Just yesterday I was at a town hall with my state representative. When I asked a question about our water future, he informed me that our aquifer is possibly the most productive in Texas right now. As such, it is highly desired by many areas around the state without such a resource. People in this area are understandably concerned about whether enough of 'our' water will be left for us when the more populous and growing parts of the state really set their sights on it.
Texas as a whole must start thinking seriously and maturely about water. Our antiquated laws are not good enough in the 21st century. We must explore all alternatives to maintain our supplies.
One place we most certainly have not looked up to now is at our energy production. Besides all the other negative aspects to coal production and use (land destruction, pollution and toxins), it uses more water than cleaner types of energy provision. Right here in the LCRA region there is a coal plant which uses 13 milliion gallons of water EVERY DAY. In an area where the lakes are shrinking and there are battles among the people living up and down the river over who can have how much water, it seems clear we cannot afford this anymore. To continue this facility, by federal environmental statutes, the LCRA will soon have to spend millions to stop the pollution which it has been raining down on local residents. Is it really worth it when Texas is a prime source of wind and solar energy?
Even our Republican U.S. representative is actively promoting Texas wind power.
And at a time when everyone is concerned with health care costs, can we afford the costs that this plant and others like it foist off on us, thereby hiding their true toll? If we added all these hidden costs, how competitive would 'alternative energy' be?
Perhaps this would cost jobs, but there are solutions to that. Like mandatory training programs for the laid-off workers to enable them to find new, better jobs. (A small cost for the savings that will come and for the dangerous work we have asked them to do for us.)
The point is - There are alternatives to coal power. There are alternatives to fights over limited water supplies in growing areas. There are alternatives to dirty, low wage jobs. There are alternatives to hidden costs that fool us into thinking something is cheaper when it isn't.
There is no alternative to water.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Guns II
I am encouraged to see a consensus growing around an all of the above approach to America's gun violence problem. With all proper respect to Mr. LaPierre, I could support armed security in schools ALONG WITH bans on assault weapons and high capacity clips, and a national list of the mentally ill ALONG WITH vastly better treatment and assistance for them, and controls on simulated violence in children's lives ALONG WITH prevention of REAL violence in their lives.
It is REALLY time to stop taking sides and consider each others' solutions.
It is REALLY time to stop taking sides and consider each others' solutions.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Connecticut
I'm pleased to see that the idea of a multi-prong approach to this and other tragedies seems to be acquiring the state of consensus.
IMO, the most important aspect is the treatment of the mentally ill. If they have any sense (and that's debatable) the NRA will be all over that. But anyone who gets on that bandwagon (yes, I mean you Bob McDonnell) will have to realize that it will cost MONEY. And A LOT OF IT, if we are to do it right. And that means TAXES, because the government will definitely have to be part of it. Republicans are already on record as being willing for people to lose their houses and starve in the streets to prevent a tax hike. Are they willing to see 6 year old shot again and again for it?
IMO, the most important aspect is the treatment of the mentally ill. If they have any sense (and that's debatable) the NRA will be all over that. But anyone who gets on that bandwagon (yes, I mean you Bob McDonnell) will have to realize that it will cost MONEY. And A LOT OF IT, if we are to do it right. And that means TAXES, because the government will definitely have to be part of it. Republicans are already on record as being willing for people to lose their houses and starve in the streets to prevent a tax hike. Are they willing to see 6 year old shot again and again for it?
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
union primer
It seems to me it is time to re-educate the population about just what a union is.
The right to work crowd has done a good job of promoting their version of 'freedom', but if anyone examines it closely, it just doesn't work. Here are a few facts that explain why.
Fact 1. The workplace is an inherently unbalanced power situation. The boss has much more power than the worker by virtue of the power to fire.
Fact 2. The only way the worker can try to even up that balance is to combine with other workers and gain the threat of strikes, slowdowns, etc. These combinations of workers are called unions.
Fact 3. The only way unions have power is through at least majority, if not overwhelming, membership. A walkout by 5% of the work force is not likely to have much impact. 50 or 60% on the other hand ...
Fact 4. Management has and has used many tactics to prevent the unions from gaining strong membership. Campaigns of falsehoods, veiled threats, mandatory 'education' meetings, etc. are rampant. Most of the time we don't hear about them, but this last election brought some of that to light.
This brings us to our present situation. Closed shops may seem unfair, but in the real world, they are necessary to give the union some hope of competing with the dominant power of the employer. I heard one pundit comment on unions proving themselves effective and then gaining membership. Sounds reasonable until you realize unions can't be effective until they have membership. Early members have to join now, get the benefits later, after the membership has grown enough to force the employer to deal. Just a sad fact of the real world.
