Global warming is not what I'm afraid of

Is burning fossil fuels the number one cause of global warming? Dunno. Not really sure at all, because, frankly, there is a lot of stuff going on on the planet. Ms Earth has a nasty habit of warming and cooling, all by herself.

Is global warming the number one danger civilization is facing? I say no way Jose. I say the most clear and present danger is the current capitalist, corporate fascism. Just my opinion. But since you’re here, I’ll tell you why.

One. The present corporate-capitalism is a borg-like machine with one purpose: move money up. Forests are only valuable to this machine when they are broken into pieces and sold. Humans only valuable for their labor-production-profit capacity or the money that can be taken from their pockets. Tigers are valued by the pelt or zoo revenue. To the borg, society is a means to pump money up into high pockets. Nothing else. The borg cannot smell or eat grandma’s cookies, but it can brand and market and distribute them. The present borg system disrespects nature. Nature is invisible to it. So is society. So are you. So am I. It cannot see us. It cannot see grandma and children, nor smell evening flowers or savor the scent of your lover's neck. Instead it is programmed and empowered to consume and pump money.

And so, this one problem, this inability to value anything other than money, causes a world of hurt: poverty, pollution, junk food, dead whales. It's a long list.

So go ahead, control co2 emissions all you want. And while you’re pouring resources into that enormously difficult task, the borg will be busily breaking into pieces and selling even more of what is left of this lovely planet and human society. And we may well wake up in a feudal-corporate wasteland with perfectly controlled co2. With sea levels and weather still wandering around.

Two. Humans are robust and tough and have found ways to thrive in:

• burning romantic deserts,
• mucky inbred swamps,
• hysterical fertile crescents,
• high altitude picturesque mountains,
• tiny beautiful islands with coconut skies,
• anaconda/jaguar/ayahouska jungles,
• freezing arctic seasides,
• Calcutta,
• the outback,
• and American suburbia for godsake.

We’re cool, creative, survivors all right. We can thrive anywhere!

But (when the seas rise and storms come and weather patterns change) civilization could fall! (screams from off-stage).

You mean the civilization where whoever has the most money has therefore the power of law and force behind them to kick the shit out of everyone else and do whatever they please? That civilization might fall? Hope so. I’ll gladly throw some banana peels in its path. I’m sick of that one. Earth-life is literally sick of that one.

But real civilization, the one that’s been pushed to the side of late, where thinking, compassionate, mature humans look at the nature of the situation around them, and with their family, friends, and natural extended community, do their best to find ways to live happy, creative, exciting, challenging, non-destructive lives…well that one I think has a long, glorious (bumpy) future ahead of it.

Sorry, but global warming isn’t scaring me. Life is change. Don’t like change? Too bad you weren’t born a rock. Erosion denial.

But (when the seas rise and storms come and weather patterns change) global warming will change everything! (screams from offstage)

Everything has always been changing. To think that things stay the same is delusional. Weather patterns change. Continents move for godsake. Go with the flow a bit. Please?

We cannot keep sea levels stable, any more than we can stop the tides, or make every day a sunny spring nymphfest. There are seashells in the Rocky Mountains, and not so long ago the Sahara Desert was a pretty nice place to live. This is a planet of change. Check out this graph of sea level changes over the past half a million years or so:
(from: Eustatic sea level during past interglacials)
You recon you can smooth that baby out by controlling carbon emissions? (And if you averaged out the swings, sea level would be maybe fifty meters lower than now...and that means, well, a lot of glaciers up north. Looking at the graph, we seem to be near a peak.)

Before the next conference on global warming, I want everyone present to take a deep breath and say: ‘Nature is always changing. We can’t keep nature from changing. I accept that Nature changes. I am happy to be a part of Nature. I am happy to meet any and all changes whatever they may be. I will do my best not to be an asshole to the other lifeforms on this planet.(repeat last sentence two more times)’

Sea level has never been constant. To whine about it is kind of dumb. To say that if we control co2 emissions then sea level and weather will be stable is even more dumb.
Nature has never been stable because she is evolving. So are we. She's not about a steady state, fixed stars, Dantian reality micromanaged into the dust. She's out there on the edge. Honest and clean. Taking reality as it comes.

I'm happy to live with that.
Are you?

