Friday, September 23, 2011

(True) Socialist - Democracy weighed against Capitalist - Whatever We Are Calling This... "Mess"

__________________________________________________________________
(True) Socialist - Democracy
Herein Weighed Against Our
Capitalist - W.T.F.-ever We Are Calling This "Mess"
By Laurie Walker
September 23, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
So, if you've been in a cave and haven't heard, China is climbing out of their isolationism, and becoming an economic powerhouse, despite the prevalent communist control in that country, and they are coping with a tremendous shift in demographics, and growth of their population.  Why is this so, when Russia has been in a constant state of decline.  Do you suppose that people in China are also suffering?  (Only, perhaps, without the same access to Vodka? and lack of the budding democracy along with this capitalism that allows actual the real facts and figures to get out? )
Do you suppose that there might have been / is still tremendous corruption in the USSR, now Russia?   Note that this decline in Russian population, and economic growth has occurred since a Capitalist Democracy began developing in the new-ish Russian nation-states.
Well, one might speculate, do some research, but I have not, and cannot speak to that situation with any real knowledge.  So that's enough talking about those various experiments in Communism-playing-Capitalism...

What I want to talk about is Capitalism-playing-Socialism. 

Here in the United States, "Socialism is now a "boogeyman", used like a four letter word, and used a lot these days....It's like the goddamned red-scare all over again.  McCarthy would be proud, though it's still very doubtful he still has any sense of decency.  I would argue that Socialism and Communism are  quite different, and that what people really fear is communism, and with good reason, I might add...

With Communism, government controls the means of production that belong to the "nation state", and everyone shares resources.  There is no incentive to work harder if rewards are no greater. Communism is just as antithesis to democracy, as fascism, but on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It requires a centralized autocratic control ... likely by those who don't have any understanding of what is truly "needed" in any given situation...
One may argue also that, instead of heading in the direction of Communism, or even a true socialism, America is actually more likely to be headed toward a Fascist Corporate Capitalism.

So, whereas in a Democracy people have "a say" in how the nation will be run. i.e., voting rights, and a representational government, in a fascist regime, there is no such democratic means of securing representation.
In a democracy, WE the people ARE the government... so if you're talking to someone who seems anti-government, ask them to consider carefully, who ELSE would they like to lead, and control this nation??

Within a socialist model, excellence can be rewarded, and people who are "more able" can earn greater pay, and be promoted to positions where they do the most good, and most would want to.   Socialism is absolutely not incompatible with democracy.  It is not incompatible with the corporate business model. We would all be invested. We would all be subject to dividends in the truly socialist economic model, and we could all vote, based on the democratic government model.

Socialism is also quite compatible with the various branches of governance that provide a set of checks and balances with house/senate/judicial/executive)

Where there would be a purely Socialist nation-state and government, (that has never happened in all the world's history, please name one purely Socialist country? ), people would own and control the means of production collectively. Not unlike "shareholders".  People would vote, (as a board of a corporation would), and can organize and protest freely to change laws, etc., (in the same fashion as worker's Unions strike or have the ability to negotiate).

Also, consider that in a true Socialist-democratic government, revenues would actually be from an actual value placed on goods produced, not  speculation and inflated investment schemes and derivitives market we have developed in a capitalist "banking" economy.

There could actually be the much-longed-for elimination of nearly all taxation in a socialist system, whereas, the way it stands, we don't have any say over such things as taxation, which is primarily determined based on levels of wages left to the discretion of private enterprise.  If the government doesn't have enough revenue from taxes, they've been borrowing.  Mostly in the form of Chinese held Treasury Bills.

Everyone in a socialist nation would be "invested" and be motivated to succeed at a personal level, at their local level, and at a national level. You see it now... people are sharing the return on their investments in a successful, socialistic model.  Housing?  Co-ops and Intential Communities;  Food? CSA's and Co-ops;   Insurance?  Mutual of Omaha;  Banking? Credit Unions...  Socialism is alive and well in this country, (and really rated "Vanilla on the ol' threat scale I might add)  in these types of businesses I've mentioned, and these models are quite successful!

