Comments johnpdeever has made

  • David, I'm no expert on this, but I wonder if you remembered a Harper's magazine cover story from back in 2004 on "the case for abolishing the U.S. Senate" http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/05/0080035On Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama? posted 5 days, 1 hour ago 37 Responses

  • Very good points!

    On Global warming is no friend to Russia, ambassador says posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

  • Merely to boil water while producing a poison (nuclear waste) that lasts 250,000 years -- longer than our civilization will -- is wrong, even insane.  But the anti-nuke argument I find most persuasive goes like this: "Fine.  Let private power companies build nuclear power plants ONLY if and when they will assume all the inherent risks."  The unfair (and recently renewed) Price Anderson Act gives companies no-fault government insurance against liability for nuclear incidents at  power plants.  As Public Citizen points out, "No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel."  So: Want nuclear? Let it try to compete without this unfair subsidy.

    More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

     

    On This White House science adviser thinks America should embrace nuclear power posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses

  • Regarding hankies, reminds me of an African riddle I heard once:  "We throw it away, but the European hoards it.  What is it?"  Answer: snot.  . . .

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Az0O28OtWh4C&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=throw+away+snot+africa&source=bl&ots=ILUO8QO8Mt&sig=J0KXedtij1QtXm1nCRgPMWjqkwE&hl=en&ei=4fYeSpDDDprNlQesgKHHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

    On Ask Umbra on public peeing posted 6 months ago 20 Responses

  • Good article, but how bout a little kudos for Zach Space and Charlie Wilson of Ohio for leaning toward the green side?  Both represent a whole bunch of Appalachian Ohio counties that rely on coal (and on burning it to power the rest of the state).  Yet these two went out on a limb, publicly expressing willingness to attempt to go green to a degree at least and to do what they can to make our coal industry better.  I'm in Space's generally very Republican district, and he could be a model of how young new Democratic reps even here in coal country can help all you coastal folks , who are on the average better off than Appachian Ohio and Wva and who also have less at stake when coal gets costlier, as it will and should.

    On In the House, a nine-way tie for climate swing vote posted 6 months ago 29 Responses

  • Wendell Berry on Butz

     In 1977, Wendell Berry foresaw all of this and scolded Earl Butz in the wonderful early essay, "The Unsettling of America."  Butz had proudly declared that "food is a weapon."  Berry replies:

    "To think of food-as-weapon ... may give illusory security and wealth to a few, but it strikes directly at the life of all. ... [The] Department of Agriculture [is] being used as an instrument of foreign political and economic speculation.  This militarizing of food is the greatest threat so far raised against the farmland and the farm communities of this country.  If present attitudes [remember: this was 1977] continue, we may expect government policies that will encourage the destruction, by overuse, of farmland.  . . . . The tendency, if not the intention, of Mr. Butz's confusion of farming and war, is to complete the deliverance of American agriculture into the hands of corporations. [This] will lead to the exhaustion of farmland and farm culture."

    Sadly, Wendell Berry, of course, was right. It isn't just food that has been adversely affected but rural America. And thus, the landbase of all of us.

    http://www.amazon.com/Unsettling-America-Culture-Agricult ...
    On A reflection on the lasting legacy of 1970s USDA Secretary Earl Butz posted 1 year, 9 months ago 3 Responses

  • "bold new CAFE targets (55mpg by 2030!)"

    The point about Elizabeth Kolbert and CAFE standards is good, but my reaction to the subject was . . . another hollow Clinton campaign promise?

    When Bill and Al campaigned in 1992, they promised that average fuel efficiency would hit 40 mpg by 2000. Didn't happen -- not even close!  Their administration didn't even propose across-the-board CAFE standard increases during their 8 years in power. Thanks to their failure, average fuel efficiency is now down to 24.5 mpg as of 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/FuelEconUpdates/ ...), lower than during the Reagan administration.

    Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are worse on energy, and CAFE standards are no measure of the all-around worth of a candidate.  Focusing on cars and transportation at all is missing the bigger picture, etc., etc.,

    My point is: I am baffled that people believe Hillary when she suggests things like this.  How much of this whole energy plan is just typical Clintonesque talking the talk?On Some reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of Hillary's new proposal posted 2 years ago 9 Responses

  • pls fix typo in caption displaying book

    Pollan, not Pollen.  ;)

    great interviewOn A conversation with Michael Pollan posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

  • Hmm . . . let's keep in mind who we're looking at

    Note:
    A Tax Rule Could Save Treasury Nominee Millions
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/business/02tax.html

    and that (also via NYT): "one of Mr. Paulson's most important responsibilities would be to promote tax relief. The president could have found no better advocate than Mr. Paulson . . . Not only did he champion the president's dividend tax cut in 2003, he personally benefited from it. Analysts estimate that Mr. Paulson has saved more than $2 million a year in taxes just on the dividends from the 4.5 million shares of Goldman stock he owns."

    Big change at Treasury?  Dont think so.On Bush's pick to head Treasury Department is conservationist as well as financier posted 3 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses