FW: Op-Ed Columnist - The Destructive Center - NYTimes.com
Mac Davis
One could use the attached piece by Paul Krugman as well as the Naomi Klein article in defense of Nancy Pelosi, popular though it may be to bash her from both the right and left. The stuff the house put in the bill that the Publicans pilloried as “pork” was exactly the kind of stuff both writers are talking about that actually would help non rich Americans. And taking the aid to state and local governments out of the Senate version was really stupid. That would be immediately stimulative, or at least a tourniquet. Paul Krugman, by the way, is one of the few economists who saw this whole crash coming as much as four years ago (others were Nouriel Roubini from NYU and that Stiglitz guy). He thinks the stimulus is nowhere near big enough.
------ Forwarded Message
From: Mac Davis <tmda...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:55:17 -0600
To: <tm...@hughes.net>
Subject: Op-Ed Columnist - The Destructive Center - NYTimes.com
<http://www.nytimes.com/>
February 9, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Destructive Center
By PAUL KRUGMAN <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?
A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.
Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.
Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.
One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending.
The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut. It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut. All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan, with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump.
On the other hand, the centrists were apparently just fine with one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research calls this the “flip your house to your brother” provision: it will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy.
All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.
But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.
After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.
Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.
Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.
And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.
Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself.
Now, House and Senate negotiators have to reconcile their versions of the stimulus, and it’s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists’ worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short.
So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.
For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”
No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.
Home <http://www.nytimes.com/>
- World <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html>
- U.S. <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.html>
- N.Y. / Region <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/nyregion/index.html>
- Business <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/business/index.html>
- Technology <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/technology/index.html>
- Science <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/index.html>
- Health <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/health/index.html>
- Sports <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/sports/index.html>
- Opinion <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html>
- Arts <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/arts/index.html>
- Style <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/style/index.html>
- Travel <http://travel.nytimes.com/pages/travel/index.html>
- Jobs <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/jobs/index.html>
- Real Estate <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/realestate/index.html>
- Automobiles <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html>
- Back to Top <#top>
- Privacy Policy <http://www.nytimes.com/privacy>
- Search <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/sitesearch_selector.html?query=&date_select=full&type=nyt>
- Corrections <http://www.nytimes.com/corrections.html>
- RSS <http://www.nytimes.com/rss>
- First Look <http://firstlook.nytimes.com>
- Help <http://www.nytimes.com/membercenter/sitehelp.html>
- Contact Us <http://nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html>
- Work for Us <https://careers.nytco.com/TAM/nyt_docs/TAM/candidate.html>
- Site Map <http://spiderbites.nytimes.com/>
------ End of Forwarded Message
Neal Oldham
Sent from my iPhone 3G
Steven Tyree
Mac Davis
- Privacy Policy <http://www.nytimes.com/privacy>
Steven Tyree
Robert D. Crawford
> One could use the attached piece by Paul Krugman as well as the Naomi
> Klein article in defense of Nancy Pelosi, popular though it may be to
> bash her from both the right and left. The stuff the house put in the
> bill that the Publicans pilloried as "pork" was exactly the kind of
> stuff both writers are talking about that actually would help non rich
> Americans. And taking the aid to state and local governments out of
> the Senate version was really stupid. That would be immediately
> stimulative, or at least a tourniquet. Paul Krugman, by the way, is
> one of the few economists who saw this whole crash coming as much as
> four years ago (others were Nouriel Roubini from NYU and that Stiglitz
> guy). He thinks the stimulus is nowhere near big enough.
I agree with what you have said but my problems with Pelosi have little
to do with the stimulus package and everything to do with impeachment
and, now, accountability. I think the 2006 elections had as much to
do with accountability as they did with anything else. As long as the
former administration doesn't have to answer for what they have done we
are, as a country, stained with their transgressions and, as a congress,
they are complicit. The fact that it was political maneuvering to not
have hearings doesn't make it more palatable.
rdc
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them
over the horizon.
-- K. A. Arsdall
Robert D. Crawford
> I like his style too, his openness and honesty, his commitment to work
> together with other world leaders. It's a huge, huge
> improvement. Nevertheless, he's receiving a great deal of criticism,
> in what, his second week of office? I think the citizenry's
> expectations are way too high.
I expect him to live up to his own words. See this article from Glenn
Greenwald:
Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability
resoundingly and disgracefully
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/index.html
Don't get me wrong, I _do_ think he is a much better president than the
former, and better than his opponent in the election but between the
above article, his jumping through hoops to bend the rules he set for
himself concerning lobbiests in the administration and the like, things
are starting out like business as usual. Only time will tell and I'm
more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of
things but continuing down the paths of torture and unnecessary secrecy
are, to me, inexcusable.
rdc
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
I've given up reading books; I find it takes my mind off myself.
