blueberrysushi’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Clinton's brain

  I have been ambivalent toward Hillary Clinton so far - I have bought the notion that she's cold, calculating, and all that. I don't know if it's true, but a lot of people have pushed it. What has started to impress me about her, though, is her incredible capacity to think through issues and present thought-out answers to questions such as those presented in the forum.

  Whoever is our next president, s/he will inherit an absolute shitstorm. Bush's legacy is apparent: a useless war that is draining our budget; underfunded, understaffed federal agencies; a deeply divided, even mutually suspicious citizenry; international discredit ... the list goes on, and that's just what we know about. Whoever picks up this hot potato is in for a long fight against the tide of bad governance that Bush has brought upon us. Hillary appears to be one who can deliver on this.

  It's weird, I never thought I'd like her, but I think she might be the only person who can deal with this. She has absolutely dealt with every personal insult lobbed at her from the right, and it drives them nuts that she rises above it every time.

  All that aside, I like both Kucinich and Edwards. I think that Clinton would be great as President, and I think that she could have the support of people like them (and others) to run the government. How about a Minister of the Environment? On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  NIMBY

  I've never liked the term "NIMBY." It's not that it doesn't ever exist, but that there's no equivalent for the opposing view - "IMBY." A lot of communities have tried very hard to attract businesses that may be deemed undesirable for environmental or aesthetic reasons. When there are no jobs, it's easier to be IMBY.

  Another problem with NIMBY is that the politics of geography are complex, and NIMBYism implies that there is simply an aversion to having industrial/big ag/nuclear facilities near one's home. But people often oppose how they run or the very idea of them (as with nuclear waste facilities). In the latter case, people may only protest when the facilities will be located in their communities, but they may be opposed to them in principle, not just because of the impact to their view.

  As for the ethanol facility, the "farm belt" is not composed of farmers. Even in the most ag-dependent counties in the U.S., farmers are going to make up a small proportion of the population. I'm not surprised people there would oppose this.On Farm Belt residents not gung-ho about ethanol plants posted 2 years ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Tightening our belts ...

  I recently saw Mark Rey, the Undersecretary of Ag, speak about the Farm Bill. He said something to the effect of "we got it in under our deficit reduction goal." What a joker! Seriously, he must have been joking.

  Since the war in Iraq, domestic spending has remained wasteful in the eyes of these morons, while hemmorhaging money in some useless war is seen as patriotic. Federal agencies have been sucked dry, public funding for scientific research and social equity projects has disappeared ... but we've still got enough to remain in this quagmire for the foreseeable future.

  Yay.On Priorities posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  good to hear ...

  Thanks, Ben. I'm glad there's an option.On Easy ways to cut your energy use, one day at a time posted 2 years ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Little thing

  I'm really annoyed at the plastic packaging that is used for practically everything, including fluorescent light bulbs. The packaging can't be recycled (as far as I can tell) and it's molded to the product, so you can't reuse it. You literally have to cut it apart and throw it away. Why can't light bulbs come in the nice little cardboard squares? The packaging would be recyclable and much less energy-intensive to create in the first place. Why is it cheaper (for it certainly must be) to use plastic than just box the little suckers?On Easy ways to cut your energy use, one day at a time posted 2 years ago 11 Responses