mavericks

mcCain voted with bush 95% of the time over the last 8 years.  every time biden reminded the viewers on last nights debate of facts like this, palin piped in with her canned answer, "how can you be talking about change if you're stuck in the past?"

stuck in the past?

until mcain admits that he was wrong in his consistent support of bush policy and explains what recent revelations differentiate him from his voting record, the past seems like a pretty good indicator of the future.

I'm not advocating that our past imprison our ideas and identities.  I'm just saying without an explanation of what differentiates mcCain from his voting record, how can he be taken seriously as anything different?

****also, I was shocked that the media didn't make a bigger deal over Palin choosing to recite speaking points instead of answer questions and debate.  why are americans so willing to accept leaders who can't answer direct questions?

watching change

change is happening within the system.  consumers are educating themselves and using their penny of empowerment to support greener, fairer businesses.  progress.

so where does the government come in?

when environmentalists advocate protective legislation, capitalists often invoke images of '1984' illustrating the necessity of free choice as the basis of free society.

is limiting the free market to sustainable practices the same thing as telling people how to think?

so the question remains, should we decide what products are in the market or should we let free capital decide?

ps. biodegradable coffee cups cost 10 cents each.

steven harper's position on global warming

it's cold and we have a trillion barrels of oil under alberta.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html

competitive reality

environmental and ethical standards are neglected to the degree that the consumer and government allow

no-speak

capitalism has ready-made answers that work in almost any debate.  answers such as, government programs are inefficient, competition promotes innovation, i don't want Big Brother watching my every move, and the infamous, people are lazy and selfish.

all valid points, the only problem is that they function too well as blanket answers against proposed improvements.  We seem to operating under the assumption that the way things are is the best they can be. 

sacrificing freedom to the greater good

should we be able to tear down a perfectly good house to build a new one? buy pre-destined garbage from the dollar store?  own 25 pairs of shoes?

what should we legislate?  what 'freedoms' are you willing to give up to prevent others from wasting?

buy trees, not cd's

why do people with ipods buy cd's? to have physical proof that they support music? to be connected to the music via a plastic case enclosing 'album art'?

for a cd to be made, materials people have to, you know, do all that plastic and cd material stuff, trees need to be cut down, printers need to print, distributing cars need to drive, you need to go to the heated or air conditioned record store and pay someone to stand there and wait for you to pay them. Then you carry it home, download it to your computer, upload it to your ipod and watch it watch you from your cd tower which underwent a like process. or you could download it either for free or with the same kind of money that bought your cd.

cd's are cool but no cd's are cooler when you really think about it.

same for dvd purchase and rental.

same for anything that could be digital instead of physical.

save money, save trees, save time.

philosophy of a green tax

i have money, i get to buy things. capitalism allows me that freedom. but all that i pay for is how many dollars it takes to get the product to me. when I'm done with the product and throw it away, the government (meaning everyone) pays for its disposal, and in differing degrees we all share the incurred environmental degradation and contamination from its extraction, production, distribution, use and disposal.

how is that fair?

to me, clean water, air, forests and a stable climate are as valuable as any other good. if consumer Joe wants to buy something, he should be buying not only the product, but the reclamation, proper disposal and offsets that leave our environment and economy in an equal state.

I'm not suggesting that it will be simple to determine the environmental cost of every component of every product, but until we try, I don't think it's fair that I pay as much as Joe does for the externalities of his consumption. Any capitalist knows that the invisible hand of economics can only function properly when the market price is the true cost.