Government Conspiracies: Agenda 21, Light Bulbs, and Smart Meters

Government Conspiracies

Agenda 21, Light Bulbs, and Smart Meters

A few weeks back I opened the local paper. I was sitting at work on my lunch break, and as I often do I turned to the Readers Tell Us column, a local section where readers can call in and leave their personal remarks on local and national issues. A individual had called in to complain about the current federal regulations restricting the sale and manufacture of incandescent light bulbs.  This is a complaint that has been made repeatedly by every one from presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to local Tea Party groupies. But this time the argument, or compliant, was not about having his personal liberties encroached by the new restrictions. The individual was insisting that his home heating bills had increased do to the removal of incandescent light bulbs from his home. He claimed that the bulbs had produced so much heat that their absence was causing a increase in his heating bills.

This sort of argument is becoming more and more commonplace. Today the New York Times printed an article featuring a number of arguments about how local plans to develop green spaces, reduce carbon footprints of local communities, and even smart meters where all products of a U.N. conspiracy to create a new world order.[1] In the past these concerns would have been brushed aside as non-sense. Today with the growing presence of local Tea Party Groups these sorts of arguments are having considerable impact on decision-making on the local level.

If we look to the Chicago-Sun Times we see how misguided such fears are.[2] To steal a quote Kateri Callahan president of the Alliance to Save Energy, stated:

 “There is a lot of misinformation… Retailers don’t have to take inventories of old bulbs off the shelves. The government is not going to come into homes to check. ... You’re still going to be able to buy incandescent bulbs. They’re just going to be 28 to 30 percent more efficient.”

So the gentlemen above may still not be placed at ease because more efficient bulbs mean less of the ambient heat that represents the primary source of wasted energy. Although the pro and cons of ‘light bulb home heating’ seem like something better left up to the Myth Busters we can rest assured that when big brother does invade our homes it wont be to check our desk lamps. For the time being make sure to check out this article and Wikipedia for a break down of the different kinds of bulbs:

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/tips-on-shopping-for-energy-efficient-bulbs/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

Newt and his Tea Party fans commonly cite the same UN resolution when defending their fears of a new world ‘lighting’ agenda. It is ominously titled ‘Agenda 21.’[3] Apparently no one at the UN has a degree in marketing, because naming your environmental initiatives in the same way B-movie directors name films is no way to win over the masses. Upon actually reading Agenda 21 you’ll find a very vague plan for reducing consumption and limiting development in rural areas. The plan for in acting this agenda is more carrot then stick. It involves offering developing countries special financing for local planning and developing. For big countries it means mostly education and out reach. If this is the new world order we’re to fear, then we truly have nothing to fear but fear it self.

That is simply what most of the Tea Party’s outrage boils down to, blind fear. Individuals who, do to a lack of education, old age, misinformation from media and politicians, or simple laziness, lack the ability to adapt to an ever-changing world. This is not new. It is a story as old as time. People fear change. Therefore people fear funny shaped light bulbs. What do you fear?

Cheers

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-projects-seeing-un-plot.html

[2] http://couriernews.suntimes.com/news/9906045-418/old-light-bulbs-fading-but-what-will-replace-them.html

[3] http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

Decorum

de·co·rum   [dih-kawr-uhm, -kohr-][1]  noun

1. dignified propriety of behavior, speech, dress, etc.

2. the quality or state of being decorous;  orderliness; regularity.

3. Usually, decorums. an observance or requirement of polite society.

Decorum is a word.

One found in any dictionary. For those unlike myself who know only of modern web based sources like the one I have made reference to below, that’s the big dusty tomb found at your local library or next to the desks of outmoded academics. Citing another one of the great monoliths of the digital age Wikipedia will inform you that decorum is word established in meaning by Lord Chesterfield. He was a statesman and man of letters who, at roughly the same time our country was being founded, was searching for a translation of the French les moeurs (‘Manners are to little, Morals are to much.’).[2]  

Decorum is just that, a word. It seems in our society that at present it has no greater context. It is seldom found in the sweat pant wearing masses of college students stumbling to and from class or the ranks of working class people shuffling back and forth irrespective of the hue of their collar. Its absence has for most of my adult life been only a minor annoyance. In till a Thursday night Republican debate when a active duty Marine serving in Afghanistan was publicly booed by a audience in response to raising an important question about the fate of himself and his fellow marines.

