This should be pretty obvious, but it seems it is not.
A few years back I read an article about the discovery of a monstrous fishery off the coast of Australia. Commercial fishing jumped on it, consuming until the fishery was imperiled. When questioned, they said they thought they really had found a sustainable fishery.
There is no such thing as a sustainable resource.
There are only sustainable practices.
I'm not sure why this should need explanation. Resources are finite; if they are not treated with care then they can be overused. Even wind energy isn't properly sustainable, though it is lauded as the future of sustainable energy.(check out Power Hungry by Robert Brice for more on the problems with wind energy). This is because, no matter how much energy we have, we will never have enough if we always crave more.
The only way to have a sustainable resource is to adapt our behavior to sustain that resource.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Home Food Libertarianism
Economic rules favor capital. It is in the hands of those who have the means of production. The impoverished, with little know-how in business start up, no capital to start the business, and likely bad credit, have little hope of pulling themselves up aside from working for their oppressors. Corporate interests will look at themselves proudly and say, "We are their benefactors, without us, the poor could not even exist as they do." Lies. They are oppressors, pure and simple.
Regulations favor the large; it needs not be argued. Those with capital can meet regulation standards, those without it cannot. To allow the impoverished to improve themselves, we must remove the reigns from home industry. Food and manufacturing on a very small scale should be allowed in the home, without the burdensome requirements of modern food quality laws. If their are health problems, people can complain about them, but it is horrendous to completely make illegal all home food preparation. For many people, this may be a way out of poverty, a way to make their own way, their own business. They cannot afford commercial kitchens for food preparation.
These laws are supposedly made for the public interest, for health reasons. Ridiculous. You might as well insist that every meal cooked be made in a commercial kitchen; elsewise, all parents should be arrested for endangering the health of their children.
Yes, large restaurants, corporate food magnates, etc. ought to have strict regulations, because these things are beyond human in scale and because their behavior warrants it (compare food born illness complaints in Austin between trailers (1%) and restaurants (16%)...or what about the now defunct due to regulation Good Flow Juice, never one known case of illness attributed to bad juice). But the house that makes tacos to sell from a cart? That is hardly the same thing. Don't you think if they had the ability they would do their preparing in a commercial kitchen, if only to avoid making a mess in their house? They are not trying to beat the system, they are trying to make their own way with their own business, and we are not letting them.
Now, this is an extreme; most places don't allow food to be made for public consumption in home, but I think its workable, personally. But let us not forget the added fees and regulations in general added to small businesses. They are small, if they are bad, they will fail; its the big things that never seem to die.
Regulations favor the large; it needs not be argued. Those with capital can meet regulation standards, those without it cannot. To allow the impoverished to improve themselves, we must remove the reigns from home industry. Food and manufacturing on a very small scale should be allowed in the home, without the burdensome requirements of modern food quality laws. If their are health problems, people can complain about them, but it is horrendous to completely make illegal all home food preparation. For many people, this may be a way out of poverty, a way to make their own way, their own business. They cannot afford commercial kitchens for food preparation.
These laws are supposedly made for the public interest, for health reasons. Ridiculous. You might as well insist that every meal cooked be made in a commercial kitchen; elsewise, all parents should be arrested for endangering the health of their children.
Yes, large restaurants, corporate food magnates, etc. ought to have strict regulations, because these things are beyond human in scale and because their behavior warrants it (compare food born illness complaints in Austin between trailers (1%) and restaurants (16%)...or what about the now defunct due to regulation Good Flow Juice, never one known case of illness attributed to bad juice). But the house that makes tacos to sell from a cart? That is hardly the same thing. Don't you think if they had the ability they would do their preparing in a commercial kitchen, if only to avoid making a mess in their house? They are not trying to beat the system, they are trying to make their own way with their own business, and we are not letting them.
Now, this is an extreme; most places don't allow food to be made for public consumption in home, but I think its workable, personally. But let us not forget the added fees and regulations in general added to small businesses. They are small, if they are bad, they will fail; its the big things that never seem to die.
Friday, June 11, 2010
This Week in Austin
I've spent about 12 hours this week in one sort of city related meeting or another. Do not be impressed, I'm not a council member or anything, just a citizen trying to take more part in local government. Turns out, they basically try to discourage you from that.
What does he mean? Well, the primary point of contention is the lack of contention. At most public meetings the citizens are allowed to get up and speak; at most of these there is a 3 minute time limit and they only allow a certain number of speakers. After all the public that they want to let speak has spoken, the council may ask questions, but usually they don't. Instead they go straight to a vote, and you never hear anything about why the points you made on the behalf of item X are good or bad or otherwise. They will vote against your position without giving any reasons whatsoever, as though your point of view does not exist. Even if the council members have disagreements, they will not discuss them there. Perhaps they have a forum where they do discuss such things, or perhaps they are actually prohibited from open debate in the council chambers (something I'll have to look into).
At the council meeting yesterday they gave 45 minutes; this is first come first served. The items I was interested in were #5 and #10 concerning the building of a new water plant and its transmission lines. The Mayor gave 45 minutes for public speaking, saying he would give no more since this was not a public hearing (was there a public hearing on this, I don't know). Now, at one point in time in Austin's history, there was no such limitation; as many people could come and speak as might wish to. I have no doubt this slowed things down tremendously, but who says democracy should be fast?
30 minutes were taken up by neighborhood association folk who basically said the same things over that time, leaving 15 minutes for an SOS member who had written a report the likely rate increases of water this would cause when there really was no demand from more water. In fact, we are well behind expected water expenditures this year because of rain and because of people's on conservation; thus, the water utility is not pulling in as much money as usual. His point was, then, that it would be foolish to spend a very large sum of money when we aren't even using up close to all the supply we currently have (they have broken up the project into bits, so its hard to say how much, but the items yesterday I think added up to somewhere between 60 and 100 million--I know those are disparate numbers, but they are in the tens of millions, and therefore, well, pretty big even on the low end).
The night before this, more presentations were given at the water/waste water commissioners hearing. The SOS presentations were actually pretty good with lots of information that the commissioners clearly had not heard before, and which the city staff present could in no way counter, though he insisted that data to support his position existed, it just was too much to bring before the panel. One member of the commission, a Ms. Faust, actually seemed to take the new information into consideration, including an apparent fact regarding the necessity of having a Fish and Wildlife inspection to receive a permit to build on a land with several endangered and/or threatened species. The inspection is slated to take at least 6 months. Faust suggested they postpone moving forward until the permit was received, as it seemed foolish to allocate resources (made through contractual obligations) when they could not be sure that they could even build on the land. But her motion did not even receive a second. No reasons were given as to why a second should not be given, once again leading me to believe that they might actually be forbidden to have open discussion or debate of issues. The other commissioners sat coldly by, and at the motion to recommend the project be approved by city council, three voted for, and one against, the others abstaining.
Likewise, at the city council meeting, council member Speldman and one other (whose name I will need to look up) asked questions, and they were 2 of the 3 of the dissenting opinion. Those who did not ask questions and did not give their opinion in any way shape or form voted for the project to proceed.
Frankly, after the presentations given by the public at the council meeting, this made some sense. Most of the speakers came off as NIMBY, and even Mr. Henson with his presentation on likely water rate increases (expected to rise 74% in the next 5 years by his calculations, to pay for the bonds needed to build this plant) did not seem as professional as the previous night. Some of the SOS folk gathered near the mic in quiet protest of not being allowed to speak. Among these were Bill Bunch who had given a very good presentation on the environmental dangers of building the plant in its suggested location as well as reasons why water use by Austin Water customers has not been going up (interesting to note, in San Antonio water use has been flat even after gaining 100,000 in population--if I recall correctly, there were a few figures like this, but 100,000 would be on the low end, it might have been 250,000).
