EcoCurious

Dogs for America!

2011-12-26T10:34:00.008-07:00

Simon, world's pickiest pup when it comes to treats, loves these made-in-America delights!

It dawned on me, as I was reordering these Carlson Morgan dog treats, that I shouldn't keep this product a secret. My dogs absolutely love these treats, above and beyond even the over-priced bully sticks. And this 32 oz container lasts a really long time. I buy bulk at about $10.50 per container.

Simon's the little guy on the bottom of the heap.
Lucy's on top.

These treats are healthy - grain free, made without added sugar or salt, no preservatives. But they also have something else going for them - they're made in America. Better for the environment because the product travels shorter distances to reach you, it's also become a necessity following reports of contaminated imported food products. I spend a lot of time turning treat bags over to see whether the product is from China.

The kids also love Pampered Pets Peanut Butter and Honey treats. These are also made in America (in a Chicago bakery!), are oat based, contain no wheat or corn, and very healthy. Although we pretty much stick with the Peanut Butter because I can get it at Costco for $35 for two five pound bags, Pampered Pets makes a variety of other flavors. Beware, I've seen these repackaged into small, airtight containers, and sold for much more money.

Lucy is a peanut butter fiend!

And, for those of you, like me, who are forced by circumstance to follow your dog around with a (biocompostable) doggie bag, I've noticed that some treats are easier on my pups' systems than others. The "kids" have had no problems with either Carlson Morgan's or Pampered Pets treats.

And since I mentioned it, let me also recommend Bio Buddy, fully compostable doggie bags. Don't be fooled by so-called biodegradable bags that degrade into teeny, tiny microscopic pieces of plastic. Bio-compostable bags are vegetable-based plastics that compost just like any other vegetable. You can find Bio Buddy bags here: http://bio-buddy.com/

Best gift for the person who has everything...

2011-12-24T15:47:00.000-07:00

The person who has everything is also a person whose consumption patterns are depleting the earth's resources. The perfect gift for an over-consumer is a donation to Carbon Fund, to offset their carbon use. Click here to be taken to Carbon Fund's easy-peasy online donation application, where you can arrange for an off-set gift - and maybe some enlightenment - for all your well-heeled pals.

EU refuses to be held to a climate deal unless U.S., China & others are too

2011-12-13T01:54:00.000-07:00

by Andrew Light

DURBAN — The expected end game of the international climate talks in Durban is shaping up to be a fierce stand off.

A showdown has emerged between the EU and other parties over their conditions for agreeing to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The first commitment period will expire in 2012. If it is not renewed the fate of the instruments that support the world’s fragile carbon market is uncertain.

Japan, Russia and Canada have all signaled that they are unwilling to continue with a second commitment of binding emission cuts for the treaty leaving only the EU ready to move forward.

But the conditions the EU has asked for at this meeting to preserve the Kyoto Protocol are steep. In exchange for their commitment they expect everyone else – in particular the other large greenhouse gas emitters like the U.S., China, and India – to begin a roadmap for a process that will create a binding agreement on reducing emissions later in the decade. What we now know as the “mandate” debate has pulled everyone into a discussion over the fate of the Kyoto Protocol — including the U.S., which is not a party to it.

While the fate of U.S. emissions is not bound to the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, the fate of many of the most important achievements of the Obama administration in this forum are now tied to Kyoto through the mandate debate. Included in this list are the institutions that were created out of last year’s meeting in Cancun – such as the Green Climate Fund (tasked with mobilizing a large chunk of the promised $100 billion a year in climate financing by 2020) and the Clean Technology Center and Network – as well as progress they have made on pushing for a more rigorous system of transparency for measuring, reporting, and verifying (MRV) promises for emission reductions.

The dominoes could fall like this: If the U.S. and other parties say no to the EU demand for a mandate on a process of a new binding agreement, then the EU could in turn say no to a re-commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

If the EU passes on the Kyoto Protocol, then the G77 (representing most developing countries at this meeting) — which has been adamant in their insistence this year that the extension of the Kyoto Protocol was absolutely critical to them — could walk away. And if that happens then all parts of the climate architecture moving through this process could come to a halt. The result would be that the final negotiating text that has been worked out here on the Green Climate Fund, the Clean Technology Center, and MRV could be left abandoned with no possibility of approving it before the parties go home. We’d have to wait another year until these valuable institutions were potentially picked up again and made a reality.

With this much at stake, why would parties say no to the EU’s demands? The key is the insistence that the outcome of the new roadmap to emerge from this meeting end in a “legally binding” agreement. The EU wants some assurance that they will not be the only countries bound by an international regime to reduce their emissions. Currently, all other parties that have registered emission reduction targets have only done so through their official submission to the Copenhagen Accord in January 2010 — which is not legally binding.

The EU is also concerned about the math and physics of the matter. If they are the only party to continue with the Kyoto Protocol then only 15 percent of global emissions will be bound under an international treaty. On the other hand, the combined pledges from the Copenhagen Accord cover countries representing over 80 percent of global emissions. If we’re going to get an agreement that binds everyone to a common set of rules and standards aimed at limiting temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, then a greater percentage of global emissions needs to be covered under a new instrument.

But so far there is little indication that the US, China, India and several other parties like the idea of signing onto this package. While no serious objections have been voiced about authorizing a roadmap to come out of this meeting that will continue work on a new agreement in a stipulated amount of time, parties disagree on the idea of agreeing ahead of time to a legally binding outcome for this process.

This week several parties, such as the U.S. and India, expressed reservations that they can enter into a process that guarantees an agreement a legally binding outcome when they don’t yet know what the content of the agreement would be. The U.S. has also repeatedly demanded for an all-inclusive binding target in order to craft a workable climate agreement. According to our lead climate negotiator Todd Stern, the U.S. is not necessarily opposed to a legally binding outcome, but rather to an outcome that, like the Kyoto Protocol, is binding only to some parties and not to others — regardless of the size, scale, and growth of their emissions.

The EU has been lock-step behind Connie Hedegaard, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, who claimed in a press conference on Wednesday that parties who don’t commit to binding actions take on an “unbearable responsibility.”

But the insistence that parties agree on a process to create a legally binding outcome does not mean that those parties entering into negotiations have to say yes to anything that this process produces.

In an exclusive interview with Climate Progress, EU lead climate negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger explained that the EU was after something more akin to a couple getting engaged. If two people get engaged, then they aim for a particular legally binding outcome. As a process of achieving that outcome, they embark on a list of things to do – picking a date, a location, an invitation list, etc. – over a discrete period of time. But as everyone knows, an engagement, even a good engagement, is not necessarily a successful engagement.

Engagements can even end at the altar.

Similarly, Runge-Metzger acknowledged that if parties agreed to a roadmap leading to a legally binding agreement they can pull out if it takes a turn to something they don’t want. The U.S. has been clear that it will not tolerate an agreement that once again leaves China in the position of not having legally binding emission cuts while developed countries do. If the U.S. agrees to the EU’s proposal for a roadmap toward a legally binding outcome, and it loses the fight during the creation of a new instrument somewhere along the way to ensure that the agreement is reciprocal, then it can drop out of the process.

Nonetheless, many parties are still wary of signing on to the EU process. Right now, throughout the ICC, negotiators are hard at work trying to find the sweet spot between the preferred language for the outcome of a new negotiating process preferred by the EU and language and something that can garner more support.

This afternoon a new text was introduced from the South African hosts of the meeting floating a compromise. Instead of initiating a process that leads to a legally binding commitment it would “launch a process in order to develop a legal framework applicable to all under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change after 2020.”

Unfortunately, reports on the floor were that the EU would reject this language and it was changed just a few hours later at 1:00am to "launch a process to develop a Protocol or another legal instrument." The reasons the EU might reject substituting "legally binding" for something else are certainly not without merit from the perspective of their aims in initiating this process. After all, the current Kyoto Protocol is a legal instrument, that China has signed onto, but it does not bind China legally under an international process of scrutiny, review, and enforcement to report or reduce its emissions. Similarly, the original treaty that created the UNFCCC is a legal framework, ratified by the U.S. Senate, but it does not require the U.S. or anyone else to reduce emissions.

As negotiators go back in to meeting rooms late into the night and try to hammer out a new compromise on the EU roadmap, the U.S. should aim to broker a deal to get to “yes.” The stakes are far too high not to.

As long as the U.S. is absolutely clear on its conditions for signing onto a legally binding deal down the road, it can sign onto a roadmap for a legally binding instrument with fair warning to all parties that if conditions are not met the engagement will be off. Some will worry that this could be the U.S. in Kyoto all over again.

In the run up to Kyoto, the U.S. worked hard to create a climate treaty. But the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 months prior to Kyoto not to even consider ratifying a treaty that divided the world into two categories, requiring emission reductions for developed parties and not for developing parties — regardless of the size, scale, and trajectory of their emissions. Since the U.S. worked so hard to shape that treaty it was a huge disappointment, and a blow to our international credibility to have to bow out of the process.

But this time around is not like Kyoto. The U.S. has been perfectly clear the last three years that we will not accept a non-reciprocal, non-conditional agreement on emissions reductions from developing countries. If our conditions are not met, then we do not have to sign on to the final product (just as any party can do if their conditions are not met). On the other hand, if our conditions are clear then we can work toward an outcome that would make for an agreement that would pick up where the Kyoto Protocol and the Cancun Agreements will leave us off in 2020.

And if we don’t make a deal, and this meeting ends without an outcome, the Obama administration risks losing everything it has worked for over the last several years and the progress that has been made which, though unsatisfying to many, nonetheless gives us critical means for moving forward.

After all, whether the EU gets its way or not, the outcome over the mandate debate will not ensure that another ton of carbon gets reduced from the world’s overall emissions during this decade. At best, the process the EU has proposed would lead to an agreement that would require reductions in emissions after 2020 given the time it will take to finalize a treaty and enter it into force.

On the other hand, the Green Climate Fund is the only measure that could overcome the twin “gigaton gaps” that exist from the pledges made so far out of the Copenhagen Accord. As the Center for American Progress argued in a report published last year it is the key instrument for mobilizing the finance needed to increase the ambition of parties under the Copenhagen Accord as well as a critical means to provide directed financing to closing the gap between those pledges and a path by 2020 that gives us a chance of stabilizing at 2 degrees Celsius.

If this meeting collapses over the mandate debate then we risk the postponement, and worse, the abandonment of this effort. It is not clear when we will get a chance again to put all the major carbon emitters on the road to a common effort.

Andrew Light is Associate Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at George Mason University and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC.

Just say "No" to rBGH.

2011-10-23T10:17:00.001-07:00

"What would you do if I killed your rBGH story?" he asked. What he really wanted to know was whether we would tell anyone the real reason why he was killing the story. In other words, would we leak details of the pressure from Monsanto that led to a coverup of what the station had already ballyhooed as important health information every customer should know?

This really stinks.

Please read this story by Jane Akres on PR Watch. Or watch the video below.

It's about Monsanto's successful campaign to have a report about the strong links between cancer - particularly breast cancer - and rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) shelved, despite a tough fight by the journalists who put the report together. rBGH is used in about half of all dairy cattle in the U.S., and research correlates its use to cancer.

According to Wikipedia, the United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone. Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier. Read about rBGH and its health implications here.

Monsanto won this round, meaning women are the big losers.

Since that point, Monsanto sold the vaccine to a subdivision of Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company.

And please, insist on the label, "No rBGH," on all your dairy products.

Oh, the Cognitive Dissonance

2011-09-14T00:03:00.001-07:00

AT&T is about to roll out plant-based packaging, according to an article in Environmental Manager. The plastic is composed of up to 30 percent sugarcane-based ethanol plastic.

Yay!

On the other hand, I receive nearly daily emails from CREDO, a cell phone company that markets to politically progressive cell phone users by donating part of the profits of the service to politically progressive causes. Their sales pitch contrasts CREDO's use of profits against two of its competitors, AT&T and Verizon. AT&T, CREDO tells us, gave $426,000 to House and Senate Tea Party Caucus members, and Verizon gave $48,000.

What's an EcoGirl to do?

Good Guide - Great Idea

2011-08-25T02:20:00.003-07:00

I'm so impressed with the new tool bar tool that gives you information about products you're considering buying online for their sustainability value - and by sustainability, I mean the three legged stool of economic, social and environmental impacts. Right now, it only works on Amazon.com, but I spent over $200 on Amazon over the last few weeks buying supplements and toiletries. I wish I'd known about this first.

Here's a pic of Colgate Total. I knew it would be bad, because I just learned about the whole triclosan thing not too long ago. Still, check this out. I got to create a filter based on my own levels of concern. My filter is in the lower left-hand corner. Then, look at the "Health" assessment for Colgate Total - there are two other assessments, environment and society, that I could not capture in the screen shot. You can see that triclosan violates my "critical" concern filter, while there are other chemicals that have a lesser level of concern.

Wow oh wow oh wow! What a GREAT product. I'm still trying to figure out how they plan to make money on this free application... I'm sure they have a business model, and I'm all for their success.

There is also a mobile app. I'm so totally in. I spend way too much time trying to figure out which are my best environmental choices. It's such a relief to have GoodGuide's team of experts doing all the legwork for me. And no doubt, far more effectively.

This makes shopping so transparent, so easily. Watch the video below and then click this sentence to head over to GoodGuide and download your app now.

Just do this!

Bag the Box

2011-08-22T18:23:00.002-07:00

Ok, so this is an ad for Malt-o-Meal. Still, they've got something here. I hope this goes viral and Kellogg's, General Mills, and all the others get the bright idea.

So Much Demand, So Little Time

2011-08-20T23:06:00.000-07:00

A competition hosted by visualizing.org resulted in this winning graphic by Jacob Houtman. The interactive map demonstrates the relative ecological footprint of the world's countries.

To get the full play of this map, go to the website, at http://www.visualizing.org/html5/13801. There is also a description of the competition and a discussion about ecological footprint here, www.visualizing.org/stories/visualizing-value-nature.

I'd Rather Fight Than Switch

2011-08-20T13:24:00.001-07:00

Triclosan.

It's job is to kill germs.

But... it apparently moonlights as an endocrine disruptor. So far, at least, we know it does in small animals.

Most of us come in contact with triclosan every single day, repeatedly, in our toothpaste, in our hand soaps, our cleaning supplies, and other products. In fact, it's so prevalent, according to this New York Times article by Andrew Martin, that it shows up in the urine of 75 percent of every American over five years old!

Add to this the increase in popularity of anti-bacterial products. Over the past decade or so, it seems like every new kitchen and soap formula has a germ killing agent. And along with the possibility of messing with our hormones, the prevalence of antibiotics means that bacteria will morph into antibiotic-resistant killer superbugs. Like C.diff and MRSA. And if we all have antibacterials in our systems, how does that effect the efficacy of antibiotics when we need to take them?

The FDA says it doesn't have enough data to make a recommendation one way or the other.

So, when is not having enough data the same thing as knowing triclosan is safe?

That's what the chemical companies want you to believe. Shades of the tobacco cancer wars.

WHAT'S IN YOUR TUNA CAN?

2011-08-16T11:45:00.002-07:00

Is she in your tuna can?

An AlterNet article by Casson Trenor on tuna fishing practices is a must read. Several species are being sacrificed to provide us with tuna at $1-2 per can.

To cut to the chase, look for this information when you buy canned tuna:

(1) When shopping for "light" tuna, buy pole-and-line or FAD-free seined skipjack.

FADs are devices placed in the ocean to draw small fish, which draw larger fish, and so on. Eventually an entire ecosystem forms around a FAD, an ecosystem that is wiped out when the tuna trawlers come to cash in. Among other unfortunate results, several highly endangered species get caught up in these FAD raids.

(2) When shopping for "white" tuna, buy pole-and-line albacore.

The alternative to pole-and-line is something called "long line" fishing, which uses a net spread wide across sections of the ocean. Yes, you guessed it. Long lines, like FADs, catch up many fish besides the intended catch in their death sweep.

(3) Tuna should be caught in managed waters. Buy tuna from companies that refuse to fish in the high seas pockets.

Fishermen who do not wish to abide by fishing restrictions park their operations in waters outside of international boundaries. What they do, and the havoc they wreak isn't even documented. Let's not support these practices.

(4) Buy tuna from companies that support the PNA.

The PNA is a pact of "Parties to the Nauru Agreement." It turns out that large companies, including, according to the author, Thai Union, the company that owns the American Chicken of the Sea brand, and other companies, are basically ransacking the waters of small countries that are tuna-rich but have no other source of industry. The PNA includes a "number of tuna-rich but cash-poor Pacific island states have banded together in an effort to take charge of their fisheries and to keep the tuna pirates out of their watery backyards."

PRINCE OF WALES PICKS UP THE GORE BATON

2011-07-26T18:51:00.000-07:00

The Prince of Wales wants to use his position to sway public opinion on the environment. Yay! This is just a trailer. I'll see if I can find the entire movie.

Harmony Movie Trailer from Balcony Films on Vimeo.

EXPOSED: Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products

2011-07-26T00:59:00.000-07:00

Third in the series of book reviews by my Urban Environmental Policy students at UMKC, "EXPOSED: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products" is reviewed here by Wesley Fahsenfeld. This book is not what you'd think. It's more of an expose on the international politics of safe chemistry rather than an expose about what's in all your household products. If you're looking for politics, read on. If you want to read about toxins in your household products, click here and here instead.

INTRODUCTION

The book that I chose to review is titled, “Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday products and What’s at Stake for American Power”, by Mark Shapiro. This book is essentially a ‘wake up call’ for US consumers regarding the dramatic shift that has taken place in the legislation and regulation of toxic chemicals in consumer products. Traditionally, as in the 1960’s-1980’s, the US has been the leader in global environmental standards, however, today this power has shifted drastically towards the new and improved European Union. Shapiro provides a contrasting comparison between EU standards and the US’s standards regarding chemicals found in everyday consumer products in relation to greater environmental policy. Shapiro makes the case that US is falling far behind in regulating toxic chemicals in consumer products, and we as consumers will face the consequences. Building upon this risk, Shapiro shows how not only does this shift in environmental leadership put our citizens at risk, it also will undermine the US’s ability to remain on top of the commercialized global economy.

IMPORTANT POINTS

The EU’s rising power is known as “soft power.” This refers to Europe’s newfound collective influence that is derived from its large market and aspiring characteristics of moral leadership.

The EU is now the largest and most influential marketplace in the world and its combined economic output from its membership countries now outpaces that of the US.

The EU follows a close application of the Precautionary Principle, and the US seeks for firm evidence before legislating certain ingredients out of consumer products.

The EU has removed all potential toxins (CMR’s: carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins) from cosmetic products, whereas the US has not done so.

The EU removed all Phthalates from toy products in 1999 because of research that indicated a potential for harming the development of the hormonal and sexual development process of young boys. The US has chosen not to eliminate these chemicals because research has not proven a direct connection to developmental problems in young children.

The differences in the approaches to environmental regulation puts EU manufacturers in a better position to service the global marketplace as compared to US manufacturers.

The US is now officially following the EU on environmental regulation. A perfect example of this is the POPS treaty (Persistent Organic Pollutants; ex; DDT) in which the US followed the EU and many other developing countries to ratify the treaty.

The US needs stricter government intervention in order to keep pace with the EU. Even after George W. Bush signed the POPS treaty the justice department immediately suspended the legislation because it violated the separation of powers act of the constitution.

China, the new leader in global manufacturing is following the EU on environmental legislation not the US.

China has chosen to mirror their chemical review laws based off of the EU’s legislation known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals), and not the US’s outdated version known as TSCA (Toxic Substances Control ACT of 1976).

