I heard The Noise (check out the site redesign!) hit the streets today, and finally, I’m in it again. I’m sitting here with strep throat, Yogi “throat comfort” tea, and a huge wool blanket.

eeeer it is.

On my knees, I part the leaves of my garden looking for the perfect ripen tomato. Today is one of those propitious September afternoons in Northern Arizona where the sun is bright above my head while storm clouds build and grumble in all directions. I find two tomatoes, one for now and one for later, and gently twist them off their branches.

I roll one of them into my shirt in a half-assed attempt toward removing the dirt. It’s more of an empty gesture really, as I secretly enjoy the complementary taste of rich earth in the food that comes from my garden. As I puncture it’s soft skin with my teeth, I slurp and swirl and savor. Only seconds after removing it from the plant, the fruit is warm; if I close my eyes, I swear I can taste the sun.

This is my second successful attempt at a garden in Northern Arizona and it has quickly and dramatically altered my understanding of food. Tomatoes from the grocery store, even organic tomatoes, seem bland and lifeless. Still, it isn’t so much the taste of the tomatoes from the store that turn me off, as it is my lack of a relationship to them. While I am overjoyed to directly experience such a beautiful gift from the land, I do not rely on my garden to live and therefore, I will never fully understand the value of this gift.

There is an ever-shrinking population of people on this planet who know and understand the true value of food. In fact, the poorest two-thirds of humanity live in what can be appropriately called the biodiversity-based economy: corn farmers in Mexico, subsistence farmers in India, and indigenous populations throughout the world. Still, I do not aim to illustrate the lives of these people as idealistic. In 2008, those people who rely on the land to live lead increasingly despondent lives, through dismantled communities, impossibly large debts, and uncertain futures, where fields of cotton function more like giant prison cells and stocks of corn function more appropriately as enclosing iron bars.

It may seem impossible to ensure a harvest is stolen before it is planted. There is, however, one transnational corporation that has figured out how to achieve this while maintaining an increasingly desperate supply of workers.

The Monsanto Corporation was founded in 1901. A recent Vanity Fair article noted that it’s founder, John Francis Queeny, was a “tough, cigar-smoking Irishman with a sixth-grade education.” He named his company, Monsanto Chemical Works, after his wife’s maiden name. Queeny originally went into business selling an artificial sweetener called saccharin, which was then imported from Germany. After the German cartel that controlled the market dramatically lowered the price of saccharin, Queeny nearly went out of business. In fact, if it weren’t for the steady business of a new soft drink company in Georgia called Colca-Cola, it is likely that Monsanto would have gone under.

After the U.S. Department of Agriculture tried to ban saccharin after questions about it’s safety, Monsanto began to add more products like vanillin, caffeine, and drugs used as sedatives and laxatives. Monsanto also became the world’s largest producer of aspirin and after World War 1, it’s legacy as a leading global chemical manufacturer was secured.

Just before Queeny ironically died of cancer in the 1920’s, his only son, Edgar, became president. Under Edgar’s watch, Monsanto was built up like a toxic empire, producing plastics, resins, rubber goods, fuel additives, artificial caffeine, industrial fluids, vinyl siding, dishwasher detergent, anti-freeze, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Through out the sixties and seventies, Monsanto was perhaps best known for its production of an extremely toxic chemical used during the Vietnam War. This chemical, which instantly and painfully seared the flesh of any southeast Asian who was unfortunate enough to come in contact with it—and there were millions who did—was known as Agent Orange.

During this chemical boom, Monsanto produced some of the deadliest chemicals known to man. Among the worst of these chemicals, dioxin and poly chlorinated biphenyls, better known as PCBs, reign supreme. Dioxin is one chemical among many listed by the U.S. Government as a “known human carcinogen,” that is, a cancer causing agent. Even in small amounts, dioxin has been linked to heart disease, liver disease, human reproductive disorders, and developmental problems. Dioxin is a substance that remains and accumulates in the environment and the body. Recent studies have found significant traces of dioxin in mother’s breast milk.