Mac Davis
Steven Tyree
Robert D. Crawford
> That's the problem: The criminality is so huge and horrific that no
> one can admit it without crucifying themselves in the process. There's
> nothing new about this, though, except perhaps scale.
Unfortunately I do realize this. It's all so damned discouraging.
Perhaps the only way out is the
nobody-is-prosecuted-we-just-need-to-find-the-truth hearings Neal
mentioned before. A partial help but might be better than nothing.
It's not likely going to happen and I agree with what Mac (I believe)
said about being too complicated for most to understand and get behind.
Maybe nothing but time can fix this. Good works to make up for all the
bad things we've done but won't admit to.
> You know, we've got a long way to go here. We've got a really crappy
> car to get there in, but it's a lot better than nothing, provided we
> can keep it running. My question to you is, what's your next move?
> What's you strategy for riding this storm out?
And that is where you have me. Honestly, I'm more than happy to preach
to the choir but don't have the motivation to do much else. I talked
some politics with my family over the Christmas break and the thing I
walked away with was that they were mostly uninterested. As long as it
doesn't directly affect them it is really not on their plate. My
brother, who renounced the Republican party when they described Rudy as
a moderate, doesn't even think there should be prosecutions. He is
actually a thoughtful, intelligent person who is not brainwashed by Faux
news and I actually respect (something I have in pretty short supply).
I do my part... I try to make sure I am a part of the well-informed
citizenry necessary for a democracy, I vote, I call my Representative
and Congressmen (based on what they have done after calling, a waste of
time) and I talk with anyone who is interested and available
(considering that I leave the house only a few times a month, that's not
many). My strategy, I suppose, is to strap in and hold on. I had a
professor in college that kept a list on the fridge where he marked in
one of two columns every time his wife did something. If there was more
in the "pro" column than the "con"column at the end of the year he kept
her. Over 40 years they've been married now, btw. I suppose I should
do the same for the government. If they do more things good than bad
over the next 4 years I should count them as successful. It just makes
me feel compromised in my ethics to be that way.
rdc
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
"I suppose you expect me to talk."
"No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die."
-- Goldfinger
Neal Oldham
Robert D. Crawford
> On the other hand, as Gail Collins pointed out, this stuff is never
> pretty. If you were reading the papers every day during the Lincoln
> administration, you'd probably think they were a bunch of
> ends-justify-the-means crooks. Or, as we call them a few decades after
> they die, "pragmatists."
Concerning the description, I prefer the former. Frankly, as concerns
things that have no definitive answer I don't mind pragmatism. On the
stimulus we are in uncharted waters and I think measured pragmatism is
the correct response. As concerns things that are absolute, I think
there is no real space for pragmatism. If there are people in congress
that had something to do with the egregious actions of the government
over the last 8 years it is time for them to have some honor and decency
and admit their wrongdoing even if it means they get prosecuted for
their actions. If they believed so strongly they were in the right as
to violate federal and international law then they should not lack the
courage to stand up, say so and face the consequences of their actions.
I know everyone is tired of hearing about my stance on torture. I'll
leave it alone now.
rdc
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
The distinction between Freedom and Liberty is not accurately known;
naturalists have been unable to find a living specimen of either.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Steven Tyree
Robert D. Crawford
> Unfortunately, there's damn little I can do to change the course of
>our government as an individual. I therefore turn the bulk of my energy
>toward preparing my family and my livlihood for the likely difficulties
>that lie ahead.
I agree about changing the government but this realization really makes
me feel a bit impotent. Do we give up the "one man can change the
world" philosophy. A digression from our chartered topic so I suppose I
should get back to where I'm supposed to be.
> Like you, most of my prostletizing falls on deaf ears. Even people
>that know and respect me, and have an orientation that lends itself to
>action, take virtually no action. Fortunately for me, my immediate
>family loves me and is willing to go along with my efforts, in part
>because it's not particularly disruptive. We've been practicing and
>improving our self reliance for more than 20 years.
Man, it's great when the family is on-board as Kathleen seems to be and
as I can only assume the girls are. Jerianne lets me do pretty much
anything I want to do. I wanted to change to CFLs so we bought a bunch
and replaced our bulbs as the incandescents wore out. I wanted to start
making my own laundry soap and she allowed me to do so after she saw
that it did as well as the store-bought detergent. I started using
vinegar, baking soda and the like for cleaning and she was supportive.
