Ted Auch

Let me get this straight if an energy source is finite and came into being over a geologic scale it is fair to pay less as we deplete it but if it is ubiquitous and markedly easier to access we should pay more? That doesn’t make sense to me I mean don’t we have to pay an order of magnitude more for a Ferrari then we do a Tato Nano? Furthermore don’t we pay equally disparate fees for handcrafted furniture, jewelry, or pastries then we do stuff at Ikea or a Hostess Cupcake? Now that makes sense but the initial example makes absolutely none and needs to be dealt with here in the US ASAP. What makes us so special that we were at the height of the oil bubble paying $3.37 and folks in Britain, Italy, and France between $8.06 and $8.33 a gallon?

Are we owed this discount and if so why? Everyone knows by now that we consume ~ 25% of the world’s energy. Additionally, each of us is responsible for 15.1-23.6 tons of CO2 per year ranging from a low of 7.2 in the nation’s capital to 123 Tons of CO2 per year in Wyoming, with nearly 20% of this coming from transportation related needs.

It is true that China and India are emitting a lot with rough respective totals of 7,150 and 1,210 Tons of CO2 annually.

However the latter on a per capita basis pale in comparison with 5.5 and 1.1 tons per capita CO2 annually.

All these trends roughly, although not as well as you might think, with prosperity as is evidence in the graph to the right.

You may say you’re just a self-hating American and I would respond only when I/we deserve it and only when we arrogantly disavow logic and certain norms accepted the world over, because for some systemic and at this point cancerous reason we feel entitled.

Did you know that those statistics I mentioned earlier include a 12% gas tax for us and >55% for the Euros?

They get it and the reason they get it is that they have been forced to work with their neighbors, both locally and within the union to offset their many years of insensitive and short-sighted practices. Again some will retort that the US will do the same in good time and I would note that Churchill’s notion that Americans always do the right thing once we tried everything else is not an option at this point.
Any politician worth his or her backbone would have left the price of fuel where it was last summer or maybe even kept raising it! Yeah I know political suicide and boy would I feel really bad for any politician who really told the American people what they really needed to hear. Wait one such politician did his name was Jimmy Carter and the moment was his now famous and probably in his mind infamous “Malaise Speech”. The former president sounded much like a parent would when trying to curb the mindset of a spoiled child. Only in Mr. Carter’s case the dog was too old, had no interest in new tricks, and would bite the hand of anyone who said otherwise. This is an example of a prescient politician who paid the ultimate price for his honesty. Aren’t we always looking for honest politicians? The answer is no we just portend that is what we want when really we desire someone who looks just as good on his ranch as he does on an aircraft carrier, at a barbecue, or on a basketball court. We want a Big Brother who will demand that our needs as a nation are met, whether that comes at the expense of other nations, plants, animals, or fish so long as the price of gas plummets the masses will be pacified. The challenge of reversing this inertia has been gleefully passed from our erstwhile “leader” to Barack Obama, who in my opinion is the smartest man ever to hold this office and truly understands the concerns of this country irrespective of tax bracket. However, the jury is still out as to whether he will have the conviction and long-term vision to shower us with the tough love we as a nation so rightfully deserve. My confidence in this occurring is in the words of Gen. David Patreus “fragile and reversible”. This cynicism could easily be transformed into elation if President Obama conveyed to the American people that the only tool they have to stabilize oil prices is driving less and that they need to come to the realization that the laws of supply and demand and matter conservation dictate that anytime demand exceeds supply the consumer pays the ultimate price, whether we like it or not. This is not so much a matter of national security as it is a question of what if anything we want to leave for future generations. Rome is burning folks and all we’re worried about is how much the arsonist is paying to commit the crime.

I am starting to realize (finally!) that the institutional forces at work in the Democratic party are as nefarious and opaque as those that guided the outgoing administration (see Pelosi, Reid, et al) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13divoll.html?scp=1&sq=Congress%E2%80%99s%20Torture%20Bubble&st=cse; http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20090515.html). Their inability to look in the mirror erodes at their credibility in the eyes of those of us on the left that don’t walk lock-step with their rhetoric. This further buttresses the idea that institutional Democrats are complicit in tactics aimed at, in the words of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan “defining deviancy down” (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm).
It is clear that the Obama administration is not the Obama campaign and that deceit vis á vis language is still the coin of the realm. This surficial change in how DC presents their case is as petty as not using “surge” when referencing the 21,000 troops being sent to Afghanistan, or changing the war on terror to “overseas contingency operations and terrorist attacks to “man-caused disasters”. Or this notion that it is really hard to convey to the American people why bailing out these financial institutions is so important. I have an idea why such an explanation is so difficult. I simply recall back to my teenage years when I came home late or went into NYC when I wasn’t supposed to. Well it was much easier at the time to tell my parents a boldfaced lie then the truth at the time and that is what Treasury Secretary and Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers are perpetuating right now with their PPIPs, non-recourse loans, and loosening mark to market regulations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/the-geithner-summers-plan_b_183499.html). They know that telling us the truth should and potentially will lead to nationwide revolt (Peacefully of course!) so they have instead chosen the path of least resistance, which is the legerdemain and shenanigans they and the rest of DC have grown so accustomed to shoving down our throats. This is a cross-the-aisle issue and was initiated with Grover Nordquist’s “Starve the Beast” paradigm that seems to have infiltrated every fiber of the Republican party. It is now being escorted through some pretty difficult times by the party of Roosevelt and for that the Democrats, specifically Christopher Dodd, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid should be ashamed of themselves. What I ask makes Geithner and Summers more qualified then say Elizabeth Warren, Paul Krugman, or Dean Baker? The answer is the unabashed love of the former for Wall Street dogma (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/opinion/30krugman.html?scp=1&sq=America%20the%20Tarnished&st=cse). Sure I know academics don’t live in the real world and would therefore not construct plausible alternatives. Well from where I sit the guys at Treasury absolutely don’t live on this planet. If you want capitalism you have to be willing to let it bust at times and you have to accept scorched earth. If you want to come into the White House as a proponent of change please don’t tell us how your AfPak solution is so novel and your willingness to surrender the power accrued by the Bush administration is genuine (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/opinion/17tue3.html?scp=3&sq=On%20Signing%20Statements&st=cse; http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/16/nsa/index.html). Remember Democrats you are entering an office at an all-time low with respect to credibility here and abroad. Show us that you are listening President Obama don’t just tell us, because seeing is believing and aside from some very insightful and encouraging rhetoric you seem quite comfortable with the bed that Bush/Cheney made for you and that to someone who is awed by your intellect is quite upsetting. The country needs your sincerity and transparency. We know that you see much substance in the words of people like Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul now embrace this sector of the political spectrum. DC needs the political/intellectual equivalent of a Rainbow Coalition, it needs it now, and there is no one more qualified to lead in this regard than the current president. President Obama could start by increasing the overall transparency of the government via full disclosure of Congressional Research Service reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12tue3.html?scp=1&sq=Sharing%20congress%27s%20research&st=cse)

