A Tree Offensive

I've had. I am fit to be tied.

I would like to propose (insist upon) new federal legislation. Against JUNK MAIL. I would like to insist (propose) that all purveyors of junk mail must plant a tree for every pound of junk mail that they inflict upon our mailboxes. The worst offenders are credit card companies, cable companies & phone companies. This past month I received the same soliciting junk mail from the same phone company THREE TIMES! Each of the three pieces of mail was exactly the same. Loathing junk mail I put it aside & cull the pile about once a month. Yesterday I found the THREE duplicate SPECIAL OFFERS from the same phone company. Enclosed in a white envelope was a GLOSSY (i.e. not terribly recyclable) advert. AND!! The real kicker is that it's my phone company! I am already a customer!

Then there are the credit card companies with their special needs, i.e. shredding. As we all know, we must open up these stupid offers & shred them - which means using electricity to protect our privacy. More wasted resources. Now granted - one shredding machine doesn't use that much power. But - think about adding up all of the power used in the US to shred all of the privacy invading credit card offers.

An Amendment to my proposed Federal Legislation - 2 trees per pound for credit card companies.

Then their are the cable companies. Same deal as the phone companies. Extra mailing CONSTANTLY from my own provider. They could at least include the junk in their monthly bill. But no - they do EXTRA paper wasting mailings throughout the month.

As for the US postal service's potential howling over business lost (they love largely non-recyclable catalogs as well, I hear tell), let's face it - the USP is facing major restructuring anyway since most of us pay our bills on line & converse through email not snail mail.

And yes - while I've mentioned the catalog sending business - think about all of the dear little saplings that would be planted if THEY were required to plant one per pound. It's truly mind boggling to consider the landfill acreage that is continually expanding to try & swallow up the glossy, usually non-recyclable, catalogs of the world.

No - wait a minute - due to the problematic non-recyclable nature in most of the country of glossy catalogs - THEY have to plant THREE trees per pound.

Tress are good for the earth - this we know. Junk mail isn't.

Enough already.

IT’S BERRY TIME! HOORAY!

Every year my mother-in-law gets strawberries and blueberries from a small grower nearby. Today was our day to pick up the strawberries and, as you can see from the picture, they were luscious!

I put up about half of them in the freezer for later use but picked out the ripest ones for eating fresh with plenty of sampling as I worked. My husband hovered nearby, begging me not to eat them all. “You’re as bad as a little kid!” And when it comes to berries, he’s right, I am.

I have always loved berries; any kind as long as they were ripe, juicy and sweet. When I was maybe nine years old, I used to ride my bike all over, exploring my town and its environs.

There was a place with a fenced pasture and a friendly palomino horse. I frequently visited, bringing him treats of apple or carrot. I liked horses, still do, but that wasn’t the REAL draw. What brought me back again and again was the promise of a bumper crop of black mulberries. That farmhouse had a huge mulberry bush that stood about six feet tall and its thicket of branches draped gracefully to the ground, forming a tent like structure. When the berries were finally ripe, I would crawl inside those branches and eat mulberries until my face and hands were stained purple-black. And, of course, the resulting tummy ache would torture me all night, but it was worth it.

Currently I’m keeping a close eye on my red raspberry tangle that it huge and overgrown on the edge of the woods. Every year I think I will trim back the canes and make a path through it to make it easier to harvest. But, I just can’t bring myself to disturb what nature has so thoughtfully provided. Soon, I’ll put on boots and get scratched and caught up in the briars, but the resulting reward of fresh raspberries will be well worth the few drops of blood, although it’s a bit embarrassing to be a 50+ woman going around all scratched and skinned up like a kid.

And then there will be blueberries! When I hear the lyrics, “I found my thrill on Blueberry Hill.” It’s not amore I’m thinking about, but sweet little blue orbs like the ones pictured here, providing a burst of heavenly flavor on my tongue.

BERRIES! Imagine the taste! Imagine the desserts!