The consequence of the US’s lost leadership role on environmental regulation puts the US economy at the mercy of legislation that it has no role in determining.

CRITIQUE

Overall I think that this book is valuable because it shows how the global environmental leadership position of the US has drastically changed and is now spearheaded by the EU. What makes this interesting for readers is that Shapiro uses examples from all over the consumer products industries to show which chemicals are regulated out of products in the EU and not the US. Shapiro does a good job of showing how the US is no longer leading environmental regulations while simultaneously praising the EU for their efforts. What this book fails to mention is the critically important differences that the two governing bodies possess. Shapiro routinely compares the EU against the US as if they are “apples to apples” comparables. I would contend that they are not.

One example of this that sticks out to me is on pages 70-71. Here Shapiro uses the example of the POPS treaty to show how the US has lost touch with EU on environmental leadership. After President Bush signed the treaty in 2001, Shapiro says, “Assistant Attorney General William Moschella issued an opinion that ratifying the POPS would create an international process for restricting chemicals, to which the United States would be bound, compelling action by the executive branch (Via the EPA) and by congress (via the legal changes required by congress to keep the United States in compliance) that would violate the separation of powers clause of the Constitution” (69). This is an example among many where the differences in the governing bodies of the EU and the US are far different. The US is far less centrally controlled, by design, and the EU is a political union that by its existence has been formed by severing nations giving up independent power to a central body that creates rules and regulations that apply to 27 + member nations. The fact that US legally cannot sign treaty that would create a process where further chemicals or additives could later be restricted without congressional approval is contrary to the governing process for which the United States was designed. This should not be considered a black eye, but only a stark difference for which our country goes about regulation versus the EU.

This example is a well supported theme throughout the book and while it does point to strict differences, the differences are in the design of the government and not necessarily a lack of desire to improve and protect our environment. In Shapiro’s favor, it is clear that he sides with a European approach where the Precautionary Principle is strictly adhered to. In this circumstance, Shapiro is correct to conclude that the US is lagging behind based off of the information that he presented in the book. The US is more hesitant to restrict chemicals because of their toxicity at certain levels. In the eye’s of the US, just because one chemical can be dangerous at higher levels does not mean it is dangerous in minute levels. This difference is evident in an analogy presented by a representative from Proctor and Gamble that Shapiro shares on P. 30, “’imagine, he said, ‘you encounter a tiger in the wild, and then you encounter another tiger behind its protective enclosure in a zoo.’ The wild tiger, he said, ‘is inherently dangerous.’ Get close enough, and it can kill you.’ Put that tiger behind bars in a zoo, however, and that tiger ‘is not dangerous at all.’…’it’s the same thing in [cosmetic] products,’ he said, ‘there may be inherent toxicity to a particular chemical, but if you use it under certain conditions the exposure is minimal and they present no risk.’ This distinction lies at the core of the disagreement between the two continents in determining chemical safety.” 30). When Shaprio points to these distinctions between the US and EU he does a poor job of describing why the EU’s approach is better than the US’s. He simply uses these examples to show that the US is not as quick to regulate out chemicals, and because of that, he determines that the US is failing in environmental regulation. I wish he would provide more evidence as to why the EU’s approach is better suited than the US’s.

Another area that Shapiro could have done a better job supporting, is when he claims that the US’ less strict regulations put companies and manufacturers at a disability to serve the European markets. Shapiro claims that because the US’ regulations do not include chemicals that are banned in the EU, US manufacturers can’t serve the EU’s vast marketplace. This assumption is short sighted and assumes that just because US manufacturers don’t have to produce a product in a certain way doesn’t mean that they will. US manufacturers who wish to serve the EU market can produce to the EU standards just the same.

In the end, Shapiro does a good job of showing how the leadership position of the US has dissolved and paved the way for the EU to spearhead global environmental regulation. I think that there are a few areas that Shapiro could have done a better job but overall his narrative is well supported. I think that the main thing that I take away from this book, is not a fear of the toxicity of products that I can buy in US, but rather the risk that is inherent to the US’ lack of leadership on environmental regulation and how it can ultimately subject our nation to a variety of initiatives that we have no role in developing. This essentially equates a lack of leadership on environmental standards to a loss of control in the global marketplace which is a threat worth mitigating in my opinion.

EXAMPLES

The comparison between the US and EU is an extremely important aspect of this book and Shapiro’s narrative. Without an introduction, Shapiro uses the first chapter, titled “Soft Power, Hard Edge,” to introduce the position that the EU has on the global environmental policy front. It is important to understand this first paragraph’s title to get a feel for the way the Shapiro views the EU in his comparisons to the US:

- “Political Scientists call Europe’s form of influence “soft power,” exerted not through military might but through the lure of its vast market and from less tangible qualities of moral leadership. But there’s a hard edge the EU’s soft power. That edge was discovered with a jolt by Microsoft, which was fined close to a billion dollars for violating European principles of fair competition in its marketing of computer software; by General Electric, which had its proposed merger with Honeywell blocked because of similar anti-competitiveness concerns; and by Philip Morris, which agreed to a one billion dollar fine to settle allegations of tobacco smuggling and evading taxes. These were warning shots, showing that changing European standards of competition and corporate fraud were no longer a matter of quaint differences of perspective, but had the teeth of enforcement behind them. Now some of those teeth are being put behind environmental protection.” (16).

It is important to know the significance of the EU in the global economy. It is also helpful to understand the implications of the European marketplace for US companies participating in the global economy:

- “Forty to sixty percent of Procter & Gamble’s $56 billion in yearly sales is to overseas markets, according to Long, the largest of which is Europe. The major cosmetic companies—Revlon, Estee Lauder, and other brand-name enterprises—also rely on the European and other overseas markets for a significant portion of their yearly sales. For the cosmetics industry overall, much of their product line is not subject to U.S. regulations at all.” (31).

This is a good example from the book where Shapiro uses the POPS treaty and countries in which have ratified the treaty to show how the US is not only behind the EU but also other countries that were typically seen to be far behind the US. In this example, Mexico proposed to add a chemical, Lindane, to the banned chemicals list in the POPS treaty:

- “Mexico’s move on lindane revealed how dramatically the global politics around chemicals have changed. When Weir and I wrote our book, we described Mexico as one of the primary markets for pesticides like chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, and indeed, lindane. Today, it is the United States that is the market for a chemical that is banned in Mexico. The ironies around lindane abound, and offer a snapshot into how profoundly the United States has lost its former position of environmental leadership.” (75)

Something that is also important to know is a brief discussion by Shapiro regarding chemicals and their effect on the human body. This is important in the discussion between the EU’s precautionary approach versus the US ‘smoking gun,’ or evidence based approach:

- “The fears now, of scientists like Caserta and others, are the effects that may be seen over time from extremely low doses, measured in parts per million or even parts per billion. This signifies a dramatic shift in the science of toxicology, which has traditionally assessed chemical risk on the basis of volume: the higher the quantity of potentially dangerous chemical, the higher the risk. Recent evidence suggests an unexpected twist in this assessment: some chemicals may have an effect only at low doses, while higher doses may trigger receptors to shut down, or trigger an immune reaction that is not triggered by the far more common low-dose exposures.” (130)

In Shapiro’s discussion on the implications of the US’s lack of leadership, this is a good example that shows the power of the global economy and how the US is potentially missing out:

- “While the United States retreats, the EU’s tougher approach to environmental protection is rippling into the supply chains of the global economy. ‘The ground is changing,’ commented Daryl Ditz of the Center for International Environmental Law, which works globally on behalf of environmental reform. ‘It’s happening through all these micro-decisions made by companies in countries most American’s don’t pay attention to.’ At the same time, new axis of power are emerging, independent of any of the superpowers. As I researched this book, a major trade deal was struck between India, Brazil, and South Africa that sent billions of dollars in commerce into motion across the hemispheres that detours the EU, U.S., and China.” (177).

Shapiro, Mark, “Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products, Who’s at Risk and What’s at Stake for American Power,” Chelsea Green, 2007

2011-07-25T13:27:00.000-07:00

Icy Ocean

A recent Scientific American article says long buried pollutants are being re-mobilized as arctic ice melts. Apparently, cold has kept pollutants generated by our grandparents' generation and later banned for their toxicity under water.

According to scientists at the Barcelona, Spain-based Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research and at Environment Canada's Air Quality Division, arctic warming is causing the release. Warmer temperatures cause chemicals to partially evaporate, and become airborne.

Monitors at three locations around the globe demonstrate recent increases of these chemicals, despite the fact that they are no longer manufactured, and the remaining existing stores are minimal and accounted for. To read more - the exact chemicals, where it's showing up, at what concentrations, click here.

This just adds to the wealth of warming evidence.

I wish I understood why certain people are so adamant that climate change isn't happening, in the face of more and more mounting evidence like this rolling in. My excellent facebook friend, Cathy Wiken, is one such person. I'd like to see inside these nay-sayers' minds. Really.

If you're a doubting Thomas, here are some other links you might want to check out.

Climate Change: Real or Hoax?

Won't Temperatures be Warmer Ever

Climate Chorus

MOST WALKABLE CITIES

2011-07-25T12:03:00.000-07:00

Boston - 3rd on the Walkable Cities List

WalkScore.com has released its annual ranking of the country's most walkable cities. Two rankings are available - Walk Score's rankings based on a proximity inventory of walkable amenities - and a second reader ranking. The reader ranking changes as readers vote, so get your two cents' worth in.

Walk Score ranks New York and San Francisco first and second respectively, while readers put Seattle at the top of the list. Below are the top ten for both Walk Score and Readers Score. However, it's a lot of fun to go directly to the site, click here. At the website, click on any city for a walking map and discussion of the community, or plug in your own home or work address to the search bar at the top of the page to find near by walkable amenities. To see Walk Score's ranking methodology, click here.

Click this picture to enlarge.

What's an Urban Food Desert?

2011-07-24T11:37:00.001-07:00

My friend, teacher and mentor, Robyne Stevenson Turner, is committed to improving the urban inner city at every level - with her research and through her personal lifestyle choices. She recently wrote a piece about lack of access to food markets. Although she's focused on Kansas City, this is a problem in urban Phoenix and probably every other city in the country. Obviously, groceries are a necessity for all of us who don't raise our own vittles. Yet the grocery business is just that - a business - and grocers, like other businesses, tend to site their stores where they like the demographics, where the streets are safer. Inner city doesn't get its share, and that means residents have less availability, fewer food choices, more hunger and health issues, more travel cost involved in pursuing food, etc.

Here is the opening:

"A food desert is more than just the absence of grocery stores. Like a sand desert, there are oasis of food in urban places if you know where to look. But is the oasis real or a mirage? Peeling back the layers, you begin to see that a desert that at first looks like a liability is in fact an economic opportunity that can change the health and well-being of residents of the urban core."

Link here to read Robyne's piece.

Dumping In Dixie

2011-07-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

"Dumping in Dixie" is the second in a series of book reviews by the students in my summer Urban Environmental Policy class. This book is an older book, but an important contribution to our understanding of environmental justice issues. Reviewed by Ty'lsha Moore.

INTRODUCTION

The author Robert Bullard of Dumping in Dixie studied five communities: Houston’s Northwood Manor (Texas), West Dallas (Texas), Institute (West Virginia), Emelle – Sumter County (Alabama), and Alsen (Louisiana) each community is located in America’s southern states. The study examines how community attitudes and socioeconomic characteristics influence activism and mobilization strategies of black residents who are confronted with the threat of environmental stressors (Bullard, 2000). He documented the cause for stress which dealt with hazardous dumping in the five communities. The problems included risks from a secondary lead smelter, chemical manufacturing plant, hazardous waste disposal facilities (landfill and incinerator), and a municipal landfill (Bullard, 2000).

Mr. Bullard examined the population of blacks and other minorities with hazardous waste in their communities compared to communities with predominantly white populations. He found that in each state that he conducted the survey the population of blacks hovered close to 30% but the communities that hosted the hazardous dump sites consisted of at least 90% of the black or minority population in the state. The book further describes the efforts of the black communities to fight against the hazardous dumping sites. In most cases he was able to trace the environmental movement in these communities to the civil rights movement. He further illustrates that the churches in the community were catalyst in getting people organized to fight against environmental injustice.

The penalties inflicted on these communities included failing health, mistrust in government leaders, unanswered promises of good paying jobs and a decline in overall well being. It must be stated that although the book focuses on race and class disparity many of the heroes were community leaders who stood up for their rights despite lacking adequate means to advance their cause. Environmental action groups that were fully established often aided the community action groups in pursuing opportunities to remove the dumps from their communities.

The book confronts America’s historical and present racial and class injustice. At the same time the book advocates that although the communities were not always capable of acting alone – the significant point is that they organized themselves to evoke change in their communities.

IMPORTANT POINTS

Civil Rights movement shaped the environmental justice movement in the black community

All of the communities adopted an action strategy that involved protests, government and private legal action, petitions and press lobbying (Bullard, 2000)

Identifies how companies framed their presence as an economic opportunity but in fact most of the residents within the community did not work for the company that posed the environmental threat

Many of the action strategies alerted the government and other nationally recognized environmental groups about the injustice occurring in the communities

Hazardous dumping does not pose the question of whether it will affect residents within a community rather the question is when it will affect residents within a community

Relaxed legislation and government’s neglect to enforce policy halts ability to obtain justice in matters affecting environmental concerns

Although the statistics showed that the dumping caused major health concerns and affected the natural landscape surrounding the companies, residents and even government leaders did not see the injustice as environmental injustice

Environmental racism is real; it is not merely an invention of wild eyed sociologists or radical environmental activists. It is just as real as the racism found in the housing industry, educational institutions, the employment arena and judicial system (Bullard, 2000)

A national environmental justice framework is needed to begin addressing environmental inequities that result from procedural, geographic, and social imbalances (Bullard, 2000)

CRITIQUE

I think the book is useful and its strength lies in the design implemented by the author. He did not just write a book that whined about environmental injustice. He presented a delicately composed piece of literature that provides evidence about what is occurring in the poorest communities in America. The author presented a thoughtful analysis of what is occurring in black and minority communities related to environmental injustice. He carefully guided the reader through the successful contributions that black organizations and minority groups have made to create a better social climate for minorities. He defines the problem and the terms that he uses throughout the book so the readers is capable of digesting the horrible truth that he is presenting. He moves the reader to his study by defining his hypothesis and explaining the tools he used to gather data. Finally, the author presents his findings regarding data collection and presents his conclusion. He allows the statistics and survey data to reinforce his position that there is a disproportionate effect of environmental injustice in the minority community.

My only involvement in environmental policy has been during this summer semester. The issues presented this summer are very new to me. This book further highlighted the material presented in class and basically I didn’t find a shortcoming while reading the book. The information was evidence based; the data was in the book. He showed how he came to his conclusions about environmental injustice in minority communities. He also took it a step further by engaging the reader in steps that should and could be taken to further the cause for environmental justice.

STORIES FROM THE BOOK

More than 15 years ago, a wealthy white property owner next to Rollins (hazardous waste dumping site in Alsen, LA) received a half million dollar settlement from the company for the death of his cattle after water spilled onto his pasture. Yet Rollins has failed to recognize it is harming people, not cows, in Alsen (black population 98.9%) (Bullard, 2000)

It is time for people to stop asking the question, “Do minorities care about their environment?” The evidence is clear and irrefutable that white middle class communities do not have a monopoly on environmental concern (Bullard, 2000)

It is ironic that many of the residents who were fighting the construction of the waste facility had moved to Northwood Manor in an effort to escape landfills in their former Houston neighborhoods (Bullard, 2000)

Growing empirical evidence shows that toxic waste dumps, municipal landfills, garbage incinerators, and similar noxious facilities are not randomly scattered across the American landscape. The siting process has resulted in minority neighborhoods (regardless of class) carrying a greater burden of localized costs than either affluent or poor white neighborhoods (Bullard, 2000)

Work Cited: Bullard, Robert D. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO. Westview Press, 2000 (234).

Climate Change Begins At Home

2011-07-22T20:52:00.000-07:00

This summer I'm teaching Urban Environmental Policy at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. Some of my students gave me permission to share book reviews they've produced. I'm excited to offer you an easy-to-consume digest of some of the latest environmental books. The first review is by Hishashi Kunimoto on David Reay's "Climate Change Begins at Home."

INTRO

This book discusses what life will be like in 2050 if we don't start reducing carbon emissions and gives a lot of practical ways that each and every person can put into practice with small lifestyle changes to reduce the C02 emission by looking at the life of the fictional Carbone Family living in England. The average family, like the Carbone family, puts an average of 39 tons of green house gas into the atmosphere per year. The Kyoto Protocol set a reduction of participating countries of 5.2 % but scientists recommend a 60% cut to prevent the disasters that are going to occur if we don't do something.

IMPORTANT POINTS

The following are cuts that we, as individuals can make, and how much would be cut in emissions if we took these simple steps. Starting from the largest area to the smallest.

Transport (20.5 tons/yr)
* Smaller engine (75% savings of 20.5 tons/yr)
* Dual fuel car (20 - 30% savings)
* Hybrid car (20 -40% savings)
* Biofuel cars (100 % savings)
* Driving habits including driving 5 miles/hr slower, keep your tires at optimal inflation, drive with your windows open, take local holidays and walk or ride your bicycle if you have to go less than 2 miles. (50% savings)

Household (13 tons/yr)
* Eating habits (30% savings of 13 tons/yr)
* Efficiency appliances (10 - 20% savings)
* Standby power (5 - 10 % savings)
* Efficient lighting (5 - 10 % savings)
* Better insulation (40% savings)

Food (4.5 Tons/yr)
* Buy locally (90% savings of the 4.5 tons/yr)
* Less meat and dairy (30% savings)
* Fewer shopping trips (5 -10 % savings)
* Food delivery (5 - 10 % savings)
* Home grown (100% savings)

Waste (1 ton/yr)
* Reduce (70% savings of the 1 ton/yr)
* Reuse (30% savings)
* Recycle (30% savings)
* Compost (50% savings)
* Home grown (100% savings)

Office electricity (100 tons/yr) Specific savings are not given as each office varies in size, office equipment,etc.
* Lights
* Office equipment - stand by lights
* Cooling, heating and ventilation

CRITIQUE

This is a very well written book with many practical ways to cut down on CO2 emissions. It is written at the level that anyone could understand and I would recommend that it becomes required reading in High Schools. It is not all doom and gloom. But It is very matter of fact and comes to the point that if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions the earth will still be around but it gives many examples of what life will be like if we don't do these things in 2050. In fact, my family and I have started putting many of his suggestions into practice. We turned the temperature up 2 degrees in our house. We are unplugging the standby lights when not　needed, driving 5 miles/hr slower and are eating less beef as it is good for lowering cholesterol too. My wife says she is buying foods with less energy costs attached and has started composting.

Where this book falls short is the fact that it is not out there on everyone's reader list. This is the first time I have heard about it and yet I think it is one of the most comprehensive books on what people should be doing. I think if it was out there more we really would be able to reach the 60% cut backs that scientists　recommend. Perhaps, if Reay had included in $ amounts how much money would be saved for each cut back made, this book would be as popular as say "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". One example he mentioned was that we could actually use our tank of gas one week longer if we drove 5 miles per hour slower. He didn't say how much we could actually save in dollar amounts and my guess is that people would be more interested in how the reductions save money than how they reduce carbon emissions as people do not yet realize how carbon emissions hit them directly. Reay does try to deal with this issue but explains that people usually take their savings and buy more with it. I don't think he gives people enough credit. With the new awareness he is bringing to everyone I think that people would consider things more before they made more purchases. FYI, my family has saved about $30 in our energy bill and about $5 in gas over 2 months. The $35 will go towards my daughter's college fund and maybe she will study the environment.

