Speaking to a group of 200,000 people gathered in Sydney for the Roman Catholic Church’s youth festival, the Pope told followers that the world’s natural resources are being squandered by “insatiable consumption.”

Some excerpts from his chat:

“The concerns for nonviolence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity.”

“Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our Earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption.”

True dat, Mr. Pope. But tell me please how your latest missive squares with Catholicism’s prohibition on contraception. After all, “insatiable consumption” can be blamed on a booming world population, something you seem to be all for.

Can anyone say cognitive dissonance?

If the Pope believes that people are using too many resources and leaving the world dangerously in peril, then perhaps he should quit telling his faithful to have more children.

Of course, in the good old U.S. of A.  we’re popping out babies like there’s no tomorrow. 4.3 million babies were born in the US in 2007, a number that hadn’t been seen since the 1950’s. Insatiable consumption? I guess we missed the memo.

The Pope should be proud…slightly conflicted perhaps, but proud nonetheless.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Concluding his final meeting with world leaders at the G8 summit, U.S. President George W. Bush pumped his fist into the air and boldly announced, “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

Probably thinking he was being amusing, Bush got no props from the other world leaders who stood by with looks of shock on their faces.

It’s well known around the world that Bush cares little for the environmental well being of this (or probably any other) planet. He unilaterally withdrew the US from any kind of climate action treaties upon taking office and spent the first 6 years denying that the world faced any real threat from manmade pollution. He purposfully degraded the EPA and made attempts to politicize its findings. And when the EPA sent the president an e-mail report decrying the problems with greenhouse gas pollutants, Bush just ignored them altogether. He didn’t even open the report. 

As if to punctuate his public “Fuck Off World” message he left the G8 leaders with, US lawmakers announced today that no efforts to tackle greenhouse emissions will occur until AFTER Bush leaves office. This is a tacit acceptance by the EPA that Bush will only delay or deny efforts to reduce greenhouse pollution while still at the helm.

Here’s to hoping that all of Bush’s future progeny are born with extra limbs and deformed gonads.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Boiled down into even simpler terms, public transit means less congestion, less pollution, and greater efficiency at a low price.

At least, that’s the theory. And in a few places the theory holds up pretty well. Who can imagine traversing New York City without subways and busses? In 2004, nearly one-third of the nation’s public transit users lived in NYC, with over 50% of New Yorkers using public transit for commuting to work. In DC, it was 37%, Boston and San Francisco 31%. This makes sense too, because these metropolises have huge populations concentrated into relatively small areas. Imagine the traffic congestion and accompanying pollution if every one who worked in NYC drove to work alone in a car?

But get away from the east coast (well, okay, and San Francisco) and public transit usage drops way down- 12% in LA, 6% in Houston- so that the national percentage of Americans using public transportation to commute to work in 2004 was only 5%.

Being that it is a public enterprise, public transportation funding comes from a combination of fares and taxes. Fares from actual users, taxes from everyone regardless of whether they ever step foot on a bus or train. A major chunk of the taxes come from fuel excise and sales taxes. This funding system actually relies on a larger number of people NOT using the service to keep it afloat financially. Paradox #1.

When fuel tax revenue declines, public transit coffers suffer. For public transportation, more efficient vehicles plus more public transit users means a loss of revenue and an increase in costs for its own fuel requirements to accommodate more users. So fares go up. And ridership declines.

If one of the benefits of public transit is a reduction in environmental pollution, it should be a goal of public transit agencies to increase public usage. But to do this, public transit authorities have to develop a system that is both expansive and convenient. Out west, historically low usage of public transit has not encouraged systemic expansion, meaning that would be users of public transit face longer and more difficult commutes to get from point A to point B and choose to drive themselves. A lack of comprehensive transit stops and connections reinforces the inefficiency of the system and puts more cars on the road that could otherwise be parked. Paradox #2.