PCBs are classified as a group of chemicals that act as hormones and have been linked to damage to the liver and irreversible damage in the neurological, immune, endocrine, and reproductive systems. Though Monsanto no longer produces these toxins, there are places such as Nitro, West Virginia and Aniston, Texas where spills and chemical plant explosions left an environmental legacy that continues to kill people to this day. Further, the Environmental Protection Agency has listed Monsanto as being a “potentially responsible party” for 56 contaminated sites in the U.S. And today dioxin is released into the atmosphere every time a flame is put to plastics.

In an effort to change it’s tarnished image and secure a legacy of future profits, Monsanto rebranded itself, no longer as a chemical manufacturer, but as a “life sciences” company, thus it began pooling more and more of it’s resources into biotechnology. In 1981, Monsanto scientists became the first to genetically modify a plant cell. Earnest Jaworski, the director of Monsanto’s Biological Sciences Program at the time noted “It will now be possible to introduce virtually any gene into plant cells with the ultimate goal of improving crop productivity.”

Under the guise of productivity, Monsanto has since introduced the hormone supplement, rBGH, also known as rBST, a hormone that increases the output of milk in cows. Though, the growth hormones are banned in all of Canada and Europe, Monsanto’s independent scientists insist that it is safe. They have even unsuccessfully tried to sue dairy farmers who label their products as being “growth hormone free” stating that it sends mixed signals to consumers. Even if it is safe, the artificial growth hormone speeds up the metabolism of cows and increases their chances of contracting illnesses, which causes great pain and shorter life spans among those cows unfortunate enough to be injected.

Today, 15 years after the Food and Drug Administration’s (F.D.A.) approval of the hormone, no long-term studies have been done regarding the safety of the milk from cows injected with the hormone. And Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist for Consumer’s Union told Vanity Fair that the only data that does exist all comes from Monsanto. “There is no scientific consensus about the safety,” he added.

The fact that this hormone is widely banned throughout the world, yet was approved by the F.D.A. in the U.S. says more about Washington’s “revolving door” than it does about the safety of Monsanto’s products. Former Monsanto employees such as Clarence Thomas, Michael R. Taylor, Ann Veneman, Linda Fisher, Michael Friedman, and William D. Ruckelshaus, currently hold positions in U.S. government agencies such as the F.D.A., E.P.A. and even the Supreme Court. Even Donald Rumsfeld who used to be chairman and C.E.O. of the pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co, reportedly gained $12 million in increased stock value after Monsanto acquired the company in 1985.

Despite all the atrocities committed by Monsanto in the name of progress and productivity, it is the tight stranglehold it has on the distribution of genetically modified seeds that has garnered the most attention world-wide. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, since the 1980’s, Monsanto has acquired 674 biotechnology patents, taking advantage of a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1980 that broadened the definition of a patent to include “live human-made microorganisms.” Monsanto’s patents cover herbicide resistant corn, wheat, rice, cotton, sugar beet, rapeseed, canola, flax, sunflower, potato, tobacco, alfalfa, poplar, pine, apple, and grape among others.

Traditionally, when farmers planted seed and grew food, the best, strongest seeds were selected and saved to ensure an even stronger crop for the next growing season. In the late spring, when I go to Warner’s Nursery & Landscaping or Flagstaff Native Plant & Seed, either to buy seed or budding plants to make their home in my garden, I am reaping the benefits of thousands of years of this selection process. When I bite into a delicious tomato, I have thousands of years of poor farmers and desperate seed savers to thank.

Through the use of genetically modified “terminator” seeds and their patented Round-up Ready seeds, among other patented seed products, Monsanto has systematically undermined one of the oldest, life-sustaining traditions in our history of life on this planet.

