No one with an ounce of human decency could fail to be heartbroken at the tragic massacre on campus at Virginia Tech last week. A deeply disturbed, indeed deranged, student, a South Korean resident alien named Cho Seung-Hui, killed 32 students and professors before turning his gun on himself, making this the largest mass shooting in American history.
Students and professors alike demonstrated true courage and even heroism, blocking the murderer with closed doors, piled-up desks, and sometimes even their own bodies. The first victim was a freshman girl, the second her RA (Resident Assistant), who tried to come to her aid. A 76-year-old engineering professor and Holocaust survivor, Liviu Librescu, was killed holding his classroom door closed so that his students could escape.
In the midst of this tragedy and heroism, it is all the more saddening, although predictable, that elements of the gun-ban lobby, in the media and elsewhere, would try to use this horrific event to bolster their agenda. But then, many of the same people attempted to do the same thing after 9/11, in which no firearms were even used. Ideology bows to neither human tragedy nor reason, apparently.
Far from being a showpiece for what is euphemistically called gun "control," this incident clearly demonstrates the futility of expecting laws to stop criminals, who by their very nature transgress laws. Guns are banned on college and university campuses -- but that did not keep Cho from bringing his onto the campus at Virginia Tech. Granted, a person with his psychological profile ought to have been barred from purchasing a firearm. Somebody dropped the ball, somewhere.
Still, I recall thinking sadly, as I received news of this incident, "oh no, guns are prohibited on campus: those students were defenseless, no way to fight back." At least some VT students felt the same: one member of the campus shooting club, interviewed by ABC's Good Morning America, expressed frustration that if concealed carry of a handgun were allowed on campus, he or someone else might have been able to stop the shooter before he'd killed so many.
I am reminded of the woman, some years ago, who watched her mother gunned down in a fast-food restaurant, unable to intervene because she had left her handgun legally locked in her car in the parking lot. Or again, of the high school vice principal who retrieved his handgun from his car parked legally off-campus and was, in fact, able to subdue a shooter who was rampaging through his school.
In fact, as Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt accurately points out, according to UPI, "all the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last 10 years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen -- a potential victim -- had a gun." Yet the gun-ban crowd would like to further restrict legal access to firearms. This makes no sense at all.
I cannot emphasize this strongly enough: criminals may be crazed, they may be deranged, but they are not stupid. They are far more likely to pick "soft" targets, places where they know no one is going to be shooting back at them, for their rampages. Would not knowing whether a given victim or bystander would be able to return fire absolutely dissuade all violent crime, all the time? No, of course not. Would it help the situation? I believe it would, and there are statistics to back up this view: see John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime."
More productive is trying to figure out why so many signals were missed in the case of Cho: an individual who had twice been accused of stalking, who had been examined and found to be mentally unstable, who had frightened classmates and professors alike with his graphically violent and twisted poetry and plays, who was so distant and sullen his tutor said that attempting to communicate with him "was almost like talking to a hole,” according to an AP report. Yet neither the university administration nor law enforcement authorities proved willing or able to step in and prevent the tragedy.
As a hunting safety instructor, and a certified range officer, I will proudly admit my bias: that ordinary, law-abiding citizens clearly have the Constitutional right, and ought to have the means, to protect themselves from deranged, murderous psychopaths like Cho. If this incident at Virginia Tech makes one thing clear, it is that citizens who count only on the authorities to protect them are in for a grievous, and perhaps lethal, disappointment.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
More pithy commentary from Jim Kunstler
James Howard Kunstler, author of several books including The Long Emergency (reviewed below) generally has things to say and is not too afraid to say them. But smart people might do well to listen when he does, because behind the colorful language and ascerbic attitude lurks a guy who would genuinely like us to stop being stupid and engage the problems we're facing with open eyes.
Case in point: "Blowing Green Smoke," his response to well-known columnist Tom Friedman's upbeat and (perhaps excessively) optimistic April 16th article in the New York Times. I think both authors make some good points, and as usual I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. I want to see the world the way Friedman does... but I fear that over the medium-to-long term, Kunstler's is the more realistic view. That's decidedly unnerving.
If you want more of Kunstler's take on matters, read his speech to the Second Vermont Republic assembly, in October 2005. Here's an excerpt:
Case in point: "Blowing Green Smoke," his response to well-known columnist Tom Friedman's upbeat and (perhaps excessively) optimistic April 16th article in the New York Times. I think both authors make some good points, and as usual I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. I want to see the world the way Friedman does... but I fear that over the medium-to-long term, Kunstler's is the more realistic view. That's decidedly unnerving.
