Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Universal Health Care?
Everyone deserves access to affordable health care. I'm good with that. And that means that some people will get that health care for free. I'm down with that, too. Yes, I know that means the rest of us will have to pay for that. Yep. That will mean higher taxes. Yep. I'd rather pay taxes for the health care of everyone than taxes for nonsensical wars of choice. I'm willing to go a step further. I would say that in addition to higher taxes we can compromise on that tax rate and lower it by making people pay for health care when they can afford it. I propose we have one standard health care plan, not different tiers for people who can afford "real" health care and minimal coverage for those who can't. No. I propose there is one single level of health care--you get the care that you need, no matter what that care entails, no matter who you are. If you have cancer, you get chemo. If you have a congenital heart defect, you get a transplant. So on and so forth. For that we pay higher taxes and some of us pay a flat rate for health care based on our income. There, I said it. The rich will pay more for health care just as they should pay higher taxes. And, yes, doctors will no longer be able to turn themselves into millionaires by charging unfair rates. And drug companies will be held to realistic profits. So on and so forth and anyone who disagrees can go to hell. In exchange, I propose there also be huge tuition benefits for people who enter the medical profession and perform up to certain standards (right up to free education for those who meet certain criteria of performance). No one should ever have to die or suffer because they can't afford medical treatment.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Someone Asked Me About Cap and Trade...
Well, I guess the short answer is yes. But it depends on how it is done. I think cap and trade is good as long as the cap is real and firm and not a "floating" cap that allows certain companies to basically opt out of it. That does no one any good. Cap and trade has been proven already in the limits placed on sulfur dioxides (the main culprit behind acid rain). We still have acid rain but nowhere near the levels we had before. The reason that system worked is because they finally realized the way to do it is to leave it up to the companies to figure out how they do it. Rather than saying, OK, you all have to install this specific scrubber system, etc., etc., they said, here's the deal, your levels have to be below X. How you do it is your problem. It caused a lot of innovation and 3rd party development, research, etc. And in the end the cost was much, much lower than ever anticipated. They need to do the same sort of thing with carbon.
Saying that reducing carbon emissions will accomplish nil is silly and can only come from sources directly related to the fossil fuel industries. First, let's say that it's too late. It is. The cycle is in place and climate change (global warming is an unfortunate moniker and should never have been used, but what are you going to do?) is inevitable and already occurring. But that doesn't mean you don't try and make the effects less devastating. A substantial reduction in carbon won't prevent most of the outcomes that are predicted, but it can put them off for a time. That's worth something. The challenges include the inability to definitively predict what those outcomes are and what degree they will manifest themselves. Current predictions are not pretty. And many of these things will occur in our lifetime and will certainly change our children's future dramatically. The world of our own childhood is already gone. Our kids live in a very different world, even if we think it's subtle, it really isn't.
A huge obstacle is the "why should I if they don't?" syndrome. The U.S. has been adamant about not following worldwide greenhouse gas emissions limits because they don't want to limit themselves if other countries (who are trying to play "catch up" in an industrial sense) aren't required to make the same limitations--even though at their most consumptive levels they use a mere fraction of energy per person that we do. Somewhere along the line (our generation, basically) the U.S. decided to stop being a leader and to be a spoiled brat instead. Look where it has gotten us. "We shouldn't have to make economical cars! Whaaa! We shouldn't have to make quality vehicles! We should impose import tariffs on foreign cars instead!" That has been our mindset. We have known for some 50 years that petroleum was reaching its peak and would become less abundant and more expensive. But we don't think we should have to do anything about it because that would be like sacrificing something and we deserve anything and everything we can have no matter what the rest of the world is like. Thirty plus years ago the warnings about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions were being sounded. Scientists have gone before Congress many times over that period and always we refuse to do anything substantive about it because we are entitled.
Even under this administration, which many of us had hopes for but see them diminishing daily, any legislation will get watered down to cater to the fossil fuel lobbies until they do very little good. They'll continue to cave in to the pressures of the coal lobby (there are no redeaming values to coal usage other than the fact that it is relatively abundant and--thanks to HUGE government subsidies--cheap, cheap, cheap. Take away the billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies and direct even a fraction of that money to alternative sources and it would take no time at all for those alternatives to be more than competitive costwise.
And don't get me started on Big Agriculture and corn subsidies and the way Monsanto is striving to destroy our entire food chain. Biodiesel and ethanol are fine and dandy, but not if they are produced with an utterly inefficient crop like corn. It takes as much energy to make it as you get out of it--and that's with the subsidies! There are far better sources for that which won't require turning our entire nation into a toxic waste corn and soybean field.
Water. Where do we even begin with water?
No nation on earth wastes water like we do. We take it for granted on a scale otherwise unimagineable. Something like 2% of the world's population has running water. Seems crazy, right?
In the future, our wars will only be tangentally based on religion (er, I mean, politics, yeah, politics, that's it). As climate change continues the most sought after commodity on the world market will be clean, fresh drinking water. A large majority of the world already has to struggle to obtain it. What happens when ocean levels rise, millions and millions of people are displaced from now-coastal regions into already impoverished inland regions (already experiencing unprecidented desertification)? No food. No water. A shitload of anger--a lot of which will be directed at those who use these resources frivolously and consider it their devine right to be able to waste, waste, waste.
In the not-too-distant future, it is estimated that the Colorado River (and, coincidentally, Lake Michigan) will see an approximate 30% decrease in water levels. As damaging as dams are (no matter how much care is put into their design and construction there are always negative environmental impacts), there will be no choice but to build more dams in order to create more resevoirs in order to supply water to areas that simply don't have any. We are seeing this in Arizona, Nevada, California, etc., right now. There are too many people living here and we all expect to have all the water we want whenever we want it. And, by god, we want a big lush lawn while we're at it! And fountains! Big fountains. I just saw a satellite image presentation looking at Las Vegas--it showed images over the space of 25 years and clearly showed an amazing growth in land usage and an equally amazing decrease in available water sources. If it wasn't for water from the Colorado River and the Central Arizona Project canals, Phoenix and Tucson would not be able to exist as they currently do. [Yes, I am fully away that I am very much a part of all of these problems.]
I hadn't heard about the farmers in California, but it would not surprise me if water rationing from the Colorado River will become a huge point of contention in the future. Before the Hoover Dam was built (well, and at times after) there were big battles over who gets the water. There was actually an "almost" war between Arizona and Nevada once upon a time. The Hoover Dam was built to control flooding and subsequent water distribution to farmers, not to generate power.
In the end, everything will cost money. No way around it. But we have to get our heads around the fact that what we spend now--if we spend it wisely and actually do something substantive--will be far less than what the cost will be if we wait and don't do anything at all. Most of our economic problems, if you ask me, can be directly attributed to the viewpoint that profit now is what matters, the future consequences be damned. We are not a farsighted nation. Maybe it's because we are a very young nation, who knows. But we have a nasty habit of putting our immediate gains ahead of our future well-being. We need to get over that and we need to get over it soon. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that's happening.
Saying that reducing carbon emissions will accomplish nil is silly and can only come from sources directly related to the fossil fuel industries. First, let's say that it's too late. It is. The cycle is in place and climate change (global warming is an unfortunate moniker and should never have been used, but what are you going to do?) is inevitable and already occurring. But that doesn't mean you don't try and make the effects less devastating. A substantial reduction in carbon won't prevent most of the outcomes that are predicted, but it can put them off for a time. That's worth something. The challenges include the inability to definitively predict what those outcomes are and what degree they will manifest themselves. Current predictions are not pretty. And many of these things will occur in our lifetime and will certainly change our children's future dramatically. The world of our own childhood is already gone. Our kids live in a very different world, even if we think it's subtle, it really isn't.
A huge obstacle is the "why should I if they don't?" syndrome. The U.S. has been adamant about not following worldwide greenhouse gas emissions limits because they don't want to limit themselves if other countries (who are trying to play "catch up" in an industrial sense) aren't required to make the same limitations--even though at their most consumptive levels they use a mere fraction of energy per person that we do. Somewhere along the line (our generation, basically) the U.S. decided to stop being a leader and to be a spoiled brat instead. Look where it has gotten us. "We shouldn't have to make economical cars! Whaaa! We shouldn't have to make quality vehicles! We should impose import tariffs on foreign cars instead!" That has been our mindset. We have known for some 50 years that petroleum was reaching its peak and would become less abundant and more expensive. But we don't think we should have to do anything about it because that would be like sacrificing something and we deserve anything and everything we can have no matter what the rest of the world is like. Thirty plus years ago the warnings about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions were being sounded. Scientists have gone before Congress many times over that period and always we refuse to do anything substantive about it because we are entitled.
Even under this administration, which many of us had hopes for but see them diminishing daily, any legislation will get watered down to cater to the fossil fuel lobbies until they do very little good. They'll continue to cave in to the pressures of the coal lobby (there are no redeaming values to coal usage other than the fact that it is relatively abundant and--thanks to HUGE government subsidies--cheap, cheap, cheap. Take away the billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies and direct even a fraction of that money to alternative sources and it would take no time at all for those alternatives to be more than competitive costwise.
And don't get me started on Big Agriculture and corn subsidies and the way Monsanto is striving to destroy our entire food chain. Biodiesel and ethanol are fine and dandy, but not if they are produced with an utterly inefficient crop like corn. It takes as much energy to make it as you get out of it--and that's with the subsidies! There are far better sources for that which won't require turning our entire nation into a toxic waste corn and soybean field.
Water. Where do we even begin with water?
No nation on earth wastes water like we do. We take it for granted on a scale otherwise unimagineable. Something like 2% of the world's population has running water. Seems crazy, right?
In the future, our wars will only be tangentally based on religion (er, I mean, politics, yeah, politics, that's it). As climate change continues the most sought after commodity on the world market will be clean, fresh drinking water. A large majority of the world already has to struggle to obtain it. What happens when ocean levels rise, millions and millions of people are displaced from now-coastal regions into already impoverished inland regions (already experiencing unprecidented desertification)? No food. No water. A shitload of anger--a lot of which will be directed at those who use these resources frivolously and consider it their devine right to be able to waste, waste, waste.
In the not-too-distant future, it is estimated that the Colorado River (and, coincidentally, Lake Michigan) will see an approximate 30% decrease in water levels. As damaging as dams are (no matter how much care is put into their design and construction there are always negative environmental impacts), there will be no choice but to build more dams in order to create more resevoirs in order to supply water to areas that simply don't have any. We are seeing this in Arizona, Nevada, California, etc., right now. There are too many people living here and we all expect to have all the water we want whenever we want it. And, by god, we want a big lush lawn while we're at it! And fountains! Big fountains. I just saw a satellite image presentation looking at Las Vegas--it showed images over the space of 25 years and clearly showed an amazing growth in land usage and an equally amazing decrease in available water sources. If it wasn't for water from the Colorado River and the Central Arizona Project canals, Phoenix and Tucson would not be able to exist as they currently do. [Yes, I am fully away that I am very much a part of all of these problems.]
I hadn't heard about the farmers in California, but it would not surprise me if water rationing from the Colorado River will become a huge point of contention in the future. Before the Hoover Dam was built (well, and at times after) there were big battles over who gets the water. There was actually an "almost" war between Arizona and Nevada once upon a time. The Hoover Dam was built to control flooding and subsequent water distribution to farmers, not to generate power.
In the end, everything will cost money. No way around it. But we have to get our heads around the fact that what we spend now--if we spend it wisely and actually do something substantive--will be far less than what the cost will be if we wait and don't do anything at all. Most of our economic problems, if you ask me, can be directly attributed to the viewpoint that profit now is what matters, the future consequences be damned. We are not a farsighted nation. Maybe it's because we are a very young nation, who knows. But we have a nasty habit of putting our immediate gains ahead of our future well-being. We need to get over that and we need to get over it soon. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that's happening.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Happy Anniversary!
Today is our 26th Wedding Anniversary! It all goes by so fast. Here we are married more than half our lives and grandparents at the ripe young age of forty-six--it's amazing.
I love you, Joan!
I hope I'm around for another twenty-six. I'd say forty-four (we'll be 100!), but I don't want to push it.
I love you, Joan!
I hope I'm around for another twenty-six. I'd say forty-four (we'll be 100!), but I don't want to push it.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Cranberry Pinenut Hummus
I experimented today and made some excellent hummus:
Cranberry Pinenut Hummus
2 cans garbanzo beans, drained (Reserve some liquid in case you need it.)
