I have spent the entire month of September eating only vegan foods that have not been above 108 degrees. Not hardcore vegan, I did eat some raw honey. And, okay, I didn't realize the pickles or banana peppers were essentially cooked when pickled until at least a week into the diet.
Now that the thirty days are about to be over I will reintroduce fire, cage free eggs and dairy to my diet. I may eat meat every great once in a while( maybe once or twice a year).
So what's the point of going pseudo-vegetarian and blogging about it? It's symbolic of moral compromise. When I watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, I was annoyed at the end when they told people to help by changing their light bulbs. It took me several years to realize it's better to ask people to meet people 1/4th the way when half way is too uncomfortable for them.
It really does add up to more when a lot of people go part of the way than when a few people go all out. Activist can't alienate people without becoming just some nut.
On a personal level it is better for me to be vegetarian lite now, than to keep entertaining he possibility of becoming a hard core vegan full time one day.
I'm atypical on this subject because I don't see anything wrong with eating adorable/delicious animals. Except pigs because they are so intelligent. But the reason I am trying to kick the habit is because of factory farming's cruelty to the animals we eat and environmental impact of eating meat .
Most of the animals we eat have terribly inefficient digestive systems. By overindulging in meat consumption we are wasting a lot of resources on raising them and creating a lot of methane (animal farts) in the process. By some estimates going even one day a week without eating meat has about the same impact as trading in your car for a hybrid. I can't afford a hybrid car and I have too many kids to take public transit everywhere (though I did that when I was single and living in the city).
Okay I can't stop staring at the clock so I can get that cheesy potato burrito when the month ends at midnight, so I think I'll just end it here...
PS
Apparently, unlike the Potato Burrito that was recently taken off the menu at the restaurant across town, Taco Bell puts meat on theirs. Or should I say "meat"? Anyway I was half way through it before I realized and I don't believe in wasting food, so tomorrow I start over. again.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Smarter government (cheaper more covered part 2)
I've been to hell. I spell it, I spell it DMV
Anyone that's been there knows precisely what I meanStood there and I've waited and choked back the urge to scream
-Primus, DMV (Pork Soda)
When I was living in the greater Chicago-land area I dreaded going to the Illinois DMV ( though it's actually called Secretary of State's Office Vehicle something or other). But as it happened it was rather pleasant. My Republican voting uncle asked me the next day at work "wasn't it wonderful?"
Of course it wasn't wonderful. But it was painless. I wasn't frustrated. That's the most you can expect out of such a scenario. Mediacom could learn a thing or two from the state of Illinois. The difference between smarter government and what we usually get is the difference between a forgetable experience and one so hellish it must be expressed in song.
Now again, let me set up the parameters. This is not a libertarian discussion if the government should do things even if they can do it right. This is a discussion about how the government can do things better. Let's look at recent news.
Solyndra
If you don't follow the news what happened is that Obama made a loan to a solar panel company that went out of business even with the extra half a billion dollars. Is the lesson that the government shouldn't give loans no bank would give? perhaps. But let's not let the conversation die there. Next time the government wants to meddle in the private sector, they should patron it not be it's patriarch.
The Obama administration making the same mistake with green jobs as Republicans are making with the economy as a whole. They are assuming that the problem is a lack of liquidity when the real problem is a lack of demand.
If the Obama administration is really serious about helping these companies- buy their products. Order half a billion dollars worth of solar panels for government buildings. If the company still goes out of business after that at least you were able to cut down the overhead of running several government agencies.
The same could have been done on the auto bailout (though that ended up working out okay). We could have put in an order for X amount of electric cars or hybrid hummers for the military.
Now again, let me set up the parameters. This is not a libertarian discussion if the government should do things even if they can do it right. This is a discussion about how the government can do things better. Let's look at recent news.
Solyndra
If you don't follow the news what happened is that Obama made a loan to a solar panel company that went out of business even with the extra half a billion dollars. Is the lesson that the government shouldn't give loans no bank would give? perhaps. But let's not let the conversation die there. Next time the government wants to meddle in the private sector, they should patron it not be it's patriarch.
The Obama administration making the same mistake with green jobs as Republicans are making with the economy as a whole. They are assuming that the problem is a lack of liquidity when the real problem is a lack of demand.
If the Obama administration is really serious about helping these companies- buy their products. Order half a billion dollars worth of solar panels for government buildings. If the company still goes out of business after that at least you were able to cut down the overhead of running several government agencies.
The same could have been done on the auto bailout (though that ended up working out okay). We could have put in an order for X amount of electric cars or hybrid hummers for the military.