I say the number one problem is the borg.
We need to face the borg. Inject it with an appreciation it now lacks. Or kill it if it can't be turned to serve earth-life.

pushing money

On Bill Maher the other day, David Frum said something to the effect of “they hate us when we intervene, they hate us when we don’t intervene. They hate us when we support the dictator, they hate us when we oppose the dictator.” He sort of threw up his hands, as if those people won’t like us no matter what we do.

Is Mr Frum saying, his 'think tank' has found an entire population, grandmas to nephews, that won’t be reasonable? An entire population of perpetually unreasonable people?

Good research guys.

I’ve got a much, much, simpler idea:

US foreign policy is relentlessly, financially self-serving to big money interests, even when exceedingly cruel to the local people.

Simple.

So instead of finding a perpetually unreasonable society, we’ve found a foreign policy with a perpetual goal: push money, by war, by words, by forked tongue policy, into the pockets of the few. Push money to the top.

Am I moving too fast for you Mr Frum?

Money to the top. Never mind the blood. It's not theirs.

sick of meds 2

From health-care-reform.net:

(An excerpt from an article by Kah Ying Choo)

By citing these statistics, Starfield (2000) [see post below for reference] highlights the need to examine the type of health care provided to the U.S. population. The traditional medical paradigm that emphasizes the use of prescription medicine and medical treatment has not only failed to improve the health of Americans, but also led to the decline in the overall well-being of Americans. Starfield’s (2000) comparison of the medical systems of Japan and the U.S. captures the fundamental differences in the treatment approach. Unlike the U.S., Japan has the healthiest population among the industrialized nations. Instead of relying on sophisticated technology and professional personnel for medical treatment as in the U.S., Japan uses its technology solely for diagnostic purposes. Furthermore, in Japan, family members, rather than hospital staff, are involved in caring for the patients.

The success of the Japanese medical system testifies to the dire need for Americans to alter their philosophical approach towards health and treatment. In the blind reliance on drugs, surgery, technology and medical establishments, the American medical system has inflicted more harm than good on the U.S. population.

sick of meds

In the year 2000, a study from Johns Hopkins estimated 225,000 people (minimum), died of iatrogenic causes in US hospitals. That is, the deaths were caused by the healer. The third leading cause of death nationwide. The deaths broke down as follows:

• 7,000 - medication errors in hospitals
• 12,000 - unnecessary surgery
• 20,000 - other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 - infections in hospitals
• 106,000 - non-error, negative effects of drugs

(Source: Dr. Barbara Starfield of Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 2000)

I have a lot of contact with doctors and nurses (I work with them daily on their English to prepare them to work and study abroad.), so I know that they are human, and under stress, and that the system is never perfect, and so accidents will happen. So at first blush I see nothing insidious with the medication errors, other errors, and infections. Unfortunate though they are, and worthy of every effort to be reduced, well, we all make mistakes.

Unnecessary surgery however, strikes me as different. Surgery is invasiveness in the extreme and should be a last resort. That 12,000 people died as a result of surgeries which were unnecessary in the first place is shocking to me. How many were merely maimed, disabled, traumatized, or caused to suffer - along with family and loved ones? Why push for surgery? My guess: money. Here in Thailand, companies providing prosthetic joints and implants have teams of talented people competing to win over surgeons to their product lines. Inducements include significant pocket money on every unit used, pampered treatment and perks, getting docs laid, holiday seminars at desirable locations, visibility and status.

This leads to the biggest number on the list: 106,000 - non-error, negative effects of drugs. These are non-error deaths caused by medication. The doctor prescribed the proper medication according to present accepted guidelines. The nurses administered the medications according to present accepted guidelines. The patients complied. Non-error. No mistake. 106,000 (minimum) dead per year. Look like something is wrong with our present accepted guidelines? It does to me. My guess: pharmaceutical money.

Here in Thailand big pharmaceutical companies regularly treat doctors and their families to vacation/seminars in Europe, America, or 5-star Thai beach resorts. The more the pharmCo likes you, the better the perk. But all doctors get the perks. All doctors. It's standard operating procedure. Entire hospitals can even be 'branded' to a 'family' of meds, receiving in return both individual and hospital-level kickbacks. Shifting to a cheaper, better, safer brand - or even using less can become socially impossible. These are the same pharm companies at work drumming up business in the US.

