Gary Edwards Blog
commentaries
BLOG.SILVERCITY-REALTY.COM
Sustainable Farming ( the key to our existence) ?
Sustainable Farming Can Feed the World?
By MARK BITTMAN
Mark Bittman on food and all things related.
Tags:
The oldest and most common dig against organic agriculture is that it cannot feed the world’s citizens; this, however, is a supposition, not a fact. And industrial agriculture isn’t working perfectly, either: the global food price index is at a record high, and our agricultural system is wreaking havoc with the health not only of humans but of the earth. There are around a billion undernourished people; we can also thank the current system for the billion who are overweight or obese.
Yet there is good news: increasing numbers of scientists, policy panels and experts (not hippies!) are suggesting that agricultural practices pretty close to organic — perhaps best called “sustainable” — can feed more poor people sooner, begin to repair the damage caused by industrial production and, in the long term, become the norm.
On Tuesday, Olivier de Schutter, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the Right to Food, presented a report entitled “Agro-ecology and the Right to Food.” (Agro-ecology, he said in a telephone interview last Friday, has “lots” in common with both “sustainable” and “organic.”) Chief among de Schutter’s recommendations is this: “Agriculture should be fundamentally redirected towards modes of production that are more environmentally sustainable and socially just.” (To access a press release about the launch of the report, click here (pdf). To read the full report click here (pdf).)
Agro-ecology, he said, immediately helps “small farmers who must be able to farm in ways that are less expensive and more productive. But it benefits all of us, because it decelerates global warming and ecological destruction.” Further, by decentralizing production, floods in Southeast Asia, for example, might not mean huge shortfalls in the world’s rice crop; smaller scale farming makes the system less susceptible to climate shocks. (Calling it a system is a convention; it’s actually quite anarchic, what with all these starving and overweight people canceling each other out.)
Industrial (or “conventional”) agriculture requires a great deal of resources, including disproportionate amounts of water and the fossil fuel that’s needed to make chemical fertilizer, mechanize working the land and its crops, running irrigation sources, heat buildings and crop dryers and, of course, transportation. This means it needs more in the way of resources than the earth can replenish. (Fun/depressing fact: It takes the earth 18 months to replenish the amount of resources we use each year. Looked at another way, we’d need 1.5 earths to be sustainable at our current rate of consumption.)
Agro-ecology and related methods are going to require resources too, but they’re more in the form of labor, both intellectual — much research remains to be done — and physical: the world will need more farmers, and quite possibly less mechanization. Many adherents rule out nothing, including in their recommendations even GMOs and chemical fertilizers where justifiable. Meanwhile, those working towards improving conventional agriculture are borrowing more from organic methods. (Many of these hybrid systems were discussed convincingly in Andrew Revkin’s DotEarth blog last week.)
Currently, however, it’s difficult to see progress in a country where, for example, nearly 90 percent of the corn crop is used for either ethanol (40 percent) or animal feed (50 percent). And most of the diehard adherents of industrial agriculture — sadly, this usually includes Congress, which largely ignores these issues — act as if we’ll somehow “fix” global warming and the resulting climate change. (The small percentage of climate-change deniers are still arguing with Copernicus.) Their assumption is that by increasing supply, we’ll eventually figure out how to feed everyone on earth, even though we don’t do that now, our population is going to be nine billion by 2050, and more supply of the wrong things — oil, corn, beef — only worsens things. Many seem to naively believe that we won’t run out of the resources we need to keep this system going.
There is more than a bit of silver-bullet thinking here. Yet anyone who opens his or her eyes sees a natural world so threatened by industrial agriculture that it’s tempting to drop off the grid and raise a few chickens.
To back up and state some obvious goals: We need a global perspective, the (moral) recognition that food is a basic right and the (practical) one that sustainability is a high priority. We want to reduce and repair environmental damage, cut back on the production and consumption of resource-intensive food, increase efficiency and do something about waste. (Some estimate that 50 percent of all food is wasted.) A sensible and nutritious diet for everyone is essential; many people will eat better, and others may eat fewer animal products, which is also a eating better.
De Schutter and others who agree with the goals of the previous paragraph say that sustainable agriculture should be the immediate choice for underdeveloped countries, and that even developed countries should take only the best aspects of conventional agriculture along on a ride that leaves all but the best of its methods behind. Just last month, the U.K.’s government office for science published “The Future of Food and Farming,” which is both damning of the current resource-intensive system (though it is decidedly pro-GMO) and encouraging of sustainable, and which led de Schutter to say that studies demonstrate that sustainable agriculture can more than double yields in just a few years.