If you want more of Kunstler's take on matters, read his speech to the Second Vermont Republic assembly, in October 2005. Here's an excerpt:
For much of our history, including the first half of the 20th century, we were a resourceful, adaptive, generous, brave, forward-looking people who believed in earnest effort, who occupied a beautiful landscape full of places worth caring about and worth defending.
Since then, lost in raptures of easy motoring, fried food, incessant infotainment, and desperate moneygrubbing, we became a nation of overfed clowns who believed that it was possible to get something for nothing, who ravaged the landscape in an orgy of wanton carelessness, who believed they were entitled to lives of everlasting comfort and convenience, no matter what, and expected the rest of the world to pay for it. We even elected a vice-president who declared that this American way of life was non-negotiable.
We now face the most serious challenge to our collective identity, economy, culture, and security since the Civil War. The end of the cheap fossil fuel era will change everything about how we live in this country. It will challenge all of our assumptions. It will compel us to do things differently - whether we like it or not.
Guess that about covers it...
Top 5 most influential books I've read recently
Here, for whatever interest may be contained, are five books which have strongly influenced -- and in some cases dramatically changed -- the way I view "life, the universe, and everything":
1) The Omnivore's Dilemma: A natural history of four meals, by Michael Pollan.
I list this first in part because I'm reading it currently, and partly because it goes into so much detail about what's wrong with our current industrial food system -- with digressions into resource depletion, greenhouse gases, globalism, biofuels, and other related topics. The health of plants, animals, people, the land, and communities are all covered, and in an engaging and at times even gripping style. Pollan's book clearly illlustrates the ecological principle that "everything is connected to everything else." More than you ever wanted to know about what most Americans are eating these days, and even many of us who consider ourselves fairly aware are probably eating more often than we should... I certainly am. But I know a lot of things I'm not going to be eating, after reading this!
2) Real Food: What to eat and why, by Nina Planck.
Just a heckuva neat book by someone who sounds like a heckuva neat lady, and who is also a successful entrepreneur, in the area of farmers markets and local foods. As the subtitle puts it, this is about what you should eat and why you should eat it. Here's a sample, just to give a "flavor" of the book:
"Sobering" doesn't begin to describe this book. It's flat-out scary. Forget Stephen King, if you want to stay up all night in sheer terror, read Kunstler. But it's not a thriller, it's his insightful discussion of how the approach (if not current fact) of peak oil -- the point at which we are extracting as much oil as we will ever extract, world-wide -- and the subsequent decline in supply and increase in price, will change the way we live, forever. Everything about contemporary American society, from suburbia to surgical supplies, not to mention our food chain, is abjectly dependent upon cheap, plentiful fossil fuels. And that era is over, as what is left will become ever more difficult and expensive to extract, particularly since "much of it is located in countries whose people hate us," as Kunstler ruefully notes. The upshot? Expect significant contraction in all areas of American society, as local communities become not a choice, but a necessity. Want to know more? Read the book!
Note 1: If you absolutely don't have time to read the whole book (you don't have to read it all at once, ferpitysakes), at least read the article-length adaption published by Rolling Stone.
Note 2: I saw Kunstler and heard him speak at the 2007 PASA Conference in February; he is just as inspirational and motivational (in a kick-your-butt sort of way) in person as he is in print, but less curmudgeonly: he comes across as a genuinely decent guy who is genuinely concerned about the way our society seems determined to go. Sssh! Just don't tell him I said so. I think he likes his bad-boy image...
4) Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats, by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, Ph.D.
Sally Fallon is the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF, for short) and Mary Enig is a brilliant but iconoclastic lipids researcher from the University of Maryland. Together, they do a bang-up good job of explaining why most of what you thought you knew about diet and nutrition is completely incorrect... okay, that's too gentle: flat-out wrong. Following in the footsteps of dentist and peripatetic entho-nutritionist Weston A. Price, DDS, Fallon and Enig encourage us to adopt the dietary wisdom of traditional societies, cultures and communities where people regularly lived long, healthy, and productive lives eating whole, natural, and unprocessed foods -- including organ meats, full-fat (and raw) dairy, and other "healthy fats." Vegetables aren't left out of the equation, both in fresh and fermented forms, but Nourishing Traditions points out that there were no traditional vegan societies, and mostly-vegetarian ones invariably supplemented their diets with animal protein and fat in some form. This book is indeed food for thought and body alike.
5) The Untold Story of Milk, by Dr. Ron Schmidt, ND.
Ron Schmidt is a naturopathic doctor who cured himself of digestive and other ailments by adopting a diet rich in raw milk and other un-processed, un-pasteurized dairy products. That led him to an exploration of the history and culture of milk consumption, and especially the industrialization and mandatory pasteurization of our contemporary milk supply. Combining muck-raking journalism with a paean to holistic nutrition and small-scale, natural farming, Schmidt illustrates clearly why pasteurization is so essential in the mass-market commercial milk industry... and why raw milk and other dairy products are not only a viable alternative, when obtained from herds of healthy, grass-fed cows, but strongly supportive of -- perhaps even essential to -- good health.
