Assuming John McCain can hold today and eventually become the GOP nominee to face Barack Obama in the fall —
Can you spot the difference in his conservative Republican legacy of failure message compared to the Democratic message carrying Senator Obama. (Hint, the difference in these two core messages is subtle, very, very subtle. But if you look closely. . . below the jump . . .)
John McCain (R-AR) —
— meet Barack Obama (D-IL)
We’ve all seen cartoon scenes similar to the following:
A character takes an object of frustration, smashes it on the ground, and jumps all over it.
That’s what a recent Presidential Executive Order does to the separation of powers.
I don’t know if this has been covered in any depth, but I haven’t seen any major dissection of it, so I thought I’d post.
On January 29, 2008, President Bush issued an innocuously-named Executive order. He seems to be a man of few talents, but he has raised the naming of bills with innocuous sounding names to high art. Like a master magician’s sleight-of-hand, this administration’s sleight-of-word is phenomenal.
Follow me below the fold to learn how he turned a reduction in spending into the end of Government oversight with nothing more than his magician’s pen…
First, here’s the executive order. Its name says it’s supposed to save us money. What it does, however, is save us from democracy.
It’s long, so feel free to scroll…
Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the Federal Government to be judicious in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. To ensure the proper use of taxpayer funds that are appropriated for Government programs and purposes, it is necessary that the number and cost of earmarks be reduced, that their origin and purposes be transparent, and that they be included in the text of the bills voted upon by the Congress and presented to the President. For appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.
Sec. 2. Duties of Agency Heads. (a) With respect to all appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, the head of each agency shall take all necessary steps to ensure that:
(i) agency decisions to commit, obligate, or expend funds for any earmark are based on the text of laws, and in particular, are not based on language in any report of a committee of Congress, joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference of the Congress, statement of managers concerning a bill in the Congress, or any other non-statutory statement or indication of views of the Congress, or a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff thereof;
(ii) agency decisions to commit, obligate, or expend funds for any earmark are based on authorized, transparent, statutory criteria and merit-based decision making, in the manner set forth in section II of OMB Memorandum M-07-10, dated February 15, 2007, to the extent consistent with applicable law; and
(iii) no oral or written communications concerning earmarks shall supersede statutory criteria, competitive awards, or merit-based decisionmaking.(b) An agency shall not consider the views of a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff of the Congress with respect to commitments, obligations, or expenditures to carry out any earmark unless such views are in writing, to facilitate consideration in accordance with section 2(a)(ii) above. All written communications from the Congress, or a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff thereof, recommending that funds be committed, obligated, or expended on any earmark shall be made publicly available on the Internet by the receiving agency, not later than 30 days after receipt of such communication, unless otherwise specifically directed by the head of the agency, without delegation, after consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to preserve appropriate confidentiality between the executive and legislative branches.
(c) Heads of agencies shall otherwise implement within their respective agencies the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, consistent with such instructions as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may prescribe.
(d) The head of each agency shall upon request provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget information about earmarks and compliance with this order.
Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) The term “agency” means an executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, and the United States Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission, but shall exclude the Government Accountability Office; and
(b) the term “earmark” means funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to an agency or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 29, 2008.
Let’s break this down:
…executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.
Here the President tells all agencies (CIA, DOE, NASA, GSA, EPA, etc…) of the government that they may do their work ONLY if a LAW is passed pre-allocating the funds to do that work.
This would prevent any agency from doing almost any work that had not been conceived of prior to its need. For example, they would not be able to do new research or research on a new topic to help Congress make decisions about the potential efficacy of a proposed bill, unless Congress passed, and the President signed, a law okaying the funding for the research.
Heck, the way it’s worded, the Government Printing Office might not even be allowed to cover the cost of paper and printing expenses to print up pre-existing reports requested by Congress if the request for those reports hasn’t been made by passing a law, which of course must in turn be signed by the President – who might just not want Congress to have those reports.
