Liberaltarian

Richard Branson Offers Climate Prize

2007-02-09T18:02:00.000-08:00

Well, that was fast. Three days ago I wrote about the market based incentives to solve climate change, but that was dependent on implementing a cap-and-trade system. Now Richard Branson is offering a 25 million dollar prize for carbon dioxide scrubbing technology. It isn't as large as the prize the free market offers, but it creates some incentive in the short term while the government gets its act together. Thanks Richard.

The Most Efficient Solution to Climate Change

2007-02-06T22:10:00.000-08:00

The NY Times recently featured an interesting article about prizes. I discovered the article through a post on Greg Linden's blog where he discusses the Netflix prize and big data. Since he covered the personalization aspect, I'll talk about the best way to prevent climate change.

The article gives a history of prizes: Prizes have been around for hundreds of years. Perhaps the most notable was the Longitude Prize. Prizes eventually fell out of fashion and were replaced by grants, which paid for the upfront cost of research (such as new equipment). There has been a recent surge in popularity of prizes—such as the X PRIZE, DARPA Grand Challenge, and Netflix prize—since they encourage innovation and reward results.

How does this relate to climate change? The article explains:

[Democrats and Republicans] have handed out grants and subsidies for various alternative energy sources like ethanol, even though nobody knows what the best sources will ultimately be.

I wouldn't have phrased it that way, perhaps because I'm more cynical than the author. The politicians haven't given away grants and subsidies because they believe a certain technology is promising, they give them away based on their own self interests. Iowa is the country's top producer of ethanol; Iowa is the first stop of presidential hopefuls; many politicians support ethanol, despite the obvious drawbacks. Coincidence? Again, quoth the NY Times:

A much smarter approach would be to mandate that the economy use less carbon. This would effectively set up a multibillion-dollar prize — in the form of new customers — for whichever companies came up with efficient energy sources.

Exactly. In our current situation, we are are paying to get politicians reelected by subsidizing technologically inferior solutions. The best and most fair solution is a carbon cap-and-trade program. By mandating a cap-and-trade system, the free market would automatically discover the cheapest way to prevent the most pollution.

This method is free for the government: subsidies, grants, and tax breaks empty their coffers, where as the free market delivers the best solution at no cost. You might argue that the economy would slow because of this new regulation, therefore reducing government revenue, but that would likely be offset by the increased income of whoever develops the new technologies.

If you truly care about climate change, then requesting a cap-and-trade system is the most sensible course of action. Demanding specific subsidies only hurts your cause.

Why You Should Vote Republican

2006-11-04T15:05:00.001-08:00

Following the example in this post, I've decided to compile a list of reasons why you should vote Republican in the midterm election:

If you support corruption in government, then you should vote Republican.

If you are xenophobic and support unnecessary, expensive fences, then you should vote Republican.

If you want the government to control your sexual life (both pre and post conception), then you should vote Republican.

If you support a big budget and big deficit, then you should vote Republican.

If you think the government should listen to your phone calls, then you should vote Republican.

If you want to get rid of Constitutional rights (like Habeas Corpus), then you should vote Republican.

If you support subsidies for large profitable companies, then you should vote Republican.

If you deny climate change, then you should vote Republican.

If you hate gays, then you should vote Republican.

If you live in fear, then you should vote Republican.

Why You Should Vote Against I-933

2006-10-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

Whether you support property rights or environmental regulations, your vote on I-933 should be the same: no.

This initiative rolls back any restriction on property use passed since 1995. It is this retroactivity that makes the initiative so dangerous, and why you should vote against it.

Supporters of the initiative argue that people buy land with a certain use in mind, and different potential uses factor into the property's price. Putting restrictions on the land after purchase decreases the value for the landowner, since they are no longer allowed to utilize the land in certain ways. This is true. However, the corollary is also true. In the time since 1995, citizens have bought property with the knowledge that the land around them is only zoned or allowed certain uses. If this initiative were passed, it would reduce property value for many land owners because the adjacent land would be opened up for new use.

I'll give an extreme example: Assume I bought a piece of land. When I bought the land, I knew all nearby properties had similar zoning and no one was allowed to build a coal power plant next to me. However, now I-933 is passed. My neighbor sells their land to a large energy company who gets a waiver and begins to build a coal power plant. My property value is decreased dramatically because of this new use.

In the example, I, as a property owner, was screwed by the retroactive nature of the initiative. Continuing with the example, say a bill was passed, after I-933, that prevented my neighbors from building wind turbines. Another neighbor comes along and gets a waiver to build a wind turbine. This is fair because I knew full well when I bought the property that it was zoned for wind turbines.

As you can see, it is the retroactive natural of the initiative that is really damaging. If the initiative wasn't retroactive, I wouldn't be so strongly against it.

