It's time for a US Societal Re-education Campaign
Woke up this morning thinking what can we do to really have a chance of continuing life on this planet in the face of global warming. And my mind went to a week-long mandatory class that every man, woman and child would be required to take, perhaps on a yearly basis. I seem to remember there is some historical precedent for this, and perhaps it was not a positive one(s) - Chinese re-educating the masses or Pol Pot, or Hitler, but perhaps it's time to change the paradigm and or, change the title - instead of re-education call it, saving our asses. Anyway,
Day 1 - global warming, what's it about and that the threat is real. Outline of the week. The various causes of global warming, population growth - what we can do to reduce our numbers - smaller families good, sex education good, easier access to contraception, why we just got rid of abstinence only education in schools and replaced it with medically-accurate comprehensive sex education. Population connection with species loss - pollution, increase in carbon emissions, need for more energy production.
Day 2 - growing our own food and taking good care of ourselves. How to eat as healthily as possible so that our lives go well. Eating organic. Eating more vegetables, and why that's important. A section on exercise. A section on diet - moving past junk foods, getting off wheat, sugar and dairy, soy - and how changing your diet can lead to having more energy. How making these changes is also going to mean changing how the US Food system works - getting ourselves off of corn - learning how US subsidies of corn, soybeans and wheat have affected what we're being served. Why buying locally makes sense. Info about transportation costs. How to class on - growing your own food - how and where to plant what fruit trees. This could be a week on its own, obviously. Purchasing lessons, cooking lessons, canning and preserving lessons.
Day 3 - Getting out of consumption mode. What is capitalism? Does it still serve us or does it drive us towards behavior that increases global warming. Alternative ways of living - living with what you need, recycling, REDUCING, the concept of Buy Nothing Day - where it came about. Something on how we are addicted to stuff and how much better would be for ourselves and our planet if we could change that cycle. Freecycle. Learning how to share resources. There will need to be a class or a movement on corporate responsibility - corporate change - I don't see the country really moving forward to combat global warming without a huge shift in what our largest businesses do/practice. Perhaps there is a special week for CEOs....
Day 4 - how to get places without using a car. This may be forced on us before we know it, but if not, learning how to use the bus, mass transit, MAX, whatever systems to get around. Bicycle riding classes, repair of bicycles. Learning the ins and outs of hitchhiking - taking vacations at home. How to move yourself from one place to another creatively.
Day 5 - Personal Growth/Societal change - how about a class on living abundantly? People skills - how to live and play well with others. How to grow community. Do people who have a strong community need as much stuff, probably not. How to take care of yourself, emotionally. How to build yourself into a strong leader. How to overcome childhood issues, how to have a great romantic relationship, how to heal and how to thrive.
Bonus Day: how to pass this information on to others - teaching teachers. A class for those who'd like to lead in this work.
It's my sense that our government is not going to take the lead on righting things. The US has 4% of the world's population yet uses 25% of the resources and produces 25% of the CO2. That's just a good way to get ourselves ostracized by the rest of the world, or bombed to pieces at some point. For those that wish for a different future, I'm thinking a weeklong re-education campaign might be a great start. Yes, this list needs to some fine-tuning, and I'm open to suggestion and collaboration.
Btw, to those who still haven't heard, I decided a while back not to run for the State Rep. position in HD 42.
1 week of continuing education to get the planet back on track. 
Thoughts?
|
November 25, 2007 |
Albert Kaufman | Comments (175 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: BrianM | Nov 25, 2007 11:20:02 AM
Oops, hit "post" too quick. Another thought would be a day going over what the Constitution is all about, what the branches of government are for and what their powers are (and are not), what church/state separation means and how it protects both government and religious practice, how bills become laws and how the House and Senate works, how Congressional districts are formed, how (and for what reason) to amend the Constitution... Y'know, a class in civics, since I see so much ignorance (and apathy) towards these topics in non-political-blog-land.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 25, 2007 12:05:21 PM
Great to hear that you won't be running for office, although I frankly don't look forward rounding up the ignorant for internment in reeducation camps, where they will hear your lecture series on the evils of grain consumption and internal combution.
Posted by: Frank Carper | Nov 25, 2007 1:11:47 PM
Albert, I would encourage you to focus on what you have absolute control over: your own behavior and choices. Also, I'd encourage you to share with your friends, family, ect. what you're doing to be part of a solution. I'd encourage you to continue to let your voice be heard with elected officials.
But I gotta tell ya, your verbiage above is going to scare the living hell out of folks. And unnecessarily so. Re-education campaign? Seriously? This piece reads like a caricture of an environmentalist by ExxonMobile. Why not put a little more thought into what you write if the purpose is truly public persuasion.
