Monday, October 06, 2008

Water Water Everywhere?

I haven't had much to rant about lately. Not because I'm not infuriated by all things political: McCain’s lies, Palin's ineptitude, the government bailout of banks that the government helped get rich in the first place. Oh yeah, there’s been plenty to rail about.

The problem is, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann have been beating me to the rants. Olbermann makes very good points, but at times his logic is clouded by his leanings. Rachel (may I call you “Rachel”), on the other hand, is pure logical progressive. Her wit and intellect are packaged well in a pleasant and unassuming demeanor. When she wants to, she can be angry, but most of the time she is able to laugh off the ridiculousness she sees around her. (I wish I could do that.)

Gushing about Rachel aside, I did find something rant-worthy in my inbox today. In an email from Birders United, I learned of a bill that has been proposed by George Radanovich (R-CA) that would allow California to ignore the Endangered Species Act in times of drought. This is clearly a move by an agro-friendly congressman to provide relief for corporate farms during times of drought. The bill does nothing to encourage farmers, or regular citizens, to conserve water in the first place.

The subject of water conservation really boils my blood. We do so little as a nation to try to conserve water. We seem to feel as a society that there is no limit to the amount of water we should be able to use.

Every summer day I see businesses watering their lush green lawns in the middle of the day. This makes me crazy. Not only is this a huge waste of water (up to 25% of the water evaporates before it soaks into the ground), but it is also a bad business decision (higher water bill because of the evaporation).

On the Caribbean islands, they collect the rain water from roofs to use in bathing and flushing. Rain water runoff from our residential roofs washes fertilizer from our over-treated lawns down the storm drains and right into our streams. We could collect this water, reduce our need to pump from the aquifer, and reduce our runoff all at the same time. I’m not saying we need to bathe in it, but a simple collection tank in our basements could provide water for lawns and landscaping for the whole year.

I’m no expert on water use, and I don’t know what measures are needed for saving water in the agricultural industry. But I do know that if every home and business in California were using currently available technologies and strategies to save water, there would be millions of gallons of water available for farmers without the need to ignore environmental concerns.

I just sent this email to my US Representative, Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), regarding the bill:

Rep. Hulshof,

I am writing to ask that you vote against the California Drought Alleviation Act of 2008 (HR6940).

This act would allow that state to declare that their needs supersede the regulations established in the Endangered Species Act.

I understand that in a time of crisis drastic measures sometimes need to be taken. And in fact, there is already a law on the books in California that allows that state to bypass the ESA when human need warrants it. I think that it is clear that this bill is intended to bail out the agri-businesses, rather than to avert some catastrophic human crisis.

Passing this bill would set a precedent that might affect us in Missouri as well. We can't afford to open the door to every farming state up-river from Missouri, allowing them to sacrifice our environmental concerns to meet their water needs.

As a society, we look for the easiest way possible to avert a crisis without making any changes to our own bad habits. This measure allows California to take the easy way out, when very few people are pushing for the more sensible solution -- developing strategies to conserve water in the first place. In not doing so, the message we are sending is that businesses (and citizens) can waste all the water they want -- when times get tough we’ll just ignore environmental concerns and pump more water.

The easy way out will not work forever. We have to decide to make conservation a priority before it is too late.

Please do your part to be a leader in this effort -- for Missouri’s future and for our nation’s.

Thank you for your time.
-W.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 28, 2008

Mississippi Goddam

Nina Simone -- a singer, songwriter and activist -- wrote a number of songs about her experiences as a black woman in America. Some of them are fairly subdued, possibly a result of her attempts to appease her American record label. Some are more direct.

Simone had plenty of personal experience to draw from, having grown up surrounded by the thinly veiled -- and sometimes blatant -- discrimination that was prevalent during the Jim Crow era. She chose to speak out through her music.

In 1963, in the heat of the civil rights movement, black activist Medgar Evers was shot in the back as he entered his home in Mound Bayou, Mississippi. He was murdered by a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Simone cited this among other incidents as inspiration for the song Mississippi Goddam.

The song describes the frustration of trying to fit in to American society as an equal, while still being treated as a second-class citizen. It also describes the anger that swells when the writer realizes that equality might never be reached.

"Oh but this whole country is full of lies
You’re all gonna die and die like flies"



That’s a pretty shocking line. I’m guessing that if Nina were still alive, she would be considered a terrorist. And whichever presidential candidate she supported would be a terrorist sympathizer. (You can read the rest of the lyrics here.)

Nina also wrote and performed love songs, blues songs, gospel music, and jazz. To characterize all of Simone’s music as radical black activist rhetoric would be very misleading.

That brings us to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Lots has already been said and written, so I’m not going to rant for too long. All I want to add to the blogosphere on this subject is this: If you don’t consider the entire person when judging a few of their words or actions, then you aren’t truly listening. Truly listening to somebody requires that one makes an attempt at understanding that person’s point of view.

Any person who is at all aware of the history of the black experience in America must conclude that hard feelings linger as a result of the continued disparity in the experience of black and white Americans. I think Barack Obama did an amazing job addressing this in his “race speech.”

Once again I am disappointed by the treatment this story received by the Media and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Media is harping on this because it is raunchy, not because it is news-worthy. And the Clinton campaign is again choosing to make petty arguments in an attempt to sway voters. It says something that John McCain reacted with class while Hillary grabbed handfuls of mud.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, February 25, 2008

Thank you Ralph Nader

Thank you for “Unsafe at Any Speed.” Thank you for the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thank you for the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the EPA and OSHA.

I can think of no other single person who has been looking out for the well-being of his fellow citizens as fervently as you. For 40 years you have been battling for consumer rights, government transparency and environmental prudence. You have been monomaniacal about exposing corporate power and influence in our government. You are a true American hero.

I absolutely agree with you that the two major political parties are becoming more and more alike -- the Democratic Party has been shifting toward the right to try to compete with the strong conservative base of the Republican Party. We independents have grown tired of the complacent attitude of both parties. I also agree with your Constitutional right to run for office.

But Ralph, I implore you, please don’t do this. Not again!

Barack Obama is not a perfect candidate. I know this. But he is the best Democrat I’ve seen in a long time. He has seen wide-spread support from the middle and the left. He is a viable mainstream candidate with some progressive appeal. He has opposed the war in Iraq since the beginning. He has chosen not to take money from lobbyists. He talks of being independent from the power-brokers in Washington. (I know we’ve heard that before, but it might actually be true this time.) I know you hate the “lesser of two evils” theory, but this is the least evil option we’ve had for a long, long time.

If you stay in this race to the end, many progressives who would have voted for Obama will support you instead. I can’t bear to see a repeat of 2000. (I know there are a hundred other factors that cost Al Gore the 2000 election, but your presence in the race certainly didn’t help.)

You’ve said that this race is the Democrats’ to lose. I agree. Recent polls show Obama beating John McCain by a narrow margin. I’m hoping Obama’s support will swell as the campaign season progresses. But if it stays close than your candidacy could help McCain win.

Democrats, Greens and independents from the left and the middle have to find a way to come together to turn things around for this nation. You could make the Green Party a powerful force in this country. Grab hold of the Greens and progressive independents and then make a deal with the Democrats. You withdraw from the race and throw your support behind Obama, he agrees to appoint you to a position where you can spend the next 4 to 8 years helping to make policy in the Cabinet -- Secretary of Commerce, Energy, or Transportation. Or how about running the EPA -- wouldn’t that be poetic? The Dems win the White House, the Greens gain a voice in the direction our nation should be heading.

Please Ralph, just think about it. I’ve got my cell if you want to talk about it.

Labels: , , , ,