A couple of weeks ago the debate around a hate crimes bill was brought before the House and was approved by a vote of 249 to 175. The bill is designed to give those that are victims of such crimes new federal protections and is largely due to the courageous and resolute work of the family of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old University of Wyoming student, who was brutally tortured and left for dead in 1998. His story was recently revived by the “Laramie Project”, which forced the community to, in the words of Reggie Fluty a Laramie policeman as reported by Patrick Healy in The Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/theater/17laramie.html?scp=1&sq=Patrick%20Healy%20Reggie%20Fluty&st=cse) “…just, as a community, get slugged before you wake up and grow up…I don’t think we’re all grown up, but I think people are trying.” Getting back to the bill in congress it defines hate crimes as though motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Seems harmless enough right? However, Representative Virginia Foxx, a Republican of North Carolina, stated on the floor of the House that Mr. Shepard’s death was “a hoax” and did so while the Shephard family was in attendance.

I have to wonder why so angry Ms. Foxx? What is it about this bill you that seems so anathema to you and your right-wing colleagues? It says on your website that you are a lay leader in your church and I am wondering if such animosity towards those that don’t look like you, believe what you believe, and sleep with the people you have slept with was cultivated at your church. You voted against money for victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Voting Rights Act in 2006. Why? What is your problem and by association the right-wing’s problem with people that aren’t you in the strictest sense? Okay I think I get it you don’t like those that fall into the categories mentioned above and that is well within your rights as an American citizen. However, what I can’t understand is why you think that an individual has the right to inflict harm on someone because the victim is different? Is it that you think the aforementioned are virulent strains of H1N1 that will spread to your district(s) or possibly your grandchildren? Come on you know better right? Right? Do you think that if you promote the ability of all to vote in this country it will lessen your chances of reelection? Maybe it will but maybe it won’t if you simply reach out to those on the other side of the track/aisle and let them know that philosophical differences are no reason for the clear hatred that came to the surface in your speech.

You and your colleagues need to understand that the chickens will come home to roost eventually and someone in your district or town or even closer will be subjected to the horrible crimes Mr. Shephard undeservedly was on the receiving end of and at that moment Ms. Foxx I hope you don’t invoke the word hoax when consoling the families who on that sad day will not be some far-off liberals but rather your constituents. We aren’t asking you to like or even approve of these people we are simply asking you to consider whether physical or philosophical differences are worthy of torture or worse yet death? Please answer no as it is only a matter of time before such crimes, if ignored, reach the 5th district of N.C., because I am sure you haven’t weeded out all minorities although it seems from your words you may try if given the chance. On the surface Ms. Foxx how different do you really think Laramie, WY and say Boone or Mount Airy, N.C. really are from each other and the rest of the country? I am sure the folks in Laramie thought the same prior to October 12th, 1998. Stop spending so much of your energy on hating and a little more on understanding your neighbors. I think your grandkids and the 5th District of N.C. will eventually thank you for such a transformation.

Yellow Birch was first described in 1803 by the French botanist André Michaux. It is a third of the maple-beech-birch troika – the northern extent of the mixed mesophytic Appalachian and Allegheny forests – characterizing New England and northern Great Lakes. Its northern limit is 48-49N covering 9% (≈74 M ha) of eastern US forests and 183 M ha of Canada.

Great Lakes Colonization initiated during the late Holocene period (4,000 YBP) peaking 3,500-2,000 YBP. In the presence of hemlock both sugar maple and yellow birch are subordinate across their range. Yellow birch and sugar maple exert a strong influence on plant biodiversity, with equitable mixes of the two yielding the greatest diversity across a range of site conditions. The largest yellow birch communities are in southern Québec & Ontario, New Brunswick, upper Michigan, and New York. It is the official provincial tree of Québec where it is commonly referred to as merisier or wild cherry in French. Québec also contains 50% of the species total volume. Preferred climates include winter and summer temperatures of -40°C and 28°C, precipitation of 1,240-1,300 mm yr-1 with half as snowfall, and growing seasons of 60-150 days. Yellow birch occurs between 550-800 m in New England relative to sugar maple and beech with respective peaks of 600-650 and < 600 m, with optimum growth at 671, 549, and 549 m.