The best protest site for this is here: http://savewatersavemoney.org/
Note: I am in no way affiliated with the above site, SOS, etc. I receive newsletters from SOS and regularly check my county and city websites.
What does he mean? Well, the primary point of contention is the lack of contention. At most public meetings the citizens are allowed to get up and speak; at most of these there is a 3 minute time limit and they only allow a certain number of speakers. After all the public that they want to let speak has spoken, the council may ask questions, but usually they don't. Instead they go straight to a vote, and you never hear anything about why the points you made on the behalf of item X are good or bad or otherwise. They will vote against your position without giving any reasons whatsoever, as though your point of view does not exist. Even if the council members have disagreements, they will not discuss them there. Perhaps they have a forum where they do discuss such things, or perhaps they are actually prohibited from open debate in the council chambers (something I'll have to look into).
At the council meeting yesterday they gave 45 minutes; this is first come first served. The items I was interested in were #5 and #10 concerning the building of a new water plant and its transmission lines. The Mayor gave 45 minutes for public speaking, saying he would give no more since this was not a public hearing (was there a public hearing on this, I don't know). Now, at one point in time in Austin's history, there was no such limitation; as many people could come and speak as might wish to. I have no doubt this slowed things down tremendously, but who says democracy should be fast?
30 minutes were taken up by neighborhood association folk who basically said the same things over that time, leaving 15 minutes for an SOS member who had written a report the likely rate increases of water this would cause when there really was no demand from more water. In fact, we are well behind expected water expenditures this year because of rain and because of people's on conservation; thus, the water utility is not pulling in as much money as usual. His point was, then, that it would be foolish to spend a very large sum of money when we aren't even using up close to all the supply we currently have (they have broken up the project into bits, so its hard to say how much, but the items yesterday I think added up to somewhere between 60 and 100 million--I know those are disparate numbers, but they are in the tens of millions, and therefore, well, pretty big even on the low end).
The night before this, more presentations were given at the water/waste water commissioners hearing. The SOS presentations were actually pretty good with lots of information that the commissioners clearly had not heard before, and which the city staff present could in no way counter, though he insisted that data to support his position existed, it just was too much to bring before the panel. One member of the commission, a Ms. Faust, actually seemed to take the new information into consideration, including an apparent fact regarding the necessity of having a Fish and Wildlife inspection to receive a permit to build on a land with several endangered and/or threatened species. The inspection is slated to take at least 6 months. Faust suggested they postpone moving forward until the permit was received, as it seemed foolish to allocate resources (made through contractual obligations) when they could not be sure that they could even build on the land. But her motion did not even receive a second. No reasons were given as to why a second should not be given, once again leading me to believe that they might actually be forbidden to have open discussion or debate of issues. The other commissioners sat coldly by, and at the motion to recommend the project be approved by city council, three voted for, and one against, the others abstaining.
Likewise, at the city council meeting, council member Speldman and one other (whose name I will need to look up) asked questions, and they were 2 of the 3 of the dissenting opinion. Those who did not ask questions and did not give their opinion in any way shape or form voted for the project to proceed.
Frankly, after the presentations given by the public at the council meeting, this made some sense. Most of the speakers came off as NIMBY, and even Mr. Henson with his presentation on likely water rate increases (expected to rise 74% in the next 5 years by his calculations, to pay for the bonds needed to build this plant) did not seem as professional as the previous night. Some of the SOS folk gathered near the mic in quiet protest of not being allowed to speak. Among these were Bill Bunch who had given a very good presentation on the environmental dangers of building the plant in its suggested location as well as reasons why water use by Austin Water customers has not been going up (interesting to note, in San Antonio water use has been flat even after gaining 100,000 in population--if I recall correctly, there were a few figures like this, but 100,000 would be on the low end, it might have been 250,000).
