Motley Moose – Archive

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE!  You know it’s funny.  After being banned I wrote a little blog with some links that I forwarded to the contact boxes of various media sources.  I did it because it amused me immensely to watch certain heads explode, and it really amused me that they were concerned I sent it to contact in boxes.  I could have sent it to my Rolodex.

When you’re a grown man and married yourself when your parents come to you and tell you they are getting a divorce I suppose it can be a shock, but for me it was more along the lines of what does this have to do with me?  I could tell my parents were unhappy and the idea of them looking for happiness elsewhere I couldn’t argue with.  Twenty five odd years later it did turn out to be a win for both sides, and a real positive for me as I got another fantastic lady to consider my Mom from my Pops, and an outstanding man as another father from Moms, the man who put DirecTV on the air David A. Baylor.

When Dave entered my life he had recently taken on the job of Vice President of Operations for NBC, having served in that role previously for the Public Broadcasting System.  While with PBS Dave was responsible for helping to implement the first closed captioning system for the hearing impaired as well as the first network satellite distribution system he also led the effort to put PBS back on the air in hours after a fire destroyed their broadcasting facility when estimates had the damage taking days to repair.

Crossposted from the Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet.

Global meat production and consumption have increased rapidly in recent decades, with harmful effects on the environment and public health as well as on the economy, according to research done by Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet project for Vital Signs Online. Worldwide meat production has tripled over the last four decades and increased 20 percent in just the last 10 years. Meanwhile, industrial countries are consuming growing amounts of meat, nearly double the quantity in developing countries.

Large-scale meat production also has serious implications for the world’s climate. Animal waste releases methane and nitrous oxide, greenhouse gases that are 25 and 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, respectively.

Dirty, crowded conditions on factory farms can propagate sickness and disease among the animals, including swine influenza (H1N1), avian influenza (H5N1), foot-and-mouth disease, and mad-cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy). These diseases not only translate into enormous economic losses each year-the United Kingdom alone spent 18 to 25 billion dollars in a three-year period to combat foot-and-mouth disease-but they also lead to human infections.

Mass quantities of antibiotics are used on livestock to reduce the impact of disease, contributing to antibiotic resistance in animals and humans alike. Worldwide, 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in 2009 were used on livestock and poultry, compared to only 20 percent used for human illnesses. Antibiotics that are present in animal waste leach into the environment and contaminate water and food crops, posing a serious threat to public health.

The amount of meat in people’s diets has an impact on human health as well. Eaten in moderation, meat is a good source of protein and of important vitamins and nutrients such as iron, zinc, and vitamins B3, B6, and B12. But a diet high in red and processed meats can lead to a host of health problems, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

Eating organic, pasture-raised livestock can alleviate chronic health problems and improve the environment. Grass-fed beef contains less fat and more nutrients than its factory-farmed counterpart and reduces the risk of disease and exposure to toxic chemicals. Well-managed pasture systems can improve carbon sequestration, reducing the impact of livestock on the planet. And the use of fewer energy-intensive inputs conserves soil, reduces pollution and erosion, and preserves biodiversity.

Further Highlights from the Research:

• Pork is the most widely consumed meat in the world, followed by poultry, beef, and mutton.
• Poultry production is the fastest growing meat sector, increasing 4.7 percent in 2010 to 98 million tons.
• Worldwide, per capita meat consumption increased from 41.3 kilograms in 2009 to 41.9 kilograms in 2010. People In the developing world eat 32 kilograms of meat a year on average, compared to 80 kilograms per person in the industrial world.
• Of the 880 million rural poor people living on less than $1 per day, 70 percent are partially or completely dependent on livestock for their livelihoods and food security.
• Demand for livestock products will nearly double in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, from 200 kilocalories per person per day in 2000 to some 400 kilocalories in 2050.
• Raising livestock accounts for roughly 23 percent of all global water use in agriculture, equivalent to 1.15 liters of water per person per day.
• Livestock account for an estimated 18 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, producing 40 percent of the world’s methane and 65 percent of the world’s nitrous oxide.
• Seventy-five percent of the antibiotics used on livestock are not absorbed by the animals and are excreted in waste, posing a serious risk to public health.
• An estimated 11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent  of deaths in women could be prevented if people decreased their red meat consumption to the level of the group that ate the least.
• Eating organic, pasture-raised animals can be healthier and environmentally beneficial compared to industrial feedlot systems.

