Being green IS an American value... we've just forgotten.

Copied and edited from an ageist rant... less most of the ageism, plus some technical points and clarifications. Blame Russell.

Back then, in the 1950's and 60's in America, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled; without being crushed, melted, and reformed, which costs more than washing.

Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. A lot of that clothing got made. Things got fixed, and you could fix them because they were made to be fixed.

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. We valued our appliances, tools, and cars and we took good care of them... and they lasted.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

- The VW Bug, best selling car of /all time/ was massively popular then and got better than 30 miles per gallon, 36mpg was the stated value!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle

- The Model A ford (and there were a lot of them still on the road in 1950) got 25 to 30 miles per gallon. Of course, it was a death trap, and had a top speed (if you were crazy) of 65 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927%E2%80%931931)#Features

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. err... actually, it turns out that a high mpg car is probably greener than mass transit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#US_Passenger_transportation

Even a Camry (rated at 28mpg) gets very close to beating the bus on average. Rail is about twice as efficient as a car, IF the train happens to go where you need it. But still, Bikes beat everything but walking, and keep you in shape... if the cars don't kill you.

http://www.pietzo.com/storage/downloads/Pietzo_LCAwhitepaper.pdf

Locally grown food was the rule rather than the exception. In most metropolitan areas, the grocery van (and the milk, and bread and everything else) came to your house once or twice a week, serving everyone in the neighborhood in ONE trip, instead of each person driving to a different store at different times.

http://antiqueshoppefl.com/articles/Jan11/milkcans0111.pdf

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

MIT Professor Walter Lewin (a /rock star/ of physics lectures) says that the energy the average American consumes today "... is the equivalent of having 100 slaves working for me like dogs 12 hours a day"

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-14/

We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Your clothes dryer puts about 4.4 pounds of carbon into the air /every single load/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothes_dryer#Environmental_impact

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaper#Debate There are pluses and minus either way, but in a multi-child family, with a diaper washing service, cloth diapers do use less energy, if more water.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. Kids read comics and books and they played outside. Remember outside kids? It's that thing that goes by the windows of your car. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

Ok, look... I'm not saying we should go back to the 1950's in every way. We've made a lot of progress since then: Women are treated a LITTLE better... and now have the opportunity to work all day and THEN "make" dinner and "care" for the kids and husband. Safety is much improved; these days you can be a complete idiot and yet survive. Corporations are well regulated which prevents pollution and economic collapse. And I do think life is more open now, more connected and more examined. Our technology is worlds ahead of what it was; the intertubes give us access to information we don't need almost as fast as we ignore it.

But we tossed the baby out with the bath water. Frugality, and with it sustainability, went into the ditch. We got lazy, fat, and stupid. Looking back at what was /right/ in the 1950's might do us some good today.

http://www.pathtofreedom.com

Personal Freedom

If freedom is freedom of choice, then we are more free in a huge mega super market on the aisle with hundreds of different types of cereal, or tampons, or whatever.

If freedom is freedom of time to our selves, then we are more free in Trader Joes or the corner 7-eleven with one type of toilet paper and one type of cat litter.

Your freedom to swing your arm stops where my nose begins but my freedom to kill you depends on my countries leaders deciding what evil you are up to, and our incompetence at finding any better way of stopping you from doing harm to us and ours. The lines are not always clear, but they are crystalline in a time of action, following orders, executing the protocol, performing the function we have practiced for again and again. Persons defending personal freedom.

When I joined the Navy, my father asked me how I could give up my freedom. I said I was happy to give up my freedom to go hungry, to be without medical care, and my freedom to find a way to support my fiancé… which I had not found any way to do before I talked to a recruiter. She was free to leave me after I joined.

When I was in the Navy, I knew when I was free (on leave) and when I was not (on duty) and I could manage both; enjoy either. Now, as a “bread winner” I am never free of the drive to earn more, and guilt follows every moment away from my pursuit of the dollar. Abuse victims find freedom from the abuse in their minds, but there is no freedom from our own tyranny.

It’s been said that a King has more freedom than a slave and then it’s been said that a slave has more freedom than a king.

It’s a silly little word, with no apparent meaning. And yet I’ve fought for it, without understanding; and comprehend it less with each passing day. It eludes me as I age. Will I eventually loose my freedom to live? Or find freedom some day in death?

Am I free to stop thinking about this non-sense and get back to work?

Yes, we will all die, but HOW? When? And how long can we avoid it?

The National Safety Council has released it's 2010 list of "what's gonna get yah" based on data from the 2006 census and health statistics:
http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Documents/nscInjuryFacts2011_037.pdf

So here is the break down:

0. Dying from Death. You have a 1:1 chance of dying from something. Get used to the idea. Your only hope is putting it off as long as possible.