In our current overarching economic and government system as it is, Unions have their place.  In a true Socialist system, Unions would become redundant, or uneeded entities.  Tax-payer funded public education, guaranteed access to affordable healthcare, public lands, and other public works are all undoubtedly good ideas that do good things for the overwhelming majority of people, but what if they were provided for as part of the "shares" from our efforts?  We'd be invested in the success of our schools and hospitals, and consider them part and parcel to our productivity levels.

Most of us do not own shares in most of the revenue producing companies.  ( I sure don't have most companies stocks in my portfolio!! )  But another way one "stays in the game" is, to be paid decent wages! Thus the Unions.
Consider what's traditionally been thought of as a "good job" might be one that offers "profit sharing", and "paid" benefits through "group rates" or pooled healthcare accounts... Again the Unions have seen to it!


The current situation of economic capitalism allows "from each according to his ability (meaning you contribute to capital the same way as in Marxist theory) but "to" each according to their ability to invest capital, in a complete disregard of the value of the investment of labor.  We consider workers wages in our government budgets at the federal level as well as "local" government budgets to be based on some economic indices, and these wages are also taxed (again).  Ever hear anyone say "I put my 8 hours in".  Well, how do we decide what that day's labor was worth?  8 dollars?  80?

Minimum wage is NO indicator of much of anything. It's simply a "tool" for manipulating voters.  To the reverse of this, how can we decide what amount should be expected "from each according to his ability?"   Tax tables?

That calculation makes corporations worthless.
Minimum wage?  No raises?  That's stagnant like Communism.  Who's going to work hard if there's no incentives?

What is labor worth?  Excellence should be rewarded.

Of course, there are these "socialist" policies I'd like to point out that are very much to the advantage of capitalists/corporatists, if one wants to examine the ways in which we "socialize" losses, such as, for instance, when tax dollars pay for clean up at Superfund sites.


Businesses go overseas where they have a lot of freedom to decide (for the most part) where they'll build a factory, how much to pay employees, and what they do to the environment... all done in order to "take" according to their "needs"... the need (that is a mandate!) to profit.  They MUST profit at any cost.

They come home to the good Ol' USA for the laws that allow them these freedoms, and for the tax advantages. (read:  Some pay nothing).

Very often, costs are being socialized among every one of us in many ways... Superfund sites in the United States
In its overall $8.973-billion budget request for Fiscal Year 2012, the EPA is proposing $810.8 million for Superfund cleanup programs -- a $70.3 million reduction from the prior year.
Through the Department of Justice in 2010, Financial Fraud investigations cost taxpayers $68.2 million, and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill $9.6 million in addition to their regular budget.

Subsidies to Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Oil, Bank Bailouts, Government Security for overseas businesses...
Not enough for you?  Add one of our biggest expenses:  Government contracts for the equipment and weapons of war.

This all happening right now due to "socialist" policies.

Unfortunately in America, the revenue stream called taxes that are taken in to support all these corporations are forced on only "some", (the real hard workers with the most "ability") Many are arguing from the right of the aisle in congress to push raising any further revenues through taxes off the table...


They want to divert tax dollars going toward operating our government as a safety net for the working class and under or unemployed people, and instead, use the funds they do collect to protect the interests, and continue to boost the profits of investors.

Consider carefully the current state of things and our society's needs for a safety net... weighing our nation's expenditures for things that benefit people versus the things that benefit "investors" who've arranged to pitch in according to their ability, which is purely financial, thus amassing the dividends from their shares. They don't even need to contribute labor. That is, unless you consider signing all those checks to be labor. They don't pay taxes on well over half what they make.  (The current rate is 31%$, the lowest it's been since 1950) Can you say "broken record"?  What about these figures fails to register in the minds of so many people, who, so naively, cower before these apparent, imagined threats of socialism we are repeatedly being told we face by the "anti-Obama" crowd, certain "right wing" media sources, and others who insist that those who've earned their money should be able to keep it?  When it's so clearly demonstrable how these "earnings' are not generated in a vacuum.  Elizabeth Warren made this argument, as have many others, including myself many months ago...

The bottom line is, when you look at all the players in this grand scheme, it becomes clear that where socialism does it's most profound work is in the realms of the very wealthy!


