Comments Brian Hosey has made

  • Special vs. General interest

    Morano's repetitive use of the "special interest" label for the work of environmental organizations should not have gone unchallenged. Granted he was throwing so much other stuff out there, I'm sure it wasn't possible to refute everything. He's like a Gatlin gun of deceit.

    When a group of people work to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and currently to keep the life-support system of our globe from becoming a slow-roast rotisserie, it is called working for the "general" interest. It's in the interest of the general population to have clean air, clean water, and a livable planet.

    When any for-profit group on the other hand lobbies, wines, dines and contributes to the coffers of politicians, then it is in fact working towards a special interest. Namely, it is working to boost its profits, a cause which despite how important an industry may think it is, is not in the interest of the general population.
    On Liveblogging it, only two days later posted 3 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

  • Brown's Qualifications

    The man is literally ankle-deep in qualifications. In addition to his years leading a horse club (a job from which he was fired), he evidently was also college roommate of Joseph Allbaugh, his predecessor as head of FEMA. Clearly he must have been involved with some heavy-duty campus rumpus to hone his chops for leading the national emergency preparedness agency.

    With that powerhouse resume I'm sure his family still wonders that he hasn't ended up as President (yet).On Quote of the day posted 4 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

  • Preposterous--

    We all know they are being punished for speaking French. (I've had beignets. I assure you they are the Devil's handiwork.)On Gays destroy New Orleans posted 4 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

  • This Just In

    "There is no solid scientific case tying current hurricane frequency or severity to global warming."

    David Roberts, I refute thee:

    "Global warming is fueling nastier storms, expert says"

    Landsea and Trenberth are mulling this over and possibly backing off previous claims regarding severity and duration of tropical storms being strongly affected by global warming.

    From the USA Today article:

    "I think that this is very good science and a very important paper, but I don't think it settles every question," says National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hurricane expert Chris Landsea. He wants researchers to delve further back into past hurricane records to verify the trend.

    Uhuh, I feel the same way sometimes.On Where's the line between scientific accuracy and effective advocacy? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

  • Public Interest

    We should support municipal wi-fi for the same reason we support municipal parks, schools and health systems: it's in the general public interest.

    Easily accessible, easily affordable internet access is increasingly a necessity for growing competitive communities and not merely a badge of hipness.

    When all members of a community have access to the wealth of information, the job tools and the community building tools of the web then all members of the community benefit.  Community members benefit, employers benefit (from a better informed workpool) and municipalities directly benefit from efficient delivery of services and information. If everyone is benefitting, then everyone should pay in for it. Hence internet access should be treated just like any other public utility: supplemented with taxes and affordable user fees.

    Internet access is too important to communities to be left to the vagaries of the profit-driven market where, as the debacle of privatizing power utilities in California and elsewhere has demonstrated, community health and growth is not even an incidental concern.On Coaxing residents to urban cores posted 4 years, 4 months ago 13 Responses

  • Hiking with Dogs

    Good article, especially in making mention of the additional damage which has been caused by giving over our national forests to ranchers.  One thing I didn't see any mention of is the contamination caused by irresponsible dog owners.  I remember when I was a kid having a great time hiking with our family dog, Maggie but I also remember that I had to respect the fact that community lands were for everyone to use. That meant keeping Maggie on a leash and cleaning up after her as well.

    These days when I go hiking and come across hikers with their dogs, it's a rarity to see them on leashes and or even under "voice control". If they aren't making the minimal effort to keep their pets under control in the wild, it would follow that they aren't going the extra step to dispose of the dogs waste properly either. It's disappointing to see people who presumably care for their pets and for our wildlands treat both so carelessly.

    As for the necessity of filtering, it's good to know that in an emergency I may be able to take my chances with drinking unfiltered water, but given the uncertainty involved I think I'll continue filtering. A reusable water filter is really not that expensive when weighed against weeks of discomfort.On They might not be so dangerous posted 4 years, 4 months ago 3 Responses

  • Stories and Truths

    Let me preface this by saying that I have read Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and while the book isn't the-end-all-be-all it does offer some powerful insights into how people think.

    Ok, now as to the concerted effort to label environmentalists as terrorists: Such an effort is not based on literal truths, but is that really the issue? Think about the story of the tortoise and the hare.  It would be ridiculous to say that the story is literally true. The idea of animals purposefully engaging in contests of physical prowess is silly.  And yet the story has power because of the moral truth it conveys: slow and steady wins the race.

    The current effort to craft a fable about environmentalists as terrorists weaves in a few literal truths but the main power of the fable is the moral truth it's attempting to convey: environmentalists care more about having pretty trees than they do about people having jobs.  You can't defeat this type of story-telling by throwing facts at it.  It's strength is that it resonates with people's beliefs--specifically the cynical belief that most people are selfish.  

    If we really want to cancel it out we need to tell our own story that resonates equally with people's other beliefs, beliefs like it's a small world and we need to find some way to share it wisely.

    Let me tack on that we can't condemn "their" violence and yet claim "our" violence is okay. Violence is using force when one is too weak or too lazy to win with ideas. And yes, torching cars is violence. Fire scares people, and scared people  are not likely to listen to our side tell our story of peace and sharing.

    If we really want to demonstrate our commitment to the cause, how about we sacrifice some of our own cars in a coordinated, well publicised car-crushing event?  People might still say we are crazy, but at least there might be some grudging respect thrown in as well.