1. Heart Disease will take 1 in 6 of us. Tick Tock. It's more common in Women than most people think. There are lots of simple things you can do to reduce your risk of dying this way:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/HeartAttack/PreventionTreatmentofHeartAttack/Lifestyle-Changes_UCM_303934_Article.jsp

2. Cancer, The Big C, is a close second, taking 1 of every 7 of us. Eat organic, avoid irritants, injury, the sun, and the amazing number of products containing possible carcinogens.
http://cancer.about.com/od/causes/tp/topreventcancer.htm

3. Stroke gets 1 in 28. Note that stroke (blood not flowing) is different than heart disease (blood not pumping). Avoid long periods of not moving followed by sudden activity, keep regular aspirin on hand.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/stroke/preventing_stroke.htm

Which brings us to my personal favorite, which is UP this year from 5 to 4:

4. Motor-vehicle Accidents kills 1 out of every 85 of us. Think about that. If you love 85 people, one of them is going to die on the roads at some point. I personally know 2 people already who died in cars, but lucky for me, I didn't love either of them. The first spun out on "black" ice in a car going WAY too fast on a windy road in Oregon and was hit by a flat bed truck. They had just passed our school bus and all us kids got to see a good lesson on the consequences of unsafe driving. Jay was an ass, but it was still sad that he died. The second was my old bosses daughter... he was also an ass, but no one deserves to loose a daughter. Actually, technically, she wasn't killed; but brain dead is dead in my book. They held on to her body for a while before they unplugged her.

Airplanes kill 1 in 5,862, Lightning and earthquakes are down in the 1 in 100,000 range. Terrorism doesn't even make the list this year. It was in the 600,000's last time if I remember correctly.

One terrorist attack changed our laws, personal freedoms, and way of looking at the world forever. 9/11 killed less than 3,000 people. About 60,000 people die on the roads every single year. More than 40,000 per year on the freeways and then an unknown additional number on surface streets. And unlike heart attack, cancer, and stroke, cars kill young people more often than old.

Have any of us checked out any of these sites?
http://www.safercar.gov/
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/
http://www.nhtsa.gov/

You may notice a bias in those .gov websites: They concentrate on the behavior of the driver, and give second place to the safety of cars. Why? Industry pressure? Pocket Politicians? Perhaps; but I think the truth is more interesting: As cars become safer, drivers adapt and take greater risks, eliminating the life saving effect of the industry regulations. Don't agree? Ok, but read these before you decide:
http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/NASCAR/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#.22The_Peltzman_Effect.22

Guess what? Despite all the improvements in car safety since the '60s, the death rate has stayed within a percent of the current number! When it comes right down to it, the 4th biggest killer in our country is:

YOU (and me)

...when we drive.

Please consider these possibilities:

1. Try to find a job that allows you to telecommute or just work from home. It's green, it's frugal, it's safer. It took me 10 years of working on my boss to do it, but I finally got to telecommute, and he is as happy with it as I am.

2. On the freeway, don't bunch up with the other cars; find the empty space between the lemming packs and stay as far away from the other cars as you can. Leave more space in front and look for the "escape routes" you can aim for to avoid a collision. If someone tailgates, just speed up or move over if it's safe, otherwise tap your brakes three times; the goal is space, not enforcement or "teaching anyone a lesson".

3. Driving is a full occupation time. No talking, texting, eating, primping, dreaming, or raging. (yes, I know I'm a hypocrite) To help stay focused, make a game out of playing "what if" and thinking about your response to unexpected dangers. Be afraid every time you drive. You should be.

4. Mass transit is many times safer than individual commuting. Take a train, bus, etc... Even in California, it can be done. The extra walking is healthy.
http://maps.google.com/help/maps/transit/index.html

I'm preaching to myself as much as anyone else here... I hope we listen.

Fear of the Unknown, Authority, God, and other horrors and how Agnosticism helps with it all.

The premise of this presentation is that fear of the unknown is a powerfully damaging force in our world, and that the practice of agnosticism, practicing agnosticism, helps us deal with that fear in a positive way.

I am an unapologetic supporter of agnosticism over all other religious positions; I need nothing more. But in keeping with the UU idea that we can mix and match religious ideas to meet everyone’s needs; I would suggest that most would benefit from a healthy dose of agnostic candor.

Definitions

Ever since the tower of babble (apparently) as noted by Lewis Carroll, words only mean what each of us says they mean, so please allow me to define some words in my own way, and I beg you to remember and apply that definition for the course of this presentation:

· By "agnostic" I mean one who does not believe it is possible to know the unknowable, the supernatural, the mind of god. The agnostic says “there may or may not be a god, or anything else supernatural, I don’t know, I don’t claim to know, and I don’t see how anyone can claim to know but maybe they can: I’m not sure.” The goal of my practice of agnosticism is to become more comfortable with not knowing.