The best protest site for this is here: http://savewatersavemoney.org/
Note: I am in no way affiliated with the above site, SOS, etc. I receive newsletters from SOS and regularly check my county and city websites.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Sins of the Fathers
It goes against modern Biblical and theological thought to take some of the old testament seriously, and we will go to lengths to explain away various anomalous points of view. The punishment of David's son for David's own misdeeds is one of these. Today we find it difficult to imagine the punishment of the innocent for the mistakes of the father. How can Ham's children be cursed throughout the generations? How is that just? How can a just god punish innocent children for a previous generations misdeeds?
So when I say that this goes against modern religious thought, I also of course include non-theistic philosophies. I have no doubt that some people site the above as the very reasons why they forsake any theistic religions; how could they believe in a God that punishes the innocent for the fault of the guilty. Surely the ancients were warped; they had a sick sense of justice.
No, says I, they were more realistic, more empirical, and less blinded by ideology than we are. One need only look at history to see that constantly and forever more, a generation is punished for the crimes of those preceding it. Rather than go from some abstraction of God as an all good and kind being, they went from what they knew, and described God from it. They knew, because they could witness it throughout history and every day life, that when a father screws up, his children are punished. They are cursed because he has been improprietous, unjust, lacking in foresight, etc.
Let us look at Confucian scholarship. What is the Mandate of Heaven? It is, to be a bit crude in translation, the eastern equivalent of the divine right of kings. In other words, a king rises because he is just and falls because he is unjust. But Confucius knew better than to think it that direct; rather, he says that when a ruler falls, it is more likely because the Mandate of Heaven was lost in the previous generation, by the misdeeds of his forerunner. Thus, a just king might lose his kingdom because he inherited it from an unjust king. Is this justice? How could we follow a philosophy with such obvious unfairness?
Because it is true! Because history is full of "divine punishment" upon populations for what was done before, and it is folly--FOLLY!--to believe we have the moral high ground because we seem to be doing well today, because we are rich today. Whether or not we were morally upright, whether we were considerate of our children and theirs, will be shown by history after we are dead. We must not look to our present to see how we are doing, our stock portfolios will tell us nothing! We must look at history, at the actions that preceded downfall and decline time after time: these include reckless abuse of resources, environmental degradation, cultural degradation (particularly a loss of rural culture), and excessive abuse of the monetary system by elites. And all of these things we can see happening today, and they will boil and fester for a generation or more until finally our grandchildren will pay the price in blood for our ignorant bliss.
So when I say that this goes against modern religious thought, I also of course include non-theistic philosophies. I have no doubt that some people site the above as the very reasons why they forsake any theistic religions; how could they believe in a God that punishes the innocent for the fault of the guilty. Surely the ancients were warped; they had a sick sense of justice.
No, says I, they were more realistic, more empirical, and less blinded by ideology than we are. One need only look at history to see that constantly and forever more, a generation is punished for the crimes of those preceding it. Rather than go from some abstraction of God as an all good and kind being, they went from what they knew, and described God from it. They knew, because they could witness it throughout history and every day life, that when a father screws up, his children are punished. They are cursed because he has been improprietous, unjust, lacking in foresight, etc.
Let us look at Confucian scholarship. What is the Mandate of Heaven? It is, to be a bit crude in translation, the eastern equivalent of the divine right of kings. In other words, a king rises because he is just and falls because he is unjust. But Confucius knew better than to think it that direct; rather, he says that when a ruler falls, it is more likely because the Mandate of Heaven was lost in the previous generation, by the misdeeds of his forerunner. Thus, a just king might lose his kingdom because he inherited it from an unjust king. Is this justice? How could we follow a philosophy with such obvious unfairness?
