I've never wanted to belong to either party, because it seemed to me that the differences within each party were more obvious than the difference between the two parties.
Recent history seems proof that a two party system does not work if one party rules all three branches of government.
And maybe the three branches are not really equal; one is more powerful than the others?
** ** **
Has anybody asked why, all of a sudden we must quickly invent a new fuel to replace gasoline? And our leader can only talk about ethanol. Surely, he too must know that it takes more energy to make ethanol than we get out of it-- and ethanol corrodes the small engines of lawn mowers and weed eaters we cannot do without. And here (our gas is now 15% ethanol) we have noticed that it reduces gas mileage by about 10%.
Overall the scientists say that the emissions from automobiles accounts for some 17% of the total monstrous amounts of carbon dioxide we poison the atmosphere with.
The warming of our atmosphere is the consequence not only of burning huge quantities of oil and coal to generate electricity, but also of deforestation, which is only slightly slowing down (we are running out of forests to eradicate). But we don't talk about that, probably because we know that it takes many hundreds of years to regrow a rain forest.
But then, using ethanol is not about global warming, but about our dependence on foreign oil. Two different things. Doing something about global warming we "seriously consider." But reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a priority.
Don't we have a say in these monstrously important issues? Important for the survival of our species I mean.
People have asked me, How can we be blamed for global warming, climate change? All we did was push progress. Don't we want progress?
Sometimes I talk "sustainable," -- how can one small part of a closed ecosystem (our so-called biosphere) be sustainable when it is based on MORE? More for some means less for others.
But few people can think that way. Sustainable is made to mean controlling nature better. I doubt that we can better nature.
Bigger, newer, fancier cars, more gadgets and appliances make more waste. Our system is designed for "progress," by which we mean MORE, more of everything. Manufacturers must make a profit, so they advertise to increase an existing need or preferably create a whole new need. Did you ever dream that you needed a cell phone, or an iPod? Now we cannot do without one or two. And, of course, get a newer and always better model next year.
Our obsession with progress, more,--in this country, at least--has made us the most wasteful society that ever was. I have known people, whole populations, that use less of everything in a year than we throw away in a day. And plastic (most of it made from oil) is mostly non-biodegradable. It will be with us for thousands of years.
Big headlines the other day: China is close to polluting the air as much as America does. In small print, the article added that, of course, China has seven times as many people as America does: the average Chinese uses one seventh as much energy as the average American uses.
We share the atmosphere with all the world's people (and plants and animals). It shames me to know that we, in this country, contribute 20-30% of the junk that is spewed into the atmosphere world-wide, and we are only 4% or less of all humans. Not fair.