Yellow birch bark has few peers what with its shiny golden brown sheen and quite shaggy at maturity texture. The bark is quite resistant to decay so when you encounter what looks like a recently downed stem in the woods don’t be surprised if it is hollow or encasing well-decomposed material indiscernible from the forest floor upon which it lies. Conversely, leaf litter decay tends to be greatest for yellow birch, with sugar maple intermediate and beech the slowest of the forest type. Yellow birch seeds prolifically, maintaining a consistent albeit moderate seed and seedling bank in the forest floor preferring northeasterly, nutrient-deprived, mesic or moist, acid (pH < 6.3) soils of the Precambrian shield and the Spodosol or Alfisol order. Unlike its cohorts yellow birch thrives in swampy sites, along streams, rivers, on and around rock outcrops, and gentle to moderate upland slopes. Primary (>20 mm diameter) and secondary (10-20 mm) roots tend to aggregate along contours and the tree’s uphill side when growing on slopes with slight downhill sweeps. When exposed coarse roots resemble giant snakes and readily graft within- and between-trees.

Reproduction is via wind-disseminated seed and catkin bracts with sexual maturity at 35-40 years and heights of 14 m, although old-growth exceed 300 years. In New Hampshire the following dependence on advanced regeneration was described: beech > mountain maple > sugar maple and striped maple > ash and yellow birch.

Seedling success is most likely on mossy logs, advanced decay coarse woody debris (CWD) and stumps, cracks in boulders, and windthrown hummocks, because leaf litter accrual is detrimental to its survival. Specifically although anecdotally yellow birch appears to prefer red spruce logs and stumps. This pattern of stump and CWD germination along with characteristic ‘heart root’ architecture leads to unique and quite remarkable stilt roots.

These are dramatic appendages resulting from the complete decomposition of organic substrates or root expansion in and around shallow parent material. When scratched the bark of yellow birch bark yields a pleasant wintergreen smell similar to its cousin to the south sweet birch. When in the same forest seedlings/saplings of these two prove difficult for even the most skilled dendrologist to discern.

Some of the most beautiful yellow birch specimens are at the northern temperate-boreal forest ecotone’s upper boundary on Mt. Mansfield, where the characteristic bark mentioned above gives way to what can best be described as a corrugated cardboard aesthetic and feel. I have also found some amazing examples of the stilt root phenomenon along the Forest City trail ascending Camels Hump, with these trees quite photogenic. They remind one of the all knowing sylvan oracles described in children’s books. While infrequent these “Oligarchs of the Woods” strike quite the pose surrounded by gnarly beech and occasional red spruce. When beech, sugar maple, yellow birch, and white ash establish concomitantly, the latter three outgrow beech within ten years and are more prolific within two decades. The balsam fir-yellow birch grouping of eastern Québec and northern or high elevation Vermont is classified as a climax forest. Interestingly clearcutting has been blamed for the demise of yellow birch and balsam fir throughout much eastern Canada. Noticeably large, charcoal colored, perennial, and hoof-shaped conks of Fomes fomentarius, the tinder fungus, are common on birch. The fungus also has been associated with decay in living and dead branches of dieback birches. According to Erdmann

“A decline of yellow birch and paper birch trees, called birch dieback, caused widespread mortality between 1932 and 1955 in eastern Canada and northeast United States. It affected yellow birches of all sizes, even in undisturbed virgin stands.”

Yellow birch is a primary food source for yellow-bellied sapsucker, redpolls, ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare, porcupines, moose, and deer. Moose and deer prefer seedlings in the summer and green leaves and woody stems in the fall, preferring succulent materials, with persistent localized herbivory a cause of significant decline. Birds tend prefer to feed on catkins, seeds, and buds.

In Vermont yellow birch readily colonizes abandoned skid trails and areas of significant canopy removal confirming yellow birch’s proclivity for soil or canopy perturbation. The bark contains betulinic acid, which hinders decay and is used to treat melanoma. Woodworkers speak of its utility for veneers, tools, snowshoe frames, and sledges and as the most valuable of the North American birches. Scattered Vermont landscapers have recently incorporated yellow birch in native plantings and last time I checked Cobble Creek Nursery in Bristol was working to propagate from seed Yellow Birch.

For more complete silvics of yellow birch and North American trees writ large the reader is referred to Burns and Honkala 1990

References

Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Co., Philadelphia. 594 pp.
Dhamala, B.R., and M.J. Mitchell. 1996. Soil Disturbance and Elemental Dynamics in a Northern Hardwood Forest Soil, USA. Water Air Soil Poll. 88(3/4):343353.
Erdmann, G.G. 1990. Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton). In Burns, R.M., and B. H. Honkala (eds.) Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Dept. Agr. For. Serv. Washington, DC. vol.2, 877 p.
Fayle, D.C.F. 1965. Rooting Habit of Sugar Maple and Yellow Birch. Can. Dept. Forest Publ. No. 1120.
Gaucher, C., Gougeon, S., Mauffette, Y, and C. Messier. 2005. Seasonal variation in biomass and carbohydrate partitioning of understory sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) seedlings. Tree Phys. 25:93-100.
Habiyaremye, I., Stevanovic-Janezic, T., Riedl, B., Garneau, F-X., and F-I. Jean. 2002. Pentacyclic Triterpene Constituents of Yellow Birch Bark From Quebec. J. Wood Chem. Tech. 22(2 & 3):83-91.
Hannah, P.R. 1999. Species Composition and Dynamics in Two Hardwood Stands in Vermont: A Disturbance History. For. Eco. Mgmt. 120:105-116.
Hannah, P.R. 1972. Yellow Birch Root Occupancy Related to Stump and Breast Height Diameters. Vt. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 669. 9 p.
Houle, G. 1992. The Reproductive Ecology of Abies balsamea, Acer saccharum, and Betula alleghaniensis in the Tantaré Ecological Reserve, Québec. J. Eco. 80(4):611-623.
Hoyle, M.C. 1970. Growth and Nutrition of Yellow Birch as Affected by the Nutrient Status of a Podzol Soil. No. Am. For. Soils Conf. Forest-Soil Relat. No. Am. Pap. 1968 pp. 221-233.
Hoyle, M.C. 1969. Response of Yellow Birch in Acid Subsoil to Macronutrient Additions. Soil Sci. 108(5):354-357.
Hoyle, M.C. 1969. Variation in Content of Microelements in Yellow Birch Foliage Due to Season and Soil Drainage. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 33(3):458-459.
Hoyle, M.C. 1965. Variation in Foliage Composition and Diameter Growth of Yellow Birch with Season, Soil, and Tree Size. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29:475-480.
Hoyle, M.C., and J.C. Bjorkbom. 1969. Birch Nutrition. In Proceedings, Birch Symposium. p. 95-101. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, P
Jackson, S.T., and R.K. Booth. 2002. The Role of Late Holocene Climate Variability in the Expansion of Yellow Birch in the Western Great Lakes Region. Divers. Distrib. 8(5):275-284.
Linteau, A. 1948. Factors Affecting Germination and Early Survival of Yellow Birch (Betula lutea Michx.) in Quebec. For. Chron. 24:27-86.
Logan, K.T. 1965. Growth of Tree Seedlings as Affected by Light Density. I. White Birch, Yellow Birch, Sugar Maple and Silver Maple. Dept. For. Can. Pub. No. 1121.
Oosting, H.J. 1956. The Study of Plant Communities. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 440 pp.
Oosting, H,J., and W.D. Billings. 1951. A Comparison of Virgin Spruce-Fir Forest in the Northern and Southern Appalachian System. Ecology. 32(1):84-103.
Pelletier, B., Fyles, J.W., and P. Dutilleul. 1999. Tree Species Control and Spatial Structure of Forest Floor Properties in Mixed-Species Stand. Ecoscience. 6(1):79-91.
Redmond, D.R. 1957. Observations on Rootlet Development in Yellow Birch. For. Chron. 33:208-212.
Tyrrell, L.E., and T.R. Crow. 1994. Dynamics of Dead Wood in Old-Growth Hemlock-Hardwood Forests of Northern Wisconsin and Northern Michigan. Can. J. For. Res. 24(8):1672-1683.
Zarnovican, R. 2000. Climate and Volume Growth of Young Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) at Three Sites in the Sugar Maple-Yellow Birch Forest Region of Québec. Ecoscience. 7(2):222-227.

So I wonder if Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton have respective $35, 23, 17, and 16 billion dollar endowments what are they doing with all that money and what for that matter are universities doing with the difference between the 17.2% they earn on investments and the 4.6% they spend? Well we have the folks at Amherst College to thank for the answer they gave at a discussion in September of last year with congressman Peter Welch and Senator Chuck Grassley of Vermont and Iowa, respectively (Lewin 2008 New York Times). They for point of reference spend $80,000 dollars per year on each student…that’s right $80,000! Lotta money huh? Well we don’t have an overwhelming reason not to believe them but like the old saying “The plural of anecdote is data!” and I want the data all of it. I won’t to know, and so should you parents and students, where every penny is going, because I know it isn’t going towards astronomical bonuses like the boys and girls on Wall Street got last year, I mean imagine what this country’s struggling undergraduates could have done with $18.4 billion? I would imagine the response from the administration at Amherst or any other college for that matter would be that they are working to produce the best and the brightest. Well it is true that extremely great and intelligent kids are coming out of our college system, but the disturbing trend is that in the same vain as Warren Buffet’s “ovarian lottery” those kids are coming more and more from a smaller sector of society with the net college cost for familes being 55% of income for the lowest category and only 9-16% for the upper-middle and highest tax brackets. A recent report by the folks at The College Board (ie the SAT folks) found that while median family incomes rose 147% between 1982 and 2007 college tuition rose 439% (Lewin 2008 New York Times). Annual total expenditures currently range from $14,054 for public two-year commuter institutions to $29,193-37,390 for public four-year out-of-state on-campus and private four-year on-campus universities. Overall increases or tuition + room and board for private and public four-year universities rose by 221 and 200%, respectively.

This is not democracy at its finest. Some would argue well hey tough luck! I would reply at some point you will be pushed aside, because if you’re not familiar with what an exponential growth curve looks like you better get acquainted with them real quick. They are nasty and cold critters who make no exceptions and when they peak boy is the corresponding crash an ugly thing. We are a nation that was founded on lifting up those that deserved a fighting chance and want desperately to contribute to present and future trajectories. These people should not be forced to beg inclusion. We need to demand that any and all qualified student have the opportunity to attend college and we need to demand that this charter school initiative not usurp in stature or assistance our public institutions. These types of initiatives start with holding university/college administrations and DC accountable and with asking why it is that the Department of Defense has never been denied a thing in its existence, while education is deemed as expendable a commodity as bottled water.  Where does all this money in tuition go? Exactly where does it go and if we don’t like where it goes don’t we have the right to question the policy and people that put it there? I might reveal my idealism here but I strongly believe that education is not something you go into to get rich and institution of higher learning are not corporations they are conduits for knowledge, facilitators of creativity, and more importantly members of a community. It is high time they engage in transparency and maybe even a little bit of altruism, while addressing the recent increase in town-gown rifts.

Dear People,

We love you very much and are proud of all of your accomplishments and amazing ability to empathize, care for, entertain, and defend each other in good times and bad. We both knew that when you came on the scene things would never be the same, but we also knew that there was a latent danger in imbuing you with a myriad of wonderful physical and mental attributes. Our worry was that you would not be able to contain yourselves and that in doing the aforementioned you would forget that as stewards you are required to do the same – sans the entertaining part – for this awe inspiring planet you have been given. Intelligence is a gift and a curse! It is obvious that you are not currently hearing our cries of anger and sadness. We are not eager to inflict wounds to our skin and the organisms that subsist on our bounty just so you get the picture, but will do so if it is the only way. We are left to wonder when you will realize that tapping every one of our veins for your fossil fuel needs without paying anything forward is neither sustainable nor respectful of those with whom you share this planet. We are writing this letter on behalf of all those in our terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that can’t speak for themselves nor can they defend themselves when you really want something! This is also an effort to appeal to your parental sense and sensibility, because passing the baton on these issues is no longer feasible as you’re children’s investment in this effort to reverse our deleterious trajectory will be nullified if you don’t act immediately with purpose and altruism. Stop couching everything in terms of national security and gross domestic product. At this point we want you to internalize Carrying Capacity Vs. Exponential Growth, which in case you aren’t familiar with how they look graphically are two diametric concepts/forces. In good conscience we can only allow a certain number of you to live off this planet’s resources and beyond that carnage the likes of which we have never forced you to deal with will be the norm not the exception. Additionally, we ask that you aim to live simply so that others may simply live.

Our love and concern for your well-being is strong but when we gave you dominion over this planet we knew that someday we would have to shower you with some “tough love”. So, it is with much regret that we lay out how things will be from now on if you don’t decide change your role on this planet from one of fiefdom to that of cooperative participant in ensuring long-term health and happiness of all species great and small. We will no longer be able to feed you in a timely fashion and at all in some areas of the world. It will no longer be able to separate those of you that care from those that don’t and all will feel the wrath of our disappointment. Drought will be unpredictable, storm intensity and frequency will not adhere to any empirical norm, and we will leave you by the side of the road when you do indeed tap all of our lifeblood. These conditions will lead to upheaval on a scale not yet seen anywhere. Our cries have not been acknowledged and consequently yours will as well when you begin to choke on your gluttony. Why so harsh you may ask? We can only respond my noting that our please have been consistent and in a variety of forms, with some more subtle than others, but all meant to get you to listen. We ask what is it that was done to you that you have such contempt for your neighbors even those most like you the gorillas and chimpanzees that many of you feel need to be erased so as to not remind us of where we came from and others still look at those that do as apostate. You talk so often about wanting to go to heaven and not hell, well what about the here and now? What is so bad about this planet that you feel the continued need to bend it to your collective will? The non-human inhabitants of this planet can’t fight back against your guns and fishing trawlers and fences and sprawl. However we can and we will retaliate, because at the end of the day you can’t shoot down or bomb into submission a hurricane, snow storm, drought, or pandemic. So, we just want you to know while we are your biggest fans we can also very easily and with not much more provocation become your worst enemies.

Sincerely.

Mother Nature & Father Time

I was going to use the title “How the Left Was Won” but since the guy on the way out made it known recently that invoking it was one of his only mistakes I thought it would be an appropriate title for a discussion of the neoconservative’s greatest achievements. In the last eight years, and with absolutely no resistance from the former Arkansas governor or congressional Democrats (sans Russ Feingold and Paul Wellstone), Karl Rove et al. have managed to drastically shift perceptions of the American psyche’s Gaussian distribution. In some warped yet brilliant way establish the Bush administration as a the gold standard with respect to toughness, compassion, patriotism, principle, and faith. Mind you the last word is supposed to be separate from policy, toughness is not exactly something that imbues you to multilateral talks, and compassion doesn’t fit with the hate speech oozing out of many evangelical and Pentecostal churches across the land.

I submit that this sea change is evidenced in the sigh of relief Patrick Leahy and the entire judiciary committee let out when Eric Holder agreed that waterboarding is torture and rendition is not an exercise that should be used to usurp US and international law. Is this some sort of admirable quality that Mr. Holder exhibited? Or is it something we should expect of our public officials? Well according to the Democrats it is the latter and this is just another case of Pelosi, Reid, and Co. lowering the moral bar so as to not stir the pot too much for fear of coming across as soft on terror or unpatriotic. I am sure Mr. Holder is a fine man and legal scholar, but his acknowledgement doesn’t strike me as the least bit liberal or conservative, rather it strikes me humane and pragmatic.

Speaking of pragmatism, neocons have managed to shape the energy discussion with the phrase “clean coal” now fashionable and our national security as the top priority for weaning ourselves off of Middle East oil. First let me say that our dependence on Middle East oil is overblown with a preponderance coming from Canada and 9% (1.2 million barrels per day) of that coming from the awfully dirty, inefficient, and ecologically shortsighted oil or tar sands of Alberta (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/business/energy-environment/18oilsands.html?ref=todayspaper; http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/scenes-tar-wars). Ian Austin in The Times recently noted that there are estimated to be 1.7 trillion barrels in these sands of the Canadian boreal region and production geared to ramp up to 3.5 MBPD when (i.e. not if!) we reestablish old driving patterns. Yeah and then what? Will we finally stop making excuses for why Cape Wind is a bad idea or the 300,000 Megawatts of wind-power off the Atlantic Coast is a pipe dream (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/magazine/14wind-t.html?scp=1&sq=wind%20delaware&st=cse). Ask James Hansen or Judy Bond of Coal River Mountain Watch or the folks of Harriman, TN or Inez, KY if there is such a thing as clean coal? Well I’ll save you the trouble Judy just sent me an email in response to this issue

“Even if you could get rose petals to come out of the smokestacks, coal is filthy and will never be clean as long as mountains and communities are blasted and streams and communities are poisoned…The entire cycle of coal must be examined. We in Appalachia are blasted by over 3 1/2 million pounds of explosives daily and are similar to a “banana republic”. The coal industry is allowed to simply kill us slowly with toxic waste.”