Oh, and here's a link to a Mind Hacks article about hot chicks selling pharmaceuticals.

But don't worry. America has the FDA to protect them with safe meds and guidelines, right? Sorry my son but you're too late in asking, Mr GalaxoSmithKline's pharm train done hauled it away.

Ike was right

I've just re-read Eisenhower's parting words as President. Wow. America could use a leader like that again. I highly recommend reading the whole speech.

You can find it here.

Some excerpts:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

and,

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

and,

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.

and finally,

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

We have indeed fallen from a great height.

BBC, Iraq, and me

I just finished watching the March 15 show of BBC's Question Time, where a high powered panel and intelligent and diverse audience members discussed the Iraq situation for one hour. My impressions:

• How that level of discourse (in terms of time, level of participants, intelligence of discussion) just doesn't happen on American TV.
• How intelligent and mature the audience members members seemed to be. Though many different views were represented, it remained civil.
• The same impression I have whenever I see or read something from John Bolton. The man is an evil turd. And I type that in a calm, civil tone.
  
• That what I feel is a key point was only mentioned briefly, and not directly addressed. That point being that the US was instrumental in bringing Sadaam to power, keeping him in power, encouraging and supporting his war with Iran, and deafening in it's silence when he was gassing various enemies. It's ludicrous to assume that suddenly we are acting from the moral high-ground. We couldn't be trusted then, so we shouldn't be trusted now.
  
• That no one mentioned the wanton destruction of all of the ministries. I mean, if Iraqi self governance and stability was a goal, that's a pretty dumb thing to do. However, if instability is your goal, it's a pretty effective action.
• That no one mentioned the (4 or 5 I think) huge permanent bases, and largest embassy on planet Earth. But, the turd Bolton slimily spouted that no one wants the troops there any longer than is absolutely necessary. When the Iraqi's stand up...blah blah blah.
• That it was said that soon Iraqis would create laws allowing them for the first time to share in the wealth of Iraqi oil. That struck me as rather odd. Isn't that like saying that you can share in your bank account? If it's their oil, it's their oil, all of it, and it's their decision as whether to share it with others or not.
• Several spoke, in a frightening way (to me), that when the UN doesn't go our way, with countries like Russia, France, and China jamming up the Security Council, that it's something like a moral imperative to act to stop evil. As when China invaded Tibet, or as they could invade Taiwan? As when Sadaam invaded Kuwait which he blamed for stealing Iraqi oil via slant drilling? As with Russia attacking Afghanistan? Are we now saying that those are all reasonable, morally justified actions? If not, why not?
• Thank goodness for the internet, that I can access such info.
  

Thai style

(I wrote this a few years ago as a way to introduce American host families to two high school Thai exchange students. My students. I know the kids and the families well. - Years ago, when I first came to Thailand, I said, Thailand has a lot to teach the world. I still stand behind those words. So here are some of those ideas, which I wrote to help my Thai students have a smooth reception in the land of America.)

Thais are cool, and think that life should be enjoyed. Enjoyed properly – in a sweet, smooth, innocent and fresh way.

Thais intuit very well what is right and wrong
and they care about that.

They care about right and wrong.

They care about their own actions being right or wrong.

Love and commitment to their parents is absolute.

The Thai family is a rock.
A beautiful rock.

Respect for elders and teachers is automatic – and for the most part genuine.

Elder and parental advise is truly taken to heart. (Advise carefully. Talk from the heart, a Thai kid will hear.)

Thais understand goodness quite well (check me on this, please) and aggression, for them, is almost always negative - even when they show aggression themselves.

Seriousness is considered negative, as it lacks softness and joy.

Thais aren’t interested in changing another’s idea.
Other’s ideas and actions are the responsibility of the others.
Other ideas aren’t a threat.

Thais like to share the moments of life with other people. Being alone is usually a bummer. Open kindness is easy for Thais, as is forgiveness and laughter.

They are very comfortable in the now-moment. And uncomfortable out of it.

Jokes are expected. Fun is always welcome, and considered valuable and important.

Thais want to be awake with loved ones and friends, properly enjoying the now-moment, laughing and smiling, even through the difficult times. That’s the good life.