· By “atheist” I mean one who claims to know that there is no God. The atheist says: “All the available evidence points to there being no god at all, and so that is what I believe.”

· By “belief” I mean those things we hold true, but which are difficult to prove, and which guide our lives and actions.

When Beliefs go Bad.
Beliefs are scary. The land of belief is a dangerous place, where the unstoppable force of the unknown meets the immovable objectification of that which we believe. The actions of any person or group are driven by their beliefs. Hero or villain, whistle blower or corrupt leader, feminist or rapist, force of volunteers or angry lynch mob. In each case, they are doing the same thing: That which they believe to be the right thing to do. The most heinous actions ever taken, are in complete agreement with the beliefs of the people behind them.

Villains Are People Too
Few people take the time to understand the point of view of a villain, but they always have a point of view, and it is always one that is perfectly right to them. The manifesto of the unibomber is really worth reading; it makes a very solid argument against technology, if not for the remote killing of those who teach it. It is obvious that Ted Kaczynski truly believed he was doing his part to save the world. Hitler firmly believed that the world would be better off without Jews. They, in their own minds, believed they were doing the best possible work for all humanity. Their beliefs led them to become the horrors they were.

How Much Belief Can We Afford?
Of course, we need beliefs; we must do something and we can’t always know for sure just what to do, so we must follow our beliefs. And beliefs can lead people to do things every bit as wonderful as others are horrible. But in asking the question of which beliefs to follow, I think we may fall into the trap of seeing that as the only question when there is actually another question of even greater importance: How sure are we that any given belief is right? Yes, pick a belief, but also decide how strongly to believe it.

Under WHOS God?
I hear people say “there is only one god” and “you will have no other gods before god” or that their religion will overcome all others. Non-religious people may believe in a leader "Obama will save us" or a tradition which guides their daily life. Ok, fine, I’ve got no problem with people believing that they are right and others are wrong. I also believe that my beliefs are right, and differing beliefs are wrong: If I did not think that my beliefs where right, I would have changed my beliefs to the ones I thought are right and again, believed that I was right. Just like standards, the wonderful thing about beliefs is that there are so many to choose from. The problem comes with people holding their beliefs so strongly that they are unable to change them when reality shows them to be wrong.

Fact Over Belief

And I will not say that there is anything generally wrong with continuing to believe what we have believed, or what we are taught to believe, or what reason leads us to believe... but to cling to these when our experiences clearly show our beliefs to be wrong, in the face of conflicting fact... to hold to a belief based on the unknowable even in the face of what we see around us, this is truly frightening.

She Chose Her Belief Over Her Precious Baby

There is a girl, about 14, who is living with her Grandmother because her mother is dead. I’ve talked to both of them several times, and they have told me the story of this late mother. Before the mother died, the entire family disowned her, and her husband left her, and the grandmother would not take her back, because she came out as a bi-sexual. All of them, including her own mother, disowned the mother for being bi because her church told them to believe, and they had always believed, and it seemed to them reasonable to believe that bisexuality was evil. Now… this is a grandmother, faced with a choice between her religious beliefs, what she trusts that her pastor knows from the mind of god, and the daughter she raised from a baby. The grandmother was a stay at home mom; as a girl, the mother attended a school run by the church, and spent most all afternoons and evenings at home because she was shy and introverted. No mother could say she know her daughter less well than this grandmother knew her daughter. Yet she rejected the reality of the goodness of the person she had raised, in favor of the beliefs of her second hand knowledge of the unknowable mind of god. She looked at the evidence of her good upbringing, of her goodness and believed she was evil despite that.

What Will You Believe?
The idea of belief without evidence, in the face of evidence to the contrary scares the living crap out of me. If you are willing to believe in heaven and hell because your pastor tells you they exist, are you also willing to believe in WMD's because the President tells you they exist? If you are willing to believe the devil is real simply because the evangelist and your mommy warned you about him, are you willing to believe that, I don’t know… that I'm a child molester because a rumor spreads out of control?