Because it is true! Because history is full of "divine punishment" upon populations for what was done before, and it is folly--FOLLY!--to believe we have the moral high ground because we seem to be doing well today, because we are rich today. Whether or not we were morally upright, whether we were considerate of our children and theirs, will be shown by history after we are dead. We must not look to our present to see how we are doing, our stock portfolios will tell us nothing! We must look at history, at the actions that preceded downfall and decline time after time: these include reckless abuse of resources, environmental degradation, cultural degradation (particularly a loss of rural culture), and excessive abuse of the monetary system by elites. And all of these things we can see happening today, and they will boil and fester for a generation or more until finally our grandchildren will pay the price in blood for our ignorant bliss.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Israel the Defiant Middle Schooler
While I'm no Anti-Semite I would like to express my disapproval of the recent actions of Israel. I understand that they believe that the Palestinians are on their land and that they are pretty much being picked on by every other country in the neighborhood but that does not give them justification to stop aid ships. Nor to does it give them the right to board other countries ships. I bet you if Iran did something like that the world would be up in arms.
Israel believes that their actions were legal under international law, and they are correct to an extent. I forget the exact law but in a time of war or crisis another country is able to blockade and board ships attempting to assist an enemy. So you can clearly see the problem Turkey has with this notion. One, Turkey doesn't (I would argue neither does most of the rest of the world) recognize that Israel is in a state of war. 2. Even if Israel is a state of war, it's not even in a war with a true state or recognized country. The Palestinian Authority is not a voting member of the UN nor does it get privy to other privileges.
Now, could Israel make a case that it is in a state of war? Yes, it very well could but ultimately the rest of the word does not see it as such or rather choose not to. This is the same problem that my co-blogger would run into in his post about hippies taking the offensive. If the majority of the public doesn't see your perspective or they believe you to be nuts then you simply won't get far or legitimacy.
Legitimacy is a very difficult thing to put into words or even to conceptualize. It is so important; it can either make or break any regime. Someone more intelligent could be better explain the importance of having a legitimate action or regime. Again, based on what I believe and have read, I strongly feel that Israel's actions have been too much and they have been acting like an unruly middle school student. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions. And like so many middle school students they repeatedly deny any wrong action.
If you want true legitimacy you must take responsibility for your actions.
-AMartinez
Israel believes that their actions were legal under international law, and they are correct to an extent. I forget the exact law but in a time of war or crisis another country is able to blockade and board ships attempting to assist an enemy. So you can clearly see the problem Turkey has with this notion. One, Turkey doesn't (I would argue neither does most of the rest of the world) recognize that Israel is in a state of war. 2. Even if Israel is a state of war, it's not even in a war with a true state or recognized country. The Palestinian Authority is not a voting member of the UN nor does it get privy to other privileges.
Now, could Israel make a case that it is in a state of war? Yes, it very well could but ultimately the rest of the word does not see it as such or rather choose not to. This is the same problem that my co-blogger would run into in his post about hippies taking the offensive. If the majority of the public doesn't see your perspective or they believe you to be nuts then you simply won't get far or legitimacy.
Legitimacy is a very difficult thing to put into words or even to conceptualize. It is so important; it can either make or break any regime. Someone more intelligent could be better explain the importance of having a legitimate action or regime. Again, based on what I believe and have read, I strongly feel that Israel's actions have been too much and they have been acting like an unruly middle school student. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions. And like so many middle school students they repeatedly deny any wrong action.
If you want true legitimacy you must take responsibility for your actions.
-AMartinez
Here is a brief article concerning the growth of Special Forces
In as much as strategy is concerned, Obama is obviously proving himself rather sharp here, much more than those who preceded him. The conventional military is not equipped to deal with the specialized operations needed around the world. We are still practically trapped in trenches of WWII. In particular, the conventional military lacks the lingual and cultural backgrounds which is so important when "peacefully" occupying a foreign country. (The "peacefully is not meant to be ironic; I really do mean that it is at least not a war to exterminate or utterly subordinate the native populace) This move is something that should have been a long time coming.
In all honesty, our strategy of relying on technology more than the human mind has proved remarkably short sighted. It is strategically inferior and also cheats the soldiers out of growth, into a chance at becoming intelligent warriors as opposed to merely a mobile weapons platform. To spread the expertise of the special forces more broadly throughout the military should be part of our battle plan.