Monsanto has aggressively entered the corn market in Mexico with their patented genetically modified seed. The trouble comes when Monsanto seeds cross-pollinate with the native seeds. When this happens, the results are what Mexican farmers refer to as “monster plants,” which are corn stocks that branch off in freakish ways, shooting 5 or 6 stocks in all directions from a single plant. Co-opts warn farmers to destroy these plants as soon as they are sighted. Farmers are increasingly finding themselves in a loosing battle because when the seeds cross-pollinate, Monsanto’s plants dominate and destroy the native seeds. Thus Monsanto slowly dominates the market.

Northern Arizona University Professor of Ecology and Evolution, Dr. Tom Whitham, has argued in many high profile journals, concluding that “community and ecosystem phenotypes of genetically modified organisms need to be evaluated as part of the approval process.” Company’s like Monsanto and Dupont, Dr. Whitham continues, “need to have their products evaluated at higher levels than is currently standard…to avoid the problems that have arisen or are likely to arise with unregulated GMOs”

The biggest tragedy is taking place in India where Monsanto owns the two biggest seed distributors available to subsistence farmers. The real danger of patenting seed lies in the “terminator” technology, which was created to prevent farmers from saving seed. When these seeds are planted, the seeds that are reproduced are sterile. Farmers are given little information on the seeds they are purchasing, just promises of higher yields, fewer weeds, and less hassle. Then after farmers have purchased and planted the seeds, which can cost up to four times more than the native seeds, they are locked into a system where they quickly discover that they need to purchase patented herbicides that are necessary to ensure the success of the harvest.

In debt to Monsanto, and because of the subsequent shame that comes with an inability to feed their family, subsistence farmers in India are committing suicide in astonishing numbers.

From this writer/gardener’s perspective, the gravest injustice is the ethics, or lack thereof, of patenting life. The biggest fear in journals, documentaries, and those working on these issues revolves around the issue of control. By controlling the means of food production, Monsanto is systematically controlling the world’s food supply under the guise of ending food shortages.

I am reminded of a famous line coined by the 19th century French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, “La propriété, c’est le vol!” or “property is theft!” The Latin root of private property is privare, which means “to deprive.” By patenting the means of food production around the world, Monsanto, is depriving the poorest two-thirds of humanity of their human right to self-determination.

Technologies are not social forces unto themselves, nor merely neutral “tools” that can be used to satisfy any social end we desire. Rather they are products of particular social institutions and economic interests. Once a particular course of technological development is set in motion, it can have much wider consequences than its creators could have predicted: the more powerful the technology, the more profound the consequences.

In her essay “Biotechnical Development and the Conservation of Biodiversity,” Vandana Shiva states that “during periods of rapid technological transformation, it is assumed that society and people must adjust to change instead of technological change adjusting to the social values of equity, sustainability and participation.” She further described a view of technology that places it as a “a process that is shaped by and serves the priorities of whoever controls it.” Monsanto needs to be stopped.

While the country is focused on the state of the economy and the recent vote, which rejected the $700 billion bail-out for financial institutions, the U.S. Senate has passed controversial legislation that “threatens the livelihoods of everyone who relies on copyright for a living.”

I’m talking about the “Orphan Works Act,” which was first introduced early last spring. Read the full text of the bill here.

Tom Richmond, MAD Magazine cartoonist, stated “There is no way a logically minded individual can think that the Orphan Works act is a good idea and will help promote the creation of creative works, as it claims. It will seriously damage the livelihood of the very creators they somehow seek to encourage to create.”

It isn’t just cartoonists and illustrators whose livelihood will be impacted by this bill. Musicians, writers, bloggers, photographers, and many other creative artists will be affected. Here is a list of all organizations opposed.

As David Rhodes, President of the School of Visual Arts has said, the Orphan Works bill would socialize the expense of copyright protection while privatizing the profit of creative endeavors.

Here is an example, from Ted Rall, president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC), to help people gain a basic understanding of this bill.

