"There are … 13 bills that I know of in our Legislature that address our state's sovereign right to make decisions in our own state, … and to say to the federal government, 'What part of shall not infringe do they not understand?' "

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"We must do what we can to stop this avalanche of federal intrusion.”

Hard as it may be to believe, it was only 18 months ago that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused President George W. Bush of having "mortgaged our future" because the federal budget deficit had reached $490 billion. That seems sort of quaint now."

The truth is, President Obama has continued his predecessor's fiscal policies, spending far more money than the government has (or can reasonably expect to collect).  Naturally both parties accuse the other of making things worse, but both parties use the same approach.  This is perhaps the most insidious fiscal policy because there is only one practical future response: inflation.

Here's an example: from 2000 to 2008, the national debt rose from $5.7 trillion to 10.0 trillion, a 75% increase.  Over the same period, the money supply also increased:  M2 went from $4.8 trillion to $7.9 trillion, an increase of 65%.  In other words, as debt goes up, more dollars go into circulation, and that means (all things being equal) every dollar is worth less than it was before.  According to the site Measuring Worth, based on current price GDP, a dollar in 2008 was worth only 69 cents of a 2000 dollar.  Every dollar you had in 2000 lost 31 cents during W's presidency— almost 1/3 of its value.

Yet Obama has embarked the same fiscal path.  Deseret News comments:

Obama spoke eloquently last week about the need to become fiscally responsible. So far, we haven't seen any actions to back up those words. His plan to freeze budgets in all but national security, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security was a joke.

If the government continues to inflate our currency at the rate it did in the Bush years, a dollar at the end of O's presidency will be worth only 48 cents compared to what it was worth in 2000.  That's right: it will have lost more than half its value.  

Just to stay even, you would need to make twice as much money as you did in 2000.  How's that going for you so far?

I understand that there are a lot of people who think the government should do certain things, be it national health insurance or protecting our oil supply.  But what we don't seem to realize is that we pay for these services, one way or another.  We squawk about paying taxes, but do we care that we've lost 1/3 of our wealth in ten years— and that the bill will get bigger before it gets smaller?

God is the 'Owner of All the Silver and Gold,' and with enough faith, any believer can access the inheritance.  Money is not the dull stuff of hourly wages and bank-account statements, but a magical substance that comes as a gift from above. ... 'Instead of saying "I'm poor," say "I'm rich" ... The word of God will manifest itself in reality.'

In his book Something for Nothing, Jackson Lears describes two starkly different manifestations of the American dream, each intertwined with religious faith. 

The traditional Protestant hero is a self-made man.  He is disciplined and hardworking, and believes that his "success comes through careful cultivation of (implicitly Protestant) virtues in cooperation with a Providential plan."

The hero of the second American narrative is a kind of gambling man - a "speculative confidence man," Lears calls him, who prefers "risky ventures in real estate," and a more "fluid, mobile democracy." 

The self-made man imagines a coherent universe where earthly rewards match merits.  The confidence man lives in a culture of chance, with "grace as a kind of spiritual luck, a free gift from God."  The Gilded Age launched the myth of the self-made man, as the Rockefellers and other powerful men in the pews connected their wealth to their own virtue.  In these boom-and-crash years, the more reckless alter ego dominates.

"Do we start disassembling Wal-Mart because they don't have unions?"

Not a bad idea. Unions or no, Wal-Mart funnels the wealth of our communities into corporate coffers, adding little as they remove much.

Thousands died and hundreds of thousands became homeless when an earthquake hit Haiti yesterday afternoon— the poorest nation in the western hemisphere (and the third poorest in the world) with a GDP per capita of $1,300.  This compares with $8,700 per capita in its neighbor, the Dominican Republic.  Haiti's average income is $270 per year.

(Terry Freedman photo.)

Many of us don't have the time or resources to create our own networking organization— and you don;t have to.  There are actions you can take every day that promote a better world.  Here are a few suggestions:

1. Wherever possible, deal with small, local companies and get to know the owners.  Support small, honest businesses.
2. If you must deal with a mega-corporation (i.e. internet services or cell phones), choose one that is socially conscious, like Google.
3. Eat local.  Know your farmers.  Frequent the farmers markets and farm stores.  What you can't buy there, buy at a locally-owned grocery, not a national chain.  (In some urban areas, ethnic grocery stores may be the only option.)
4. Network with other like-minded businesses and people.  Know (and share) where to get products and services outside the mega-corporate arena.
5. Avoid credit.  If you must use credit, get it through a community bank, not a mega-bank.
6. Don't invest in Wall Street— invest in your local community instead.  Whether rental property or a small business, it's a better investment, and the game ISN'T rigged.  If you can't afford to buy a property, pool your resources with others!
7. Find and develop relationships where you can do business with a handshake.  Integrity has been one of the casualties of corporatization.  Adversarial relationships promote somebody getting screwed— avoid them!