On Libertarianism

Since some have been discussing the Ron Paul phenomenon, I thought I might add a few thoughts about the general direction from which they are coming. Libertarianism is something I was introduced to as a kid, and since that time I've become much acquainted with this movement's philosophical roots. At base, as I see things, they're supporters of a relatively unhistoricized, idealistic version of capitalism that considers "the free market" pretty much the answer to all problems.

On the one hand, I find it odd that some people think you can apply economic notions from centuries ago (before the Industrial Revolution even got going – Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776) without any significant modification. That is naïve, and it ought to be clear that an amoral system such as "the market" cannot be the answer to all problems, even though it works remarkably well in some areas of life. Most of us, I suspect, would insist that ethics must sometimes supplement pure economics – if capitalism doesn't ensure that everybody has access to good health care, for instance, some other set of values must be invoked to make sure people get access to it. A lot of things can be adequately dealt with by saying that money and property are their measure, but some of the most vital things in life cannot. If you tried to extend the market philosophy and system to everything, I fear, you would end up with something more like a Hobbesian state of nature than a truly civilized society – one in which everybody recognizes that there's something more valuable about human connections than is implied by the transitory "cash-nexus" that makes capitalism go.

As the free-marketeers suggest, charitable concern for our fellows can be monetized or commoditized to some extent, but it probably cannot be sufficiently commoditized so as to ensure genuine civility. That's no doubt an indictment of us all, but the question is "what kinds of social and political forms will encourage people to behave humanely towards one another?" And I'm suggesting that while unmodified capitalist economics may generate wealth for a considerable number of people, it shows little regard for ensuring that everybody has the basics of life. So it needs supplementation from values beyond its own reserves if it is to help us live well.

On the other hand, some of what libertarians believe is worthy of admiration – they are among the few people around, it seems, who believe that except in very extreme cases likely to cause harm to all, it's none of their business what others are up to in the areas of sexuality, drug use, and so forth. What a breath of fresh air in comparison to a certain element (unfortunately, it appears to be just about the only one left at present) within the Republican Party that thinks we can wiretap, torture, render, surveil and moralize our way to nirvana. Such people confound religion and politics to the point where they become indistinguishable, and apparently have no problem supporting even the most extreme "statist" measures. The libertarians oppose such impositions, and for that I think they deserve some regard; perhaps the better side of this philosophy will become a source of regeneration within the Republican Party.

Finally, the problem I see with the libertarian philosophy remains a big one: the good and the bad may be inextricable since libertarian defenses of individual freedom are deeply bound up with their understanding of competition, wealth, and property. Their social philosophy stems from their economic philosophy, and the latter seems unrealistic and very likely to produce unintended consequences of a destructive and destabilizing kind.

Show me the money

Sometimes I think Ron Paul's ideas may be too simplistic. This isn't one of them. In a Forbes editorial last week, Congressman Paul called for an audit of the Federal Reserve Bank. Paul of course, doesn't buy the idea that the Fed is necessary to keep inflation low and to promote growth. Truth be told, I've been of the opinion that it has played a part in all but eliminating the 10 - 15 year cycle of boom, panic and collapse that has plagued our economy since the Washington administration. Maybe it has but maybe, as the Congressman claims, it's been the cause of inflation and a drag on growth. Maybe there's a better way and I'm the first to admit I don't know.

The idea of an independent Fed is a fallacy, says the man from Texas. The allegedly independent Fed has

" far too much authority to make agreements with foreign governments and central banks, or create temporary liquidity facilities"

and of course the Chairman and governors are appointed by the President and will reflect his politics, but the question of whether it is a good solution, a bad solution and more importantly whether we should have a Federal Reserve Bank at all isn't easy to answer and it isn't easy to discuss because of the political passions and partisanship involved. Everyone thinks he's an economist these days. Of course, supporter or detractor, we really don't know exactly what the Fed is doing anyway, not even today with the huge amounts of money being moved around in the dark.

'Let's have an audit' is Ron Paul's simple suggestion and one would think that at a time when the government has the power to audit anyone; to investigate, spy on, wire tap, seize assets and records, imprison without charges and even pour water up your nose, the answer would be "why the hell not?"