No one knows how many people can be fed this way, but a number of experts and studies — including those from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the University of Michigan and Worldwatch — seem to be lining up to suggest that sustainable agriculture is a system more people should choose. For developing nations, especially those in Africa, the shift from high- to low-tech farming can happen quickly, said de Schutter: “It’s easiest to make the transition in places that still have a direction to take.” But, he added, although “in developed regions the shift away from industrial mode will be difficult to achieve,” ultimately even those countries most “addicted” to chemical fertilizers must change.
“We have to move towards sustainable production,” he said. “We cannot depend on the gas fields of Russia or the oil fields of the Middle East, and we cannot continue to destroy the environment and accelerate climate change. We must adopt the most efficient farming techniques available.”
And those, he and others emphasize, are not industrial but sustainable.
Alone or together?
Why does the human race feel so alone? What great event compelled us to feel our aloneness? We have developed into a herd conscienceless. Understandable when one looks at the example of our animal brethren.
The problem with our development of this behavior is that as the herd leader goes so goes the whole group. Blindly following the ass in front of us. Not enough critical thinking applied to any decision. I sometimes think we have lost the ability to consider facts on their own merit or the ability to use logic to question the status quo.
I think religion has played a diasterous role in the evolution of the human race. Too much of a separation between the INS and OUTS, the US vs the THEMS. We created God in our image and managed to also create our religions in our image. The largest problem for me with every one that I have encountered is the Egoistical idea that they alone have the right and correct answer to all of Life's problems. Each and every Religion has a corner on the truth. Has anyone ever considered the absurdity of that kind of vision? I will have respect for the religion that acknowledges
questioning as a important tool for growth. It is impossible to blasphemy against the creator.
The problem with our development of this behavior is that as the herd leader goes so goes the whole group. Blindly following the ass in front of us. Not enough critical thinking applied to any decision. I sometimes think we have lost the ability to consider facts on their own merit or the ability to use logic to question the status quo.
I think religion has played a diasterous role in the evolution of the human race. Too much of a separation between the INS and OUTS, the US vs the THEMS. We created God in our image and managed to also create our religions in our image. The largest problem for me with every one that I have encountered is the Egoistical idea that they alone have the right and correct answer to all of Life's problems. Each and every Religion has a corner on the truth. Has anyone ever considered the absurdity of that kind of vision? I will have respect for the religion that acknowledges
questioning as a important tool for growth. It is impossible to blasphemy against the creator.
30-Year Mortgage May Fade Away
Fannie and Freddie, created to increase the availability of mortgage
loans, misused the government’s support to enrich shareholders and
executives by backing millions of shoddy loans. Taxpayers so far have
spent more than $135 billion on the cleanup.
The much more divisive question is whether the government should preserve the benefits that the companies provide to middle-class borrowers, including lower interest rates, lenient terms and the ability to get a mortgage even when banks are not making other kinds of loans.
Douglas J. Elliott, a financial policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Congress was being forced for the first time in decades to grapple with the cost of subsidizing middle-class mortgages. The collapse of Fannie and Freddie took with it the pretense that the government could do so at no risk to taxpayers, he said.
“The politicians would like something that provides a deep and wide subsidy for housing that doesn’t show up on the budget as costing anything. That’s what we had” with Fannie and Freddie, Mr. Elliott said. “But going forward there is going to be more honest accounting.”
Some Republicans and Democrats say the price is too high. They want the government to pull back, letting the market dictate price, terms and availability.
“A purely private mortgage finance market is a very serious and very achievable goal,” Representative Scott Garrett, the New Jersey Republican who oversees the subcommittee that oversees Fannie and Freddie, said at a hearing this week. “No one serious in this debate believes our housing market will return to the 1930s.”
Still, powerful interests in both parties want the government instead to construct a system that would preserve many of the same benefits, with changes intended to minimize the risk of future bailouts. They say the recent crisis showed that the market could not stand on its own.
“The kind of backstop that we have now, if it didn’t exist, we would have had a much more severe recession and a much sharper fall in home values,” said Michael D. Berman, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, which represents the lending industry.
Hanging in the balance are the basic features of a mortgage loan: the interest rate and repayment period.