We Don't Need Osama bin Laden To Destroy The Country, Just Leave It To Bush

2006-05-12T01:56:00.000-07:00

America is in a crisis. Our civil liberties are being eroded, our leaders are incompetent criminals, and the "good" folks do nothing. Allow me to quote a very relevant line from the movie Boondock Saints:

Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

The Democrats voice their opinion, but do they do anything? Fuck no. The pansy-assed Democrats, the only ones who have a chance of creating change, are so afraid of not getting reelected that they refuse to take a stand and censure, let alone impeach, the criminals we have running the country. Grow a fucking spine and make some change. Last time I checked, Bush wasn't winning any popularity polls, the people will support you. By not doing anything, you are losing my support.

Speaking of popularity, lets talk about poll numbers. 31%? Are you saying 31% of the country supports the job this jackass is doing? I wonder if these folks have ever left the butt-crack small town in which they live. Can they really be that gullible? These people aren't patriots, they are nationalists and borderline fascists. Here are a few choice quotes from a list of e-mails to CNN.

One should ask the family members of those who died on 9/11 if they think this is a good idea. I would bet that they would say that anything that could prevent another 9/11 would be worth it.
Jack Davis, Barnegat, New Jersey

Boo fucking hoo. There have been way too many excuses made in the name of the families of victims. If I was a 9/11 family member, I'd be outraged that I was being exploited in the name of domestic spying and the eroding of civil liberties. Five years ago, 3000 people were killed... that's a drop in the bucket. Over 3000 people are killed every month in car crashes, where is the outrage there?

I'm absolutely fine with it! Since 9/11, we live in a different world with an enemy who is difficult to find. They want to hide among us, and use our rights and freedoms to destroy us. If it takes a little snooping around my personal records in order for the government to uncover terrorists and their activities, then I'M IN!
Bill Konst, Gilbert, Arizona

Don't worry, Osama Bin Laden isn't going to destroy "our rights and freedoms". By the time he can get a group together, our rights and freedoms will have already been eroded beyond recognition. Don't you understand, Bill? Bush is destroying all the rights and freedoms that made this country great.

There were a number of comments rhetorically asking what we have to hide. I don't know about you, but I have lots to hide. I don't want to be targeted or smeared by the administration because of my political beliefs. I do lots of things that are illegal (like yielding at a stop sign when I'm on my bike). Also, I do and/or talk about things that the administration would rather be illegal. My home is my private zone, and the government need not know what I do on my own time, as long as I don't interfere with anyone else.

Fortunately, not everyone who commented in the story were as dense as these bozos. However, it is worrying that people can be this blind. Where is your outrage at the injustice? Things need to change, and the change needs to start now. We are quickly heading toward a dictatorship. Be afraid. If this continues, the America as we know it will cease to exist.

Andrew Hitchcock
Real Patriot

Gas Prices

2006-04-27T20:28:00.000-07:00

Congress makes me sick. Today, while eating some vegan food at a cafe, I was reading a few articles about what the congresscritters are doing about gas prices; which is to say, more than they should be.

The GOP is recommending tax rebates. The Democrats want to temporarily remove federal gas tax. You people are all idiots! The only person I agreed with was Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico who said, "Oil is worth what people pay for it." Now he understands how the free market works. I can't believe how hypocritical all these senators are. Maria Cantwell wants us to reduce energy consumption, but at the same time, she keeps making noise about going after the oil companies for "price gouging". Here is how it works: prices go up, then consumption goes down. If consumption goes down enough, prices will stop going up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

The only appropriate course of action for Congress at this point is to repeal the tax breaks for oil companies... tax breaks which should have never been passed in the first place. The only thing that'll convince Americans to start changing their habits is a swift kick to the balls, which high gas prices have the potential to cause. And hey, look on the bright side, the less people drive, the less congested the freeways.

The way I see it: leave things alone, and it'll all work out okay. Because hell, with peak oil, tax breaks only get you so far.

Buyer, Be Fair

2006-04-20T00:13:00.000-07:00

Tonight the University of Washington Earth Club hosted a Fair Trade movie night on campus. The event consisted of the short film Turtle World and the new documentary Buyer, Be Fair. John de Graaf and Matt Warning were on hand to take questions and have discussions about the film. Buyer, Be Fair gives an overview and history of two certifications: Fair Trade and FSC (which certifies wood). It also talks about a couple of communities that have been positively affected by these certifications.

Both certifications are market-based approaches, which means consumers decide about whether they purchase certified products and they are not required through government regulation. Fair Trade was started around 20 years ago in order to guarantee coffee growers fair prices for their goods. While Fair Trade is mainly a social guarantee, it often comes hand in hand with organic and shade grown guarantees. Farmers are kept on their land, instead of moving to the city for another job while a big company clear cuts their land for coffee, or they cut it themselves in order to grow more profitable maize. Shade grown coffee helps biodiversity and keeps habitat for native animals. FSC certifies forests and logging operations for compliance. A certified forest (which produces certified wood) isn't clear cut and leaves lots of habitat for animals.