When Marx claimed "to each according to his ability" this means, those who are able (those of good health and of working age, those with education) are the ones who put capital into the system based on ability to earn.  If they are earning, then they can pay in by investing... That's absolutely true and it's also compatible with Democracy.  Might the "little guy" get to pitch in? Well, only according to his ability (to buy in!) Thus the need for fair wages. 


The most basic social "Needs " are being met by taxes in our current system. Taxes are put toward those things that everyone benefits from which keep us from becoming a third world. 

Research, Science, Secure Travel, Paved roads, Safe bridges, DMV to ensure Safe drivers, schools, housing costs for the poor, and our grandmas, and their medicines, Food stamps to otherwise hungry or desperate parents... Some healthcare for the poor. Tax dollars also pay for Game and Fish Commissions, Public park employees, Protecting the environment from things that harm it and us, providing subsidies for Flood Insurance, FEMA works to rescue people, Law Enforcement, Water Works, Welfare, HUD, Unemployment benefits, prisons. Carefully consider life without these things...

"From each according to his ability" is one thing.

"To each, according to his needs" ... is something quite different.


So, now, for tax dollars (socialized support) that go toward the wealthy and enhance their shareholdings?


Here are a few of my favorite things:

Superfund sites, rising healthcare costs, subsidized student loans toward for-profit education, Subsidized Big Oil, Big Pharma, research grants,
Here's some more:
Our govt. contracts out for the private manufacture of war weapons and equipment, (our soldier's helmets are made in China), our government, through tax dollars, goes to research that benefits industry, security for overseas businesses, managing patents, securing factories and business interests overseas with our military, educates their "often underpaid" workforce here in USA.


Still more:
Monitoring systems for weather, Big Ag Farm Subsidies, tax-funded "foreign aid" buys grain from big ag companies here, sends it overseas. Investigating law breakers, auditing, inspecting for quality.

These are safety nets for industry, and very much a socialistic economic model. One model, our government and public works are "non-profit" notion of socialism. We do run the nation as a business... a non-profit business, that relies on "taxes" (much like a non-profit relies on grant money/donations i.e., outside sources of revenue like taxes), but the other model is a "privatized" notion of socialism...
So as you see, Corporations" operate within a  "socialist economic system" ... but access to it, and the profits from it, is only available to a privileged few.

When it comes to big business, the public's "got their back"
... but they do not wish to return that favor. 

Instead? They invest overseas, or seek to eliminate minimum wage here. We don't mandate they pay "fair wages that meet basic needs" beyond a "minimum wage law". That is not based on a fair value of human capital (labor). Rather, it is a populist tool, used strategically to garner political support.
In this same way, our taxes are made out to be a conditional provision, subject to adjustments without accounting for the need for a workforce to have good wages (except to NOT tax the poorest wage earners... which serves to further emphasize an apparant "us versus them" mentality).
We do estimate a fair wage in government budgets for tax funded jobs. Thus the disparity in wages and benefits between private and public workers. Instead of holding industry up to the "fair wage" standards, we now seek to get government's down to the standard of industry's wages.

So, our government cannot compete with private businesses, who ship jobs over to China and pay 2 dollars a week to laborers. That's what happens when a Capitalist "democracy" teams up with Capitalist Communism.

Sooo...    You still worried about socialism? 

The threat of Socialism (in dreams she comes wearing a red dress and cuts off your balls ) is a centuries old boogeyman, designed to confound you.

The world would never have developed Unions, if everyone would have been paid a wage based on their basic needs, and the ability to continue "growth" through education and wages.

A living wage, a healthy incentive for learning based earning. New skills, better outputs, more money. Unfortunately, companies deny workers this... so they organized into Unions.   Now look at what it has become... Unions stepped up to try to see to it this happens, but they are not "the law" of the land, and they do not have government control (though some argue they do). Unions, like taxation, and like socializing the losses for industries are perversions of true Socialist governance.  These socialist economic models developed where it was needed, ad hoc, to put out "fires" if you will, and not put in place in any reasoned way of doing things at the governmental level...  If everyone received a portion of capital, in the form of a pay based both on what their labor is worth, and based on needs (needs being food, shelter, healthcare, education), that is "socialism" in the truest sense, and does this interfere with freedoms, as many people seem to fear???