Fannie and Freddie allow people to borrow at lower rates because investors are so eager to pump money into the two companies that they accept relatively modest returns. The key to that success is the guarantee that investors will be repaid even if borrowers default — a promise ultimately backed by taxpayers.
A long line of studies has found that the benefit to borrowers is relatively modest, less than one percentage point. But that was before the flood. Fannie, Freddie and other federal programs now support roughly 90 percent of new mortgage loans because lenders cannot raise money for mortgages that do not carry government guarantees.
One prominent investor, William H. Gross, the co-head of Pimco, the major bond investment firm, has estimated that he would demand a premium of three percentage points to buy such loans — a cost that would be passed on to the borrower.
Proponents of a private market want the government gradually to withdraw its support, allowing investors to regain confidence. They argue that interest rates would eventually settle into roughly the same patterns that held before the financial crisis.
Some supporters of government backing also like the idea, believing that it will demonstrate the need for a backstop.
“I myself am eager to see whether there needs to be a guarantee,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a crucial Democratic voice on housing issues.
What is your opinion? Should the mortgage market be allowed to find its way without the government guarantee?
Thank you Arab world
I hope this circles the planet.
This is a global moment unlike any in memory, perhaps in history. Yes, comparisons can be made to the wave of people power that swept Eastern Europe as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-91. For those with longer memories, perhaps 1968 might come to mind, that abortive moment when, in the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, and elsewhere, including Eastern Europe, masses of people mysteriously inspired by each other took to the streets of global cities to proclaim that change was on the way.
For those searching the history books, perhaps you’ve focused on the year 1848 when, in a time that also mixed economic gloom with novel means of disseminating the news, the winds of freedom seemed briefly to sweep across Europe. And, of course, if enough regimes fall and the turmoil goes deep enough, there’s always 1776, the American Revolution, or 1789, the French one, to consider. Both shook up the world for decades after.
But here’s the truth of it: you have to strain to fit this Middle Eastern moment into any previous paradigm, even as -- from Wisconsin to China -- it already threatens to break out of the Arab world and spread like a fever across the planet. Never in memory have so many unjust or simply despicable rulers felt quite so nervous -- or possibly quite so helpless (despite being armed to the teeth) -- in the presence of unarmed humanity. And there has to be joy and hope in that alone.
Even now, without understanding what it is we face, watching staggering numbers of people, many young and dissatisfied, take to the streets in Morocco, Mauritania, Djibouti, Oman, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Libya, not to mention Bahrain, Tunisia, and Egypt, would be inspirational. Watching them face security forces using batons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and in all too many cases, real bullets (in Libya, even helicopters and planes) and somehow grow stronger is little short of unbelievable. Seeing Arabs demanding something we were convinced was the birthright and property of the West, of the United States in particular, has to send a shiver down anyone’s spine.
The nature of this potentially world-shaking phenomenon remains unknown and probably, at this point, unknowable. Are freedom and democracy about to break out all over? And if so, what will that turn out to mean? If not, what exactly are we seeing? What light bulb was it that so unexpectedly turned on in millions of Twittered and Facebooked brains -- and why now? I doubt those who are protesting, and in some cases dying, know themselves. And that’s good news. That the future remains -- always -- the land of the unknown should offer us hope, not least because that's the bane of ruling elites who want to, but never can, take possession of it.
Nonetheless, you would expect that a ruling elite, observing such earth-shaking developments, might rethink its situation, as should the rest of us. After all, if humanity can suddenly rouse itself this way in the face of the armed power of state after state, then what's really possible on this planet of ours?
Seeing such scenes repeatedly, who wouldn’t rethink the basics? Who wouldn’t feel the urge to reimagine our world?
Let me offer as my nominee of choice not various desperate or dying Middle Eastern regimes, but Washington.
We’re Not the Good Guys
Imagine this: for the first time in history, a movement of Arabs is inspiring Americans in Wisconsin and possibly elsewhere. Right now, in other words, there is something new under the sun and we didn’t invent it. It’s not ours. We’re not -- catch your breath here -- even the good guys. They were the ones calling for freedom and democracy in the streets of Middle Eastern cities, while the U.S. performed another of those indelicate imbalances in favor of the thugs we’ve long supported in the Middle East.
History is now being reshaped in such a way that the previously major events of the latter years of the foreshortened American century -- the Vietnam War, the end of the Cold War, even 9/11 -- may all be dwarfed by this new moment. And yet, inside the Washington echo chamber, new thoughts about such developments dawn slowly. Meanwhile, our beleaguered, confused, disturbed country, with its aging, disintegrating infrastructure, is ever less the model for anyone anywhere (though again you wouldn’t know that here).