So public transit relies on people NOT using the service to keep financially solvent and poorly designed public transit actually keeps MORE cars on the road due to its inefficiency. Except for New York City, public transit seems to be a net loser, in spite of its valuable service to lower income Americans.

But wait! Gas heads towards $5 a gallon and a lot of people start looking at public transit as a reality. Demand for public transit is increasing. Fewer people can afford high gas prices, and even more are trying to help reduce pollution. But the more efficient cars that continue to drive use less fuel which decreases income for public transit, even as fare paying costumers increase. What’s a transit authority to do?

Raise fares of course. And cut services too.

I guess the message is that public transit is a great thing-just so long as not too many people use it.

Just at a time when we should be increasing public transit and making it more available and affordable, public transit agencies are talking about reducing stops and raising fares. Just at a time when the larger public finally seems to consider the benefits of public transit, agencies are forced to make it less attractive just to stay in service.

So if you try to save money, energy, and reduce pollution by using public transportation, you’re really making public transit authorities cut their services and raise the fares for everyone by overloading the system and not paying enough taxes. Why do you hate America?

Maybe we should all just stay home.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

This week is “Green Week” on NBC, a television network owned by General Electric, maker of all those fine, sparkly things that makes America the most materialistically enjoyable place to live in the world. On one hand, I have to commend NBC and GE for bringing to light the plight of global climate change and humanity’s role in shaping our changing environment. Several of their programs are adopting a “Green” theme during this weeks broadcasts, even including tips on how individuals can aid in fighting over-consumption and assist in recycling and conservation efforts. This attention being given to environmental issues by a national television network can only help raise awareness of the problems of global climate change and ecological destruction among the general public, and that is a good thing.

On the other hand, I can only shake my head in disbelief as I ponder the seeming hypocrisy of it all. Considering that the creation and delivery of television programming requires the efforts of tens of thousands of people and consumes a great amount of energy in the process, if NBC really wanted to show its audience how best to “Go Green” they’d have pulled the plug for a week and sponsored live, local events targeted towards environmental rejuvenation or other similar projects. They could have encouraged their audience to turn off the TV altogether, thus saving untold amounts of energy that would in turn decrease all sorts of atmospheric pollutants. Now that would have been a true example of “Going Green.”

But they didn’t choose the latter option, instead opting to promote “Green-think” during their programming. And guess what? They managed to get some sponsors to get with their program too. Which brings me around to the topic of this post and a concept I’ll call environmental ludicrousness.

During one of NBC’s reality programs last night, contestants had to vie for a spectacularly shiny prize- a brand new Ford Escape SUV. My first reaction to this major prize was, “Are you freaking kidding me? They’re giving away an SUV during “Green Week?”” But then I quickly remembered where I was. As the show host described the fabulous prize and began to expound on how this was a hybrid vehicle that got up to 34 miles per gallon it was all I could do to keep from falling on the floor in laughter. This brand new 2008 SUV is the American automobile industry’s answer to energy consumption? Christ, I drive a 1995 Mazda 626 with over 240,000 miles on it and it still gets around 30 miles per gallon. When I first bought it in 1998 (with 60,000 miles on it) I was getting closer to 38 miles per gallon on the freeway and at least 35 in the city! And my car isn’t anywhere near being hybrid.

And then it struck me like a two by four in the forehead. American’s don’t really want to do anything serious to solve the problems of the environment, problems we had a big, if not the biggest, hand in exacerbating. American’s only want to pretend we’re doing something. And in that vein…voila! The Hybrid SUV! Want to look worried about the environment without sacrificing your roomy vehicle and oversized cupholders? No problem- just jump in the Hybrid SUV! Only in America, I guess…

The fact that most SUV owners have about as much need for an oversized fuel guzzler as I have for my own personal Sherman tank is very much the point, but one that is missed completely in the land of the free and the home of the brave. After all, being American by definition means having whatever the hell you want regardless of the consequences. And when the consequences add up to melting icecaps that you’ll never see anyhow, it doesn’t seem like there are consequences at all, right? So why not buy the biggest, most fuel-inefficient vehicle you can to haul your solo self around the block for another 6-pack of Diet Coke? This is America!

