2012 Veg Garden Volunteers.

One small piece of summer squash can contain 50-100 seeds. We apparently missed some during fall cleanup as this volunteer squash patch proves. So far we have volunteer broccoli, squash and 2 varieties of lettuce from last year. Fortunately we are going for a 'live green' mulch this year to keep weeds down so a little more chaos won't hurt anything.

Earthday 2008

"Earth Day April 22, 2008"

Earthdaynetwork Says:
This Earth Day, Make Noise. Make Them Uncomfortable.
Let our leaders know if they want to keep their jobs, they have to do something, something big and bold, to solve climate change.
Earth Day is on a Tuesday this year! They are in, they are at their desks, CALL THEM, go visit them, email them, let them know you are out there, watching!
Sound off To your Leaders :

Call your President
Call your legislature
Call your Mayor
Call your Council Members

If you are in the US...

White House 202.456.1111
Capitol Hill (our Capitol Hill Operators are really helpful, don't be afraid to call and ask for your Member of Congress!!) 202.224.3121
Don't know your congressperson? >Check Here!

March/Organize
Come to the Washington DC Mall on April 20th
Organize your own march to your Capitol
Protest against your local coal Plant
Organize an ED event and get media there
SEND US YOUR VIDEO AND WE'LL POST IT ON EARTH DAY TV!!
Share your plans and experiences with our partners from around the world, participate in our discussion board forums and visit our blog to keep up with the latest news. Earthdaynetwork

Democracy not = to Capitalism

Democracy is not the same as Capitalism

Democracy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
[French démocratie, from Late Latin dēmocratia, from Greek dēmokratiā : dēmos, people; see dā- in Indo-European roots + -kratiā, -cracy.]
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Capitalism
cap·i·tal·ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

[Origin: 1850–55; capital1 + -ism]
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary


n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.


Yet we do seem to have merged the two into some abhorrent mutant. The point of democracy is to level the playing field, everyone has a voice. Today it seems, more than ever, only people with money have a voice. Many a public policy has been made based on the popularity of an issue or item and this information is based on dollars spent. Many people follow the the two major political party's lead simply because they believe that if they raise that kind of money, many people must agree with them, they can't all be wrong. In basis, this theory will hold a little water, but in fact it will sink in the end as just a few very wealthy people (relatively) contribute huge amounts of cash.

I have a bit of renewed hope with the onset of the internet, we have our voices back. But I am sure there were people just as revitalized by the printing press, the radio and the television. Those mediums did do a lot to bring information to the masses, from hometown to around the world and so did do a lot to raise our voices. The state of those mediums today, all in the hands of the wealthy few twisting, slanting and outright banning certain topics, well... lets just try to get as much from this new medium while it is in our hands.

Recently I went in search of online campaigns for the 2008 US presidential elections. What I found was dismal. The 2 major party's sites were of course flashy, and state of the art but were still really just giant commercials. Not very connected to the people they should have been addressing. The other parties, what I found of them online, were at the bottom of a very deep chasm if the D&R's were on the hill. The Green party's news feed hadn't been updated since dec7'07, spelling errors were noted by me and that's saying something! Ad promo's were dated 2006, including audio and video selections. Nothing from '07/'08 at all. It was hard to find the current candidates and the party seemed very unorganized. Their principals are something I find a lot of people are interested in but with the current mindset of "capimocracy", without the trappings the big money buys, people think there can't be many other people that agree with them, they must be wrong and so am I. In a discussion on the topic with a friend a few days ago, that was the answer he gave. "If people agreed they would put their money behind it".

My folks are on a fixed income, they did a little saving and are pretty well off in retirement however their idea of a donation to the party is about $25. My sister works in health care and has children/grandchildren, though she was recently able to become a homeowner in lieu of a renter she doesn't have it in her budget to make more than a $10-$20 donation. I have another sister who is recently divorced after 15 years and while she was able to head back to school and start a new career she is back in a renting situation and also couldn't afford to donate much more than $50-$100. My friend has 4 children, last year she was in a position to start a business and build for her family's future. She took a huge chance and did a great job, until flooding closed her down for 2 months. One week or maybe even two closed would have been hard but recoverable, 2 months were not. She lost her business and in course her home. She is now an hourly employee and a renter. She cannot afford to donate anything to a political party. Another friend attends a church for recovering addicts. Most have just come from stints in rehab, or are children of addicted parents. Most are unemployed all are renters, mostly of a room in someone else's home. My next door neighbor was injured on the job. He was unable to return to work. He applied for various programs to assist him in keeping a roof over his families head and food in their stomachs. Unemployment runs out, L&I disputes and meetings and hearings go on forever. He lives with his parents now. He cannot afford to donate to a political party this year.