I bake my own bread but she really prefers store-bought (why, I don't
know but she is a _very_ picky eater... texture will really turn her
off). The only thing we have issues with is lights. I am a real Nazi
when it comes to turning off the lights. She _hates_ it when I turn
lights off behind her.
> Robert, I'd really like to hear about your own prognostications of the
>future, and your own strategies for coping with, and even capitalizing
>on, what's likely to come. In my opinion that's really where it's at.
Just a short aside, you can call me Denny. I only use Robert in my
email because I don't always correspond with friends and family.
As concerns the future I hate to say. I do think that things are going
to get better... later rather than sooner, I fear. Coal and petroleum
are going to go the way of the dinosaur, if you pardon the expression,
and many are going to be dragged kicking and screaming into that future.
I think the ranks of the "greenies" will grow until we are the majority.
It has already ceased to be a real fringe and that is a good thing for
all of us. As far as the government and our country I fear that things
are going to get worse or at least stagnate before they get better. Our
"lost decade" might be upon us and we are going to have to face the fact
that we are not going to be able to throw our might around like we have
in the past.
As far as what I'm doing to get ready, it is mainly a matter of trying
to do more with less. I use the clothesline when the weather permits, I
plant a garden and try to do it organically, though I think I'm going to
have to do something in the way of fertilizer this year, I try to choose
the renewable options when I can eschewing plastic zip-lock and aluminum
foil for plastic containers. I recycle and compost. Even with 3 adults
and one child in the house we only generate one bag of garbage every 7-8
days. I won't bore you with more but you get the picture.
As far as capitalizing on what might happen... not much. I don't work
outside the home. I have my disability for income (such as it is) and
you foot my insurance (thank you!). As much as I hate to say it getting
a job would cost me a ton of money. Being diabetic and blind costs a
fortune and the jobs I can do with my skill set pay little. Getting to
work and home here with very little in the way of public transportation
is next to impossible. After Liam starts school I will likely go back
and finish my education. Computer science would be a good fit because
it would allow me to work from home.
rdc
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
Q: Who cuts the grass on Walton's Mountain?
A: Lawn Boy.
Neal Oldham
Man, it's great when the family is on-board as Kathleen seems to be andas I can only assume the girls are. Jerianne lets me do pretty much
anything I want to do. I wanted to change to CFLs so we bought a bunch
and replaced our bulbs as the incandescents wore out. ... The only thing we have issues with is lights. I am a real Nazi
when it comes to turning off the lights. She _hates_ it when I turn
lights off behind her.
As far as capitalizing on what might happen... not much.
Steven Tyree
Denny,
Steven Tyree
Robert D. Crawford
quickly though.
Neal Oldham <onehundredp...@gmail.com> writes:
> The only thing we have issues with is lights. I am a real
> Nazi when it comes to turning off the lights. She _hates_ it
> when I turn lights off behind her.
>
> Actually I think frequent switching will degrade the ballast in the
> CFLs so she might have a point.
I would agree except for the fact that if you are not going to go back
to a room until 20 or 30 minutes later it makes no sense to me to leave
a light on. The bathroom is a good example and it is even worse in
there than in other places. After a shower she will not go back in
there but leaves the light on... why? I don't have any idea. What
makes this room worse than most is that it has one of those light bars
that has 4x40w or 4x60w decorative bulbs.
Done bitching,
rdc
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
Brandy-and-water spoils two good things.
-- Charles Lamb
Neal Oldham
Robert D. Crawford
> Education can take a lot of forms. For example, our tiny livestock
> operation doesn't come close to paying for itself in a traditional
> sense. However, we're learning a lot in the process, which could prove
> invaluable in the future, and when we make mistakes they are
> invariably small in scope due to the scale of the operation.
This is how I feel about the garden. I went organic last year because
we don't depend on the garden... I can, like you, experiment. We did
fine with some things. Our peppers, however, were pitiful.
> Finally, we're generating lots of manure and mulch on site which goes
> a long way toward making our vegetable gardening productive. Your own
> efforts follow a similar vein. By economizing and learning to make
> staples at a fraction of the retail cost, you're educating yourself
> about practical ways to thrive on thrift. I think it's great.
Thank you. Encouragement is always nice.
> A few more points: Japan may have "lost a decade" collectively, but
> I'll bet everything I have that it didn't stop motivated, creative
> individuals from making progress in their own lives. Focus on what you
> have control over!
Agreed. The thing is, and I'll admit that this falls out of the scope
of our personal influence, if collectively we lose a decade the
possibility of some very important things starts to get pretty slim.