Posted by: Oregonian37 | Nov 25, 2007 3:00:37 PM
It seems to me that one of the points of this article is to simply get feedback on the ideas and to spark conversation. Considering that Albert starts out with "woke up this morning" I wouldn't expect this to be a fully fleshed-out and vetted piece of writing. The ideas themselves, I find highly interesting, and the type of things that we need to be discussing, in general.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 25, 2007 3:47:10 PM
Editor's note: Albert is no longer running for the Oregon House of Representatives, so we've restored his posting privileges here at BlueOregon.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 25, 2007 4:16:20 PM
MANDATORY indoctination training?
Welkome home komrade......
Posted by: Harry | Nov 25, 2007 6:33:52 PM
Re-education classes? Mandatory civics classes? Not a bad idea. Brilliant, in fact!
I remember when...
...I was in a Communist block country behind the Iron Curtain in the late 60s and early 70s, and they did have such classes in the local schools. One mandatory class was on how to put on gas masks and throw simulated grenades (purportedly against the evil USA) when the cold war became a hot war. Us kids (both the locals and my American siblings) enjoyed the class tremendously. But the teacher did not like it when we (the Americans) threw our mock grenades farther than the local kids. She obviously could figure out that the locals only played soccer (no arms involved) whereas the Americans grew up playing baseball and football.
Like I said, not a bad idea. In fact its Brilliant! But I think there might be a fight over the content and the teachers. I suspect some might want Al Gore teaching about Global Warming, and other would prefer George Taylor.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 25, 2007 7:32:18 PM
How about keeping it simple by encouraging adults to learn and adopt ethical principles and making ethics a mandatory course in middle school, high school and college?
Posted by: Cathy | Nov 25, 2007 8:48:19 PM
With all due respect Albert, when you earn the right to be King, then you
can impose your personal narrow perspective on other people.
Until then, millions of people are stuggling to survive and need
help on their terms, not yours,
without being recruited and indoctrinated into your own political beliefs.
Don't claim to be helping people, Albert, when you pretty much say
"For one entire week, I'd like the entire country to do what I say.
That would be great!"
To help others you have to ask them how they are, what they are going through
and dealing with, and find out what they are most needing in their own lives.
You're not even asking individuals what they need to survive the next three
months of their struggles! That information has to come from people, not you.
Then, regardless of your political beliefs, put your own self-centered
holy gratifications aside, and help them on their path, not yours.
Since you're not interested in asking people what they are actually
going through, we won't tell you.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Nov 25, 2007 10:27:33 PM
Yes, well, the problem is that when the decision is made to institute such an educational process, the program will be determined by whoever has influence with the government. Given the current balance of influence on the US government, none of your ideas are likely to make the cut. Instead we might study how to identify and report potential terrorists, followed by intensive instruction of the power of free markets to spread democracy.
It'd difficult for government to lead the way in solving a problem when government is captive to interests who profit from the existence of that problem.
First we need to tackle the problem of undue influence on government [and the media]. Then we have a real opportunity to deal with the other problems. The alternative is to always play a game rigged against progressive change.
Posted by: Michael Zhom | Nov 25, 2007 10:30:23 PM
#1) The more you want to dominate others, the less support
you'll have from them.
#2) The more you ignore and disrespect other people, the more you'll
dance, oblivious and disconnected, right past them
and into a fuzzy, nice-feeling delirium that destroys their lives.
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 26, 2007 4:38:26 AM
Hi Albert,
Glad to see you have come clean with the real agenda of the progressives: To force others to live your idea of what is good for them and good for the earth. (can you explain how this is morally different from Bush trying to shove HIS religion down our throats?)
Further, I am appalled by the low level of condemnation of you ideas - must be that you are expressing the hidden dreams of the progressives on this forum.
I hope you realize that you are striving to join the long line of despots: Stalin; Hitler; Pol Pot; Mao; Castro who got millions of people killed. Is that really what you want? You know that it is the usual result of dictators, like you are dream of becoming.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 26, 2007 8:50:57 AM
and making ethics a mandatory course in middle school, high school and college?
Now this one I like Bill. I'd also add critical thinking to the mix. Reminds me of the old aphorism:
Teach a man what to think and he'll agree with you for a day. Teach a man how to think and he'll never agree with you again, but by God you'll get some useful mental exercise trying to keep up.
Or something like that..........
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 26, 2007 8:57:29 AM
Hi Albert,
Glad to see you have come clean with the real agenda of the progressives:
Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larsen, Ann Coulter and their ilk couldn't have said it better, but the fact is the individual desires of progressives are many and varied so it is nonsense to define one progressive's commentary as a manifesto for all.
Posted by: oc-mks | Nov 26, 2007 10:04:49 AM
I don't consider myself a harsh critic of journalism, but that was the WORST thing I have ever read.