Oblivious to events, Washington clearly intends to fight its perpetual wars and garrison its perpetual bases, creating yet more blowback and destabilizing yet more places, until it eats itself alive. This is the definition of all-American decline in an unexpectedly new world. Yes, teeth may be in jugulars, but whose teeth in whose jugulars remains open to speculation, whatever General Petraeus thinks.
As the sun peeks over the horizon of the Arab world, dusk is descending on America. In the penumbra, Washington plays out the cards it once dealt itself, some from the bottom of the deck, even as other players are leaving the table. Meanwhile, somewhere out there in the land, you can just hear the faint howls. It’s feeding time and the scent of blood is in the air. Beware!
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com.
This is a global moment unlike any in memory, perhaps in history. Yes, comparisons can be made to the wave of people power that swept Eastern Europe as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-91. For those with longer memories, perhaps 1968 might come to mind, that abortive moment when, in the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, and elsewhere, including Eastern Europe, masses of people mysteriously inspired by each other took to the streets of global cities to proclaim that change was on the way.
For those searching the history books, perhaps you’ve focused on the year 1848 when, in a time that also mixed economic gloom with novel means of disseminating the news, the winds of freedom seemed briefly to sweep across Europe. And, of course, if enough regimes fall and the turmoil goes deep enough, there’s always 1776, the American Revolution, or 1789, the French one, to consider. Both shook up the world for decades after.
But here’s the truth of it: you have to strain to fit this Middle Eastern moment into any previous paradigm, even as -- from Wisconsin to China -- it already threatens to break out of the Arab world and spread like a fever across the planet. Never in memory have so many unjust or simply despicable rulers felt quite so nervous -- or possibly quite so helpless (despite being armed to the teeth) -- in the presence of unarmed humanity. And there has to be joy and hope in that alone.
Even now, without understanding what it is we face, watching staggering numbers of people, many young and dissatisfied, take to the streets in Morocco, Mauritania, Djibouti, Oman, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Libya, not to mention Bahrain, Tunisia, and Egypt, would be inspirational. Watching them face security forces using batons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and in all too many cases, real bullets (in Libya, even helicopters and planes) and somehow grow stronger is little short of unbelievable. Seeing Arabs demanding something we were convinced was the birthright and property of the West, of the United States in particular, has to send a shiver down anyone’s spine.
The nature of this potentially world-shaking phenomenon remains unknown and probably, at this point, unknowable. Are freedom and democracy about to break out all over? And if so, what will that turn out to mean? If not, what exactly are we seeing? What light bulb was it that so unexpectedly turned on in millions of Twittered and Facebooked brains -- and why now? I doubt those who are protesting, and in some cases dying, know themselves. And that’s good news. That the future remains -- always -- the land of the unknown should offer us hope, not least because that's the bane of ruling elites who want to, but never can, take possession of it.
Nonetheless, you would expect that a ruling elite, observing such earth-shaking developments, might rethink its situation, as should the rest of us. After all, if humanity can suddenly rouse itself this way in the face of the armed power of state after state, then what's really possible on this planet of ours?
Seeing such scenes repeatedly, who wouldn’t rethink the basics? Who wouldn’t feel the urge to reimagine our world?
Let me offer as my nominee of choice not various desperate or dying Middle Eastern regimes, but Washington.
We’re Not the Good Guys
Imagine this: for the first time in history, a movement of Arabs is inspiring Americans in Wisconsin and possibly elsewhere. Right now, in other words, there is something new under the sun and we didn’t invent it. It’s not ours. We’re not -- catch your breath here -- even the good guys. They were the ones calling for freedom and democracy in the streets of Middle Eastern cities, while the U.S. performed another of those indelicate imbalances in favor of the thugs we’ve long supported in the Middle East.
History is now being reshaped in such a way that the previously major events of the latter years of the foreshortened American century -- the Vietnam War, the end of the Cold War, even 9/11 -- may all be dwarfed by this new moment. And yet, inside the Washington echo chamber, new thoughts about such developments dawn slowly. Meanwhile, our beleaguered, confused, disturbed country, with its aging, disintegrating infrastructure, is ever less the model for anyone anywhere (though again you wouldn’t know that here).