In answer to repeated queries regarding David Frum’s republican bona fides and commitments, Frum posted the following reasons, or principles of his continued commitment to a party that he has been eloquently describing as off the rails.  He’s a serious contemporary American political thinker and his piece (http://www.frumforum.com/why-i-am-a-republican) raises questions about what it means to be a republican, past, present, and future.  Here are my considerations of these principles.

The Republicans are the party of American nationalism. We live in a world in which powerful economic, demographic and cultural forces are breaking down the concept of the nation altogether. But if nations don’t matter, why should rich Americans care about the distress of poorer Americans – who, after all, remain inconceivably wealthy by the standards of poor Africans? The flag-and-country themes of the GOP can be kitschy. They also are the indispensable basis of any idea of social cohesion across the vast continent.

First off, how is the party of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Hubert Humphrey not also a “party of American nationalism”???  I was a bit surprised that he started out with this, as it simply echoes a longstanding republican canard and does so in an uncritical way.  But beyond that, what he argues here is that only nationalism, as opposed to social structures and mechanisms can ensure a necessary communitarian break on an unstastainable radical libertarian liberalism.  While I applaud his acknowledgment that a successful modern society must locate itself somewhere on the spectrum between communitarianism and [classical] liberalism, and between socialism and capitalism, and that these terms describe outer limits in their purest and most abstract form as opposed to conflicting opposites, it seems odd (particularly in light of the past decade) that he still believes that a nationalist sentiment can and will regulate this balance in a productive and sustainable manner.  Furthermore, he can only see nationhood through the lens of a chauvanistic nationalism.  There are other options.  I agree that some fellow feeling, some cultural and narrative bond between citizens is necessary for a republic of our size.  But why can’t it be a sense of nationhood that sees itself as inclusive on the one hand and as participating within a cosmopolitan whole on the other?  But again, if he really believes that nationalism can maintain us in a sustainable position on the spectrum between communitarian socialism and liberal capitalism, he’s got to get over his fantasy.  And the Democratic Party needs to reexamine this premise as much as the republicans do.

more below the fold

This is partially inspired by a conversation on Labour List, the premier British Left of Centre blog, where a version of the Political Compass Test was taken by several diverse commenters.

Now most people who visit the political blogosphere know the parameters of that test: authoritarian/libertarian, socially interventionist/economically interventionist. Like Myers-Briggs, these are static and almost self fulfilling quadrants which test how much you believe in individual freedom versus social responsibility, whether in crime, foreign affairs, the economy, gun ownership or reproductive rights. We all know the tests, and probably where we come out in them.

I think that the events of the last three years make that compass profoundly irrelevant, an old paradigm which can only provide a direction in an outdated map. Follow me below the fold while I suggest that the old metrics no longer apply and we are in a new world looking for new bearings.  

A sure way for a person to get their life off track is to have misplaced priorities. The same is true for a business. What is true for individuals and businesses is even more true for a country. And, boy, has this country ever gotten its priorities mixed up. Recent events and news articles have made this very clear.

The world economy went into a tailspin in 2008. Credit dried up, people lost trillions of dollars in wealth, unemployment soared and, as a result, aggregate demand plummeted. Another result of the downturn was a large drop in government revenues. Government revenues will not return to their former levels until more people are employed.  But instead of finding ways to raise demand, which would increase employment, governments are cutting spending and laying off public sector workers, thus lowering demand even further. At the very moment when governments should be increasing spending, they are focused on austerity. This brings to mind sayings about carts and horses.

By: inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

In November 2010, the California electorate approved Proposition 26, a little-known and little-followed proposal, in a close vote.

Proposition 26 was one of those propositions written to be intentionally confusing and difficult to understand. It requires a two-thirds majority to approve certain fees instead of a normal majority. Most people probably thought of these fees as something like sales taxes or property taxes. In fact, the fees generally constitute taxes on business activities which harm society, such as alcohol retailers or businesses that use hazardous waste. In other words, most people thought of Proposition 26 as involving tax cuts, when in reality it’s about environmental regulation.