STORIES FROM THE BOOK

The discussion of the Carbone family sounds like a typical family whether in England or in the United States and really hits home with anyone who reads the book.

   "As the Carbone's worry about global warming has grown they have become increasingly keen to "do their bit" to prevent it.  They have separated their bottles, tins, and newspapers from the rest of their household trash. They have replaced their light bulbs with energy efficiency ones, and are always on at the boys for leaving lights, TVs, and computers on. They feel they do what they can for the environment and would describe their lifestyle as 'really quite green'. "

So what help are the Carbone' s various actions in mitigating climate change? The blunt answer is: not much. Their weekly car trips to the supermarket produce more green house gas than all that saved by their efforts to recycle and cut energy wastage."

Reay goes on to explain why they don't do more. He explains that people are reluctant to make real change because it would require a real change of lifestyle like "getting rid of their gas guzzling SUV" and the current "apocalypses" are happening too far away from them. Once things get closer to home, people will start to do something, but by then it will be too late. Most people think that the government and or scientists will come up with something but we can't wait for them. "The buck stops with us".

Reay goes into really frightening things that have already started in motion and that will hit each and everyone of us where it hurts, right in our own back yards. How many of us have already started complaining about the strange weather, bugs, illnesses, increase in asthma related issues? It is already hitting us. As in the information above in a bulleted outline of the book’s important points he goes over how many emissions we make in our daily lives and how much we can actually cut back with simple changes in our lifestyles.

GreenCityBlueLake http://www.gcbl.org

Reay, Dave, "Climate Change Begins At Home," Macmillan, Houndmills, 2005, 2006

ScienceDaily, "Worst Offenders For Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Top 20 US Counties Identified",
(Apr. 17, 2008)   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416175442.htm

The Cleveland Carbon Fund  http://www.clevelandcarbonfund.org/about/

A LECTURE TO PROLONG YOUR LIFE

2011-07-11T01:27:00.000-07:00

I recently read this astonishing - and tragic - fact: Due to complications of obesity, the generation now being born will be the first generation that won't outlive its parents.

I am thus moved to repeat the publication of a video I blogged about once before by one Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco.

The first time I ran across it, I wondered if I had the stamina to sit through an hour-plus lecture. However, as the lecture progressed, all other thoughts flew as Dr. Lustig brought the complex science of nutrition into sharp focus, pointing out the exact mechanisms in the body by which the processed American diet is killing us.

In particular, Dr. Lustig points an accusatory finger at fructose, and explains its domino effect on our health in simple, understandable, but undeniably frightening terms. Fructose is a particular type of sugar, derived generally from fruit. Our bodies deal with fructose differently - and in a way that creates more harm - than glucose, another common sugar. Unfortunately, because fructose is "from fruit," people tend to assume it's healthy and "natural." Not so.

I found the following brief summary by Dr. Mercola of part of Dr. Lustig's lecture, on the impact of fructose just on weight gain:

"Fructose converts to activated glycerol (g-3-p), which is directly used to turn free fatty acids (FFAs) into triglycerides that get stored as fat. The more g-3-p you have, the more fat you store. Glucose does not do this. When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose, however, results in 40 calories being stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!

The metabolism of fructose by your liver creates a long list of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout.

Glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain's communication with leptin, resulting in overeating." (summary by Dr. Mercola, here.)

The first time I watched the video, I passed it along to my friend Ray Jagoda, and urged him to put in the time in front of the tube. I heard back within a few days. Ray said he and his au pair spent an hour going through all the foods in their fridge and cupboards, and were astonished at how many of these contained fructose.

All I can say is, give up an hour and a few minutes to watch Dr. Lustig's lecture. This may be the lecture that prolongs your life.

CORRECTION ON THE WINE THING

2011-06-17T15:23:00.002-07:00

I always love it when my blog gets the attention of the businesses I write about. Elizabeth McDermott of Imagery Estate and its sister winery Bezinger, wrote this to clarify my understanding about their growing practices:

"I just wanted to mention a small edit - At the very least our wines are grown at a high level of sustainability, next organic and then the highest form of organic is Biodynamic. In the near future we will be certified organic and certified Biodynamic for all our wines at both sites. Our Benziger and Imagery Estate wines are all certified biodynamic but many of the growers that we source grapes from are certified organic or transitioning from a high level of sustainability to organic or bio-d. I would venture to say that all our wines are grown at a high level of sustainability with many organic and biodynamic selections. It’s a process to move from sustainable to organic or biodynamic and Benziger supports and incentivizes the environmental improvements our growers implement."

Organic Sonoma!

2011-06-13T01:37:00.033-07:00

Lucky me, sipping Dragonsleaf Syrah!

I spent the past few glorious days touring organic and biodynamic wineries in Sonoma.

Organic basically means nothing chemical or toxic is used in the growing - no pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, etc. This means either a lot of hand-weeding, or some really creative use of predator bugs and beasts to eat other bugs and to graze the weeds down. Sheep, for example, is favored alternative to the herbicide.

Biodynamic is something similar, with an additional concern for the vineyard ecosystem in it's modern manifestation, and with an almost cultish set of practices in its early manifestations. While I am glad when wineries opt to respect the ecosystem, a primary concern for me is toxic residue in the wine. I want my produce free and clear of toxic residue. Click here for a little primer on biodynamic wines.

The desire to drink organic and biodynamic wines shouldn't surprise anyone who knows me, but the idea moved from desire to imperative while walking the vineyards of the Castle de Amorosa. My trip companions wanted to tour the castle, but...I hate to admit how snobby I am...I did not want to tour a fake castle. Boring. So I opted to walk the vineyard, for the fresh air and the opportunity to fiddle around with the settings on my newish camera.

Along the road from Castle de Amorosa

Except...the overpowering stink of pesticide made the vineyard a truly unpleasant walk.

Plan B was an exit strategy - walk 3 miles to Calistoga to find breakfast. Down the long, long driveway away from the Castle I tried breathing through the fabric of my shirt. I thought about how right this minute pesticides were being absorbed through the skin of the fruit and the leaf system, and later how pesticides would be taken up through the vine's roots. Making its way into the fruit, the pesticides would tinge the flavor of the fruit with a tinny, bitter chemical taste reminiscent of the odor I now smelled.

While I appreciate the unique flavors imparted by a mineral laden soil, or even the smokey ash overlay from the 2008 wine country fire, the idea of pesticide-flavors sickened me. Maybe most people, used to buying non-organic produce, have acclimated to this overlay of toxic flavoring, but I - whether imaginary or not - believe I can taste it.

Porter Creek vintner's home

That was Thursday. Friday we hit Sonoma, where I was responsible for the tour itinery. Our first stop was Porter Creek, a tiny little organic-biodynamic winery off the beaten path - so small you cannot find their wines in a store. Their store is reminiscent of the old local general store - small, cozy, a place where friends might like to gather to catch up on the news of the day. Their wines are complex but a bit pricey for me. I'd read online (sorry can't remember where) that this is one of the premier wineries in Sonoma, and I can understand why after learning about their vintner, who has wine making credentials from both France and the U.S. His broad education translated into a host of unusual wines.

I learned from the tasting host too. One wise gem: "Don't join a wine club unless there's a quality about the vintner's work that you like across the board, in each of their wines - so that even if you don't necessarily prefer that particular grape regularly, you can recognize a quality that you like when you drink that grape from the vintner." Heeding his advice (and my wallet) I did not join the Porter Creek wine club. I did, however, buy a couple of bottles of a luscious 2008 old vine Carignane. Loved that!

Portner Creek vineyards

The other thing I'll remember from Porter Creek is the big piece of heavy equipment visible through the picture window directly behind our tasting host, making its way between rows of vines behind the Porter Creek tasting room. Those vines belong to Gallo. Gallo purchased the acreage next to Porter Creek from the MacMurray - as in "My Three Sons" Fred, the deceased actor - Ranch. Friday, Gallo crews were spreading RoundUp, the infamous Monsanto herbicide that kills everything it touches. Except, that is, crops that have been genetically modified not to be effected. But that's another post for another day.

I asked the fellow at Porter Creek how they keep their own vineyards - immediately next door - free of the RoundUp. He pointed out a rather wide swath of land, a drainage area, that successfully keeps the run-off away from Porter Creek dirt. But, what, I asked him, about the air drift? He shrugged his shoulders and promised me that the vineyards were certifiably biodynamic. It must be a de minimus theory or perhaps the wind patterns at Porter Creek are favorable, because I could not smell the RoundUp outside the tasting room.

The one bad memory I'll take from my June vineyards visit will be the pesticide odor tinging the beauty of the vineyard environment. I do not want RoundUp in my wine.

Sonoma and it's little-bit-wild, rustic feel does something for me, and for the wine too. We tasted all over Sonoma. I don't have time to give you the whole rundown, so I'll do an old favorite and a new favorite.

The old favorite: Of course, I made my must visit trip to Peterson Winery on Dry Creek Road. I've been happily drinking Peterson since 2006. Fred and Jamie, father and son vintners, must have purchased their taste buds from the same bin where I drew mine. My favorite Peterson wines are their Bradford Mountain wines. I learned from the Petersons that grapes grown on the hill have a more concentrated flavor due to the rain downhill run-off, leaving the grapes less hydrated and more full of flavor. Valley grapes, by contrast, get more water sitting on the field, settling into the ground to be drawn up into the plants.

Bradford Mountain wines must be everybody's favorite because they are the most expensive at $48 a bottle. However, Peterson's has a bottle called Zero Manipulation ($18) that has that same mouth feel as the bigger bottle, along with whatever creates that Peterson magic. Jamie gave us a wonderful tour of their very small, very garage feel wine making facility in the warehouse behind the tasting room. You can see pics on my facebook wall if you're so inclined. With my hefty wine club discount, the less expensive Peterson wines have long been my favorite go-to reds. The Bradford Mountain reds are my favorite birthday present to self.

The new favorite: My happy discovery whose wines have that something the Porter Creek host was talking about, something that appealed to me across every bottle we tasted: Imagery Estate Wines. Imagery Estate is the only winery whose wine club I joined this trip. There wines are right up there with Peterson, so much so that I was moved to tell our tasting host about Peterson.

Imagery Estate Winery is out in the middle of nowhere, so it surprised me to find a thriving little community set into a piece of landscaped heaven. The tasting room was modern, a big, rectangular bar set up in the middle of a large, airy room full of stuff for sale, art work, and lots of people. The tasting hosts were friendly and knowledgeable. Ours, Jen Patterson, let us taste pretty much everything we wanted, even insisting that I try one of their whites over my protests that I'm not a white drinker. I didn't buy it but even the white had that something. Or at least it didn't have the other thing that makes me complain. All Imagery Estates' wines, by the way, are either sustainable, organic or biodynamic, and they are working constantly to improve all things sustainable about their winery too.

Right this minute, I'm sipping a glass of Imagery Estate Dragonsleaf Syrah, the bottle I chose to purchase on the spot and carry home in my suitcase. However, I joined the wine club, and ordered a case of mixed wines to be shipped. If you like a beautiful red with a long finish, you owe it to yourself to try Imagery Estate wines. I even loved their Tempranillos, which were seriously different than wines of the same grape I drank across Spain, complaining the whole way.

Oh, and the winery has a reputation for a fine gallery of artwork that is also the art for their labels.

Imagery Estate was the last winery of the weekend. I almost didn't make it there because I was busy enjoying a meal of spanish tapas at the Vineyards Inn on the corner of Adobe Canyon Road and Highway 12. Luckily I was motivated enough to pull away from the table before the day ran out. If I'd missed Imagery Estates, I'd have missed a wine I will be drinking for years to come.

And I'm very happy to share this amazing find with my friends who want to have their green and drink it too.

Don't Shy Away From This Post...

2011-06-13T00:01:00.001-07:00

It seems my friend John Sirota Martinson will not shy away from the BIG questions in EcoCanyon, John's new eco blog. Today John's post - about the impact on the earth of different post-death body disposal practices - is so interesting and important that I must showcase it. I've given you the opening salvo below. To find out the particulars, just click back to his blog...

"Six years ago, my dad passed away at the age of 94. In his Last Will and Testament, he designated cremation for his body but did not specify what to do with the ashes. After the cremation and memorial service, I inquired of my mother what she thought we should do with them and she suggested perhaps spreading them somewhere in nature, since he liked nature walks. However, I was concerned that spreading them in nature was like littering. My chief concern was that the ashes may contain toxic chemicals and therefore it would be irresponsible to spread them in nature. Since no one else in the family was interested, I collected the nondescript black plastic box of his ashes and placed it on a shelf in my closet.

Recently, I have decided to revisit my dad’s choice of cremation, the dispensation of his ashes, and my own feelings about my body after death. The presence of my dad’s ashes in my closet for these six years felt like unfinished business. The catalyst for this reexamination was a class last semester studying carbon footprints and life cycle. When I prepared my own will some years ago, I selected cremation for the same reasons Judy Collins wrote in Song For Duke that “funerals were a waste of flowers.” I felt that graveyards were a waste of land.

Now, armed with information about greenhouse gasses and toxic chemicals, I chose to research the issues. The questions inconsideration are the potential environmental impacts of various forms of body disposal and whether there are commercially available choices for sustainable burial. The search led to the Green Burial Council (GBC), an independent, nonprofit organization that provides guidance to the mortuary and cemetery industries regarding environmentally sustainable deathcare practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, toxification, and waste; and to preserve natural areas."

Click here to read the rest.

Best & Worst Fruits & Veggies for Pesticide Contamination

2011-06-03T09:41:00.000-07:00

Summer's here and the market is brimming with beautiful fruits and vegetables. Whole Foods is, unfortunately, both expensive and a long drive from my home. None of the other local stores, including Trader Joe's, has a full enough selection of organics for my tastes. I thought it time to review the Environmental Working Group's list of best and worst fruits and veggies, based on their pesticide residue.

EWG's "CLEAN 15™"
Onions
Avocado
Sweet Corn
Pineapple
Mangos
Sweet Peas
Asparagus
Kiwi
Cabbage
Eggplant
Cantaloupe
Watermelon
Grapefruit
Sweet Potato
Honeydew
Melon

EWG's "DIRTY DOZEN™"

Celery
Peaches
Strawberries
Apples
Blueberries
Nectarines
Bell Peppers
Spinach
Cherries
Kale/Collard
Greens
Potatoes
Grapes (Imported)

To read more, to download a pocket-size card you can put in your wallet or a cell phone app so that you've got the information 'when you're out and about: http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php?key=26573763. Thanks for everything you do, Environmental Working Group!

Easy Guide to Climate Impact Calculations for Your Business

2011-05-23T10:30:00.000-07:00

Once again, poking around for cool new materials for my fall Managing for Sustainability course, I landed on something share-worthy.

My computer says "share-worthy" is not a known term. I think the meaning is pretty clear. How about you?

If you own or work for a business that hasn't undertaken to calculate its greenhouse gas emissions, I want to turn you on to two publications from DEFRA, the Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK. They put so much cool stuff into public domain, and it's so much easier to find my way around their website than the EPA's.

I want to share two documents, one is the more complex "Guidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions," and a much shorter, "Small Business User Guide: Guidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions."

These documents are written in plain English, even if it's the King's English, and anyone new to the subject will find them a good introduction and a clearly laid out plan for getting the work done.

What are you waiting for?

Not Your Grandma's Hybrid!

2011-05-17T09:49:00.001-07:00

Check out this video on the racy new Chevy Volt. It gets 40 miles on one battery charge, after which a generator kicks in. I am not entirely clear whether you can take a long road trip in this car, though.

WWJD About Climate Change?

2011-05-14T15:21:00.006-07:00

Two stories. WWMD and WWJD. The "M" being Maryland, not Moses. The "J" being exactly who you think it is.

Maryland first.

Larry Susskind and Evan Paul, two well-respected facilitators, developed a sustainability planning game, played by stakeholders across the state of Maryland. In this game, players were given roles and information, and asked to dive into a negotiation to build a sustainability policy for the state of Maryland. Goals were multiple - to prepare the city for environmental, social and economic sustainability, while keeping land values stable, the city economically vibrant, quality of life high.

Simply brilliant.

Why? Because it gives all the players an opportunity to dip their toe into the policy waters without having to commit a single dollar to a single idea. Nothing's literally at stake - no dollars, no legislation, no new regulation - so everything can be explored for value proposition, cost impact, viability. Players were sensitized deeply to the multiple issues existing in their own communities, and to the interdependence of communities, government, and industry. The stage was set for real policy-making in the future. Getting to policy could be much easier - not that policy-making is ever easy - than it otherwise would have been without the game.

The process was a roaring success with the participants, and in a show of planetary love, all the game material has been made available publicly, for free, for any community wishing to use it. I've just now put out some information to a few Phoenix folks, and am hoping to spur a conversation about doing this in my own community. Below is a video from Maryland, if you'd like to learn more. Click this link to find the website where the story is told, and the game materials.

And on to thing two...WWJD?

I inadvertently stumbled into a discussion on facebook about whether God-believing people should be concerned with climate change, after a staunch Christian friend blasted George Soros for buying public billboards denouncing the existence of God.

I countered by noting that the Koch brothers' sponsorship of climate denial activities to the tune of $49 million dollars since 2005 (an initial report through 2008 is here, and an update through 2010 is here) was a far worse sin than George Soros' erstwhile funding of atheist billboards.

My friend countered with the usual climate discussion red herring, the charge that many scientists do not believe man "created" the situation we refer to as either global warming or climate change.

Sigh.... It is a tiresome waste of time to move all these red herrings out of circulation, and wasting time is exactly what the deniers want us to do. Yet, somebody has to do it.

I'm not entirely sure how it's come to be that politics and religion have become so inextricably intertwined around this issue, but I say this is a red herring because it matters not one whit whether "man created climate change," or as many believe, the earth cycles and man is simply hurrying along the next cycle. The planetary outcome is the same either way.

The problem is not who's causing climate change. The problem is that, while the planet will survive whatever happens next, such a cycle could easily wipe out a lot of humankind.

As an environmental lawyer and professor who teaches environmental policy, I've read a large amount of material. And yes, I've read the material of the nay-sayers, which I've addressed ad naseum here, here, here, here, and here, if you're interested.

It seems clear from my reading that the large majority of scientists are quite convinced climate change is occurring, regardless of who or what caused it. While I do not think we should ignore the outliers - they check our math and point out our errors - neither should we allow an itty bitty minority to stop discussion, planning and implementation midstream - especially not outliers whose point of contention is who or what caused the problem at hand.

Another argument: We do not need to worry about the earth because "God gave us dominion over it," which seems to be code for permission to deplete the earth's natural resources without regard to sustainability practices. Couple dominion with the belief that the end-of-times is nearing anyway, and problems of natural resource depletion and sustainability cease to be concerns.

By the way, I understand the next scheduled end-of-the-earth is seven days from today, May 21st. I have a very important meeting on the 24th, and I've put in my request to God to postpone if possible. Just in case.

I have something to say to my friends who believe any of the arguments above.

I am a believer, albeit a Jewish one. Among other things, I believe God gave us the brains and tools to do something about earthly problems that face us. God does not want us to sit idly by while bad things happen. In fact, if you'll recall your bible studies, God has a reputation for forcing the hand of those who won't willing act to preserve humanity. Moses did not want to meet Pharaoh.   Jonah did not want to preach.   Esther did not want to confront Ahashuaris.