"What possible arguments exist against this bill? Who opposes an audit of the Fed's activities and why?"

asks Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com. "It would interfere with the Fed's independence" says Forbes in rebuttal and stresses that monetary policy is too complex for simple minded congressmen. Maybe it is, but maybe it's too complex for the Fed too and more than maybe; the lingering appearance of impropriety, if not incompetence, can finally be confirmed or dispelled by a little bit of transparency.

I wouldn't dare pass myself off as an economist and I'm not going to see this along party lines because I don't trust either side, particularly in this atmosphere of secrecy, but if an "independent" Fed means a Fed that operates in the dark, according to its own rules and politics, I'm with Congressman Paul. I want to see the books and you're going to have a lot of 'splainin to do to talk me out of it.

Perhaps I can use the words of surveillance supporters against the government for once: if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.

WHAT’S UNDER THAT KILT?

The AP has put out this story under the headline:

Utah school forces student to change out of kilt

WEST HAVEN, Utah – The principal of a Utah middle school has been asked to apologize for forcing a kilt-wearing student to change his clothes.

Weber School District spokesman Nate Taggart says Craig Jessop has been asked to extend an apology to 14-year-old student Gavin McFarland of Hooper after the school official's comments Wednesday.

Gavin says he wore the kilt twice in the past two weeks to Rocky Mountain Junior High as a prop for an art project. Jessop told the boy that the outfit could be misconstrued as cross-dressing.

Taggart says the district recognizes the kilt as an expression of the boy's Scottish heritage and that the kilt was not inappropriate.
Kilts are traditional Scottish apparel generally worn by men for formal or special occasions.

Now, I have two dear friends from Scotland and they had a very traditional Scottish wedding with him wearing his family tartan following a long historic tradition of all Scotsmen that I suspect even some pinhead in Utah must know about even if he hasn’t seen Braveheart.

More disturbing was the comment by the principal that this could be misconstrued as cross dressing. So what? You know, our young people, by the time they are in high school, are no longer the innocent babes that need our constant vigilance for fear they might be “exposed” to the world around them.

If we want responsible young adults, capable of navigating successfully through a complex and ever changing world, would they not be better served by allowing them to decide what they find acceptable or not?

We can only hope the Jessops of the world will fade away to make room for wiser, more compassionate and more intelligent replacement.

YELLOW STICKY NOTES

By Jeff Chiba Stearns

Yes we can

But no we won't. Really nobody expected Barak Obama to bring about the Kingdom of God, or even a Democracy of justice. That his supporters did, is just another of the straw men ambling down the yellow brick road from GOP headquarters. What we really wanted is somebody not actively trying to destroy our country in every possible way, but from day one we've been giggled at because he hadn't done in 24 hours what Jesus Christ hasn't done, lo these 2000 years and largely because his followers are Christians.

One of the things I have been hoping for is for an end to the persecution of gays in the military. It's a small thing in the greater picture of our corrupt, superstitious and furious country, but had somebody done something to block the summary discharge of Lieutenant Daniel Choi from the US Army because he prefers men to women, it might have been reassuring, at least, to those who hope for something of a saner, more secular America. Alas he has chosen not to "interfere." He has chosen to allow the crusaders one more victory in taking over our military.

It's only one of many stories, but the sad lack of Arabic translators in our service has something to do with the fact that we place such great value on their private sexual thoughts that we are willing to risk the lives of our soldiers and perhaps our nation by firing them and negating their years of study and service and indeed their valuable expertise. Choi was the 54th translator to be discharged for unclean thoughts.

I'm waiting for our allegedly Liberal Press to say something and perhaps for the "traditional values" side to be hypocritical and call them hypocrites, but so far, It's only the bloggers and the ever vigilant Daily Show that are willing to point out that our Christian friends in God's Army are allowing their superstitions to weaken us in yet one more way.