Let’s say, for example, that a book publisher wanted to print an editorial cartoon in a history textbook. Currently a typical reprint fee for such use is $250. Under current copyright law, a publisher who gets caught using such work without permission would be liable for three times the standard rate—in this case, $750. A judge could order the books impounded. If the cartoonist had to hire a lawyer, a judge could make the violator pay his or her attorney’s fees. These provisions deter most would-be copyright violators.

Under the Orphan Works Act, the deterrent effect of punishment would all but vanish. If the cartoonist learned about the infringement and tracked down its perpetrator, all the publisher would have to do to avoid the triple penalty would be to claim that it engaged in an as-yet undefined “good-faith search.” In the cited example, the aggrieved cartoonist would receive $250. He or she would have no way to remove the image from a book that he or she might find objectionable—say, one that advocated reprehensible political views. There would be no compensation for legal fees, or the time and effort involved in tracking down lawbreakers. And that’s assuming the artist were ever to learn about the illegal usage.

Or, in other words….

© Nick Anderson

this is sooooo good. Even if the pbs guy is a little goofy, his questions are good.

This is kind of a downer, but I thought it was so startling that it was worth pointing out. I was writing and researching yesterday and came across this New York Times article from last February.

A new five-year analysis of the nation’s death rates recently released by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the suicide rate among 45-to-54-year-olds increased nearly 20 percent from 1999 to 2004, the latest year studied, far outpacing changes in nearly every other age group. (All figures are adjusted for population.)

For women 45 to 54, the rate leapt 31 percent. “That is certainly a break from trends of the past,” said Ann Haas, the research director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

Scary stuff if you ask me. There are a lot of unhappy people in this culture. Call your middle-aged parents and tell them that you love them.

One day last week, I rode my bike to ft. tuthill and back as quickly as possible just to blow off steam. On the way back, I kept stopping because the sunset was so magnificent. At the same time a huge storm started rolling in from the south. Thunder, lightning, cool winds, coming fast. It started sprinkling, then raining. The thunder shook the trees around me.

While riding, I secretly wanted to get struck by lightning. It sounds messed up, I know, but it’s true. “Strike me down!” I thought as I peddled as hard as I could over mud, splashing though puddles. I didn’t want to die; it wasn’t like that. But I did want to get struck.

You know how when people have near death experiences and it changes their life around? You hear of some dude who gets in a horrible car accident, or gets mauled by a bear, or falls off a cliff; then they realize that life could end at any moment. Then they quit the job they hate and finally start leading the life they felt like they were meant to live. I wanted to get struck by lightning so I could feel more justified in analyzing my life more existentially, to have the guts to pursue what I love.

It started hailing. It hurt, but I basked in the simple feeling of being ‘alive,’ feeling alive. For a second I really thought I might be struck. But, alas, here I am.

All of this begs simple questions like, what does a well-lived life look like? What does love feel like? Sometimes the simplest questions have the hardest answers. Over the past few days I’ve learned that it takes a lot of guts to be real with yourself.

The truth is, nobody has to face death to assert a level of autonomy and control over their life. If a dam blows, the long term habitat gain overshadows the short term loss. And all dams need to be blown.

Today I quit my job. And I didn’t even have to get struck by lightning.

If you’re not sure what an alley cat race is, google it, but our race looked like this.

There were forty of us, at least (flagstaff is not a huge city…), at the start on the top of a parking garage somewhere, after 10pm. We laid all our bikes down together, and from the far end of the lot, we ran, picked them up and took off, winding down the garage, yelling, down to the street.

There were so many of us and a lot of people were riding fixed gears; some hadn’t been riding them for very long. There were some pretty bad spills before we even reached the bottom of the parking garage. I saw another really bad spill right when we came out. Someone tried to hop a curb and went down hard. My first reaction is, “dude, are you okay?” But then I remember I’m in a race. A race! “So long sucker!”