Dale Akiki And Why I Don't Eat At Jack In The Box
Does the name Dale Akiki mean anything to you? Mr. Akiki was a simple man, a simple minded man, with a slight deformity which made him appear strange to others. He was a kind, loving, caring person, as are many uncomplicated people. He and his wife volunteered as babysitters at the Faith Chapel church in Spring Valley, CA. A rumor was started against him… and it grew… the former CEO of Jack in the Box, whose children attended, pressured the DA in office at that time to prosecute despite a complete lack of any physical evidence. It was just a funny story that a little boy told when his mommy asked him what they did in child care after his fist day with Mr. Akiki. After 2.5 years in jail and the longest trial in SD county history, 7.5 months, he was acquitted. His life was destroyed. The CEO of Jack in the Box went on to believe that his meat was just fine and he killed 8 customers. Food poising. He lost his job. The DA went on to believe he could buy a re-election. He lost his job too. Dale still loves people, kids, and his wife who stood with him through it all. He’s afraid to leave his home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Chapel_Church_ritual_abuse_case

Belief Conquers Fear
Why do people need to believe so strongly? Well, belief conquers fear. And our greatest fear is fear of the unknown. I certainly understand being afraid of the unknown. I’m scared to death of not knowing; will I keep my job? Will I be able to provide for my family? Will we find a way to keep our home? Not knowing is a mind bending fear.

Gods Plan
I hear people say: “I believe there is a god and god has a plan for me and if I follow that plan, everything will be all-right” and I don’t blame them at all for believing that. If it comforts, so be it.

The Mind Of God
But the tricky part comes from trying to follow gods plan. To follow the plan, you have to know it, and if god wrote the plan, then knowing the plan means knowing a little part of the mind of god. And I don’t see how anyone can claim to do that. More likely, those who claim to know the plan, are following a plan that someone else heard second hand from the mind of god, actually… a plan that was written down by some one a long time ago who says they talked to god. Ok, that’s fine, I don’t mind if they follow that plan. I’ve read it, it actually seems pretty good in most places (with a few notable exceptions^). But then they listen to people who interpret that plan, people who say god talked to them and I think about Joan of Arc.

Joan of Arc
Joan heard voices. They told her to do things. She thought it was the voice of god. Others believed her. They were desperate to hear from someone who had heard from god. They were desperate to know the plan. They were afraid of not knowing. They were pretty sure they, themselves didn’t know, but they were ready to believe that a simple peasant did know. Maybe she did know… maybe she was schizophrenic… but an entire nation followed her into 24 more years of bloody war.

I Don't Know
We live with a fear of letting go of the idea that we, or anyone else, can ever really know the mind of god, or how the universe completely works, or what will happen to us. From my point of view, Atheists are just as religious as all the others are because they claim to know there is no god. I understand how scary it is to admit that we simply don't know one way or the other. Those who claim to know, and yet cannot explain it to me in a way I can understand, are either deluded or far more intelligent and advanced than I am. Again, I have no way of knowing! Agnostics (again, my definition) have simply come to accept not knowing, but we understand that this isn't desirable or welcomed.

You Don't Know

I fear challenging others to admit they do not know. We challenge the knowledge of others in so many ways and that sometimes provokes hostile reactions. We challenge the people who "know" that the sign in the Huston shop window was about honoring a 9/11 hijaker.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/photos/martyr.asp

We challenge the people who "know" that climate change is absolutely caused by carbon emissions OR that it is absolutely NOT caused by carbon emissions. We challenge people who "know" what the RIGHT thing to do is. Most of all, we point out that it is the ultimate hubris for ANYONE to claim to know the mind of God. Asking people to give up the comfort of "knowing" the unknowable requires bravery.

Your Leaders Don't Know Either

I fear that people are unwilling to question authority because they (sometimes unreasonably) expect those leaders to know the unknowable when they do not. This unwillingness to question authority, due, we fear, to the misplaced belief that the leaders know "all", has lead to some of the most horrific episodes in human history. (Nazi officers "just following orders" while exterminating the jews, etc...).

Stanley Milgram Didn't Know (but people still killed for him)
The extreme willingness to follow leaders was studied by Stanley Milgram and documented in his book "Obedience to Authority". From his study, we learned, much to our shock and horror, that more than half of the people in society are perfectly willing to kill another human being when directed by an authority figure. I fear that this willingness to blindly follow is based in a fear of the unknown causing a dependence or expectation that others know better. If we could embrace the unknown, we may increase our ability to question the knowledge of others. When the fear of doing wrong is greater than the fear of not knowing, we can question authority.

Who Will We Kill For?

I fear that leaders constantly use the human fear of the unknown to bring society to the goals and benefit of those leaders at the cost of the society:

Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshal on trial at Nuremburg after WWII said:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country"

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Agnostics Are Used To The Unknown
Agnostics, although still scared to death of many other things, seem less affected by fear of the unknown. It often comes due to an unwillingness to reject logical thinking or to reason in advance of the facts; a determination to accept the obvious conclusions of a logical, reasoned approach to the world despite the fear that accompanies this form. Our acceptance of, and dependence on logic, of the value of clear and reasonable thought, forces us to deal with our fears. This is the scientific method, often claimed by the atheists, but which, at it’s best, is based on theories not absolutes; on correlations and probabilities never on claiming to know the unknowable. It is the deepest tenant of science than when the evidence fails to support the commonly held theory, and another theory is advanced which better fits the evidence, we change our minds.