The government and regulatory agencies are ignoring the destruction of the “cradle to grave” toxic coal cycle and what that cycle is doing to vulnerable children. I think this public relation campaign to clean up coal is much like the “safe cigarette” campaign by similar con artists other public relations companies have used.

As for energy and our national security the options to diversify our energy portfolio are many, “shovel ready”, and geared to employ tons of folks in many of the same places where unemployment is highest (See Flint, MI or Akron, OH) (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18flint.html?scp=3&sq=Flint%20employment&st=cse). This will take someone that is not as concerned with the next election as he/her is with the welfare of the next generation of Americans. We need to stop feeding the beast. Our national security would be best served if Obama and his crew turned to hectoring speeches imploring Americans to stop consuming so much and while he has started down this path further action will require greater haste and agility. Take some accountability America! Stop blaming Afghanistan and South American farmers for your respective heroin and cocaine addictions. Don’t take any solace in knowing that China has surpassed us relative to CO2 emissions its only because there are so many people we still dwarf everyone on a per capita basis w/ China at about 5.5 versus the US >19 tons of CO2 per person annually. This is also not a time for self-hatred but rather reinvention. Let’s be stewards not pillagers of this precious planet’s resources.

Here it is in plain English we have the right to water, food, health care, a decent job, and housing, but we don’t have the right to bottled water from Fiji, year round access to any and all produce, plastic surgery, million dollar bonuses, or McMansions. See the common thread! Responsibility and forethought need to be rewarded not excess and short-term, overly risky, and highly leveraged financial behavior.

Hey you don’t approve of homosexuality, Islam, or abortion? I promise none of them are contagious! Okay fine but do we need laws banning them? Really we do? These are issues a wealthy, highly educated, and arguably[?] atheist at worst and agnostic at best right has framed as divisive instruments. We are being played against each other for the good of a privileged few. According to Fred Magdoff the richest 400 or 1.3% of Americans have a collective net worth of $1.6 trillion which is more than that of the bottom 150 million people. Oh I know they probably worked harder. More likely they were lucky recipients of what Warren Buffett calls ‘The Ovarian Lottery”. Why are we letting this infinitesimal sector of society get between the other 98.7% of us? Because they have convinced us that if we’re good, say our prayers, listen to them, continue to serve our country rather than question its motives, and eat the crusts of our PB & J we can be just like them. Better yet we have been convinced that we want to be like them. Why because money is the great elixir?

I believe Americans know better and will realize that regardless of skin color, sexuality, or religious affiliation the greater good is served when disparities shrink, when we see the residents of New Orleans as members of our extended community and the destruction of Gulf Coast wetlands—to make way for oceanfront living, oil and gas infrastructure—as a crime against humanity and nature. There will come a day when we cease letting consolidation of power and wealth be the norm and turn to nonviolent revolution against such crimes. We will march on DC and our state capitols when our elected officials stop listening to us and demand constant accountability and less backroom deals and redacted transcripts.

The final example of neocon success is their redefinition of the word “elite.” Somewhere between Lee Atwater and now they have managed to transform the word from shorthand for belonging to country clubs, taking weekends in the Hamptons, and three cars to a label for those who engage in iterative discourse on variety of subjects, attend graduate school, spend weekends hiking/biking/or kayaking, and a bike as the primary source of transportation. They have achieved this change by the same legerdemain that values short-term financial gain over foresight and the pursuit of knowledge. They have managed to eliminate nuance from debate and encouraged screaming at rather than talking with in most mass media. We have been told that everything from responding to terror to bailing out AIG and CITI requires swift, decisive, and overwhelming force. Is there honestly no time for thought or research into precedent? Must we act now. Where has this pattern gotten us? We are temporarily alleviating the stress on an overstressed and ill-equipped political and financial system. Yet when it comes to things like health care, education, closing Guantanamo, David Addington et al, and climate change…Well those are complicated issues they’ll take time and maybe more time if need be. Look health care is a human right, Guantanamo is a crime against humanity and is a net source of terrorists/jihadist, because by all accounts men that weren’t terrorist when they arrived in Cuba or Baghram are when they leave, Addington is as much a war criminal as Chuckie Taylor, and climate change is something that if not dealt with now will take more time and money later to deal with and oh yeah it won’t be pretty!

Contrary to Sarah Palin and Karl Rove’s assertions, the media is not made up of liberal folks. If they suffer anything it is fools. The Media Industrial Establishment (MIE) has become about the personality and the physical rather than intellectual picture being streamed out for all to see. They don’t ask enough questions of Rahm Emanuel, Pelosi, or Reid as they never asked the hard question of Dana Perino, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld. What was it about Rummy that was so scary anyway? So what do we do about this quagmire? Well you can start by demanding from all media outlets including Fox, NPR, MSNBC, and Air America that they stop pandering to our base phobias and report just the facts. That’s it no more or less! How about acknowledging the existence of Helen Thomas in the White House press corp for once? That to me along with the praise for Browny and Chertoff in the aftermath of Katrina is one of the arrogant displays of disrespect of the Bush administration. Also demand that they ask tough, substantive, and probing questions of our public officials–it is their job to do this. Ask why Barry R. McCafferey is still considered an objective source for military insight? Ask why we are already seeing kid gloves with Mr. Obama’s cocoon of Clintonites when he is supposed to be an agent of change? Rick Warren? Why must MSNBC and FOX feel constantly inclined to editorialize when that has historically not been nor should it be their charge? If they all spent a little more time asking questions and a little less trying to frame the debate we would all be better off. Oh yeah does the Obama administration really want to compare their appointees to the Bush gang? Is that the new gold standard? God and Allah help us all if it is!