Whether or not we caused climate change, we should be doing what we can to preserve humanity in the face of it.

Consider the plethora of natural disasters over the past several years. Some of my fundamentalist friends believe these are signs of the end of time. In all candor, these friends may be correct if we sit back and justify doing nothing just because science is not fully definitive. Back in the day, there was no science and we had to take the prophets mostly on faith. Ok, it's true that Moses offered up plagues. Let me offer up hail, hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes. Probably science, by its nature, will never be fully definitive on something this complex, but we have PLENTY of solid evidence now. God gave Moses a staff with powers. God gave us computers and incredible applications. Wow. Let's do good for God, for the planet God gave us, and for our grandchildren with all this technology.

Let's not wait for God to toss us into the belly of a whale, metaphorically speaking, of course.

Instead of going 'round the mulberry bush pointing fingers, time could better be spent moving us toward planetary stewardship. We have the knowledge and technology to reduce the impacts of climate change, if only we'll allow ourselves to implement it. That implementation could reduce the amount of pain and trauma our children and grandchildren suffer. Do we not have a duty to our future progeny?

And if I were God - and I mean this in all sincerity and without flippancy - I would be lamenting my people being so wedded to their material wealth that they are unwilling to take a step back and ask, how can we best steward the earth that God gave us dominion over, and clearly wants us to steward. And how can we best honor God's obvious wish that we spend time on this earth walking among humankind, not only for ourselves but for our grandchildren?

As believers, these are the questions I think we should be asking ourselves around the issue of climate change.   Click here to be transported to Christians and Climate, an organization bringing Christians together to have these discussion. Click here to visit a similar site for Jews, and here for the Muslim site. If you know of other sites, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave their web addresses for me in the comments below.

SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD WHERE?

2011-04-29T09:26:00.000-07:00

It's not where you think.

Safeway, Target, Harris Teeter and Aldi have all committed to providing sustainable seafood options.

According to an article on AlterNet, Safeway, unbelievably, outperforms Whole Foods. Who knew?

Read the whole article here.

Blackstrapping my Creative Juices

2011-04-24T14:28:00.005-07:00

Sure. Why not blog about blackstrap molasses?

Today I learned how molasses is made, and it's food value. Turns out that molasses is the result of using centrifugal force to remove the pulp and sugars (mostly sucrose) from the sugarcane juice. Leaving it with all sorts of necessary minerals and vitamins, including iron, calcium, potassium and magnesium, vitamin B6 and selenium.

Caveat: Although the sugar is stripped out, molasses is not calorie-free. Blackstrap, the version with the least remaining sugar, has 32 calories for a two-teaspoon serving. Compare that to light molasses, with the most remaining sugar content, at about 120 calories for the same portion.

Although the rich, deep coffee color of blackstrap molasses reminds me of fall and not the pleasant spring breeze now blowing in through the open patio door, I am moved to find recipes. I am disappointed to turn up page after page of nothing but baked goods and baked beans. That and an occasional meat marinade recipe. Why such limited creativity?

Despite having an old bottle of Brer Rabbit blackstrap in my cabinet - love the bunny pic - I decide to use my memory as the taste tester. If I get up, Lord knows I'll forget what I am doing, get started on something else, and entirely blow off the blog.

I want to think about what molasses might complement. Those who cook know you can think of a flavor in your head, and retrieve a taste memory. Then you can remember your way through a mental catalog of ingredients, each with its own taste memory, mentally imagining the effect of the mingling of flavors.

A random thought strikes. Is this similar to famous composer Ludwig van Beethoven mentally imagining his musical scores, even though he became almost completely deaf?

I do have one clue: several of the baked good recipes combined the flavors of ginger and molasses. I will keep this in mind, but refuse to be pigeon-holed by it. Both molasses and ginger are heavy, earthy flavors. It takes a certain kind of ethnic food lover to enjoy this, and even my daughters aren't always on board with this.

A food that molasses reminds me of is candied pecan. Dense, not too sweet, nutty. Those work well with fruit, on salads, maybe with cheeses.

I run through my mental repertoire.

Lentils with tomatoes sauteed with onions, add a teaspoon or two of molasses. Hmmm...

Baby lettuce, with mozzarrella and strawberries. Drizzled with a vinegrette of molasses, balsalmic vinegar and blood orange flavored olive oil from O.

Mmmm.... I actually got up to go test that one out. Well, I didn't make the entire salad, but I dipped a strawberry into the dressing. Definitely one of my better ideas.

Combine molasses, miso and a good dose of sherry; marinate - for just an hour or two - a thick white fillet of fish. Broil. I make and taste this marinade too - and approve. Yes, I will use this soon.

Dip tart apple slices into a mix of raw crunchy almond butter and molasses. OMG. This is really yummy. Really. Yummy. Put. It. Away.

Slices of orange, arranged on top of vanilla ice cream, drizzled with molasses, with gingerbread cookies. A final nod of my hat to the tradition of molasses married to ginger. I don't have the oranges or the ice cream or the cookies, but I can taste this in my minds' eye and trust me, it's delicious.

You get the idea!

Soon as I use up this Brer Rabbit, I think I'll go out and buy myself a bottle of organic blackstrap. How about you?

TEN POWERFUL MINUTES

2011-04-23T17:19:00.000-07:00

How would you otherwise spend the next ten minutes? I highly recommend you spend them here.

Where Have All the Cell Phones Gone, Long Time Passing?

2011-04-22T23:45:00.000-07:00

We are gadget-crazy - replacing our old ones with the latest and greatest as soon as we can find the dough to do so. What happens to all the old gadgets? Thought you'd never ask!

Below is an important excerpt from Scientific American's article, "Gadgets are Garbage." Read the rest of the article by clicking this sentence.

"Every now and then the public rises up to make an industry clean up its environmental act. As a result, car companies now offer hybrids, electrics and alternative-fuel cars. Beverage companies are making their bottles with a lot less plastic. New laws have reduced the chemicals that cause acid rain by 76 percent since 1980. And so on.

One industry in particular, however, continues to leave a disastrous eco-wake, because no such public pressure exists: consumer electronics.

You know those one billion cell phones we buy every year? Those 100 million cameras? That infinitude of laptops, Game Boys, TV sets and music players? Most of the ones we replace go to the dump. The Environmental Protection Agency calculated that in 2007, we threw away 2.25 million tons of electronics—82 percent of it into the landfill. That’s a lot of toxic chemicals and nasty metals that you really, really don’t want leaching into the water supply."

I've Been To Hell With Dell

2011-04-15T17:50:00.002-07:00

I don't usually do this, but I'm posting the same blog in two places. The other blog doesn't have readers yet, and I want this one read. Sorry for the duplication if you've seen the other.

This is the post I just left on Dell's facebook wall. Let's see if Dell will be honest enough to leave this post up.

"I have been on the phone now for over 70 minutes trying to get help. I paid for a 3-year, in-home warranty - the most expensive warranty offered me at sale. I am on my second Dell computer. The first one was finally replaced when Dell acknowledged they couldn't fix it. The second one was refurbished and apparently had one operating system installed over another, because half of its hard drive was unavailable. They made me send it in to the tech people, and it came back today. They had not replaced the hard drive as promised - they say they didn't have parts, and it has more problems than it left with, including no sound or wireless capacity. Now they are telling me that if I want to talk to anyone - tech or customer service IN AMERICA I have to buy ANOTHER warranty program. The one I have does not entitle me to talk to an American. I think I've wasted a full month of my life on the phone with Dell over the last three years."

It's been approximately three years since I bought my first Dell. I wanted a Fujitsu - I've had three of those little computers that just keep giving - but the unit with comparable features to the Dell wasn't scheduled to be to market for several months. The first Dell had one problem after another. It was loaded with Vista - although the sales people assured me it would be fully upgradable when the new Windows product finally came out - and I spent probably 40 hours worth of time, no exaggeration, with Dell techs trying to get that computer to work. Later, when I loaded it with Windows 7 under the careful tutelage of an online technician, the install failed. The failure was not only no surprise, but Windows 7 was actually designed to be "rolled back" to Vista in case of an install failure. Unfortunately, the roll back did not work on the Dell, and Dell had to wipe out my hard drive, and I had to cope with everything that implies, so that Windows 7 could be installed.

After that, the computer never really worked again. Couple that with the stuff that happens - it fell off the sofa once. I spilled liquid on it once. But that's what that expensive three year warranty is for, right?

One thing to like about Dell's warranty is that they send someone right to your house to fix the computer. However, one guy once broke my computer while fixing it, and they had to send out someone else to undo his work. Another time, the guy was extremely annoyed when I told him my schedule wouldn't permit an appointment for a couple of days. He gruffly told me to call when I was ready, but when I did, I discovered that he'd cancelled the work order with Dell. Meaning, I had to start from scratch on the phone again. No one was simply willing to look me up, push a button reinstating an old order. No, we had to go through the entire rigamarole again.

Finally, Dell decided to simply replace my computer, although with a different model than the first. Because, the in-home tech told me, the model I'd purchased was pretty much a lemon and Dell had stopped manufacturing it.

To make a long story short, the replacement (Dell 1645 STUDIOxps if you want to know) is a lemon too. The computer constantly announced that it would not proceed because the hard drive was full. Delete something! it ordered me, over and over.

My initial calls to Dell yielded a pie chart showing about half the hard drive as grey matter - something was using it, but they couldn't tell what. They blamed me. They said obviously I had too much stuff on my computer. If it didn't look like it, it must be because I had duplicates of everything. Seriously?

Now understand. I intentionally bought a huge hard drive. Even though I mostly surf the web and create documents. I do keep a few photos on the computer, but I zip them to save space, and move them onto disks when they get too plentiful. I don't have games or computer aided design programs that eat space. I don't keep music or movies on my machine.

I am whisked onto the set of Fringe. My computer is mysteriously connected through a vortex to an identical computer across the void, an identical computer that sucks half the life from my hard drive. Yes, that's it. Halfsies with a computer on the other side.

Eventually, making my way through several techs over many hours of time, someone suggests that possibly a new operating system had been installed over an old one. Who knows?

Regardless, they finally offered to replace the hard drive with another. Yes, that means I must yet again reinstall all my software. Not their problem, of course.

Today I received Dell number two back from the shop. I opened it and immediately noticed that the original hard drive remains. All my programs and documents are still installed. For a brief moment of hope, I believe Dell's technicians have made a back-up of my entire system somehow, and then reinstalled it. But no.

I launch Internet Explorer and head to Facebook. It opens to a video of the Marx Brothers singing "Lydia the Tatoo'd Lady." Half way through the video, the faces distort suddenly. Within moments, the sound coughs and disappears. Then, the wireless goes down. Now, I know it's not the router, because my little Toshiba is up and running next to the Dell. I run a troubleshooter, and it tells me that my wireless switch is off.

Did I accidentally knock it? And what does that have to do with the picture or the sound?

I try the switch. Nothing.

I shut down the computer and reboot it.   I'm so not surprised when nothing happens.

I reboot it again, this time on safe mode/networking. Fine, it comes up. Still no sound or internet though. I restart it again, because not all troubleshooting works in safe mode. This story is getting very boring, isn't it? The computer comes back up, but a grey picture of a speaker is now on the screen, and an x is flashing off and on in the middle of it, making a little tick tick noise that it's still making, two and a half hours later, as I sit here and type. A noise which the Dell tech later claims not to hear even when I hold the phone right up to the source of the noise. Of course, why should he hear it? He's OCEANS away.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Here we go again. The only feeling worse than picking up the phone to call Dell is the feeling I used to get the first day of Legislative Session, when my stomach knotted up the minute I stepped on the capitol campus.

Fortunately, I get a pleasant enough woman, although she has a heavy accent difficult to follow. She begins asking me the routine questions. She pulls up the file, finds the order number, and begins to read outloud every word on the screen. It says exactly the same thing as the service slip inside the box. Tedious.

I ask to talk to a supervisor when the woman wants to start from scratch trying to diagnose my computer, rather than simply figuring out how to get the previously documented problem dealt with. The supervisor is a guy. Although he starts out pleasantly enough, it deteriorates when he "diagnoses" my computer's problem without any information to be something completely different than the first techs originally concluded after our hours and hours of testing and talking. He asks no questions. He does not try to look at my computer remotely. He wasn't the least bit interested in hearing what the techs had discovered during our long learning experience, and he prescribed something entirely different.   I wonder if I am being dismissed because I am female. While it's not consistently my experience, it's happened more than once with a male foreign tech.

Unfortunately, the discussion is further complicated by the language barrier. I barely understand the supervisor through his heavy accent,and I need to ask him repeatedly to slow down or to repeat. On top of that, when I ask how I will be able to reinstall my Office 2010 upgrade, since the original 2007 is no longer on my equipment, he tries to convince me that Office will happily mistake a downloadable trial version of 2007 for a purchased version.

Not.

Microsoft is way too smart for that. If that worked, nobody would purchase a new version of any software. In the end the guy simply said it wasn't his problem.  He just didn't care.

It was at that moment, when I realized how little he cared, that I asked to speak to an American.

He tells me that no American will speak to me. As I am not inclined to believe him, I asked to speak to his supervisor,  He has the audacity to claim that he is his own supervisor. I insist he must have a boss, and he claims he IS his boss. I ask to be transferred to an American tech, and he tries to dissuade me. He tells me that I will have to pay for American help. Despite my warranty.

I ask why. Because, he tells me, American help is only for people who buy yet another warranty.   I decide to take my chances, hoping that an American will at least understand my plight and find someone to help me. He grudgingly accommodates my request, but when I finally get transferred to America, they, too, are on the same page. They don't even want to help me. They talk down to me, like, I am not one of their paying customers. Seriously. The guy's name is David, the only identification he will give me is that he is on their YourTechTeam, he's clearly American, and he says, "You are not even entitled to speak with me." Fancy that.

I ask for his supervisor. He, too, tries to dissuade me, but I persist. Eventually I am transferred to Devin YourTechTeam Badge ID 199592, who is infinitely more patient, claims to have "full authority to resolve my problems," but who also claims there is nothing he can do for me except document my concerns and send me back into the hell hole I just emerged from. Devin confirms that there is nobody in America who will help me - unless, that is, I pay for the additional warranty service.   I ask him what "full authority to resolve problems" means to him. I ask whether there is anyone with fuller authority. He says No. Over and over. And tries to sell me the other Warranty product.

I get a sense of what it must have felt like to be a boat refugee, turned away at the American shore. Except, I am an American. How ridiculous is this?

Ok, I say, don't help me with technical service. Just help me find someone to talk to in the United States - maybe someone who will sit on the phone with me while I deal with the people from the other out-of-country department. Devin says the only other office in the U.S. is their legal department, and when I say, "fine, transfer me," he says I can contact Dell's legal department only by fax or U.S. mail.

Ever thinking, I get the bright idea to be transferred to Sales, where I know they have English speakers. They are no fools. Save those English speakers for the sale.

Devin says, "I will transfer you to sales if that's what you're asking me to do, but they cannot resolve your problem."   I know, I tell him, but I am counting on finding someone, somewhere, with more heart, or more authority, or more creativity than you. Someone who feels sorry for me as a fellow human being, and will somehow, some way, find a way to help.

This is America, where hope springs eternal.

So Devin transfers me back to Dave, with instructions to transfer me to Sales. He instead transfers me back to the pit of doom. That shmuck.

With as much patience as I can muster, I tell the man who answers the phone, the man whose connection is cutting in and out because it has to travel to a satellite somewhere over another hemisphere back down to him, then up again and back to me, that I have been erroneously been transferred to him when I wish to speak to sales. American sales.

I am put on hold and after 2 hours exactly of phone time, the line disconnects.

It seems I have three choices. I can hold my breath and dive back into the pit. I can choose vendetta. I can get on with my life without getting the Dell fixed.   I'm thinking that third option might be easier and in some ways - like for my blood pressure - cheaper.

Of course Dell won't help me. Strictly as a business decision, why should they? By now my file is dotted with comments. I'm a lost cause. They've no doubt paid out more sending people to my home and covering the cost of tech time than they earned from the original sale. I'm just one unhappy customer they'd rather forget all together.

Although apparently I'm not alone. I googled "Dell sucks" just to make myself feel better, and you would not believe what comes up. There is even a website called DellHellAgain.com. Or read this poor guy's story, "Friends Don't Let Friends Buy Dell Computers." It sounds a lot like mine.

There's even a facebook page called Dell Sucks! I joined.

Perhaps I will oblige them and go away quietly. Perhaps I will dive back in. For now, I am documenting this awful experience and putting it out there on the internet to make myself feel better, if nothing else. Hours and hours of trying to talk my way through Dell's official channels haven't netted me a working computer. I am trying the in-your-face angle. I hope everyone who reads this will SHARE it, on facebook, on twitter, by email. Use the little share tool to the right of this post. This blog post isn't funny or clever enough to go viral, but if enough people share it, somewhere - hopefully in America - perhaps some Dell exec will take pity on me and make this right.

Maybe. Probably not. But maybe. It is, after all, America. Anything can happen.

Millions in Farm Subsidies To Manhattan Residents?

2011-04-06T16:03:00.004-07:00

Dear Tea Party Friends,

I have a tiny little request. Would you mind calling your favorite elected Tea Party official and ask them wazzup with these agricultural subsidies? Seriously, they can save a bundle if they'd just take a hard look at agribusiness welfare.

They're way more likely to listen to you than to me.

Every day on facebook you agree with me that government needs to get out of big business. You say you believe, like I do, that taxpayers should not be subsidizing profitable industries like forestry, ranching, agribusiness, and mining.

We've agreed that it might have been appropriate to subsidize those industries when the country was young - to incentive pioneers out to take business risks in the wilder, less comfortable parts of the landscape.

But not now.

So guess what? In their enthusiasm to reduce the deficit, Congress nevertheless apparently feels it is important to maintain the agribusiness subsidies at full levels. While I might support subsidies to small and medium-sized farmers working on tight margins, why do our taxpayer dollars need to support mega-corporations like ADM and other huge agribusiness interests?

Annie Shattuck, an analyst for the Oakland, California-based Institute for Food & Development Policy, told the International Business Times that, in 2009, Congress subsidized agriculture to the tune of $15 billion, with 90 percent of that sum underwriting the production of just five crops - corn, wheat, rice, soy and cotton - mainly through large farming operations. And guess what? Most of those crops weren't even used for food! They became animal feed and raw materials for industry.

I can see an argument around the idea that subsidized agriculture reduces the cost of food, but... if much of the crop isn't even used for food, how does that idea hold water? If we are subsidizing the industrial use of crops, e.g. corn for ethanol or cotton for cloth, shouldn't we let the industries internalize those costs and then let individuals decide whether they want to pay the price?

I mean, libertarian friends, isn't this what you're always arguing?

So, I am still looking for national distribution figures, but I did find a study showing 91 percent of federal subsidies paid to North Carolina farmers went to just 10 percent of North Carolina farms - and not the tiniest 10 percent either. And if you click here, it will take you to a lot of information about national farm subsidy distribution.

And then there's Manhattan. Guess what? A huge share of farm subsidies don't go to farmers. Farmers are often tenants, but subsidies go to wealthy land owners. According to a study of farm aid distribution by Barry K. Goodwin, Ashok K. Mishra, and Francois Ortalo-Magn, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) argued for reducing farm subsidies by noting:

"$3.1 million in farm payments went to the District of Columbia, $4.2 million has gone to people living in Manhattan, and $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210."

Can I get in on that?