            The candidate on stage, Rick Santorum, gave a stumbling response about returning to the policies of ‘don’t ask don’t tell.’ But it is not the booing of the audience that was most defining it was the silence. Columnist Mel Mintz, The Baltimore Sun, has nailed it on the head in stating, “Here is the critical point: Not one of those contenders chose to act like a president and defend that Marine's question. Nor did they truly answer his question.”[3] Let us turn to another dusty old book next to my desk, Roberts Rules of Order.

In debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities… It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.[4]

It is just that, the debate being held concerns the Constitution of the United States and the laws and offices it support. Not this Marine. Not this man who risks his life to defend those laws and protect the very freedom of public debate it self. Even the previous incidents where audiences applauded increasing numbers of executions or the out cries to allow individuals with out health insurance to be denied life saving care had so insulted public decorum.

            This is only one example of the absence of decorum in politics. It is not reasonable to assume that politicians such as Santorum, and others like Sarah Palin who studied communications and journalism in college, do not understand the importance or need for decorum. Then why do they allow such behavior to continue? Why do they continue to use and endorse violent and hateful rhetoric directed not towards the political measures before them but towards individuals they oppose? Perhaps if we did in the House of Commons and placed them a swords length from their advisories, drew a long red line between them, and forced them to confront their opponents face to face they would hold more dear their shared humanity. Although even the statement I just made is in itself a form of reactionary hyperbole, and it too is worthy of scorn.

            Lets take for example the use of the word treason.

treason   [tree-zuhn]  noun

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Rick Perry is quoted saying, “Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous — or treasonous in my opinion.” Is printing money an act of over throwing the government or the President? I doubt this; I even more seriously question the idea of putting a man to death for executing the laws of the United States of America. But treason is word not only found in political speeches, it is found on the signs held by and slogans shouted by thousands of Tea Party ‘Patriots.’ They call for any number of congressional leaders, or even the president, to be charged with the high crime of treason. More disturbing time and time again they use small children to carry those signs. Teaching grade school boys and girls to cry out for the execution of the men and women that you and I have elected. In fairness decorum is not only lacking here but also with the thousands of Union protestors like those who stormed the Wisconsin Capital building causing over $270 million in damages.[5]

            Let us return though to our Marine. He is just that ‘our’ Marine, he is as of right now fighting on some foreign field of battlefield. Their I feel we can be sure amongst the violence of war decorum is at most times meaningless. It should not be here. So let me take a strike at the issue at question, the one that those candidates where unable conjure the necessary composure to respond to from amongst their talking points. In Greece outside the city Thebes stands a stone lion. The lion is a monument to the 300 men of the lead division of the Thebes’ army, who in the Battle of Chaeronea 338 BC fought to the death defending their homeland. Every one of them fought and died with his male lover at his side. And when Philip the II of Macedonia and his son Alexander the Great ventured across that dissolute battlefield they found the bodies of those 300 men heaped upon one another. Philip was so moved by their courage that he erected that monument in the honor of those men who had but moments before been his enemy.

            If decorum is no longer held sacred, and treason is to be found in the actions of all men then I will keep my own words of outrage to myself. Instead I direct those in the audience and the candidates on that stage to words of King Philip II,

‘Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly.’

Hopefully, this to in itself, will not be too much a breech of decorum…

Cheers

---

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decorum

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorum

[3] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-09-26/news/bs-ed-dont-ask-letter-20110923_1_gop-debate-gop-nomination-gays

[4] Art. 5 Sect. 36

[5] http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/13/wisconsin-capitol-repair-costs/

Oil, Politics, and Planting Trees

Today, September 26^th, Wangari Maathai died of cancer. Who she was may be a mystery to many Americans. What she did though may stand as the answer too many of the problems we face today. Another thing happened today, something that was most likely noticed by a much larger number of Americans, the price of gasoline fell to a national average $3.54. That is a drop of 12 cents in a matter of two weeks.[1] What caused the drop? Increased domestic production combined with new oil reserves in Canada have North America poised to out pace Saudi and even possibly Russian reserves. In the process the White house and the EPA have pushed back against the coal industry while simultaneously opening the door to whole new series of environmental questions which have come to the forefront with the approval of a new oil pipeline stretching 1,700 miles from Alberta to Texas.

What the president has done is made a painfully difficult choice in the face of a looming economic recession; One that comes with a certain amount of environmental blowback, but also a great number of economic opportunities. Many have protested the pipeline, including NASA scientists, creating the illusion that stopping its construction would some how limit America’s consumption of Oil. Once again individuals from both sides of the political divide are holding the government responsible for a problem created not by government but by individuals.

