This Is How You Turn A Concerto Into A Battle - Digg

Big fun.

http://digg.com/video/this-is-how-you-turn-a-concerto-into-a-battle

Grimly amusing Science video

The US Chamber of the 1% backs a lot of the non-science so capably demolished in this Youtube, which would rate a smile if it wasn't reporting on effects that will cause the mass extermination of poor people all over the world just to maintain business as usual for folks like -- well, the 1%.

>
> One of my favorite YouTube channels is "potholer54," an Australian science journalist. This one is a bit long (18:28) but worth a look. The very end is hilarious.
>
> http://youtu.be/VNgqv4yVyDw
>
> "You cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into."
> -- Ben Goldacre

Think Government Never Makes a Mistake over Life or Death Matters?

  2014 OADP Annual Meeting

Tuesday, May 13th in Eugene

Wrongful Executions Expert to Present

On Tuesday May 13th, American University Professor and author Richard Stack will be the keynote speaker at the 2014 annual meeting of Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (OADP).

Professor Stack, author of three books, including his latest, GRAVE INJUSTICE: The Unearthing of Wrongful Executions will expand on major mistakes made in recent years. His compelling descriptions of nineteen wrongful executions illustrate the flaws of the death penalty, which he argues, is ineffective in deterring crime and cost more than sentences of life without parole.

Temple Beth Israel
1175 E. 29th Ave, Eugene 97403

Keynote Speaker:
Richard Stack, American University Professor and author of Grave Injustice
6 pm Dinner, 7pm Meeting & Program

Public is welcome Tickets $25

On Nov. 22, 2011 when Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber was announcing his moratorium on executions he stated "I am calling on the legislature to bring potential reforms before the 2013 legislative session and encourage all Oregonians to engage in the long overdue debate that this important issue deserves." The discussion moves to Eugene at this event.

"In practice Oregon has an expensive and unworkable death penalty system that fails to meet basic standards of justice. It is clear the system is broken"
Governor John Kitzhaber, November 22nd, 2011

Another part of the Governor's 2011 statement was "In practice Oregon has an expensive and unworkable death penalty system that fails to meet basic standards of justice. It is clear the system is broken". Basic standards of justice that resonate with Oregon voters are "fairness" and the "mistakes made in the administration of the death penalty system". The most tragic mistake is the execution of an innocent person.

The OADP annual meeting is an opportunity for all OADP supporters to gather together to approve the slate of officers for the next 12 months and to hear the about our progress on the journey to repeal in Oregon. The general public is invited to attend and take the opportunity to learn more about our efforts to improve the criminal justice system in Oregon.

Ticket are available on-line by going to www.oadp.org, purchasing them with a credit card through Pay Pal. Individual tickets are only $25. Reserve tables for eight by calling (503) 990-7060.
Table sponsors will have a table sign, be noted in the program for the evening and recognized from the podium.

For more information contact Ron Steiner at rsteiner@swcp.com, call (503) 990-7060 or go to www.oadp.org.

Cars are bankrupting Salem -- not just a downtown thing

       
http://www.planetizen.com/node/68574

Great post that helps explain why cars are bankrupting Salem, and it's got very little to do with the downtown core area where all the friction occurs over car storage.  The expanding periphery -- sprawl -- is an exponentially rising cost; the more we pave, the more things are pushed apart, requiring even more paving over a larger area.  

In other words, we're in the terminal phase of the Red Queen problem from Alice in Wonderland -- we have to run faster and faster just to stay in place.  We've built a city where cars come first, ahead of people, and it's bankrupting us.  We're cutting public goods like libraries to find the money to service our auto sprawl development pattern, which is devouring our budget.  And the more we sprawl, the more the sprawl lobby demands even more paving, which further devours the budget for actually providing services people might want (because the costs of serving low density sprawl development gets factored into everything from water and sewer networks to police, fire, streetlights, etc.)

It's time to stop.  