Other countries have different domestic travel dynamics, and as such have incorporated into their national transportation systems many forms of competent public transportation options. Many countries are small in comparison with the United States, and as such have less ‘long-distance” travel internally. Many more countries are economically poor to the point that having personal transportation is considered a high luxury. In the United States, we have a lot of territory and good incomes, so we have highways and personal vehicles. And for decades, we’ve also had cheap gasoline to power our personal vehicles. These factors have helped make us an automobile nation, and even if we had a national desire to change that fact, our infrastructure is designed on the predicate that people travel to get anywhere. So in order to make adjustments in this environmentally challenged age of ours, we’ll have to make significant changes to our personal transportation models. And the Hybrid SUV just doesn’t cut it folks. It’s not even a good effort.

If appearances were all that mattered, America would reign as king forever. But hypocrisy has a way of catching up. Fuel prices are closing in on $100 per barrel of oil, and gasoline in America is starting to approach prices that have been known in Europe and Asia for decades. And yet American consumers are being told to trade in their old gas-guzzling SUV’s for what? A smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle like the Smart Car? Nonsense! Here’s a brand new SUV model for you- a Hybrid, no less- and it gets great mileage too!

Well, actually folks, it gets mileage comparable to that of foreign cars built a dozen years ago. But don’t think about that. If you’re too busy pondering the depths of the BS you’ve been happily fed forever, you might miss your exit to the gas station. And your new Hybrid SUV is getting pretty thirsty- again.

(cross psoted at Bring It On!)

It is a uniquely human quality to destroy that which we depend on. Whether from a lack of knowledge, a lack of foresight, or a lack of caring, human advancement has exacted a heavy toll on the resources and species of Earth. To any rational person, that fact is indisputable. From the extraction of minerals to the deforestation of wild lands to the over harvesting of various animals or plants, the growth of humanity has brought great changes to our planet and has affected its previous balance. The question is not how much we have damaged the Earth, or even if the damage can be reversed. The question is not even whether or not we have the right to cause these changes. The question is why are we doing it so callously?

Our planet is the lifeblood of us all. Its resources sustain our lives, both physically and mentally. Each and every part of our environment is an integral piece of the puzzle that is nature. Nature is the trees and the lakes and the mountains. Nature is the bugs and the fish and the birds. Nature is the water and the air and the dirt. And we are part of nature too. All things, from the rocks to the whales to the daisies and the wind, have their place in the natural order. The difference between most things on Earth and humans is our ability to change our environment quickly and drastically and to adapt relatively easily. Add to that ability the fantastic success we’ve had with procreation and dispersion and you can see that humans leave a large footprint when we pass through the glen. For the most part, as a species, we don’t really seem to care. Yet, somehow, we still consider ourselves to be the most intelligent life form on the planet.

Before you start rolling your eyes back in your head, let me clarify that I am not a “whacko-environmental-extremist-tree hugging-spotted leopard-newt saving-protect nature at all costs” kind of guy. I can’t deny the fact that I love being out in the forest or in the mountains, listening to the sounds of birds and creeks and crickets. I relish a clear night in the warm spring desert gazing at the stars. But I also have no problem extinguishing the lives of mosquito’s and ants and weeds in my yard or cutting down a Christmas tree or digging for gold. I like things made out of wood, I like to drive my car, and I like to drink clean water too. Unfortunately, instead of living in a world where all these things can be found and enjoyed and exist compatibly, we have created one that pins the longevity of our species to our own ability to destroy the conditions that make our lives possible.