Global Warming Is Probable, NOT Certain
Global warming is caused by human activity with a /probability/ of 85 % according to scientists. That means there is a 15% chance, in the IPCC’s own estimation, that it may NOT be caused by human activity. Of course, in this case, wouldn’t it be good to err on the side of caution? But let us not sweep away the pain of those who will be injured by radical changes in our use of fossile fuels; let us do those things we can which do not cause others great damage.

Oh, Whatever Should We Do?
I think there is a link between a peoples ability to accept matters on faith, without proof; as in religious beliefs and their desire to believe that something is in charge and that they can understand the will of that something. When it comes to climate issues, people are desperate to believe that someone understands this and can say with authority what should be done.

As an Agnostic, I have worked long and hard to accept the possibility of failure, of being wrong, of NOT knowing, of the universe being too complex for anyone to understand... It is the hight of hubris to assume any human knows the mind of God OR the workings of the universe.

Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons...

And when you don't know what effect you will have, I feel it best to err on the side of having very small effect. So that is all I'm willing to argue with regard to climate changes. The earth has trundled along for ages unknown without us so let us pretend we aren't here and hope it will continue that way.

Teach Thought Over Belief

I respect the right of everyone to find their own way, to choose their own beliefs. But I fear that remaining silent will lead our children to question the value of human thought vs human belief and to be unwilling to accept the idea of not knowing which may lead us to a future society that fails to question assumptions, to question leadership, or to think for its self.

Reason Over Bliss

It scared me that there has been a very positive reaction to the story of Jill Bolte Taylor, an agnostic and a brilliant scientist who studied the brain and then suffered a massive hemorrhage in her own brain. She now tours the world, saying that her brain damage allowed her to feel connected to the rest of the world, to feel interdependent, and that this point of view would lead to a peaceful future. I should be clear: I have no concern with what Ms. Taylor says, it is how her words are taken that concerns me. I’ve seen comments from people saying that they wish they could have a stroke in order to feel like she does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU (summary: Brilliant agnostic suffers brain damage and develops spirituality.) Show a frightening trend towards valuing a connection to the unknowable over even a fully functional brain.

Or Is Ignorance Bliss?
I fear that ignorance might be bliss... because I refuse to claim to know the unknowable.

How can we regulate companies when we can't regulate ourselves?

I completely fail to understand how anyone can say that corporations are not accountable to us… Every single dime they have, every bit of power they exert is given them by the sale of their products. We have complete control over corporations based on what products we choose to purchase. The only exception to that, corporate welfare, is a relatively minor source of income for them, but one that I agree should be cut off, if possible. Read about Farmer Percy to see how hard that will be.

The problem is one of educating the people, not of regulating the companies. WE need to be reformed… the companies will follow our dollars like puppies after mothers’ milk. If you want to talk about how to effectively re-train the poor spending habits Americans are exhibiting, I will be right there with you, but regulating the corporations is shifting the blame; unnecessary and ineffective.

The stated and obvious goal of every corporation is to turn a profit. As long as they can do that though immoral means, they will continue to do it. We have no hope of regulating morals in corporate actions except though our purchasing decisions. "As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it." Dick Cavett.

The cigarette companies ran wild until the public was educated effectively on the cost of smoking. Not by a little warning label introduced by regulation, but by a series of TV and billboard ads paid for by health care organizations that were being financially damaged by the costs of treating lung cancer. Remember those? The woman talking through her throat? The guy who killed his wife with second hand smoke? "Mind if I smoke? Care if I die?"

Those ads, and the backlash to Joe Camel, shifted public opinion and vastly reduced the power and influence of those companies. The more recent ads, paid for by the companies themselves due to regulation, have been FAR less effective; less hard hitting. If people stopped buying cigarettes, they would be gone, but as long as people want to use nicotine as a drug, and damage their lungs, who are we to tell them they can’t? Or to prevent a company from supplying them what they ask for?

In the same way, if people accept food grown NOT locally and organically but instead GMO, insecticide soaked, in factory farms, who are we to outlaw that?

If people want to purchase cheap shoes or clothing made by exploited workers under inhuman conditions, how can we change the morals of the producer, if we can’t even change the morals of the purchaser? Get people to watch this show:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/blood-sweat-tshirts/ if you want to make a difference.