Personally, I don't want to be talked into living like an animal. I don't want my BIG HAPPY family to be forced into living like animals. I don't want my only option at meal times to be to go graze in the fron yard. I don't want to be punished for being a consumer who contributes to other people's lives, incomes and jobs. I don't want to take the round-about bus routes. I don't want to ride a bike up my hill. I don't know what it means to "move myself from one place to another creatively." I play well with others as it is. My emotions and mentality are doing fine, thank you. I'm pretty sure if I NEEDED to be told how to have a good romantic relationship, I would have known that by now. "how to heal?" And a bonus day?! (am I supposed to be excited or something?)
I don't know... These environmental leaders seem very selective in the 'facts' they provide us with regarding the environment they are such experts about. Are they afraid we'll do some of our own thinking and figuring? Sorry, thinking comes natrual. (You guys like all things NATRUAL, right?)
This is sad, and this is scary.
Posted by: andy | Nov 26, 2007 10:13:14 AM
Great ideas Albert. I'd suggest you get connected with the Obama and Hillary campaign and pitch your idea to them. I'd love to see Hillary endorse this platform. I can just imagine how the country would respond to Hillary suggesting a week of re-education for everyone! What would we call it; "No Wrong Thinker Left Behind" maybe?
On a related note, could we nominate this thread for stupidest idea yet on BO for 2007?
Posted by: DanS | Nov 26, 2007 10:14:47 AM
Re-education?
Are you kidding me? I don't know who I'm more embarassed for: Albert for writing it or Kari for letting it stand on his blog.
From what I can tell Albert, there is only one thing you left off:
Day 6: Implant a cardio device into all Americans that may deliver an electronic charge right into the heart if a subject strays from the re-education program.
Posted by: jaybeat | Nov 26, 2007 10:21:54 AM
Good Grief, Charlie Brown!!
You people need to
A: Get a grip
B: Chill out
and
C: Pull your heads out of where they don't belong!
Look, it isn't very hard:
Climate change AND peak oil are REAL. People who don't prepare for them are in for a world of hurt. Many people who DO prepare for them are going to suffer, terribly, anyway.
Everything Albert suggests teaching is stuff we ALL NEED to know, for our survival and that of our children. To deny this is putting your heads in the sand, fiddling while Rome burns, etc.
Everything he suggests teaching is stuff that is not only NOT being taught now, but, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE messages are being taught to us, not one week a year, but 24/7, 365 days a year. Buy more, buy now, don't worry about how you'll pay for it. Consume, consume, consume. Drive more. Put Band-Aids on problems (hybrid Escalade, anyone?, health-care "reform") instead of real solutions. Look! Over there! Brittany!
You all jump to images of Nazis and the Khmer Rouge--instead, think about post-Sputnik US. Math, science and physical fitness education. Massive public investment in science and technology towards the achievement of a largely symbolic goal which spun off the entire technological revolution of the late 20th century.
Think Kennedy, not Castro.
I can't speak for Albert, but I would guess that's more what he had in mind.
As far as all you libertarian, look out for number one, I've got mine, and the rest of you can f*** yourselves types, stop trolling on a site "for progressive Oregonians" and realize that we are all in this together, and that we are all going to need to get (trade, barter, etc.) *everything* we need to survive within a, say 20 mile radius, within the next 20-50 years, unless we *seriously* change our ways and our priorities.
Jim, you wrote:
Glad to see you have come clean with the real agenda of the progressives: To force others to live your idea of what is good for them and good for the earth.
WRONG.
The "real" agenda of "the progressives" (silly, really, because we're not all in lock step--just look at BO!!!), in these areas is simple: government policies should promote the well being of people (the public interest) over the well being of corporations (private interests). Government policies should promote and ensure protection of the environment, including slowing and eventually reversing human-caused climate change, by, among many other things, encouraging non-automotive transportation, encouraging sustainable economic, development and energy policies. Government should discourage policies or activities that have a "get rich now, to hell with the consequences later" mindset. We are all in this together, and we will only survive the challenges of today and tomorrow if we work together for the common good. Kumbya, free love, etc.
I don't want to control you, your behavior, or your thoughts. But, if you're doing something that is going to f*** things up for me, my community and my environment (or those of my children), I'm going to have something to say about it. And if, through the democratic (small "d") process, I can get enough like-minded folks together to make it the law of the land, we might try make the worst such offenses against the law, just like we say you can't take a gun and shoot someone, we might say that you can't take a barrel of poison and dump it in the river. (Oh, I guess we already said that.) Or dump millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere if there are other ways of generating energy. Or whatever.
But, remember, it is the progressives who are fundamentally in favor of Democracy, of free speech, of the rule of law, and of personal freedom. It is the right-wing that favors rule by corporate elites, corporate -only speech, laws not applying to the rich and powerful, and personal freedoms only when they don't threaten to disrupt the status quo.