Only the freedom of businesses to pay people far less than they're worth, in fact, less than they "need" to get by... while paying just a few others (CEO's and such) way more than their abilities are worth, they keep some so far down on the ladder they can't see the light of day, while others are ever increasingly invested in the "successful socialism for some" model, i.e. Making their "ability" (to pay in) worth more to the overall system.

Those who've been doing the putting in, according to their ability to pay are now saying NO MORE to those without ability. But you see, they've systematically REMOVED the "have-nots" ability to get ahead, or invest.  This further decreases the economic power at the same time, increasing their needs. Then you get less education, less opportunity, more suffering and more crime! A horrible cycle, a hamster wheel of failures placed at the very bottom of the ladder of opportunity. Many people keep running on this hamster wheel because they think they're getting somewhere. They've been told it can lead somewhere.

Capital can only increase for the "haves" for a little while, since they're not willing to put more in to the "pseudo-socialist" system of taxation.... eventually the spending power of the lower classes, and the "less able" will decrease to a point where it requires more inputs than we had ever seen.

Coming soon to a capitalist economy near you:
Why must we provide based on need?  Well, every corner of society has needs.  If those needs are not being met society decays.  That's why there has been "decided" upon as a social contract, that we will provide for those who might be LEAST able, or UNable... the elderly and the children, uneducated, and the UNemployable, and even prison populations. 
Those who are the "haves" are becoming "have mores".  Those who are the "have nots" are more marginalized and denied all but the minimal access to "needs"...low quality of life is evident in their options for food, shelter, and education. It's just a worsening, spiraling decay. Without increases in tax revenues, we will see more ignorance, more crime, the need for even more prisons... so we can argue for more taxes.
Meanwhile the "wants" of those who "have" are becoming more and more difficult to meet. Does anyone need 5 billion dollars? Dollars that represent the abilty to amass ever more economic power and control over resources?

We can argue for increased wages for a workforce who are "one paycheck away" from homelessness... even in China, we should want this for them. We can argue for more labor protections, more government contracts with private businesses, more Unions... but as I've explained, it seems that these are all more perversions of true, Democratic Socialism.  Perversions that have developed out of an irrational fear of Communism.   I've proven that the "socialism" boogeyman is nonsense.  We in America are far to jealous of our freedoms and our rights to private property.  We don't want communism, for Chrissakes, we just want to work, and we just want a fair wage for our labor!   So that also takes care of the far more fantastical Communism Boogey man.
This agenda of "Be Afraid! Be very afraid of Socialism and Communism is complete and utter bullshit!!   This bullshit has been perpetuated in order to justify such injustices as lack of incentives, no benefits, part time work, low wages, and shitty working conditions... it also is used to argue for reducing programs that protect our societies, bolster our infrastructure, keep us healthy, and keep us educated.  (You need us to be weak, and dumb!)  Well, so sorry, Captains of Industry... You're now Captains of Obvious.  The fucking game is up.
 What we might do is build upon the true democracy in our socialist policies, rather than deny that we've got fully socialized corporations, who are now controlling government, or profiting from it.  This is nothing more than a socialist economic system, funded by tax dollars, that is now protecting and preserve this Corporate Capitalist state. But we have one thing up our sleeve... We are still a government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE.  We need GOOD people to step up and run for office.  Educated people.  Caring and rational people.

We can look at what is offered by each according to his ability, and also, look for what can be provided to each according to ability, but not disregarding needs.  We can do both.  We can provide for basic needs, and make sure the incentives are there to strive for a better life for one's self, and for a better world, while allowing us all our rights and freedoms. All it takes is fair policies for labor, and the chance for workers to invest.
Obviously the problem is, government can't do this anymore.  Too much corruption.  Too many sociopaths got themselves elected.  Now business has amassed too much power, and they're all dancing on our graves.
The only way to undo this mess, is for people to educate themselves, and organize themselves into new, sustainable business investments, right in their own communities.  They can support one another in efforts to make the changes happen for themselves.   I feel sorry for anyone who would try to stand in their way.  If they are forced into this corner, and they adapt and change "business as usual" to business as use-able.  That is the revolution, and it's well underway.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Investment Incomes funnel $$ to the rich, while quietly squeezing it from Americans....

