Brain Exercise

I have not written anything of significance.  I like a few things that I once wrote.  I read them and words come to my mind like talent, forgone, rationality.  In that order sometimes - as in this case.  Even now, as I try to write about my (lack of) writing, I can't hold the words long enough to get them down.

Ok. Freewriting.

Music.  Miles Davis.  Buh badabububada.  Squeaking and squealing like worn breaks, but with so much air.  He speaks to me in manic spasms.  And as the song moves along, I recognize that it's not that there is no form, no rhythm, or no melody, but that to understand and embrace the music, you have to show it some respect and pay attention!  Relax, as the bassist walks you down the damp, florescent street, tapping your hands on your pants - impersonating the pianist.  Then turn suddenly down an alley where Miles wants you to meet an ominous cloaked figure.  But on further inspection, you realize it's a familiar woman in an ankle-length mink coat.  She curls her finger, beckoning you near and as she links her arm with yours, your chest puffs.  Continuing down the alley, the music stops as the two of you look back at Miles, your lips drawing up as if to say, "I'll see you at breakfast."

-RKM  

What the GOP seems to stand for...

Judging by the audience reactions during recent debates, the GOP...

Believes that gay soldiers are not fit to serve.
Believes that war is a diplomacy tool.
Believes that Mexicans (which I believe covers all Latin Americans) should be deported.
Believes that you have a right to life... until you're born.
Believes that society has no obligation to the poor or the sick.
Believes that if you are struggling, it's your own fault.
Believes that we should tax the poor to reduce the burden on the rich.
Believes that their party represents "Christian values".

One of these things is not like the others...

-RKM

Ranting about resource development

This is a journal entry I wrote for a class I am taking.  The interesting part starts after the second paragraph (the first two paragraphs provide background regarding the particulars of the Hetch Hetchy Dam controversy).  Enjoy!

NREM 460 Journal – Journal Entry #1 – 01.17.12

Hetch Hetchy Dam Issue, 01.17 & 01.19

            This week we began looking into the Hetch Hetchy Dam controversy.  Essentially, those arguing for the dam claim that it is the most economical way to bring about the “greatest good” through the exploitation of water resources for electricity production as well as municipal and agricultural use.  On the other hand, those opposed to the dam counter that there are many other sources from which the city of San Francisco may draw their water that would not have a negative impact on National Park Service lands.

            Personally, I stand firmly against the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley.  In fact, I stand against the construction of dams generally because the economic benefits seem to rarely outweigh the ecological costs.  The proponents of the dam claim that it is imperative that they dam Hetch Hetchy because it is the only feasible site due to economics and logistics.  This is an often-used tactic of extractors.  It is likely that this simplification of the situation is misleading and that there are several other location options to consider.  The least-cost argument turns to mush as well because once the dam is built it has become twice as expensive as predicted (typical of infrastructure projects such as these).  Moreover, those are just the construction costs – to include the externalities associated with a dam of this magnitude likely at least doubles this number again.  The most important argument against the dam is probably this: damming a river to flood a valley in a national park for the purposes of supplying water to a municipality inherently puts the local interests of thousands of people ahead of national interests that represent millions of people.  An analysis of costs and benefits associated with this kind of favoritism would almost certainly show that the right thing to do to provide for the “greatest good” is to leave the valley in it’s natural state for all Americans (and international visitors) to visit.  If one accepts this assertion, the bottom falls out of Pinchot et al.’s utilitarian argument.

            I didn’t find the Hetch Hetchy issue very stimulating.  The case is a classic in its own right and in the sense that similar controversies arise regarding development projects an a near-constant basis (e.g. all other major dams, ANWR, Keystone XL, offshore drilling and wind turbines, logging and building roads in national forests, mountain-top removal coal mining, etc, etc, etc).  It gets old.  Those in favor tend to make the following claim: this development project will create jobs, which will stimulate the local economy, which will lure in more businesses/jobs, which will create a cycle of positive feedback where development = jobs = money = local (often, rural) well-being.  Unfortunately, the reality is often quite dissimilar from the rosy picture painted by the proponents of development.  Often what happens is that development of a resource creates a few jobs locally, but is mostly done by trained laborers from outside the local area, who send their money home to feed their families and leave the local economy no better off when they are gone.  Beyond that, the “resource development” often looks a lot more like land rape.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services are highly degraded in the area because the people extracting the resources perceive no stake in the health of the ecosystem and any economic benefit that could have been generated via ecotourism is destroyed.  Cases such as this are innumerable – in fact, entire books have been written on the subject (e.g. Power’s “Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies.”).  The moneymaking strategy of many American corporations can be summed up neatly in this way: privatize the profits and pass the costs on to society.

Those opposed to the development project might talk until they are blue in the face about the sabotage that the project represents to their local economy or biota, but their claims seem to fall on deaf ears.  While, according to historical accounts, their opinions probably represent the most reasonable idea of the eventual outcome of such resource development, they are painted as hippie treehuggers, environmental extremists, or are otherwise stigmatized in an effort to discredit their opinions. Few people understand the ecological implications of resource extraction, so it is easy for moneyed interests to blast the public with exaggerated economic development figures (based on methodologies of which the public has no understanding) in order to sway majority opinion in their direction.  As a result, a few wealthy people win big and the rest suffer the consequences of their own ignorance.

So, it should come as no surprise that I read through the Hetch Hetchy arguments with a sigh and an eye roll – I’ve heard it before.  We’ve all heard it before.  Over and over again.  It’s tiresome.  Perhaps the battle is unwinnable.  There is often too much apathy and ignorance among the majority to influence policy and too much money among the minority to keep their opinion from dominating the conversation.  On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that the battle is not worth fighting.  If nothing else, we can at least slow the rate of environmental degradation in hopes that enough people will wake up and turn the tide.  If we can accomplish that, sustainability might one day trump shortsightedness – to the benefit of the entire biosphere.

Letter to the Editor

This puppy never got published (although I did get interviewed about it), so I'll publish it myself...

12.23.11

Robert K. Manatt

1312 Johnson St.

Ames, IA 50010

Letter to the Editor

Title: In Support of “Occupy Iowa Caucus”

            There is little good to be said about the political process in our country these days.  We have congressional approval ratings running below 13% as of 12.18.11 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com) and a president who seems to have forgotten the values upon which he campaigned.  Many Americans are having trouble on election days deciding not for the “best” candidate, but the “least bad” one.

As a result, the nation has erupted into protest – prominently under the banner of the “Occupy” movement.  Pundits and others have chosen to dismiss or demonize the “occupiers”, but I doubt that most Americans have been fooled by their mischaracterizations.  For the most part, these masses of people are just peace-loving, justice-seeking, concerned citizens who are choosing to assert both their inalienable and government-ensured rights.

Beneath the umbrella of views represented by the “occupiers” – being of all ethnicities, creeds, and political persuasions – we are taking collective action to “occupy” the Iowa Caucus.  We are tired of the political games being played on both sides of the aisle – tired of Obama, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, and the rest.  If you are feeling similarly, we urge you to join us in caucusing for “uncommitted” on January 3, 2012.  You must be a registered Democrat or Republican to participate, but same day registration is available.

If we turn out in large enough numbers, we will be able to send delegates to participate in the national discussion.  These would be citizen delegates who represent the will of the people – not the lobbyists and industry puppet masters that infect the decision making of our politicians. 

This is a call to action to all of those proud Americans who are dissatisfied with the way our government manifests itself in the lives of the people.  If you’re in, visit http://www.occupyIAcaucus.org to learn more.