Religious bigotry doesn't require a beard or any kind of headgear to be the enemy of freedom, or does stupidity for that matter. Take Kim Hendron, a member of the Arkansas State Senate, and currently a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate who told us recently that he believes in the traditional values of the Andy Griffith Show, not like "that Jew" Chuck Shumer. Now most of us remember that no, John Wayne never really was a soldier and Andy Griffith never really was a sheriff of that non-existent fantasy town that had no Jews or Catholics or Mexicans or folks of African descent, but Hendron isn't going to let any damned New York Jew tell him otherwise any more than the US Army of God is going to let any damned sodomite translate any damned Arabic messages even if we have to have New York blown up all over again. Of course, when his foot was extracted from his Arkanas blow hole, he had to admit that he did actually like maybe a couple of Jews like Jesus and Lieberman, neither of which it's likely he's ever listened to with much understanding.

So maybe if we want to get an idea of what's really going on here, we need to turn off our inner Arkansas and listen to some damned Jew like the one that told us to shut the hell up and be nice to each other a long time ago and the one on Comedy Central who seems brave enough to tell off the Army and Obama and our hate-based community that we've had enough of this. waterboarding may make them talk, said that Jew Jon Stewart, but it won't make them talk in English.

Shame on you Mr. President.

Ugly is as ugly thinks

This is still America, the discomfiture of the Republican Party notwithstanding, and so no triviality, no irrelevant, inconsequential or plainly idiotic dispute is going to go away without the final word being had by our ad hoc committee on the meaning of everything. The current committee heads seem to be Sarah Palin and Charlie, Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

As the swells slowly die down on that limitless sea of Who Gives A Shit, we can hear the voice of Mrs. Palin (perhaps all the way to Russia) telling us that:

“Our Constitution protects us all, not just those who agree with the far left.”

Saving the discussion of just what, to her, constitutes the "far left" for another paragraph, it might be worthwhile to wonder just what protection it offers from the superstition and bigotry of those who listen to psychotic monsters like Pastor "death to witches" Muthee. We won't get an answer from her, I'm afraid, but her feelings are clear. The Constitution protects her religious views against the "Liberal" onslaught.

It doesn't, of course -- and I have a hard time seeing the First Amendment as protecting someone's standing in a private, for profit beauty pageant, else we'd be hearing a lot of court cases from ladies with big noses, large bottoms and A cups, but that's the Procrustean bed Palin would like to strap the sad case of Carrie Prejean into, as poor a fit as it may be.

Does Sarah care who wins a contest designed to facilitate the commercial self-objectification of young women? I would guess that she is only interested in portraying her as a noble victim of people so un-American as to assert that the Constitution protects everyones rights, including the right to enter into a contract with another, regardless of race, creed, national origin or gender. That's being a farleftliberal, of course; the catchall term for anything that stands in the way of going back to the days when a real estate broker (we didn't have Realtors back then) could refuse to show you a house in a white neighborhood, a Jew couldn't book a hotel room in Palm Beach, schools, restaurants, public parks, drinking fountains train stations and city buses were segregated, marrying someone of the wrong race could land you in jail and non-missionary position sex was a crime -- and all was well with far right neanderthals like Sarah the moose killer and her Cave Christians. All was right with Sarah's Grizzly God.

No, “the liberal onslaught of malicious attacks” as Sarah growled from her wilderness den -- or in other words, the disgust with people like Prejean, Palin and the Plumber dude who want to have the law interfere with private and personal relationships and strip us of the right to determine just who our families are: the Liberal assault is what what we should be concerned about, or at least the losers who run and watch and participate in beauty pageants should be. It's a "onslaught!" We shouldn't notice that in fact nobody is censoring anyone and Sarah the Idiot is confusing equal protection under the law for all citizens with some kind of an outrageous affront to her primitive religious beliefs.

So it seems like Sarah's "far left" is actually the core of American values, at least the values the constitution was meant to be a means to facilitate. It seems like Sarah's center lies in a culture that died out with the "onslaught" of the Age of Enlightenment, if not with the disappearance of woolly mammoths. Far Left Liberals like me feel little more than sad, queasiness at the ugly programmed responses of would be beauty queens, and that's about it. Some may be outraged at her, some might hate her, but they are a subgroup as small as Palin's witch hunters. Most of us care more about how our representatives vote and how well our freedom is protected against its atavistic enemies, but ugly words make people ugly, and this is a beauty contest, isn't it?