To be fair, on the other side of the coin, we must recognize that nature is a constantly evolving creature itself, as evidenced in the scientific records of historic climate changes, the extinction of species, and the geological malleability of land itself. The forces of nature have altered thousands of times during the billions of years Earth has been in existence. Humanity has only been around for a couple hundred thousand. Surely any damage that we cause is insignificant is the larger context, isn’t it? After all, humans are part of the natural order too, so the things we do are really just part of the natural progression of Earth, right?

Here’s the deal folks. Despite what most of us are taught, humans don’t own Earth. We share it. Only by accepting this very basic concept can both sides of the environmental issue come down from their fences so that we can begin to have policies that make sense. Tree-huggers must accept the fact that man has as much right as any other creature on Earth to adapt his environment to his needs. Forest burners have to accept the fact that our ability to cause great and rapid change comes with great responsibility to all those with whom we share our planet. Both sides have to learn to use common sense and humanity as a whole must choose to extend the life of our species through ecological intelligence instead of shortening it for short-term gains.

The concept of man being ruler of the Earth is shared by both science and religion, one of the few areas that they agree upon. From the scientific theory of evolution and natural selection to the audacious belief that technology can control nature, science places man ahead of all other species and conveys upon him the right to rule Earth. Religion gives man this same right through the words of gods, who offer the planet to man in exchange for his devotion. But religion and science are both constructs of mankind, so it’s only natural that we would give ourselves the right to control. I wonder what the other species on Earth would say if they had a voice in the matter. Would the snails vote for us? How about the rivers? They can’t talk though, and that makes it easy for us to forget that, from nature’s perspective, they are just as important as we are.

Still, human civilization exists on a different plane than other animals and plants, and to a large degree, we are the dominant species on the planet. We are the only ones with the ability to significantly change the planet, aside from nature itself. And because of that, we have a duty to consider the consequences of our adaptations to other species and to mitigate damaging effects through replenishment of renewable resources and good management of our industries and practices. We have this responsibility not only to the other inhabitants of Earth, but also to the future generation of our own species, the future children for whom we profess to make the world a better place for. And we owe it to ourselves.

Current environmental policy appears to be created in an effort to insulate governments and businesses from having to adopt practices that reduce or eliminate hazardous pollutants while over-regulating private individuals through impact analyses and other legal red tape. It is a sham effort to give the appearance of eco-responsibility while rewarding bad stewardship with financial profits and a blind eye. Rather than encourage and insist upon the development of cleaner technology with reduced pollutants, governments pass out waivers and suppress innovation to sustain old corporations with deep wallets. Rather than punish the largest spoilers of nature, governments nit-pick at the little guys dumping paint thinner in the dirt.

It is time to end the politics of pseudo-environmentalism that plagues government. It is time to end the extremist attitude that would prevent all human development of the planet or its resources. It is time to start using our brains with regards to construction and consumption. We need a policy that recognizes that natural diversity is not only healthy; it is essential to life on Earth. We need a policy that reduces junk studies and red-tape and that insists upon extraordinary protection of things like water and soil and air. We need a policy with the teeth to go after those who pollute, whether they are big business or the local tire shop. We need a policy that rewards innovation and shares new found knowledge. We need a policy that encourages reuse of existing development before building something new. We need a policy that puts the rights of humans in line with the needs of the rest of the world’s creatures and features.

We have the capacity to use what the planet has to offer and to ensure that we don’t abuse what ot
hers also may need. Nature makes life hard enough at times with her storms and droughts and earthquakes and temperature shifts. Why do we make things even harder? Just to put a few million bucks into the already stuffed pockets of our leaders? Our government must decide to be better than that. We must challenge ourselves to adopt real eco-reform measures that would make the world a cleaner and more useful place for all of us while preserving the ability to change our world when we must.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

KNOCK, KNOCK…TIME TO WAKE THE FUCK UP!