We raced a planned route through a relatively quite area. To be honest, it didn’t really feel like a race; the competition was all in good fun. Lots of fantastic shit talking that was always funny. It was all moderated by checkpoints, where we received a playing card (one giant poker game at the end). The race ended after 5 check points, back at the top of another garage somewhere. Despite grabbing someone else’s bike initially, I got a pretty good start, and from there I just made sure to stay with the people in the front (mostly because I didn’t really know what the route was). It was pretty quick – maybe 4 miles or so. More? I don’t know. Out of 40 people, I came in with the first group, somewhere between 4th and 6th I think. Ray should have the video up soon, hopefully, so I can see for sure.

Then the cops came. Someone yelled “scatter!” and freaked everybody out. Some people ran and some people realized that we weren’t doing anything wrong, sitting up there with our bikes, talking…I was in the latter group. The cop had a job to do and he played his role. We nodded and played our part. I think everyone felt pretty good.

I was pretty exhausted before the race even started, having taken my cross bike down the AZ trail from the Rio del Flag area to Lake Mary, down Lake Mary Road back into town through south campus on the urban trail. It’s like 20 miles or so. I felt like a real cross racer from time to time, hoping off the bike and running (walking), jumping (climbing) over rocks and logs and roots. I didn’t even bring an extra tube. Daring! It was great though. Birds, lizards, snakes, butterflies. The works.

UPDATE: video posted. preeeeeeeety sweeeeeet.

Open Alleycat from RobothouseTV on Vimeo.

First of all, when I speak of the news media here, I’m referring specifically to mainstream (corporate and politically owned media). I’m referring to cable television news, the mainstream press, and yes, even
NPR.

When there is a debate in the news, each station will moderate a conversation between two people who supposedly represent each side of a given issue. One person takes the “conservative” viewpoint and one takes the “liberal” viewpoint. The trouble is, the conservative position is usually far to the right, while the so-called liberal side is, in fact, closer to the center. This helps to create more of a resolve at the end of the debate. The truth is, the far left is not represented anywhere in mainstream news.

Here is my explanation. Think of the people who represent the most extreme right point of view, the conservative of the conservatives. People like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell come to mind for me. Now, think of the people that represent the other side of the spectrum. I’m not referring simply to democrats or self-described spineless liberals; I’m talking about the far left. The question is, do they have the same access to mainstream media as the far right?

Bill O’Reilly says “The Daily Kos is the absolute worse, routinely printing defamation and hatred at a level never before seen in the United States.” Juan Williams, a Fox News Analyst claims “Daily Kos has become — has come to some way be the voice of the far left in the country.”

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is founder and publisher of Daily Kos, the largest progressive community blog in the United States. Named “the single most successful entrepreneur of the progressive movement.” While I respect his work and his accomplishments on and off the Internet, he does not represent the far left in this country. Further, popular “liberal” bloggers like him are not popular because of their stance on political, social, and environmental issues, rather they are popular because of what they have to say about the other side. Besides, the only time I’ve ever seen him on television is on the O’Reilly Factor.

MSNBC has recently countered Fox’s obnoxious punditry with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. The station just dropped them because they are “too liberal.” Being liberal has become synonymous with Bush-bashing and being a democrat. And democrats are not the far left of this country. With a 30% approval rating, it’s pretty damn safe to be a Bush-basher.

As long as bitter, spineless, all criticism/no substance “journalists” like Olbermann and Matthews are painted as “too liberal,” the far left will never be represented in the media. In this way, those fragmented quotes from the far left that do make it into the media are considered crazy and “out of step with Americans” and the insanity of the far right is more accepted.

It is the corporate owned media that is out of step. If racist, sexist, senile assholes like Pat Robertson get a prime-time television show, who is on television from the left to counter it? Olbermann? Give me a break! If pill-popping, far-right (who is also racist and sexist) radio voices like Rush Limbaugh are broadcasted coast to coast, who will counter it on the left? Terri Gross? Once again, give me a break! As long as people like Olbermann and Gross are represented as “too liberal,” Sarah Palin can go on television and tell us that constructing a gas and oil pipeline through the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is “God’s will” and nobody seems to bat an eye. Nevermind the fact that when members of other religions refer to “God’s will,” our media calls them “terrorists” and “fundamentalists.”