I could go on and on about other books that have influenced my life, or at least my outlook on life -- and I may post another "top five" somewhere down the road. But these are not only interesting and well-written, but (I believe) timely and incredibly important. I strongly recommend you hie yourself to the local library or bookstore and obtain copies. And when you've read them, I look forward to any feedback or discussion thus generated!
Bonus Book:
If you've stuck with me this far, I may as well add a "bonus" that could just as easily be in the Top 5 in terms of influential -- the only reason I didn't put it there to start with was that it reaffirmed things I already believed rather than challenged or changed my outlook. But who knows? It might just change yours:
The Last Child in the Woods: Overcoming Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv.
This book makes a strong, well-researched, well-reasoned case for something that a lot of us have known intuitively and out of personal experience for a long time: that children need to be outside, playing and having what sociologists and educational researchers call "authentic personal experiences" in the natural world. As Louv puts it, "Healing the broken bond between our young and nature is in our self-interest, not only because aesthetics or justice demand it, but also because our mental, physical, and spiritual health depend upon it." Certainly the mental, physical, and spiritual health of children depends to a large measure, as this book makes abundantly clear, upon direct personal contact with nature during childhood. And that kind of positive child-nature contact may also be vital for nature, as the children of today will be the decision-makers of tomorrow. As G.M. Trevelyan wrote many years ago, "We are all children of the earth. Unelss our spirits can be refreshed by at least intermittent contact with nature, we grow awry." Likely much of the "growing awry" we see in many of today's children and youth can be traced by precisely to what Louv calls "nature-deficit disorder." Want to make a positive difference? Visit the Children & Nature Network to see what you can do.
1) The Omnivore's Dilemma: A natural history of four meals, by Michael Pollan.
I list this first in part because I'm reading it currently, and partly because it goes into so much detail about what's wrong with our current industrial food system -- with digressions into resource depletion, greenhouse gases, globalism, biofuels, and other related topics. The health of plants, animals, people, the land, and communities are all covered, and in an engaging and at times even gripping style. Pollan's book clearly illlustrates the ecological principle that "everything is connected to everything else." More than you ever wanted to know about what most Americans are eating these days, and even many of us who consider ourselves fairly aware are probably eating more often than we should... I certainly am. But I know a lot of things I'm not going to be eating, after reading this!
2) Real Food: What to eat and why, by Nina Planck.
Just a heckuva neat book by someone who sounds like a heckuva neat lady, and who is also a successful entrepreneur, in the area of farmers markets and local foods. As the subtitle puts it, this is about what you should eat and why you should eat it. Here's a sample, just to give a "flavor" of the book:
"Does that mean you should enjoy real bacon and butter not because they're tasty but because they're actually healthy? In a word, yes. Some might mock this as a characteristically American case for real food -- call it the Virtue Defense. [...] Someone else -- a French chef perhaps -- might take a different approach in defense of real food. Less interested in health, he might champion pleasure for its own sake. Great -- I'm all for pleasure. If the sheer sensual pleasure of eating shirred eggs or homemade ice cream is enough for you to shed your guilt, throw away phony industrial foods, and return to eating real foods, all the better. I'll leave the nature of taste and satisfaction, guilt and pleasure to the cultural critics and moral philosophers. This book is about why real food is good for you."3) The Long Emergency: Surviving the converging catastrophes of the 21st century, by James Howard Kunstler.
"Sobering" doesn't begin to describe this book. It's flat-out scary. Forget Stephen King, if you want to stay up all night in sheer terror, read Kunstler. But it's not a thriller, it's his insightful discussion of how the approach (if not current fact) of peak oil -- the point at which we are extracting as much oil as we will ever extract, world-wide -- and the subsequent decline in supply and increase in price, will change the way we live, forever. Everything about contemporary American society, from suburbia to surgical supplies, not to mention our food chain, is abjectly dependent upon cheap, plentiful fossil fuels. And that era is over, as what is left will become ever more difficult and expensive to extract, particularly since "much of it is located in countries whose people hate us," as Kunstler ruefully notes. The upshot? Expect significant contraction in all areas of American society, as local communities become not a choice, but a necessity. Want to know more? Read the book!
Note 1: If you absolutely don't have time to read the whole book (you don't have to read it all at once, ferpitysakes), at least read the article-length adaption published by Rolling Stone.