It turns the President into a filter for any and all actions of any agency of government, enabling him to prevent Congress and others – including other agencies, and possibly the courts – from receiving any information from or requesting any actions by those agencies.
For example, If a Congressperson were to order the General Accounting Office to provide a report to the Senate Intelligence committee about the dispensation of funds provided to certain entities on a certain date, the GAO could be prevented from taking any action on that order if doing so required funds that are not already included in a law, or those funds don’t meet the, um, fungible, criterion of “having merit under … merit-based decisionmaking.”
Since it’s not defined, the definition of “merit” is anyone’s guess, but we can rest assured that this President has a definition in mind, and it’s unlikely to involve the agency cooperating with the request.
(b) An agency shall not consider the views of a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff of the Congress with respect to commitments, obligations, or expenditures to carry out any earmark unless such views are in writing, to facilitate consideration in accordance with section 2(a)(ii) above. All written communications from the Congress, or a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff thereof, recommending that funds be committed, obligated, or expended on any earmark shall be made publicly available on the Internet by the receiving agency, not later than 30 days after receipt of such communication, unless otherwise specifically directed by the head of the agency, without delegation, after consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to preserve appropriate confidentiality between the executive and legislative branches.
This ensures that the President is made aware of any funding that he hasn’t signed off on. Essentially the President has just told all agencies that they may not keep any conversations with members of Congress or their staff confidential, if that conversation involves agency activities that would cost any money not already allocated in the budget.
Let’s take a look at a hypothetical situation under which this little tid-bit might come into play:
1) Say there’s a hypothetical corrupt executive office holder who might have treasonously outed an undercover operative as political payback, and that there are, perhaps 5 million hypothetical emails that were sent from the executive branch around the date in question, and that those emails are buried on hypothetical hard drives of servers deep in the bowels of a hypothetical IT department.
2) Congress wants copies of those hypothetical emails (which are required by actual statute to be retained), and needs the related agency to do forensic data recovery on the hypothetical hard drives.
3) In order to produce the hypothetical emails, the agency will need funds not already in their budget (forensic data recovery is expensive).
4) Congress says – we’ll give you the money, you do the work.
5) The agency hypothetically posts this fact publicly, as required by the new, hypothetical executive order.
6) Coincidentally, right after the hypothetical executive is tipped off by the posting that his hypothetical goose is about to be cooked, the hypothetical hard drives meet with some very powerful hypothetical magnets. Also coincidentally, the hypothetical hard drives are stored in a room where there’s a subsequent hypothetical fire. Sadly, all the data on those drives are hypothetically converted into a mass of molten metal and plastic.
This basic scenario (attempt to investigate, public tip-off, coincidental elimination of evidence) could play out, hypothetically, for any investigation of any kind, into any government activities (like war profiteering, or funneling nuclear technology to Turkey, or massive voter fraud, or … ).
Nah….
Of course, investigations aren’t the only casualties.
For example: If climate study isn’t specifically in NASA’s budget under statute, then NASA’s climate research has just been shut down. Poof! We know that the administration does not consider climate change research to have any merit. If this is the case, then the only way to restart it is to pass a law adding climate study to NASA’s charter, which should be really easy – until the second it lands on the President’s desk. Then it’s DOA. Ooops!
Note: I do not know if funding for climate study is included in NASA’s budget by statute, but the point isn’t to discuss NASA specifically, it’s to describe the type of scenario that may now unfold at myriad government agencies.
(b) the term “earmark” means funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.
The executive branch HAS NO constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process. (I haven’t enough information to know if the President has any such statutory responsibilities.) Constitutionally, allocating funds is the Congress’ job.
The President’s SOLE responsibilities are commander of the armed forces; ensuring that the laws passed by Congress are executed AS WRITTEN (or to veto and request a rewrite); and to signing treaties IF they’re ratified by the Senate.