A population of sheep must begat a government of wolves; and so too idiot consumers fuel exploitive corporations.

Another "Beautiful Mind": Nikola Tesla

Another "Beautiful Mind": The one man who invented our power grid, AC, generators, the electric motor, radio, remote control, neon signs, hydraulics, and so on. He controlled his tortured mind by force of will and used it to change our world in so many positive ways. Yet we remember his nemesis, Thomas Edison, who tortured animals trying to stop the AC power grid, and forget the real wizard: Nikola Tesla. The clip below is accurate, with one clarification: wireless power would be free in the sense that anyone could tap into it, not that it was "free energy". Worth a few minutes for those who want "the rest of the story"

Civilization Collapsed After Cutting Key Trees: Discovery News

Civilization Collapsed After Cutting Key Trees: Discovery News

Just like at Eater Island, the natives destroyed their ecosystem and perished from the face of the earth. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a small footprint on our Mother?

Yea! Our heath care is ranked #37 in the world

Having said that, all the health care reforms I've seen so far amount to corporate welfare or will certainly cause rate hikes. It's going to be yet another screwfest with the American Sheeple happily bending over and asking to be... plucked...

Romancing the Road

540,000 miles from one car, one owner. And they are both pretty cool! The owner is 89 and the car is a 1964 Mercury Comet. She aways gets lifetime warranty replacement parts (16 free batteries so far) and carries a pistol (licensed) for protection on the long trips. Really worth watching.

These are the people and cars that made America great. I guaranty this car has done less damage to the environment for all those miles of travel than the average Prius owner does today. Why? Because once it was built, it was never discarded. If you really want to help the earth, rescue an old classic from the junkyard and pay a local hard working mechanic to restore it.

Brains or... balls.

Just got this in an email from a friend. No idea if it is actually true, but I did verify that helmets were not mandatory in Hockey until 1979

The first testicular guard or "Cup" was used in Hockey in 1874 and the first helmet was used in 1974.

It took 100 years for men to realize that the brain is also important.

Of course, from a genetic point of view, the big head isn't as important as the little one... anyone who watched "The World According to Garp" knows that. LOL

Yes, I understand that undocumented immigration is illegal, please don't talk to me about until after you watch this.

A Minute Man (himself a legal immigrant) must live with a family of illegal immigrants in L.A. for 30 days. He also visits their old home in Mexico. That's all. No political discussions other than what he and the family talk about. No facts or figures other than how they live and what they earn.

I do not like the fact that these people come to the USA illegally. But is that the fault of the people, or the fault of the law?

Please don't try to answer that question or talk to me about this issue at all until after you have watched this short film.

Obama Drastically Scales Back Goals For America After Visiting Denny's

The solution to mysogany must include MEN.

I read a really interesting post while browsing for Joss Wheadon / Firefly stuff. The overlay post is about the girl who was stoned to death by her family for falling in love with a Suni. Joss posted a plea for action, and some of the following comments where made by women who obviously have issues (not that I blame them) with men. Then this guy came along:

http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271#176025

...the simple fact is, the issue of violence against women isn’t going to be settled unless male sexuality is respectfully included in the equation. Denigrating it out of hand, condemning it outright, using it as a tool of shame and disgrace, that isn’t going to work. I’ve read an awful lot from hurt women on this board, and my heart goes out to all of you. There is no doubt that you have to put up with a lot of crap, just for being women. And you don’t want to hear about the crap that men put up with, because in many cases you a) don’t think it’s valid, considering we’re the ones doing all of the oppressing and b) why should we complain because we’re at the top of the social and cultural heap. The fact that we have our own issues, values, concerns and desires is inconsequential to your equation,...
...
You’ll call me a misogynist (unfairly), a sexist (because you haven’t tried to listen), an apologist (because you think me and my life are indefensible) and worse. Go ahead. I’m used to it. I’ve been called all of those things since I was 7 years old, before I even knew what a penis was for. By the time I was 12, I knew for a fact that, despite my inability to have any kind of control over my own life, I was single-handedly responsible for all of the worlds ills from slavery to the Holocaust, and that I was incapable of doing anything else unless I was willing to surrender my testicles first – and even then, I still couldn’t ever really understand. By the time I was 18, being the “sensitive guy” I was told every woman wanted my entire life hadn’t panned out because despite the rhetoric, on a personal level those same “feminists” were passing up sensitive guys like spoiled meat in favor of the very macho idiots they claimed to despise.
...
According to all the proper polls, I’m the guy with the most power in the world, no matter how personally ineffectual and inconsequential I feel. I safely own guns for a variety of reasons, I play violent video games upon occasion, I like pornography, and I love sex in all of its manifestations. Doubtlessly, by now you have written me off as an “oppressor” based on my vital statistics. My point: Any solution of violence against women is going to have to have the support of me and my white male suburban peers, however distasteful you find me and my lifestyle.