Note 2: I saw Kunstler and heard him speak at the 2007 PASA Conference in February; he is just as inspirational and motivational (in a kick-your-butt sort of way) in person as he is in print, but less curmudgeonly: he comes across as a genuinely decent guy who is genuinely concerned about the way our society seems determined to go. Sssh! Just don't tell him I said so. I think he likes his bad-boy image...
4) Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats, by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, Ph.D.
Sally Fallon is the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF, for short) and Mary Enig is a brilliant but iconoclastic lipids researcher from the University of Maryland. Together, they do a bang-up good job of explaining why most of what you thought you knew about diet and nutrition is completely incorrect... okay, that's too gentle: flat-out wrong. Following in the footsteps of dentist and peripatetic entho-nutritionist Weston A. Price, DDS, Fallon and Enig encourage us to adopt the dietary wisdom of traditional societies, cultures and communities where people regularly lived long, healthy, and productive lives eating whole, natural, and unprocessed foods -- including organ meats, full-fat (and raw) dairy, and other "healthy fats." Vegetables aren't left out of the equation, both in fresh and fermented forms, but Nourishing Traditions points out that there were no traditional vegan societies, and mostly-vegetarian ones invariably supplemented their diets with animal protein and fat in some form. This book is indeed food for thought and body alike.
5) The Untold Story of Milk, by Dr. Ron Schmidt, ND.
Ron Schmidt is a naturopathic doctor who cured himself of digestive and other ailments by adopting a diet rich in raw milk and other un-processed, un-pasteurized dairy products. That led him to an exploration of the history and culture of milk consumption, and especially the industrialization and mandatory pasteurization of our contemporary milk supply. Combining muck-raking journalism with a paean to holistic nutrition and small-scale, natural farming, Schmidt illustrates clearly why pasteurization is so essential in the mass-market commercial milk industry... and why raw milk and other dairy products are not only a viable alternative, when obtained from herds of healthy, grass-fed cows, but strongly supportive of -- perhaps even essential to -- good health.
I could go on and on about other books that have influenced my life, or at least my outlook on life -- and I may post another "top five" somewhere down the road. But these are not only interesting and well-written, but (I believe) timely and incredibly important. I strongly recommend you hie yourself to the local library or bookstore and obtain copies. And when you've read them, I look forward to any feedback or discussion thus generated!
Bonus Book:
If you've stuck with me this far, I may as well add a "bonus" that could just as easily be in the Top 5 in terms of influential -- the only reason I didn't put it there to start with was that it reaffirmed things I already believed rather than challenged or changed my outlook. But who knows? It might just change yours:
The Last Child in the Woods: Overcoming Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv.
This book makes a strong, well-researched, well-reasoned case for something that a lot of us have known intuitively and out of personal experience for a long time: that children need to be outside, playing and having what sociologists and educational researchers call "authentic personal experiences" in the natural world. As Louv puts it, "Healing the broken bond between our young and nature is in our self-interest, not only because aesthetics or justice demand it, but also because our mental, physical, and spiritual health depend upon it." Certainly the mental, physical, and spiritual health of children depends to a large measure, as this book makes abundantly clear, upon direct personal contact with nature during childhood. And that kind of positive child-nature contact may also be vital for nature, as the children of today will be the decision-makers of tomorrow. As G.M. Trevelyan wrote many years ago, "We are all children of the earth. Unelss our spirits can be refreshed by at least intermittent contact with nature, we grow awry." Likely much of the "growing awry" we see in many of today's children and youth can be traced by precisely to what Louv calls "nature-deficit disorder." Want to make a positive difference? Visit the Children & Nature Network to see what you can do.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Westminster City Council's "green" resolution falls short
A journey of a thousand miles, so goes the old saying, begins with a single step. However, I would add, someone who stops after that first step won't get far on the journey. The decision by the Westminster City Council to adopt a "Resolution on Climate Disrupting Pollution" may be viewed as an important first step in joining the battle against global climate change, but I hope it won't be the city of Westminister's last.
As a Times article on Monday, April 9th, pointed out, the Catoctin Chapter of the Sierra Club had asked the City Council to approve and sign the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. The agreement, already signed by some 400 municipalities nationwide, is a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012: the goal set in the much-maligned Kyoto Protocol. This is admittedly a challenge, but hardly an un-reachable one, as the number of cities signed on attests. Seven Maryland cities, including Sykesville and Baltimore, have already signed.
Instead, the Mayor and Council of Westminster decided to adopt what councilman Gregory Pecoraro described as "sort of a homegrown version of how we want to approach this."
As a general rule, I am all for homegrown, local approaches. However, there are times when local authorities need to band together to deal with problems and issues which are beyond what any of them can solve on their own, when the need for unified action transcends the importance of local autonomy. The crisis we as humans face due to global warming is one of those. Furthermore, the U.S. Mayors Agreement is not something being forced on us from above; it is a voluntary union of equals to accomplish something in our common interest.
