Eco-terrorism

An article/opinion piece in the latest Eat the State reminded me of a fairly recent (March 4) incident where a housing development of large (4200 sqf.) homes in Woodinville, WA was burned down. A banner with an environmental slogan against the homes signed with the letters ELF was found at the arson site. Authorities assume that this indicated that the Earth Liberation Front was responsible for setting the fires. As far as I know ELF has never taken responsibility for this arson nor has any other proof been found to link them but that is a story for another day.

I don't agree with eco-terrorism or so called anarchists that think by damaging, destroying or threatening they can "fix" the world (for whatever values of fixed they use.) Although this kind of action can bring attention to their cause I think in the end it turns public opinion against their cause. Now, either the people who commit these acts don't agree with me or they just don't care. They are selfishly making their point to the detriment of those that are trying to work within the system to solve the same problems like Global Climate Change, the unfair practices of the WTO or suburban sprawl like in the Woodinville arson.

The article in Eat the State accused all of us "Mommies and Daddies" of not giving a fuck because we are all evil baddies that worship materialism and don't care about ruining the planet. The author, Jason Miller, goes on to praise ELF for burning down the homes in Woodinville because they represented a "rape" of the planet. Now, I'm not a big fan of huge mansions or housing developments built on land that may be ecologically sensitive, but I think in this case the bigger "rape" of the planet was the damage to the environment done by the fire, the effort to put out the fire and the fact that the builder could just take their insurance money and rebuild the homes thus using twice the materials originally needed. Even worse, in some ways, this incident gives the conservatives a chance to paint all environmentalists as eco-terrorists. 

I'm not so naive as to think that protests and civil disobedience aren't necessary tools of chance but I think the positive impact that they generate are based on the willingness of people to PEACEFULLY disagree en mass and be willing to pay the price; by which I mean jail time or fines not police violence. The average American respects someone willing to stand up for what they believe in even if they disagree with their cause. They don't respect violence or property damage because they will empathize with those who have been victimized rather than the perpetrators.

Neville Chamberlain

What did you think of when you saw the post title: Neville Chamberlain? What if I through in the word "appeasement?"

Why am I asking? Well first some background. Apparently President Bush is attempting to slap Barack Obama (not explicitly mentioning his name mind you) with the label of appeaser based on Obama's desire to talk with Hamas to help make some settlement to bring peace between the Palestinians and Israel. He even made a comparison between Obama and Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler. You can check out the video here (via Crooks and Liars) along with some commentary from MSNBC talking heads.

So back to the question. I asked it because a GOP operative trotted out the Republican talking points of calling Obama an appeaser like Chamberlain on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Now, I'm not a Chris Matthews fan but I was impressed when he asked the guy what Chamberlain did that made him an appeaser. The GOP operative was of course clueless because they didn't include that information in his talking points for the day.

I was enjoying the roasting of the GOPer when I thought to myself what DID Chamberlain do exactly to get the label of appeaser. I wracked my brain for a second and then I thought "I think it was let Hitler get away with invading Czechoslovakia with out any consequences." Well I was at least very close. Then I wondered how many Americans could really come up with the guess I did and would just say "Yeah appeaser." with no thought to what it really meant.

Chamberlain was an appeaser because he allowed Hitler to take and take with no repercussions. Negotiating with an opponent is obviously NOT appeasement. It is a way to solve problems as Bush well knows (cough) North Korea (cough) Axis of Evil (cough). Sometimes the hypocrisy of the Bush administration drives me crazy.

Actually Republicans DO Have Horns Growing Out Of Their Heads They Just File Them Down

or Overheard At The Coffee Shop

I like to write at coffee shops. Getting out of the house or the office helps me focus on my writing instead of the television, chores that need to be done or other distractions.

Coffee shops can also provide a good source of material for rants, blog posts, fiction and articles. Today, for example I was sitting at Zeitgeist in Pioneer Square just drinking my latte (no I don't wear Birkenstocks) and doing a little bit of writing when three guys sat down at the next table and started talking a bit too loudly. I was doing a pretty good job of ignoring them until one of them said...

"...a Republican and you don't have horns growing out of your head."

That got me thinking, and you know what... Republicans DO have horns growing out of their head most of them just file them down. For example:

FOX News: Files their horns down with "Fair and Balanced"
Bill O'Reilly: "No Spin Zone"
John McCain: "Straight Talk Express"
George W. Bush: Good ol' boy, man of the pepple, werkin' at his ranch
Dick Cheney: ...wait you can actually SEE his horns if you squint just right.

My point is that Republicans get upset when people see them as evil bastards but they don't do anything to disavow themselves of the elements of their party that are either pretty damn evil or are evil enablers; you know "the guy who runs in to the convenience store to get Satan a pack of cigarettes."

Paper, Plastic or Neither

The mayor of Seattle and the city council president recently announced a plan to impose a 20-cent-per-bag "green fee" tax on paper and plastic bags distributed at grocery, convenience and drug stores. This tax is supposed to be an effort reduce garbage and encourage people to use reusable cloth bags when they do their shopping. The revenue from the tax is supposed to go to "to administer and enforce the rules, to buy and promote reusable bags, and to expand recycling, environmental education and waste prevention programs."