The next time you turn on the television, look for interviews with RNC protestors who were arrested. Look for animal rights activists. Look not for people who want to drill sparingly in Alaska or offshore here and there, but those who think we should stop drilling all together. Look for words like patriarchy, institutional racism, exploitation of third world communities, theft of resources, and corporate responsibility. Look for anyone critiquing our foreign policy without being accused of “hating America.” Look for any talk of dismantling fundamentally unsustainable systems and I guarantee you won’t find it. One of the central rules of propaganda is if you want a group of people to think of an issue in a particular way, your premises need to reflect the opposite of reality. So when the corporate-owned media describes itself as “too liberal,” this is done to make radically conservative points of view appear more credible. More of this in the video below.

This is a gross sign of the times. During the last Republican National Convention, protestors weren’t allowed near the building. This year, those protesting the Democratic National Conventions were relegated to a cage. This year’s RNC removes any ambiguity that we live in a police state. 300 people were arrested on the first day, including journalists.

We are now living in an age where journalists, members of the press, those trying to protect our freedom of information, freedom of the press, are being unlawfully and illegally detained. The message is clear: if your perspective contradicts that of the corporate owned media, if you attempt to provide any objective truth from the ground of these conventions, you will be arrested.

Rule one: Democratic countries don’t illegally arrest members of the press; only totalitarian regimes do this in an attempt to control the flow of information. This is what a police state looks like. It’s looking more and more like this State.

Seriously, what is going on with this country?

ST. PAUL–Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar have all been released from police custody in St. Paul following their illegal arrest by Minneapolis Police on Monday afternoon.

All three were violently manhandled by law enforcement officers. Abdel Kouddous was slammed against a wall and the ground, leaving his arms scraped and bloodied. He sustained other injuries to his chest and back. Salazar’s violent arrest by baton-wielding officers, during which she was slammed to the ground while yelling, “I’m Press! Press!,” resulted in her nose bleeding, as well as causing facial pain. Goodman’s arm was violently yanked by police as she was arrested.

On Tuesday, Democracy Now! will broadcast video of these arrests, as well as the broader police action. These will also be available on: www.democracynow.org

Now, those who disagree with the government will likely not protest for fear of being arrested. If one is arrested, it impacts their ability to get a job or receive loans for education. If you’re charged with a felon, you can’t even vote. All this seems pretty ideal for the maintenance of a police state. Citizens need to start reacting to this stuff. It’s getting disgusting.

I took the urban trail to the fair on Saturday. It was a super chill ride right after a great storm. I wondered around by myself, ran into a lot of friends, and ate cinnamon almonds. Throughout the afternoon I saw people juggling fire, eating, parading animals around in a barn, dancing, doing magic, playing music, eating, scamming, engaged in political conversations, drinking, singing, complaining, selling, smiling, hoola-hooping, laughing, and did I mention eating?

One of many “register to vote here while we hock our candidate” booths had one of those giant sketch pads—ala pictionary or the less cool, ‘win, lose, or draw’—listing popular voting issues. Folks were to check the issues that are most important to them.

Here was the top three:
1. Ending the war
2. Protecting the environment
3. Sustainable energy

Flagstaff, I love you. Even while I was standing there, someone was adding a category, “protection of civil liberties.” I walked up and checked “protecting the environment,” while a woman next to me commented, “I wonder why the economy isn’t getting more checks. Every time you turn on the TV, everyone seems to be talking about the economy.” I kinda shrugged and walked away.

I wish I had told her that a) local sustainable energy and ending the war would help the economy and b) that if we don’t protect the environment, none of the things on the list really matter.

