bobcajun’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Breathing Chemicals

  The city of Houston is no stranger to chemical toxins wafting through the fourth largest metropolitan area in the U.S (over four million souls living within the urban environs).
  A year ago, the Houston City Council, in its infinite wisdom and foresight, decided to clean up the city's air. How? By banning smoking from all publically acceessible buildings. Now that's telling 'em.
  Agreed, smoking does present a health hazard, both to those who smoke and to those who breathe in tobacco smoke. However, the effect of tiny tubes of burning tobacco pales in comparison to the numerous chemical and petrochemical plants belching tons of hazardous materials into the air, water and the earth itself.
  This doesn't even take into account the large numbers of automobiles and other internal-combustion driven vehicles (numbering about 10 million) which pollute the air everyday.
  In addition, the city is concentrating on an expensive slow-rail system to take tourists from downtown to the museum district a few blocks away.
  Now that's urban planning!On Airing on the Side of Caution posted 2 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Stars to the Rescue...oh, hoorah (yawn)!

  Oh, boy, the stars and politicians to the rescue. Let's see now...they drive their fuel-efficient cars to the airport, then fly to the concerts on big, energy-consuming, air-polluting, ozone-destroying JETS! And then are whicked to the concerts by BIG LIMOS. Yeah, that's telling 'em.
  Look how their leadership holds the world in sway. I'm really sure that these planned concerts are going to raise the awareness in China...or even Phoenix, for that matter. Both are running out of water, and probably will sooner than rising oceans can flood New York, Miami, Houston and L.A.
  Maybe if Al were to adopt some poor African children who are starving because their parents' livlihoods were destroyed by either global warming, overgrazing, corruption or rampaging enemies...that might help raise awareness too. Maybe those stars could go over there and stop some of that.  
  Oh, but wait, some other stars have already done that, and we all see how effective that was... at least for their images.
  Would it be high profile enough for Bon Jovi to go back to Africa and make some really impassioned pleas and caustic remarks? And we all saw how outspoken Al was when he was VP.
  Is there something wrong with this picture? Where are all those windmills when we need them?
  On Who Needs Aspirin? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Farming and Farm Subsidies

  First, let's recognize that this is not only an intellectual issue, but an emotion-charged fundamental question about the way our ecomony works.
  Small farmers, the so-called "yeoman farmer," was essentially the economic and social class that actually formed and built this country.
  That is no longer true. In fact, small farming is quickly becoming an anachronism.
  Why? Because we are talking profound and fundamental differences between the small, independent farmer and large agribusiness.
  On a small farm, the farmer himself is the active ingregient. He (or she) not only grows the crops or raises the animals, but also provides an economic and social rationale for the "essence" of communities throughout the U.S. The small farmer interacts with that community in a dynamic way, forming part of a microcosmic infrastructure that was once, but regretfully is no longer, part of the defining culture of this country. It was truly a vocation. Additionally, the small farmer had independence,  reliability and social conscious that is impossible to recreate in an agribusiness environment.
  It is true, of course, that the net production of agribusiness and small farmers is essentially the same. However, agribusiness operates in a completely different dimension.
  There are few real "farmers" in the agribusiness world. There are CEOs, upper management, and mid-management MBAs, whose main objective is to provide a profit to company shareholders. The product is ancillary to the profit. In short, the people who run agribusinesses could probably just as well run an oil company. It's just a job to them. Agribusinss employs agronomists, and botanists, and other specialists to make sure that their product is packagable, eatable, edible,and practicable.
  But there are no true FARMERS in agribusiness. There are farm workers, that's true. These are people that drive the tractors, combines and other farm equipment. There are mechanics, who are employed en masse to repair the fleet of farm machinery. There are payroll clerks, hr specialists, operations managers etc. But there are no real farmers in agribusiness. The basic difference between agribusiness and the old communal farms of the Marxist regimes are that the workers have a better standard of living in an agribusiness environment. But a farm worker at an agribusiness operation can never become more than a farm worker unless he joins the agribusiness team.
  In short, except for the handfull of niche farmers, the idea of the independent farmer is an anachronism. It is already too late. No amount of farm subsidy will save the smallindependent farmer. The small niche farmers are allowed to exist, becfause that provides rationale to the agrument for agribusiness.
  On Don't blame farmers for the farm-subsidy mess posted 2 years, 5 months ago 21 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  U.N. on Climate Change

  The U.N. named 2006 as The Year of "Desertification," a process that is taking place not only in Sudan, but in Spain; not only in the Arabian Peninsula but in Arizona.
  Not only are we facing severe climate changes, but we're going to run out of potable water first.
  I agree that Dafar is an early warning. When China runs out of water within the next decade, look out rest of southeast Asia, because that's where China will be seeking new water supplies.
  Already in Texas, so-called entrepreneurs like T. Boone Pickens are buying up water supplies once in the public domain. There is already a "Water Index" on the Swiss exchange, where wealthy investors can "bet" on water futures. At some point in the future, water will be available only to those who can afford it, unless steps are taken now to keep water in the public domain.
  One country, South Africa, ironically, has an elightened view on the future of water supplies. Water there is still in the public domain. Heavy users are taxed (or fined), while there are caps on prices paid by those who can least afford it.
    On Canary You Hear Me Now? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Moore

  Let him eat cake!On Be Still Our Beating Hearts posted 2 years, 5 months ago 6 Responses