I gotta say, I can’t help but wonder if the universe’s response (or at least that of any supposedly responsible parties in government) might be, “I’m sorry, Dave, but I can’t do that,” in the voice of HAL from 2001.
I think the root of the problem is that we’re just too fat, dumb, and happy. Or at least close enough for government work, as they say. Since most voters and associated others can still watch their sporting events of prime importance—I just heard someone in the back ground yell, “Hurry up, Mary, we gotta get over to Joe & Nancy’s before the game starts!”—and guzzle light (insults to) beer while sharing derogatory opinions about political opposition with their friends, prioritization, even amongst those who think that, yes, the world as we know it is changing drastically, the rate of change just isn’t high enough to spark panic, and without that, well, we’re just gonna have to wait ‘til after the game, when they’ll (probably) get back to us on that. Maybe.
I especially like the idea of making corporate/industrial water users pay real prices for all of what they’re getting. For now, I gotta move on and read part 2….
Thanks Perry. You're too correct on all counts, and I sometimes wonder if those of us who pay attention to the political world take it all too seriously but, on reflection, I go back and read some more in search of ways to change the future.
It begs the larger question of why our elected officials vote as they do. The studies done by Northwestern indicate that elected officials generally vote in ways that benefit their biggest donors rather than in ways to reflect the greatest good to the greatest number of their constituents.
That brings us back to the fundamental question of how our elections are financed. The theory is that if elections were publicly financed in a way that hid the identity of the donors, elected representatives might actually become more responsive to their constituents. And then many of these questions about why the federal government doesn't use its buying power to accelerate the movement to a greener economy might get answered. :)
That's exactly the question and the NU study hit the nail pretty squarely on the head.
It's indicative of the problem although in a different political frame that, when a bill to reduce overdraft and related bank fees came before the House Finance and banking committee, one of the main opponents was the Vice Chairperson, Ann Wagner (MO-2), who had received over $290,000 from 3 large banks and the industry lobbying arm in the election cycles through 2022. Pure coincidence, of course.
Couldn't agree more. But our government is run by Oligarchs and their lobbiests.
Nothing will really change until we remove big dark money from elections. Our legislatures are packed with paid for puppets - unregulated capitalism buying votes.
That being said I think everything you wrote is totally common sense. It is a crime against the planet that we haven't done those things.
Interesting.
I gotta say, I can’t help but wonder if the universe’s response (or at least that of any supposedly responsible parties in government) might be, “I’m sorry, Dave, but I can’t do that,” in the voice of HAL from 2001.
I think the root of the problem is that we’re just too fat, dumb, and happy. Or at least close enough for government work, as they say. Since most voters and associated others can still watch their sporting events of prime importance—I just heard someone in the back ground yell, “Hurry up, Mary, we gotta get over to Joe & Nancy’s before the game starts!”—and guzzle light (insults to) beer while sharing derogatory opinions about political opposition with their friends, prioritization, even amongst those who think that, yes, the world as we know it is changing drastically, the rate of change just isn’t high enough to spark panic, and without that, well, we’re just gonna have to wait ‘til after the game, when they’ll (probably) get back to us on that. Maybe.
I especially like the idea of making corporate/industrial water users pay real prices for all of what they’re getting. For now, I gotta move on and read part 2….
Thanks Perry. You're too correct on all counts, and I sometimes wonder if those of us who pay attention to the political world take it all too seriously but, on reflection, I go back and read some more in search of ways to change the future.
It begs the larger question of why our elected officials vote as they do. The studies done by Northwestern indicate that elected officials generally vote in ways that benefit their biggest donors rather than in ways to reflect the greatest good to the greatest number of their constituents.
That brings us back to the fundamental question of how our elections are financed. The theory is that if elections were publicly financed in a way that hid the identity of the donors, elected representatives might actually become more responsive to their constituents. And then many of these questions about why the federal government doesn't use its buying power to accelerate the movement to a greener economy might get answered. :)
That's exactly the question and the NU study hit the nail pretty squarely on the head.
It's indicative of the problem although in a different political frame that, when a bill to reduce overdraft and related bank fees came before the House Finance and banking committee, one of the main opponents was the Vice Chairperson, Ann Wagner (MO-2), who had received over $290,000 from 3 large banks and the industry lobbying arm in the election cycles through 2022. Pure coincidence, of course.
Couldn't agree more. But our government is run by Oligarchs and their lobbiests.
Nothing will really change until we remove big dark money from elections. Our legislatures are packed with paid for puppets - unregulated capitalism buying votes.
That being said I think everything you wrote is totally common sense. It is a crime against the planet that we haven't done those things.
Agreed Bill, and, unlike some criminals, we will pay for our lapses.