So, Albert, thank you for a well-intended post on things we all need to learn. Sorry so many wing-nuts had to get us all sidetracked from the real issues that you raised.
Posted by: Albert Kaufman | Nov 26, 2007 10:22:08 AM
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'm 46, by the way.
My hope is for a better society, and one that lives through global warming to the other side. Without doing anything, I'm afraid the next generations are going to fry, and life is going to be a lot less pleasant than it is today.
I agree that people need to be asked how their lives can be improved, and I also think there could be some leadership to get us through the crisis we're in now - it would be great if we were all on the same page about this, but sadly, corporate interests like Exxon-Mobil that stand to make billions have done what they can to cloud the waters and convince a lot of us that there is nothing to worry about.
So, OK, admittedly - re-education classes is probably not the right title. But if you had a week of government sponsored classes that might get you thinking differently about our next steps as consumers, people, humans - what would the classes be in?
Or, do we just take a lot of individual steps to stop pumping CO2 into the air? I don't see that working. I think something bigger needs to happen - which is why I wrote the post.
Thanks for your input,
Dictator, Albert :)
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 26, 2007 11:25:04 AM
And my mind went to a week-long mandatory class that every man, woman and child would be required to take, perhaps on a yearly basis.
Basically, "mandatory" is the only thing I have a problem with in Al's article. No matter how good any proposal may be it won't go very far in these dis-United States if it is forced on people. They have to be persuaded, and even there the chances of success will be very slim with many people. There will also be strong opposition from people who place their own contradictory interests ahead of the national interest. Otherwise, Al's points should be considered seriously.
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Nov 26, 2007 12:36:35 PM
I agree with the others who would like to see critical thinking taught in schools. That would take care of much of the problem.
What we're all really talking about is getting people to lead examined lives, instead of being oblivious to the consequences of their decisions.
While Albert's ideas expressed here will probably never be implemented, I think we're in the beginning stages now of building a social agreement on overconsumption. Some additional courses in schools on civics and critical thinking might help to kick-start that.
Posted by: Miles | Nov 26, 2007 1:47:15 PM
if you had a week of government sponsored classes that might get you thinking differently about our next steps as consumers, people, humans - what would the classes be in?
Actually, I would argue for 12 years of government sponsored classes. I would call it "public education." We obviously couldn't (and shouldn't) teach all the things you talk about above -- why can't I eat wheat again, the staple of civilized societies since societies became, well, civilized? -- but there's no reason the public schools can't teach ethics, critical thinking, environmental science, nutrition, sustainability, economics, etc. In fact, we already do.
But this only works if we have the best public education possible. Well-funded, efficient, accountable. No one should send their children to private school due to the low quality of public schools -- only because they want their children to get a specific religious education, or they want an alternative learning environment. Everyone else should have access to high-quality public education, and I think if we achieved this you would be surprised at the impact it would have on the problems you mention.
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 26, 2007 3:59:32 PM
Albert: My hope is for a better society, and one that lives through global warming to the other side. Without doing anything, I'm afraid the next generations are going to fry, and life is going to be a lot less pleasant than it is today.
JK: I wish we could just achieve a fact based government. For instanced:
* Only those who are illiterate about basic economics believe the world is running out of oil.
* To believe in global warming you have to ignore the fact that the best historical data we have (maintained at NASA by Al Gore advisor jim Hanson) does not show that 1998 was the warmest year - it is tied with 1934. Also most of the warmest years were not in the 1990s, they are scattered throughout the decades. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt
* Historically, antarctic ice core samples show CO2 has followed, not led temperature changes. realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
* The famous temperature chart that resembles a hockey stick is simply wrong. If fact it was probably a fraud. Wegman report, page 4 (http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf)
Albert: I agree that people need to be asked how their lives can be improved,
JK: Albert, you need to read the constitution and quit reading Marx. This is a free country, not the dictatorship that you dream of. Be careful, once you create the government power, the other side night get a hold of it.
Albert: But if you had a week of government sponsored classes that might get you thinking differently about our next steps as consumers, people, humans - what would the classes be in?
JK: You want classes how about these:
* How to identify Republican distortions of reality to further their agenda. Same for Democrats and environmental organizations.
* The world’s population is on track to shrink. Already some European countries are below replacement and the USA is growing only because on immigration. Soon the worry will be shrinking population.
* How to get large enough city lots to grow our own food and generate our own power - why we need to abandon the UGB and encourage one-five acre lots for everyone.
* How massive, directed from the government, societal changes have gotten many hundreds of million people killed. The list is long: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro.
* How you can spend $2 on gasolene to save $100 on food by driving 5 miles to Wallmart, Winco or Costco.
* How basic economics apply to the peak oil fallacy. In short, as the price goes up, people use less by getting more efficient cars etc. and supply goes up as it becomes economical to produce oil from tar sands, shale and coal. Of course the present high price is due to political, not supply shortages.
