Thursday, August 05, 2010
Biomass Energy vs Wind and Solar
This is the long version of a letter I wrote to the Nation magazine in response to some articles in their recent "Freedom from Oil" issue.
http://www.thenation.com/issue/august-2-2010
http://www.thenation.com/issue/august-2-2010
Recent articles by Michael T. Klare and Christian Parenti in the "Freedom from Oil" issue present the conventional vision of a future energy supply based on renewables. Both authors argue that wind, solar electric and other technologies feeding a smart grid represent the future of clean energy. Unfortunately this electricity-centric proposal fails to displace fossil fuels because it does not provide the products we derive from fossil fuels, namely heat and chemicals. Fossil fuels should be thought of as stored thermal energy, available in solid, liquid and gaseous forms, which are then used to provide space heating, electricity and locomotion, as well as chemical feedstocks for plastics and synthetics. Electricity does not provide stored heat and chemicals but we have a massive resource available that can, and it is biomass from our farms, fields and forests. Every product that is derived from an oil well or other fossil fuel can also be derived from some form of biomass. Biomass should be elevated to first priority among the varieties of renewable energy, instead of being treated dismissively, as it already provides the greatest quantities of clean energy today, will likely provide the lions share of clean energy in the future, does not require new or exotic technologies, and is the only way to directly replace fossil fuels. The right policies supporting biomass energy, namely price supports and a fossil carbon tax, could quickly inject new economic life into rural America and immediately reduce pollution by directly displacing fossil fuels.
Technology is not the problem in utilizing biomass energy since the engineering solutions have been around for a long time. Biomass can provide replacements for natural gas via gasification, for coal via torrefaction, and for gasoline via Fischer-Tropsch syntheisis and any number of other pathways. These products can be used in conventional stoves, furnaces, boilers and engines with cleaner emissions than their fossil brethren and without needing to retool our entire society around a new and unproven technical paradigm. The Europeans have long embraced biomass as a major component of their energy mix, and they do not have the agricultural and forest resources we have in North America. The hurdle in embracing biomass energy has never been technical, it is economic and political. In today's retail prices biomass energy is more expensive than the cheapest fossil fuels, but biomass does not benefit from a century's worth of public and private investment as well as massive infrastructure and huge economies of scale. The retail price of fossil fuels does not include the cost of pollution and foreign wars, which is why we need a carbon tax to help include those hidden costs in the equation.
Biomass energy should be given a price support, just as all major agricultural commodities receive, so that retail prices for biomass and fossil fuels are even. If biomass were to receive federal price supports there would be an explosion of innovation and entrepreneurialism and a revitalization of rural America as we put millions of people to work harvesting grasses, ag waste and wood and refining those raw materials into the fuel and chemical products we need to operate our modern society. The critical variables in utilizing biomass correctly will be proper land management so we don't rape the land, as well as modern combustion devices optimized to burn biomass efficiently with minimal emissions. Any product made from an oil well can be made from a farm, we just need to put in the policies to make it happen.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Election Day
October 28, 2004
Homer,
There are more choices on the ballot than just Bush and Kerry, Ralph Nader is on and so are the libertarians and constitution party, and you could write in David Cobb from the Greens as well.
I have been committed to third parties, particularly the Greens, for a long time and I am voting for Nader. The two major parties are hopelessly corrupt, both are eager to wage illegal war at home and abroad and both support economic practices that are driving the planet into ecological ruin.
The lesser of two evils is still evil and there is no time like the present to vote for real change. Obviously Ralph Nader is not going to win, and I wasn't happy that he left the Green Party, but he is campaigning for real change and he also understands that the left which has supported Kerry blindly without demanding anything in return is going to get screwed no matter who wins.
Kerry is sure to win New York State and the electoral votes are nearly guarranteed. So a vote for Nader will make much more difference and carry much more weight than a vote for the major parties because it will be noticed. Plus Nader is the only major candidate up there speaking truth to power and has a lifetime of fighting the good fight behind him.
I have to say Homer that I am surprised that an enlightened person as yourself would not have Nader or any other third parties on your list. If you want to see a change in the system you have to demand it and help create it, and the simple act of recognizing and articulating that there are choices beyond the two party duopoly, no matter how slim they may seem, is a profound and powerful first step in creating the reality of new political choices.