This is where Maathai comes in. Maathai was the first African women to win the Nobel peace prize. She was award the prize for the simple act of planting a tree. Well that and leading millions of impoverished women across Africa and the world in planting over 20 million trees.[2] The tree became for her an act of democratic defiance. In planting trees women provided them selves with a renewable resource that stopped the spread of desertification, provide clean water, firewood, and through Maathai’s foundation a form of much needed household income. Many said she was just planting trees. But when 20 million people plant a tree the world can find it self-turning in a whole new direction.

In my part of the world we have witnessed the rise of a new conservative movement, the tea party. A group of individuals who are calling for the dismantling of large portions of the federal government in order to reduce federal deficits and free Americans from the burden of federal taxation. They call for an end to government ‘handouts’ such as welfare and food stamps. According to the White House budget calculator[3] eliminating food stamps would save me $19.08, it would also lead to malnutrition and the reemergence of diseases mostly unseen since the 20’s. What’s the hidden cost to society? I would suspect much higher then the savings, and the same could be said of many other programs from the $11.66 I could save on housing assistance or the  $4.24 that I could keep if only we eliminated federal aid to students. Getting rid of that might even have saved you from having to read this blog.

What would Maathai have suggested in the face of such crippling problems such as the deficit and job loss her in America? Perhaps she would tell us to planet a tree. Then maybe drive a little less. Buy a smaller car. Volunteer. What ever she might recommend she would tell us to act as individuals. Not blame is a mostly unobtrusive government for problems that are caused by the overconsumption of individuals.

Some how the tea party, conservative pundits, network news hosts, and many a blogger have drawn a mysterious link between government spending an the end of the world. In the view presented to most Americans raising government debt and a growing federal government are leading the world to some apocalyptic end. They come to this conclusion completely outside the context of History. Take for example Joshua S. Goldstein’s article on Salon.com.[4] At the beginning of 1900’s through WWI and II we say tens of millions die in wars that destroyed whole continents. Then with the cold war regional conflicts and the impending fear of atomic Armageddon brought about the deaths of millions. And:

Now, in the early twenty-first century, the worst wars, such as those in Iraq and Sudan, kill hundreds of thousands. We fear terrorist attacks that could destroy a city, but not life on the planet. The fatalities still represent a large number and the impacts of wars are still catastrophic for those caught in them, but overall, war has diminished dramatically.

This is the actual trend; less people are dying, in fewer wars. But because of whatever number of factors you wish to list, from the 24-hour news cycle to the hyperbole of right or left wing political factions, most people live in a constant state of fear. Maathai would tell them to take a deep breath and go plant a tree. I would tell them to remember Eisenhower.

            Eisenhower was the great Republican president who warned us about the growth of the Military-Industrial complex. The tea party and its congressional representatives who wish to cut all forms of government spending short of defense would do well to remember his words…

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that came with this spring of 1953.

What comes with the fall of 2011? No matter what jobs bill congress passes. No matter how large the deficit becomes. No matter how scared the average American may be. Change will continue to sweep the Middle East. Companies will continue to mine coal and refine oil. Corporation will hire more or less workers. And politicians will continue to do whatever it is they do. But individuals like you and I will be faced with a choice. The same one Wangari Maathai was faced with. Whether to stay in our homes entrenched in our own ethnic and ideological fears of what lies outside, or step out into the world and plant a tree.

Maybe we won’t all plant trees. Maybe some of us will just go to work or keep searching for that new job. Maybe you’ll volunteer. Maybe you’ll eat junk food and watch TV. Maybe you’ll create the next great must have Christmas gift. Play music or get drunk. Whatever it is you do, from voting to buying a new car, it will have greater effect on the world then all the screaming and chest beating the tea party or any political movement could ever have. And for that looming deficit that’s going to crush the average American, last year it only cost me $39.22. So I say lets do as Eisenhower and build a few new roads. Trade in a couple old guns in for a few new schools. And turn away from the politics of finger pointing and towards the actions of individuals. Let’s go plant a tree with Maathai. And maybe we’ll all get a Nobel Prize like hers and the President’s

---

[1] http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/26/business-us-gas-prices-california_8700563.html

[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=140796053

[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes/tax-receipt

[4] http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/09/17/winning_war_on_war_excerpt/index.html