Encouragingly, the same edition of the Times reported the formation in Mount Airy of a new “green” organization dedicated to "raising awareness about global warming, rising energy costs and other environmental issues.” Sometimes citizens catch on quicker than their elected leaders.
And there's little excuse for ignorance or apathy. The scope and urgency of the problem has been clearly articulated and reinforced by a whole series of recent articles in the Times. On April 6th, an AP article headlined “Experts say natural wonders at risk from global warming” elucidated threats to “natural treasures” from Australia's Great Barrier Reef to the Amazon rainforests due to climate change. Some of the damage may already be irreversible.
An article on Easter Sunday focused on mountaineers and ice climbers worldwide who are firsthand witnesses to "vanishing glaciers, melting ice routes, crumbling rock formations, and flood-prone lakes" as a result of rising temperatures. A report from Bangkok, Thailand, on Wednesday the 11th stated that continued warming could result in food shortages for 130 million people across Asia by 2050 and cause potentially catastrophic problems in Africa. And we think we have immigration problems now.
Yet still some people refuse to either admit that there's a problem, or take ownership of humanity's part in it. It's easier to say, "oh, it's just natural fluctuations" -- despite indications that without human input, the earth would now be in a slight cool-down -- or complain that the costs would be prohibitive. Ironically, doing nothing will likely prove even more costly, in the long run.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is another group that gets it. According to a Capital News Service report, the Council passed a regional climate change initiative that will unite efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses in the National Capital Region. Maryland faces the largest impact from climate change in the region, according to the Council's Stuart Freudberg, due to the amount of Maryland's land adjoining the Chesapeake Bay.
So again, it is a good and important first step that Westminster's Mayor and City Council have passed a resolution to "work diligently to identify and implement such environmentally responsible practices as may be practical… with the goal of conserving energy and reducing the amount of global warming pollutants generated by City operations." But the Devil is in the details, and this provides few of them. In fact, "practical” provides copious wiggle room.
I hope -- and would strongly urge -- that the Council adopt the higher levels of focus, commitment, and accountability represented by the U.S. Mayors Protection Agreement. Doing so would not only provide specific goals and assistance in achieving them, but would send a signal that Westminster is proactive, forward-looking, and committed in facing one of the greatest challenges of the new century.
As a Times article on Monday, April 9th, pointed out, the Catoctin Chapter of the Sierra Club had asked the City Council to approve and sign the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. The agreement, already signed by some 400 municipalities nationwide, is a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012: the goal set in the much-maligned Kyoto Protocol. This is admittedly a challenge, but hardly an un-reachable one, as the number of cities signed on attests. Seven Maryland cities, including Sykesville and Baltimore, have already signed.
Instead, the Mayor and Council of Westminster decided to adopt what councilman Gregory Pecoraro described as "sort of a homegrown version of how we want to approach this."
As a general rule, I am all for homegrown, local approaches. However, there are times when local authorities need to band together to deal with problems and issues which are beyond what any of them can solve on their own, when the need for unified action transcends the importance of local autonomy. The crisis we as humans face due to global warming is one of those. Furthermore, the U.S. Mayors Agreement is not something being forced on us from above; it is a voluntary union of equals to accomplish something in our common interest.
Encouragingly, the same edition of the Times reported the formation in Mount Airy of a new “green” organization dedicated to "raising awareness about global warming, rising energy costs and other environmental issues.” Sometimes citizens catch on quicker than their elected leaders.
And there's little excuse for ignorance or apathy. The scope and urgency of the problem has been clearly articulated and reinforced by a whole series of recent articles in the Times. On April 6th, an AP article headlined “Experts say natural wonders at risk from global warming” elucidated threats to “natural treasures” from Australia's Great Barrier Reef to the Amazon rainforests due to climate change. Some of the damage may already be irreversible.
An article on Easter Sunday focused on mountaineers and ice climbers worldwide who are firsthand witnesses to "vanishing glaciers, melting ice routes, crumbling rock formations, and flood-prone lakes" as a result of rising temperatures. A report from Bangkok, Thailand, on Wednesday the 11th stated that continued warming could result in food shortages for 130 million people across Asia by 2050 and cause potentially catastrophic problems in Africa. And we think we have immigration problems now.
Yet still some people refuse to either admit that there's a problem, or take ownership of humanity's part in it. It's easier to say, "oh, it's just natural fluctuations" -- despite indications that without human input, the earth would now be in a slight cool-down -- or complain that the costs would be prohibitive. Ironically, doing nothing will likely prove even more costly, in the long run.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is another group that gets it. According to a Capital News Service report, the Council passed a regional climate change initiative that will unite efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses in the National Capital Region. Maryland faces the largest impact from climate change in the region, according to the Council's Stuart Freudberg, due to the amount of Maryland's land adjoining the Chesapeake Bay.