Post Office
Bad mouthing the Post Office has been a pet peeve of mine since 2008 when it seemed trendy for Republican Presidential candidates. It seems to me that the Post Office is an example of the government working, not an example of the opposite. I don't remember ever getting a letter lost (though there might have been one in my midtwenties or I might have found it behind my dresser when I moved). It's the cheapest way to send a small amount of paper. It goes much above and beyond what it's privately owned competition would do.
What is really the icing on my hatred of Post Office bashing on the part of Republicans is that they are only in office because of the Post Office. The life blood of the Republican party has been to use mass mailings to get out the older vote. So even though they say in public they would choose UPS, they go with the government owned model.
This ruckus over the Post Office seems to be manufactured. From my understanding the cash flow problems are primarily caused by a requirement that the Post Office have it's pension paid up for 75 years. That seems excessive. The fear is that the government will have to bailout the USPS in 75 years. Really? We're in a recession now and the Republican plan is to put Postal workers out of work now so don't have to worry about their pensions in the future.
I guess that's encouraging that the Republicans are so sure that we'll still be a country in 75 years because they don't seem to think that way when talking about any other issue.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Cheaper and covers more people...
Watching either the CNN or MSNBC debate Herman Cain said something about the free market making things cheaper and covering more people. I could look it up but then I'd be tempted to take on the specific example instead of the philosophy.
There is a fine line between me and (many/most)conservatives on this but it's an important line. I think that the free market CAN offer cheaper services that reach more people than a government program. But I do not believe that it always does. There are several reasons for this, including:
Incentive
Government programs and businesses have different incentives. A government program is created to serve the masses, who often have more votes than dollars. A business is created to make money. A business is obligated to make it's stock rise every month (greed is a legal obligation in a way). And serving more people is not always going to be the most effective way to make money.
Imagination
Sometimes the market solution just hasn't been thought of yet. I don't think it's impossible for a private business to do a better job than the post office. But I haven't seen anyone come up with the way to do it yet. What about FedEx or UPS? Let's just say apples and oranges for now.
Inertia
If a company is already making money serving a few people it is less likely to go out of it's way to change it's strategy to widen it's costumer base. FedEx and UPS are competing with each other on shipping boxes. They are so busy trying to come out on top over the other they might not even have the resources to invest in trying to figure out a way to send one or two pieces of paper for less than fifty cents a piece.
That's it for now but I'll be sure to expand on this as I come up with more. There may be an argument for why government shouldn't get involved with things like healthcare or delivering the mail. But for now I am focusing on whether or not the market is always the best solution for the most people. The answer is only if helping more people equates to more profit. And it raises another question. What do we do about all the people the market doesn't help?
The government didn't take on all these responsibilities on a lark. There was a vacuum.
Public Schools were created because the private schools weren't educating enough people. Obamacare was created because insurance won't/doesn't serve enough sick people. OSHA was created because it is sometimes cheaper for employers not to provide a safe work environment. And welfare was created because living expenses were not low enough for the under- and unemployed.
There is a fine line between me and (many/most)conservatives on this but it's an important line. I think that the free market CAN offer cheaper services that reach more people than a government program. But I do not believe that it always does. There are several reasons for this, including:
Incentive
Government programs and businesses have different incentives. A government program is created to serve the masses, who often have more votes than dollars. A business is created to make money. A business is obligated to make it's stock rise every month (greed is a legal obligation in a way). And serving more people is not always going to be the most effective way to make money.
Imagination
Sometimes the market solution just hasn't been thought of yet. I don't think it's impossible for a private business to do a better job than the post office. But I haven't seen anyone come up with the way to do it yet. What about FedEx or UPS? Let's just say apples and oranges for now.
Inertia
If a company is already making money serving a few people it is less likely to go out of it's way to change it's strategy to widen it's costumer base. FedEx and UPS are competing with each other on shipping boxes. They are so busy trying to come out on top over the other they might not even have the resources to invest in trying to figure out a way to send one or two pieces of paper for less than fifty cents a piece.
That's it for now but I'll be sure to expand on this as I come up with more. There may be an argument for why government shouldn't get involved with things like healthcare or delivering the mail. But for now I am focusing on whether or not the market is always the best solution for the most people. The answer is only if helping more people equates to more profit. And it raises another question. What do we do about all the people the market doesn't help?
The government didn't take on all these responsibilities on a lark. There was a vacuum.
Public Schools were created because the private schools weren't educating enough people. Obamacare was created because insurance won't/doesn't serve enough sick people. OSHA was created because it is sometimes cheaper for employers not to provide a safe work environment. And welfare was created because living expenses were not low enough for the under- and unemployed.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
CNN jumps the shark with the tea party.
After watching last weeks Tea Party Debate it became obvious to me that CNN has in fact jumped the shark. Or more accurately the Tea Party has and CNN has gone with them.