On the plus side:
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
Methinks Congress should specifically forbid the appropriation of any funds in support of this executive order… Someone needs to find applicable law that can relegate this piece of [fill in the blank] to the junk heap of usurpation history.
Anyway, that’s my take on it.
ACTION:
Call, write, fax, or otherwise pester the bejeebers out of your Congressional delegation – tell them NOT to appropriate funds for the implementation of this executive order. Heck, tell them to specifically DENY funds for the implementation of this order.
Harking back to odum’s thoughtful analysis last month of H304, I think it would be a good thing for as many of us as possible to show up for the “Lobby Day” for H304 this Thursday. Folks are to meet in the Pavilion Auditorium at 10:30, and teams of people will then lobby their legislators at the State House, ending with a meeting with key committee folks from 12:15 until 1:00 p.m. Not that I expect there are too many shy people at GMD, but know that shy people are welcome and important too–they won’t have to talk, but numbers of people showing up is significant.
H304, to refresh your memory, is a bill to establish universal hospital care for Vermonters. Their website is http://www.SaveVermontHealthCa… (Note they’ve dropped “Take Back Vermont Health Care,” though I admit I rather enjoyed the boomerang effect of that phrasing.) Also go back and read odum’s piece, http://www.greenmountaindaily….
Whatever your opinion is of H304 as it stands, keeping dialogue going about healthcare reform in Vermont is important. The organizers of Thursday’s event are of course looking especially for people who support H304 outright, but based on earlier conversation with Deb Richter I’m sure they would welcome those who favor keeping the dialogue open as well. What happens on Thursday will have an effect on how whether opponents to the bill are able to shut down dialogue altogether. The law of inertia is now on the side of keeping things moving. If they should come to a standstill, inertia will work against any new dialogue getting started again in the near future.
In any case, and as ever, please contact your own legislators to let them know where you stand on the matter.
Gone virtually unnoticed by the media was a true rarity: a Bush power grab, pushed through by the previous Republican Congress actually rolled back.
And yes, it took dragging the appropriate Democratic leadership into action – in this case, the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Here’s the GMD diary from back in early 2007:
Of the many disturbing things this President and his GOP Congress did, this was one of the more chilling. Passed and signed into law in a very hush-hush manner, the law opens up the door for Bush to use the National Guard and other military forces domestically for almost any purpose he might deem appropriate.
The “Insurrection Act Rider” was pushed by then-House Chairman Duncan Hunter, and the GOP leadership in the Senate picked it up. Leahy made a lot of noise about it at the time, but the Republican lockstep was in full play.
At the time, the public support for Leahy was not nearly loud enough, even though he was working with Governors and National Guard leadership. It’s not an issue that got enough ink, picked up by only a few B and C list blogs (like us) and given perfunctory notice in traditional press outlets. To large extent, that was probably due to outrage fatigue. Whatever the case, with little outcry, Bush acquired unprecedented, direct control over individual State’s National Guards. From a FAIR article by Richard Kubey:
News coverage of these significant changes in the law has been virtually nonexistent. At nearly every stage when it might have received coverage, the news media have completely ignored the story: When the NDAA was debated, when it was passed in the House on September 29 and in the Senate on Sept. 30, 2006, when it was signed into law on October 17, and even when Senate Judiciary chair Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) introduced his own bill on February 7, 2007 to overturn the Oct. 17 measures, mainstream media have provided no news coverage. Only on April 24, 2007, when the first hearings were held on Leahy’s bill, did a handful of mainstream media reports appear.
What could happen under the new law? As just one example, let’s say hundreds of demonstrators in Boston engaged in civil disobedience, sitting-in on the Boston Common to protest the country’s policies in Iraq, and traffic ground to a halt. Under the new law, the president could order in the Massachusetts National Guard to clear out the protesters even if the Massachusetts governor opposed this.
Indeed, the president could order the Guard of any state into any other state-even if the governors of both states objected.