For more information on either certification or the movie, go to their respective websites (found in the first paragraph). I feel market-based approaches are the way to go. I believe that people, when given the information and choice, would choose to support living wages for coffee farmers (so they can actually turn a profit) and sustainably managed forests. The United States is currently far behind Europe in both support and knowledge of these certifications, but that doesn't mean we can't catch up.

NSA Wiretaps, Feingold, and Censuring Bush

2006-03-13T19:19:00.000-08:00

Russ Feingold is proposing censuring President Bush for breaking the law by authorizing illegal wiretaps. When the news broke a few months ago, I was surprised by the number of Republicans and Republican lackeys defending the illegal wiretapping. I'm not sure I can blame many of the common folk in favor of the wiretaps, they are simple minded people that have been brainwashed by the likes of O'Reilly and other Republican shills. However, I can't see how informed Republicans and members of congress can defend the president, except to keep party solidarity. Here are a number of counterpoints to the Republican talking points:

The White House tried to convince us that it is okay because one side of the telephone call is outside the US. That doesn't matter, the other side is in the country and therefore "international".

Second, they always claim they want to know what the terrorists are discussing with people in our country, but that is giving the false impression that we know these people are terrorists, which has not been confirmed for the public. This doesn't stop the average Republican lackey from accepting it at face value (and repeating this drivel).

Also, the Republicans phrase the argument so that it sounds like we have no other way to spy on Americans, and they imply that those of us who are against the illegal wiretaps don't support defending the country. Nice straw man. We are against the wiretapping because the way they go about it is illegal. There are already ways to wiretap American citizens, you just have to go through a FISA court. In fact, you can get permission for the wiretap even after it has been started. Here is a quote by Cheney exemplifying their straw men, "The outrageous proposition that we ought to protect our enemies' ability to communicate as it plots against America... [blah blah blah]"

Finally, this is actually damaging our security. If we try to get a conviction based on illegal wiretaps, it is likely it would be thrown out (in the same way illegal police searches prevent conviction).

Unfortunately, it seems most Democrats are distancing themselves from Feingold. I'm disappointed by the Democrats. Once again they seem to be taking the position of no position. Time to stand up for principals and censure the president for his illegal acts. I'm afraid the Democrats might not have the "balls" to take power back from the Republicans. Dean was my favorite nominee a few years back, because he wasn't afraid to speak his mind. Now Feingold is taking a stand, and Democrats are distancing themselves. Kerry was unpopular because he is a bland New Englander. Let's hope the Democrats see their errors in their ways before the 2008 election and nominate a fiery candidate.

Blue State Blues?

2005-12-31T14:37:00.000-08:00

Has liberal leadership in your state capital given you the blue-state blues? Then why not come to Texas, where conservative leadership has led to more jobs, better schools, low taxes and greater opportunity. In Texas, you can be proud of your state again.

Gays, blacks, and the sexually liberated need not apply.

Capital Punishment and Singapore

2005-12-01T15:26:00.000-08:00

Remind me to never visit or support Singapore. Up until a few years ago, I had no opinion on the death penalty. At some point I weighed the arguments, thought about it, and came to the conclusion that I'm against the death penalty. As the US prepares to execute its 1000th person in the last 30 years and Singapore executes a young man for a non-violent, victim-less crime, I felt it was time to talk about executions.

I'm against capital punishment because it is very final and there is always some amount of uncertainty in the conviction. The danger of false positives is just too great to justify any capital punishment. If just one innocent person is executed, a travesty of justice has occurred.

Singapore is a nanny-state taken to the extreme. Being jailed for a non-violent drug offense is unethical and unjust, but being executed for the same offense is a human rights violation. I find Singapore's behavior unacceptable. I realize Singapore is a sovereign nation, but there must be limits to punishment. For his non-violent behavior, at the worst, he should have been jailed, forced to do community service, and/or banished from the country. I'm afraid most politicians in Europe and the United States would be satisfied if their country gained increasing nanny-state tendencies, and moved in the direction of Singapore. The future should bring more personal responsibility and individual rights, not governments getting involved in people's personal lives and invading privacy.

Next time your government tries to control your life or protect you from yourself, take a stand. Here in liberal Seattle, the city council banned lap dances. You'd be hard pressed to find a citizen that agrees with the legislation. If I want a lap dance, that is my right and my decision; those who don't want one shouldn't enter a strip club. The city council and mayor are on some kind of power trip that puts all of us in danger.

King County Election Recap

2005-11-09T01:50:00.000-08:00

I finally got a chance to check the election results. I almost forgot to vote today, and then I had trouble finding my ballot, but all worked out in the end. My neighbor was working at the polling place where I dropped off the absentee ballot. Now for some commentary.

Initiative 901 (smoking ban): Approved
I didn't have strong feelings on this either way, but I did vote against it on principal. Restaurants, clubs, and bars have the right (well, had the right) to decide whether they allow smoking or not. Their right to have a smoking section in their business has just been removed. I am happy that waiters/waitresses will be healthier and I won't have to put up with cigarette smoke at Neumos anymore, but I don't believe we need a nanny state looking out for us.