# # #

Unbelievably, none of this was my original reason for blogging today.

My original reason was to lament the passing of $247 million worth of WIC, the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children, that provides a minimal amount of food and nutrition assistance to "at risk" poor families. These dollars are some of the best-spent federal aid ever. Increases in prenatal care, newborn birth weight, live infant births, and more can be correlated to this aid.

As opposed to agri-subsidies, which apparently can be correlated to Beverly Hills poolside parties.

Yes, Tea Party pals, on February 19th, your favorite newly-elected budget slashers did a middle of the night wipe out of 10 percent of "WIC," the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children. This amounts to taking food out of the mouths of about a million kids.

Given that the unemployment and underemployment figures are skyrocketing - according to Gallup poles, the unemployment plus under-employment combined has hit about 20 percent - one wonders what those D.C. folks were thinking.

Maybe they were thinking about how to pay for the farm subsidies. Makes sense to me. Not.

# # #

You might want to link to the latest blog post by Environmental Working Group's Ken Cook. This is what got me going.

Fix it!

2011-04-01T10:18:00.003-07:00

I just read a cool story by Ted Cox (AlterNet) about a new kind of product, one designed to be easily taken apart and put back together by the consumer. If it breaks, fix it. How novel is that?

Seriously, we knock off two problems with one idea. Reduce our expenditures, which, given the nature of the economy and the propensity of our politicians to make sure that doesn't get any better for those of us making under $106,000 a year, this is going to become increasingly important. Second, the less of a throw-away society we are, the better for the environment.

"RepairWare" is the brainchild of industrial designer Samuel Davies, and his first imagined product, pictured here, is a repairable iron. I have to say, considering how many of us go to great lengths to avoid ironing - I put my clothes in the shower and they get steamed while I bathe - I'm not sure it's the best pick for the new product launch. But I really like the concept.

While we wait for the big manufacturers to pick up this idea - might be a long time because it works against their profit factor - I suggest that the next time something busts, we take it down to Ace Hardware and see whether the nice old guy who works the hardware section can help us take it apart and figure out what's wrong.

In fact, that's a great idea, if I do say so myself. How about Ace Hardware instituting an appliance repair clinic. We could retrain in self-reliance, create a market for parts, and employ some old guys as instructors! Ok, or young ones. Either way. I like it.

Science Seeks Boundary Between Food and Garbage

2011-03-30T12:23:00.002-07:00

I hate to say it, but there's way too much truth swimming around in this Onion spoof.

Biodynamic, Organic and Kosher, OH MY!

2011-03-28T18:11:00.008-07:00

Opened my email today to an article about 12 biodynamic wines, click here to see the article, and right away I realized,

"Biodynamic - yet another confusing label for the consumer."

I want to define the difference between organic, biodynamic and "regular" wines. And as long as I'm at it, and maybe because it's almost Passover, I'll say a thing or two about kosher wines, too.

I've come to appreciate the whole idea of foods grown without pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizer concoctions that end up in my system - all used to ensure a successful harvest in today's normative agricultural industry.

Normative: Generically, it means relating to an ideal standard or model. In practice, it has strong connotations of relating to a typical standard or model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative.

I also fancy but can't prove that a lot of organic foods taste better than their non-organic counterparts. I think I can taste the slightly off-taste of toxic residues. I didn't realize I could taste them until I started eating organic foods and then did some side-by-side tastings. Generally, the organic item tends to taste more zingy and true to the anticipated vegetable or fruit flavor, while the non-organic item is blander, maybe with a slight tinny or other under-flavor. Although, on the other hand, I've had some pretty bland-tasting organic foods. Organics can only be as tasty as the quality of the soil they're grown in. Let me know if you've had any similar experiences. Or if this is all in my mind.

Organic farming avoids all pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and other toxic soil additives in favor of natural alternatives. These alternatives might be anything at all - old fashioned the way people used to do it before the wonders of chemistry, or downright creative. For example, soil amendments tend to be manure and other organic materials. More creatively, the vintners at my favorite organic vineyard, Montemaggiore, use sheep to eat their weed growth down.

From Wikipedia: "The most widely accepted definition of Organic wine is wine made from grapes grown in accordance with principles of organic farming, which typically excludes the use of artificial chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides.

Organic wine is generally consumed for its perceived health benefits and reduced environmental impact. The consumption of organic wine grew at a rate of 3.7 percent over the year ending September 19, 2009, out-pacing growth in the consumption of non-organic wine which grew 2% during a similar period. There are an estimated 1500-2000 organic wine producers globally, including negociant labels, with more than 885 of these organic domaines in France alone.

The legal definition of Organic Wine is a complex issue and varies from country to country. The primary difference in the way that organic wine is defined relates to the use (or non use) of preservatives during the wine-making process." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_wine

Definitely not an Organic Apple Tree

Biodynamic farming is a form of organic farming that dictates very specific practices in terms of soil amendments, planting preparations, and in its original form, first developed by Rudolf Steiner, some spiritual rituals. Wikipedia says this:

"Biodynamic agriculture is a method of organic farming that treats farms as unified and individual organisms, emphasizing balancing the holistic development and interrelationship of the soil, plants and animals as a self-nourishing system without external inputs insofar as this is possible given the loss of nutrients due to the export of food. As in other forms of organic agriculture, artificial fertilizers and toxic pesticides and herbicides are strictly avoided. There are independent certification agencies for biodynamic products, most of which are members of the international biodynamics standards group Demeter International.

Regarded by some as the first modern ecological farming system and one of the most sustainable, biodynamic farming has much in common with other organic approaches, such as emphasizing the use of manures and composts and excluding of the use of artificial chemicals on soil and plants. Methods unique to the biodynamic approach include the use of fermented herbal and mineral preparations as compost additives and field sprays and the use of an astronomical sowing and planting calendar. Biodynamics originated out of the work of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture.

In conclusion, both styles of farming are good for the ecosystem, the environment and you. Whereas the norm is not.

Kosher wines are another matter altogether. Since there is nothing inherently non-kosher about wine, there is no particular wine-growing or wine-making techniques that must be employed. Use of pesticides are not inherently unkosher, for example. However, there are a bunch of religious requirements that make wine kosher.

One that always worries me has to do with a strict kashrut law against ingesting bugs, which means that grapes must be from bug-free vines. I once had the pleasure of separating grapes from stems during a Sonoma harvest, and was shocked to see all the little six-legged critters scurrying away from the vines as we worked. While many got away, I've opted to forget what I suspect about how many must not have made it. Maybe the grapes used for kosher wines get a good power hosing, but maybe they get serious pesticide application. I suppose it depends on the vintner, and this is something to be researched before buying kosher wine, if you're looking for organic product.

About kosher wines, from SeriousEats.com: "Grapes from new vines may not be used for making wine until after the fourth year. Every seventh year, the fields must be left fallow, and there is a prohibition on growing other fruits and vegetables between the vines. All the equipment, tools, and wine-making storage facilities must be kosher. During the harvest, only Sabbath-observant male Jews are allowed to work on production of the wines. During the production of kosher wine, no animal products may be used. Even the fermentation yeasts must be certified kosher.

There's also the question of mevushal and non-mevushal wines. Mevushal wines are heated to near boiling, which means that non-Jews can handle an open bottle without rendering it unkosher. For this reason, most restaurants and catering halls serve only mevushal kosher wine.

That sound you hear? Traditional winemakers wincing at the prospect of that flash-pasteurization (boiling) process. And that's with good reason: the boiling process can hurt the quality of some wines, and destroys bacteria that contribute to the aging of wine. That means mevushal wines must be drunk young; forget about fine old vintages." http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/03/an-introduction-to-kosher-wine-for-passover-seder.html

If you're interested in a well-made Napa kosher wine, you might try Hagafen Winery. Not sure about their bug policies.

Anyway, I'm a reform Jew, and because there's nothing inherently unkosher about grapes in any form, I'll go with a de minimus rule as regards the bug issue and stick with organic wines.

Let me put in a small plug for my favorite organic red wines, especially if you love Syrah, from a little boutique winery, Montemaggiore in Sonoma. Their 2007 Syrah Reserve won a 91 point score from Parker Roberts!

GLOWING ARIZONA KIDS

2011-03-24T00:57:00.000-07:00

Radiation from Japan's nuclear disaster reached Arizona this week.

"The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency on Monday detected what it calls "insignificant" trace amounts of iodine-131 associated with releases from Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant.

An instrument in Phoenix and five west of Phoenix that were set up originally to monitor the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station measured less than 0.1 millirems of iodine-131, said agency director Aubrey Godwin." Click here for the rest of the story.

And click here for a discussion of the role of kelp and other seaweed products in protecting your body from the effects of radiation.

GERMANY TO END NUCLEAR POWER

2011-03-24T00:44:00.000-07:00

Somebody's got to show some leadership...

"BERLIN – Germany is determined to show the world how abandoning nuclear energy can be done.

The world's fourth-largest economy stands alone among leading industrialized nations in its decision to stop using nuclear energy because of its inherent risks. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead.

The transition was supposed to happen slowly over the next 25 years, but is now being accelerated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant disaster, which Chancellor Angela Merkel has called a "catastrophe of apocalyptic dimensions."

Click here to read the rest of this AP story.

Leach Happens.

2011-03-23T18:21:00.000-07:00

Leach happens.

Friends, please. Please don't leave plastic water bottles in the car during summer months.

Please don't heat your plastics, please.

I don't care what the package says. I don't care if the green beans come in a special boil-in-bag. I don't care if they sell that chicken in a plastic wrapper that says, "Heat at home in the microwave." I don't care if the microwave supper is prepackaged in a microwavable plastic dish. Please disembark it to ceramic or a heavy paper plate.

All evidence leads to leaching of harmful chemicals of multiple sorts into our food, our air, our water.

I know you've heard this from me before, but I keep catching my own daughters heating plastic in the microwave. Ugh.

Recently some scientists went to stores we shop at - Walmart, Whole Foods, others - and bought 450 plastic items to stress test them for chemical release. They used two tests, a salt water soak and an alcohol soak. I'm not sure what they were trying to mimic. I would have liked it more if they had mimicked dishwasher action, microwaving, leaving things on sunny window ledges or for endless weeks in the hot back seats of summer cars. Regardless, leach happens.

Below is a quote from the article:

"The new study doesn't look at health risks. It simply asks whether common plastic products release estrogen-like chemicals other than BPA.

The researchers bought more than 450 plastic items from stores including Walmart and Whole Foods. They chose products designed to come in contact with food — things like baby bottles, deli packaging and flexible bags, says George Bittner, one of the study's authors and a professor of biology at the University of Texas, Austin.

Then CertiChem, a testing company founded by Bittner, chopped up pieces of each product and soaked them in either saltwater or alcohol to see what came out.

The testing showed that more than 70 percent of the products released chemicals that acted like estrogen. And that was before they exposed the stuff to real-world conditions: simulated sunlight, dishwashing and microwaving, Bittner says."

Click to listen to the story online.

Click to read the story.

When you listen to it on NPR, they begin by telling you that there's no hard evidence yet about exactly how these chemicals can harm you, but that's only true if you limit yourself to FDA rulings. But if you look beyond the FDA and outside this country, there's been adequate information to raise serious concerns, even if the FDA is rediculously slow about it. Click here to read a Time Magazine report on some of these scientific findings.

So. Jody. Lisa. Mom. Friends. Please. Stop. Heating. Plastic.

A Jewy Princess PURIM!

2011-03-20T12:24:00.032-07:00

I nearly missed Purim this year, since my hot date apparently does not do Synagogue. Purim: a festival celebrating the bravery of a single Jewish GIRL.

Esther lived in Persia, in the realm of King Ahashuarus. A-xha-shu-air-us. It is fun to try to pronounce this. The first "h" gets the gutteral throat-clearing sound we don't have in English.

Esther was selected from all the beautiful girls of the realm to replace the former Queen, Vashti.

To win a beauty pageant - a Jewish princess dream!  But a mixed blessing: Vashti lost her head as well as her job for displeasing the King, so Queen Esther's bravery is all the more courageous.

The King's right-hand advisor, Haman, was really very evil. Haman convinced the King to have all the Jews in the kingdom put to death after one Jew refused to bow down to the advisor in the street.  Judaism commands us not to bow to humans. We only bow to God. To do otherwise is idolatrous. However, to knowingly displease someone as evil as Haman also takes an act of high bravery. Or chutzpah. Or both.

Coincidentally, that Jew was Mordechai, Esther's cousin. But then again, is anything really a coincidence?

Esther hatched an elaborate plot to save her people.  The plan involves Esther missing three days of meals, but I like to think she loses three pounds and fits into her favorite dress again. It might have been the sight of Esther in the dress that saved Esther's head and her people. You never know! Haman - of course - gets what he deserves. Mordechai gets to go horseback riding in the King's robe.   Don't ask. I love this story because justice does win the day. And, this is one of the very few stories of my faith - along with the stories of Deborah the judge/warrior, and Miriam and Puah, Moses' sister and midwife respectively, each of whom had a hand in saving Moses' life - where a female emerges as the heroine.

# # #

But back to where we started. I almost missed Purim this year, since my hot date last night did not want to stop by the Synagogue. The conversation went something like this:

"What do you want to do this evening?" (him)

"Well, do you mind if we stop in at the synagogue? It's Purim and I want to see what's happening there." (me)

"THE SYNAGOGUE? NO! REALLY? I DON'T DO SYNAGOGUE." (panic)

"Yes. Really. It's Purim. I like Purim. People dress up in costumes. They put on funny plays. They drink a lot, at least at the adult party, and they eat funny little three-cornered cookies stuffed with prunes or apricots or chocolate or if I'm really lucky, cherries. I like doing Jewishy stuff."

"You were married to a non-Jew."   (Are you imagining a whiney voice that sounds a lot like an accusation? If not, please do over.)

"Yes, and you notice, I'm now dating only Jews. This could be an issue for us. Did you know Purim is the only holiday we're commanded to drink until you can't tell the difference between Mordechai and Haman?"

"Really?" (easing on the panic somewhat)

I'll forgo the rest of the conversation, and simply say that we did NOT end up at the Synagogue - I don't believe in dragging people kicking or screaming into the abyss.

So I was really excited when I opened my email this morning and found a link to an animated version of the Purim Shpiel (story) written and performed by one of my favorite young Jewish comedians, the Hebrew Mamita, Vanessa Hidary. If ever there is a brave Jewy princess, Vanessa is she. She speaks out about things - Jewish things, Feminist things - that others only mutter under their breath. She exemplifies my idea of a strong, young Jewess, and it is very fitting that she portrays Esther in the animation below.

So, date be damned, I did not miss the reading of the Megillah (scroll with the story in it) after all, albeit in English, highly censured kids' version.

I thought I'd share it with you here. I must confess, it's written for kids and it's not as funny as Vanessa usually is. SO... for your listening pleasure, I've embedded a few of her funnier ones just below.

Vanessa's signature piece:

Ph.D in "HIM"

God Bless You, Ma

You can find more on YouTube, or at http://www.hebrewmamita.com/

Let's Hike EcoCanyon!

2011-03-09T11:56:00.002-07:00

Today I use my blogspace to welcome new blogger and excellent friend John Sirota Martinson to the wild world of blogging. John, an accomplished businessman turned non-traditional student, launched EcoCanyon today. What a great name! His initial post, "How Green Is Your Lawn - via Teatown Thoughts," was stimulated by his reading of Paul Robbins and Julie Sharp's "Producing and consuming chemicals: The moral economy of the American Lawn.”

The grouping "moral," "economy" and "lawn" together in one sentence is the sort of mind challenge John loves.

I've placed a permanent link to John's blog along the right side of mine!

Welcome, John! Your thoughtful voice should have a wider audience, and I'm so glad you've chosen this path.

Wrap Your Mind Around This!

2011-03-08T09:19:00.003-07:00

My daughter Jody recently sent me a link to a New York Times article entitled, "The New Humanism," laying out some of the latest scientific findings about humanity. In a nutshell, author David Brookes notes that science is finally providing evidence that we're not the rational individuals we think we are. Rather, we're emotional creatures, for whom rationality is not separate from our emotions, but rather shaped by them. And further, we are not individuals picking our way through the obstacle course of humanity, but interdependent creatures who emerge from society, shaped by it in nearly every way. Below are some concepts coming out of this research that explain some of the human capacities we are just beginning to get our scientific minds around:

Attunement: the ability to enter other minds and learn what they have to offer.

Equipoise: the ability to serenely monitor the movements of one’s own mind and correct for biases and shortcomings.

Metis: the ability to see patterns in the world and derive a gist from complex situations.

Sympathy: the ability to fall into a rhythm with those around you and thrive in groups.

Limerence: This isn’t a talent as much as a motivation. The conscious mind hungers for money and success, but the unconscious mind hungers for those moments of transcendence when the skull line falls away and we are lost in love for another, the challenge of a task or the love of God. Some people seem to experience this drive more powerfully than others.

If this interests you, click this sentence to be magically transported to the rest of the article.

YOU GO, HOLDER!

2011-02-25T22:24:00.001-07:00

Good News!!

After an unnecessarily lengthy and frustrating battle over Don't Ask, Don't Tell, news that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] against legal challenges is more than welcome. DOMA forbids the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian couples for the purpose of health and other benefits. This law impacts upward of 1100 federal benefits programs in which marriage is an issue, including in those states which have allowed same sex marriage.

Justice apparently decided that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the constitution because of its blatant discrimination against same sex couples without "an important government objective."

DOMA, by the way, was signed into effect by President Bill Clinton in 1996. I have to admit I don't remember this tragic event, but I wonder upon what transactional alter Clinton sacrificed our gay and lesbian friends.

I want to thank U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who delivered this good turn of events by way of a letter to Speaker John Boehner outlining the reasons DOMA is unconstitutional. I sure wish I could have seen Boehner's face when he opened his mail.

For my legal beagle friends, the full copy of Holder's legal opinion letter is below, courtesy of FederalTimes.com. For the rest of you, there's a decent Bloomberg article giving the background and impact if you click this sentence.

The Honorable John A. Boehner

Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Defense of Marriage Act

Dear Mr. Speaker:

After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.

While the Department has previously defended DOMA against legal challenges involving legally married same-sex couples, recent lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 have caused the President and the Department to conduct a new examination of the defense of this provision. In particular, in November 2010, plaintiffs filed two new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny. Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.); Pedersen v. OPM, No. 3:10-cv-1750 (D. Conn.). Previously, the Administration has defended Section 3 in jurisdictions where circuit courts have already held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to rational basis review, and it has advanced arguments to defend DOMA Section 3 under the binding standard that has applied in those cases.

These new lawsuits, by contrast, will require the Department to take an affirmative position on the level of scrutiny that should be applied to DOMA Section 3 in a circuit without binding precedent on the issue. As described more fully below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Standard of Review

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the appropriate level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation. It has, however, rendered a number of decisions that set forth the criteria that should inform this and any other judgment as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group”; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual’s “ability to perform or contribute to society.” See Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 602-03 (1987); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 441-42 (1985).

Each of these factors counsels in favor of being suspicious of classifications based on sexual orientation. First and most importantly, there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today. Indeed, until very recently, states have “demean[ed] the[] existence” of gays and lesbians “by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).

Second, while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable, see Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 101 (1992); it is undoubtedly unfair to require sexual orientation to be hidden from view to avoid discrimination, see Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat. 3515 (2010).