So it was on the books, meaning a repeal would be necessary to change what was now the law of the land. Let’s be clear; nobody up there likes to advocate for these kinds of defense policy changes. It’s rolling the boulder uphill. That opens you up to all the soft on islamofascists/commies/moon-men stuff. As such, there is a lot of inertia in play once a policy like that is in place. Also, as we all know, Bush does not generally give an inch on any of his power grabs. Here s the statement on Administration Policy regarding the repeal attempt:
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
Repeal of Modification to Insurrection Act: The Administration strongly
opposes section 1054, which could be perceived as significantly
restricting a congressionally-granted authority for the President to
direct the Secretary of Defense to preserve life and property and by
limiting the President’s authority to call upon the Reserves. Such a
result would be detrimental to the President’s ability to employ the
Armed Forces effectively to respond to the major public emergencies
contemplated by the statute
Bt Leahy persisted, after its initial passage, in his repeal attempt, despite being rebuffed by now-Armed Services Committee Chair, Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan. With GOP Senator Kit Bond, he introduced a repealer bill shortly after the Dems took over Congress, with few expecting that it would be touched. It was only through dogged persistence that got it done, holding hearings and bringing in testimony and support from the governors and from the Guard community. He also continued to work Levin of the Senate Armed Services and his GOP counterpart, Senator John Warner (R-VA), who chaired the committee when the rider was originally passed.
And in the end, Leahy got the right people front and center before his committee. From Newsday Rogin at CQ:
Upon learning of the change, infuriated governors, National Guard
associations and local law enforcement groups mounted a campaign to
repeal the language, which they say usurps state authority and damages
domestic disaster response.Spurred by belated public awareness of the law, lawmakers from both
sides of the aisle raised objections.“This law authorizes the president to essentially strip the control of a
state Guard unit from a state’s governor without consent,” Leahy said
during an April 24 hearing the Judiciary Committee held on the issue.Bond criticized the secretive origin of the measure.
“Nobody knows where it came from,” he said at the hearing. “I think it
was ill- conceived, unnecessary and dumb.”Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va., introduced a companion bill in the House (HR
869), which was subsequently added to the House version of defense
authorization (HR 1585), passed May 17.“The changes approved last year constituted a dangerous concentration of
power in the hands of the executive branch,” Davis said.The National Governors Association has come out unanimously against the
new law and derided Congress for passing it without performing their due
diligence.“No governor was consulted, no debate, no hearing, nothing took place,”
North Carolina Gov. Michael F. Easley, a Democrat, said at the April
hearing, adding that the law would hurt disaster response.Ted G. Kamatchus, Iowa president of the National Sheriffs’ Association,
said he feared that the law lowers the bar for the president to
establish martial law.
The repeal went into the latest Defense authorization, and quietly, and with little notice, a Bush power-grab was actually rolled back last Monday. How often does that happen?
(Cross posted from VermontIRV at http://www.vermontirv.net.)
Vermont’s current instant runoff voting proposal, S.108(text here), is soon to be headed to the floor of the Vermont House for a full vote. According to Representative Chris Pearson of Burlington the IRV bill will be voted out of committee within a couple weeks.
Pearson told me there were a couple extremely minor wording changes, and he assured me nothing here would in any way change the intention or substance of S.108.
Pearson also stated he expects S.108 to pass but not anywhere close to a veto proof majority. This means it is now time to begin serious and ongoing contacts with the Governor Douglas’ office to let him know Vermonters want and expect instant runoff voting.
Governor Douglas has previously stated he signed on to Burlington’s IRV enabling charter change because the voters of the Queen City had so obviously supported the change. There is no reason to believe we can’t rely on the same rationale for instant runoff voting at the federal House and Senate seats level.
Vermont’s very own national blogger sensation, Steve Benen, gives a bit of background on this interesting short film by Bill Simmon, about Steve’s so-called blogging life…
Several months ago, my good friend Bill Simmon, a terrific filmmaker (and blogger), came to me with an idea: he wanted to do a short film about blogging, staring … me. Now, I’ve never been entirely comfortable in front of a camera – I’m more of a behind-the-keyboard kind of guy – but Bill is practically family to me, so I couldn’t turn him down. Besides, I thought, a short film about me would be a) good publicity for The Carpetbagger Report; and b) exciting for my Mom.