Initiative 912 (gas tax repeal): Rejected
Yay! Despite my libertarian slant, I'm not anti-tax. Users should pay for what they use, and a gas tax is one of the most fair taxes for roads at the moment (having a GPS in every car would ideal, but then you have privacy implications). I would support this tax even more if it wasn't going to pay for an unnecessary highway tunnel.

Monorail: Rejected
This was the fifth vote for the Seattle monorail. I wasn't able to vote on this because I forgot to change my voter registration in time (although in this case it wouldn't have done any good). I support the idea of a monorail because it would be the first true mass transit in Seattle's inner city. Alas, the monorail plan was also flawed and they seemed to be doing everything they could to alienate me (just like the anti-war protest I attended, but I digress). Strike 1: The payment for the monorail rested completely on car registration fees in Seattle. Car users are much less likely to use the monorail, so this was an example of one group subsidizing another. Strike 2: Trying to take certain proprieties using eminent domain; specifically the sinking ship parking garage. I'd like to see that building gone and replaced with something nicer, but they have no right to try and steal it from the rightful owners (they wouldn't even need the whole lot). What finally killed the monorail was the bad financing. Car registration wasn't paying as much as expected, so the payback period exploded and the projected interest on borrowed money skyrocketed. Mayor Greg Nickels then dropped support at the last minute and gave them only a month or two to figure out a plan to makeup for the shortfall (SoundTransit was given over a year to figure out finances for the light rail).

I am outraged by the city council's recent banning of lap dances. In a liberal city, this is a surprising intrusion into our personal lives. Unfortunately, I am not yet a Seattle voter, else I would have signed a petition to bring back lap dances. Also, I was in a hurry every time I saw people petitioning.

Government Pork

2005-09-19T00:27:00.000-07:00

I was lead to this article about pork. It stated very well some of my thoughts. I would like a small government that runs without a budget deficit. Current Republicans have nothing in common with the predecessors that share their name. With the neo-cons in power, we have a huge budget, a huge deficit, and an ineffective government. The Democrats don't inspire much faith. If the Democrats were in power, I think the only difference would be a balanced budget. The government would be no smaller, but I don't think it would be bigger either. We need some major reform before our nation goes bankrupt. Let's vote some Libertarians into congress to shake things up and put a hold on bipartisan bickering. With more parties in power, bills wouldn't get stuck between the two party lines. We need another viewpoint, beyond the standard spend-and-tax party and spend-and-tax-cut party.

No Highway

2005-09-18T23:42:00.000-07:00

It seems Seattle is determined to move ahead with its plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel. This is a bad idea. Burying a large freeway tunnel underneath Seattle is not a good plan for the future, and I will list a few reasons why.

Peak oil is approaching. I've talked about this before, but it appears peak oil will occur within the decade. With gas prices hitting record highs early in the year, I wonder how long people will put up with this before changing their habits. The tunnel will take at least seven years to build, at which point we will most definitely have hit peak oil. Gas prices will only go up in the coming years, and eventually people will start to change. When this happens, we won't need the 120,000 car/day capacity of the current viaduct. Update: I wrote that paragraph back in April. In five months, the price of gas went up 70 cents/gallon. The price has settled again, but that doesn't mean it won't go up more later.

The tunnel would only benefit cars. Pedestrians and bicyclists won't have any access to the tunnel, yet they still have to pay for it. Nearby businesses on street level would live with construction for years, but afterwards would not see a large increase in patrons. If the tunnel was abandoned in favor road improvements, everyone would benefit from the enhancements and it wouldn't take as long, reducing the time that local businesses are disturbed.

Tunnels are very expensive. I feel this would quickly become a boondoggle and have major budget over runs like Boston's big dig. The economy has not yet regained full strength, so it would be unwise to spend such a large amount - mortgaging the future of our city, county, and state - for something of dubious value in the long run.

The traffic figures don't take into account people changing their habits. If routes become too congested, people will adapt. Some people will carpool, others will telecommute some days, and more might be willing to try mass transit. I believe I read that people, on average, change jobs or homes every three years. Many people would likely move or switch jobs (for example, workers in a chain could switch from one store to another).

Some agency has an irrational fear of losing road capacity. What makes cars the canon mode of transportation? San Francisco shut down a large freeway and they didn't have gridlock. And no matter what LA does, they can't get away from their traffic mess. If this tunnel were utilized to full capacity, it would drop tons of traffic into the city.

Greg Nickels wants to make Seattle more pedestrian and green. Building a large highway that promotes car use would be diametric to both of these goals.

I've talked to people who work for the city and they say there is a want to increase mass transit ridership. The mass transit system would benefit from not building the tunnel. If the perpetual gridlock some predict actually comes to fruition, ridership in mass transit would soar.

It isn't a complete tunnel. I watched a video showing a drive through and was aghast to discover that it still has a small overhead section between the waterfront tunnel and Belltown tunnel that exists now.