Say no to drugs!

I guess I've been doing drugs all my life and I'll bet you have too. My thanks to the FDA for letting us all know. Take Oats for example, there's evidence that eating oat cereal helps keep your bad cholesterol low and that's something the health howlers everywhere have been telling us to do 24 hours a day for decades. Cheerios are, of course, made with oats and General Mills is happy to tell you they provide a good way to eat those oats that seem to be good for you. Our friends at the FDA however, you know those guys who always seem to have been looking the other way when the e-coli, melamine and rat turds got into our food supply aren't about to tolerate promoting a healthy diet without their permission.

Cheerios are drugs because they can help treat a medical condition according to the Food and Drug Administration. Of course if nobody told you that broccoli or spinach or exercise or a good night's sleep -- or oats -- were good for you, that would be all right with the Feds. Health benefits, no matter how credible can only be talked about with their approval it seems. So never mind what your mother or Sanjay Gupta or the Surgeon General tells you about a healthy diet and lifestyle, don't listen to those damned drug pushers, listen to the FDA.

Of course you can apparently sell almost any placebo or stimulant as a weight loss drug that has been proven not to work or in some cases to kill you. We can't go half an hour without some machine or pill or diet plan being shoved in our faces on TV, but fruits, grains and vegetables as part of a heart-healthy diet? DRUGS!!!!

Hey, last thing I want to do is be a druggie - so I'll have a double bacon cheeseburger with extra mayonnaise and a big Bucket O Super Sized Fries and a milk shake too of course -- it's all FDA approved!

84 AFGHAN GIRLS POISONED: ASSOCIATED PRESS HINTS AT "HYSTERIA"

Earlier today (Tuesday, May 12, 2009), the Associated Press released this story about an apparent poison gas attack on 84 Afghan school girls:

MUHMUD RAQI, Afghanistan — At least 84 Afghan girls were admitted to a hospital Tuesday for headaches and vomiting in the third apparent poison attack on a girls school in as many weeks, officials and doctors said.

The students were lining up outside their school in northeastern Afghanistan on Tuesday morning when a strange odor filled the yard, and one girl collapsed, said the school's principal, Mossena, who was herself in a hospital bed gasping for breath as she described the event.

(…)

At least 98 patients were admitted from Aftab Bachi school, including the principal, 11 teachers and two cleaners, said Khalid Enayat, the hospital's deputy director. He said about another 30 students were being monitored to see if they developed symptoms, although they were not admitted to the hospital.

Tuesday's apparent attack is the third alleged poisoning at a girls' school in less than three weeks. It comes one day after 61 schoolgirls and one teacher from a school in neighboring Parwan province were admitted to a hospital after complaining of sudden illness. They were irritable, confused and weeping, and several of the girls passed out.

Even more disturbing is how AP and its writers victimize the victims of these attacks with this hypothetical disclaimer:

But with no group claiming responsibility, the sicknesses could be a result of a group hysteria sparked by one student's illness. An education official for Parwan province said they had not found any evidence of an attack in Tuesday's incident. He said one student fell ill before the others and suggested that some of the illnesses could have been psychological.

Get it?  Young women have such delicate constitutions, you know. They subject themselves to flights of hysteria with the slightest provocation. Does the mere thought of having acid thrown in one’s face bring on a case of vapors and tremors? Does every odor followed by headache, nausea, and vomiting evoke The Mad Gasser of Mattoon?

When so-called authorities or experts can find no other explanation, the easiest solution is to blame the victim. Of course we are talking about a country where girls are kidnapped, schools are closed or burned, teachers are beheaded, and fear is rampant.

Nevertheless, the Associated Press wants to cast doubt on the credibility of the victims. Does this press account commit a fundamental attribution error, also known as correspondence bias, or is there more subtext behind this story? Like shades of gender bias, for example?

Update (6:45 pm): The BBC and Deutsche Welle reported the same story without the reference to group hysteria.