Can it be done?  Absolutely.  The only mega-corporation I deal with is my cell phone provider.  Some say it's easier in a rural community because we're smaller.  But urban areas have even more small businesses, you just have to hunt for them— and find the ones that operate with integrity.  (For example, you know that a national auto service chain will eventually rip you off; not all locally-owned auto mechanics are honest, but you can find some who are.)

Even when I lived in Los Angeles, I never advertised because once people realized I was always fair, I got all my clients through referrals.  When you need a product or service, don't go to the Yellow Pages, ask your friends and associates instead.

This may require a little more effort, and you may sometimes have to pay a little more.  But often, the local business will be cheaper in the long run.  Remember: you're paying for mega-corporations (and mega-banks and mega-farms) through your taxes, that's one reason they're cheaper.  And remember, too: a dollar spent at a local business stays in your community, helping your local economy; it doesn't go off to Bentonville, Arkansas or some other far-off destination.

(Marilyn M photo: People gather at the Davis, CA, farmers market.)

Reader Sue regularly comments that government and business are one.  In other words, our democracy has been corrupted by corporate interests— and that corruption runs deep.

If the system is rotten at its core, are we ready yet to take action?  I don't mean overthrowing anything— that's unnecessary.  Instead, seperate from it.  Show the mega-corporate world how irrelevant it really is. 

Here's an example of a network that works toward goals like this: the Conscious Community Campaign in Reno, NV.  Says their site,

"Let's build the world that we want instead of always fighting against the one that we don't like."

CCC seeks not just to do good, but to network those who are doing (and want to do) good in their community— to "connect the dots." Their "parallel" approach to creating a just society is not unique— it's been used by organizations from Sri Lanka and Thailand to Central America, from Basque to the United States. The Common Society Movement, based in Portland Oregon, is yet another example, as is the Sarvodaya Movement in Sri Lanka.

The answers are out there, if we look for them.  As a wise person once said something to the effect that people who believe a thing is impossible should get out of the way of those doing it.  Remember: mega-corporations control our media and our government.  They don't want you to realize there's an alternative.

"One of my great concerns is that nothing seems to be off limits to these guys [the oil and gas companies]."

As we contemplate the influence of energy companies in blocking our response to climate change, here's an award-winning movie that looks at the conflict between energy and other land uses, from wilderness to ranching. Energy seems to be winning.

"Sure, it's pretty depressing to think that we waste all these resources day-in and day-out. Even if you don't believe in global warming, it hardly makes economic, environmental or even plain-old common sense to do things inefficiently and ineffectively. But if things are being done so badly, then the upside is that there is plenty of room for improvement. And that improvement can happen fast."

And they're right: we waste three quarters of the energy we produce. That means there's lots of room to reduce emissions (and save money) without even trying very hard!

The Copenhagen climate summit has ended. The result: a non-binding agreement that we ought to do something about CO2 emissions, but with no commitments as to who will do what. There's also a generalized statement— again, nonbinding— that there will be a fund to provide up to $100 billion per year to developing nations that must cope with climate change, with no indication of who's going to ante up.

In short, the summit was a failure. Some argue that getting nations to agree on anything is itself a success. But the fact is, two nations blocked this process: the United States and China. These just happen to be the world's biggest carbon polluters— and two of the nations least likely to be affected by early climate changes. Coincidence? I think not.

In essence, my country and its new ally China have thumbed their noses at the world. We Americans have said that we don't care what the cost is to others, we insist on maintaining our current levels of decadence and waste. And no one can stop us: we are the most powerful nation in the world (and China is probably second).

I am yet hopeful that the other industrialized nations will reduce their emissions, despite our refusal to do so. They will be at a significant economic disadvantage, since the U.S. will continue to plunge ahead without the added expense of paying for the cost of its carbon. We may regain hegemony as a result.

I am yet hopeful that the citizens of the United States will defy their leaders and demand change— the change that then-candidate Barack Obama promised, but has yet to materialize. I am yet hopeful that each of us will cut our own emissions to the extent we can, and elect legislators and executives who will give us the resources to cut further.

It's too late to eliminate all effects of climate change. People will die because of our inaction. The best we can do is to act now to stop climate change from becoming worse than the present and future effects we've already caused.

The Bible (it's Sunday— you knew I'd bring it back to the Bible) teaches us that we are responsible for the failures of our government. We will pay the price for the inaction of President Obama, and President Bush before him.

Will we stand by as our leaders heap guilt on us? Or will we stand up and demand what should have been done already?  Sadly, I think we'll probably let Obama lead us down the road to Hell.

• Fast food
• Cosmetic procedures
• Alcohol
• Tobacco
• hydrogenated soy oil

"Europe is completely united. A large part of Africa agrees with us completely, the United States is very close to our position." —French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who must have meant that the U.S. agrees that the EU should make significant emissions reductions.

"We will honour our word with real action." —China Premier Wen Jiabao, who has blocked verification of emissions reductions.

(Oxfam International photo: Animals dying of drought in Kenya.).

"The draft declaration [at Copenhagen] is reportedly set to mention a cap of 2C but a document prepared by the UN climate convention secretariat, which was leaked earlier, confirms that current pledges on cutting greenhouse gas emissions are almost certainly not enough to keep the rise in the global average temperature within that level." —BBC News.

As I mentioned yesterday, commitments made to reduce emissions are woefully inadequate to mitigate the effects of climate change— and the U.S. is perhaps the biggest offender.

It may be that any agreement is better than no agreement. But let's be clear: the world 40 years from now will not be pleasant. I'm glad I probably will be gone by then, but my nieces and nephews will be just seeing their first grandchildren. I'm astonished that we can pass on to them the costs of our decadent spending and energy binge— a binge that nearly everyone knows is unsustainable, but we can't seem to stop ourselves.

Is there a Twelve Step program for resource incontinence?

"They're going to take our sovreignty away!-- I assume from the Chinese because I think we hawked it last year for rent money."

Esty: "[Obama] is going to bring us a real change in spirit."
Colbert: "In other words, nothing. Change of spirit and $4.25 will get you a latte."

Planet Green says, "Who knew a late night comedy show starring a faux-conservative loudmouth could be so educational?"

(MJN9 photo: Drought in Georgia, 2007)

There's no getting around it: we in the U.S. have contributed (and continue to contribute) far more than our fair share of CO2.  The authors suggest an annual carbon budget of 2.3 tons per person.  We emit more than 8 times that figure.

Chinese climate scientists have suggested a "carbon budget," taking into account the historical contributions of nations to the current problem.  It should be no surprise to anyone that the U.S.— the biggest historical polluter— is well over budget.  Summarizes Worldchanging:

"Starting from the principle of equality of average accumulated emissions, this budget fairly apportions carbon between the nations of the world – that is, the initial carbon budget allocation will be in direct proportion to the population in the base year.

"If a carbon budget for 1900 to 2050 were allocated to each country, initial calculations show that most Annex I (industrialised) nations are already heavily in arrears, on average by a factor of two. Some countries are more overdrawn: the United Kingdom by 2.7 times, the United States by 3.2 times. A small number of non-Annex I (developing) nations, such as oil exporters, also run a carbon deficit, but to a lesser degree. The majority of non-Annex I nations enjoy a surplus in their carbon budget: for example, China has to date used 28% of its carbon budget, India only 10%. A few Annex I countries, such as Turkey and Spain, also have a small surplus."

It can surely be argued that historical contributions should be considered. It can also be argued (and we will surely hear U.S. negotiators do so) that it doesn't matter who played with matches, when the house catches on fire, everyone has to work together to put it out.

But here's something more to the point: These scientists propose that a sustainable level of CO2 production is 2.3 tons per person. We currently emit 20 tons per person— and employ a lot of people doing it. I've challenged my readers to cut their emissions by 50%, as my family has. Cutting them by nearly 90% is, at present, unthinkable.

But if we don't, a lot of people (including perhaps our own children) will face a rather unpleasant planet.

(Wiki image.)

"We could do it. At the moment, there's no sign that we are going to do it." —Bill McKibben, on reducing CO2 concentrations to 350ppm.

There's an increasing emphasis on a hard target for CO2 reduction: 350 ppm. That's the number many scientists believe is safe with respect to climate change. And it's a number we passed back in 1989. The current concentration is 390 ppm.

At issue: the higher CO2 concentrations go, the worse climate change will be— and the more people will lose their homes, livelihoods, and lives as a result.

We know that at the current level, 390 ppm, climates are already changing. Temperatures are more extreme. Droughts afflict many parts of the world, and sea levels have already risen to displace people in low-lying countries.

We also know that CO2 emissions are still rising. That means CO2 concentrations will continue to rise— and rise faster— because we're pumping out CO2 even faster than before.

And we know that virtually every one of us is complicit. We drive luxury cars in a wasteful manner, use an incomprehensible number of electronic gadgets, buy stuff from tens of thousands of miles away, and eat amounts and types of foods that are, quite simply, uncosncionable.

I'm no exception. As I sit in an office on a Sunday, with a temperature of 55 degrees outside, the air conditioner is running and so are four computers that no one has used since Friday. I eat a vegetarian, organic snack packed a thousasnd miles away in a place where none of its ingredients grow, wearing a pair of plastic Nikes made across the Pacific. Later, I'll get in my Saturn and drive to a restraurant in another city where I'll meet friends who also drove from another city. (Think a 38 mpg Saturn isn't a luxury vehicle? Spend some time in the Third World, where anything with 4 wheels is a luxury vehicle!)

Our lifestyle is killing people. The question is, how many people are we willing to let die? A hundred thousand? A million? Ten million? A Billion? Anyone we don't know?

Or will we stick our heads in the sand an insist that we didn't realize, despite the voices crying in the wilderness? I wonder how that will fly when we meet our Maker...

The New York Times reports that the U.S. climate negotuating team has rejected a U.N. proposal because it gives a "pass" to developing nations, particularly China and India.  Said Obama-administration climate negotiatorTodd Stern,

"You can't even have that discussion if the major developing countries aren't taking a real role... This is very much driven by the environmental imperative."

But when a coalition of 43 island nations proposed a legally-binding treaty with hard targets for CO2 reduction and temperature limitation. Stern acknowledged the price these nations will pay of the rest of the world doesn't get its emissions under control, but described their proposal as not politically realistic. So much for the "environmental imperative."

Let's clarify where this administration stands: seemingly it's willing to do anything to prevent climate change except make real commitments.  The verbiage has changed since the Bush years, but so far there's precious little being done.  The promised investments in renewable energy ($6.3 billion over several years) haven't yet equalled the amount spent enriching environmentally-destructive corporate farms ($5 billion in 2007 alone).

Admittedly, it takes a while to get an oil tanker like the U.S. economy to change course.  But these lukewarm efforts originate from a man characterized by his supporters and detractors alike as Liberal.  We face athreat more destructive than the Nazi armiues against whom Obama said force was justified.  Where is his commitment to protect the lives of Americans and others?

I think we've forgotten what change really looks like.

"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

This may be technically true. Once Hitler's army started rolling, noviolence would have had no effect. But Hitler's invasion could have (and indeed should have) been prevented through nonviolent means.  The flawed peace of 1918, catering as it did to the whims of the victorious powers, made Hitler's rise inevitable.  The invasion of Europe, the Holocaust, and the deaths of tens of millions of civilians in World War II were preventable with just a little foresight.  Prevention would have been far less costly than cure.

Similarly, if the brutality of Al Queda perhaps cannot be countered with nonviolence (and I am not completely convinced of this), it nevertheless could have been prevented.  While we were playing chess against the Soviets with pawns in the Middle East, people there grew resentful.  While we were squeezing oil from their sands and supporting favorable dicatatorships that left their people in poverty, they grew mistrustful.  When we overthrew their democracies in order to increase our profits, they came to see us as the enemy.

But here's the kicker: President Obama managed to refer to the decades of Cold War as "stability" and "global security"— a period we might look back on with fondness.  For those who remember "duck and cover" exercises in elementary school, who remember the pervasive fear that we were on the verge of annihilation— and for the many people who suffered, from Angola to Vietnam, under the dominance of two opposing powers that cared little who or what they destroyed in their quest to outmaneuver the other— at the very least that's a slap in the face.

It is true that many conservatives long for the predictable nature of the Cold War years, when we knew who our enemy was and the rules were clear.  It is true that foreign policy today is much more difficult, precisely because we now need to take into account the sovereign desires of a hundred or more smaller international constituencies.  But doesn't America stand for democracy and self-determination?

President Obama acknowledged that we have made mistakes.Then he added,

"The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity... We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest..."

I wonder how the Iranians feel about that statement, or the Nicaraguans, Cubans, Salvadoreans, Tibetans, Tamils, Cambodians, and people in any number of other places where we have acted poorly and with self-interest, or failed to act at all.

Ironically, the President's remarks drew widespread applause from both the Left and Right in this country. I'll admit there was something for everyone, from the insistence that war is necessary to his repudiation of torture. But the overtone of this speech— and to a peace committee no less— was nothing short of arrogant American nationalism.

I'm not alone in my criticism.  One Norwegian newspaper, said his speech "could have been, in many aspects, delivered by George W. Bush, apart from a few exceptions at the end," and another commentator asked, "Is Obama a sugar-coated Bush?" 

Can anyone imagine former President Bush receiving a Nobel Peace Prize?  Is there really any "change" here?

"Attorneys specializing in expungements report a big jump because the recession has thousands of Utahns scrambling to replace lost jobs and lots of employers doing background checks. That long-ago black mark can haunt applicants in a marketplace where job seekers outnumber jobs. Small infractions once overlooked when workers were hard to come by are now door slammers."

Utah has a fairly liberal expungement policy— felony drug offenses can be expunged after a period of time with no legal entanglements.  Sex offenses and violent crimes generally can't.

Unlike California, where after three strikes you die in prison, Utah takes a more forgiving approach.  I've had several friends apply sucessfully to have old felonies expunged.  One was a comptetive shooter who needed expungement to get back the right to shoot a gun.  Others needed expungement for state (or state-funded)  employment.  And after years of having changed their ways, there's little logic to preventing such people from rejoining the non-criminal world.

(Robert Bloomfield, Good Tidings, or News from the Farm, 1804.)

"Audits of Schedule C filers yielded 43% less revenue per hour than exams conducted on other typoes of entities."

Audit rates of Schedule C returns will decrease, but not go away. Less productive or not, the IRS doesn't want people cheating.

Wiki photo.

"Depart from evil, and do good;
seek peace, and pursue it." —Psalm 34:14

"I will both lie down and sleep in peace;
for you alone, O LORD, make me lie down in safety." —Psalm 4:8

Yesterday, I heard Jean McKenzie, a commentator on NPR, say that Afghans— especially southern Afghans— are embracing the Taliban as the lesser of two evils. In other words, though many of them find the Taliban reprehensible, they find the U.S.-led coalition worse.

"The Taliban, although much about their regime is noxious certainly to our way of thinking and to many Afghans provide a measure of security and a measure of respect. We're talking about a central government that can not guarantee any kind of safety and security for its citizens.

"Police that are widely corrupt and feared, and against all of this, you've got Taliban that come from the same cultural background, that spring from the community, that command respect in large layers of the population, and many people find that a much more attract[ive] option than putting their trust in the central government."

I don't take this to mean that the U.S. is evil, but rather that we have no idea how to fight this war. We're in good company: the Soviets and the Brits also failed to win in Afghanistan. Both were able to influence the diverse nation; neither was able to conquer it.

The modern history of Afghanistan is a struggle between proponents of modernization and those of isolation— religious reform and traditionalism. It is also the struggle to unite a diverse and decentralized system of tribes.  And it is a struggle in which outsiders meddle at their peril.

Our vision of the ideal society does not work in Afghanistan. Multiple commentators tell us that corruption is rampant; Transparency International recently listed Afghanistan as the second most corrupt country, behind Myanmar.  Others tell us that democracy, as we envision it at least, has failed.  This further sugests that we don't understand what we're doing there.

What does this have to do with the Psalms?  Once again, we have galloped off to remake another nation in our own image.  Once again, we have tried to play God.

A quotation from Jean MacKenzie's interview is particularly telling:

"[The] international community seems more intent on [im]posing its own vision on Afghanistan than helping Afghans find their own way forward."

I don't approve of the Taliban, but I'm also not arrogant enough to believe I know what's best for the nation of Afghanistan. I've seen enough of war to doubt that it's an improvement for most Afghans. 

Yet we persist in playing God— and we wonder why we have so many enemies that we dare not lie down.