    On the positive side we do have good material to work with for crafting our stories. We are also doing a better job of telling our stories (go Grist!). If we continue to walk the walk and talk the talk, we will be the ones defining environmentalism and there will be no chance of the general public accepting anyone who calls us terrorists. We shouldn't surrender the label if we know we are right and are committed to winning it back.On Conflating environmentalists and terrorists is all the rage posted 4 years, 4 months ago 21 Responses

  • Stories and Truths

    Let me preface this by saying that I have read Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and while the book isn't the-end-all-be-all it does offer some powerful insights into how people think.

    Ok, now as to the concerted effort to label environmentalists as terrorists: Such an effort is not based on literal truths, but is that really the issue? Think about the story of the tortoise and the hare.  It would be ridiculous to say that the story is literally true. The idea of animals purposefully engaging in contests of physical prowess is silly.  And yet the story has power because of the moral truth it conveys: slow and steady wins the race.

    The current effort to craft a fable about environmentalists as terrorists weaves in a few literal truths but the main power of the fable is the moral truth it's attempting to convey: environmentalists care more about having pretty trees than they do about people having jobs.  You can't defeat this type of story-telling by throwing facts at it.  It's strength is that it resonates with people's beliefs--specifically the cynical belief that most people are selfish.  

    If we really want to cancel it out we need to tell our own story that resonates equally with people's other beliefs, beliefs like it's a small world and we need to find some way to share it wisely.

    Let me tack on that we can't condemn "their" violence and yet claim "our" violence is okay. Violence is using force when one is too weak or too lazy to win with ideas. And yes, torching cars is violence. Fire scares people, and scared people  are not likely to listen to our side tell our story of peace and sharing.

    If we really want to demonstrate our commitment to the cause, how about we sacrifice some of our own cars in a coordinated, well publicised car-crushing event?  People might still say we are crazy, but at least there might be some grudging respect thrown in as well.

    On the positive side we do have good material to work with for crafting our stories. We are also doing a better job of telling our stories (go Grist!). If we continue to walk the walk and talk the talk, we will be the ones defining environmentalism and there will be no chance of the general public accepting anyone who calls us terrorists. We shouldn't surrender the label if we know we are right and are committed to winning it back.On Conflating environmentalists and terrorists is all the rage posted 4 years, 4 months ago 21 Responses

  • LTE

    The good people over at Rainforest Action Network have some pointers on how to write effective letters to the editor.On Portland and vanity posted 4 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

  • Picking Friends

    Hating everyone for little to no reason is irrational.  But please do not pretend that some outside party chose to have GE on an Enemies List.  If there is such a list, GE put itself there.

    Hating indiscriminately is no way to get power.  How much power does that crazy person down on the street corner yelling at everyone have?  Don't forget the flipside is true. Giving away your friendship unearned is also no way to get power.  How much power do yes-men have to accomplish their own goals? Little. They are tools--easily used and even more easily replaced.

    For those who think you've gained power by doling out praise so cheaply, take a listen to GE CEO Jeff Immelt on Morning Edition.  Do pay close attention to the part where he says why his company is going the eco-industry route.  According to Immelt it wasn't the praise of the eco-groups nor even the "morality" argument that factored into it.  Then why? Get ready for this surprise: it was the profit.

    GE sees the writing on the wall just as BP did: we have a finite amount of oil and infinite demand for energy. Therefore investing in alternative sources of renewable (not finite) sources of energy is going to be profitable.  They also see a market for air and water purifiaction technologies.  They should, as they are part of the reason we'll be needing those technologies. For this "bold" "visionary" "thinking" Immelt pulls down a $12.6 million salary.

    Forgive me if I'm unable to get in touch with my inner Sister Prejean on this one but I'm not going fall all over myself praising GE nor am I going to forgive their past until I see some real concrete steps towards systemic reform and personal responsibility.On GE commits itself to clean energy tech. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses

  • Mind like a steel trap--difficult to open.

    You've really got to respect the discipline it takes to maintain this level of closed-mindedness:

    "Only job loss or major commitments to expand capacity will decrease congestion dramatically"
    Tim Lomax, a co-author of the Urban Mobility Report

    That carpooling/ridesharing could significantly reduce the number of cars on the road I guess is just some crazy pipedream.  Obviously we simply must build more roads. More roads, which will lead to more cars.  Which will lead to demands for even more roads.

    At least Lomax has been consistent.  Here he is pushing the same blindered logic back in 1996 on Newshour: "The flip side of bad traffic congestion is that it's usually accompanied by economic prosperity. We facetiously say that the easiest way to deal with traffic congestion is to let 10 or 20 percent of your jobs go somewhere else."  Way to stay on message Tim!

    Small wonder then that the Texas Good Roads and Transportation Association (roadbuilding industry association including the largest highway contractors in the nation) annointed Lomax as a "TGR friend".  Who knew contractors could have such a knack for understatement?
    On Now we know where it all went. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

  • Clean water, huh?

    It's great that GE is acknowledging the importance of being a clean, green missile-making machine, it really is.

    I'm all for coaxing corporations along the path towards greenness, but in this case I'm going to have to hold my applause.

    You see, GE is the same company that is responsible for dumping over a million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson river, creating propaganda to weasel out of it while simultaneously attempting to discredit the science explaining it and yet even now has not committed to accepting it's responsibility to a proper cleanup. Poisoning a watershed and then turning around and claiming to be "green" by touting your water purification technology?  The only green I see here is GE's gall.

    If GE wants my love, they can get it but they're going to have to earn it.  All I've seen from them so far is a lot of what they've been notorious for being good at: PR blitzes.  First let's see them do something radical like setting up a $1.5 billion dollar trust fund for the cleanup of their mess on the Hudson, and then we can consider whether they really mean to be green.On GE commits itself to clean energy tech. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses