Another useless United Nations challenge

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/harming-environment-war-crime/?

Very interesting piece which ends up blaming the U.S. for damage to environment during wars because the 3 writers don't know how to do research. Just search and click on the various civil wars in Africa, like Sudan. I care more about the people who are killed and maimed. I know that forests, cities and farms were destroyed in Sudan, and rivers polluted, but the 2nd civil war killed over 2 million people. And then when the Christians and Muslims separated into north and south, the Christians began another civil war (tribal) among themselves. And there are still German bombs buried in France from WWI and WWII waiting to explode. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/seventy-years-world-war-two-thousands-tons-unexploded-bombs-germany-180957680/  Not good for the environment or people who had nothing to do with the conflicts.

The intent of the article is not to make war damage a crime (already a crime depending on the victor), but to point fingers at your country, the United States. A lot of this article is word salad--"scientists," "armed conflict" "biodiversity" a 5th Geneva Convention called 2 decades ago, yada yada. And it's not even a real article, it's built on a letter.

Is there anything sillier than UN pronouncements? "International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict" so why do the writers advocate making it a war crime to damage the environment? Oh--to make war illegal. That should do it.

"Ultimately, if harming the environment was a war crime, then most acts of modern warfare would essentially be forbidden. After all, there’s no way to drop a bomb without harming the ground it falls on."

The Tesla and the environment, guest blogger Michael Smith

“For what must be the millionth time, I just ended a discussion with a leftist acquaintance in a frustrating and disappointing manner.

There was a particular local situation, one of which we were in violent agreement that doing something was needed. The position my acquaintance was that while we agreed something needed to be done, every workable solution proposed was rejected with the position of "Something needs to be done, just not that."

Her proposed solution was the most unrealistic, unworkable and fairy tale action imaginable - but it made her feel good, so that was on what she based her support.

We ended a similar discussion last week when she asked me when I was going to get rid of my carbon emitting pickup.

Predictably, I replied "When I want a newer one."

I then asked her if she understood the ethical and environmental damage necessary to construct her Tesla - she, like many of her camp, drive these EV's around town thinking they are the leaders in saving the environment without realizing that the cobalt used in her car battery had a real chance of coming from a mine in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where child labor (as young as 4 years old) is exploited or that nickel mining and refining are especially dangerous to the environment, especially when you consider that a significant amount comes from countries significantly less concerned about the environment than the US. I also noted that the rare earth metals critical to battery production likely came from a strip mine in China where environmental protection doesn't even make the list of priorities.

I asked her if she knew that it was a near certainty the electricity she used was generated by fossil fuels as over 70% of Utah's electricity is generated by coal burning power plants and that even if it was wind generated, the carbon cost to construct and then decommission a windmill (they are burying the fiberglass blades in landfills) is far more than it saves over its operational life.

I told her about a study by the US Energy Information Agency that indicates widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide, when compared to the current internal combustion production (which produces about 1% of the pollution of the cars of the 1960's), will likely air pollution.

Yet she still rides the moral high horse because she chooses to ignore the total cost of her decisions. Apparently saving the planet means that you do things that make you feel good and you just can't be too concerned about what damage your feel-good emotions do "over there".

Most of this crap is just to make wealthy white suburbanites (who can afford such things) feel good about themselves without actually accomplishing a damn thing.

As Reagan said, "...they just know so much that isn't so."”

https://time.com/4939738/electric-cars-human-rights-congo/?

The 737 Max is grounded

The U.S. has joined many other countries in grounding the 737 Max jet after two crashes killing a total of 346 people in 5 months. I often wonder why some lives are worth more than others. Half a million people, mostly brown and black, are killed each year by malaria, by mosquitoes, which could be controlled with DDT until a vaccine is found or appropriate sanitation developed to fight insect resistance. But no. Rachel Carson who was not a scientist writes a book 56 years ago, Americans get excited about "saving the environment" and in turn cause more Africans to die than all the Atlantic slave trade. Millions more are crippled for life. And counting the other vector borne diseases including Chikungunya, Zika, Dengue, West Nile Virus, and Yellow Fever, the annual death toll is 700,000.

Even this puff piece by pbs shows the dire predictions made at the time by scientists have come true. Claiming that resistance is the problem, is in part a problem. What if they hadn't killed off millions in the 80s and 90s? Environmentalists/climate cults will block any new pesticides that are effective using the same excuses, in my opinion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/Rachel-carson-malaria-and-silent-spring/

Climate change caused by humans

Hurricanes, blizzards and fires—apparently the globe has never had them  before Europeans landed on the shores of North America, the land of a peaceful people who never did anything to disturb the fish, trees and buffalo. Not even when Ohio was buried under a glacier 8,000 years ago was there such weather according to the white man causes everything bad movement.  Now there’s an argument about whether environmental regulations are creating the hazards that cause this massive loss of life, homes and natural beauty.  I read yesterday that some students are finding safe spaces inside the Pepperdine University Library!  We can only pray for their safety since they weren’t evacuated in time.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pepperdine-shelter-20181113-story.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/winter-storm-northeast-slammed-with-early-snow-latest-weather-forecast-live-updates-2018-11-15/

The natural environment and the built environment don’t always play well together.  We have more damage from hurricanes because people are building in areas that have always had storms, but not necessarily air conditioning or this much wealth to create massive estates “with a view.” We have terrible fires on wooded and scrub land because there are regulations  written by well meaning people  that encourage these tinderbox areas.  We have blizzards in the northeast that cause massive pile ups and traffic jams because when it happened 200 years ago there wasn’t a 24/7 news cycle and no one had long commutes to work attempting to funnel thousands of people into New York or DC.

https://www.breitbart.com/local/2018/11/15/winter-storm-avery-leaves-5-dead-as-snow-blankets-northeast/

Don’t blame President Trump just because he tweeted about the damage some regulations create.  He doesn’t hate ALL regulations and Executive Orders. It’s just that our media have the attention span of a gnat.   It has been well known for years what over-regulatory zeal has done to our country.  When we travelled in Arizona, California and Idaho in 2003 we certainly heard about it—and it was very apparent then.  Thousands of acres were dead or tinder dry, and no one was allowed to remove the dead wood or have controlled burns.  Glacier Park in Montana was on fire and we could hardly breathe.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29738-california-fires-government-policies-not-global-warming

Here’s a list of the necessary laws, regulations, boards, ruling agencies etc. that were required for ONE development in California. The Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project is located on the Bridgeport Ranger District of the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest  in Mono County, California.

A roadless rule?  How helpful is that during a fire?

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended – The selected action is in compliance with the Clean Air Act, 1977 as amended.  All required permits will be secured to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. Pollutant emissions will be within state and federal standards.

The Great Basin Air Quality Control Board enforces compliance with the Clean Air Act. Burning permits are issued and administered by the GBAQCB Smoke production and management, as analyzed in the EA. 
 
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended - The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a federal statute that requires states and tribes to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33U.S.C. 466 et seq., Title I, Section 101). The project does not involve the filling, alteration, or modification of any waterway or riparian area

Consultation with Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) – Consultation with the interested Tribes of California and Nevada and consultation has been ongoing during project analysis and will continue through implementation. Other laws requiring consultation include: 
 
American Indian Treaty Rights – The proposed hazardous fuels treatments will not conflict with any known treaty provisions. 
 
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 Public Law 96-95 12USC 470 
 
Native American Graves & Repatriation Act of 1990 - Public Law 101-60125 USC 3001

  Endangered Species Act of 1973 - The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011) identified the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS) as the only endangered species that may occur in the analysis area. The analysis area contains a portion of the Twin Lakes herd unit and is adjacent to the Green Creek herd unit (USDI 2007a.) No SNBS have been documented in the Twin Lakes herd unit and no SNBS have been documented in the analysis area. 
 
Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) (59 Fed. Register 7629, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low income populations. This action will not result in unequal impacts on minority populations and low income population and complies with E.O. 12898. 
 
Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) and Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) – This action will not result in significant adverse impacts on wetlands or floodplains as they relate to protection of human health, safety, and welfare; preventing the loss of property values, and; maintaining natural systems. The goals of Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 will be met. All wetlands will be protected through design features which conform to Executive Order 11990. 
 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 – This action will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This project may result in an “unintentional take” of individuals during proposed activities; however, the project complies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Order #131 related to the applicability of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to federal agencies and requirements for permits for “take”. This project complies with Executive Order 13186 because the analysis meets agency obligations as defined under the January 16, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designed to complement Executive Order 13186. 
 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 - The Forest Service conducted an intensive cultural site survey of the project area. Results of the survey were documented in the Cultural Resource Report (see project record),. In a letter dated November 1, 2012, the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the no adverse effect to Historic Properties and potentially eligible resources determination. This action will not have any direct or indirect effects on historically significant sites if the design features incorporated into the selected action are followed. 
 
2001 Roadless Rule - When developing the treatment proposal in the Inventoried Roadless Areas of the project, the Forest Service followed the direction outlined in the August 18, 2008, memorandum from the Chief of the Forest Service. The project was also reviewed for consistency by the Regional Forester as per the direction from the Chief dated June 8, 2012. Documentation of the Regional Forester’s review for consistency is available in the project file.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/72379_FSPLT3_1424480.pdf

California has the highest poverty rate in the country!

I heard this on the radio today and couldn't believe it, but here it is in the Orange County Register.
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/09/25/california-leads-the-nation-in-poverty/

How can it be that a state which is (I've heard) the 5th largest economy in the world, that has the film and TV industry locked down, that has the tech businesses controlling our lives, that is a lovely tourist attraction both artificial and natural, that has a fabulous climate, gracious purple mountain majesty as well as the amber waves of grain, or at least broccoli and garlic fields, that has all the diversity of race and creed that we are always told is desirable. How? Why?

While the rest of the country is blossoming under President Trump, California is dead last in business expansion. Socialism on the cusp. Environmentalism and climate change hype run amuck. Regulations stifling business out the wazoo. And governor Moonbeam.

Victor Davis Hanson explains how this has happened incrementally.  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/20/mismanagement-in-california-means-heavy-price-for-/

The Church of Climate Change—a parody of Christianity

• The great pagan deity - Gaia
• The prophet/top bishop- Al Gore
• The lower ranked priests are from various science groups, not necessarily related to climate or environment
• Paid clergy have the keys to the kingdom and can translate and publish sacred scripture
• The liturgy contains sacred words repeated frequently like sustainable, liberal, progressive, consensus, diversity, multicultural, gender and pronoun free; sexist, racist, homophobe, transphobic, bigot
• The communion elements are organic, all-natural, free-range, local, gluten free with marijuana supplied if requested
• The chapels and cathedrals built from recycled materials powered by windmills, roofed with solar panels also  contain safe spaces and intersex bathrooms
• The vast internet sites which it owns publish witch hunts by trolls and tag along followers on Twitter and Facebook to compost the church’s enemies
• Heretics are identified, chastised and rejected, as "deniers" (or swamp of crazy) who can be condemned to hell or burned at the stake of public opinion if they don’t recant
• Courts of inquisition bully or imprison scientists and journalists through loss of government grants and access to research funds and peer-reviewed journals, closing down perceived heresies
• Demons bearing names like fossil fuel, fracking and plastic are cast out or flogged and exorcised 
• Weekly and monthly stewardship campaigns focus on redistribution, wealth transfer, tax the rich, eliminate the unborn, reduce the birth rate
• Sack-cloth-and-ashes (all natural, of course) promote the pessimism of impending doom
• Orthodoxy of revelation by high priests of unrelated social sciences cannot be challenged
• Ecclesiastical conformity is essential
• Grace through ritualistic practices like recycling, birth control is offered
• Earth Day, an annual holy day of reverential worship with time to reflect on Rachel Carson’s non-contributions to humanity is celebrated publicly and promoted in schools
• The annual church picnic is postponed because of heat, and called climate change. Too cold? It’s also called climate change. Rain? Never happened in the past.
• Guilt and condemnation of certain lifestyles, especially for white males, are preached and pushed
• Genuflections to sustainability are required
• Indulgences called carbon offsets are sold 
• Mission projects in third world countries fund human sacrifice by withholding DDT for brown and black people and supporting “women’s health” (aka abortion).  
•  

The new encyclical on the environment

“Some in the media are portraying the encyclical as if Pope Francis is a secular environmentalist, when in reality the encyclical is sharply critical of environmental ideologies that don’t recognize mankind’s unique place in creation,” said Jimmy Akin, senior apologist for Catholic Answers, the largest lay-run apostolate of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States.

Akin said the Catholic Church’s longstanding teaching on caring for the Earth is fundamentally different than the politically driven agendas of many activists.

“Some environmentalists look on humans as menaces to nature—as if all other life was meant to be here, but humans are interlopers,” he said. “But both Scripture and Pope Francis’s new encyclical view human beings in a positive light and recognize that they have a unique and special role as caretakers of God’s creation.”  Catholic Answers

Single use vs. multiple use plastic bags—Austin, TX

“Two years after the bag ban was implemented, the city asked the Austin Resource Recovery group to investigate its effectiveness. Their June 10 report, written by Aaron Waters, states that while the ban was successful in lowering the amount of single-use plastic bags made from high-density polyethylene in city landfills, it was actually worse for the environment overall.

“The amount of single use plastic bags has been reduced, both in count and by weight,” Waters states. “However, in their place, the larger 4 mil [4/1,000ths of an inch] bags have replaced them as the go to standard when the reusable bag is left at home. This reusable plastic bag, along with the paper bag, has a very high carbon footprint compared to the single use bag.”

The 4 mil reusable bags are often made from non-recycled low-density polyethylene and require more resources to manufacture than the single-use bags, Waters explained. Many of the heavier gauge 4 mil bags are also shipped from overseas, which increases their carbon footprint compared to the single-use bags.”

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/environmentalists-solution-makes-trash-problem-worse

Is the Pope green?

Much of what is in Pope Francis’ encyclical on environmental stewardship, Laudato Si’, poses a major challenge for free-market advocates, those of us who believe that capitalism is a powerful force for caring for the earth and lifting people out of poverty. But one of the most welcome lines is a call for honest, respectful discussion.

Francis warns against both extremes: on one end, “those who doggedly uphold the myth of progress and tell us that ecological problems will solve themselves simply with the application of new technology and without any need for ethical considerations or deep change.” And on the other end those who view men and women “as no more than a threat, jeopardizing the global ecosystem, and consequently the presence of human beings on the planet should be reduced.”

He continues:

He gave a strong pro-life message, one the left doesn’t want to hear.

When rivers catch on fire

On Wednesday at Lakeside, John Hartig told us about rivers that catch on fire--the Cuyahoga, Buffalo, Rouge and Chicago. The Chicago River caught on fire so often it was a tourist attraction in the 19th century. The only one I'd heard about was the Cuyahoga since it happened in 1969. But what surprised me was he said there were no photos of this fire--it was not considered unusual at the time, and the photos usually shown to illustrate it are from a fire in the 1950s. Can you imagine that happening today--there'd be so many phone photos and videos of it there would be no problem documenting it. http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/priorities/article.php?x=264

It is wonderful to see the recovery of these 4 rivers, and learn about the people, sometimes just one, who stepped up to save them. However, as lovely as the wetlands, parks, birds and fishing areas are that have replaced the factories, they will never create the jobs and middle class wealth that the much maligned industrial era did.

We can’t blame Obama for this one

“Beginning January 1, 2014, the federal government will ban the use of 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs. The light bulb has become a symbol in the fight for consumer freedom and against unnecessary governmental interference into the lives of the American people.”

Although we know from other power grabs and 20+ changes he’s personally made in the PPACA law, he could have stopped this.  The “energy efficient” bulbs are made in China in coal fired factories, belching black smoke.

"A subsidised and enforced worldwide replacement of unprofitable patent-expired simple, cheap, well known, safe, and easily locally made bright broad spectrum light bulbs in an odd coalition between global capitalist manufacturing executives, left-leaning governments, and environmental organizations." http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/11/deception-behind-ban.html

On being green

I’ve seen this a few times on the internet and thought it was worth another look. I have no attribution.

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the 'green thing' in its day.

Back then, 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.

But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings.

Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then.

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.

But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.

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 . In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. 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.

But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

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. 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.

But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

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 in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing." We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?

Please forward this on to another old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person...

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off...especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.

What do wealthy Democrats in Congress do to ensure the rest of the country won't get what they have?

                         

1) Pass environmental regulations that stifle smaller businesses so their own corporations and businesses will pull ahead;

2) keep the poor out of their neighborhoods with set backs, parks, and required green spaces which adds thousands to the cost of building or maintaining a home;

3) Vote for burdensome tax regulations with loop holes only they can qualify for, engorging the tax code;

4) stifle all economic growth stemming from fossil fuels, so they can invest in alternative fuels with contracts from the government (like the railroad barons did to kill the shipping industry of canal owners in the 19th century);

5) foist government, single payer health care on the masses, but not for federal workers, and they'll pay cash for what they need even if they have to fly to a foreign country to get it;

6) look for ways to undermine marriage and religion, the two wealth builders that helped their families get ahead, so they won't have any competition;

7) provide as much “free stuff” as possible to lure voters to ensure they will stay in office;

8) hire private security guards with guns for the protection of their homes and families;

9) send their children to private schools while denying the same right to lower income parents who want charter schools;

10)  lie and blame, and when it doesn’t work, lie some more.

Sustainability and Stewardship are not synonyms!

Stewardship is a Biblical and spiritual principle--God created the world, he is the owner and appointed man to be a manager of his creation, a job for which he must give an accounting (Luke 12:42; 16:2; I Cor. 4:2). There are numerous Biblical stories about responsible servants and house/estate managers. The concept of stewardship affirms that God retains his sovereignty and that his creation is good and applies in all areas of life.

Sustain as a verb (to prop up, to maintain, to cause to continue, to endure) has a very different connotation than steward (to manage, to supervise, to control). In English, a very flexible, innovative language, you can make a verb into a noun by adding suffixes such as -ship or -ability or -ment. However, sustainability is not in my Webster's 2nd International (1948) nor my Webster's Collegiate 9th (1983)--so it developed sometime after the first Earth Day (1970), our most recent return to pagan goddess worship.

In contrast to God's revealed "creation is good" in Genesis, other religions treat the material world as bad and dark, always in conflict with the light, and it's up to humans to either rise above it through altered states (meditation), or redeem it.

In my opinion, as an ethical concept sustainability is an unruly teenage noun dressed in the latest fad fashion with tattoos and nose rings, chasing and teasing the much older and wiser noun, stewardship. It's an orphan who reports to no higher power, certainly not to our Father God, a newcomer who loves to hang out in pagan temples with secular and mystical spiritual leaders.

Think of it this way if the above is too esoteric. If you have a pension, do you want it to endure and run on the lowest level of maintenance, flat lining on life support with infusions from all cultures and governments around the globe, or do you want it to thrive with sound management and control in a market economy guided by the God of the Bible?

Don't ask me to "go green"

Going "green?" Newsletters, reports, directories, etc. suggest "going green" and saving the organization money. Pinecrest in Mt. Morris, IL was the most recent to suggest it. No thanks. A church or organization directory on line is useless as far as I'm concerned. Where will I write their cell phone # or the date I sent a card? I like to take the Pinecrest newsletter or the Ohio Historical Society newsletter or the TIAA-CREF newsletter to the coffee shop or the coffee table and take a closer look. I still think UALC made a HUGE mistake by discontinuing mailing its newsletter, even if it is available on-line. It's amazing what I see that I don't if it comes up on a screen for 20 seconds as I go through e-mail. Besides, my husband doesn't do e-mail. I know, some day it will probably not even be an option, but until then, I want to support the Post Office.

And if you're planning to e-mail your Christmas letter this year, go ahead, but it probably won't be read.

The End of Green Ideology

"President Barack Obama’s administration has thrown billions of dollars at wind, solar, ethanol, and other alternative-energy resources. Now the Fukushima tragedy is being used to justify continuing these economically dubious programs. We can bet that none of these alternative energies will easily replace oil, gas, and nuclear power in the foreseeable future.

At market prices, without public subsidies, a unit of energy produced by solar or wind in the US costs five times more than a unit produced by oil, gas, or nuclear plants. Moreover, supporters of alternative energies systematically downplay their negative environmental impact. A wind turbine requires 50 tons of steel and half a square mile of ground space. If California were to rely on solar power for its electricity consumption, the entire state would have to be covered with photovoltaic cells."

The End of Green Ideology by Guy Sorman - Project Syndicate

Weasel words and phrases to watch for--because they are meaningless

WAGE INEQUALITY doesn’t mean poor, doesn’t mean rich. It means a high school student working at Panera’s in a part time job makes less than a computer programmer with a college degree working for Bill Gates. It means Bill Gates makes more than the President of the United States. Wage inequality is an inflammatory phrase, however, so think about it the next time you hear it. It also means that a 2 income household generally has more money than a one income or no income household receiving government assistance, which shouldn't be rocket science.

FOOD INSECURITY doesn’t mean hunger or starvation, and especially doesn’t mean too few calories. It means that some time during the last week, month or year, a person or head of household wasn’t sure where tomorrow’s meals were coming from. Could be one day until the social security check arrived, or the support payment from the ex-, or perhaps a tornado blew through town and you have no kitchen, pantry or paycheck and the bank is gone, too. Think about that term when you hear about 14% of the nation being “food insecure.”

FOOD STAMPS don’t exist anymore; The program is now called SNAP and they don‘t use stamps, but a plastic debit-like card. Regardless of the name, they were never intended to feed families, only to supplement the resources a family already had. So if some wise guy asks you if you could live on food stamps, say NO, because that’s not the intention. The USDA began this program in the 1940s to assist farmers--there were surpluses after WWII. Now the USDA is about food subsidies, not farm subsidies, and it is also about changing behavior which costs more and is more complicated, requiring many more staff which is where a lot of the money goes. The government has about 26 food programs spread across six different federal agencies.

A LIVING WAGE begs the question whose life, what wage and living where? In 1983 when I worked for JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act which replaced CETA) I was told a living wage was $10.50 an hour in order to live minimally in Washington DC (it would have been middle class for Columbus). Not even college grads were making that 28 years ago in most cases. But that’s what the workshop presenters wanted in government entitlements--housing, child care, food, education--for welfare mothers. If a stay-at-home mom goes back to work waiting tables at lunch when the kids go to college, should she be paid “a living wage?” Listen carefully when you hear a speaker demand a “living wage” for the poor. Does he mean your babysitter, which would put you out of work? Door to door Bible salesman, which means you couldn‘t afford it? The school teacher today earns more per hour than an accountant or architect. 10 years out of college making $70,000 for 10 months with a guaranteed pension at age 55 with a union to protect her. Or how about your congressman?

ACCESS used to mean a wheel chair ramp into a restaurant or public building. Not anymore. Now it is folded into anything someone of a minority or different culture might have in their original homeland. And that includes food at public institutions or schools and no pork in government feeding programs. It might mean no gluten or peanut butter for you kid even if he's not allergic. It also means having farmer’s markets in poor neighborhoods, a long, long way from the truck farmer. It means making the low income people experimental subjects for every cockamamie sociology and nutrition program your local college or university can dream up. “Eat it, it’s good for you. Because I said so.”

SUSTAINABILITY is the all-purpose, go-to word when “green” or “tree-hugger” or “renewable” sounds too crass or over done. It’s meaningless when you think about it. Agriculture, whether industrial type farms or organic plots or your backyard, requires huge inputs--seeds, fertilizers, water, labor, and technology. Boondoggles like growing corn for ethanol were found wanting 30 years ago, but agriculture lobbyists keep at it. Fields were planted right up to roads creating run off and destroying wild animal habitat leaving birds with no home which then required more pesticides. Thousands of acres of corn changed the moisture content in the air which created storms in neighboring counties and states. Trucking the corn to storage kept huge vehicles running day and night polluting the air. Trees and animals are actually renewable resources, and petroleum is decayed vegetable matter with stored energy waiting to be used, but don’t confuse an environmentalist with science. They’re looking for religion. Oh yes, is there anything uglier than a wind farm?

Environmental Citizenship goal seems to be global citizenship

English 597.03 / Geography 597.03 at The Ohio State University:
Get past the jargon, and you’ll see the point of the course is to convince brains of mush young students that they are citizens of the globe (i.e., not of a nation or territory) and to qualify OSU for more federal grant money.

It began innocently in 2009 as a campus "conversation," but will extend much further: “In response to President Gee’s signing of the University President’s Climate Commitment [Scarlet, Gray and Green] last April (2008), the [Humanities] Institute initiated a campus-wide conversation about environmental citizenship, drawing together faculty, staff and students interested in advancing the discussion of sustainability and environmental values at the university. The initiative seeks broad-based involvement [and probably federal grant money] aimed at raising environmental awareness and embedding concepts and practices more deeply in the fabric of university life.”

Since it’s tough to get natural resources, energy, architecture, biology, and agriculture into an English curriculum, just merge English (reading and writing) into geography.

English 597.03 / Geography 597.03 offers students an opportunity to reflect on the skills and knowledge needed to act responsibly as environmental citizens. We will focus on "reading" and "writing" the environment (i.e., learning, on the one hand, how to interpret the physical, social, and cultural forces that shape environments, and on the other hand, various ways of playing an active role in shaping environments).

English/Geography 597.03 will involve reading and student-led discussion, weekly "lab" sessions (e.g., film screenings, guest speakers, field trips), and a group-authored Green Paper.

We will highlight change over time, including past relations of culture and environment, present issues, and possible futures—in other words, we will strive to place the present moment in historical perspective. We'll also focus on variation and linkages across space, tying local issues into
progressively larger contexts. The course will be explicitly iinterdisciplinary, examining concepts from the natural science (e.g., natural history; cycles of matter and energy; land forms and climate dynamics), social sciences (e.g., patterns of human impacts on nature, social relations that shaped human impacts, and possible future directions), and the arts and humanities (e.g., cultural conceptions of nature, relationship between conceptions and actions, the role of representation in shaping environments and our relationships to them). The course will also explicitly acknowledge the expertise and experience of environmental actors beyond academia such as environmental organizations.

Students will write a “Credo” (define environmental citizenship in your own terms, reflect on experiences that have shaped your attitudes toward environmental citizenship and your knowledge of environmental issues, and evaluate how you enact your own conception of environmental citizenship) and a “green paper” (put forward propositions for discussion and debate, outline options available for addressing an environmental issue of their choosing, the background information needed to evaluate those options, and the values relevant to choosing among those options).

Bolivia : Law of the Rights of Mother Earth

Or you could call it, "Let's pass more laws against capitalism and all first world countries." Ley de Derechos de La Madre Tierra, Law of the Rights of Mother Earth.

Bolivia is set to pass the world's first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth, now agreed by politicians and grassroots social groups, redefines the country's rich mineral deposits as "blessings" and is expected to lead to radical new conservation and social measures to reduce pollution and control industry.

The country, which has been pilloried by the US and Britain in the UN climate talks for demanding steep carbon emission cuts, will establish 11 new rights for nature. They include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered

Bolivia enshrines natural world's rights with equal status for Mother Earth | Environment | The Guardian

The ubiquitous plastic water bottle

Today I was browsing through some events at CUNY and came across a very boring (only watched a few minutes) panel discussing. . . well, something. . . "Malcolm Gladwell, Jerilyn Perine and Robert Hammond join Graduate Center's John Mollenkopf to discuss NYC's High Line and its impact on urban innovation." What was really odd, besides the chairs and low table which appeared to be uncomfortable no matter the size and weight of the speakers, was that there were 7 bottles of water for 4 speakers. Environmentally insensitive, don't you think?

What I was really looking for was the tax funding for CUNY (couldn't find it). How much of the $4,000+ tuition and fees comes from the tax payers of NY and how much from the rest of us (through federal grants, loans, etc. both for students and buildings). How many tax dollars go to support that Left Forum (a gathering of Communists and Socialists formerly titled Socialist Scholars Conference) being sponsored by the Department of Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue,New York, NY 10016.

The topics of Left Forum this year include federal green jobs programs and communist goals; lots of anti-capitalism panels; united left front against the right (that will include tea party groups); links with humanist groups; using art and theater for protest projects; U.S. leftists in Africa; using anarchy to move the cause along; state terrorism in Gaza (I assume they mean Israel); building a left movement in higher education (apparently they haven't checked recently--this has been achieved); lots of topics on race (and being anti-white), islamophobia, etc. Nothing on the oppression of women or homophobia under Sharia law that I noticed.

I also learned by reading this panel promotion that using the word "gimpy" or "gimp" is perfectly OK when referring to the physically disabled--although not if you are able-bodied. I suppose it falls into that "nappy headed" hole whereby black rap groups can use it, but not white talking heads.