eat there, and also take home for the weekend. School staff will tell you (and my wife saw this when she was working in schools) that some kids come to school because they know they'll get a meal there (some parents do, too).
Let's work together to put an end to this problem. Donate money and/or time to organizations that help feed kids. Let your congresspersons know that this isn't right and needs to be fixed.
And when you are cheering for the Ducks, or whatever team you like, as they run onto the field or court, in their shiny new uniforms and shoes and gear, show your team spirit by putting a little more cash in that envelope to the Food Bank.
THE AMERICAN ECONOMY: THE MISSING PIECE
Something I realized recently is that the on-going discussion in this country about the economy, including the high rate of unemployment, is missing a critically important piece, the role of business in solving the problems.
Where is the voice of American businesses in this discussion? I don't mean the quiet voice of lobbyists whispering in the ears of elected representatives. I don't mean the voice of corporate money slipping into the campaign pockets of politicians. I mean the public voice of businesses, a load voice that is talking about how they are or can help solve this mess we're in. After all, it is in the best interest of corporate America that consumers have the money needed to consume.
We hear a lot about corporations, but not much from them. We hear about how many people they are laying off, and sometimes how many they are hiring. We also hear about the record profits some of the largest firms are racking up, and some analyses that they are hoarding profits by not hiring workers. But what are corporations saying?
I had a discussion with my brother recently about the responsibilities of corporations. Corporations are considered to be "persons" by our legal system; so do these persons have responsibilities to be moral and to be good citizens? My brother says no, the only responsibility a corporation has is to maximize profits for it's shareholders. I spent a bit of time on the internet looking at what legal and economic experts have to say on this topic, and they don't all agree. Some agree with my brother; others say that corporate entities have the same responsibilities as other persons in our society.
This morning, as I read through yesterday's (Sunday) New York Times, I found a full page letter from Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, to "fellow concerned Americans." His letter talks about the failure of our government to provide leadership instead of partisan politics. He and 100 other business leaders sent a letter urging the President and members of Congress to provide the leadership needed to end the downward spiral we're in as a nation, and these business people signed two pledges. The first is "to withhold political campaign contributions until a transparent, comprehensive, bipartisan debt-and-deficit package is reached that honestly, and fairly, sets America on a path to long-term financial health and security." The second is "to do all we can to break the cycle of economic uncertainty that grips our country by committing to accelerate investment in jobs and hiring."
Now that's the voice of business I've been listening for!! And I hope to hear this voice loader and more clearly as American business people stand up to take this mess head on.
Where is the voice of American businesses in this discussion? I don't mean the quiet voice of lobbyists whispering in the ears of elected representatives. I don't mean the voice of corporate money slipping into the campaign pockets of politicians. I mean the public voice of businesses, a load voice that is talking about how they are or can help solve this mess we're in. After all, it is in the best interest of corporate America that consumers have the money needed to consume.
We hear a lot about corporations, but not much from them. We hear about how many people they are laying off, and sometimes how many they are hiring. We also hear about the record profits some of the largest firms are racking up, and some analyses that they are hoarding profits by not hiring workers. But what are corporations saying?
I had a discussion with my brother recently about the responsibilities of corporations. Corporations are considered to be "persons" by our legal system; so do these persons have responsibilities to be moral and to be good citizens? My brother says no, the only responsibility a corporation has is to maximize profits for it's shareholders. I spent a bit of time on the internet looking at what legal and economic experts have to say on this topic, and they don't all agree. Some agree with my brother; others say that corporate entities have the same responsibilities as other persons in our society.
This morning, as I read through yesterday's (Sunday) New York Times, I found a full page letter from Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, to "fellow concerned Americans." His letter talks about the failure of our government to provide leadership instead of partisan politics. He and 100 other business leaders sent a letter urging the President and members of Congress to provide the leadership needed to end the downward spiral we're in as a nation, and these business people signed two pledges. The first is "to withhold political campaign contributions until a transparent, comprehensive, bipartisan debt-and-deficit package is reached that honestly, and fairly, sets America on a path to long-term financial health and security." The second is "to do all we can to break the cycle of economic uncertainty that grips our country by committing to accelerate investment in jobs and hiring."
Now that's the voice of business I've been listening for!! And I hope to hear this voice loader and more clearly as American business people stand up to take this mess head on.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
GOP DENIES THAT EARTHQUAKE IS REAL, CLAIMS HOAX BY SCIENTISTS
(The Scallion) Republican congressional spokesmen held a hurried press conference today following what many people believed was a large earthquake in the D.C. area. "Once again, the American public is being led to believe an alternative reality supported by so-called scientists whose only goal is to increase their grant funding" said Rep. John Boner, "There is no credible evidence that earthquakes are real, in fact, many scientists have stated that they just don't exist." Republicans quickly added that any attempts by the Obama administration or Democrats to increase funding for earthquake research and recovery planning would constitute "job-killing impacts to American businesses, especially those owned by the ultra-wealthy" and would be fought to the death by Republican members of Congress.
In a response, the White House indicated that they would seek a compromise with the Republican leadership that would allow public workers to sweep up any broken glass, without ending the Bush tax cuts or increasing any spending. The White House also signaled that the President might be willing to discuss cuts in Medicaide and Social Security to offset the costs of glass sweeping.
---
- posted from the fisheyepad
In a response, the White House indicated that they would seek a compromise with the Republican leadership that would allow public workers to sweep up any broken glass, without ending the Bush tax cuts or increasing any spending. The White House also signaled that the President might be willing to discuss cuts in Medicaide and Social Security to offset the costs of glass sweeping.
---
- posted from the fisheyepad
Location:Washington, D.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)