It's investment income that gets off easy at tax time...And this may be the real heart of more troubles and "costs" to this nation than just our obvious budgetary shortfalls...
So, Are investors "job creators"? Let's look at what kinds of economic activity might be going on that would create employment for Americans....

Do investors really "work"? What do they really do all day? Just sit around counting their money? Mindlessly investing in whatever might not make them more money?

Let's look at where "investment incomes" really come from, and see what those silly "job creators" are busy doing for a moment shall we?

Investment income = Wall Street banks were given bailout money
Investment income = profits from use of cheap overseas labor putting you out of work
Investment income = Every product you buy that was manufactured overseas
Investment income = agricultural practices depleting aquifer, desertifying soils
Investment income = Air, water quality, poor nutrition, leading to the increased need for health care.
Investment income = GMO foods (giant mutant salmon, anyone?)
Investment income = Chemical soaked monocultured crops (miles miles of glyphosate soaked soybean fields anyone?)
Investment income = Hemp illegal, though it's one of the most diverse, single crops to grow with the least environmental impact
Investment income = War on Drugs (Prison population a disgrace)
Investment income = Privatized prisons making some serious cash
Investment income = HUGE incentives greasing the palms of politicians and judges.
Investment income = Health care industry (it pays to make people sick).
Investment income = Pharmaceuticals -( how many people on anti-anxiety/anti-depressants now???
Invstment income = agricultural subsidies
Investment income = Oil Subsidies
Investment income = Privatized education (expensive and low quality taking "public" money (vouchers, or student loans) usually for students who are not going to pass.

Investment income = The war machine, i.e. Halliburton, Diebold, et al, more "public funds"
Investment income = bottled water companies buy your municipal water and sell it for a profit.
Investment income = Fracking for gasoline, ruining private wells
Investment income = The gas industry uses 30 million gallons of clean, potable water to frack one well (take that times thousands)
Investment income = selling natural gas to India
Investment income = increased rates of cancer

Investment income = Corporate Whores getting rich and screwing America over.
Investment income = Maximizing profits despite any social or environmental cost

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Bye Bye Elwha...

Large dams cause extinction of fish and other aquatic species. The river's flow is altered by a dam, and this changes the ecosystems downstream where the river no longer flows, or is greatly reduced. Because of the impact of dams, birds must find new habitat, forests and wetland loss, farmlands depleted, and coastal deltas erode. A dam holds sediments back preventing them from getting to ecosystems downstream, and replenishing them naturally. When the normal sediment load of a river is unnaturally depleted, it erodes the river bed and banks downstream, causing bridges and other structures along the banks to be destablized. The riverbed becomes deeper, and this causes lower groundwater tables along the river, which can deprive local vegetation and affect wells that are in the floodplain. This also may mean crops will require more irrigation where before it wasn't necessary. The riverbed habitat is reduced for invertebrates and affects fish that spawn in them.

There is a hydroelectric dam that is being talked about in the news lately is the Elwha Dam. This hydroelectric dam west of Port Angeles Washington, is mostly contained within Washington’s Olympic National Park. Concrete structures of the dam have reduced the wild salmon spawning population from 400,000 to about 3,000. Under the Endangered Species Act, three salmon species native to this river, chinook, steelhead and bull trout, are listed as threatened. Tribal litigation, and environmental groups have been pushing for dams to be dismantled. They will dismantle the Elwha dam and another further upstream, the Glines Canyon Dam in order to restore the habitat needed for these types of native salmon to get upstream to spawn. In the USA, 241 dams have been dimantled in about the last 5 years. Many used to power things like textile mills or paper mills back during the turn of the 20th century. The Elwha is the largest demolition of a dam in American history. Once these waterways are returned to their natural state, hundreds of thousands of salmon in the river will provide nutrients to trees growing along the banks, and provide food for orcas in Puget Sound. Not to mention that people will someday again be able to fish for salmon. The project manager for the removal of the Elwha is figuring it will be 25 to 30 years for the river to return to a natural state. This restores the ecosystem from mountain to sea.