3/8 (+-) Fresh squeezed orange juice
1/4 Cup (+-) Tahini
5 or 6 cloves of garlic (preferably roasted, but whatever)
1/2 tsp salt
1 Tbls sesame oil
1 Tbls coconut oil
1/4 cup pine nuts
1/4 cup dried cranberriers (Craisens? I used cherry flavored.)
Put all ingredients into a food processor and blend until smooth. If you need to add liquid to achieve the correct consistency, use some of the liquid saved from the cans of garbanzo beans.
Cover and put in the fridge to let the flavors blend a bit.
This was delicious!
Cranberry Pinenut Hummus
2 cans garbanzo beans, drained (Reserve some liquid in case you need it.)
3/8 (+-) Fresh squeezed orange juice
1/4 Cup (+-) Tahini
5 or 6 cloves of garlic (preferably roasted, but whatever)
1/2 tsp salt
1 Tbls sesame oil
1 Tbls coconut oil
1/4 cup pine nuts
1/4 cup dried cranberriers (Craisens? I used cherry flavored.)
Put all ingredients into a food processor and blend until smooth. If you need to add liquid to achieve the correct consistency, use some of the liquid saved from the cans of garbanzo beans.
Cover and put in the fridge to let the flavors blend a bit.
This was delicious!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
National Sushi Day
Well, I'm told it's National Sushi Day. I admit I love sushi. But sushi is one of those issues where it's hard to know what's good to eat. And I don't mean flavor--I pretty much love it all. And I don't mean food safety--though that's an issue, I suppose. No, I mean issues of sustainability and eco-friendliness. It's a tough issue for me because I like weird things and it's usually the weird things that are the least sustainable.
There's an amazing sushi place in town called Sushi-matsu (the back room of Yoshi-matsu). When I go there I am quite happy to order the vegetarian sushi lunch special. They make incredible sushi and, surprisingly enough, you don't miss the raw fish or other sea critters. It's just delicious.
If I go today it probably won't be to Sushi-matsu because it's on the other side of town. I'm more likely to end up at Kyo Sushi or possibly Sushi Garden at the mall. Kyo is a nice little place with really good food.
There's a really good site for information on sustainable sushi. This site has a lot of information regarding sustainable practices, which fish you shouldn't eat, all of that. One fish that should be avoided is bluefin tuna. The bluefin (known in sushi restaurants under the following names: Kuromaguro, Horse Mackerel, Atun de aleta azul, Hon Maguro, Toro) is highly endangered and is a slow growing fish (the same reason you should never order sea bass). Another fish that is becoming endangered, unfortunately, happens to be one of my favorites--unagi (freshwater eel).
The Monterey Bay Aquarium also hosts Seafood Watch which publishes A Consumer's Guide to Sustainable Sushi. This list breaks down sushi fishes into the categories of "best choice/alternative/avoid."
We can all enjoy sushi, we just have to make good choices and avoid the bad.
Here's another good link: How To Order Safe Sustainable Sushi.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Bike Lanes, Cross Walks, Courtesy
Yesterday I was running some errands by bicycle and stuck with the local bike path for most of the trip. While I was out I decided to go pick up a geocache that was recently added in the neighborhood and had to cross Tangerine, a four to six lane road by the house. I entered the roadway to cross north and then got back on the bike path. I signed off on the cache and then headed back on the path. Since I had to go to the post office, I decided to stay with the path and cross at the crosswalk where I would then have a very short ride to the post office via the sidewalk. Just before the light changed a large pickup came into the turn lane and fully blocked the crosswalk. I know I've been guilty of that myself, but I was clearly visible at the corner waiting to cross in that crosswalk.
I didn't rant and rave or anything, but as I crossed (having to veer out of the crosswalk into the intersection to clear the truck) I used my arm to indicate the path of the crosswalk and then made a "What's up?" kind of gesture. As I went by I heard someone yell something--it involved the word sorry, but I couldn't make out anything else. I didn't acknowledge the call out, just went on my way.