For those of you who missed the news last week, an international body of scientists issued a report that determined for the first time that global warming is no longer a question, but a certainty and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950. That’s pretty damn clear to just about everyone who isn’t heavily vested in the fossil fuel business, heavy logging industry, mining industry, or corporate ranching. (Hell, these folks know it too, they just fall into the ‘don’t give a damn category.) The question isn’t now what is happening, but rather what to do about it. And their answers aren’t easy or pretty. Or cheap.

One would think that if presented with an equation such as this- change nothing and risk certain environmental breakdown and possibly species extinction or change as much as possible to ensure a hospitable planet for your progeny- the answer would be a no brainer. But the people who actually have the power to move our societies in the right direction, the direction that moves towards mitigating and reversing the damage we’ve done, are also the people who are most resistant to doing so. They are the people controlling billions upon billions of dollars that could be thrown at this problem but they hold tight the purse strings, because they are too invested in the status quo, too content to bring in every last dime from their obsolete technologies while they ignore the consequences of them. They are the people whispering into the ears of lawmakers and filling their campaign chests to assure that nothing too drastic takes place too quickly. They are putting their own personal wealth and comfort above that of the entire human population. (I bet these same bastards get real pissy about second hand smoke though.)

Sadly, if the projections regarding our degrading climate are even partially right, the changes in just the next 40 years will be significant, including everything from severe droughts to excessive flooding. Polar ice melts and higher sea levels. But there’s more to the picture than just having to duke it out with Mother Nature. The cataclysmic changes brought on by severe, but localized and faily short weather problems will be traumatic to say the least, but it is the endemic, longer-term climate changes that will wreak the most havoc on humanity.

Humans are creatures of habit, but also a creature of our environment. For tens of thousands of years, our species has evolved under fairly static environmental conditions. We have adapted to a variety of climes, to be sure, and even adapted to multi-year weather shifts. But by and large, our climate has not varied significantly. Our social systems, our governmental systems, even our religious systems to a degree, have been created around particular geographic and environmental locations. To some extent, who we are is based on where we are. So what happens when where you are changes so dramatically that who you are is no longer applicable?
Consider the drought in Indonesia in the late 1990’s. Lasting over a decade, this drought did more than just starve people and animals of drinking water. It led to social unrest, famine, and strife that toppled an entire government. I wonder how those folks at the top of that social food chain ended up? I wonder how their money helped them? Did they flee and set up shop somewhere else? The Indonesian drought is just one example of how an entire social system can fall due to harsh environmental conditions in one place.

Now imagine that kind of drought spanning half the globe, or more specifically, the great ‘bread basket’ regions of the globe. Think our country would stay afloat and intact very long if we not only couldn’t feed half the world, but couldn’t feed ourselves either?

Sure, we’re not Indonesia…we’re more civilized here in the Western World, right? Try living for a few days without water and see how civilized you feel.

At the other end of the spectrum will be the flooding. Half of the population of this country is clustered along the coastlines. What will rising ocean levels do to the economy if those places are lost? Think our country will stay civil if that occurs? Think we’ll still be a ‘super-power’ then?
The science says that we are at a point where it will get worse than it is now regardless of what we do. For some, that is enough to throw up their hands and say, “Screw it. I won’t be here anyway when the shit really gets bad.” It’s amazing how little regard these people have for their children and grandchildren. Real bastards, right?

The science also says that we can take steps to lessen the damage and hasten a reversal. We can’t fix it for ourselves maybe, but likely we can fix it for the next generation or the one after that. But only if we begin now.

This goes beyond filling our recycle bins at the curbside. It goes beyond carpooling to work. These are individual efforts, and they do help. But the will not be enough. We need to pressure government and business to quit dicking around now. The future is here, and quite frankly, their money will be useless in a lawless world filled with brutish humans fighting for a drop of water or a raft to stay afloat.

I’m not worried so much about the ability of mankind to adapt to climate change. Humans are very adaptable creatures. But I am worried about society being able to adapt. And the longer we wait to start changing, the worse we will be for it.