These are the facts. Maybe now you know why union members are so upset at gaining the 'freedom' of right to work (for less).
The right to work crowd has done a good job of promoting their version of 'freedom', but if anyone examines it closely, it just doesn't work. Here are a few facts that explain why.
Fact 1. The workplace is an inherently unbalanced power situation. The boss has much more power than the worker by virtue of the power to fire.
Fact 2. The only way the worker can try to even up that balance is to combine with other workers and gain the threat of strikes, slowdowns, etc. These combinations of workers are called unions.
Fact 3. The only way unions have power is through at least majority, if not overwhelming, membership. A walkout by 5% of the work force is not likely to have much impact. 50 or 60% on the other hand ...
Fact 4. Management has and has used many tactics to prevent the unions from gaining strong membership. Campaigns of falsehoods, veiled threats, mandatory 'education' meetings, etc. are rampant. Most of the time we don't hear about them, but this last election brought some of that to light.
This brings us to our present situation. Closed shops may seem unfair, but in the real world, they are necessary to give the union some hope of competing with the dominant power of the employer. I heard one pundit comment on unions proving themselves effective and then gaining membership. Sounds reasonable until you realize unions can't be effective until they have membership. Early members have to join now, get the benefits later, after the membership has grown enough to force the employer to deal. Just a sad fact of the real world.
These are the facts. Maybe now you know why union members are so upset at gaining the 'freedom' of right to work (for less).
Friday, December 7, 2012
Philosophy
So, now, in this season of great signicance to Christians, Bill O'Reilly says Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.
If I put any credence to his statements, it would be good news for me. I have always liked the philosophy of Christianity. It's the religion that bothers me. I can't get behind their ideas on creation, salvation, or condemnation.
My own evolving beliefs have come to be a mash-up of science (the age & creation of the earth and the emergence of homo sapiens, Native American (the Great Spirit, without any characteristics that make it more prone to some segment of humanity), Celtic ( worship that is the celebration of the rhythm and life of the earth and our connection to it), and eastern (reincarnation).
And recently I have come to a whole new understanding of Christianity, through the medium of film. First I saw Religulous, Bill Mahers film, wherein I learned that the story of the savior was borrowed, as were many of the Christian legends, from other religions that had gone before. That left me wondering if possibly there had not even been a Jesus, something I had never questioned before. And if that was so, where did all those beautiful teachings come from?
I found the answer in another film later that told the story of the Essenes, whose
'philosophy' matched those teachings rather closely.
So it is possible that there are no Christians, because there was no Jesus Christ. Maybe we are all just Essenes and it is a philosophy after all.
Check it out, Bill, you may be right!
If I put any credence to his statements, it would be good news for me. I have always liked the philosophy of Christianity. It's the religion that bothers me. I can't get behind their ideas on creation, salvation, or condemnation.
My own evolving beliefs have come to be a mash-up of science (the age & creation of the earth and the emergence of homo sapiens, Native American (the Great Spirit, without any characteristics that make it more prone to some segment of humanity), Celtic ( worship that is the celebration of the rhythm and life of the earth and our connection to it), and eastern (reincarnation).
And recently I have come to a whole new understanding of Christianity, through the medium of film. First I saw Religulous, Bill Mahers film, wherein I learned that the story of the savior was borrowed, as were many of the Christian legends, from other religions that had gone before. That left me wondering if possibly there had not even been a Jesus, something I had never questioned before. And if that was so, where did all those beautiful teachings come from?
I found the answer in another film later that told the story of the Essenes, whose
'philosophy' matched those teachings rather closely.
So it is possible that there are no Christians, because there was no Jesus Christ. Maybe we are all just Essenes and it is a philosophy after all.
Check it out, Bill, you may be right!
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
which season is it?
"Jesus is the reason for the season". If this year is like recent ones, we will soon be hearing that everywhere. Depends.
If this is the Christmas season for you, then yes, you are correct. But it is perfectly legitimate for someone to see it as the Hanukkah season, Kwanzaa season, Solstice season, or just winter.
Jesus is not the reason for any of those. In fact, most of those predate Jesus. Some of them even predate history, or mankind.
Equally factual: America is in the throes of becoming, once again, more like its theoretical self. You know, the hope of the world, a nation of immigrants. Melted into Americans we may be, but we are not melted into white Anglo-Saxon Christians. Bill O'Reilly has faced it, not that he is in any way happy about it, but at least he has pulled his head up and looked around.