Liberalism is not some evil monster to be feared nor is true conservatism. What is to be feared are those forces whose purpose it is to highlight our differences, obfuscate responsibility and accountability, disenfranchise for the hell of it, and flippantly engage in aggressive, short-sighted, and offensive activities. Finally, overcoming that fear would be well served if we actually gave more than lip service to 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates, which would require addressing campaign finance reform (eg How bout giving each candidate $2m and saying go get em tiger!). Watch how fast both parties start attacking that concept and note that the faster and more visceral their reaction the better you can feel about it. Mission accomplished!

During the recent uproar over whether President Obama would pursue legal action against the Bush administration’s actions in and around Guantanamo, Baghram, and the Pentagon it seems like once again we are getting off topic and many are trying to obfuscate the issue. According to a quote from former Bush White House lawyer B.A. Anderson Obama’s “extreme supporters” smell blood and will do anything for a taste of it and this includes the CIA. I for one have no desire to go after the CIA regarding this matter, although their conduct (Yes you Mr. Gates and Negroponte!) in central and south America is worth opening the curtain, and I definitely don’t want anyone to be unjustly hung out to dry. What I do want, what I would hope this president would want, and what this country would want if presented with all of the facts is to prosecute those that congregated in the White House’s Office of Legal Council (OLC) for eight years and I am speaking specifically of David Addington, John Yoo, Monica Goodling, and Alberto Gonzalez…Oh yeah throw Douglas Fife in there for good measure why don’t you! These are the criminals whose greatest concern at this point shouldn’t be Eric Holder but rather a trip to The Hague. While I don’t espouse the belief that the uniformed men and women at these prisons are devoid of responsibility, quite the opposite they will have to live with what they have done for the rest of their lives, I believe that they aren’t the solitary bad apples Rumsfield and his crew painted them to be. This was recently confirmed by a report from Senators Levin and McCain of Michigan and Arizona, respectively. They were doing what was asked of them and aren’t military types inculcated from very early on with the notion that what comes from up high is not to be questioned? David Addington is a man whose contempt for oversight and the rule of law transcends that of many third world dictators and his partner in crime Mr. Yoo has a command of double-speak that if it weren’t used for nefarious purposes would be humorous. The latter actually had the gall to ask congressman Keith Ellis of Minnesota how he defined the word implement when being questioned about these very issues last fall. Meanwhile Mr. Addington spent his time before the same panel making the case for why Dick Cheney’s office is not part of the executive branch but rather an appendix of congress and thus completely removed from any laws applying to said branch, namely those having to do with paper and electronic communications. How do we so flippantly use the 1994 law that allows for prosecution of torture by American citizens in other countries against former Liberian warlord Charles Taylor’s son but not our own government officials? I’ll tell you how a Democratically controlled house and senate that like Mr. Obama want to look forward, build bridges, and establish alliances geared at solving this countries problems. Hey who can argue with that? I know I can’t. However, you do this when it comes to healthcare, social security, banking reform, and campaign finance not torture or illegal wiretapping, both of which threaten the sanctity of the social pact we supposedly have with our elected officials. I don’t like that being associated with warhawks and ideologues like the men and woman mentioned earlier. Do we then say when these techniques are used against our military “Hey that ain’t fair!” How could we in good conscience? Alliances and consensus is great, but if the Democrats don’t stand up to these atrocities committed by the Bush administration there will be many left to wonder what is the difference between them and their colleagues across the aisle?
At this moment it seems appropriate to steal a phrase made famous during “The Surge” by General Patreus and Ambassador Crocker regarding conditions in Iraq. When asked by the senate and house both men said the situation was/is “Fragile and reversible”, which I would contend speaks of the American public’s sentiments regarding their government. Yes Mr. Obama your speeches were captivating, your rhetoric sprinkled with populism, and your intellect something we probably haven’t seen in the White House in oh I don’t know maybe forever. Yet, please don’t mistake bliss for naivete and please don’t mistake our obsession with the economic downturn with a singular obsession as many of us are keeping an eye on the guys leaving town cause they can’t be trusted and their actions probably created more animosity and potential terrorists then they prevented. Look everyone in the intelligence community either on or off the record pretty much agrees that Rumsfeld giving the go-ahead at Abu Ghraib was the proverbial “toothpaste out of the tube”, with such tacit or overt approval the last thing these contentious prison environments needed. We can move forward in due time sir, but for now you need to let us know and let the entire world know that moving on includes addressing the evils perpetrated not by the CIA, although they are by no means saints, but by the OLC, which includes ending this senseless use of redactions, and an explicit definition for “Unlawful alien enemy combatants”, because I know a lot of folks who depending on the time of day or day of week would fit that description. No one wants to see anyone put in the electric chair or escorted to the gallows, but rather these individuals must be made to face the consequences for inhumane, deceitful, short-term, and cowardly acts that only alienate us from friend and foe alike.