Along with bringing out new technologies rapidly, we need to plan for contingencies like flooding metropolises or waterless regions. We need a plan on all fronts, and we need it yesterday. It seems that the average person gets all this. It’s the ‘leadership’ that is in denial.

Conservatives and corporatists have only one choice if they want to cling to their mighty empires of wealth and power (or even imagined wealth and power)- join the fight today. For as society dies due to climate change, so does your power and money. Think of it as an investment in your own future, and as a gamble you can’t afford not to take.

(Oh- and for the naysayers still afloat-yes, global climate has shifted over the Earth’s 4 billion years. It is natural too. But not like this, not this fast. Could the sun play a part? Maybe, but again, not this drastic, not this fast. What about when the dino’s died? That was a weather shift too, right? So climate is out of man’s control! Sure, super-volcano or asteroid or too many farting dino’s. So what? That was then, this is now. We made the mess, we need to clean it up.)

So there it is- what is the future of mankind in light of this new scientific report? Will we slowly fade ourselves away or will we vigorously fight to fix our fuck-ups?

Or maybe Bush will just declare War on Iran, spark WWIII, light up the nukes, and we’ll be extinct before any of this nasty weather stuff comes up.

(originally posted at Bring It On! )

Bowing to pressure from the sadly misunderstood corporate creators of lead products (battery makers, lead smelters, and gasoline refiners), a preliminary staff report from the EPA acknowledged a consideration to drop the health standards for lead air pollution. Saying that “significantly changed circumstances” justify scrapping the lead air pollution ban, something in effect for 30 years now. The EPA notes that levels of lead in the atmosphere have dropped nearly 90% since the ban went into effect in 1976, ergo, now that the air is mostly lead free, we can start building up lead levels again.

This is just another classic Bush Administration idiot move to benefit corporations over the health of American citizens. Exposure to lead has been linked to numerous health issues, including being a leading cause of nerve damage, especially in children.

What’s next? Shall we disband the environmental protections for drinking water too? Oh, wait…looks like Bush is one step ahead of me on this one too. What a visionary. What a decider. What an asshat!

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

California’s 50th District primary election is being touted as a victory by both the Republican Party (their candidate won) and the Democratic Party (their candidate didn’t lose by as much as usual), but the truth is that this election was nothing less than a loss for all things democratic. Why would I say this?

Here are the facts: less than 50% of eligible citizens in the district are registered to vote. Of those who are registered, only 33% turned out to cast a ballot. That represents a whopping 16.5% of eligible citizens who voted in this race. Sixteen and a frigging half per cent! How can this possibly be called “the will of the people” when half of the people who could vote didn’t even bother to register? And of those who did, only a third even bothered? This is hardly what a healthy democracy looks like.

This is why any claims of mandates are ridiculous. This is why any claims of majority rule are laughable. Hell, at this rate, the vast majority are saying they want nothing to do with what our political system has become. Clearly, the parties have succeeded if their goal has been to reduce voters to the slimmest segments of society.

It is obvious to me that a society that does not invoke their rights of self-determination by the simple act of showing up to cast a vote, or better yet, by voting absentee (which creates no hardship on anyone who wants to vote) deserves the corrupted, cynical government they have. For the few of us who actually care and want to exercise our voices, this is grim indeed.

What About the Canadian Border?

News of a foiled terrorist cell in Canada this week begs the question, “What are we doing to secure the northern border?” Well, aside from the stalled RealID bill in Congress, the answer is, “about as much as we’ve done to secure the southern border.”

While this coup for Canadian law enforcement is a victory for all of us, the responses from the White House is less than encouraging.

“We’re vulnerable at all our points of entry,” said Frances Townsend, homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush.

Gee, thanks Frances, for stating the obvious. And while this break-up in Canada means one less band of lunies are running around, stockpiling fertilizer to make bombs, the presence of this Canadian terror cell is likely to fuel the fire under Team Bush and their never-ending campaign of fearmongering. “See, they’re right next door, waiting to strike us again. This is why we need to continue to tap all of your communications, secretly break into your homes, and indefinitely incarcerate people we don’t like.”