The first European Americans may have been Christian, but even then, other religions were already here. And those of other western faiths followed shortly thereafter. Even more divergent believers were brought here as the centuries went by, with the expectation of course that they would convert. Some did, but many didn't.
In the last few decades,(thank you Madalyn), many of us have become brave enough to admit we are not Christians and to insist on our right to believe what we actually do and behave accordingly.
Happy Holidays is not an attempt to remove religion from the season, it is just a recognition that many DIFFERENT faiths are celebrating holidays and wish their adherents, all the adherents, a happy time no matter what.
So, as a 21st century American, floundering techologically, but keeping up pretty well culturally,
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
If this is the Christmas season for you, then yes, you are correct. But it is perfectly legitimate for someone to see it as the Hanukkah season, Kwanzaa season, Solstice season, or just winter.
Jesus is not the reason for any of those. In fact, most of those predate Jesus. Some of them even predate history, or mankind.
Equally factual: America is in the throes of becoming, once again, more like its theoretical self. You know, the hope of the world, a nation of immigrants. Melted into Americans we may be, but we are not melted into white Anglo-Saxon Christians. Bill O'Reilly has faced it, not that he is in any way happy about it, but at least he has pulled his head up and looked around.
The first European Americans may have been Christian, but even then, other religions were already here. And those of other western faiths followed shortly thereafter. Even more divergent believers were brought here as the centuries went by, with the expectation of course that they would convert. Some did, but many didn't.
In the last few decades,(thank you Madalyn), many of us have become brave enough to admit we are not Christians and to insist on our right to believe what we actually do and behave accordingly.
Happy Holidays is not an attempt to remove religion from the season, it is just a recognition that many DIFFERENT faiths are celebrating holidays and wish their adherents, all the adherents, a happy time no matter what.
So, as a 21st century American, floundering techologically, but keeping up pretty well culturally,
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
Friday, November 16, 2012
veterans every day
The passage of Veterans Day and the military/CIA scandal gives rise to thoughts about war and warriors.
We should honor our military members not because they are some kind of superbeings, unfailingly kind, honest and honorable, but because they have left their lives, families and their own safety to go into that indescribable hell of war and do our fighting for us. Most of all our leaders should honor them by NEVER sending them out unnecessarily. (Still haven't gotten there yet, at least not as of 2001). The rest of us should be extremely grateful, but not let that gratitude make us revere them as more than human.
I understand it can be hard to honor someone who might have (you don't know) done something unspeakable in the midst of battle, but believe me, it has been done thousands of times already. Only in movies are U.S., or any other, soldiers always noble. I have a friend who wants all fighting to be done with humans, not machines because he believes fewer civilian casualties will result. I fear there may be more instead. Remember all the incidents in Iraq? Those mainly involved human atrocities, not unthinking machines.
Many are now concerned about the leak of classified material through the avenue of an illicit liaison, or the illicit liaison itself. Petraus even found it necessary to resign over it. After all his years in service, can we say with any certainty that he never killed civilians or other innocents? And my point is, should we even ask?
In short, we must get beyond expecting superhuman exploits from our military and instead expect basic human wisdom and restraint in our deployment of them.
That is the least they and we can expect of America on every veterans day.
We should honor our military members not because they are some kind of superbeings, unfailingly kind, honest and honorable, but because they have left their lives, families and their own safety to go into that indescribable hell of war and do our fighting for us. Most of all our leaders should honor them by NEVER sending them out unnecessarily. (Still haven't gotten there yet, at least not as of 2001). The rest of us should be extremely grateful, but not let that gratitude make us revere them as more than human.
I understand it can be hard to honor someone who might have (you don't know) done something unspeakable in the midst of battle, but believe me, it has been done thousands of times already. Only in movies are U.S., or any other, soldiers always noble. I have a friend who wants all fighting to be done with humans, not machines because he believes fewer civilian casualties will result. I fear there may be more instead. Remember all the incidents in Iraq? Those mainly involved human atrocities, not unthinking machines.
Many are now concerned about the leak of classified material through the avenue of an illicit liaison, or the illicit liaison itself. Petraus even found it necessary to resign over it. After all his years in service, can we say with any certainty that he never killed civilians or other innocents? And my point is, should we even ask?
In short, we must get beyond expecting superhuman exploits from our military and instead expect basic human wisdom and restraint in our deployment of them.
That is the least they and we can expect of America on every veterans day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)