I'm not saying I agree with that, but he hits a few nerves, and the logic of his final point seems inescapable to me. Men, and I mean MEN, need to be included in the solution, or killed off entirly.

Best advice I've heard in a long time...

If you hear that the world is ending and the Messiah has arrived, first plant a tree, and then see if the story is true.

Tortured, used, and discarded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103412.html

[Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi] became the unnamed source, according to Senate investigators, behind Bush administration claims in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda operatives.

...

The Defense Intelligence Agency and some analysts at the CIA had questioned the veracity of Libi's testimony, which was obtained after the prisoner was transferred to Egyptian custody for questioning by the CIA, according to Senate investigators.

...

When President George W. Bush ordered the 2006 transfer to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of high-value detainees previously held in CIA custody, Libi was pointedly missing. Human rights groups had long suspected that Libi was instead transferred to Libya, but the CIA had never confirmed where he was sent.

"I would speculate that he was missing because he was such an embarrassment to the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski, the head of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. "He was Exhibit A in the narrative that tortured confessions contributed to the massive intelligence failure that preceded the Iraq war."

...

The Libyan newspaper Oed reported Sunday that Libi was found dead in his cell after killing himself, but added that friends of the 46-year-old former preacher, who ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, questioned the alleged cause of death.

Tortured to justify an unnecessary war, then "dissappeared" when he became an embarrisment and now murdered... They must be getting worried!

The first thing I've heard about this financial crisis that has made any damn sense...

Top 10 Reasons why Same-Sex Marriage is "wrong"

Please note: If you are one of my friends, and this offends you, you either aren't that close a friend, or you are suffering from sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

Top 10 Reasons why Same-Sex Marriage is "wrong"

10) Same-Sex marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the Internet, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children, require both mom and dad to spend time equal time with kids rather than making the mom the primary care giver.

8 ) Same-Sex marriage is not supported by traditional religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we all, without exception, go to church on Sunday.

7) Obviously same-sex parents will raise gay or lesbian children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Same-sex couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if same-sex marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

4) Marriage shouldn't change now because it has never changed before; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

3) Legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets; this is entirely possible since dogs and cats have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.

2) Same-sex marriage will encourage people to be homosexual, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. If you are absolutely convinced that being homosexual is a choice, standing on the street corners protesting "gay" marriage and generally ensuring it is a topic on the news every day will certainly keep your kids from thinking about it or becoming curious as to why anyone would want to be anything other than straight.

And the number one reasons why same-sex Marriage is "wrong":

1) Being homosexual is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, medicine, and air conditioning.

~ Modified from the original, which is copyright Mana Bear on facebook

Violence, moral delimmas, and "The Watchmen"

Our local youth group leader suggested using "The Watchmen" as a "jumping off point" for the discussion of moral delimas. I was torn; thought about it a lot, and wrote the following:

---

As I continue to read reviews and hear from friends who have seen "The Watchmen", I become more and more concerned about the level of violence in the film. A number of people have been very concerned about the full frontal male nudity that appears repeatedly in the movie, but that doesn't really bother me too much; what does disturb me greatly are close-ups of someone's head repeatedly hacked with a hatchet, people exploding from the inside out, rape, etc... My coworker who loves horror flicks told me she was shocked by this movie.

I'm trying to find the time to go and browse a copy of the comic book version to see if it is any less disrespectful of human life, but my general understanding is that it is no better.

I've tried very hard to teach my children that violence is not acceptable. That any human who sees a violent act or a simulation of a violent act should be sickened by it. I am greatly concerned that our youth, through video games, movies, and "art" are becoming inured to the horror of violence. It continues to amaze me that parents, on the one hand allow their kids to play first person shooters, and on the other hand are shocked and horrified when a few of them follow the example and go "Columbine" on the world.

I've made exceptions in what movies I allow them to see, and those exceptions were meant to teach them that violence IS part of our REAL world. So I would not mind if they watched "Saving Private Ryan" or "Glory" or "Casualties of War" because they show what can and actually has happened at the hands of violent men. We watched "Master and Commander" together and didn't turn away when the cabin boy lost a limb and the decks were slick with blood. We watched "Georgia Rule" together and talked about rape and incest. I don't mind "CSI" or "Bones" because they show violent people being brought to justice, and the violence is presented in a shocking way that tends to make it even more unacceptable. "House" shows that blood and guts are a natural part of what is inside us.