Clearly America must protect our borders and ports of entry. But far greater progress can be made in the “War on Terror” by stopping policies that fuel hatred and by unshackling ourselves from the need for foreign oil.

We all know that danger is lurks in the shadows. But the right response is not to clamp down on civil liberties in free nations. The right response lies in ending the double standards in our foreign policies. The right response lies in ending a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare against third world countries. The right response is to marginalize these lunatics through the proliferation of good deeds, real friendship, and honest dialogue with the average citizens in the Muslim world.

China’s Growing Deserts

And they say that man has no major effects on nature. Tell that to China. Environmental experts in that country are searching for ways to halt the expansion of two major desert regions in its northern districts, deserts whose expansion of 1500 square miles a year (about the size of Rhode Island) is threatening villages and towns as it makes its way closer to the Chinese capitol of Beijing.

While China has always had desert regions within its borders, the current expansion can be tied to the 1950’s and the Maoist government’s Great Leap Forward program that attempted to increase the amount of arable land by diverting rivers in the region and forming reservoirs. Also included in the program was the intentional deforestation and over cultivation of lands in that area.

Now with over one billion people, it is easy to understand why China needed to increase food production, but the solution, while briefly successful, has now created a situation where food production is being hampered and all efforts to stave the growing sand dunes have proved ineffective. Sometimes, you can’t turn back the clock no matter how hard you try.

“We must find ways to live with nature in some kind of balance,” said Chai Erhong, an environmentalist and writer who lives in Minqin. “The government mainly wants to control nature, which is what did all the harm in the first place.”

Indeed. Every time man tries to harness nature to serve his needs, the results tend to create an opposite result. Maybe not immediately, but certainly eventually. And when man seeks to reverse the effects of his meddling, we find that you can’t always put the puzzle back together like it was before.

Wang Tao, who heads the 937 Project, said the only viable strategy to save arid land in Gansu, Inner Mongolia and Ningxia is to move people out, reduce production, form conservation parks and let nature heal itself.

“Minqin is not going to get more water,” he said in a telephone interview from his base in Lanzhou. “It needs fewer people.”

Easier said than done I’m afraid. Even with China’s one child policy, their population is still growing. As China, which has one of the world largest populations, moves to become more modernized, we feel the squeeze in oil availability. Will we soon be feeling the squeeze on water availability too? Or will China seek to expand their own borders in order to find the resources it needs to assure a minimum supply of water and land for its people? I’ve said before that our economic imbalance with China is going to cause us problems at some point. I still believe that is the case. But perhaps China’s water problems, and loss of livable land, will become a bigger problem, one that will create instability to all of Asia as their need for land and water increases. What then?

This is the America they have brought to reality today:

Education is falling farther behind the rest of the world, including some third world countries. Science and math scores are at all time lows. Education costs are at all time highs. Cuts to student grant and loan programs for higher education leave many out of luck. The average reading comprehension ability among adults is judged to be at a sixth grade level.

Health care has become so expensive that many citizens go without, causing preventive care to be ignored at the peril of national health. Hospitals are overwhelmed with uninsured and illegal immigrants and are closing their doors. Seniors are having to go without vital medicine in the wake of a “new and improved” Medicare prescription benefit. The average bankruptcy is due not to reckless, wanton spending, but to unexpected, catastrophic medical costs.

Energy costs have skyrocketed, but energy providers and others in the energy industry have seen their profits explode. The average person has to choose between filling up the gas tank or buying new clothes for the kids. Home heating bills are even worse. Yet the answer from Congress is not to aggressively explore new energy resources, but to offer tax cuts to the industry as they attempt to gut wilderness areas in the quest for more non-renewable energy sources.