Third, the adoption of laws like those at issue in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), and Lawrence, the longstanding ban on gays and lesbians in the military, and the absence of federal protection for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation show the group to have limited political power and “ability to attract the [favorable] attention of the lawmakers.” Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 445. And while the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act and pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell indicate that the political process is not closed entirely to gay and lesbian people, that is not the standard by which the Court has judged “political powerlessness.” Indeed, when the Court ruled that gender-based classifications were subject to heightened scrutiny, women already had won major political victories such as the Nineteenth Amendment (right to vote) and protection under Title VII (employment discrimination).

Finally, there is a growing acknowledgment that sexual orientation “bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.” Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973) (plurality). Recent evolutions in legislation (including the pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), in community practices and attitudes, in case law (including the Supreme Court’s holdings in Lawrence and Romer), and in social science regarding sexual orientation all make clear that sexual orientation is not a characteristic that generally bears on legitimate policy objectives. See, e.g., Statement by the President on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (“It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.”)

To be sure, there is substantial circuit court authority applying rational basis review to sexual-orientation classifications. We have carefully examined each of those decisions. Many of them reason only that if consensual same-sex sodomy may be criminalized under Bowers v. Hardwick, then it follows that no heightened review is appropriate – a line of reasoning that does not survive the overruling of Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 538 U.S. 558 (2003). Others rely on claims regarding “procreational responsibility” that the Department has disavowed already in litigation as unreasonable, or claims regarding the immutability of sexual orientation that we do not believe can be reconciled with more recent social science understandings. And none engages in an examination of all the factors that the Supreme Court has identified as relevant to a decision about the appropriate level of scrutiny. Finally, many of the more recent decisions have relied on the fact that the Supreme Court has not recognized that gays and lesbians constitute a suspect class or the fact that the Court has applied rational basis review in its most recent decisions addressing classifications based on sexual orientation, Lawrence and Romer. But neither of those decisions reached, let alone resolved, the level of scrutiny issue because in both the Court concluded that the laws could not even survive the more deferential rational basis standard.

Application to Section 3 of DOMA

In reviewing a legislative classification under heightened scrutiny, the government must establish that the classification is “substantially related to an important government objective.” Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988). Under heightened scrutiny, “a tenable justification must describe actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded.” United States v. Virginia , 518 U.S. 515, 535-36 (1996). “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.” Id. at 533.

In other words, under heightened scrutiny, the United States cannot defend Section 3 by advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.

Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448 (“mere negative attitudes, or fear” are not permissible bases for discriminatory treatment); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that law was supported by “the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”); Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”).

Application to Second Circuit Cases

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in Windsor and Pedersen, now pending in the Southern District of New York and the District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.

Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.

As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a “reasonable” one. “[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity,” and thus there are “a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute.” Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute “in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,” as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001).

In light of the foregoing, I will instruct the Department’s lawyers to immediately inform the district courts in Windsor and Pedersen of the Executive Branch’s view that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review and that, consistent with that standard, Section 3 of DOMA may not be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law. If asked by the district courts in the Second Circuit for the position of the United States in the event those courts determine that the applicable standard is rational basis, the Department will state that, consistent with the position it has taken in prior cases, a reasonable argument for Section 3’s constitutionality may be proffered under that permissive standard. Our attorneys will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases. We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President’s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President’s and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

A motion to dismiss in the Windsor and Pedersen cases would be due on March 11, 2011. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General

A Boomer's Tale

2011-02-11T21:00:00.003-07:00

Feeling more and more like an old dog these days? If so, you'll like this!

Courtesy of Mark Paco Slosky

One day an old German Shepherd starts chasing rabbits and before long, discovers that he's lost. Wandering about, he notices a panther heading rapidly in his direction with the intention of having lunch.

The old German Shepherd thinks, "Oh, oh, I'm in deep s*** now!"

Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the panther is about to leap, the old German Shepherd exclaims loudly, "Boy, that was one delicious panther! I wonder, if there are any more around here?"

Hearing this, the young panther halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. "Whew!," says the panther, "That was close! That old German Shepherd nearly had me!"

Meanwhile, a squirrel who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the panther. So, off he goes.

The squirrel soon catches up with the panther, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the panther. The young panther is furious at being made a fool of and says, "Here, squirrel, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!"

Now, the old German Shepherd sees the panther coming with the squirrel on his back and thinks, "What am I going to do now?," but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old German Shepherd says......

"Where's that squirrel? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another panther!"

Moral of this story...

Don't mess with the old dogs... Age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery! BS and brilliance only come with age and experience.

LIBER(AL)TARIAN - Not an Oxymoron

2011-02-09T09:49:00.002-07:00

First, a disclaimer. I'm not a libertarian.

I consider myself a pragmatist with a left-lean. I am registered Independent, because even though I mostly grok the Dems more than the Republicans, I'm fed up to here with power politics, rhetoric and manipulation of the public by whatever means money can buy.

Having said that, I'm enamored with a potential movement that's been labeled "liberaltarian."   Liber(al)tarians are folks who believe market-based approaches to social problems do, sometimes, offer the more favorable outcomes, and would like to see government step back from a significant number of its endeavors. This perspective creates a veritable venn diagram of overlap between the liberal and the libertarian positions - hence, liberaltarians.

I personally find a lot of common ground with my libertarian friends. I can agree with them whole-heartedly that we need to withdraw the corporate subsidies we've been handing to the forestry, mining, agriculture and ranching industries since our country's early days. While once it may have required an incentive to get men to head out to the big wild to dig mines, run cattle, fell trees or tame the fields for food crops, now these industries are pretty much owned by big corporate money-makers. They don't need taxpayer charity.

But that was the libertarian argument. The liberal argument says that these mega-industries are negatively impacting ecosystems, and plundering our natural resources. And getting paid to do it. Instead, these industries should have to (1) pay market value for their leases, and (2) the price of those leases should include one way or another the costs of careful stewardship of our land and resources, to preserve its availability both to future generations, and as an essential part of the earth's dynamic ecosystem. These two requirements to internalize the costs of using natural resources would balance demand as real costs impact consumerism.

I can also agree that we need to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.  Loss of jobs and consumer buying power has converted this country from a mecca of the common man where people who hold down a job had a chance at the middle class, toward third world status. But that's the Libertarian argument.

The liberal argument has also historically been an environmental argument. Local and regional production reduce CO2 gases associated with transporting goods from far away places to the U.S.A. And, when we export manufacturing, we also export the pollution that goes with production to countries with less rigourous environmental regulations. And since pollution travels via air and water, it doesn't stay put. Exporting simply makes pollution more difficult to control.

Of course now, most of us would also aspire to have the job base back. So we even have an ideological venn overlap.

There are similar arguments to be made for the elimination of high tech tax loopholes, bad laws that make corporations into "persons" for legal purposes, and so on.

The term "liberaltarian" was coined by some folks in D.C. prior to Obama coming on the scene - there were liberals and libertarians meeting to discuss whether something could be done about corporate welfare, overseas jobs bleed, etc.  Click this sentence for a great article by Bruce Bartlett explaining the potential of these two groups to find common ground and push policy.

I'd always just assumed that the two groups are simply strange bedfellows - with very different ideological bases for wanting similar change. But I recently read an excellent historical piece about the leftist tradition among libertarians, and was moved to drop a link to it into this blog post. "Libertarian Left: Free-market Anti-capitalism, the Unknown Ideal," by Sheldon Richmond, spins out the leftist roots of the movement, including a strong soft spot for the un- and underemployed in our midsts. A quote from this article is below, but I urge you not to be satisfied with my little blurb on liberaltarianism, and to read his entire piece:

"These authors [Kevin Carson and Roderick Long]—and a growing group of colleagues—see themselves as both libertarians and leftists. They are standard libertarians in that they believe in the moral legitimacy of private ownership and free exchange and oppose all government interference in personal and economic affairs—a groundless, pernicious dichotomy. Yet they are leftists in that they share traditional left-wing concerns, about exploitation and inequality for example, that are largely ignored, if not dismissed, by other libertarians. Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses, support poor people’s squatting on government or abandoned property, and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised. They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion, and doubt that Third World sweatshops would be the “best alternative” in the absence of government manipulation."

I'm not a libertarian. But the liberaltarian model is a really nice model, in my mind, for demonstrating the ability of two quite different factions to find common ground and make progress. Perhaps had Obama not arrived on the scene, this group would have emerged with some ideas and made some progress.

Perhaps it's not too late.

Care for a Side of Antibiotics With That Milk?

2011-01-28T10:11:00.006-07:00

Cute cows, aren't they?
I am going to make believe that they are sunning, side-by-side, on a cows-only cruise ship.

I so often complain about the fox guarding the hen house - the way federal agencies seem to be incestuous extensions of the industries they regulate, swapping personnel between them and all.

Refreshingly, today it seems the Food & Drug Administration [the FDA] is doing what it's paid to do - trying to protect us from bad stuff in our food. Unfortunately, in this case, the industry involved is working very hard to make sure the FDA can't do its job.

And this from the dairy industry. Come on, folks. Is there anything more American than drinking your milk?

This New York Times article chronicles the agency's attempts to test our milk supply for illegal levels of antibiotics. The FDA wants to perform these tests because they've found such levels in older dairy cows bound for the slaughter house. The industry is claiming there's no reason to believe that older cows currently producing milk have the same levels as cows bound for slaughter.

No reason? How about common sense? Since it is expensive to maintain, house and feed older, non-producing cows, we can assume that these older dairy cows were producing all the way up until the day of their retirement party, when they are given a gold watch and a one-way ticket for that big cow cruise ship in the sky.

If you've ever been to the doctor for a virus, you've no doubt been told that we don't get antibiotics for every illness. We only receive antibiotics when a test for bacterial infection comes up positive. This is because putting antibiotics into your system reduces their future effectiveness - both for you personally, and because these bugs have a miraculous natural ability to morph in ways that make them resistant to the antibiotics we treat them with. That is bad news for all of us. As our antibiotics lose effectiveness for the bacteria in our environment, bacteria has the potential to become deadly. We are already seeing this with the advent of two new highly resistant killer strains of bacteria, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA - pronounced mersa] and Clostridium difficile [C diff or see-diff].

The dairy industry's argument is that the testing plan is poorly designed. The industry even suggested that farmers might be forced to dump millions of gallons of milk while they wait for test results. In actuality, it turns out that the requirement - I mean the term "forced" summons up a regulatory mandate, doesn't it - is an edict from the industry itself. Agri-Mark, one dairy cooperative, apparently issued an instruction to its members to dump any milk that's been tested until the results come back. The reasoning: if the milk has been dumped, a bad report cannot result in a recall. The industry is worried about public reaction to a recall.

While I understand the fear, it is a dairy farmer's responsibility to ensure that milk meets legal safety standards. If a farmer is doing his or her job, there should be no fear of the test results. On the other hand, if the industry looks the other way while its members get away with things because the FDA hasn't been checking up on them - well, that's no better than athletes who sneak performance enhancing substances. Except it's way more deadly, because what farmers do to our milk impacts nearly every person in America - both through the introduction of excess antibiotics to the population as a whole, and by the influence on the evolution of bacteria to more resistant strains.

Now the dairy industry is fighting the testing altogether. If their reasons are valid, why hasn't the industry proposed its own, alternative testing methodology? Is it because they're trying to hide something about industry practices? What we don't know can hurt us.

May I make a suggestion here? Buy ORGANIC milk. Even though it's a little more expensive, it's worth every penny not to put antibiotics in your system.

Or switch to organic almond milk. It's got no antibiotics, nearly the same nutritional value, fewer calories, and doesn't end with a retirement cruise for Elsie.

80% of U.S. Energy from Clean Sources by 2035

2011-01-25T20:21:00.001-07:00

Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, did a quick-and-dirty comparison of the president's State of the Union proposal with the last energy bill that failed. The first paragraph is below. Click here to take you to the entire analysis.

"President Obama announced a big new energy goal in his State of the Union address tonight: generating 80% of America’s electricity from clean sources by 2035. In the interest of helping people get a sense of what that means, here’s my quick analysis of how that compares to past climate proposals. The bottom line is that this looks more ambitious, at least for the electricity sector, than the climate bills that failed last year."

Poets Responding to SB 1070

2011-01-23T12:10:00.001-07:00

"Conquistadore"

A poem worth reading by Matt Sedillo, from a facebook page entitled "Poets Responding to SB 1070."

1994

Run
Go forth woman
Carry your child
Not long to be a man
Into uncertainty
Flee the certain wreckage
Of broken promises
Of better tomorrows
Know
That to be hated
To be hunted
Is still better
Than to starve

2006

Johnny Ramirez
An immigrant kid
Who crossed over
With his mother
When he was six
Abandoned by his
Father when he was three
Always had it rough
Lived by the motto
If I don’t see the cops
Then I don’t see why not
Lived in a system
That offered him nothing
That taught him
He was unwanted
Undocumented
Without a record
But a criminal by birth
So why not earn the title
Things are tough in
Migrant America
Poverty wages
An imploding economy
ICE raids
It’s always
One thing or another
In this new country
This land of opportunity
There is always a new pain
To discover
A new way to slowly
Kill yourself and your mother
In the land of milk and honey
He had caused her so much pain
He who took refuge in gangs
In drugs in liquor
Belief that he was
An Aztec warrior
Fighting the Blacks
Fighting El Salvadorians
Fighting other Mexican kids
From other corners
Crossing them out
Like so many toy soldiers
Things were rough all over
For the children of the poor
When there aint no jobs
There aint no opportunity
So you join a gang
Like the US military
Leave your mother crying
As you promise her
A path to citizenship
A road to scholarships
A real future in this country
Johnny Ramirez remembered
That conversation well
As he lay wounded fatally
In Fallujah
A gang banger
Turned general issue soldier
Turned cannon fodder
Turned statistic
Turned propaganda
Turned bumper sticker
Support our troops
Or protect our borders
Either way one less hated Mexican wetback
Or one more honored brave American soldier
Who kill and die in wars
Who live and die by the sword
Because those
Were the only two options
Ever given
Turned piece of meat
Whose humanity
Is sacrificed
To the so called
Ways of the world
Turned turn the page
Turned the same old song
Johnny’s mind began to race
He thought of a little girl
He had seen years earlier
In the paper
Shot on the corner
Of Whittier blvd
How the shooter claimed
It was an accident
Johnny thought
How children of Iraq
Were called collateral damage
How he called them Hajis
How he convinced himself
Their deaths were necessary
How his squad leader
Convinced him
They were less than human
How he let himself be convinced
That maybe he deserved this
Maybe he had always
Wanted to deserve
Something like this
That life from birth
Had never been worth
The effort of his mother
To push him through
Was this finally it
Was this what it meant
To be an American
To kill and die
In this now God forsaken nation
Once the cradle of civilization
As a reckless child
In ancient temple
Like the hands of a broken stop watch
As history repeated itself
As an immigrant
A soldier
A poor kid
Who never had a chance
A Conquistador
Dying
Dreaming
Of home
Mother
His cousin’s low rider
And murals
Of Aztec Pyramids

A Little Sump'm to Read

2011-01-22T17:32:00.001-07:00

Looking for something to read? Look no further...

Why Do People in Finance Earn So Much More than the Rest of Us?

VISION: The Future Is Becoming More Clear -- Abandon Sprawl, Intensify Use of High Speed Rail and Return to Urban Life, Like the US Was in the '20s

Why Glenn Beck Keeps Peddling Whack-Job Fantasies About Euthanizing Grandma, Outlawing Christmas and Turning Junior into a Raging Homosexual

Vermont Is Gearing Up to Strike a Major Blow to Corporate Personhood

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

2011-01-22T13:15:00.021-07:00

The world is so out of wack, and I'm sorry to say this, but the Tea Party folk got one thing very right. We need to throw open the windows to our insular little homes, and yell out the window - all of us - yell out the window,

"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

This morning at 7 a.m. the phone rang. I was still asleep. A woman's pleasant voice informed me that my lost suitcase - a bag that was handed off to an American Airlines luggage guy at the same moment I handed off another bag that did arrive in Phoenix - would be delivered to my home this morning. The delivery person, she said, is named Toots, and if I wanted to "show Toots some appreciation," it would be very welcome, because Toots does not work for American Airlines."   Half asleep, I got it that she was asking me to tip Toots.   I hung up, melted back into my pillow. Then suddenly, I got the rest of it.

I called back the number on my phone. I asked, "Did you just tell me that you work for tips?" The dispatch woman, who, it turned out was herself on the road making suitcase deliveries, was clearly rattled by my return call.

"It's strictly voluntary," she hastened to tell me. Then she explained that in fact, American Airlines pays $7.20 for each delivery.   From that fee, the delivery women receive 55 percent, or by my calculation, about $3.96 a delivery. For that, at 11 p.m. last night she drove from wherever she lives to the Airport, grabbed my bag and drove home, then hauled it across town this morning to Scottsdale. Toots, it turns out, had two deliveries this morning, so for her time, she made $7.92.

Has anybody noticed that gasoline is $3.00 a gallon?

The dispatch woman, whose name I later learned from Toots is Mary, was more than apologetic. She was scared. I told her I think it's so wrong for American Airlines to pay such a pitance to these women that they needed to rely on tips from AA customers - customers who should not have to tip to get their bags back after American lost them. After enduring days of worry, days without important belongings, days of fruitless phone calls to clueless American personnel; now I need to tip?

Oh, and did I mention that American Airlines charges to check the bags that they lose? Twenty-five dollars to lose - oops, I meant check - the first bag. Thirty-five dollars for the second bag.

I was so angry that I told Mary I planned to call American Airlines and tell them how wrong it is that they pay dirt-for-wages to these women. How wrong it is that the jilted American customer should have to pay, instead of American Airlines falling all over itself to make things right with its customers.

Mary's voice got a little strained. I should do whatever I felt I had to, she said, but... if American got wind of this, her delivery company would lose its contract. She explained that these delivery services are a dime a dozen. That the delivery business was cut-throat. That her company gets these accounts through a broker, and the broker could turn to another company in a snap to fill this contract. She was sure that if I called, they would be cut like that.

She then pleaded with me. She informed me that Toots is 56, has a disabled, unemployable husband at home.  Mary said she herself is a widow in her late 50s, lucky enough not to be supporting anyone else, but this job is all she has. She told me that once upon a time her agency had multiple airline contracts, but now the American Airlines contract was the only Airline contract they had left. She reminded me that the tip is completely voluntary. She said I should not feel obligated. She apologized if I was upset. She apologized and apologized and apologized.

And then she said it. She said the thing that is on the minds of any honest liberal whose eyes are open, and who is not an Obamapologist.

"President Obama hasn't done anything for us. He hasn't done anything at all."

I made up that word, "Obamapologist," by the way, joshing my friend Ruben for 'splaining away something or another coming out of the White House. I am very proud of that word. It's right up there with Obamacare.

Anyway, at that moment, I realized how angry I really am. Angry to the point of adrenalyn coarsing through my veins. Angry to tears. Really. They are streaming down my face while I write this, even though I couldn't get to my computer until after Toots arrived with my bag. Until after I'd figured out what to do about tipping Toots, since I did not want to give in to American Airlines' madness, yet it wasn't Toots I wanted punished. Until after I took Lucy and Simon to the dog park, came home, set up a virtual office hours for my ethics students, made myself something to eat, fed the dogs, swept the kitchen floor.

Angry because President Obama, the president of Change, and of Yes we can!, not only can't, but maybe just plain won't.

I am angry because President Obama just made William Daley his new chief of staff. Daley is a JP Morgan Chase man from the same Wall Street crowd that just sucked in billions of dollars of our tax moneys, to prevent the collapse of "our" financial system. I put the word "our" in quotes, because it turns out that preventing the collapse of the financial system did not loosen up money to small business or in any other way result in trickle-down financial health for the rest of the country. No, it just restored wealth to those who had already had a lot of it.