The reasons against the tunnel are staggering, and I'd like to link people to a more level headed solution than the tunnel. If we can have four votes on a monorail, I think we should have one vote for the tunnel. Unfortunately, it gets lumped with the gas tax and other measures, so if you support the gas tax, but not the tunnel, you are in a pickle. We need an à la carte vote on the tunnel.

A New New Orleans

2005-09-02T02:00:00.000-07:00

I want to start out by saying that you shouldn't think I'm insensitive. This is a terrible event that has a occurred and I'm sad to lose so much of such an interesting city. I never had the chance to go to New Orleans, but I would have loved to visit.

Hurricane Katrina will have an interesting effect on the economy. Experts are already predicting a large decrease in future economic growth. The price of oil is hovering around $70 per barrel. I'm surprised it hasn't gone higher. Gas prices, however, have skyrocketed. There was a big jump in Seattle today. It wasn't as bad as some areas, though. Fortunately, I have a nice amount of biodiesel pre-ordered at $3/gallon. Who would have thought that diesel prices would so quickly catch up with biodiesel? Now biodiesel is actually cheaper. It will probably remain cheaper in the near future, since winter usually brings higher diesel prices (it is similar to home heating oil, so if they make more home heating oil, they make less diesel). I might have to order a few hundred more gallons, since there is no limit to how much you can pre-order. My mom is actually considering not selling El Pres (our 1985 Mercedes) and instead running it on biodiesel (a plan that gets my approval). Anyway, the gas price conundrum will be interesting. Historically, Americans' gas usage has not been stalled by higher prices. How long will it take before people start to change their habits. Perhaps we'll start seeing more car pools in the near future.

Back to New Orleans. The current location of the city is very unsustainable. The storms are only likely to get more powerful and more frequent in the future. We can't keep water out of a city below sea level, surrounded by lots of sources of water. This is not a once-in-a-lifetime event, as many people are calling it, this will happen again if we rebuild in the current location. The French Quarter can stay because of all the history, and there could be a tourist industry around that, but the rest of the city should be located farther inland. Here's the thing, the rest of the country doesn't want to bail out areas that are continuously being destroyed. Parts of Florida are hit by hurricanes quite often. When we know these events come again and again to the same areas, we shouldn't let people use tax payer money to rebuild in those areas. I don't mind money being spent on helping people get back on their feet, as long as they don't build in the same place. It was a freak accident like a tornado, then that would be different. However, hurricanes wipe out large areas, and in the case of New Orleans, create lots of secondary damages. In the wake of this disaster, we are presented with a great opportunity. We can rebuild New Orleans on higher ground, and build it better. We can build a New New Orleans. A New² Orleans, if you prefer. There will, of course, be opposition. Governor Blanco was offended when Dennis Hastert suggested it would be unwise to rebuild the city below sea level. JH Crawford, who is familiar with New Orleans and authored the Carfree Cities book, has a wonderful suggestion. We are basically rebuilding a city of over a million people from scratch. This would be an excellent time to practice New Urbanism and the ideas from Carfree Cities. Rebuilding the city with fewer roads and higher density would substantially reduce infrastructure costs. Sprawl takes a lot of infrastructure, and it would just be too expensive when starting from scratch. LIving in a dense environment would save money for citizens in the long run as well. Many people lost their livelihood, so the more money they save on utilities (high density living substantially reduces heating/cooling expenses, and less infrastructure means lower cost) and transportation, the better. Finally, having a large car free urban area in the United States would be an enormous tourist attraction. People would travel from all around to spend a week there relaxing and walking the streets, free from the danger, noise, and pollution of cars. Mardi Gras/Carnival would be amazing in a car free city. A booming tourist industry would instantly help their economy and would allow people to return to their normal lives quicker. New Orleans, I imagine, had lots of tourism before the flooding. A rail line could be built from Old New Orleans to New New Orleans to easily allow tourists and residents to travel between areas like the French Quarter and the new car free districts.

While it is true that Katrina brought a huge disaster on one of America's most unique cities, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. For the sake of our economy and future lives and livelihoods, we must not rebuild in the same area. For over 60 years America has been building autocentric cities. These areas are failing us and will become less desirable as energy prices continue to rise. It is time we realize our mistakes, repent our sins, and try something new. But in fact, it is not new; cities were built in this style for hundreds of years. Out of tragedy, New Orleans is presented with an amazing opportunity, as long as it can break the social norm. The city has an opportunity to become not just unique in America, but in the whole world, by becoming the world's first modern car free city. It can be done. It should be done. But will it be done? That is the important question of the day.

Congratulations Bush, You Win!

2005-08-22T10:11:00.000-07:00

According to this post on The Daily Pick, George W. Bush just set the record as the president with the most vacation days; and he did it after only 4.5 years. I'm glad he is staying so rested so he can fight the War on Terror, War on Drug Users, and our own domestic War on Civil Rights. I salute you President Bush.