They are saying that dam removal provides the most restoration for the money spent to make it happen. Dam's provide electricity, but the environmental costs are very often far too high to make it worthwhile. Perhaps there are more ecologically sound ways to tap the potential of hydro-power, but it seems the consensus is that huge dams have not worked out.

http://www.internationalrivers.org/node/1545

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/09/17/environment/dam-removal-in-wash-part-of-growing-movement/?ref=latest

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The Law of Mother Earth

In truth, it may be that people are really ready to step away from the model of continuous economic growth, and want to find ways of doing so... but when I look around, I see most people still living mindlessly, and I know that it's really just a small movement that manifests in bold moves at a larger scale in far flung places like Bolivia... 



...and Ecuador.

The new reality for the planet is accepted among only those who have to stomach the harsh realities. I don't think people are prepared to face the realities on an individual level until something bad that is tangible happens either to them or right in front of their eyes.  Even then, memory seems weak and short.   Even when people are affected, the focus toward "sustainability" can be quite narrow.  (NIMBY).
Individualistic culture is unsustainable patterns of behaviors for a "collective" environment.  We don't own or control the whole planet.  Who does?  Religion that listens to the static wisdom of bearded men from 5000 years ago is a huge obstacle to real changes in our beliefs and behaviors.  Instead of using religion to be supportive of what is good and right, it's now based on selfish interests of a collective.  So we find collective cooperation in religions, but it's only to perpetuate an unsustainable status quo. 

When you think in terms of a national agenda, it's really quite impressive that anyone would do such a thing at all.
The reason I think we hear the "left" called socialists as if it's a bad thing at the same time they're called "fascists" as if they're really scary isn't because those doing the accusing have these two political philosophies confused... it's that they are thinking in terms of fascism as a strictly enforced agenda that requires some autocratic decision making.  Eco-fascists.  The "hippies" now see it's going to take serious laws, restrictions on behaviors, and limitations to what you're able to do that will need to be heavily enforced.   "Keep off the grass" signs (Signs signs, everywhere a sign) those are now the values of leftists! The right restricted access to private property, and the leftists wanted it to be shared.  Neither plan was ever "just", and neither political philosophy, neither approach is really an answer to our problems.

The only answer is a new age of enlightenment of our survival and the survival of the planet, and the motivation is going to come from the will to prevent future generations from great suffering.

It sometimes seems to me like a lot of people are "coming around" because I frequent those places and associate myself with others of like mind as much as possible, and not because there is a real serious push toward sustainability for the planet. It's barely conscious, but you'd think it was an overwhelming social force because the media wants you to think so... we see a superficial account of the "green" movement.  And so our youth think, "someone's handling whatever problems there are, and lots of problems aren't really all that worrisome"... 

In fact there is a serious push toward the agenda of continued growth and expansion, but it is impossible. It's not a "moral" argument. It's physically impossible.

But it's turned into a moral argument, and that is part of why it's been slowwwww to take hold and gain any real momentum (the move toward sustainability). Adopting new ways of life is really not realistic for most of the baby boom generation.  They built the highway systems that separated neighborhoods into class divisions, chained us to our automobiles.  They're patterns are so ingrained, and their denial is strong. They are hardworking, honest, decent folks who truly believe they are a deeply moral group of people. They fancy themselves in the middle class, and products of "The Greatest Generation", even though they're really more working class and actuallly quite spoiled children of Brokaw's "Greatest Generation". They mentally put themselves in those groups where they are acceptable and have no need for any change; And of course, to suggest otherwise offends them. When confronted, they'll claim that it's the lazy, the poor, the highly educated, the immoral who need to change.

I think people are too fearful of the truth, and that it is paralyzing their will to do anything, even if they are presented with options and facts... and this fear is fostering denial. To accept that the planet's resources are dwindling, and that we are destroying our own environment is to accept responsibility. This translates into "guilt", which also means "fault".

Again, some might proclaim that it's the lazy, the highly educated elitists, and the godless and the immoral who need to change! When in fact, it is civilization, all of it, that will have to change regardless of your prejudices toward others. Everyone needs clean air and water, vital soils, wild places... everyone.

Only the up and coming generations can learn a different way to see things... Learn methods of conservation, restoration, and develop a needs (instead of wants) based economy. They're inheriting a world that many seem to face with despair. It's important to instill in young people a great hope and perseverance toward a better world, and experiential learning hands-on know-how, not just "ideals".