So again, it is a good and important first step that Westminster's Mayor and City Council have passed a resolution to "work diligently to identify and implement such environmentally responsible practices as may be practical… with the goal of conserving energy and reducing the amount of global warming pollutants generated by City operations." But the Devil is in the details, and this provides few of them. In fact, "practical” provides copious wiggle room.
I hope -- and would strongly urge -- that the Council adopt the higher levels of focus, commitment, and accountability represented by the U.S. Mayors Protection Agreement. Doing so would not only provide specific goals and assistance in achieving them, but would send a signal that Westminster is proactive, forward-looking, and committed in facing one of the greatest challenges of the new century.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The greening of Maryland
Spring is the season of green growing things. And this year, in Maryland, spring seems also to be the season for growing "green" initiatives.
Even as the earth greens up with the coming of spring, so the State House in Annapolis is "greening up" with the combination of an ecologically-friendly Governor with an ecologically-friendly General Assembly. As a recent front-page article in the Washington Post put it, in Maryland this year "it's suddenly very, very easy being green." For those of us who love the earth and care about its welfare, that is good news indeed.
The article delineates a string of eco-friendly initiatives either passed by the Assembly or proposed by the current Governor, former Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley. Former Governor Bob Ehrlich was more of a conservationist than he often got credit for, but certainly the election of a new governor is a contributor to this greening of the Maryland legislative process. So is the election of Attorney General Doug Gansler, who campaigned heavily on green issues. But, the article points out, there are other factors involved which transcend partisan politics.
One is concern over global warming, popularized by former Vice-President Al Gore's award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Inconvenient or not, the idea that not only is the earth warming, but that human activity contributes dramatically to that warming, has captured the imagination and awakened the concern of many in state government and the electorate alike.
The article notes that the Global Warming Solutions bill, which would reduce Maryland's emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020, has been criticized by the Chamber of Commerce, "which says Maryland businesses shouldn't bear the burden for a global problem." The problem with that idea is that if everyone says they shouldn't have to bear the burden, no one ends up bearing the burden. Global warming is a common problem, it was created collectively, and it needs everyone working together toward a solution.
Closer to home, the deadline for cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay has been set for 2010, a goal which now appears impossible to meet. But the looming nature of that deadline has increased both awareness and urgency to do something about the Bay, and to do it sooner rather than later.
One important feature of this move is a new alliance between environmentalists, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and those traditionally seen as opponents of environmental clean-up, such as farmers and watermen. It is not quite correct that, as the article states, "environmentalists decided that cow manure, as bad as it is, is better than the oil, metals, fertilzer, and sewage that flow downstream after a farm becomes a suburb." While true, this statement doesn't tell the whole story.
I wrote an article on this subject for a magazine called Edible Chesapeake, and the reality is that most farmers are genuinely concerned about the land, and will do all they can to enact conservation measures -- as long as they can pay for them without cutting even further into their already tenuous bottom line. The external pressures on farmers -- low commodity prices, foreign competition, pressure from developers -- make it hard enough to keep on farming, and conservation measures only add to the cost. Since the public is largely responsible for these challenges, it makes sense for the public to help farmers meet them.
The new alliance between farmers, watermen, and environmentalists to clean up the Bay points to the biggest reality of the expanding green movement: common problems require common solutions. We all drink the water, we all breathe the air, we all rely on food from the earth. It will take all of us, working together, to make a dent in the host of significant environmental challenges we face in the 21st century.
If we can rise to these challenges with the same level of ingenuity, innovation, and determination we brought to facing the political and military challenges of the 20th century, we could be in the beginning years of a century filled with promise and accomplishment. If we fail, we'll have a rough row to hoe, moving into the third millennium. The choice is ours - but Maryland, it seems, is off to a good start. Let's keep up the momentum.
Even as the earth greens up with the coming of spring, so the State House in Annapolis is "greening up" with the combination of an ecologically-friendly Governor with an ecologically-friendly General Assembly. As a recent front-page article in the Washington Post put it, in Maryland this year "it's suddenly very, very easy being green." For those of us who love the earth and care about its welfare, that is good news indeed.
The article delineates a string of eco-friendly initiatives either passed by the Assembly or proposed by the current Governor, former Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley. Former Governor Bob Ehrlich was more of a conservationist than he often got credit for, but certainly the election of a new governor is a contributor to this greening of the Maryland legislative process. So is the election of Attorney General Doug Gansler, who campaigned heavily on green issues. But, the article points out, there are other factors involved which transcend partisan politics.