So, last summer, Bill and some of filmmaking colleagues came over and spent the day interviewing me and watching me work. It led to a short that Bill titled, “Digital Pamphleteer.” I’m hardly objective about the finished product, but it did win an award at the Vermont International Film Festival last fall and will also play at this year’s Green Mountain Film Festival.
Here’s the YouTube version…
by Dan DeWalt
When Congress reconvened for the New Year, Rep. Robert Wexler made an impassioned speech on the floor of the House, saying we could no longer ignore the unconstitutional actions of Vice President Cheney. He also has asked fellow members to sign on to a letter that he is sending to Judiciary chairman John Conyers, asking that hearings begin.
I contacted Congressman Peter Welch’s office to find out if he had signed onto the letter. No one in his office knew if he had, but they agreed to call me back. The next day, it was the same story, except no more call back promises. In over a week of repeated calls, I have not found anyone in the Congressman’s office either able or willing to find out whether Welch has signed on or not. (Although they promised that they would send me a written answer as soon as they could get to it.) In the meantime, a quick call to Wexler’s office informed me that Welch had not yet signed the letter. Rather than use a second hand source, I wanted to give Welch’s office a chance to say whether he was at least considering signing. After all, Peter voted against tabling a debate on these very same impeachable charges on the floor of the House when introduced by Dennis Kucinich, saying that Dennis had the right to have the charges heard. He then joined the majority in voting the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary for consideration, so you would think that he would want the committee to investigate the charges.
But unless he stole into Wexler’s office and signed with invisible ink, it looks like Vermont’s sole Representative has decided to keep his position with the Bush/Cheney protection racket.
And what’s Bush doing with all the breathing room? Well in just the last few days he managed to issue a signing statement promising to break several parts of a law he had just signed, which, among other things, will protect Halliburton and others from investigations into fraud committed against our military. Not to mention the long-term treaty that he is finalizing with Iraq, assuring a permanent U.S. military presence there. It used to be that treaties had to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, but under the new Democratic doctrine of acquiescence, Bush has seen clear to drop the Senate’s role altogether, calling it a declaration of principle rather than a treaty, and claiming his right to put it into effect.
But the Democrats have made it clear that no crime or lie is great enough to sidetrack them from their holy grail of regaining the Presidency. The Constitution, the rule of law, our nation’s honor, the next twelve months worth of military and civilian casualties; all these are willingly sacrificed for the sake of electing more Democrats.
Only after repeated confrontations with hundreds of angry Vermonters, did Rep. Welch finally end his pattern of voting for war funding, voting against the last war appropriations bill. It will take at least as loud of an outcry to get him to care enough about the Constitution to take action to defend it. Do we care enough to put on the pressure?
So I figure, why not give folks another reason to grumble about this site?
The short answer to the title question, obviously, is that they cheated. But the real problem was the reaction to the cheating; that is, a collective shrug. A big “who cares,” not just from the football establishment (and their ridiculous slap on the wrist), but from the fans as well. In fact, the attitude among many fans was that it somehow wasn’t cheating to break the rules and spy on your opponent, so long as you didn’t get caught – and even then, it’s the loser’s problem, and you’d better not penalize the beloved team, or – gasp – declare the game null and threaten the “historic” unbeaten season.
In other words, the way you might resolve the conflict as a parent is right out.
But what made me want to write about this is the emotional memory. I remember vividly the other times in the last year that I’ve had this feeling. The first time will surprise no one – that is, when Barry Bonds finally crossed Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record, despite wide acceptance that he has been using steroids. WIth one juiced-up swing, Bonds transformed the most sanctified record in all of sports into an asterisked irrelevance. It was not a delightful conversation to have to have with my son about his favorite sport.