What you may ask is too important to fail? Well the answer is lots of things like publication education, local and national newspapers, true democracy, and the NFL. Just kidding! Seriously I would argue one object that is too important to fail is the blackboard. The blackboard you ask who the heck cares if it goes by the way of the 8-track or VHS or basic discourse? Again just kidding about the last one…..I think! The blackboard was at one time a pallet for instructors at every level of education to convey an idea and then another and another, while all the while retaining on the board that initial concept for students to…Now don’t jump out of your seat….actually learn to synthesize to make those nuanced connections that only a young brain receptive to all types of input can manage. We have turned in recent years to Microsoft Powerpoint an all to evil invention of an otherwise seminal corporation. This wonder of the folks in Washington has facilitated an abrupt transition to rote and overly simplified learning. I would argue that what is occurring in high school and college classrooms where Powerpoint is present is far from learning, rather we get respective questions and comments from students like “Is this going to be on the test?” or “I that wasn’t exactly what your Powerpoint handout said!”

I once tried an experiment when giving a guest lecture I waited till everyone was in the room and proceeded to give a lame excuse for why I wouldn’t be using my Powerpoint presentation that morning and instead would turn to the blackboard. Immediately I had students asking how I was going to decide what would and would not be on the test and if I didn’t write something on the blackboard I couldn’t put it on the test. Well I chuckled and said you know let’s just give this a shot and I proceeded to go through the lecture on the board starting at the top-left and ending at the bottom right of two adjacent blackboards, repeating this process twice in the span of 70 minutes. However, half way through I turned to the class and asked if it was all making sense what with them being used to Dr. Evil (i.e. Powerpoint) and all. The response was an emphatic yes and even better they said what they really loved about the blackboard was that it all flowed and they could go back and see the connections right there on the board, which they said facilitated more informed and directed questioning. They said that with Powerpoint it was a race against the next slide, while with the blackboard the pace was slowed down as was the learning, which facilitated true absorption of the information, questioning, and debate that followed. I couldn’t help but ask why they had never voiced these issues with other instructors and they were basically under the impression that the ship had left the dock and they better get with the times or risk the consequences.

This is not how learning is supposed to happen especially with the fact that, as Tamar Lewin reported a while back in The New York Times, college tuition fees and median family incomes between 1982-2007 increased by 439 and 147%. If we are going to send our kids to college and people like myself are going to truly teach rather than talk at them we need to be equipped with the best tools and believe me when I tell you those fancy classrooms with overhead projectors, speakers, etc may look great but we’re not going on tour with Pink Floyd here we’re trying to foster thinking and discourse, neither of which are facilitated under the conforming pressures of Powerpoint and “Is this going to be on the test?” lines of questioning. We have really smart kids in this country that will at some point be handed the baton. I for one want to make sure they are equipped to think holistically and are not in the business of having information spoon fed to them. Powerpoint doesn’t just squash synthesized learning and curiosity it makes students and I would imagine many in the workplace apathetic, lazy, and stupid. Yeah I had to say it because it is true. If we continue to mechanize and desensitize the classroom we won’t produce graduates but rather robots. This planet doesn’t have the luxury of deciding its fate, but we do and I would trust flesh and blood over a robot any day.

In deciding quite forcefully that she would close the Waterbury environmental laboratory, the Department of Environmental Conservation’s commissioner Laura Pelosi demonstrated that her concern for both the environment and conservation runs only skin deep. This type of move is indicative a philosophy first forwarded by William Kristol and Karl Rove, which is to say when the chips are down, pick on the defenseless or eliminate them entirely. Privatization of the science underlying efforts to monitor our lakes, rivers and streams is analogous to moves by the Bush administration to privatize the military in its entirety for the profit of a select few. That worked and continues to work really well, doesn’t it?

Well, don’t be under any illusions that Ms. Pelosi’s and, by extension, Douglas’ vision will do any better. We must be very careful when we entrust the private sector to interpret and present us with data. This type of effort borders dangerously on Andrew Jackson’s “spoils system” in which cronyism is openly embraced and deemed the best option. As you would probably imagine, the health of our natural resources is not something that exactly dovetails with the bottom-line concerns of private industry, no matter how altruistic they may pretend to be.

Won’t everyone have to make sacrifices in the immediate future to stem the tide of this recession? Of course, and no one is saying otherwise, including those at the DEC who suggested Ms. Pelosi trim employee hours or, heaven forbid, really try to get creative about this problem. Here’s the rub. We have a lake that we share with New York and Quebec that teeters every summer on becoming eutrophic due to urban and agricultural runoff. Algal blooms have been low in the last two years, but there is no reason to believe that we can count on this trend to continue, and if Ms. Pelosi gets her way we won’t have any data to prove or disprove the myriad hypotheses floating around Vermont, New York and Quebec. What about those icy days when large trucks slip and slide only to overturn their load in some unsuspecting wetland? What will we do then? Send samples off to where? The fact is that Ms. Pelosi wants to close shop on the environmental laboratory now only to reopen a similar incarnation in five to six years when the economy miraculously springs back to life! However, in doing her calculations I would imagine Ms. Pelosi, et. al., didn’t take into account the money that will be needed to train new technicians, equipment, etc. This would not be, in the popular vernacular of the present, a “shovel-ready” project. So, why take that shovel and throw dirt on an already existing and invaluable resource?

The University of Vermont recently outsourced much of its soil testing laboratory and, given our status as an agricultural state, such actions along with the one proposed by Ms. Pelosi reflect poorly on us as a state and Gov. Douglas’ completely apathetic and disillusioned administration. This is an example of Montpelier neither leading nor following; rather, they and Mr. Douglas specifically are all too comfortable to get in the way of progress, and now, it turns out, science. I say bring on vox populi! Bring on Anthony Pollina ASAP!