And James Cole, a private consultant to mega-insurance and investment firm AIG, another tax-payer bailee, to the Justice Department.

And just yesterday, Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, to be the head of Obama's jobs council and his new outside economic adviser. Jobs Council? Really?

What I'm getting at here, is that President Obama is bringing in the fox to guard our hen house. And Toots and Mary and me and you and a whole bunch of other people you know - we are the hens. We are being eaten alive out here in this economy, and President Obama is awash with fox.

Does it seem interesting to anybody besides me that GE was, according to Recovery.org, one of the largest direct and indirect recipients of funds from the federal stimulus program?

Does it trouble anyone besides me that Obama just placed at the head of our jobs council the man whose company took advantage of federal stimulus dollars despite having $156 billion in revenue last year, according to Standard & Poor?   How much stimulus did they really need?

Does it trouble anybody that Obama assigned a guy to create American jobs whose own company reduced its employee rolls by 18,000 in 2009 and has more of its 300,000 plus employees overseas than at home?

I'm mad as hell.

All this time later, I am still...so...angry... that I feel like whooping some ass. I feel just like Billy Jack.

"When I see this girl... of such a beautiful spirit... so degraded... and this boy... that I love...sprawled out by this big ape here... and this little girl who is so special to us we call her 'God's little gift of sunshine'...and I think of the number of years that she's going to have to carry in her memory...the savagery of this idiotic moment of yours... I...just...go...BERSERK!"

Folks, I'm a nobody, but until a whole lot of nobodies get angry, stick their heads out the window, get their bodies out in the streets, we're going to be stuck with a lot more of the same, and a whole lot less change.

The Tea Partiers and I don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of solutions, and by blasting the Democrats, they've missed the real problem by a mile. The real problem is that Washington has been co-opted by corporate greed. These machinations that benefit corporate shareholders to the detriment of the rest of Americans have been behind the scenes until recently. But the economy, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the rest of the Stimulus packages, coupled with the beautiful new transparency afforded to us by the internet - no wonder "they" are trying to regulate it - has put the truth in your face.

Those Tea Partiers who are there for real change - not just because it's a convenient vehicle to promote some extremist ideologies - Tea Partiers like my facebook pals Andrea Kent, Earl White, Jamie Conner and Deb Johnson - should cross the fence to talk with Democrats who find themselves disappointed - no, make that disgusted - with Obama's inability to break out of the D.C. mold. Together, we should push America up off its couches, party affiliation be damned. We should make Americans see that our country has been deeded over to corporate shareholders, and is not the mecca of common man.

This is no longer a place where anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, because the jobs are headed overseas and the profits are consolidated into corporate pockets. We Democrats should be thanking the Tea Partiers for getting angry.

I know this must sound outrageous on the heels of my post about toning down rhetoric. But getting angry is not about getting violent. I'm going to tell you what I used to tell my daughters when they fought with each other.

"Don't call names. Don't be hateful. Just say, firmly and strongly, what is happening that is hurting you.  Name the thing that is making you angry. Name the thing so we can work it out."

It would be a mad world if we didn't get angry about what's going on here. We are only 235 years old as country, and we may not have known the outcome of corporate greed when we passed all the laws that nurture and protect it, but we can begin to see its outline. We can begin to see its casualties, and those are us. This is not a market economy. This is a corporate despotism.  So yes, let's take a page out of the Tea Party handbook and get into the act. Let's put some reformers into office.  Not pretend reformers like President Obama.

There, I said it. Thank God I'm not important enough to end up on anybody's McCarthy-esque list.

Yesterday, my facebook friend Shaw Israel Izikson posted a YouTube video clip from the 1976 movie, "Network," showing fired news achor Howard Beale's on air "witness" after losing his job. Shaw posted the clip in honor of Keith Olbermann's final speech after MSNBC cut his show, "Countdown." As I watched Peter Finch's testimony to his audience, I realized his words, in 1976, were as accurate and meaningful today. Just substitute "Iranians" for "Russians," and you've got it. Down to the last dime. Here is the script to Beale's speech, but you'd do better watching it on the video below.

"I don't have to tell you things

are bad. Everybody knows things

are bad. It's a depression.

Everybody's out of work or scared

of losing their job, the dollar

buys a nickel's worth, banks are

going bust, shopkeepers keep a

gun under the counter, punks

are running wild in the streets,

and there's nobody anywhere who

seems to know what to do, and

there's no end to it. We know

the air's unfit to breathe and

our food is unfit to eat, and

we sit and watch our tee-vees

while some local newscaster

tells us today we had fifteen

homicides and sixty-three

violent crimes, as if that's

the way it's supposed to be.

We all know things are bad.

Worse than bad. They're crazy.

It's like everything's going

crazy. So we don't go out any

more. We sit in the house, and

slowly the world we live in

gets smaller, and all we ask is,

'please, at least leave us alone

in our own living rooms. Let me

have my toaster and my tee-vee

and my hair-dryer and my steel-

belted radials, and I won't say

anything, just leave us alone.'

Well, I'm not going to leave you

alone. I want you to get mad --

I don't want you to riot. I

don't want you to protest. I

don't want you to write your

congressmen. Because I wouldn't

know what to tell you to write.

I don't know what to do about the

depression and the inflation and

the defense budget and the Russians

and crime in the street. All

I know is first you got to get

mad. You've got to say:

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going

to take this any more.

I'm a human being, goddammit. My life

has value."

So I want you to

get up now. I want you to get

out of your chairs and go to

the window. Right now. I want

you to go to the window, open

it, and stick your head out

and yell. I want you to yell:

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not

going to take this any more!"

- Get up from your chairs.

Go to the window. Open it.

Stick your head out and yell

and keep yelling --

-- First, you have to get mad.

When you're mad enough --

-- we'll figure out what to do

about the depression --

-- and the inflation and the oil

crisis --

-- Things have got to change.

But you can't change them unless

you're mad. You have to get mad.

Go to the window --

-- Stick your head out and yell.

I want you to yell: "I'm mad

as hell and I'm not going to

take this any more!"

Right now. Get up. Go to

your window --

-- open your window --

I got my bag back this morning. No thanks to American Airlines and with the help of two women who make 55 percent of $7.20 for their trouble. These two women are so afraid of losing their jobs that Mary called Toots and asked her to pick up a Dunken Donuts gift card good for free coffee and a donut for me, on the way to my house. That's $3.50, leaving her with forty-six cents for her trip.

I have changed Mary's and Toots' names to protect their meager livelihood. I stood for a long time after I got off the phone from Mary, pondering how to deal with this. How to protest the profiteering of a mega-corporation like American Airlines by squeezing the blood from women like Toots and Mary. In the end, I gathered up all the change I could find and put it into a sandwich bag, and gave it to Toots in exchange for my bag and the Duncan Donuts gift card. Later I gave the Duncan Donuts card to two cops who were talking in the parking lot at the dog park. They have to sit there because there are people in my town who are so hungry or desparate that they break into our cars while we are off playing with our dogs. Or maybe they're druggies looking for something to sell to feed their habits, but maybe they're not.

I no longer think our government is a government of the people, by the people or for the people. It will be interesting to see what reaction I get from calling this the way I see it. I will be waiting to hear from my friends Doug Chandler, and Kathy Hodge Scherich, and Sandi Elliott and others on the left with whom I share opinions about how to solve social problems.

I wish I could do something more than write this damn blog. But it's just me and my keyboard today. Me against American Airlines, G.E., Wall Street and our corporatized government. I wish I had a business where I could employ Mary and Toots for fair wages. I wish I was Cesar Chavez or Martin Luther King or even Jon Stewart - somebody who cares and had the charisma and power to move people to the streets. I wish I had a bully pulpit.

I wish I had the power to get you all to move to your windows and scream.

Four Horsemen of the Nonprofit Apocalypse

2011-01-21T17:07:00.002-07:00

This one is for my many friends whose lives are dedicated to healing the world, either as staff or volunteers in the nonprofit sector, and for my many students who are working toward their masters of nonprofit administration degrees. You must take a peek at Clara Miller's article, "The Four Horsement of the Nonprofit Financial Apocalypse" in "The Nonprofit Quarterly." I'm going to give you the gist of her arguments, but it's worth clicking through to read the nitty gritty of her article, and her guidance.

Miller says the old one-size-fits-all wisdom about building financial sustainability for your nonprofit is, unfortunately, working against organizations in today's economy. Here are the four horsemen, paraphrased and greatly oversimplified (again - read the full article):

(1) too much real estate - problematic from an equity perspective (dropped values), and also from a cash-flow perspective - because the owner picks up major maintenance and repair costs during a cash poor economic climate;

(2) too much debt - during unpredictable revenue streams, you want your cash available to provide services, not debt service;

(3) under-water balance sheets/over-reliance on endowments - once seen as the ultimate vehicle to free a NP from the fundraising scramble, these prove unreliable in bad markets because they are invested with a goal of throwing off profits and maintaining the corpus; and,

(4) labor market issues - two-prong issue - a) nonprofits are often labor-reliant to meet mission, and labor is expensive, and b) bad economy often means a greater need, not a reduced need, for services, and that means more staff. The three problems above lead to reduced cash flow and inability to be financially nimble enough to take care of staff.

The sector definitely needs to rethink its financing model...

Why Not Wack Congressional Pensions While You're At It?

2011-01-20T23:20:00.002-07:00

According to Paul Bedard of "Washington Whispers," (a blog? a news site?), House Republicans unrolled a plan to cut about $2.5 trillion in federal spending. Of course, Obamacare is on the chopping block, and below is Bedard's list of other programs.

One of the interesting comments from the article was that the states should be picking up the costs of some of these programs. When I hear stuff like that, I'm torn between laughing and crying. How ludicrous. The states are so broke.

Has anyone bothered to look at the fiscal impact of each of these programs to see what would happen to the economy if these programs disappear? Or, God forbid, taken a look at the human impact? I know that's gauche these days. We care more about balancing the federal checkbook than about human lives. Hey, I'm not saying that the checkbook is unimportant, but folks, our country isn't in the financial mess we're in solely because of public funded programs. But that's a different blog.
I can blog about this proposal with relatively calm demeanor because I know the Senate will block these crazy attempts to make good on election promises. By the way, running bills that you know can't get off the ground is also a waste of public dollars. These bills all take precious congressional staff time, cost money to print, etc.

But on the other hand, come 2012, several more Democrat seats are in danger, including in the Senate, and who knows what they might really pull off if they get better control over the Senate. That would give me chills for sure. Here's the list, per Bedard:

"Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten yrs.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.
HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act."

EATING MEAT TO SAVE THE ANIMALS

2011-01-19T19:34:00.002-07:00

A year and a half ago, I wrote about my periodic attempts to put the meat down and back away from carnivorous eating. You can read about it here. Today I came across an article on AlterNet by Jenna Woginrich, who realized that refusing to eat meat because of the "twisted world of assembly-line death camps, crippled animals, radiated carcasses and festering diseases" did not, in any way, change the stockyard-to-table cruelty factor. So, she decided to take the opposite approach, to "...learn to butcher a free-range chicken, raise a pig without antibiotics and rear lambs on green hillside pastures."

Jenna's reason for writing the article is to remind us that every time we choose to buy our meat from a small farmer who is committed to cruelty-free ranching, we are informing the broader livestock industry that consumers want and are willing to pay for cruelty-free meat. She says,

"Farmers markets have been on a rapid rise in the US thanks to consumer demand for cleaner meat, up 16% in the last year alone....It's a hard reality for a vegetarian to swallow, but my veggie burgers did not rattle the industry cages at all. I was simply avoiding the battlefield, stepping aside as a pacifist. There is nobility in the vegetarian choice, but it isn't changing the system fast enough. In a world where meat consumption is soaring, the plausible 25% of the world's inhabitants who have a mostly vegetarian diet aren't making a dent in the rate us humans are eating animals. In theory, a plant-based diet avoids consuming animals but it certainly isn't getting cows out of feedlots. However, steak-eating consumers choosing to eat sustainably raised meat are."

Jenna's point is good. A few years ago, finding organic produce was seriously complicated, and usually involved a trip to a specialty market like Whole Foods. Today, consumer demand has guaranteed at least a small organic produce section in nearly every grocery store. Similarly, the market for kosher meats, which are ritually killed in what was - at least before other technologies existed - arguably the least painful method of slaughter. Point is, if people start voting with their wallets, slaughter procedures might begin to change in response.

I hope you'll read Jenna's full article here.

Civil Savvy - I Have a Dream!

2011-01-17T03:00:00.002-07:00

It is Martin Luther King Day, so pardon my post title, but I think MLK would approve. To make progress in this great nation of ours will require a dose of respect for civil forms of discourse, not to mention a little respect offered one-another just on the premise that we - and our ideas - all need to be treated with a bit more dignity. We are all Americans, and we are arguing over the shape of our nation. We all live here and lay a legitimate claim, and as such, our multiplicity of ideas should be heard out with an open mind.

I'm still not clear how this backslide into mud-slinging became our primary political dialect, but this is as good a time as any to turn this ship around.

Joe Markowitz

A facebook friend of mine, Joe Markowitz, wrote an excellent post today on Civility, and I urge you to read its entirety. Joe starts by mentioning Speaker John Boehner's accusation that the Obama administration is on a "job destroying spending spree." He then deconstructs the impact of Boehner's word choice, and offers some alternatives.

Another of my facebook friends, Doug Chandler, was prompted by Joe's post to note that Boehner's words didn't seem all that bad to him (my paraphrase). I get it, Doug, given the miles between a phrase like "job destroying spending spree," and some of the more vitriolic hate speech that's come under scrutiny in the wake of the shootings of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and some of her staff and constituents in Tucson a week ago last Saturday.

While I see Doug's point, I think Joe's point is too important to miss. Boehner's language didn't go over the edge, but neither did it "invite" civility. As I understand Joe's comments, fruitful discourse requires civility on both sides of the discussion - not to mention, wouldn't we really rather be a civil society? Joe's article is beautiful because it demonstrates just how easy it would be to produce a very civil, possibly even productive, conversation - if each side wanted to.

And there's the rub. I worry that the real story - beneath the rhetoric - is that neither party wants a civil discourse. I worry that each party has become so wedded to its own beliefs and its supporting rhetoric that delivering anything less than a ideologically perfect solution to any policy issue would be tantamount to party betrayal.

We've managed to ideologize ourselves into three factions - the My-Way-Or-The-Highway Right, the Oh-Crap-The-Right-Is-Beating-Us-Up-Again-Left, and the Will-You-Both-PLEASE-Just-Shut-Up-Disgusted-Middle. Until we can get civil again, we will have a hard time bringing that Disgusted Middle back into the discussion, and policy will be mostly stuck in this mire we've created.

I like Joe's post. It's so important because it demonstrates just how dawg-on simple civil debate can be. It strips away all excuses for civility between grown people. Here is my favorite few words:

"...[R]estoring civility does not mean that we are going to end disagreement or debate. Nobody should expect anybody else to abandon any deeply-held political positions, or to let go of their passions..."

Joe then goes on to offer some much-needed "how to" advice. I hope you'll click this sentence and Scotty will beam you right through to Joe's thoughtful little post.

Before I exit, I want to take a moment to applaud Senators Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who've announced that they plan to break tradition and sit together during President Obama's State of the Union address January 25th. It's a very civil - and savvy - move!

Illustration borrowed from Joe, who borrowed it from another blogger, who no doubt borrowed it from another blogger. We're all getting loose about attribution. Wish there was an easy way to know the origins of any particular photo found on the web. Unless they're locked or otherwise say not to use them, it's pretty freewheeling out here in cyberspace...

1:28 Minutes - Just Watch It!

2011-01-17T01:45:00.000-07:00

Wanted to share this video. This is not only a great reminder of the value of using a seatbelt, but it's a genius use of the medium to tell its story.

DAVID HARVEY: What Went Wrong With The Economy?

2011-01-16T16:20:00.001-07:00

This is fascinating. Harvey is doing a Marxist analysis, if I'm understanding him correctly. Whatever you think about Marx, some of Harvey's translations of Marx into today's events are worth tossing around. What do you think?

What Kind of Extremist Will You Be?

2011-01-15T19:09:00.002-07:00

My friend and mentor, Robyne Stevenson Turner (left), wrote a beautiful, thoughtful, reflective piece honoring the anniversary of Martin Luther King day. Below is my favorite section of her post, and I hope you'll read the rest of it here.

"MLK wrote, "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"

I believe we must be extremists of responsibility. That does not mean to be vigilantes or to demonize those with whom we disagree. I am often quick to lay blame at the feet of Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck. But instead, I need to take responsibility for what I am doing - how am I sounding the message of extremism for justice? How am I living into the dream of MLK that ours would be a society of character and not color? What am I doing to prevent the next Tucson, the next bobble-head exchange of vitriol, the day-to-day despair of dreams denied by people like me that have more power and position than ever earned?"

WHO SHOULD APOLOGIZE?

2011-01-13T08:24:00.011-07:00

The blogosphere is burgeoning with response to the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson last Saturday morning. While there is an outpouring of grief, sympathy and condolence, the bigger noise may be from saber-rattling of the left and right - geez, I can't even write a first paragraph without fighting rhetoric creeping in - over who is culpable for the shooting.

Oh sure, everybody concedes that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, a 22 year old with a history of erratic behavior, is ultimately responsible.

But there also emerged an immediate and visceral sense that Loughner, whose belongings included certain rantings against the government associated with right-wing ideology, might have been inflamed past the tipping point by right-wing rhetoric.

And an equally instinctive protest of innocence on the right, accompanied, of course, by the requisite cross-claims about violent Democrat rhetoric. That's "cross-claims," not "cross-hairs," by the way.

Click this sentence for some pretty graphic depictions of Republican candidates by some of our left-leaning pals. It's not just the right-wing who wanna inflict bodily harm.

Because ex-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's campaign used a visual that targeted Democratic candidates for defeat inside the cross-hairs of a gun, much of this debate has been focused on Palin herself. Many have called for Palin to apologize - to take responsibility for this ad and her other gun metaphor-ladin speech, to call herself out as wrong-headed in retrospect, to come forth and lead the nation in toning down rhetoric.

I want to talk about apologies for a moment. As a mediator, I know that an apology can go a long way toward healing between two conflicting factions. Yet, we here in America don't like to apologize. We find apologies so uncomfortable - recall, if you're old enough, "The Fonz" on "Happy Days" stuttering out his attempt to say, "I'm s..s..s..o..r..r..r..r..r..y..."!

Apologies infer culpability, and for reasons I'm not totally clear about, we avoid culpability like the plague. Are we afraid of law suits? Are we afraid of losing respect?   Are we afraid of being labeled with our misdeed, a scarlet "A" for Apologist?

I'd like to turn that around a little. What if that scarlet letter were really for Accountable?   We all make mistakes, both individually, and as a culture. To pretend otherwise is disengenuous. Taking responsibility for our mistakes, admitting them, and apologizing creates a space to end a destructive behavior, to move forward constructively. To save relationships. Denying real culpability, on the other hand, causes us to rationalize and legitimize destructive behavior, thereby perpetuating the negative.

I once read an article by a woman named Natalia Garland, written all the way back in 2003. She was thinking about the apologies of Pope John Paul II and of the Reverend Billy Graham. Pope John Paul II apologized on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church as an institution for the harms caused by the Church over history, including the sexual victimization of children by the catholic priesthood, the Church's collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust, and even to the Eastern Orthodox for the activities of the crusaders which led to the fall of Constantinople.