One is concern over global warming, popularized by former Vice-President Al Gore's award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Inconvenient or not, the idea that not only is the earth warming, but that human activity contributes dramatically to that warming, has captured the imagination and awakened the concern of many in state government and the electorate alike.
The article notes that the Global Warming Solutions bill, which would reduce Maryland's emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020, has been criticized by the Chamber of Commerce, "which says Maryland businesses shouldn't bear the burden for a global problem." The problem with that idea is that if everyone says they shouldn't have to bear the burden, no one ends up bearing the burden. Global warming is a common problem, it was created collectively, and it needs everyone working together toward a solution.
Closer to home, the deadline for cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay has been set for 2010, a goal which now appears impossible to meet. But the looming nature of that deadline has increased both awareness and urgency to do something about the Bay, and to do it sooner rather than later.
One important feature of this move is a new alliance between environmentalists, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and those traditionally seen as opponents of environmental clean-up, such as farmers and watermen. It is not quite correct that, as the article states, "environmentalists decided that cow manure, as bad as it is, is better than the oil, metals, fertilzer, and sewage that flow downstream after a farm becomes a suburb." While true, this statement doesn't tell the whole story.
I wrote an article on this subject for a magazine called Edible Chesapeake, and the reality is that most farmers are genuinely concerned about the land, and will do all they can to enact conservation measures -- as long as they can pay for them without cutting even further into their already tenuous bottom line. The external pressures on farmers -- low commodity prices, foreign competition, pressure from developers -- make it hard enough to keep on farming, and conservation measures only add to the cost. Since the public is largely responsible for these challenges, it makes sense for the public to help farmers meet them.
The new alliance between farmers, watermen, and environmentalists to clean up the Bay points to the biggest reality of the expanding green movement: common problems require common solutions. We all drink the water, we all breathe the air, we all rely on food from the earth. It will take all of us, working together, to make a dent in the host of significant environmental challenges we face in the 21st century.
If we can rise to these challenges with the same level of ingenuity, innovation, and determination we brought to facing the political and military challenges of the 20th century, we could be in the beginning years of a century filled with promise and accomplishment. If we fail, we'll have a rough row to hoe, moving into the third millennium. The choice is ours - but Maryland, it seems, is off to a good start. Let's keep up the momentum.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
"War to end all wars" still resonates
"Over there! Over there! Send the word, send the word, over there! That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming, the drums rum-tumming everywhere -- over there!"
Corny, perhaps, to our jaded modern ears, but those were stirring words to the people of both America and Europe in 1917, when the American Expeditionary Force under General "Black Jack" Pershing landed in France. Brought willy-nilly into World War One by the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat, the United States for the first time intervened in a European conflict.
The isolationism which had sidelined us during the first three years of the war had been overwhelmed by the deaths of American at the hands -- or torpedoes -- of the villainous "Huns." In the wash of patriotism that followed, our intervention was seen as a direct repayment for French assistance in winning our own independence from Britain, less than a century and a half earlier. As General Pershing stepped ashore and saluted the French Field Marshall who greeted him, his words were, "Lafayette, we have returned!"
My paternal grandfather was among those Yanks, the famous "Doughboys" with their khaki uniforms and flat helmets, who fought Kaiser Wilhelm's troops to a standstill and then slowly but steadily pushed back their line until the Armistice on November 11, 1918. Like many, he did not escape unscathed: a mortar shell, exploding near him, broke his leg in fourteen places and flung it up over his shoulder.
Amazingly for the time period, he did not lose the leg, although it healed an inch-and-a-half shorter than the other one. My father tells that, as he grew older and taller, he'd tease his father that he was getting taller than he was. In response, "Pop" Harbold would rock up onto his longer leg, fix his son with a mock glare, and growl, "Not yet, you're not."
What has put me in mind of "the Great War," as it was called -- the "war to end all wars," that signally failed in that ambition? The fact that this Friday, April 6, marks the 90th anniversary of our entry into that war. An article in USA Today, entitled "One of the last: WWI vet recalls the Great War," profiles Frank Buckles, now the ripe old age of 106. He is one of only four surviving members of the 4,734,991 Americans that served in World War One: less than one in a million now surviving.
The articles points out that that although the days of trench warfare and biplane dogfights are long gone, "the first industrialized war set the stage for all that came after. It marked the emergence of the United States as a superpower." Furthermore, the article states, the war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ethnic cleansing, weapons of mass destruction -- the terrible chemical weapons that killed or maimed so many during WWI -- as well as globalization, U.S. foreign policy, and even women's rights and controversy over the treatment of surviving veterans, all have roots in World War I.