Things like universal healthcare come to mind. On the other hand, it is
possible that the converse would be true. The more people that are
flailing, the more middle-class, 1 issue voters see that their neighbors
can't afford to send their kids to the doctor, the better the chances a
progressive agenda can be implemented.
If you can't tell from the above, sometimes I think while I type. I
didn't start out with both of those scenarios in my head.
> Denny, if you want to ramp up your food production, I'd be delighted
> to come over and help map out an intensive gardening plan for you
> land, complete with tree, bush and berry crops as well as annual
> vegetables.
As I'm sure your wife can attest, I do like to get visitors. You are
welcome to come by anytime. As far as the garden, we only plant annuals
as we don't plan to be here that long.
> You could start a movement right in your neighborhood, inspiring
> others to follow your lead. Think about the quantities of high quality
> food that could be grown just on your own block! It was once prime
> agricultural land; there's no reason why it couldn't be productive
> again.
It is a nice thought. I always did like the idea of the victory garden
and really wish that movement would make a comeback.
rdc
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
Law of the Jungle:
He who hesitates is lunch.
Steven Tyree
Robert D. Crawford
> Don't be done yet!
I've found that I have to draw the line somewhere, else it just goes on
ad infinitum, or nauseum, depending on your perspective.
> We've replaced our bathroom bulb array with the round flourescent
> lights. We like them real fine. You want the warm white variety.
I'll have to check these out and get their OK from the boss.
> You'll save the cost of the incandescent bulbs you replace many times
> over in energy efficiency. That means it costs a lot more to wait for
> bulbs to burn out before replacing them with
> flourescents. Counterintuitive, but true.
I know but I have a real problem throwing things out before their life
is over.
> One kilowatt = the output of one fit man working eight hours.
It's been so long since I've put in an honest 8 hours I don't think I
could do it. It would certainly require a bit of a build-up period.
> Steve Tyree, fellow light Nazi
Unite! Turn off, tune in, lights out, man.
rdc
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
In a great romance, each person basically plays a part that the
other really likes.
-- Elizabeth Ashley
Neal Oldham
Neal Oldham
Steven Tyree
Steven Tyree
Mad Max never quit. Neither should we.
Okay, that's hysterical.
Mac Davis
Neal Oldham
(a) embracing or at least accepting the collapse of civilization and
another mass extinction, or (b) hoping that a self-sufficient low-tech
/ no-tech lifestyle will allow some sort of continuation.
But there is a third option. It looks increasingly unlikely but it's
worth fighting for in my opinion: Preserving and advancing
technological civilization and saving as many lives, human and
non-human, as possible. Not a "BAU" technological civilization. But
fighting to avoid a regression to the Flint Age. Or even to an
Amish-type lifestyle.
While technology certainly has created a lot of misery, it has
definitely alleviated a lot of it as well, and not all technology is
environmentally harmful. See the article I just sent out about
electrolyzed water.
So what we have to do is, in *addition* to making our own preparations
and living simpler lives, we have to get engaged on the larger stage
and believe that we can use politics as a means to make things better.
We have to rail for more transit (rail for rails, hee hee), we have
to demand a carbon *tax* (not a carbon cap-and-trade since we have
already seen abuses of the UN & EU systems), we have to make changes
(and I still advocate vegetarian living as a much lower-impact way to
be). We have to embrace science and technology as a way to move
forward.
Our window for action is extremely narrow and our financial capital is
extremely limited, but the old system of living beyond your means may
be on the verge of ending. I think all of us on the list agree this
is good. What we need are leaders who understand that fiat currency
doesn't work, who don't like inflation, but agree that environmental
integrity is a human right. Right now there are no leaders with that
belief set. We need to find some.
How we determine good technology from bad? Here's one of my favorite
examples: Big-screen TVs. Sure, they are really pretty, but they
suck the juice (LCD and plasma both, though plasma is a lot worse).
And does anyone need them? No, not really. Instead, I'm all for
low-energy reflective displays, which use a lot less power.
We're only beginning to understand the impact of the Internet on human
evolution and this may be a very wonderful impact. Here we are, folks
from California and Tennessee communicating and sharing ideas and that
would not have been possible before. Do we want to throw that away?
We have to fight *now* to avoid the collapse. What the best survival
strategy is in case of a collapse is a very different topic, but
giving up is just giving up.
As such here are 4 principles I believe:
1. Get the data: Make decisions based on mathematical reality, not
hype. Was the "hydrogen economy" ever going to work? No. Nothing,
and I mean nothing, is more efficient for moving people over land than
a train. Get on that.