* How mass transit costs more than driving. How buses use more energy than small cars and even light rail uses more energy than hybrids. Cars are much cheaper than light rail, even if the price of gasolene goes around $10/gal.
* How the automobile has increased our standard of living and income.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 26, 2007 4:23:29 PM
Probably the biggest problem for educating (or re-educating) the masses is that people prefer to listen to sources that are most often ultimately detrimental to the interests of the nation and themselves; that is, advertisers encouraging them to be consumers instead of citizens and the slop producers in the various media - tabloids, ideological radio hosts and television anchors, and mindless television shows and movies. That is where bloggers can be of service by trying to counter the effects of the preceding accused Pied Pipers of decadence.
Posted by: Harry | Nov 26, 2007 9:51:30 PM
I agree with this statemente: "Bloggers can be of service to counter the effects of (mainstream media, etc)".
In fact, even with the onslaught of counter points in the comments, even this post has been beneficial.
Education is good. Competition in the educational arena is even better... comparing Marx with the competition is a good thing. Education around who Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Brezshnev, Gorby, et al were is also a good thing.
The reason the US public educational system is sub par compared to other countries in not a lack of money, but a lack of competition. More Education is a good thing, depending upon....
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 27, 2007 3:37:42 AM
JK: Let me ask a question:
How many Blue Oregon progressives think that the government should mandate a class that every man, woman and child would be required to take?
How many Blue Oregon progressives think that this is a bad idea?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jaybeat | Nov 27, 2007 8:23:58 AM
OK, Jim.
Tell me, why is it that you bother to spend time, here, "a place for progressive Oregonians"? Clearly, from the so-called "debunking Portland" site to everywhere else you show up on a quick Google search, you are not, by anyone's definition, a progressive. Is it that you like having people tell you, over and over, that you're full of it, or do you somehow delight in the fact that they will go to great efforts to do so, despite the fact that you are, clearly, never going to replace your muscle with brains? (Thank you, Gang of Four.)
So, I will try not to waste too much time on you:
Only those who are illiterate about basic economics believe the world is running out of oil.
So I guess that includes ExxonMobile, BP, and all the other oil companies, oil-consuming and producing nations, the UN, etc. Right.
To believe in global warming you have to... not turn a blind eye to the overwhelming scientific consensus that's been building for, I don't know, about 20 years or so. But, of course, you and your context-less factoids are smarter than all of the world's scientists, so we should just listen to you.
Why don't we teach creation "science" in public schools, while we're at it? Along with other fantasies like "how mass transit costs more than driving" (rebutted quite well here), how encouraging sprawl by removing the UGB will somehow preserve and encourage small farms, and your other right-wing delusions.
I'll tell you why. Because people don't want their kids taught LIES. So, Jim, please GO AWAY and preach to your wing-nut choir somewhere they are, because it sure isn't here.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 27, 2007 9:05:13 AM
How many Blue Oregon progressives think that the government should mandate a class that every man, woman and child would be required to take?
How many Blue Oregon progressives think that this is a bad idea?
How scientific or valid would responses to these questions be? If only one person responded with a claim to be a progressive and supported the idea of mandatory classes, others with dittohead mentalities would jump on that as evidence that all progressives want to adopt Stalinist or Maoist re-education camps.
Adios, JK
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 27, 2007 9:05:48 AM
How many Blue Oregon progressives think that the government should mandate a class that every man, woman and child would be required to take?
How many Blue Oregon progressives think that this is a bad idea?
How scientific or valid would responses to these questions be? If only one person responded with a claim to be a progressive and supported the idea of mandatory classes, others with dittohead mentalities would jump on that as evidence that all progressives want to adopt Stalinist or Maoist re-education camps.
Adios, JK
Posted by: Miles | Nov 27, 2007 9:12:58 AM
How many Blue Oregon progressives think that the government should mandate a class that every man, woman and child would be required to take?
Probably about the same as the number of flat-earth conservatives who refuse to accept that humans have had an impact on global warming. Very small, and both wrong.
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 27, 2007 3:41:07 PM
jaybeat: So I guess that includes ExxonMobile, BP, and all the other oil companies, oil-consuming and producing nations, the UN, etc. Right.
JK: You don’t suppose that an oil company might claim shortage to encourage the price to rise do you? But you obviously don’t understand supply and demand because if you did you would know that rising price will reduce demand and increase supply. We will not run out - it will just get more expensive until people use less and substitutes become attractive like tar sands, shale and coal gasification.
jaybeat: To believe in global warming you have to... not turn a blind eye to the overwhelming scientific consensus that's been building for, I don't know, about 20 years or so. But, of course, you and your context-less factoids are smarter than all of the world's scientists, so we should just listen to you.