Oblivious to events, Washington clearly intends to fight its perpetual wars and garrison its perpetual bases, creating yet more blowback and destabilizing yet more places, until it eats itself alive. This is the definition of all-American decline in an unexpectedly new world. Yes, teeth may be in jugulars, but whose teeth in whose jugulars remains open to speculation, whatever General Petraeus thinks.
As the sun peeks over the horizon of the Arab world, dusk is descending on America. In the penumbra, Washington plays out the cards it once dealt itself, some from the bottom of the deck, even as other players are leaving the table. Meanwhile, somewhere out there in the land, you can just hear the faint howls. It’s feeding time and the scent of blood is in the air. Beware!
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com.
This time we need to follow thru
This article makes some interesting speculations
If Oil Prices Fall, Will We Still Care About Solar, Geothermal & Wind?
The WSJ’s Wendy Bounds reports:
Reporting today’s column about solar energy for the home, I asked why sun technology disappeared from the horizon after its 1970s surge. Some solar experts blamed Reagan for not renewing lucrative tax credits. They mentioned how he took solar panels off the White House for roof repair and never put them back.
But mostly they said, “Oil prices dropped and consumers didn’t care anymore.”
Could that happen again? Is America’s newfound obsession with solar, geothermal, and wind power just a flirtation until the energy bills lighten again? Make that if they lighten again. Or have we, as one hopeful green real-estate developer put it, “fundamentally turned a corner” in our attitudes about renewable energy alternatives — and more specifically, our willingness to spend our own money on them.
No doubt we want a reprieve. The average homeowner will shell out 33% more to warm their home this year. If you use oil like I do in the Northeast, expect an average heating bill of just over $2900. Already some polls say public sentiment is moving toward favoring more domestic drilling. And oil companies are scrambling to squeeze oil from anywhere, like shale rock buried beneath federal lands.
On the other side is Al Gore calling for the U.S. to move toward “zero-carbon” electricity as well as other non-fossil fuel dependent technologies. To him and other renewable energy champions, simply drilling for more oil is like plugging a gaping wound with loose Band-Aid. Invest more now in alternatives, they say, reap the benefits later.
Who will prevail? I’m looking at a roughly $23,000 price tag to get my home’s power and hot water partly juiced from the sun. The payback for the various systems is anywhere from 5 to 15 years. Feels longish, but one solar expert put it this way: “Did you ask about the payback of your new granite countertops?” (It’s a hypothetical; I used concrete, but OK, point taken.)
Meantime, here are 10 other ways to improve your home’s energy efficiency. (There are more resources in my story.) Let us know if you’ve got other tips:
Give your home an energy-audit
Seal existing air leaks in ductwork and around windows, doors and recessed lights
Add insulation in attic, basement and anywhere else you can
Upgrade to Energy Star appliances
Install programmable thermostats
Have your boiler or furnace tuned up
Upgrade windows and glass doors to double-paned, insulated models
Install solar shades on windows and glass doors
Install a cleaner-burning, EPA-certified wood stove or fireplace insert
Replace your existing water heater with an on-demand tankless heater to reduce standby heat losses
[i] This time we need to care more about the consequences for the longevity of our planet rather than the expediency of the political moment. Where are our elected leaders positions on tax incentives for alternative energy production? If we can subsidize, pay farmers not to grow crops and pay oil companies subsidies ( even though they are making record profits) for their drilling operations ,then why can't we help a fledgling renewable energy enterprise become more affordable for the average Joe? This Country has become too incestuous in our government and a huge over haul is needed to get rid of bad Big Corporation influences.
Peace
Gary[/i]
If Oil Prices Fall, Will We Still Care About Solar, Geothermal & Wind?
The WSJ’s Wendy Bounds reports:
Reporting today’s column about solar energy for the home, I asked why sun technology disappeared from the horizon after its 1970s surge. Some solar experts blamed Reagan for not renewing lucrative tax credits. They mentioned how he took solar panels off the White House for roof repair and never put them back.
But mostly they said, “Oil prices dropped and consumers didn’t care anymore.”
Could that happen again? Is America’s newfound obsession with solar, geothermal, and wind power just a flirtation until the energy bills lighten again? Make that if they lighten again. Or have we, as one hopeful green real-estate developer put it, “fundamentally turned a corner” in our attitudes about renewable energy alternatives — and more specifically, our willingness to spend our own money on them.