2. Don't send a man to do a job for a photon: People are heavy.
Moving them around requires energy. Photons and electrons don't
require nearly the same mass. Telecommute. Anything that can be done
electronically should be done electronically.
3. Fix the fertilizer problem. NOW.
Regards from Tainan,
Neal.
Robert D. Crawford
Neal Oldham <onehundredp...@gmail.com> writes:
> So what we have to do is, in *addition* to making our own preparations
> and living simpler lives, we have to get engaged on the larger stage
> and believe that we can use politics as a means to make things better.
Perhaps it is the pessimist in me, but as long as those who wish to
maintain the status quo as regards power (coal and oil) have all the
money in the world I see this as a long shot. We are getting closer to
a point where the balance between those who are aware and those who
aren't is achieving parity but getting those people to take action is
another story entirely. It is my goal to become the person who Bart
Gordon says "Oh, good, Robert has written again" and the person Lamar
Alexander and Bob Corker hate to hear from yet again. I am, however, in
the minority. How many people do we know that have written to or called
their representatives? I have to keep believing we really can make a
difference because to do otherwise is just too damned depressing. This
inability for individuals to make a difference is why I like
organizations like MoveOn and the like.
That was a bit rambling... sorry.
> we have to demand a carbon *tax* (not a carbon cap-and-trade since we
> have already seen abuses of the UN & EU systems),
I don't have the inclination to search the info out, but didn't we
implement a cap and trade system for something in the '80s... sulphur
maybe? Seems as I recall hearing it mentioned in relation to the cap
and trade of CO2 drawing positive conclusions as to how it will go.
> we have to make changes (and I still advocate vegetarian living as a
> much lower-impact way to be).
But bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good.
I do have to comment on this:
> As such here are 4 principles I believe:
>
> 1. Get the data: Make decisions based on mathematical reality, not
> hype. Was the "hydrogen economy" ever going to work? No. Nothing,
> and I mean nothing, is more efficient for moving people over land than
> a train. Get on that.
>
> 2. Don't send a man to do a job for a photon: People are heavy.
> Moving them around requires energy. Photons and electrons don't
> require nearly the same mass. Telecommute. Anything that can be done
> electronically should be done electronically.
>
> 3. Fix the fertilizer problem. NOW.
I agree with all three... where is the last one?
> Regards from Tainan,
Nice.
--
Robert D. Crawford rd...@comcast.net
semper en excretus
Neal Oldham
>
> I don't really have that much to add...
>
> maintain the status quo as regards power (coal and oil) have all the
> money in the world I see this as a long shot. We are getting closer to
> a point where the balance between those who are aware and those who
> aren't is achieving parity but getting those people to take action is
> another story entirely. It is my goal to become the person who Bart
> Gordon says "Oh, good, Robert has written again" and the person Lamar
> Alexander and Bob Corker hate to hear from yet again. I am, however, in
> the minority. How many people do we know that have written to or called
> their representatives? I have to keep believing we really can make a
> difference because to do otherwise is just too damned depressing. This
> inability for individuals to make a difference is why I like
> organizations like MoveOn and the like.
firmly in the profligate-spending camp. Though she definitely has
championed Net neutrality, bless her heart.
>> we have to demand a carbon *tax* (not a carbon cap-and-trade since we
>> have already seen abuses of the UN & EU systems),
>
> I don't have the inclination to search the info out, but didn't we
> implement a cap and trade system for something in the '80s... sulphur
> maybe? Seems as I recall hearing it mentioned in relation to the cap
> and trade of CO2 drawing positive conclusions as to how it will go.
money for dams *they were going to build anyway* without reducing
their fossil sources (and some point to dams as a big source of CH4
which is a major GHG). Any brokered system can be gamed. The sulfur
system may have worked better, but the EU/UN systems make it too easy.
Ironically, if we had more sulfur in the air, we'd have a cooler
planet. We'd still have acidified oceans, but we'd have more time.
>> we have to make changes (and I still advocate vegetarian living as a
>> much lower-impact way to be).
>
> But bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good.
> I do have to comment on this:
>
>> As such here are 4 principles I believe:
>>
>> 1. Get the data: Make decisions based on mathematical reality, not
>> hype. Was the "hydrogen economy" ever going to work? No. Nothing,
>> and I mean nothing, is more efficient for moving people over land than
>> a train. Get on that.
>>
>> 2. Don't send a man to do a job for a photon: People are heavy.
>> Moving them around requires energy. Photons and electrons don't
>> require nearly the same mass. Telecommute. Anything that can be done
>> electronically should be done electronically.
>>
>> 3. Fix the fertilizer problem. NOW.
>
> I agree with all three... where is the last one?