Bible Thumpers Try To Ruin Science Class

2005-08-05T03:09:00.000-07:00

I saw on Google News that Bush re-ignites evolution debate. You know what Newsday? It is not a debate. Intelligent Design is a sham meant to sneak religious teachings into school. I'm embarrassed that the Discovery Institute is based in Seattle. At least the PI points out the absurdity of this 'issue'. I can't believe my country is run by someone who rejects science. Who the fuck voted for this dimwit? Oh, right.

When Will The Slaughter End?

2005-07-21T10:52:00.000-07:00

Here is some sad news: Australian cycling team severely damaged in Germany by 18 year old motorist. One rider has died and eight were seriously injured (two critically). Cars kill half a million people per year. When will it end? Something needs to change.

Fascism at Fox

2005-06-25T18:26:00.000-07:00

DrJimbo made a really excellent post on Slashdot about Fox about their fascist tendencies. I noticed this attitude in their show 24, but DrJimbo sums it up eloquently, "the politics of FOX as demonstrated by FOXnews, or their current darling, 24, is extremely right-wing bordering on fascism: fear, pro-torture, and anti-human-rights." Also, "As the anti-fascist message of [Firefly or Dark Angel] becomes more clear to the FOX organization, the shows are silently squashed." I will try to support Fox corp as little as possible, but unfortunately both Firefly and Family Guy are owned by them. Please avoid supporting Fox, especially fascist shows like 24.

Political Parties... Bad Times

2005-05-22T20:52:00.000-07:00

I'm not really a fan of political parties. Often times, if you follow party lines, you end having to swallow some policies you don't agree with, even when you might agree with the majority of policies. Also, it can often prevent good legislation from being passed, because people are often compelled to vote along party lines. I lie somewhere between Libertarian and Democrat, but I prefer not to say I'm part of any one party, because none of them represent my views. This is demonstrated by what my acquaintances call me. One person calls me a liberal, one calls me a Republican, and another calls me a dirty hippy.

Better Sex Through Diet

2005-04-01T01:52:00.000-08:00

Okay this is way off topic, but please forgive me, I found it on Vegan Porn. I'm already trying to follow the Polymeal (at least while I'm at home and can cook for myself). Well, now it seems I'm already almost following the Viagrameal. I eat tons of soy (*drool* tofu) and I'm already eating as many good fats as I can (since it overlaps with the Polymeal). I don't eat much salmon, except when I have sushi, but hopefully I can make up for it by eating other stuff high in Omega-3 fats. I should probably eat more spicy foods and ginger (I get plenty of garlic in my mediterranean dishes and garlic bread). Now... I just need to find a way to get organic, sulfite-free red wine... damn those drinking laws. How dare they hurt my health by denying me wine in order to 'protect me' from myself!

More On Peak Oil

2005-03-29T17:00:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting article about peak oil from February on Aljazeera. Matthew Simmons, an advisor to Bush, warns that peak oil may have already been reached. He believes many oil fields have been damaged due to overproduction, including Ghawar, the largest oil field in the world. Shell had to write off 20% of their fields last year, possibly as a result of overproduction.

The Terrorists In Our Midst

2005-03-29T16:42:00.000-08:00

I'm not afraid of Osama Bin Laden or Kim Jong-il. I'm afraid of the domestic terrorists that we hear about every day on TV and see in our local newspapers. I feel more threatened by the ideological extremists in our own country who wield far more power than any foreign threat. I'm writing this after reading an opinion piece in the New York Times (yeah, NYT again, sorry). A terrorist is someone who invokes fear in order to further their political goals. Hmm, I know someone that recently won an election on a platform of fear, does that make him a terrorist? Extremists in our own backyard are creating a nation of fear. Fear of abortion.Fear of terrorists. Fear of drugs. Fear of gays. Fear of evolution. Extremists are trying to take over the government, and have been alarmingly succesfull. Just recently a bill was passed through Congress to try and save Terri Schiavo. This needs to stop... now.

Vibrant Cities, Just Add Children

2005-03-29T16:03:00.000-08:00

I've been posting a lot more about social issues and a lot less about politics than I expected, and today I will continue that trend. The New York Times recently published an article about the lack of children in many American cities. Many medium to large sized cities in this country are being remodeled and redesigned. The new homes are more vertical, and more expensive. This type of development tends to attract young, single folks, and older retirees; two groups unlikely to room children. With most families moving to cheaper suburbs, cities have been emptied of children and many are being forced to close down schools. I didn't realize how large this problem was until the article brought it to light.

San Francisco, where the median house price is now about $700,000, had the lowest percentage of people under 18 of any large city in the nation, 14.5 percent, compared with 25.7 percent nationwide, the 2000 census reported. Seattle, where there are more dogs than children, was a close second.

Cities aren't complete without a diverse range of ages. Children prevent cities from feeling sterile and lifeless. Hopefully this trend can be reversed by making the streets safer (less danger from cars) and creating affordable multi-room apartments and condos.