We need to institute a hard cap on paved surface in Salem, and concentrate our limited funds on maintaining and preserving what we have, and making it more usable to everyone -- the young, the old, the handicapped, and the poor -- starting by rebuilding our embarrassment of a pitiful part-time public transit system.

Not one more foot of paving in Salem until we are done restoring the transit system to a standard appropriate for a capital city in an environmentally aware state in a first-world country and making every existing road and street in Salem safe and welcoming for pedestrians and bicyclists aged 8 to 80+.

It's time to admit that we have a drinking problem -- we've been drinking the sprawl lobby's Kool-Aid (tm) for so long that we're seeing more of the actual and figurative bodies pile up around us, as we keep not seeing the decomposing blue whale plopped right in front of us:  our addiction to making cars the centerpieces of our civic life instead of people.

Exactly the issue with chasing growth in Salem

This is exactly the issue -- in Salem, the Chamber of the 1% chants "growth" and other nonsense and demands subsidies and tax breaks for its members, and claims justification for such policies because they produce "growth" in the things we do measure.  

But this is all while ignoring the even faster climb in the negative costs, which are passed on to the public as a whole but ignored because not measured.

Thus, the vicious cycle that Salem is experiencing -- we constantly chase "economic growth" but find ourselves falling further and further behind, because the negative consequences are overwhelming any positive ones.

       
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-04-30/krugman-s-growthism

Paul Krugman often writes sensibly and cogently about economic policy. But like many economists, he can become incoherent on the subject of growth. Consider his New York Times piece, published earlier this month:

…let's talk for a minute about the overall relationship between economic growth and the environment.

Other things equal, more G.D.P. tends to mean more pollution. What transformed China into the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases? Explosive economic growth. But other things don't have to be equal. There's no necessary one-to-one relationship between growth and pollution.

People on both the left and the right often fail to understand this point…On the left, you sometimes find environmentalists asserting that to save the planet we must give up on the idea of an ever-growing economy; on the right, you often find assertions that any attempt to limit pollution will have devastating impacts on growth…[Krugman says both are wrong]…But there's no reason we can't become richer while reducing our impact on the environment [emphasis mine].

Krugman distances himself from "leftist" environmentalists who say we must give up the idea of an ever-growing economy, and is himself apparently unwilling to give it up. But he thinks the "right-wingers" are wrong to believe that protecting the environment will devastate growth. Krugman then advocates the more sensible goal of "becoming richer," but fails to ask if growth in GDP is any longer really making us richer. He seems to equate, or at least fails to distinguish, "growing GDP" from "becoming richer." Does he assume that because GDP growth did make us richer in yesterday's empty world it must still do so in today's full world? The usual but unjustified assumption of many economists is that a growing GDP increases measured wealth by more than it increases unmeasured "illth" (a word coined by John Ruskin to designate the opposite of wealth).

To elaborate, illth is a joint product with wealth. At the current margin, it is likely that the GDP flow component of "bads" adds to the stock of "illth" faster than the GDP flow of goods adds to the stock of wealth. We fail to measure bads and illth because there is no demand for them, consequently no market and no price, so there is no easy measure of negative value. However, what is unmeasured does not for that reason become unreal. It continues to exist, and even grow. Since we do not measure illth, I cannot prove that growth is currently making us poorer, any more than Krugman can prove that it is making us richer. I am just pointing out that his GDP growthism assumes a proposition that, while true in the past, is very doubtful today in the US.

To see why it is doubtful, just consider a catalog of negative joint products whose value should be measured under the rubric of illth: climate change from excess carbon in the atmosphere; radioactive wastes and risks of nuclear power plants; biodiversity loss; depleted mines; deforestation; eroded topsoil; dry wells, rivers and aquifers; the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico; gyres of plastic trash in the oceans; the ozone hole; exhausting and dangerous labor; and the un-repayable debt from trying to push growth in the symbolic financial sector beyond what is possible in the real sector (not to mention military expenditures to maintain access to global resources). . . .

the more you rely on corporate media, the less you know

David Brooks, the sociopath stenographer to the elites, gives us an interesting column for a change, where it seems that some of the elites are recognizing the same things that peak oil folks have -- that we're inevitably headed to a much rougher, much more localized future, in the absence of the lifeblood of modern mechanized empire, cheap oil.