More below.

Occupy DC yesterday was a hoot.  I had a great time.  I wish I was 20 years younger, because I really wanted to stay overnight.  But my spine just cannot handle sleeping on the ground any more.  Even just sitting on the pavement in the giant human 99 hurt.  Besides, my wonderful, handy, hard-working husband Just. Can’t. Cook., so I need to be here to feed him!

We have more occupy sites popping up — the Wilmington area, Dover, Annapolis, Baltimore, Philadelphia.  This is great.  We need the energy these gatherings generate to fuel us through the rough times we currently endure.  And we have to take this energy home.  We need to incorporate it into our daily lives.  So let’s think about this for a minute.  We need to occupy ourselves, and make this into a truly national, organic, holistic movement.

We need to occupy together everywhere.

This evening at sundown, many Jews all over the world begin observing Yom Kippur, the day of atonement.  Contrary to some popular beliefs and medieval slanders, the day is not a “get out of all obligations free” card.  The sages carefully distinguish between transgressions relating to what are solely religious obligations and ethical obligations.  The former may be atoned through Yom Kippur.  The latter may not, unless there is a prior effort not only to seek forgiveness from those one might have offended or wronged, but a sincere offer to make amends.  If one attempts to do so three separate times and is refused, then the issue moves into the other category.  Accordingly, it is traditional for Jews to ask pardon of everyone they know on the eve of the holiday for any offense they might have given, consciously or not.  In that spirit, I ask pardon of all Moose for any offense I have given in the past year, whether known to me or not, and offer to make amends in any way that I can.

(I told you this was random in the freaking title, so don’t look for elegant segues here).

OWS is a distinctly promising phenomenon.  One of the criticisms is that it isn’t completely clear what the movement is trying to accomplish.  I’m of the opinion that this is less of a problem than the lack of any organizing symbol or image or name.  Occupy Wall Street is wholly negative, and amorphously so.  Should the financial system simply close up shop?  Then what?  Is it supposed to hand over all its profits to the protesters?  There might be a few participants who feel that way, but most aren’t looking for an immediate structural revolution to transform us into something we haven’t yet articulated.  At this juncture, there needs to be some symbol or rallying cry that resonates.  The “Tea Party” has that.  This movement, if it’s going to provide a counter-balance, needs something comparable.

If democrats are going to successfully push conservatives back on their heels, they have to start running against the Tea Party.  This isn’t purely tactical.  The Republican Party has ceased to function in any real sense.  There are no GOP  moderates, and no diversity of opinion in the GOP.  Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, McConnell, Romney, all of them operate at the beck and call of the Tea Party.  We need to run against the Tea Party directly.  Voting for any republican at this point is tantamount to voting for an idiot in a tricorn hat with tea bags hanging off of it (oddly resembling tampons, but that might just be my issue) and screaming for government to leave his medicare alone.  Let’s isolate the degree to which these people, who constantly invoke the “will of the people” do not hold opinions on any significant issue that even approaches representing the perspectives of most Americans.  How many Americans support higher taxes for those making over a million dollars?  75%.  That’s right.  75% of Americans are for increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

And we’ve got to stop avoiding the demonization of taxes.  Michael Medved revealed the degree to which he is a bona fide ass yesterday when he quoted Obama and others who saluted the ingenuity and creative economic contributions of Steve Jobs and asked whether Jobs should have been “punished” with higher taxes.  First of all, he’s a real guy who just died, and so Medved, in tune with conservative patterns of decorum and decency, used him to try to score a political point.  Secondly, Jobs was vocally committed to liberal causes.  I’d be shocked if he would have objected to paying a higher tax rate.  But most importantly, it’s unamerican to call federal taxes a punishment, or slavery, or rape, or theft, or anything else they call them.  Every time one of these people speaks in this manner, they should face a fire storm of accusations exposing how absurd these analogies are, how insensitive to real injustices, and mostly how distinctly anti-American they are.  Taxes pay for soldiers and teachers and firefighters, and humanitarian aid, and infrastructure, and the regulations that keep companies from poisoning us in an attempt to squeeze another quarter of percent of profit.  It may be impossible to make a full on enthusiastic pro-tax argument.  But we must defend the principle and practice of taxation from the tee party slanders.  That is something we can and must do.  