Because it seems obvious to me it makes it harder to explain but I think it comes down to a lack of DIRECT pandering. The candidates were definitely keeping the general election in mind in their answers. One would expect that at a Tea Party Debate republicans would pander towards Tea Partiers. The power of the Tea Party is defined on their influence in primaries but it looked to me like all the candidates were more afraid of giving Obama ammunition than they were of the Tea Party.
The reason I think CNN is going along with the Tea Party is that their credibility is starting to crumble in the face of an audience that wants news that reinforces their beliefs. Fox has Republicans, MSNBC has Democrats, and I think CNN sees the Tea Party as their niche. I could be wrong but the fact that they had a CNN debate on 9/12 and put Tea Party in the title seems telling. I don't watch CNN (other than GPS) so I don't know how extensive this Tea Party grab is on a daily programming but I do know that they had a Tea Party rebuttal when other networks were having airing the official Republican party rebuttal.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
post 9/11 America
When I was a kid I got into a lot of fights and my dad would tell me that when another person makes you angry you have lost. Being taunted into anger means that you've given over a little of your power to them.
He never said not to fight. He just said that I shouldn't fight because someone made me angry.
Fast forward twenty something years to the present and we've just passed the 10th anniversary of 9/11. I wasn't going to say anything about it but then I tweeted "I don't understand people who wave flags on 9/11 but change the channel at dying first responders."
I decided that I should offer some explanation to that. I was in downtown Chicago on 9/11. I wasn't scared then. I'm not scared now of terrorist. Okay a bit but I'm less scared of terrorist than I am say- home invasion.
When you say terrorist Timothy McVeigh has about equal chance of jumping to my mind as Bin Laden.
It makes me angry when someone says that 9/11 changed everything. The only thing that changed is that our country lost it's cool. A little bit of our power was given away.
For the everyday person who says 'we'll never forget 9/11' nothing has really changed. In previous wars people stateside were expected to help the war effort by using less fuel and recycling (thinking specifically of metal ) but post 9/11 Americans get angry if you try raise the efficiency of vehicles and to a large degree can't be bothered to pull out a separate bin for glass (used to pave roads) plastic (reduces oil consumption) or metal (requires less energy to recycle).
And then there's taxes. In previous wars taxes were increased and people were encouraged to by war bonds to pay for the effort. Post 9/11 America calls raising taxes socialism even though the wars they support cost more than helping their neighbor who is among the 1 out of 10 Americans who can't find a job.
Post 9/11 Americans are afraid and angry that something will change in their life. They don't want to think about the rest of the world or the rest of the country. They want to go to work, relax, go to sleep- rinse and repeat. The only thing 9/11 changed for them was that it made the horizon go out past where the floor in their living room meets the wall.
Not every American is a Post 9/11 American. Though you may think I was condemning Republicans, being republican doesn't automatically make you one. Being a Democrat doesn't exonerate you. Most people are at least in part guilty of turning a blind eye to the big picture and how their lifestyle is contributing to it.
He never said not to fight. He just said that I shouldn't fight because someone made me angry.
Fast forward twenty something years to the present and we've just passed the 10th anniversary of 9/11. I wasn't going to say anything about it but then I tweeted "I don't understand people who wave flags on 9/11 but change the channel at dying first responders."
I decided that I should offer some explanation to that. I was in downtown Chicago on 9/11. I wasn't scared then. I'm not scared now of terrorist. Okay a bit but I'm less scared of terrorist than I am say- home invasion.
When you say terrorist Timothy McVeigh has about equal chance of jumping to my mind as Bin Laden.
It makes me angry when someone says that 9/11 changed everything. The only thing that changed is that our country lost it's cool. A little bit of our power was given away.
For the everyday person who says 'we'll never forget 9/11' nothing has really changed. In previous wars people stateside were expected to help the war effort by using less fuel and recycling (thinking specifically of metal ) but post 9/11 Americans get angry if you try raise the efficiency of vehicles and to a large degree can't be bothered to pull out a separate bin for glass (used to pave roads) plastic (reduces oil consumption) or metal (requires less energy to recycle).
And then there's taxes. In previous wars taxes were increased and people were encouraged to by war bonds to pay for the effort. Post 9/11 America calls raising taxes socialism even though the wars they support cost more than helping their neighbor who is among the 1 out of 10 Americans who can't find a job.
Post 9/11 Americans are afraid and angry that something will change in their life. They don't want to think about the rest of the world or the rest of the country. They want to go to work, relax, go to sleep- rinse and repeat. The only thing 9/11 changed for them was that it made the horizon go out past where the floor in their living room meets the wall.
Not every American is a Post 9/11 American. Though you may think I was condemning Republicans, being republican doesn't automatically make you one. Being a Democrat doesn't exonerate you. Most people are at least in part guilty of turning a blind eye to the big picture and how their lifestyle is contributing to it.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)