"If you want to understand the world of today," the article quotes Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, "you need to go all the way back to 1914." Yet World War One is largely a forgotten war, today. Veterans of World War Two, including my father, have justly received accolades as member of "the Greatest Generation," that stood against first Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, then fought the long Cold War against the Soviets. Even the veterans of Korea have received recognition.
Ironically, however, echoes of the now little-known WWI continue to resonate in today's world. While the conclusion of World War Two eventually knit the continent of Europe together, and made Japan a staunch ally, the victorious Allies in the First World War not only humiliated Germany into spawning the Nazis, but carved up the former Ottoman Empire into arbitrary nation-states which Yale historian Jay Winter is quoted as saying were "usually made in an afternoon after tea without much thought to ethnic balance or viability of these countries."
These capricious borders, as the article points out, remain to this day, and control the lives of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, and rival ethnic groups in Lebanon. The establishment of Israel can also be linked to the post-WWI Balfour Declaration. "Most of our headaches in the Middle East today are a hangover from the great military binge of 1914-18," notes Ferguson.
An ironic legacy indeed, for the war to end all wars.
Note: A reader wrote to me, after this was published, stating that
Corny, perhaps, to our jaded modern ears, but those were stirring words to the people of both America and Europe in 1917, when the American Expeditionary Force under General "Black Jack" Pershing landed in France. Brought willy-nilly into World War One by the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat, the United States for the first time intervened in a European conflict.
The isolationism which had sidelined us during the first three years of the war had been overwhelmed by the deaths of American at the hands -- or torpedoes -- of the villainous "Huns." In the wash of patriotism that followed, our intervention was seen as a direct repayment for French assistance in winning our own independence from Britain, less than a century and a half earlier. As General Pershing stepped ashore and saluted the French Field Marshall who greeted him, his words were, "Lafayette, we have returned!"
My paternal grandfather was among those Yanks, the famous "Doughboys" with their khaki uniforms and flat helmets, who fought Kaiser Wilhelm's troops to a standstill and then slowly but steadily pushed back their line until the Armistice on November 11, 1918. Like many, he did not escape unscathed: a mortar shell, exploding near him, broke his leg in fourteen places and flung it up over his shoulder.
Amazingly for the time period, he did not lose the leg, although it healed an inch-and-a-half shorter than the other one. My father tells that, as he grew older and taller, he'd tease his father that he was getting taller than he was. In response, "Pop" Harbold would rock up onto his longer leg, fix his son with a mock glare, and growl, "Not yet, you're not."
What has put me in mind of "the Great War," as it was called -- the "war to end all wars," that signally failed in that ambition? The fact that this Friday, April 6, marks the 90th anniversary of our entry into that war. An article in USA Today, entitled "One of the last: WWI vet recalls the Great War," profiles Frank Buckles, now the ripe old age of 106. He is one of only four surviving members of the 4,734,991 Americans that served in World War One: less than one in a million now surviving.
The articles points out that that although the days of trench warfare and biplane dogfights are long gone, "the first industrialized war set the stage for all that came after. It marked the emergence of the United States as a superpower." Furthermore, the article states, the war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ethnic cleansing, weapons of mass destruction -- the terrible chemical weapons that killed or maimed so many during WWI -- as well as globalization, U.S. foreign policy, and even women's rights and controversy over the treatment of surviving veterans, all have roots in World War I.
"If you want to understand the world of today," the article quotes Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, "you need to go all the way back to 1914." Yet World War One is largely a forgotten war, today. Veterans of World War Two, including my father, have justly received accolades as member of "the Greatest Generation," that stood against first Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, then fought the long Cold War against the Soviets. Even the veterans of Korea have received recognition.
Ironically, however, echoes of the now little-known WWI continue to resonate in today's world. While the conclusion of World War Two eventually knit the continent of Europe together, and made Japan a staunch ally, the victorious Allies in the First World War not only humiliated Germany into spawning the Nazis, but carved up the former Ottoman Empire into arbitrary nation-states which Yale historian Jay Winter is quoted as saying were "usually made in an afternoon after tea without much thought to ethnic balance or viability of these countries."
These capricious borders, as the article points out, remain to this day, and control the lives of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, and rival ethnic groups in Lebanon. The establishment of Israel can also be linked to the post-WWI Balfour Declaration. "Most of our headaches in the Middle East today are a hangover from the great military binge of 1914-18," notes Ferguson.
An ironic legacy indeed, for the war to end all wars.
Note: A reader wrote to me, after this was published, stating that
"I can find no reference to Gen. Pershing saying, "Lafayette, we have returned." I can find reference to, "Lafayette, we are here," being said at the grave of Marquis Lafayette."He did not indicate who said it. I accept the correction as given, since I was operating from memory in that instance (not personal memory, of course, memory of something I'd read). The point remains the same, in either case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)