Also note how Brooks has to bow to the "both sides are the problem" meme and concoct a huge lie to do it -- that the "defense" budget has been slashed (which he wants to blame on the Democrats, to complete his false equation or irresponsibility by "both" "sides.")

The NY Times should run a correction tomorrow, just as it would if anyone, even an editorialist, wrote that Thomas Jefferson wrote and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  But it won't. 

This is why the more you rely on corporate media, the less you know. 

They rarely lie on the major premises of their articles, the parts everyone reads closely. What they do is wrap clearly labeled opinions in a thick gauzy blanket of seemingly objective/neutral statements that are perfectly phrased to slide through your BS detectors with the least chance of setting off the alarm, and all of which are screaming lies.  Today, Brooks' task is to make sure that none of the proles get the idea that, if we're not going to be throwing our weight around so much, we should stop spending more on war toys than the next 20 countries.

Anyone who thinks the "defense" budget has been slashed, please contact me, I have some good investment opportunities for you, including some notable infrastructure in Brooklyn.

http://mgpaquin.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/brooks-cohen-nocera-and-bruni-39/

All around, the fabric of peace and order is fraying. The leaders of Russia and Ukraine escalate their apocalyptic rhetoric. The Sunni-Shiite split worsens as Syria and Iraq slide into chaos. China pushes its weight around in the Pacific.

I help teach a grand strategy course at Yale, and I asked my colleagues to make sense of what's going on. Charles Hill, who was a legendary State Department officer before going to Yale, wrote back:

"The 'category error' of our experts is to tell us that our system is doing just fine and proceeding on its eternal course toward ever-greater progress and global goodness. This is whistling past the graveyard.

"The lesson-category within grand strategic history is that when an established international system enters its phase of deterioration, many leaders nonetheless respond with insouciance, obliviousness, and self-congratulation. When the wolves of the world sense this, they, of course, will begin to make their moves to probe the ambiguities of the aging system and pick off choice pieces to devour at their leisure.

"This is what Putin is doing; this is what China has been moving toward doing in the maritime waters of Asia; this is what in the largest sense the upheavals of the Middle East are all about: i.e., who and what politico-ideological force will emerge as hegemon over the region in the new order to come. The old order, once known as 'the American Century' has been situated within 'the modern era,' an era which appears to be stalling out after some 300-plus years. The replacement era will not be modern and will not be a nice one."

When Hill talks about the modern order he is referring to a state system that restrained the two great vices of foreign affairs: the desire for regional dominance and the desire to eliminate diversity. Throughout recorded history, large regional powers have generally gobbled up little nations. Powerful people have generally tried to impose their version of the Truth on less powerful people.

But, over these centuries, civilized leaders have banded together to restrain these vices. As far back as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, dominant powers tried to establish procedures and norms to secure national borders and protect diversity. Hegemons like the Nazis or the Communists tried to challenge this system, but the other powers fought back.

Today that system is under assault not by a single empire but by a hundred big and little foes. As Walter Russell Mead argues in a superb article in Foreign Affairs, geopolitics is back with a vengeance. Whether it's Russia seizing Crimea or China asserting itself, old-fashioned power plays are back in vogue. Meanwhile, pre-modern movements and people try to eliminate ethnic and religious diversity in Egypt, Ukraine and beyond.

China, Russia and Iran have different values, but all oppose this system of liberal pluralism. The U.S. faces a death by a thousand cuts dilemma. No individual problem is worth devoting giant resources to. It's not worth it to spend huge amounts of treasure to establish stability in Syria or defend a Western-oriented Ukraine. But, collectively, all the little problems can undermine the modern system. No individual ailment is worth the expense of treating it, but, collectively, they can kill you.