Much like most modern religions, afraid of losing membership due to its harshness, our military has in many ways become too soft, not pushing our soldiers mentally or physically as far as they should be pushed. Truly, it is a cultural malady, and there are reports that many of the youths entering into military life are in very bad shape from a sedentary life of videogames and television. No doubt that it is also the case that their faculties of reasoning are equally blunted from a lack of mental stimulation and introspection.
The military is, of course, famously anti-intellectual, and there are obvious reasons why this should be fostered. A man who thinks too much about killing is perhaps less likely to kill without thinking, and therefore less useful as a weapon. I would suggest that this is another outmoded and, in a democracy, outlandishly dangerous point of view. Our soldiers should be the most thoughtful, the most educated in philosophy and history, in political sciences. The soldiers day should never be spent idle, for as a potent and powerful being, he has a responsibility to think. And no doubt it would be best for the republic, for many soldiers return from duty thinking themselves above such banal and effeminate tasks like thinking when they already 'know' everything.
So, what can the average citizen do at home? My suggestion is you buy a gun and learn how to use it. Keep your mind sharp, your body lean and ready. There may be a day when your country needs you to fight for the military, or when the country needs you to fight against the military. If there were ever a reason to fight against our own government, you would be no better off than the terrorists (which is precisely what you would be labeled). Aside from brutal force and numbers, you would also be spied upon from unseen eyes from the heavens, fired upon by snipers who remain well out of reach among the clouds. For this reason, it is not enough to trust the nationally controlled military for security.
Bygone are the days when having a few town cannons might at least make the enemy think twice before attacking, when your life had to be bought by the enemies' blood. Now you can be exterminated over a cup of coffee, your murderer a hundred or a thousand miles away, cozy in a cubicle. This is not the sort of technology which should be allowed a democratic government; it can only be a tool of oppression. A nation's strength is in its people. We must be willing to die, and that willingness must be real, it must be alive. If it were, perhaps we would be more choosy about which wars we involved ourselves in. This is done not to save lives, but to save our liberty from ourselves.
So, again, a brilliant step in the right direction for our military, refocusing our resources on special operators, well trained, thoughtful men, but drones should be banished. I cringe at the thought of assassinations done in my name by proxy of a machine. I cannot think of a way to appear more cowardly.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Provided we ever get involved in a just war again, I will be proud to become the embodiment of the phrase.
ps. I am so, so sorry that I ramble on so rather than staying on one topic. Consider it a weakness in my writing. I'll work on it. In the meantime, enjoy my over broad rantings.
In as much as strategy is concerned, Obama is obviously proving himself rather sharp here, much more than those who preceded him. The conventional military is not equipped to deal with the specialized operations needed around the world. We are still practically trapped in trenches of WWII. In particular, the conventional military lacks the lingual and cultural backgrounds which is so important when "peacefully" occupying a foreign country. (The "peacefully is not meant to be ironic; I really do mean that it is at least not a war to exterminate or utterly subordinate the native populace) This move is something that should have been a long time coming.
In all honesty, our strategy of relying on technology more than the human mind has proved remarkably short sighted. It is strategically inferior and also cheats the soldiers out of growth, into a chance at becoming intelligent warriors as opposed to merely a mobile weapons platform. To spread the expertise of the special forces more broadly throughout the military should be part of our battle plan.
Much like most modern religions, afraid of losing membership due to its harshness, our military has in many ways become too soft, not pushing our soldiers mentally or physically as far as they should be pushed. Truly, it is a cultural malady, and there are reports that many of the youths entering into military life are in very bad shape from a sedentary life of videogames and television. No doubt that it is also the case that their faculties of reasoning are equally blunted from a lack of mental stimulation and introspection.
The military is, of course, famously anti-intellectual, and there are obvious reasons why this should be fostered. A man who thinks too much about killing is perhaps less likely to kill without thinking, and therefore less useful as a weapon. I would suggest that this is another outmoded and, in a democracy, outlandishly dangerous point of view. Our soldiers should be the most thoughtful, the most educated in philosophy and history, in political sciences. The soldiers day should never be spent idle, for as a potent and powerful being, he has a responsibility to think. And no doubt it would be best for the republic, for many soldiers return from duty thinking themselves above such banal and effeminate tasks like thinking when they already 'know' everything.