Young people have always stopped at the point of thinking "I'll learn to play guitar and write songs about it". Or, they come together at music festivals and think it somehow changes things....

But are they really even being given a choice to behave in ways that, in their far less romantic day to day lives, can secure their futures? Or is it largely a snow job in the media? Are they getting a false sense of security through the morality that puts them up against the lazy, the highly educated, the free thinker? Will they just get in their vehicle and head to the 9 to 5 where they help the corporate beast fuel its never ending greed, on a planet that is torn up, filthy, and half dead?

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Fear Socialism? Taxpayers Fund Socialized Losses While Corporate Profits Thriving,

Why so glum chum???
Corporate profits are at an all time high!
Nothing but blue skies ahead for CEO's and large investors?


Well, some affects of globalization aren't so rosy...

Click here to meet the Emerald Ash Borer, and some look alikes...


Click to Download a PDF about using insecticides (perhaps a necessary evil in these times of dire circumstances)

Global trade is the primary cause of introduced pests, so solving the problem of keeping these pests out lies primarily at the federal level.
That means more of your hard earned TAX DOLLARS.

Should we just let the forests die?
Well, of course not.
We should want our tax dollars to aid research and fund efforts to fight off this pest. Right?
Maybe we could tax corporations to pay for it?
Now there's an idea that's long overdue!!!


But average citizens can also play a key role.

Since the emerald ash borer can travel only short distances on its own, scientists suspect the beetle is spreading so far and wide because businesses and average citizens unknowingly move it in firewood, logs and nursery trees.

Here’s how you can help:

1. Be a citizen scientist! Monitor your trees and plants and report back any unusual findings to your state agriculture agency.
2. Don’t move firewood. Moving firewood from one place to another can spread invasive species to non-infected forests.
3. Get involved in your community’s local tree planting efforts and become a steward of local trees and urban forests.

The Holistic World View of a Hippie / Cynic

I love and value nature and wildlife and have felt this way since I was a child.  I try to "be the change" as Ghandi said, so I do a lot of things that reflect this in my daily actions.  I've been doing most of these things for about 20 years.   I am willing to discuss and debate many environmental issues toe to toe with anyone from any political stripe, anytime.  :)  I don't care if you want to label me a socialist or a hippie... There are worse things to be.

I keep the heat down and bundle up in the winter, go without air conditioning until I can't stand it, using c.f. lightbulbs, recycling everything I can, walk or bike instead of drive.  I drive the same little faithful Metro for 12 years now, I get 40 mpg.  Still,  I "plan"  errands to save trips.
I'm on a vegetarian diet for 5 years now and we normally cook everything from scratch. We check in junk shops and thrift stores for things before buying anything new, and lots more...
I believe we have a duty, but that it comes from societal norms and the opportunities for education we are given.  Problem is, now opportunities for education are de-valued, and societal norms have decayed into what TV shows we're following, what sports teams we follow, and political party we believe best represents "the best" values... I do not believe in "duty"  imposed through laws upon people by their government AS INDIVIDUALS...   I do NOT believe that corporations should be considered people, my friend... or "Individuals".  in order to have us swallow a corporate poison-pill, the underlying profit driven agendas of our politicians are now hidden... wrapped up with guilt driven, zealous religious mandates, quite ready and willing to impose laws and limitations on rights to our personhood, both civil and individual.

I believe that intelligent, thoughtful people want to preserve the natural world, and care for the environment.   Corporations have no such conscience.  BY LAW corporations are created and they exist for the sole purpose of the pursuit of profits.  Period.  I think there could be a way to live in balance and stop the disruption ... but someone with an agenda will undermine it in the media, and people are way too far removed from the awareness, or consequences of their actions. There is a rift created through the media by corporations between Americans that really makes me sad, and it is distorting or drowning out the true voices of responsible, thinking, American people.

I have little faith in mankind to solve the problems we face.  The modern industrial /technological civilization we have built is too pervasive.  Too many people really seem to be headed toward the scenario presented in the movie "Idiocracy".  

I don't have cable tv and I don't play video games, and I don't own a cell phone.  I don't live in a cave, but I'm careful.  I make an effort to deconstruct messages I do see and hear. I'm not good at distracting myself from reality.   I prefer to trust the images I see in the clouds over what's on tv.