No doubt we want a reprieve. The average homeowner will shell out 33% more to warm their home this year. If you use oil like I do in the Northeast, expect an average heating bill of just over $2900. Already some polls say public sentiment is moving toward favoring more domestic drilling. And oil companies are scrambling to squeeze oil from anywhere, like shale rock buried beneath federal lands.
On the other side is Al Gore calling for the U.S. to move toward “zero-carbon” electricity as well as other non-fossil fuel dependent technologies. To him and other renewable energy champions, simply drilling for more oil is like plugging a gaping wound with loose Band-Aid. Invest more now in alternatives, they say, reap the benefits later.
Who will prevail? I’m looking at a roughly $23,000 price tag to get my home’s power and hot water partly juiced from the sun. The payback for the various systems is anywhere from 5 to 15 years. Feels longish, but one solar expert put it this way: “Did you ask about the payback of your new granite countertops?” (It’s a hypothetical; I used concrete, but OK, point taken.)
Meantime, here are 10 other ways to improve your home’s energy efficiency. (There are more resources in my story.) Let us know if you’ve got other tips:
Give your home an energy-audit
Seal existing air leaks in ductwork and around windows, doors and recessed lights
Add insulation in attic, basement and anywhere else you can
Upgrade to Energy Star appliances
Install programmable thermostats
Have your boiler or furnace tuned up
Upgrade windows and glass doors to double-paned, insulated models
Install solar shades on windows and glass doors
Install a cleaner-burning, EPA-certified wood stove or fireplace insert
Replace your existing water heater with an on-demand tankless heater to reduce standby heat losses
[i] This time we need to care more about the consequences for the longevity of our planet rather than the expediency of the political moment. Where are our elected leaders positions on tax incentives for alternative energy production? If we can subsidize, pay farmers not to grow crops and pay oil companies subsidies ( even though they are making record profits) for their drilling operations ,then why can't we help a fledgling renewable energy enterprise become more affordable for the average Joe? This Country has become too incestuous in our government and a huge over haul is needed to get rid of bad Big Corporation influences.
Peace
Gary[/i]
Preparing your house for sale
|
Staging Your Home For Sale - Is It Worth The Investment?
|
Life On Earth
I just reread my first blog entry. Sounded a little angry. I am not angry. I simply want to inspire people to live to their potential . I am not any great example myself...but I try. During my life I have been given chances to live up to my potential and sometimes have waited too long to implement my ideas and lost them. We all take for granted our stay on this beautiful planet. Why can't we write the story of how we want our lives to play out? I say we can. I think we need to return to a more Village lifestyle where we care for our aging people ,provide medical services for our people ,take responsibility for the way our laws are written and the most important thing in the universe....LOVE,UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.
First try at Blogging
Hello out there. I am trying this feature as a communication device.
I think that it is important for citizens of the Earth to reclaim the rights and privilege's that our birthright gave us.
I am speaking of taking an interest in our lives. Being responsible for the welfare of our planet our neighborhood and the persons that inhabit them. Grassroots democracy evolving from the bottom up. We can no longer just sit back and take directives from our leaders at the top of the food chain. let's begin by continuing the effort of our forefathers the writers
of our constitution and deciding for ourselves what is good for us and the Earth and telling our leaders that this is the way it is going to be!!! I do not advocate violence as a means to achieveing any objective. We can follow the example of another great American Dr. Martin Luther King and peacefully resist. Here in Silver City New Mexico we are planning a crusade to eliminate the state flower of New Mexico........the plastic bag. By beginning with this simple request of our local government we can start the process of examanning the shape of our lives and determine how we want to define the world we live in.
Peace
Gary
I think that it is important for citizens of the Earth to reclaim the rights and privilege's that our birthright gave us.
I am speaking of taking an interest in our lives. Being responsible for the welfare of our planet our neighborhood and the persons that inhabit them. Grassroots democracy evolving from the bottom up. We can no longer just sit back and take directives from our leaders at the top of the food chain. let's begin by continuing the effort of our forefathers the writers
of our constitution and deciding for ourselves what is good for us and the Earth and telling our leaders that this is the way it is going to be!!! I do not advocate violence as a means to achieveing any objective. We can follow the example of another great American Dr. Martin Luther King and peacefully resist. Here in Silver City New Mexico we are planning a crusade to eliminate the state flower of New Mexico........the plastic bag. By beginning with this simple request of our local government we can start the process of examanning the shape of our lives and determine how we want to define the world we live in.
Peace
Gary
Welcome
Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.