So, what can the average citizen do at home? My suggestion is you buy a gun and learn how to use it. Keep your mind sharp, your body lean and ready. There may be a day when your country needs you to fight for the military, or when the country needs you to fight against the military. If there were ever a reason to fight against our own government, you would be no better off than the terrorists (which is precisely what you would be labeled). Aside from brutal force and numbers, you would also be spied upon from unseen eyes from the heavens, fired upon by snipers who remain well out of reach among the clouds. For this reason, it is not enough to trust the nationally controlled military for security.
Bygone are the days when having a few town cannons might at least make the enemy think twice before attacking, when your life had to be bought by the enemies' blood. Now you can be exterminated over a cup of coffee, your murderer a hundred or a thousand miles away, cozy in a cubicle. This is not the sort of technology which should be allowed a democratic government; it can only be a tool of oppression. A nation's strength is in its people. We must be willing to die, and that willingness must be real, it must be alive. If it were, perhaps we would be more choosy about which wars we involved ourselves in. This is done not to save lives, but to save our liberty from ourselves.
So, again, a brilliant step in the right direction for our military, refocusing our resources on special operators, well trained, thoughtful men, but drones should be banished. I cringe at the thought of assassinations done in my name by proxy of a machine. I cannot think of a way to appear more cowardly.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Provided we ever get involved in a just war again, I will be proud to become the embodiment of the phrase.
ps. I am so, so sorry that I ramble on so rather than staying on one topic. Consider it a weakness in my writing. I'll work on it. In the meantime, enjoy my over broad rantings.
Future 1 - PrimeOx
It is not enough to keep Austin weird. The movement is doomed to fail, for it is not a movement at all, but rather a defensive plea. Without momentum, it cannot even hope to stay in place. To keep Austin weird, we must Make Austin Weirder, and this should be our rallying cry.
Weird the World.
To accomplish this, the hippies, environmentalists, anarchists, etc. must not be content to sit in their own safe havens. No, we must invade the suburbs. We must steal the homes and stomping ground from beneath our enemies' feet. For, to be sure, they are our enemies; if it is a cultural war, then we must take it on the offensive.
Offensive is the key word. We must be offensive, more and more, and in such a way that we cannot be ignored or written off. We must be offensive underfoot. We must be "in your face" in their faces. Their homes must become the battleground, for thus far, it is always the beautiful places which are the battle grounds, and so the beautiful places which are lost. It is not enough to "save the environment" we must actively spread the right kind of environment. Just as in Detroit, the blighted landscape of sprawl must be reclaimed for something better--why wait until we are forced to by circumstances? Far better to do it voluntarily and before the problem is worsened.
So too in Austin, and everywhere else, we must begin reclaiming the land from the intrusive asphalt.
Prime Ox
No More Zombies
Weird the World.
To accomplish this, the hippies, environmentalists, anarchists, etc. must not be content to sit in their own safe havens. No, we must invade the suburbs. We must steal the homes and stomping ground from beneath our enemies' feet. For, to be sure, they are our enemies; if it is a cultural war, then we must take it on the offensive.
Offensive is the key word. We must be offensive, more and more, and in such a way that we cannot be ignored or written off. We must be offensive underfoot. We must be "in your face" in their faces. Their homes must become the battleground, for thus far, it is always the beautiful places which are the battle grounds, and so the beautiful places which are lost. It is not enough to "save the environment" we must actively spread the right kind of environment. Just as in Detroit, the blighted landscape of sprawl must be reclaimed for something better--why wait until we are forced to by circumstances? Far better to do it voluntarily and before the problem is worsened.
So too in Austin, and everywhere else, we must begin reclaiming the land from the intrusive asphalt.
Prime Ox
No More Zombies
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)