Rolling Stone on Peak Oil

2005-03-27T02:31:00.000-08:00

Rolling Stone has an interesting, if not sensationalist, article about peak oil. While it tries to scare readers, it should be required reading for all Americans. One thing it points out is that even renewables can't save the American lifestyle. This is true and is something that is not often mentioned. I advocate renewable energy use, but I also realize that it is just a stopgap and we'll also need to reduce consumption. Americans can't drive 50 miles to work; there won't be enough oil and we won't be able to produce enough biomass to support it. As a culture, we need to move away from this disposable, waste-creating lifestyle.

However, I don't believe the future will be as grim as the article portrays it. First of all, stuff is becoming ever more efficient, and we will still be able to use biomass to generate a lot of energy; at least enough to grow and transport food. The eminent energy crush may, despite what the article predicts, actually generate an increase in the standard of living. We will be forced to live in smaller areas and interact on a more local basis. Food generation and manufacturing would also be done on a more local scale. While at college, I usually stay within a mile of my dorm, but I see and interact with lots of people and have many resources at my disposable. Some days I bike or bus downtown, about four miles each way. I feel much better, despite my lack of mobility, than I do in suburbia where my public interactions are limited. I could travel 30 miles around the Eastside and feel emptier than I would walking one mile downtown.

"How can I prevent the fall into serfdom that the author predicts?" you may ask. Well, I see some valid options, but many people wouldn't like them. What you want to do is wean yourself off oil and excess energy use. Move close to your work, preferably in an urban area. Use your car less and, if possible, consider selling it. You will be inconvenienced, I must admit, but it will save you large sums of money in the long run, especially if oil prices continue to climb. Get a bike and start riding. If you are able to get in shape and accustomed to riding around the city, you will be at an advantage later (plus, it lowers the inconvenience of not having a car). If you have a house, consider investing in solar power/hot water; this will isolate you in case rolling blackouts return. In fact, use your car savings to buy the solar equipment. Also, consider creating a relationship with a local former through a community supported agriculture program. Having an existing relationship with a farmer will make it easier to reserve food if/when this forecasted civil collapse occurs.

There are some things our government can do as well. As in my last post, if the government removed subsidies that support sprawl and energy waste, the populace will start making the move themselves. Once people realize how costly their lifestyle is, they will make efforts to improve. I see this as the best, albeit least likely to happen, encouragement away from sprawl and waste. Some of these steps may seem radical, but they might just save your ass if the future is a Mad Max-esque battle for energy. Of course, there is one bright side to all this: with the lack food and oil for transportation (no more SUVs), the obesity epidemic in America is sure to go away.

End All Subsidies

2005-03-22T21:37:00.000-08:00

There was an article in the Seattle Times recently about a bill that would tax new cars to pay for the Monorail. As it stands now, only cars older than a year are taxed. Here is the thing that gets me, the Washington State Auto Dealers are against the tax because they believe it would result in less car sales. I can't believe these guys, do they realize how many subsidies benefit the auto industry? They get free roads and a military to protect their fuel. It frustrates me when money is taken from one area to pay for another. "You drive a car? We'll tax you to pay for mass transit." If they really want to even the playing field, they would remove all subsidies and people would pay for what they use. Let's see how the auto companies and auto dealers like that, when people realize how much their precious vehicles cost them. Let farmers manage their own crops. I wonder how well the rail industry would do when the airline subsidies are removed and people have to pay their fair price.

This is also a good way to protect against sprawl. When people have to pay the true cost of their suburban infrastructure, the city would become much cheaper and fewer people would live in the suburbs. Living in the suburbs is a luxury afforded to those who can pay for the extra power, gas, and water lines as well as fire and police service and road infrastructure. It is not your right to live in the suburbs. Remove the subsidies and the development companies wouldn't make as much profit in the suburbs, making brownfield developments much more attractive. Of course, the city would have to be appropriately zoned to support higher density. If, as in Seattle, 75% of the city is zoned for single family homes, then this would end up making suburban and urban housing more expensive. Removing density restrictions and subsidies would allow all these problems to work themselves out.

Transit Density Comparison

2005-03-16T13:45:00.000-08:00

Chris Miller just posted an interesting link on the Carfree mailing list. This page on the city of Denver's website shows just how much space cars waste on the roadway. It is amazing how little density single occupant vehicles have (the site contains a picture of the people in the same spot without the cars around them). Downtown city streets may seem crowded, but that is only because the cars are so big. If people drove less, the streets would feel more open, be quieter, cleaner, and safer. If there were less cars, the streets could be made smaller and more intimate.

Where can I get one of these?

2005-03-14T18:50:00.000-08:00

Here an article from a few years ago about the mayors of Paris and London. In an effort to reduce pollution and give the city back to its citizens, the Parisian mayor has reduced the amount of road space available to cars. "'It's only by making life hell for motorists that we will force them to give up their cars,' said his deputy mayor, Yves Contassot." London has also made strides by introducing a "congestion zone" in which you must pay to drive during certain times of the day. I've got to ask, why can't mayors in any US city make bold moves like these? I'd love to see carfree districts in the hearts of downtown US cities. I can think of a few possible reasons: people are still married to their cars and many developers avoid building in cities, instead opting to build higher profit suburban developments (subsidized by everyone else).

Here in Seattle, Mayor Nickels proposed a plan to create density in the city center, yet it neglects the rest of the city. Since Seattle is still in the process of creating viable mass transit, this will guarantee that even more people drive to the city center from the fringes. If you think the freeways and bridges in Seattle are bad now, just wait until there are 20,000 more people commuting to downtown. The nearby neighborhoods aren't being rezoned to reflect this increase in density, so people must come from areas poorly served by buses and void of mass transit.

Bringing European Charm to Toronto

2005-03-08T20:04:00.000-08:00

John Stillich hopes to bring some of the design concepts used in Europe over to North America. Read about his idea to increase density in Toronto. By building a variety of mixed-use buildings (single family homes, condos, apartments, and businesses) and eliminating excess roads, he envisions a community consisting of 8000 people per kilometer. Now, if only someone with money would fund something like this in Seattle.

Revitalizing Downtown Mercer Island

2005-03-06T19:48:00.000-08:00

Many people think of Mercer Island as home to rich, snobby, elite, sheltered yuppies. Well, I'm not going to argue about that. Instead I'll talk about some of the wonderful changes to the downtown area. I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm glad it is getting some publicity. These changes are the best thing that has happened to the island in a long time.

The city council, despite the pleas of stubborn citizens, increased the max building height of the downtown area to five stories from the previous limit of two. Until recently the majority of downtown had consisted of large grocery stories and strip malls. Between new regulations and the low interest rates, developers have been spurred to create new mixed-use buildings. There are currently four large projects in the works, which will bring in 900 new apartments and 246 thousand square feet of stores and offices.

Of course, many Mercer Islanders are against anything that might damage their idea of the 'suburban dream'. Jerry Gropp thinks it will destroy the ambience of the downtown area, which leads me to ask, "What ambience?" Having lived there for some 17 years, I'm not sure what he is talking about. Most buildings are one or two stories and there are parking lots everywhere. The downtown usually seems empty (except for cars) and past 21:00 it is practically deserted. There are very few restaurants, and most close fairly early.

From the article: many Islanders think it "will attract crime, increase traffic, harm the reputation of their schools and disrupt their quiet downtown". Crime is not new. In the last year or two we've had a middle schooler bring a gun to school, a little girl get kidnapped, and an immoral drug bust. Crime will come even without this development. I don't believe it will increase traffic, if anything, it will help decrease traffic. If people can live just a short walk from their destination, they don't need to drive. How would this harm the schools? That seems like nonsense. And of course the downtown is quiet... no one is ever there.

I think public opinion can be swayed, especially if this is promoted the right way. Of course, once everything is completed and the benefits are obvious, there will be no need to explain this to anyone, but for now this is my idea. Many Islanders visit Europe and love to tell people about it. Well, just think, they could have a little European-style village in their own backyard. The roads downtown are mostly two lanes and fairly narrow. The main drag is a boulevard with trees in the center lane. If most of the downtown area was converted to four or five story mixed-use buildings, it would have a very intimate feel. The buildings wouldn't dwarf you, but they would provide a nice feeling of protection and frame the roads nicely. Increasing the downtown population would also make the downtown more lively and potentially reduce crime. There would always be people around, so it wouldn't feel deserted, and having watchful eyes discourages crime. The downtown area is almost located in a little valley. Having a number of dense, human-scale buildings at the end of a valley would be a very attractive semi-urban area. Also, Seattle is a few minute drive from downtown (assuming no traffic). However, buses from Seattle and Bellevue stop just a few blocks from downtown. It would be very easy for someone to live downtown, shop and eat at all the new stores, and ride a bus to Seattle when they want to attend an event or movie; and they could do this while rarely using their car. In a decade or two, we will hopefully have light rail to Mercer Island, which will make commuting to and from the city even easier .

Oil on Ice

2005-03-05T23:31:00.000-08:00

Recently several groups on campus hosted a showing of Oil on Ice. The movie was very informative and well made. It helps bring to light the tragedy some people are trying to create in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Short story: greased, crusty, old Republicans want to drill in the middle of land needed by caribou. The caribou migrate through this area every year and use the lush plants for nutrients, which helps the young survive. The Gwich'in people's livelihood depends on these caribou, and without them, their way of life would end. Dana Lyons has a very relevant song named "Chosen by My People." A clip can be found on his website.

Mass Transit "We Love It! We Love It!"

2005-03-03T23:19:00.000-08:00

Lots of people kick and scream whenever public transit is planned or voted on. However, if it can actually make it past the nay-sayers, things can turn out a lot different than the opponents imagined. Denver recently learned that mass transit makes everyone happier.. You should look no farther than Denver when considering mass transit for your own city.