John Gaddis, another grand strategy professor, directs us to George Kennan's insights from the early Cold War, which he feels are still relevant as a corrective to the death-by-a-thousand-cuts mentality. He argues that we should contain these menaces until they collapse internally. The Moscow regime requires a hostile outside world to maintain its own internal stability. That's a weakness. By not behaving stupidly, by not overextending ourselves for example, we can, Gaddis argues, "make sure Putin's seeds of self-destruction are more deeply rooted than our own."

That's smart, but I think I'm less sure that time is on our side. The weakness with any democratic foreign policy is the problem of motivation. How do you get the electorate to support the constant burden of defending the liberal system?

It was barely possible when we were facing an obviously menacing foe like the Soviet Union. But it's harder when the system is being gouged by a hundred sub-threshold threats. The Republicans seem to have given up global agreements that form the fabric of that system, while Democrats are slashing the defense budget that undergirds it.

Moreover, people will die for Mother Russia or Allah. But it is harder to get people to die for a set of pluralistic procedures to protect faraway places. It's been pulling teeth to get people to accept commercial pain and impose sanctions.

The liberal pluralistic system is not a spontaneous natural thing. Preserving that hard-earned ecosystem requires an ever-advancing fabric of alliances, clear lines about what behavior is unacceptably system-disrupting, and the credible threat of political, financial and hard power enforcement.

Why come watch "The Healthcare Movie" Thursday night May 1 @ Grand Theater 7 p.m.

http://www.upworthy.com/his-first-4-sentences-are-interesting-the-5th-blew-my-mind-and-made-me-a-little-sick-2?c=reccon1

What The Hell Do People Believe In If They Don't Believe In God? This Guy Has One Heck Of An Answer.

http://www.upworthy.com/what-the-hell-do-people-believe-in-if-they-dont-believe-in-god-this-guy-has-one-heck-of-an-answer?c=pm1

THIS is what Salem should model itself after, not carburbia

   http://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.resilience.org%2Fstories%2F2014-04-25%2Fcreating-a-durable-local-economy-lessons-from-the-burlington-vt-model&theme=white&size=medium

Chris Martenson: Welcome to this Peak Prosperity podcast. I am your host Chris Martenson, and today we're going to continue our dialogue on how to take your money away from Wall Street and put it to work on Main Street. It is our mission to surface and promote the sorts of investments that make our world a better place. And, fortunately, there are more and more examples to choose from thanks to dedicated and hardworking people everywhere.

I was really intrigued by something by something that came up in a 

recent interview

 with Michael Shuman on local investment opportunities when he said this:

What I attribute Burlington's success to is that for the last twenty-five years, their economic development team, led in part by a fellow named Bruce Seifer, focused not on the attraction of global companies but focused instead on the nurturing of local business and local entrepreneurship. And they did it in a hundred different ways. They have done it through very careful downtown development of Burlington, they have done it through entrepreneurship programs and lending programs targeted to women, immigrants, minority groups. They have done it through interesting types of smart growth. They have done it through helping to organize small local business alliances as something different from the typical Chamber of Commerce, which usually gives bigger companies a louder voice. And I just feel like, you know, that is a testament—that is a design of economic development that more and more communities should be paying attention to.

(Much more at link ...)

And it's still the right thing to do

        The only honest way to evaluate electoral reforms is to forget about your political preferences and simply seek reforms that fix problems for everyone, without worrying about whether it helps you or hurts you in the present tense.

Although the claim linked here is that the National Popular Vote would help Republicans, in fact it would help everyone, because the Electoral College is an absurdity that produces idiots like W.  Every American's vote should count the same in electing to our sole national elected office (the veep position aside).

Here in Salem, we have the usually thoughtful Sen. Peter Courtney refusing to allow NPV to come for a vote, and, worse, refusing to justify his position or even explain it.

http://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.beaumontenterprise.com%2Fopinions%2Fcolumns%2Farticle%2FTHOMAS-TASCHINGER-Popular-vote-is-GOP-s-only-5430879.php&theme=white&size=medium
----