In this town it wouldn't surprise me if the person yelled something about being sorry they entered the crosswalk before I was in the way! People in this town, for all of its "bike friendly" status, are often rude and resentful of cyclists, even those of us who try to follow the rules of the road pretty consistently (it actually ticks me off to see cyclists blatantly breaking the law and or doing things that give the rest of us a bad reputation--motorists make most of their judgements regarding cyclists based on the bad examples they see).
As I finished up in the post office I passed a woman and she said to me, "I'm sorry about blocking that bike path."
I looked up and kind of smiled and said, "Oh, was that you?"
As I was packing up my stuff and putting away my lock and whatnot, I thought about how surprising that was--she actually seemed to mean it and went out of her way to make sure to let me know it. She could have just as easily not said a thing, hoping I would recognize her. What a strange change of pace that is for a cyclist on the road these days! I kind of puttered and took my time in hopes of her quick exit from the post office. She came out soon after and so I said, "You know, most people would have actually yelled at me for wanting to use the crosswalk rather than apologize. Thank you very much for that."
She expressed again that she was sorry about it, saying it was "an accident." After all that, I was really glad I hadn't turned my head back while I was crossing that intersection to yell some nasty bit of driving advice. I'm going to try and make sure I take the high road when it comes to these encounters in the future. I know there's going to be some arse who will make me break that promise, but I hope to take more care in my own reactions and try to remember that sometimes when I'm in the car I find myself creeping a bit too far into the crosswalk when I want to turn or any number of things that would annoy a cyclist in my path. But let me be clear: I try very hard to be aware of cyclists on the road and take extra precautions not to interfere with them with my own bad driving habits. I wish all drivers would do that but unfortunately, most don't.
Either way, I think we all should shut our mouths and just take a second before we fly off the handle when a stranger does something to annoy us, even if they are in the wrong. And we should all try just a bit harder not to do those same annoying things to others! Consideration for others outside of our own "sphere of existence" is a trait we could all benefit from developing. I'm going to try it.
I didn't rant and rave or anything, but as I crossed (having to veer out of the crosswalk into the intersection to clear the truck) I used my arm to indicate the path of the crosswalk and then made a "What's up?" kind of gesture. As I went by I heard someone yell something--it involved the word sorry, but I couldn't make out anything else. I didn't acknowledge the call out, just went on my way.
In this town it wouldn't surprise me if the person yelled something about being sorry they entered the crosswalk before I was in the way! People in this town, for all of its "bike friendly" status, are often rude and resentful of cyclists, even those of us who try to follow the rules of the road pretty consistently (it actually ticks me off to see cyclists blatantly breaking the law and or doing things that give the rest of us a bad reputation--motorists make most of their judgements regarding cyclists based on the bad examples they see).
As I finished up in the post office I passed a woman and she said to me, "I'm sorry about blocking that bike path."
I looked up and kind of smiled and said, "Oh, was that you?"
As I was packing up my stuff and putting away my lock and whatnot, I thought about how surprising that was--she actually seemed to mean it and went out of her way to make sure to let me know it. She could have just as easily not said a thing, hoping I would recognize her. What a strange change of pace that is for a cyclist on the road these days! I kind of puttered and took my time in hopes of her quick exit from the post office. She came out soon after and so I said, "You know, most people would have actually yelled at me for wanting to use the crosswalk rather than apologize. Thank you very much for that."
She expressed again that she was sorry about it, saying it was "an accident." After all that, I was really glad I hadn't turned my head back while I was crossing that intersection to yell some nasty bit of driving advice. I'm going to try and make sure I take the high road when it comes to these encounters in the future. I know there's going to be some arse who will make me break that promise, but I hope to take more care in my own reactions and try to remember that sometimes when I'm in the car I find myself creeping a bit too far into the crosswalk when I want to turn or any number of things that would annoy a cyclist in my path. But let me be clear: I try very hard to be aware of cyclists on the road and take extra precautions not to interfere with them with my own bad driving habits. I wish all drivers would do that but unfortunately, most don't.
Either way, I think we all should shut our mouths and just take a second before we fly off the handle when a stranger does something to annoy us, even if they are in the wrong. And we should all try just a bit harder not to do those same annoying things to others! Consideration for others outside of our own "sphere of existence" is a trait we could all benefit from developing. I'm going to try it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)