Then, I visited the National Parks Service tent. I scored a bumper sticker intended for use on boats. “Danger: Carbon Monoxide Poisoning.” I thought it would be funny to put it on my car. I also got a few temporary tattoos of the endangered humpback chub, courtesy of Glen Canyon Natural Resource Association…or, ironically, the Canyon’s NRA. Already knowing the answer, I asked a rep from the Park’s Service, “what is the largest threat to the humpback chub?”

She said, “apart from complicated issues involving the temperature of the sandbars, the biggest threat is Glen Canyon Dam.” I couldn’t believe how open and honest she was with me. I don’t know, I guess I thought she’d throw some scientific jargon at me or blame it all on invasive mussels or something. I didn’t have to tell her that it seemed like a pretty easy problem/solution scenario. She knows it is. So I asked the only question I could possibly ask. “So when is the dam coming down?”

I guess it’s easier to print up temporary tattoos.

Then I watched the bears and the bees play at the Variety Stage… and I hoola-hooped. I mean, what else was I going to do, right?

Here are some dam resources (ha!).
http://www.nps.gov/glca/faqs.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-of-the-weekflo
http://www.nps.gov/glca/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1153/

Here is an excerpt from the US Geological Survey report on what can be done to save the Humpback Chub (the last in the list of links above).

Given existing volumetric constraints and the current state of knowledge, the most readily available tool to stabilize the presence and persistence of nearshore habitats and, thus, enhanced warming in those environments during the summer months, is steady flows from Glen Canyon Dam.

Calling a man-made dam, “existing volumetric constraints” sort of makes it sound like the dam is a natural and permanent structure. So the real question here isn’t, how do we save the humpback chub? Rather it is, how can we prolong the extinction rate of a native fish without addressing the fact that we’ve systematically destroyed it’s habitat? So, as I understand the plan (more on this in the second link above)–the last part of the sentence–their solution to saving the fish is to periodically allow water flow into the river at a higher density, therefore temporarily creating a sandbar where the fish typically thrive.

The bit about “our current state of knowledge” is pretty funny too. Put together and translated, it’s like they’ve figured out a cleaver way to say, “because there is a big dam there for some reason and because, we’ll we’re just not too bright, we’ve got to…”

No. It was an interesting experiment. But it is fostering an environment where invasive species thrive and the native ones are being choked out. It only produces a million kilowatts. If we have to kill off fish and destroy rivers to get energy, we don’t want it. It was a mistake. Tear it down.

Remember when McCain was the “cool” republican? Maybe he was never that cool. He certainly gave that impression alongside the conservative crazies though. We’ll he’s certainly changed his opinion on a number of things and physically he appears like a flaky fuddy duddy old man.

Now he’s picked a young woman to turn his “out of touch” rep around for the better. Sarah Palin is a good pick for him in that respect, but holy crap.

-         she’s all for exploiting AWAR for oil drilling

-         she used to own a commercial fishing industry

-         lifetime membership to the NRA

-         her husband is an oil production operator in Alaska

Yikes!

Don’t get me wrong; even after Obama’s emotionally charged speech last night, I have not jumped on the Obama wagon. The Dems are just as controlled by the corporations as the Republicans. Hell, the major DNC sponsor was AT&T (let the wiretapping begin!). But a McCain presidency is not an option. The US has a very tarnished reputation that needs mending. Another war-mongering old white guy is not the face our country needs. If it is true that McCain has agreed with Bush 90% of the time and only 32% of the American people approve of Bush’s policies, I’m not sure how he logically stands a chance.

The truth is elections aren’t won logically. There will be a bunch of emotionally charged issues on the ballot this year: gay marriage, abortion…etc. What goes on in our personal lives is of nobody’s business but our own. I live in the American West where the attitude (especially for conservatives) is “government: stay out of my business.” These are useless topics for a presidential election especially during a time when our influence extends to every corner of the planet. There are bigger, historically more important issues that need our attention. If our influence and power extend all over the planet, then I think it’s only fair that the whole world should be allowed to vote in our elections. Sounds like a crack-pot idea, I know, but it’s only fair.