JK: There you go again, relying on others to think for you. There are two kinds of global warming: 1) that which is occurring after the “little ice age” and the 2) “sky is falling” crap from Al Gore & his crowd, based entirely on crappy computer models. It is the latter that I am attacking. The former is natural and no cause for alarm. Why don’t you calm down until the last of those Viking farms emerge from under the Greenland ice.
jaybeat: Why don't we teach creation "science" in public schools, while we're at it?
JK: Because that is right wing crap, just like global warming panic and is left wing crap.
jaybeat: Along with other fantasies like "how mass transit costs more than driving" (rebutted quite well here)
JK: It was not rebutted. You are showing you lack of reading or lack of understanding basic numbers. You can find the numbers, all traceable to government data at DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
jaybeat: how encouraging sprawl by removing the UGB will somehow preserve and encourage small farms, and your other right-wing delusions.
JK: Actually removing the UGB will make housing affordable again. I hope you remember that Portland used to have affordable housing - the artificial shortage of buildable land has destroyed that (along with a suge in government fees etc.)
jaybeat: I'll tell you why. Because people don't want their kids taught LIES.
JK: Yes, but you are the one that got sucked in by the lis of Al Gore, the developers, Metro & TriMet etc. Too bad you can only look to others to follow, instead of look at real data and numbers.
jaybeat: So, Jim, please GO AWAY and preach to your wing-nut choir somewhere they are, because it sure isn't here.
JK: Same to you.
PS: do you even know what a wing nut is? Have you ever used one?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Nov 27, 2007 4:23:32 PM
Jim Karlock is correct about some things. We are not running out of oil. Based on historical production models, we have used about half the available oil. But this is not good news. The same models suggest we are at or very near peak production capacity, while demand increases as long as we are not in severe recession. Jim is correct that the price of oil will increase under such circumstances. It will increase a lot very quickly, enough to make many low income people abandon their cars and distant goods to spike in cost because of shipping expenses. Not much later, roads [made either of petroleum derived asphalt or energy intensive cement] will become too expensive to keep up - so Jim is wrong about mass transit; trains in particular, are the most energy efficient ground transportation besides bicycles, which will have a hard time without smooth roads.
At the same time, this second half of the oil supply will be much more expensive to extract from the ground. Much of that expense is as increased energy input, so the net energy produced is actually much less than that from the first [already used] half of the total oil supply. End result: Life gets much more expensive, especially in rural areas and where local economic production of basic goods is low.
Jim Karlock is also wrong about global warming. The overwhelming consensus of scientists and scientific bodies is that human-caused global warming is a significant problem. This is beyond whatever the earth, sun, planets, and vapors of the ninth dimension may be doing to warm the climate. Most alarming is that global warming changes have very often been found to exceed model expectations in recent years. This suggests that scientific consensus may not have caught up with just how bad things are. If you are not concerned with life of earth past the next decade, you might blithely ignore Global Warming. Otherwise, be afraid, be very afraid.
Posted by: jaybeat | Nov 27, 2007 5:01:47 PM
JK: Same to you.
Sorry, but I belong here, because I am a progressive Oregonian.
You, of course, have a right to believe that human-caused global warming is a hoax, that peak oil (I never said we "are running out of oil") won't cause massive changes in our energy use, consumption, and lifestyle, that driving cars is better than transit, that the urban growth boundary raises housing prices, etc. You're also free to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, that the World Bank is in the business of helping poor nations, that cutting taxes on the rich is the best way to help the middle class, or any other such absurdity.
BUT, you certainly cannot expect us to consider those to be "progressive" opinions. They are, in fact, either in the middle or to the right of the stated platform of the Republican Party.
Now, according to the header of this site, and I quote:
BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip.
So, since you are clearly not a progressive Oregonian, please GO AWAY. If you want to substantively contribute to the debate here, that's one thing. But you clearly do not and have not. No more than you have been substantive on issues like land use or transportation on the other blogs where you troll.
You are free to give yourself writers cramp on your own site, but, of course, no one would read it (at least not compared to BO), because your ideas are so sorely lacking. Which is why, I suppose, you troll away. Posting here is a chance for you to feel powerful and influential, because you can single-handedly piss off so many people, and you can feel superior to all of us because we will never be able to reason with you, since your opinions are so clearly beyond reason. (Though you love to throw meaningless or misleading facts around to support your contention that you are smarter than the world's entire scientific community or anyone else who disagrees with you.)
If, in the so-called "marketplace of ideas," yours had any merit, wouldn't it be us trolling your site, hoping to get a little attention, since BO would be an unvisited internet backwater? In reality, there are plenty of sites where you would get lots of "dittos" to your ditto-head-worthy ideas, and all I can do is hope that you'll spend more time there and less time here.