These are the good stories. There are plenty of people who never were as lucky as these, and won't be in the future. There are plenty of good people in circumstances that don't allow them to donate hard earned money to make their valid, hard earned opinions known. Because they can't afford it, does that make them less worthy of a vote? Abraham Lincoln, while his family began relatively affluent, ultimately lived on public land after the death of his mother and issues with land ownership. I doubt he would have had money to spare for a donation to a political party in those days, do you think his opinions were invalid because he didn't have extra cash? Really?


I'm all for capitalism, don't get me wrong. It is not the same as democracy, it should not be mixed up in democracy. If you tend to think, as the mainstream (media) would have you think, that people who make money are smarter and so their votes are of higher quality then please read the above again. We have the opportunity, perhaps only for a time, to take control and have our voices heard regardless of our ability to pay! Set aside time each day to do a little research on your politicians, local and federal. Spend a little more time writing down your thoughts opinions and ideas. Take just a few more moments to make contact with other people to discuss the issues. Donate some time (perhaps taken from watching commercial laden television, trying to convince you your life is not complete unless you have a summer home, or a second car or? requiring you to work more and spend less time at home with family and on issues that effect your family) to spread the word, at meetings and on the internet. Your life is unique, your opinion counts, make sure you are heard!

Climate Change - What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

And with this little tidbit falls one of the stanchions on the 'Non-Believers' tally sheet of evidence. Long have they stated that the 'Believers' have paid or otherwise compensated scientists to lend credence to their cause. You only have to have met a scientist or two to understand the chances of so many of them participating in such a scheme is none to zilch.



PeakOil.com: "The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change.

So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper." (click on the headline to view the full article)

Two Voices, One Message on Climate

Video

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize is being conferred for two starkly different ways of communicating about human-caused global warming.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change speaks in the measured voice of peer-reviewed science and government-negotiations. In four reports issued since 1990, it has always focused on the most noncontroversial findings. In 2001, for instance, it concluded, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
The other awardee, former Vice President Al Gore, delivers brimstone-laden warnings of an unfolding “planetary emergency.” He has not shied from emphasizing the most emotionally potent, though least certain, consequences of warming, such as its link to hurricane intensity and the likely pace of sea-level rise.

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: October 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/science/13climate.html?ex=1349928000&en=f556a7ed3042384a&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Feb. 6, 2007)

Friday October 12, 2007 - 04:48pm (PDT)

Movers Meet Shakers at Third Annual Gathering of Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative

We need more of these sorts of gatherings. Or maybe we just need better coverage. I remember being in a Tokyo hotel lounge in ‘91 and overhearing a group of men, Japanese American and Australian I believe, discussing global warming and the various treaties and other measures currently in place. They were quite animated over the course of about 2 hours. At first I thought (or perhaps presumed) they were corporate magnates gathered to imbibe and complain about the restrictions forced on them. It wasn’t too long before I realized that they were, in fact, passionately discussing the corporate world’s refusal to participate in the cause, instead focusing their efforts (i.e. money) into fighting the regulations. This group formed several smaller groups to take on several projects geared toward improving their company’s efforts and getting the word out to other industries. I never did figure out exactly what industry they represented, but it hardly mattered. I was so happy to witness this I bought the table a round of drinks.
Below are excerpts from the article, the link to read the entire article is at the bottom.

Movers Meet Shakers at Third Annual Gathering of Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative
By CELIA W. DUGGER
Published: October 1, 2007

“It was conceived as a kind of activist answer to the gathering of politicians, business people and academics at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “The origin of this is Davos,” said John Podesta, who was Mr. Clinton’s chief of staff in his presidency’s final years. “There was a feeling that everyone was talking about these causes and no one was doing anything.”
The Clinton event, held over three days at a Sheraton Hotel, featured tightly choreographed sessions to come up with solutions to specific world problems. Each participant was required to promise to do something concrete to make the world a better place. This year’s themes were poverty alleviation, global health, education and climate change.
Here, the people with causes gained access to people with seriously deep pockets. Chad Hurley, a YouTube founder; Larry Brilliant, who leads Google’s philanthropic foundation, and Carlos Slim Helú, ranked by Fortune the world’s richest man, were among almost 1,300 participants.
The furious networking was not subtle. Standing in the midst of a loud party at the Museum of Modern Art, Nancy Collins, a journalist who has covered her share of society events, described the gathering as “one of those where you have to look over your left shoulder for someone more important.”

In hallways, at cocktail parties and around conference tables, leaders of nonprofit groups hustled for valuable connections.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/world/01clinton.html?ex=1348977600&en=85e25e1125bf1831&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink


Wednesday October 3, 2007 - 05:07pm (PDT)