Billy Graham, on the other hand, was apologizing for his own actions. In 2002, some of former President Richard Nixon's tapes were declassified, and Graham was heard on them to engage with Nixon in some disturbingly anti-semitic comments. He later apologized personally to Jewish organizations, and in the press, saying he deeply regretted having made those statements. Graham didn't even remember having made the statements, but in hindsight, admitted that he must have been sucking up to the President (my words, of course, not Graham's).

Garland, in her article, notes the difference between these two apologies:

"Billy Graham apologized for himself, for his own doings. Whereas the Pope apologized for others' doings and for the impact of history. The Pope apologized as a leader, as a representative of an organized religion, on behalf of those who committed atrocities in the name of God, and on behalf of the corrupt and depraved segments of his religion. Billy Graham acted as a man of honor and conscience. The Pope acted as a Christlike figure, taking on the sins of others."

In more recent times, we've seen Chicago Tribune executive Lee Adams apologize to his employees for sending out lewd videos using the company email. We've seen NPR's CEO Vivian Schiller apologize to her colleagues for the way she fired Juan Williams from his job as correspondent. The White House and others apologized to fired Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sharrod for the hasty action that turned out to be wholey wrong-headed. Baseball player Josh Hamilton apologized to his wife, his team, and his fans for blowing sobriety and nearly destroying everything he'd worked so hard for.

Scholars have spent a lot of time studying what mediators know from experience: apologies are excellent beginning points for reconciliation. They are necessary steps toward rebuilding trust. Roy Lewiki and EdwardTomlinson, in a piece on trust-building, said,

"...[A]pologies and promises signal remorse and assurance for the future, respectively. These are important forms of communication that help to restore balance in the relationship and convince the victim that it will be safe to trust again in the future."

Getting back to the Tucson shooting, nobody wants to be culpable for Loughner's actions. In fact, there is no direct culpability for Palin or any of the other rhetoric slingers on either side of the fence.  Jared Lee Loughner alone pulled that trigger.

But neither should we ignore the quick, national, visceral impression that we've become an angrier nation than we want to be.   We can simply look at the raised level of vitriol on our facebook pages to see that inflamed rhetoric leads to inflamed tempers. I don't know about you, but I know too many former facebook "friends" who've gotten angry enough to defriend each other over heated rhetorical exchanges. And frequently use hate language to discuss each other afterward.

If heated rhetoric can cause normally social people to come unhinged on facebook, what's to say that a climate of heated rhetoric won't put a few crazy people over the edge?  Or drive a few sane people to craziness?

There is, in the law, something informally known as "the eggshell rule." It says, "you take your victim as you find him." If your victim is particularly fragile, and but for that fragility your action would have left no damages, you are nevertheless fully responsible.

What would be so wrong with a few of the more vitriolic of our statesmen and women, and our media personalities, from standing up to say, "in hindsight, this might not have been a good idea"?

And, I think we ought to take responsibility as a society as a whole for allowing ourselves to slowly roll into a more graphic, gratuitiously violent culture where the violence metaphors of Palin, Glenn Beck and others in both parties have become run-of-the-mill rather than outrageous. Today we stand by while our kids play video games filled with blood, guts and death, whereas my mother wouldn't let me see a James Bond movie until I was 18.   The gun lobby goes overboard, using terrorism, crime rates and border bandits to scare otherwise normal citizens into loosening gun laws well past the intentions of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

We've done this as a whole.  Sarah Palin simply tapped into something already present, or it wouldn't have been so appealing to so many.

Whether or not this trend toward violent speech triggered the Tucson shooting, it has certainly driven a wedge between countrymen and at times, has made it nearly impossible for our elected officials to function on our behalf.

I don't know who, by rights, should apologize to Gaby Giffords, the other injureds and the families of the slain on behalf of our culture for this generic slide into the abyss of violence. I don't know who should apologize to our country for allowing this breach of trust to so deeply divide us. I had hoped that someone in leadership would step forward to say, "I've missed the mark here, I've steered us away from our brightest future." I had hoped that someone with charisma would lead us back toward each other, toward healing, hope and reconciliation.

I hoped maybe President Obama would step forward. He did say this today:

"[W]hat we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."

But that is not an apology. That is not an acceptance of responsibility. I hoped maybe Sarah Palin would do so. She did say this today:

"We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional."

Neither was that an acceptance of responsibility. It was not an apology.

So, what's a little Jewish blogger to do?

Um... ok... how about if I do it?   Here. Now.   No, I don't think I have any special stature like the President, Sarah Palin or the Pope.

But I think I can do it in the spirit of the vidui, the ancient Jewish communal confession said annually at the high holidays, because our sins are common. We may undertake them alone, but their impact is felt in the context of community.   Our sins may be our own, but they also may be triggered, prompted, nurtured, supported, even invited by the structure and offerings of the community. We are in it together, as we were reminded so chillingly last Saturday.

So, here goes.

Al chet...I confess...and apologize...

For ever being hard-hearted and angry toward my own countrymen,
And for allowing myself to sink into baseless hatred, for holding a grudge, for failing to forgive,

For anything I may have said or done to infer that it is acceptable to look the other way in the face of violence in action or in speech.

For anything I may have said or done to infer that violence can be humorous or laughed off.

For anything I may have said or done to infer that violence is an acceptable political metaphor among countrymen in a country that should be striving to build national trust, strength and harmony.

For failing to take a stand on the creep of violent rhetoric and violent imagery into our society, simply because I could easily avoid exposing myself and my daughters by turning off the TV, refusing to buy the video, ignoring the movie.

For hiding behind the first amendment when it comes to asking myself whether this is my responsibility to speak out. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

For all these sins, and others I have forgotten to mention, please, friends, forgive me, pardon me, and be willing to move with me toward reconcilliation and healing.

Come on folks, if the leaders won't lead, let us lead by example.

ARIZONA GRIEVING

2011-01-10T05:33:00.002-07:00

Arizona coyotes howling. Their song sounds like my grief feels...

Sometimes things are supposed to happen a certain way.

I drafted a long, informative blog post about the tragic shooting of Gabby Giffords and 19 others, six of whom died. I wanted to talk about the political ramifications, about the divisive rhetoric that may or may not have inflamed an angry Jared Loughner, the shooter. I wanted to ask what a rhetoric of violent metaphor means to our country. I wanted to make a case that, while we cannot pin the murders on the rhetoric any more than we can officially pin other youthful violence on violent video games, a culture that allows violent rhetoric to become common place is a culture that is heading back toward wild west politics.

And in the wild west, anything goes.

Somehow the "save function" was inoperative and I lost the entire post. I do not have the heart or the time to recreate it - and I think maybe the universe is trying to tell me we need to grieve first, talk politics later.

So, I offer prayers for the speedy recovery of Gabby Giffords, her two staffers, Pam Simon and Ron Barber, and the other injureds whose names I do not know, as well as for those who lost their lives, including Christina Greene, 9, a student at Mesa Verde Elementary, Dorothy Morris, 76, a retiree, U.S. District Judge John Roll, 63, Dorwin Stoddard, 76, a retiree, Phyllis Scheck, 79, a retiree, and Gabe Zimmerman, 30, Giffords' director of community outreach.

CDC Says We're Dying Younger

2010-12-30T18:44:00.004-07:00

Latest CDC report - issued December 9, 2010, using 2008 data - says our lives are getting shorter. Read the full report here if you'd like to.

Heart disease and cancer, together accounted for whopping 48 percent of all deaths in 2008.

The top 15 causes of death:

1. Diseases of heart
2 Malignant neoplasms
3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4 Cerebrovascular diseases
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6 Alzheimer’s disease
7 Diabetes mellitus
8 Influenza and pneumonia
9 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis
10 Septicemia
11 Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
14 Parkinson’s disease
15 Assault (homicide)

Click this sentence for heart disease risk factors and other information from Mayo Clinic.

Click this sentence for cancer risk factors and other information from Mayo Clinic.

If you're not sure about some of these, my favorite online medical dictionary is here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/

Interesting Tidbits:

Respiratory diseases edged out Stroke (cerebrovascular) as the number three disease for the first time in 50 years.

Other diseases that experienced an up-tick include Alzheimer's, Flu and pneumonia, two different forms of kidney disease, and Suicide.

HIV deaths were down by 10 percent.

Death by other diseases remain relatively stable from the last reporting period.

A NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION FOR THE RICH

2010-12-30T14:33:00.006-07:00

Sam Harris, self-proclaimed member of the "haves," as well as a neuroscientist and author, wrote today in the Huffington Post about the growing wealth gap between the "haves" and the rest of us.

I ask that my libertarian and Republican friends kindly perservere through my blog today - if for no other reason than to humor me - even after your gut says Harris is probably one of those left wing elitists who want to tell us all what to do and how to spend our money. I don't really believe that, by the way, but I know some of my pals will see it that way. Try not to bite your tongues past that point where blood is involved. Harris begins:

"While the United States has suffered the worst recession in living memory, I find that I have very few financial concerns. Many of my friends are in the same position: Most of us attended private schools and good universities, and we will be able to provide these same opportunities to our own children. No one in my immediate circle has a family member serving in Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, the only sacrifice we were asked to make for our beloved country was to go shopping. Nearly a decade has passed, with our nation's influence and infrastructure crumbling by the hour, and yet those of us who have been so fortunate as to actually live the American dream--rather than merely dream it--have been spared every inconvenience. Now we are told that we will soon receive a large tax cut for all our troubles. What is the word for the feeling this provokes in me? Imagine being safely seated in lifeboat, while countless others drown, only to learn that another lifeboat has been secured to take your luggage to shore... "

Many of my readers are youth - my students. Depending on your upbringing, you may or may not relate to a perfectly comfortable life - a life that has enough of a cushion to weather a financial malstrom. A life that gets adjusted in an economic downturn by keeping a car a year or two longer, or staying in the U.S. for vacation this year.

But those of you who do relate, Harris is getting ready to help you think about what happens when the nation's wealth becomes more concentrated into fewer hands. There are more poor people in our country right now than at any time since the Great Depression.

During the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created jobs programs that created actual jobs. His largest program, the WPA [Works Projects Administration] created eight million jobs between 1935 and 1943.

We, by contrast, have created stimulus programs which require that we hold our breath and hope jobs will be created. One of the reasons we go that route is because jobs programs would be government-run and these days we lack political will for programs that increase government. Instead, we all get mad at President Obama when holding our breath does not result in enough jobs. It's such a catch-22.

Yes, yes, right-leaning friends. I know you would have created an entirely different stimulus package, for which we would also have been required to hold our breaths and hope.

Since that is not the stimulus package we have, however, you remain free to imagine that your stimulus plan would have resulted in more jobs than the Obama version. Such imaginings are both the consolation and political weapon of the minority party.

Frankly, the only sure way to use taxpayer money to create jobs is a jobs program, but these days, that's a "when pigs fly" kind of thing.

But let us return to Harris:

"Most Americans believe that a person should enjoy the full fruits of his or her labors, however abundant. In this light, taxation tends to be seen as an intrinsic evil. It is worth noting, however, that throughout the 1950's--a decade for which American conservatives pretend to feel a harrowing sense of nostalgia--the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent. In fact, prior to the 1980's it never dipped below 70 percent. Since 1982, however, it has come down by half. In the meantime, the average net worth of the richest 1 percent of Americans has doubled (to $18.5 million), while that of the poorest 40 percent has fallen by 63 percent (to $2,200). Thirty years ago, top U.S. executives made about 50 times the salary of their average employees. In 2007, the average worker would have had to toil for 1,100 years to earn what his CEO brought home between Christmas in Aspen and Christmas on St. Barthes."

"We now live in a country in which the bottom 40 percent (120 million people) owns just 0.3 percent of the wealth. Data of this kind make one feel that one is participating in a vast psychological experiment: Just how much inequality can free people endure? Have you seen Ralph Lauren's car collection? Yes, it is beautiful. It also cost hundreds of millions of dollars. "So what?" many people will say. "It's his money. He earned it. He should be able to do whatever he wants with it." In conservative circles, expressing any doubt on this point has long been synonymous with Marxism.

And yet over one million American children are now homeless. People on Medicare are being denied life-saving organ transplants that were routinely covered before the recession. Over one quarter of our nation's bridges are structurally deficient. When might be a convenient time to ask the richest Americans to help solve problems of this kind? How about now?"

This conversation brings to mind another writer, economic historian and philosopher, Carl Polanyi. In his seminal work, "The Great Transformation," Polanyi explains how capitalism came into existence, what evils it erases and what evils it cannot erase. By the way, if you've never read this book, do it! It may have been the singular best use of nonfiction reading time I've ever spent. I don't say that lightly.

Polanyi discusses the role of redistribution of wealth across time and culture. It's always been with us. From small society to large. Consider the Trobriand Islanders of Malanesia, whose chief is the recipient of a substantial portion of the locally grown produce. He, in turn, stores and distributes it to his people as needed. Hammurabi's kingdoms in Babylonia and in Egypt were similarly centralized bureaucratic despotisms to which spoils were gathered, and from which they were redistributed to the population. Our biblical history tells us that Joseph's Pharoah gathered and stored grain to redistribute to the people, especially during times of famine. In fact, until secular government displaced the Church as the primary institution, regional and local churches were the institutions of wealth gathering and redistribution, and had primary responsibility for the poor.

Today the wealthy collect money, not storehouses of food goods. That makes it more difficult to see that redistribution can sometimes be fair and necessary. Recalling Harris' figures (40 percent of the poorest own just .03 percent of the wealth):

If 120 million Americans owned only .03 percent of the foodstores, it would become obvious that the horded foodstores needed to be redistributed.

It's harder to understand that coins, bills, gold bars, land holdings, redistributed, becomes food, clothing, shelter in the hands of the poor. This is not to say that wealth should simply be handed out. There is nothing to say that some of this redistribution cannot be contractually handled - e.g. folks can work for their supper. But let's put that issue on the shelf for the moment.

Harris notes that part of the objection to redistribution is because the money goes through the government in the form of taxes. Not only do people not like to give up their money, but they particularly, in our day and age, do not like to give it up through government, which is viewed as bloated and bureaucratic on the one hand, and as spending our hard-earned money to pay for assorted pork projects for special interests on the other.

"It is easy to understand why even the most generous person might be averse to paying taxes: Our legislative process has been hostage to short-term political interests and other perverse incentives for as long as anyone can remember. Consequently, our government wastes an extraordinary amount of money. It also seems uncontroversial to say that whatever can be best accomplished in the private sector should be. Our tax code must also be reformed--and it might even be true that the income tax should be lowered on everyone, provided we find a better source of revenue to pay our bills. But I can't imagine that anyone seriously believes that the current level of wealth inequality in the United States is good and worth maintaining, or that our government's first priority should be to spare a privileged person like myself the slightest hardship as this once great nation falls into ruin.

# # #

And here I omit a few of Harris' words. To make it flow without the missing transition, I offer up the word, "Yet...

American opposition to the "redistribution of wealth" has achieved the luster of a religious creed. And, as with all religions, one finds the faithful witlessly espousing doctrines that harm almost everyone, including their own children. For instance, while most Americans have no chance of earning or inheriting significant wealth, 68 percent want the estate tax eliminated (and 31 percent consider it to be the "worst" and "least fair" tax levied by the federal government). Most believe that limiting this tax, which affects only 0.2 percent of the population, should be the top priority of the current Congress.

According to Harris, however, sooner or later the wealthy must favor at least enough redistribution of wealth to ensure the preservation of their wealthy status. That requires a consumer class. Consumers create the market for goods and services upon which the economy thrives. A thriving economy supports the wealth accumulation and preservation efforts of the rich. A failing economy tends to take wealth with it. To ensure a consumer class, we must educate our workforce, since jobs for the uneducated are dwindling due to the double whammy of technology and the export of manufacturing overseas to cheaper labor sources. Educated, employed workers can remain consumers.

"Who will pay for this?" Harris asks.

Harris says, "The wealthiest Americans often live as though they and their children had nothing to gain from investments in education, infrastructure, clean-energy, and scientific research. For instance, the billionaire Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, recently helped kill a proposition that would have created an income tax for the richest 1 percent in Washington (one of seven states that has no personal income tax). All of these funds would have gone to improve his state's failing schools. What kind of society does Ballmer want to live in--one that is teeming with poor, uneducated people? Who does he expect to buy his products? Where will he find his next batch of software engineers?"

# # #

"There is only one group of people who can pay for anything at this point: the wealthy."

That is because they have gathered all the wealth into their own storehouses. Redistributing some of it to pay for education and other infrastructure to shore up the realm may readily be seen as a cost of wealth preservation.

So, what, exactly is the objection?

# # #

"Perhaps Ballmer is simply worried that the government will spend his money badly--after all, we currently spend more than almost every other country on education, with abysmal results. Well, then he should say so--and rather than devote hundreds of thousands of dollars to stoking anti-tax paranoia in his state, he should direct some of his vast wealth toward improving education, like his colleague Bill Gates has begun to do."

Can you see where this is headed? Harris knows the politicos are in no mood to extract monies from the storehouses of the wealthy by taxation fiat. He is about to suggest that the wealthy step up to the plate and deliver the gold bars themselves! Brilliant!

"There are, in fact, some signs that a new age of heroic philanthropy might be dawning. For instance, the two wealthiest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, recently invited their fellow billionaires to pledge the majority of their wealth to the public good. This is a wonderfully sane and long overdue initiative about which it is unforgivable to be even slightly cynical. But it is not sufficient. Most of this money will stay parked in trusts and endowments for decades, and much of it will go toward projects that are less than crucial to the future of our society. It seems to me, however, that Gates and Buffett could easily expand and target this effort: asking those who have pledged, along with the rest of the wealthiest Americans, to immediately donate a percentage of their net worth to a larger fund. This group of benefactors would include not only the super-rich, but people of far more modest means. I do not have 1/1000 the wealth of Steve Ballmer, but I certainly count myself among the people who should be asked to sacrifice for the future of this country. The combined wealth of the men and women on the Forbes 400 list is $1.37 trillion. By some estimates, there are at least another 1,500 billionaires in the United States. Something tells me that anyone with a billion dollars could safely part with 25 percent of his or her wealth--without being forced to sell any boats, planes, vacation homes, or art. As of 2009, there were 980,000 families with a net worth exceeding $5 million (not including their primary residence). Would a one-time donation of 5 percent really be too much to ask to rescue our society from the maw of history?"

"Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who would not hesitate to invest in the future of America.'

I like Harris' idea. I often thought that the Health Care lobby should have gathered into a room and figured out how to reform itself, and offered that up to the country. It would have been bold, the right thing to do, an acknowledgement of reciprocity and symbiosis with the consumers who support the industry. In the same way, the storehouse keepers of the realm's wealth ought to get together to figure out how to fairly redistribute some of it for the health of the realm. Harris goes on to imagine what that redistribution might look like, and you can click this sentence to be whisked to Harris' article for the full roll-out. Myself, I will end this blog with a few supportive words from some historic figures.

"Money is like muck, not good except it be spread. ”

—Francis Bacon, 'Of seditions and Troubles', Essays, 15

"Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community."
—Andrew Carnegie, citation unknown.

"Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, 'You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

— Mark 10:21.

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'"

— John F. Kennedy

John Lennon 1940 - 1980

2010-12-08T20:05:00.001-07:00

Rest in Peace

Don't just IMAGINE the Dream Act. Contact your Senator. Senate contact information here: http://tinyurl.com/25nubaq