And for John in sincere solidarity: GO TIGERS!!!

Crossposted from the Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet

Policymakers around the world need to step up their efforts to combat hunger, malnutrition, and poverty by providing greater support for agriculture. The winners of this year’s World Food Prize show how policymakers and leaders who invest in their countries’ agricultural futures can make lasting change.

The World Food Prize, awarded each year since 1994 and sponsored by businessman and philanthropist John Ruan, recognizes the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity, or availability of food in the world, thereby helping to boost global food security. This year, the prize will be awarded to John Agyekum Kufuor, the former president of Ghana, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the former president of Brazil, for their outstanding achievements in reducing hunger in their countries. The ceremony will take place during the Borlaug International Symposium in Des Moines, Iowa, from October 12 to 14.

Both of this year’s World Food Prize recipients have made considerable contributions to their countries’ agricultural sectors. Under former Ghanaian President Kufuor’s tenure, both the share of people suffering from hunger and the share of people living on less than $1 dollar a day were halved. Economic reforms strengthened public investment in food and agriculture, which was a major factor behind the quadrupling of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) between 2003 and 2008. Because 60 percent of Ghana’s population depends directly on agriculture, the sector is critical for the country’s economic development.

In addition to the economic reforms, Ghana’s Agricultural Extension Service helped alleviate hunger and poverty by educating farmers and ultimately doubling cocoa production between 2002 and 2005. And the country’s School Feeding Program, which began in 2005, ensures that school children receive one nutritiously and locally produced meal every day. The program has transformed domestic agriculture by supporting irrigation, improving seeds and crop diversification, making tractors more affordable for farmers, and building feed roads, silos, and cold stores for horticultural crops.

In Brazil, among the major goals of former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s presidency were alleviating poverty, improving educational opportunities for children, providing greater inclusion of the poor in society, and ensuring that “every Brazilian has food to eat three times a day.” The government implemented policies and actions known as the “Zero Hunger Programs” to provide cash aid to poor families (guaranteeing a minimum income and enabling access to basic goods and services); to distribute food to poor families through community restaurants, assisted-living facilities, day-care centers, and related organizations; and to provide nutritious meals to children in public schools. As a result, the number of hungry people in Brazil was halved, and the share of Brazilians living in extreme poverty decreased from 12 percent in 2003 to 4.8 percent in 2009.

Not just in Ghana and Brazil, but around the world, policymakers, farmers, activists, and other leaders are investing in agricultural innovations to reduce hunger and alleviate poverty-although many of these efforts need to be scaled up. In Uganda, for example, Project DISC (Developing Innovations in School Cultivation) is teaching students how to grow, cook, and eat native vegetables, including spiderwiki and amaranth. Not only are the students learning how to cook and provide for themselves, but the classes are giving them a reason to stay in rural areas and become farmers, instead of migrating to the cities. In other countries, including Niger, Kenya, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, farmers are learning how to increase their harvests and get more “crop per drop.” In Benin, the Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF) has introduced solar-powered drip irrigation that is improving nutrition and raising incomes for farmers. After one year of implementing the innovation, villagers were eating three to five servings of vegetables a day, and children were going to school instead of spending time carrying water to the fields.

Unfortunately, agriculture is not often a top priority for policymakers-in Africa, only seven nations invest 10 percent or more of their national budgets in the sector. The leaders and policymakers-including former presidents Kufuor and da Silva-who have invested in agriculture and helped to reduce hunger and poverty in their countries deserve praise. But with some 1 billion hungry people remaining in the world who have to cope with volatile food prices, climate change, and water scarcity, much greater investment and policy support is needed to boost agriculture and improve global food security.

To purchase your own copy of State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet, please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

To follow up the series of posts on Colorado, I’ve posted a few recent presidential elections in the state (courtesy of the New York Times). Each map comes with some brief analysis.

Boosted by a Democratic National Convention held in Denver, Senator Barack Obama wins a thorough victory in the ultimate swing state of 2008. The Democratic candidate does especially well in the Republican-leaning suburbs of Denver – winning several outright and dampening margins in Douglas County and Colorado Springs.

More below.