The movies and video games I despise are those that make violence an accepted part of the story, or even go so far as to glorify it. "Saw #", ("Texas Chain" or otherwise), "Grand Theft Auto", etc... So many make violence the primary method of solving a problem, showing "heroic" men mowing down their opponents while glossing over the fact that those men helped to create the situation that made the violence necessary, or at the very least, were unable to find any better way to solve the problem. "Commando" was a perfect example: His daughter was kidnapped because of what he did for a living.

"First Blood" (the first Rambo movie) was an exception, because he did everything he could to avoid the violence while still protecting his freedom. Some of the old Chuck Norris films tried to present violence as the last resort. In "Burn Notice", the lead actively tries to solve problems with the lowest possible body count. "MacGyver" etc...

Having said all that, and I said it mostly to make sure you understand how I, as a veteran of foreign wars feel about violence in media, if you are sure that the benefit of pursuing "The Watchmen" as an example of morel dilemmas outweighs the damage of exposing Allie to that sort of unnecessary violence, then I will give my blessing to her seeing the movie and reading the comic. I have respect for your opinion, and a great appreciation of your efforts. As a man, I bow to the better record of your sex with regard to violence, although I think most of that is due to the men getting sent in to deal with the problem after everyone else has failed.

If you say it's worth doing, I will trust you with my daughter. I do not speak for my wife.

I wish you could find another "jumping off point." Perhaps something about the tradeoffs between dropping the nuke on Japan and letting the war play out conventionally? Or any of the many stories of ordering young men into a loosing battle to win a war? If it has to be violent, why not "Full Metal Jacket" or "Born on the 4th" or "Forrest Gump" or even a few episodes of "MASH" like the ones about Hawlkeye loosing his mind because the noisy chicken the woman smothered when the V.C. were passing the bus wasn't actually a chicken. There's a moral dilemma for you... All of us dead or just the one little... hatchling.

I hope you teach them well. I don't think I could take on that job.

My answer to "Afghanistan South" by Patrick J. Buchanan

A friend sent me the "Afghanistan South by Patrick J. Buchanan" email, which goes on about how our boarder with Mexico must be better patrolled to keep the drugs and drug cartels out and this was my response:


The solution to this is easy: Decriminalize drug production and sale. Production will move into the USA, and Mexican exports will become unprofitable for the cartels who will then fold up and go away.

Pour the funds currently used to police the boarder, chase drugs, and imprison drug users into drug use education, marketing campaigns against drugs, and the enforcement of driving or other critical activities while under the influence of ANYTHING. We should be telling our people that although drug production and use by adults is not illegal, there are very good reasons why they shouldn't use drugs, that drug use is uncool (like the anti-smoking ads) and that if they get caught high while doing anything of a critical nature, they will go to jail. That includes:
- Being the adult in charge of a minor while high
- Supplying drugs to a minor or allowing a minor to steal drugs from them.
- Driving or operating any machinery high
- Showing up for work high
- Applying for any sort of medical care while the after traces of any drug is present in your body. E.g. if you have lung cancer and THC in your hair, you don’t get treated unless you can pay for it. You pay the price or die. If you have rotting teeth and traces of meth, your dental program doesn’t cover the work.
- And so on.

On the other hand, if anyone wants put their responsibilities in good hands, lock themselves up in their bedroom, and go for a ride, that's just fine.

And most importantly, if you want to grow some pot or poppies or brew up some LSD and sell it that should absolutely, perfectly legal. In a location and with equipment to manage the explosion hazard, you should be able to make meth. The drug lords would shrivel up and wash away.

Actually, you don’t even have to decriminalize drug USE. You just have to allow us to produce it to meet the demand. The fact that I am not free to make and sell drugs is a major offense against the constitution of the USA in my opinion. Not that I would ever want to, but I am allowed to make and sell guns, booze, porn, and so on, and it is morally wrong and just plain stupid that I can’t make and sell drugs. The law that says I can’t has created this drug crisis as surly as if it had ordered the scum in Juarez to kill each other and us.

Fixing Congress

My friend Al says:

I don't have a blog for my various strange ideas, but you can post this if you like it.

Congress is out of touch. They are insulated from voters by the rich few who finance the campaigns. Here's a few ideas to get them back in touch.

* Take congress off the their health care package. Give them health care through Medicare (or make them buy their own on the open market). They don't get any more medical coverage after they lose their job (OK, they could qualify for COBRA).

* Take away the retirement program for congress and put them on social security. Right now, they don't pay into social security and they have their own retirement package.

* Put them on a pay for performance package. Their pay should be linked to the economic performance of the country. When the country runs a deficit, their pay gets cut. You could link it to GNP or some other indexes. They can then make choices knowing that the result will hit their wallet.

Three simple things that could really change the way congress works.