By spending time in a forest with trees and ferns, birds chirping, and katy-dids, I know what's right and what's wrong.  Unless more people wake up to reality and start to take up alternative ways to live, and reject the profit agenda that is driving this economy and us right over a cliff,  I have a pretty grim outlook for the next 50 years. Mother Nature will create a backlash and the human over-population problem will be resolved relatively quickly and without any interventions.  Diseases, and possibly through trials presented now that we have reached the end of the era of "cheap oil" humans face some really tough times ahead.

All About Phosphorus!

Phosphorus is normally locked in deposits in the ground, or it can erode from such deposits and be found "in solution" (dissolved in water).

Phosphorus is important to growth and function of plant cells.  It aids plants in photosythesis, helps plants to respire, enables them to transfer and store energy, and use water efficiently.

Microbes in soil play an important role in transforming organic forms of phosphorus to create inorganic forms that plants use, which is called "mineralization". 
Microbe levels can be affected by poor soil quality, and their absence leaves phosphorus in the organic state that plants cannot use.   At high pH levels (such as occur due to acid rain), phosphorus is chemically "fixed" in  organic mineral forms such as aluminium phosphate, iron phosphate, or manganese phosphate, and cannot be taken up by plants.  In soils that are low pH, phosphorus can fix to Aluminum, Iron or manganese, and again, it becomes unusable to plants.   Low oxygen (as in dense soils or clay, or moisture laden soils) will inhibit plants from taking up phosphorus.  Lots of farmers have to be concerned about the balance of mineral content of their soils, ph levels, and promoting microbes. 

Phosphorus is one part of the interdependent factors for good soil health.

Phosphorus is attained from mining, and much of it is found in a mineral called Apatite.  It is mined for use as a fertilizer, and applied on farm fields.  It  runs off mines and fields into water supplies, where it causes serious plant growth (algae blooms).  This over abundance of phosphorus in water can create so much plant growth that then depletes oxygen levels in the water, thus killing all life in a body of water.
Much of the world's farm lands have been overworked, and  depleted of their minimal natural sources of phosphorus.  It takes many years for the cycle of phosphorus to replenish natural supply levels in the soil.

 "Local" plantlife is often more accustomed to low levels of phosphorus, but when phosphorus is introduced (from run off of farm fields where fertilizers applied), invasive species begin to thrive and crowd out native plants. In some countries, species of plants that do well in native soils require no amendment, but in these regions, farmers are shown how to increase yields (and make more money!) through the application of fertlizers (including phosphorus), and newer hybrids and gmo varieties of plants are being introduced, pushing out the practice of subsistence farming (a lifestyle where little money is needed), and centuries of use of traditional crops.

It's a bad idea to continue relying on mined phosphorus for industrial level farm use.  As we mine away all the resources locked in the earth,  some  farmers are becoming concerned a great deal about conserving their organic matter as compost.
Organic products may have been grown with the use of the mineral phosphorus applications without affecting the legal status for "organic".  Small scale, local farming, (and gardens-- perhaps your own?) may use composted organic matter instead of mined resources of phosphorus.  
Organic matter (manure, urine, composted matter) contains some phosphorus, and can be used to amend soils.  (instead of mined phosphorus). It also enhances the "good" bacteria in the soils that do the work of converting (mineralizing) the phosphorus for plant use.
Phosphorus in cleaning products and soaps is another waste of this natural resource that then goes "down the drain" and into the water supply.   It is possible to avoid these sources of it by learning what names to check for on product labels, or (easier) buying products known to be made without it, or making your own at home.

All about Apatite


Why Phosphorus is important to global security and a continuing food supply

What has happened in Florida thanks to Phosphorus mining.


Lake Erie's "Dead Zone", videos, animated illustrations, etc.... (from 2002, still relevant).

Article about "dead zones" Gulf of Mexico( 6800 sq. miles), Chesapeake Bay (100 miles): (9/2/2011)  Dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and other waters require a tougher approach: Donald Scavia


Corporate profit incentive described here, promoting globalization and opening new markets for phosphorus use by farmers reported September 2011.