The second time might seem a little more odd, but bear with me. It was when I went to see the film Fantastic Four: RIse of the Silver Surfer with my son. There’s a point where the good-hearted but misguided Silver Surfer is captured by the US Military, and is taken away to be tortured. While presented as a bad thing, it also felt very matter-of-fact, and certainly unsurprising. In other words, it simply reflected our new institutional attitude towards torture of accused “enemy combatants.” Believe me, that was another delightful parental conversation.
So what was the common theme between our newfound acceptance (even celebration) of cheating in sports, and the casual attitude towards torture? You could say it’s an “ends justify the means” mentality, a “win at all costs” one, or even a blindly accepting “you’re with us or your against us” zeitgeist. But I think it’s deeper than that.
I think the underlying legacy of the Bush era is his completing of the process (which had already begun) of destroying our concept of honor.
The dictionary defines honor as honesty, fairness, or integrity in one’s beliefs and actions. Honor is the pillar of our social contract, and underlies the concept of altruism, whether one’s sense of it stems from religious mandate or an evolutionary imperative. As a parent, honor is the most important concept we try to impart upon our children.
And our President has stomped on the very concept , grinding it into the dirt under his boot. Every institution that honor has been traditionally fundamental to has either abandoned it or redefined it beyond all recognition. It started with business and trade, where anti-trust laws and the right to organize are cast as socialist plots, and unless the word “fair” precedes the word “trade,” we can assume it’s not fair at all.
But to complete the task, the idea has to be discredited across the cultural spectrum. In the military, the idea of “honor” has become more and more about not snitching on your buddy, as opposed to reflecting the “proud soldier” archetype, and the complete deconstruction of military honor has lead to its inevitable result in companies like Blackwater, who now have no compunctions about using gas on civilians (and US Troops) just to clear traffic for themselves.
In government, we’ve all seen in recent years how much of our system is predicated on the honor system, and how easily Bush and the Republicans can simply ignore the law repeatedly with little or no consequences.
And then there’s sports. It’s supposed to matter when somebody cheats to win games and get rich. That’s what we tell our kids. We’re supposed to show that it matters by penalizing cheaters when they’re caught. That’s what we do with our kids.
Instead, cheaters are now routinely celebrated.
Not in my house.
If our kids fully internalize the new norm – if honor as a concept is disregarded or considered anachronistic, or maybe just “kid stuff” – than we are truly, truly screwed when the next generation comes to power. I have serious doubts as to whether a culture without a sense of honor can even survive in the long run.
And so, bearing that in mind:
Go Giants.
Crossposted @ www.rednalsiofvermont.blogspot.com
Over the last week I’ve been bombarded by adds and commentary, about the Super Bowl, and Super Tuesday. Everything’s super this week, including the savings on a big new TV for the game. Super savings at the grocery store on the food you’ll need to sustain the super long period you’ll be glued to the TV for the game.
Everything’s just super, but how much is it really? The America that’s supposed to be the hope of the world has its problems. How super is it that there are kids that go to bed hungry in the U.S.? How super is it that most Americans can barely pay their bills, let alone put some money into savings for the future? How super is it that we can’t balance our needs for energy and economics with the needs of the natural world?
You know what’d be super? If America really was the greatest place to live in the world. If other nations admired and looked up to us, instead of laughing at the most recent debacle we’ve gotten ourselves into. If the United States became the super nation it was destined to be before somewhere along the way we got sidetracked. What’d be super is if we were again the envy of the world. We’re supposed to be its hope, the land of the free.
We’ve almost decided on the candidates for the next president, and still I have yet to really hear any good plan as to what they will do to make America super again. Just super!
I’m live-blogging from a daylong conference on Peak Oil.
The room is full of people from all across the state, concerned about Global Warming’s evil twin – the time we switch from discovering more oil than we use, to using more oil than we discover.