I am very much in favor of people using cloth bags to do their shopping. I also feel a tax or fee is a good way to encourage the uses of cloth or other reusable bags as long as the revenue is REALLY used for environmental programs. I am concerned that the revenue will just get siphoned off into the general fund and the program will just turn into a revenue generator like 2 MPH over the speed limit speeding tickets and picking one guy out of a crowd jay walking tickets. Just call me paranoid I guess.

Aftermarket LEGO parts- Gun, Grenades and "Bandits"

Aftermarket LEGOs Accessories - Guns, Grenades and "Bandits"

I'll admit that I own a lot of LEGOs. I used to be a LEGO addict until, like many addicts, price made me go cold turkey. I love the castle sets, the Star Wars sets (you'll never see me with a LEGO Jar Jar though), and best of the the big old box of miscellaneous bricks in every shape, size and color.

When I was a kid my brother and I used to spend hours making demolition derby cars and smashing them against each other. LEGO bricks would fly, and be reassembled into new designs to see what would be best to withstand the impact. I also used to make fleets of space ships to save the galaxy from evil invaders and LEGO blasters to shoot Storm Troopers and other bad guys.

The most fun I had with LEGOs was making forts and terrain to use with my army men. You know the old green and gray plastic guys with the not-to-scale tanks and cannons. Hours passed while I fought and re-fought battles where the good guys always won and the bad guys got their just deserts.

Of course thinking about those days long past makes me feel old and out of touch. Now you can buy aftermarket LEGO WW II Marines, US Army Soldiers, German Army Soldiers, Space Marines, and more from Brick Arms. They come with a dizzying array of fairly accurately modeled machine guns, hand grenades, blaster rifles and even an Uzi concealed in a briefcase for "Bond Spy." If you want to outfit your regular LEGO guys with guns well you can buy those individually or in sets. The Black Knight doesn't stand a chance if you outfit the good guys with a case of hand grenades.

The little kid in me thinks this stuff is amazing and pretty damn cool. The adult in me thinks they are just a little bit disturbing especially the middle eastern terrorist looking "Bandit." I guess that it hits a little too close to reality for my LEGO enjoyment.

Why Tuesday?

Why Tuesday?

I listen to Air America quite a bit. I mostly listen to Thom Hartmann and Rachael Maddow, but I will have it on the in background just to break the silence. I tend to absorb interesting information and trivia through osmosis even when I'm not really LISTENING per se.

Lately a couple of different shows have had on people from Why Tuesday? on to discuss their organization. Why Tuesday? is and organization dedicated to improving our democracy by increasing voter participation. (The United States is ranked in the bottom third of all industrialized countries in voter participation.) One of the avenues they are pursuing to increase voter turnout is to get a discussion going on why we still have elections on Tuesdays.

Apparently the reason we started having elections on the first Tuesday in November was it was the end of harvest season and people would be free to travel to the polling locations. This obviously isn't a relevant reason in modern America because not only are we an increasingly urban society, modern farmers have the ability to jump in their truck and drive to their poling location without too much bother.

So Why Tuesday? The most benign reason I can think of is simply tradition. We have had our elections on Tuesday for so long people don't even think about it. If this is the case then it should be fairly simple to change the day to a weekend to help increase voter participation. A less benign reason is that there is a conscious effort to suppress voter participation by making it inconvenient to vote. Surpressing voter participation would not only benefit the more conservative elements of government (check out this video) but also would probably to favor ANY incumbent. This would be a reason why more liberal lawmakers might be against moving Election Day.

One objection to moving Election Day to the weekend is that people might blow off voting for their regular weekend leisure activities. I think this argument may have some merit. I know I tend to sleep in and relax on weekends, so it might be worthwhile exploring another alternative. Making Election Day a National Holiday.

Making Election Day a national holiday would cut many people free from work and giving them more time to make it to the polls. I suppose an argument could be made that having a holiday would have a similar effect to moving Election Day to a weekend, but I think it wouldn't because people wouldn't be used to slacking off on a weekday even if it was a holiday (as long as they didn't move it to a Monday to get the 3-day weekend.) There would of course be the same conservative/incumbant push against the holiday. But, the advantage of making Election Day a holiday is that it would probably be an easier sell to people than moving it in the face of the inertia of tradition and heck who doesn't want another holiday.

Why Tuesday? is leading an effort to improve voter turnout by challenging what really amounts to government tradition. I think we really need to be doing more of this kind of thing. The government shouldn't do thing because its the way we have always done it. That is a good way to keep our country hidebound, and at only 230 years old we are way to young for that.

Net Neutrality - Letter to My Representative

Rep. McDermott,

I am concerned about the possible loss of Net Neutrality. In order for the Internet to truly serve as an Information Super Highway, the free exchange of information must not be inhibited for any reason, especially for a profit motive.

I own a small business and I understand the temptation to use any means available to drive people to your web presence. But the free exchange of information is more important than my or ANY business.

It is vital not only for the betterment of people all over the world but it is vital for the preservation of our democracy. The Internet is a source of information unfettered by corporate filters and it must remain so if we are to be able to make informed decisions about our elected representatives.

Please work to preserve Net Neutrality.

Sincerely,

Scott M. Taylor