Employment is being sent overseas as companies seek to improve their bottom line at the expense of the people they want to buy their goods. For every middle wage job that leaves, a new Starbucks opens so net job loss is negligible. Net income is going way down though. And as inflation rises along with the federal interest rates, average Americans are being squeezed by the financiers and credit companies. Bankruptcy is also tougher to access for those in real need, but companies can shift their obligations like pensions and health care off on the government while receiving subsidies and bail-outs and tax cuts.

Prisons are expanding in both population and power as more citizens are targeted in the worthless war against pot users. Meanwhile, child rapists and convicted murders are paroled and let loose on an unsuspecting society to make way for the dangerous dopers. We have nicer prison complexes than schoolhouses, which is okay since so many will end up there now that they can’t get a good education or a good job anyhow.

Domestic security is a farce with our unsecured borders, unprotected ports and transportation systems, and concern with taking nail clippers away from the elderly and infants. Regular Americans are kept off of airplanes by a “no-fly” list while we look the other way as violent gang members sneak across the border. But at least the president is spying on average citizens to make sure they aren’t calling terrorists abroad. After all, better to monitor the phones than stop them at the border.

Our environment is being assaulted by corporations who continue to ignore regulations and get away with it. Reducing greenhouse gases is just too darn expensive. Ensuring that water is clean takes too much time, and besides, we soon won’t have any scientists to monitor this stuff anyhow.

On the foreign front, we’ve managed to piss off most of our former allies and made some new, duplicitous ones in the process. The “War on Terror” has been turned into a war on innocent foreign citizens while the real dangerous people are left to plan another battle for another day. And let’s not forget about the fact that we’ve hocked the future of the next two or three generations to foreign countries to pay for all of our misdeeds. The mortgage on America is held by everyone but us, and when the bill comes due, it will be our future generations who are left holding an empty purse.

Throw in an assault on the Constitution by a power hungry president and administration, fueled by a religious ideology and sense of American superiority that does not exist and the very tenets of freedom are on the block.

And what has your congressperson or senator done to prevent any of this? The Republican party in congress has created many of these program policies and championed them through couched as family values or moral certitudes. The Democrats have sat idly by and let it happen. Both want only to remain in power and get richer while the average citizen withers away. They are paper tigers and corrupt pawns of corporate hegemony and religious zealotry and neither will help us regain what used to be a given- namely, American freedom, prosperity, integrity, and pride.

Sure, some politicians are trying to do what is right for America and Americans, and by extension, the other people in this world. But the majority are careerist hacks, bent only on their ability to get power and keep power. They’ve made politics a game of partisan bickering without benefiting the taxpayers who keep them in office. They’ve turned us off on politics by their own ineptitude. They’ve made the job of governing so meaningless that we’ve stopped participating. And now they can do as they will, not to make life in this country better, but to keep the people out of the way.

So I ask you again, Why do you support a system and a politician who would sacrifice you and your children’s future freedom and peace? Is it because you believe the rhetoric you read in the paper or the sound bites you see on TV more than you believe what your own experience tells you? If I kick you in the head and tell you it doesn’t really hurt do you believe that too?

There is another way. In America we are allowed, no, we are required, to choose who will govern us. And when those who are in the chair of power do not do their duty, we are supposed to get rid of them. If the Democrats and the Republicans won’t take this country to a place it should be, a place where our tax dollars fund the people who pay them instead of the bureaucracy that has no common sense, then we must find people who will. We must choose to elect people who are like us. People who suffer the inanity that we all endure and want to change it. People who grow weary of the rhetoric and seek to speak the truth. People who will work towards a common goal of returning America to the land of freedom and fiscal sanity and lawful rationality that it was meant to be.

If the two party system has become so corrupt that it cannot right itself, and I fear that it has become just that corrupt, it is time to move away from it to an era of citizen legislators. Don’t be fooled into thinking that we need two parties to move America forward. They obviously have done nothing but move us backwards. We could do better without them, and our very way of life may require that we do just that.