One of the ost obvious impacts of this point is the increasing cost of oil.
In the full text, I’ll cover speeches from the day. ALL coverage will be paraphrased – I can’t type that fast.
[***Update: battery died, then we had lunch. I’ll fill in the asterisked parts later.]
Annie Dunn Watson
We’ll be discussing, among other things, what it’s like to attempt to educate others about something about which they don’t want to hear.
The silence that greets peak oil along with the naysayers who say “it’s not a production problem it’s an investment problem.”
We’ve helped create a greater interest in local food production, alternatives to dependence on the single occupant vehicle, green energy future, and community building. Energy and community projects around the state are being kicked off by peak oil-inspired people. We’re part of the work engagement instead of helplessness.
Our focus on communities has not deterred people in the network from partaking in statewide initiatives.
Home is going to become a lot more local than it used to be. We need to encourage one another, not criticize, because each of us will change as and when we can. Let’s offer courage to one another.
Carl Etnier
They are starting to pay attention to us. It’s happening not only globally, but here in the state. Peak oil task forces in Bennington, Brattleboro, Addision. There’s been testimony in the legislature – not only by VPON, but by John Kaufman from Portland Oregon’s Energy Department on their energy planning.
There’s a public forum on heating costs next week. Please, if you have time, the more the merrier: Wednesday, February 6, 2008 from 7:00 PM -8:30 PM in Room 11.
Also, Richard Hineburg will speak in VT, Symington and Shumlin co-sponsoring his visit in Montpelier.
As Ghandi said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
We’re not trying to convince people that peak oil is real, we’re trying to convince people to respond to the challenges presented by peak oil.
It’s like people floating on a raft, having a party. The raft is sinking, but not fast enough to cause them to panic and try to get into harbor. So they keep partying, and the raft keeps sinking. Exactly when it will go under is unknown, but by the time their feet are wet, it may be too late to save themselves.
We know where we need to go. We’re not sure about the timing. Even if we don’t know the timing, we need to move in the right direction. We’re here today to help us understand for ourselves what the right direction is.
Developing Capacities for Response to Peak Oil Presentation
The immediacy of climate change is coming to join the immediacy of peak oil. Scientists are beginning to speak out with what they really believe.
Presented by: SustainabilityInstitute.org
A “think do” tank. Not just think about the problems, but do something about them…
Did an energy retrofit last year on the building in which they work, giving it life into the future.
Our Climate Ourselves project (ourclimateourselves.org) – there are systemic traps that face us in climate change. Climate change activists feel great common purpose (and common problems) with the peak oil people.
Requires courage, independent thinking, and willingness to hold onto a vision. It’s hard to remember that when the media is “debunking” it, that’s the good news, because at least it’s being mentioned.
A bathtub analogy was used to illustrate global climate change at this point. Rather than describe it, try the Bath tub simulator.
Moving from Despair to Empowerment
Rather than wasting our energy in ignoring our feelings, learn how to harness what we feel about overwhelming issues and put it to work.
Rigorous Analysis & Clear Communication
For whatever issue you’re working on, break it down to see which of the 3 main categories …[***fill in later***]
Acknowledge and look for the seeds that are around us.
It’s easy to lose sight of what’s happening all around us. It’s important to look around, see what’s happening around us, and point others to those things.
Be oriented toward a vision of what we want to see.
All actions happen when someone gets a vision, that vision is shared, people co-create based on that vision, then the vision is brought into being.
Check out the Dana Meadows video on vision.
Rubber band demo:
This is where we are now – pull the rubber band taut. The tension is the difference between where we are and where we want to be. There are two ways to relive the tension: lower your vision or increase your vision, to change reality in such a way that the fullest extent of rubber band is now less than the full extent of reality.
Two Senses of Vision:
1) Personal: inspiration, motivation, action, commitent, deep aspiration. If you choose a point far enough away, it can be used as a beacon. It can be a practical tool [quote from Dana Meadows): “If we haven’t specified where we want to go, it is hard to set our compass.
2) Leadership
Engage and inspire others, motivate others to work together, and sharing what we want with others in a purposeful way.
Sometimes we self-sabotage our visions via ambiguity, reduced aspirations, or focusing on what we want to avoid rather than what we want to create.
We can build our capacity for visioning. Envisioning is a skill that can be developed, like any other human skill.
Commit your vision – be open about how to achieve it.
When we play with large ideas, we make room for vision. Let it try its little sneakers on and see if it can move.
We don’t know how we are going to get to a sustainable society, but you can travel all over the world and see the pieces of it, today.
One thing cool about vision is you don’t need anything fancy to do it – just your imagination.
Get a clear picture in your mind of what it is you’re working toward. Be very open about how you’re going to get there. If you’re clear about where you want the world to go, then you’ll recognize the seeds when you see them. The path may not be exactly what you expect, but you’ll get there.
[group practice in visualizing happens here, sorry can’t type for this exercise.]
Visions:
I’ve agreed to blog only the official presentations, not individual participant’s statements, so I’ll just state the premise: Envision where you personally are 20 years from now. What does your community look like, your home? Envision the food people eat, the clothes they wear. Etc.
How Systems Change
Hint: It’s Not “You have a leader with a plan, and the leader makes you implement the plan.”
Networks
The world doesn’t change one person at a time. it changes when networks of relationships from among people who share a common cause and vision of what’s possible. (margaret wheatley)
Emergence
Interconnections new wholes: the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Upward Spirals
Someone does something and word spreads. Someone does a pilot project and others see that it really works and are inspired.
We can choose upward or downward sprials. (See Seeing Nature for explanations of how upward and downward spirals work)
Exercise: We answered a series of questions about a project vision, the obstacles we could throw in our own way, how we could overcome those, what resources we could apply to the project, and what we’re going to do in the next 24 hrs toward it.
There are all of these images of how we will accomplish the solutions we’ll need, but none of them have a single leader making it all happen. It’s all of us working together, on our own pieces, in our own ways. Good ideas will go viral. There will be spokespeople. We wouldn’t want to bet on just spokespeople, but also on a room full of our neighbors.
Quote from Paul Krafel, Seeing Nature, p.176: “Begin the work, even though you cannot see the path by which this work can lead to your goal. Do not block your power with your current understanding. Evolution is the process by which the impossible becomes possible through small, accumulating changes.”
Talking Plain Seminar
a conflict doesn’t have to be a problem unless you treat it like a problem.
Each of us have our personality, our vocabulary, experiences, and comfort level. What’s the hook that brought you into this discussion? Write that on a piece of paper. That’s your theme. Write 3 points that deal with that. Get me a personal story.
Book: Beyond Powerpoint.
In presentations, numbers and graphs won’t do it for everyone. You’ve gotta have human pictures. How does it impact the family down the road? How does it impact you?
You want a human-to-human connection. It’s preferable if it’s your personal story and you’re willing to share it.
Write down the things that happen during your day, and what peak oil implies for those things.
Don’t use passive verbs, make it happen right now.
Almost an entire industry of researchers figuring out what it will take to get the average american to understand about climate change…
ACEE Behavior Energy and Climate Change Conference
3 categories of motivation:
Idealists
We do things because we know we should, so why wouldn’t we?
Achievement-based (by far the Largest Group)
The rest of the group is doing it, so why don’t I do it?
Most people have an OVERWHELMING urge to conform.
This group will respond if they see a reflection of themselves in others.
Social levers are more important than economic levers – “Everyone else is doing it vs you’ll save 50%.” Find something close to home.
Studies show that using fear, instead of motivating people, has the opposite effect.
The message: “We’re doing great! And we can do even more!” is MUCH more effective than “We’re not doing enough, we must do more!”
Individualists
Will do whatever they want whenever hey want regardless of everyone else.
Resources:
Transition Initiatives [warning: PDF]