But, sadly, I know not to count on it.
Oh, and BTW, I do know what a wing-nut is, both in the current context (a [right]-wing nut), as well as the original hardware context. And I've been happy to use the latter and oppose the former, many, many times.
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 27, 2007 7:11:00 PM
jaybeat: Along with other fantasies like "how mass transit costs more than driving" (rebutted quite well here)
JK: No it wasn’t rebutted, despite transit supporter’s best efforts. But lets review the latest data.
To simplify thing, lets use the highball AAA data from aaaexchange.com/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=3&SubCategoryID=9&ContentID=23&SearchString=driving+cost
(I say highball because the AAA makes selections based on their member’s habits, not the general public. For instance they assume that you buy a new car as soon as the current one is paid off. That puts their costs quite bit higher than typical cars.)
They show several vehicles and costs per mile for 10,000, 15,000 and 20,000 miles per year. The cost per mile drops significantly as you go from 10,000 to 20,000 annual miles.
At 10,000 miles, the costs vary from 50-74 cents per mile for cars and 69.2 & 81.5 for minivan & SUV
They say that the “Composite national average COST per-mile for 2007: 52.2 cents”, so we choose the “Small Sedan” at 50.5 (so that we can look at both 10,000 and 20,000 miles/yr - the error will be about 3%, no where near enough to make a difference in the conclusion.)
Lets begin:
Looking at trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf, we find that the bus system costs $197,597,326 for 236,736,000 passenger-miles. I suspect that a lots of costs are left out here - certainly tearing up Portland streets are not included. Do the division:
$197,597,326 / 236,736,000 = $0.83 per passenger-mile. Notice that this is far above the $0.522 above (only the SUV number above is greater.)
But we are comparing bus passenger-miles with vehicle-miles.
We must account for the passengers per car. First how many passengers are in the average car? It depends on where you are. Nationally the number is 1.57. Oregon publishes passengers per car for accidents. If you assume that cars involved in accidents are typical, then the number for Portland is 1.27. I’ll show both:
“ Small Sedan”:
$0.50 / 1.57 = $0.319 (Bus, at $0.83, is 2.6 times the cost)
$0.50 / 1.27 = $0.394 (Bus, at $0.83, is 2.1 times the cost)
Either way that is cheaper than the bus.
And if you drive 20,000 miles you get:
$0.374 / 1.57 = $0.238 (Bus, at $0.83, is 3.5 times the cost)
$0.374 / 1.27 = $0.294 (Bus, at $0.83, is 2.8 times the cost)
Of course the above neglects the fact that you only get one little seat on a bus (if you get a seat at all), so the fair comparison would be to a crappy little single seat car, with no air conditioning, no radio, no luggage space etc.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 27, 2007 7:23:31 PM
Tom Civiletti: Jim Karlock is also wrong about global warming....Most alarming is that global warming changes have very often been found to exceed model expectations in recent years.
JK: Take a look at the best historical climate data the we have. It is maintained by Al Gore advisor, Jim Hansen at NASA. It is government data and considered to be the best in the world
:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt
After looking at the actual data, tell me that we are much different than in the 1930s?
(BTW, recent decades will be revised down again as they properly account for monitoring stations in the middle of parking lots, instead of the grassy fields that they are supposed to be in the middle of.)
Tom Civiletti: The overwhelming consensus of scientists and scientific bodies is that human-caused global warming is a significant problem.
JK: That story is a gross exaggeration based on a, probably not peer reviewed, letter to Science or Nature. The judgement criteria were carefully chosen to make it look like there was consensus. A later study shows that the claim is simply not true (I do not know if it has been scheduled for publication yet.)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 27, 2007 7:24:23 PM
ah, more made up math from Jim Karlock, the village denier! Call us when the shuttle lands, Jim!
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 27, 2007 7:46:13 PM
Sorry Jim, you can't get away with citing historical weather data exclusively from the US record while discussing Global warming.
See Global warming is about the rest of the planet too, so we kind of need those figures for any serious discussion.
Here's one to start out that addresses the northern hemishpere.
Posted by: onoyoudint | Nov 27, 2007 8:38:10 PM
Comments?
Look up the definition of communism.
End of comment.
Posted by: Spade | Nov 27, 2007 8:45:10 PM
Oh wow, forced reeducation.
I believe in Global Warming. In fact, I agree with many of those points (small families, self reliance, growing what you can in your own garden, etc.) But when you start throwing around "mandatory" and "re-education", well, that is why I've got an M4 assault rifle in my closet.
Posted by: ru serious | Nov 27, 2007 8:59:26 PM
what happens if I refuse to go to this camp? Will I be shot or simply jailed?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Nov 27, 2007 11:01:27 PM
Reeducation camps are easy to condemn, but their function is served quite well in the US in the propaganda disseminated by the corporate media. The American people have been reeducated to believe that, for example:
- Social Security is doomed to insolvency.
- Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
- Howard Dean was a dangerous wacko.
- People in other countries hate their single-payer healthcare systems.
- Iran will soon have weapons of mass destruction.
- Hugo Chavez is a dangerous wacko.
This reeducation is sponsored by the federal government, corporations and the media [more corporations] and is quite a bit more effective than reeducation camps in authoritarian countries because Americans believe they are getting good information. If Albert had the power to run his proposed camps, he would probably switch to the current mode of propaganda quickly enough to sooth the nerves of BlueOregon commenters.
Posted by: Bernice | Nov 27, 2007 11:18:46 PM
Just try it. I wouldn't hesitate to use violence against anyone who tried to intern me. You, Albert, are no better than Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Joseph Stalin. If you attempt to force your twisted beliefs on me; I will force you to back off. I would advise all you liberals who think this is a good idea to proceed very carefully; there are a lot of people who feel as I do.
Posted by: jaybeat | Nov 27, 2007 11:47:14 PM
Tom, thank you for a note of sanity. Real World to Blue Oregon Trolls! Hello? Anybody there?
onoyoudint, Spade, ru and Bernice: So glad you've shown us your ability to ignore the forest. This is about stuff we'd all better learn, and fast. It is not about "forcing" anyone, or prying the gun in your closet out of your cold dead (stupid) fingers, or liberals or communism or Hitler or any of the other crap you've tried to throw up to obscure the real issues.
Bottom line, do you want your government helping you or hurting you? Right now, the FORCED, MANDATORY BRAINWASHING that is going on RIGHT NOW is KILLING ALL OF US. You may not think so, but neither does the frog as it is being boiled alive until it is too late.
So to get your panties in a twist and make sure we all know that even if these are good ideas, you'll fight to the death to resist them if someone tries to MAKE YOU is as about as mature and rational as the kid who's willing to have his arm broken by the school yard bully because he won't say "uncle."
Only, Albert's not a bully, and he's not making you say "uncle," he's just wondering whether or not it might make sense to make sure people are prepared for what's ahead.
Seriously, when you ride in an airplane, they "make" you take off your headphones, turn off your phone, and at least pretend to listen to the flight attendants while they try and give you some information that might just SAVE YOUR ASS. See how seriously anyone takes you when you jump up and protest how "commies" are "forcing" you to be "re-educated."
Only, in this case, it isn't just a slim chance that you'll need to know that stuff in order to survive. It a certainty.
THIS plane IS going down.
Do YOU know where the nearest flotation device is?
Posted by: Molon Labe | Nov 28, 2007 2:46:31 AM
Just remember Tom, those guys who you want to "re-educate" are the ones with the guns.
Guess you gotta ban those first, huh?
Posted by: gogetemtom | Nov 28, 2007 4:57:36 AM
I totlally and wholeheartedly agree with Tom and jaybeat above.
Re-education is the only way to reverse the undo influence modern, materialistic society has instilled in children and adults in this country. I can only hope that more and more people see that in the end, we will simply have to round up the holdouts, by ANY means necessary, so that they do not continue to prevent real progress in this country. A good way would be to put people like this in camps in the woods where they could work to undo some of the ill that they have brought upon this country- a sort of "Work makes you free" typr idea.
Tom, some people are not going to want to go to utopia- some will prefer to stay in their primitive lives. Sonme may actively and violently resist. This is why it is IMPERATIVE that we have a state monopoly on the use of force.
To the rest of you: at least Tom has the guts to say what many of us think. Stop hiding behind others and have courage.
Posted by: joe | Nov 28, 2007 6:02:47 AM
Posted by: jaybeat | Nov 27, 2007 11:47:14 PM
"Seriously, when you ride in an airplane, they "make" you take off your headphones, turn off your phone, and at least pretend to listen to the flight attendants while they try and give you some information that might just SAVE YOUR ASS. See how seriously anyone takes you when you jump up and protest how "commies" are "forcing" you to be "re-educated."
You have on your "own free will" elected to fly on a "commercial airliner". You have made the choice to fly on that plane.
The day you and the enlighten Herr Kaufman (German heritage perhaps) try to do that re-education camp week outside of Hippie City you had better be wearing snowshoes to walk over the pile of spent brass.
Posted by: James B Norman | Nov 28, 2007 6:20:41 AM
This is why we have a second amendment people. If you want to save the environment then take away private jets from left wing power elites that want us all to live in caves.
Posted by: Fucking Annoyed | Nov 28, 2007 6:33:11 AM
Are you out of your fucking mind?
I'm going to dump oil into a river today just to piss you off.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: BrianM | Nov 25, 2007 11:15:58 AM
Yes, please.
I think this is a wonderful idea.