At any rate though don't vote for Bush, it is no accident that he is an oil-man starting an oil-war. His rhetoric obscures the real reasons for going to war. He talks endlessly about fighting terrorists and installing democracy, but never about the true strategic interests at stake, namely the primary the raw ingredient that fuels the world consumer economy that is now suffering from ever increasing demand and ever decreasing supply.
And I also believe that Kerry will win pretty handily. Democrats traditionally outnumber Republicans, and Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000, and four years later he has alienated many people, many who voted for him in 2000 will not vote for Bush this year, while Kerry will have lots more votes than Gore did. I don't even think it will be close enough for fraud to make the difference.
Sincerely,
Ed Dodge
Homer,
There are more choices on the ballot than just Bush and Kerry, Ralph Nader is on and so are the libertarians and constitution party, and you could write in David Cobb from the Greens as well.
I have been committed to third parties, particularly the Greens, for a long time and I am voting for Nader. The two major parties are hopelessly corrupt, both are eager to wage illegal war at home and abroad and both support economic practices that are driving the planet into ecological ruin.
The lesser of two evils is still evil and there is no time like the present to vote for real change. Obviously Ralph Nader is not going to win, and I wasn't happy that he left the Green Party, but he is campaigning for real change and he also understands that the left which has supported Kerry blindly without demanding anything in return is going to get screwed no matter who wins.
Kerry is sure to win New York State and the electoral votes are nearly guarranteed. So a vote for Nader will make much more difference and carry much more weight than a vote for the major parties because it will be noticed. Plus Nader is the only major candidate up there speaking truth to power and has a lifetime of fighting the good fight behind him.
I have to say Homer that I am surprised that an enlightened person as yourself would not have Nader or any other third parties on your list. If you want to see a change in the system you have to demand it and help create it, and the simple act of recognizing and articulating that there are choices beyond the two party duopoly, no matter how slim they may seem, is a profound and powerful first step in creating the reality of new political choices.
At any rate though don't vote for Bush, it is no accident that he is an oil-man starting an oil-war. His rhetoric obscures the real reasons for going to war. He talks endlessly about fighting terrorists and installing democracy, but never about the true strategic interests at stake, namely the primary the raw ingredient that fuels the world consumer economy that is now suffering from ever increasing demand and ever decreasing supply.
And I also believe that Kerry will win pretty handily. Democrats traditionally outnumber Republicans, and Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000, and four years later he has alienated many people, many who voted for him in 2000 will not vote for Bush this year, while Kerry will have lots more votes than Gore did. I don't even think it will be close enough for fraud to make the difference.
Sincerely,
Ed Dodge
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Open Source Voting
Email to Cornell Computer Science Dept listserv.
July 1, 2004
Open-Source Voting:
In regards to all of the controversy surrounding the use of computerized
voting machines provided by private companies that hide their poorly
written source code, a solution that resolves the problem of confidence
in the machines has yet to be injected into the public debate.
That solution is to use open-source standards in the programming of the
machines. Open-source methods will allow the technology to be subject to public scrutiny, and vetted by experts throughout the country until it is satisfactory for everyone.
The actual technology behind a touch screen voting machine is already
available. The hardware would be similar to a cash register, and would
of course include a printer. The technology should be built on network
protocols so that once it is fully mature it can be enabled across the
internet. Designs at this point will all be closed systems, but must be
networked between a series of voting terminals and vote counting server. Hardened security protocols will certainly be implemented from the start.
This project is just getting started and we are looking for talented
programmers who would like to get involved at the ground level in a
potentially high profile public service project.
Please contact:
Ed Dodge ILR '97
July 1, 2004
Open-Source Voting:
In regards to all of the controversy surrounding the use of computerized
voting machines provided by private companies that hide their poorly
written source code, a solution that resolves the problem of confidence
in the machines has yet to be injected into the public debate.
That solution is to use open-source standards in the programming of the
machines. Open-source methods will allow the technology to be subject to public scrutiny, and vetted by experts throughout the country until it is satisfactory for everyone.
The actual technology behind a touch screen voting machine is already
available. The hardware would be similar to a cash register, and would
of course include a printer. The technology should be built on network
protocols so that once it is fully mature it can be enabled across the
internet. Designs at this point will all be closed systems, but must be
networked between a series of voting terminals and vote counting server. Hardened security protocols will certainly be implemented from the start.
This project is just getting started and we are looking for talented
programmers who would like to get involved at the ground level in a
potentially high profile public service project.
Please contact:
Ed Dodge ILR '97
My Experience at the Green Party Nominating Convention
June 30, 2004
The National Green Party Presidential Nominating Convention held Milwaukee, Wisconsin in June 2004 was my first national Green Party event and it was an exciting display of political fireworks with a tough fight between the supporters of Ralph Nader and the supporters of David Cobb.
I was disappointed, but not disheartened that the Green Party did not endorse Ralph Nader as he was seeking. As a member of the New York delegation that strongly supported the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo ticket I was fortunate to be close to the action, and despite some of the partisanship I was proud to see the Green Party display such strong, passionate leadership on all sides. And I was also proud to be part of a delegation that would not heed in its challenge to the two-party duopoly and not willing to succumb to lesser-evilism and defer to the Democrats.
Before discussing the Presidential contest I would like to step back and discuss some of the important lessons I learned from the other Greens I met. There was particular value in meeting and listening to international Greens that were in attendance from all over Europe, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and even Palestine and Israel. Meeting these Greens crystallized for me the significance of being Green and how the Green identity transcends societies, cultures, and even political parties. Being Green is about sharing a value system, not about membership in any particular organization. The Green values are largely instinctive and require little definition, but they are fundamentally rooted in the quest for peace and the dignity of all life.
Now despite shared values Greens often disagree over tactics, and we have been seeing these disagreements flare for months over the current Presidential election campaign here in America. Our current President Bush presides over one of the most bombastic and incompetent administrations in the history of America. This administration which narrowly stole its previous victory has manipulated the tragedies of Sept. 11 into an effort to launch preemptive war.
Because President Bush is so terrible many on the left feel the need to elect anyone in his place. This has lead to a strategy of deferment to the Democratic Party, to stay out of its way in hopes that they will defeat the Republicans. Unfortunately the Democrats have chosen to run a pro-war candidate, John Kerry, who is campaigning on the motto of I will do everything Bush does, just less incompetently. The majority of mainstream progressives, democrats, leftists, who are in the 'anybody but Bush' camp are forced to swallow their beliefs and vote for a candidate who openly pledges to continue with policies that they repudiate.
Ralph Nader and his running mate Peter Camejo are running the only high profile anti-war campaign and it is built upon the decades of fighting for social justice that both of these men have done. But they continue to have a difficult time finding people to support them because most anti-war people are afraid that they may be cast as spoilers and help Bush win. The key element of the Nader/Camejo campaign is to simply be in the fight. They want Bush to lose as much as anyone, and need it for the sake of their personal reputations. But by being in the campaign they serve notice to the Republicrats that there are committed challengers, driven by values, who are not going to go away. The 'safe-states' people miss the point entirely that challenges made half-heartedly will never be respected. Nader is able to negotiate with John Kerry about how to help him defeat Bush without ever diluting his fundamental challenge to the duopoly.
Ralph Nader has chosen to run a multi-party alliance ticket with support from Greens, the Reform Party, Libertarians, socialists and others. With regards to the Greens, Nader told them in a letter that he would not accept the party's nomination, which he had in 2000, and would only accept an endorsement. This caused considerable problems within the Green Party as the presumptive candidate was stepping halfway out. This opened the door for David Cobb, a long time activist and Green organizer from Texas. Cobb pledged to run a 'safe-states' campaign that would not challenge the democrats but would help build the party through local organizing. The Nader/Camejo camp argued that we needed to support Nader as he was the high profile candidate already in the publics mind who is fighting a lonely fight and needs all our help. Peter Camejo even offered a dual endorsement strategy that would have allowed both candidates to run and split the Green ballot lines by various states. The Cobb camp insisted this would not work because some states ballot lines supposedly required an official nominee and not an endorsement. This somewhat disingenuous argument ignored the fact that ballot line access is always a year in year out struggle and that Cobb was unlikely to get enough votes in any state to hold onto any of the ballot lines earned. And on top of that by denying Nader the endorsement Nader was shut out of all Green ballot lines including the critical state of California.
The Cobb camp was very well organized and it was difficult for the Nader supporters to rally people toward a candidate not present seeking a 'no nomination'. The convention was spread over a few days and there was a lot of time to engage other delegates from all over the country and debate the various points of view. Some of the sniping on both sides got nasty, and some of the of the partisanship reflected old wings within the party that resurface at times like this.
Nader choice of Peter Camejo of California as his running mate is a very good choice. Camejo is a longtime latino civil rights activist who marched with Martin Luther King Jr., but is also a successful investment broker who has pioneered the Socially Responsible Investing movement. Camejo is a real fighter and I believe that he is a leader with a rising star who could make a great impact on his own. Camejo led the charge for Nader at the convention and California and New York provided the core of support. A strong bond formed between the delegations of the two states.
New Yorkers seemed to be at the center of things throughout the convention, whether it was Howie Hawkins of Syracuse working strategy for the Nader camp, or Jason West of New Paltz being called out as one of People Magazine's "50 Most Beautiful People". The New York delegation issued a challenge to some of the floor rules and Cobb implicitly recognized his strong opposition in New York in his acceptance speech and on his website. The strong support for Nader and Camejo in California and New York helps ensure that their campaign will get exposure in the cultural centers of America.
'Greens for Nader' will now be organizing outside of any official apparatus of the Green Party. Though this is a logistical issue in some states, it does not diminish the courage and leadership that is being shown in the campaign. Ralph Nader, Peter Camejo, and their supporters understand that in confronting the corrupt grip on our political system we cannot acquiesce to the lesser evil. We must maintain our convictions while trying to urge the ship of state back toward the waters of justice. Peter Camejo urges the model of the abolitionists who through many battles never sold out their convictions that slavery must someday end. For the Greens the battle is in getting all the people to recognize that all life is intertwined and we cannot save ourselves without saving the entire planet.
Ed Dodge
Ithaca, New York
The National Green Party Presidential Nominating Convention held Milwaukee, Wisconsin in June 2004 was my first national Green Party event and it was an exciting display of political fireworks with a tough fight between the supporters of Ralph Nader and the supporters of David Cobb.
I was disappointed, but not disheartened that the Green Party did not endorse Ralph Nader as he was seeking. As a member of the New York delegation that strongly supported the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo ticket I was fortunate to be close to the action, and despite some of the partisanship I was proud to see the Green Party display such strong, passionate leadership on all sides. And I was also proud to be part of a delegation that would not heed in its challenge to the two-party duopoly and not willing to succumb to lesser-evilism and defer to the Democrats.
Before discussing the Presidential contest I would like to step back and discuss some of the important lessons I learned from the other Greens I met. There was particular value in meeting and listening to international Greens that were in attendance from all over Europe, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and even Palestine and Israel. Meeting these Greens crystallized for me the significance of being Green and how the Green identity transcends societies, cultures, and even political parties. Being Green is about sharing a value system, not about membership in any particular organization. The Green values are largely instinctive and require little definition, but they are fundamentally rooted in the quest for peace and the dignity of all life.
Now despite shared values Greens often disagree over tactics, and we have been seeing these disagreements flare for months over the current Presidential election campaign here in America. Our current President Bush presides over one of the most bombastic and incompetent administrations in the history of America. This administration which narrowly stole its previous victory has manipulated the tragedies of Sept. 11 into an effort to launch preemptive war.
Because President Bush is so terrible many on the left feel the need to elect anyone in his place. This has lead to a strategy of deferment to the Democratic Party, to stay out of its way in hopes that they will defeat the Republicans. Unfortunately the Democrats have chosen to run a pro-war candidate, John Kerry, who is campaigning on the motto of I will do everything Bush does, just less incompetently. The majority of mainstream progressives, democrats, leftists, who are in the 'anybody but Bush' camp are forced to swallow their beliefs and vote for a candidate who openly pledges to continue with policies that they repudiate.
Ralph Nader and his running mate Peter Camejo are running the only high profile anti-war campaign and it is built upon the decades of fighting for social justice that both of these men have done. But they continue to have a difficult time finding people to support them because most anti-war people are afraid that they may be cast as spoilers and help Bush win. The key element of the Nader/Camejo campaign is to simply be in the fight. They want Bush to lose as much as anyone, and need it for the sake of their personal reputations. But by being in the campaign they serve notice to the Republicrats that there are committed challengers, driven by values, who are not going to go away. The 'safe-states' people miss the point entirely that challenges made half-heartedly will never be respected. Nader is able to negotiate with John Kerry about how to help him defeat Bush without ever diluting his fundamental challenge to the duopoly.
Ralph Nader has chosen to run a multi-party alliance ticket with support from Greens, the Reform Party, Libertarians, socialists and others. With regards to the Greens, Nader told them in a letter that he would not accept the party's nomination, which he had in 2000, and would only accept an endorsement. This caused considerable problems within the Green Party as the presumptive candidate was stepping halfway out. This opened the door for David Cobb, a long time activist and Green organizer from Texas. Cobb pledged to run a 'safe-states' campaign that would not challenge the democrats but would help build the party through local organizing. The Nader/Camejo camp argued that we needed to support Nader as he was the high profile candidate already in the publics mind who is fighting a lonely fight and needs all our help. Peter Camejo even offered a dual endorsement strategy that would have allowed both candidates to run and split the Green ballot lines by various states. The Cobb camp insisted this would not work because some states ballot lines supposedly required an official nominee and not an endorsement. This somewhat disingenuous argument ignored the fact that ballot line access is always a year in year out struggle and that Cobb was unlikely to get enough votes in any state to hold onto any of the ballot lines earned. And on top of that by denying Nader the endorsement Nader was shut out of all Green ballot lines including the critical state of California.
The Cobb camp was very well organized and it was difficult for the Nader supporters to rally people toward a candidate not present seeking a 'no nomination'. The convention was spread over a few days and there was a lot of time to engage other delegates from all over the country and debate the various points of view. Some of the sniping on both sides got nasty, and some of the of the partisanship reflected old wings within the party that resurface at times like this.
Nader choice of Peter Camejo of California as his running mate is a very good choice. Camejo is a longtime latino civil rights activist who marched with Martin Luther King Jr., but is also a successful investment broker who has pioneered the Socially Responsible Investing movement. Camejo is a real fighter and I believe that he is a leader with a rising star who could make a great impact on his own. Camejo led the charge for Nader at the convention and California and New York provided the core of support. A strong bond formed between the delegations of the two states.
New Yorkers seemed to be at the center of things throughout the convention, whether it was Howie Hawkins of Syracuse working strategy for the Nader camp, or Jason West of New Paltz being called out as one of People Magazine's "50 Most Beautiful People". The New York delegation issued a challenge to some of the floor rules and Cobb implicitly recognized his strong opposition in New York in his acceptance speech and on his website. The strong support for Nader and Camejo in California and New York helps ensure that their campaign will get exposure in the cultural centers of America.
'Greens for Nader' will now be organizing outside of any official apparatus of the Green Party. Though this is a logistical issue in some states, it does not diminish the courage and leadership that is being shown in the campaign. Ralph Nader, Peter Camejo, and their supporters understand that in confronting the corrupt grip on our political system we cannot acquiesce to the lesser evil. We must maintain our convictions while trying to urge the ship of state back toward the waters of justice. Peter Camejo urges the model of the abolitionists who through many battles never sold out their convictions that slavery must someday end. For the Greens the battle is in getting all the people to recognize that all life is intertwined and we cannot save ourselves without saving the entire planet.
Ed Dodge
Ithaca, New York
In favor of Unity Proposal
June 16, 2004
Dear Greens,
I am in favor of the proposal to allow for a split endorsement for President. I think it reflects positively the Greens grassroots, bottom-up democratic approach to allow the states to go their individual ways. I am also opposed to the loyalty oath that had been floating around that would require the states to all adhere to the decision reached at the national convention. As Greens we all need to be able to disagree on tactics sometimes while trusting that we are all fighting for the same ultimate goals. If some states feel strongly about running with David Cobb, I think that is OK. I understand that New York is pretty well unified behind Nader.
I can appreciate the frustration alot of greens have with Nader, he has done a very poor job of reaching out to the Greens in a way that expresses any desire for alliance, though I still support him. I still feel that it is critical to be a part of his campaign this year, but I do hope that after this year we won't have to be dealing with non-Green candidates any more.
I am concerned though about the legal implications of a dual endorsement with regards to how the campaign and ballot access laws are written. I am no expert in these matters, but this article by Dean Myerson illuminates some of the pitfalls.
http://www.avocadoeducationproject.org/brick_by.shtml
I trust we will get this figured out one way or another.
Ed Dodge
Dear Greens,
I am in favor of the proposal to allow for a split endorsement for President. I think it reflects positively the Greens grassroots, bottom-up democratic approach to allow the states to go their individual ways. I am also opposed to the loyalty oath that had been floating around that would require the states to all adhere to the decision reached at the national convention. As Greens we all need to be able to disagree on tactics sometimes while trusting that we are all fighting for the same ultimate goals. If some states feel strongly about running with David Cobb, I think that is OK. I understand that New York is pretty well unified behind Nader.
I can appreciate the frustration alot of greens have with Nader, he has done a very poor job of reaching out to the Greens in a way that expresses any desire for alliance, though I still support him. I still feel that it is critical to be a part of his campaign this year, but I do hope that after this year we won't have to be dealing with non-Green candidates any more.
I am concerned though about the legal implications of a dual endorsement with regards to how the campaign and ballot access laws are written. I am no expert in these matters, but this article by Dean Myerson illuminates some of the pitfalls.
http://www.avocadoeducationproject.org/brick_by.shtml
I trust we will get this figured out one way or another.
Ed Dodge
Why I support Ralph Nader
June 13, 2004
As a New York State delegate to the Green Party National Convention, I will tell you why I support Ralph Nader to be the Green candidate.
Ralph Nader is an important figure in modern American history, a crusader who has fought for the rights of average citizens for over forty years against the fraud and abuse that saturates corporate culture and threatens the health and safety of the population. Nader's Presidential campaign is a continuation of his struggle and highlights the corporate domination of our money driven duopolisitic electoral system.
Though not a Green Party member, Ralph Nader is a person of greater public stature than anyone the Green Party can currently present. Nader has also been waging his battle, and scoring many important victories, for longer than the Green Party has been around. Since 1996 the Green Party and Ralph Nader have found common cause in the Presidential elections and have forged ahead together. It is not time to abandon that alliance. Ralph Nader needs our continued help.
The 2004 Presidential race is a three way race between George Bush, John Kerry, and Ralph Nader, at least as far as the general public and media see it. A separate Green Party candidate will not register in the public perception and will only serve to draw needed energy off the opposition candidate who represents the Green agenda, Ralph Nader.
The Duopoly candidates both support the war in Iraq and continued Israeli aggression, they also both support the petro-economic model advanced by the military-industrial complex. Nader opposes these in meaningful ways that continues to attract new voters, voters that may ultimately identify with the Green Party. It is crucial that the Green Party be a part of this fight, and not split the effort in a sectarian battle over party memberships and rules.
I have always seen Ralph Nader as a pre-Green, he is from an earlier generation who's political identities formed prior to a Green consciousness being present. Green is a 21st century identity, Nader started battling in the 1950's. It does not matter whether he is a Green Party member, he is an iconic figure that the Greens need to emulate, and of course support. Ralph Nader is in his seventies, the Green Party is vigorous with youth and speaks to the young generation with the offer of a new identity. Part of that identity is to look to the heroes of the past. But were Martin Luther King jr. or Thomas Jefferson Greens, no, but we appreciate their efforts nonetheless.
We Greens need to appreciate Ralph Nader's efforts, and support him in the fight he is in. The Green Party cannot offer up any candidate who will be more in the fight than Nader, and Nader needs our help in this round because he is fighting with very limited resources. Perhaps Nader will accept Peter Camejo as a running mate, and recement the Nader/Green alliance.
As far as Kerry v. Bush goes, I personally feel that Bush's dismissal is pretty certain as his mismanagement of the operation is quite obvious for all to see. His stumbling ineptitude is bleeding the White House, and like the coach of any team or any CEO, when the team goes south the owners bring in a new manager. In steps John Kerry who's positions, particularly in foreign policy, are nearly carbon copies of Bush's. Kerry supported most of the major legislation and all of the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration. A Kerry victory will be a very hollow victory for the left because all of the wars and economic models will keep on going. And if Bush does win in November, he will be looking at a growing pile of potential criminal indictments that could very possibly lead to an impeachment in the second term. George Bush failed at every business he ran, he is failing as President, he will likely lose in November.
Ralph Nader though can bring in many new voters to the Green ranks, because they can see that he is the true opposition candidate, and the Green Party is the true opposition party. Ultimately I believe the history books will treat Ralph Nader very kindly, and will note his association with the Greens as crucial to the growth and success of the Greens.
Sincerely,
Ed Dodge
Brooktondale, New York
As a New York State delegate to the Green Party National Convention, I will tell you why I support Ralph Nader to be the Green candidate.
Ralph Nader is an important figure in modern American history, a crusader who has fought for the rights of average citizens for over forty years against the fraud and abuse that saturates corporate culture and threatens the health and safety of the population. Nader's Presidential campaign is a continuation of his struggle and highlights the corporate domination of our money driven duopolisitic electoral system.
Though not a Green Party member, Ralph Nader is a person of greater public stature than anyone the Green Party can currently present. Nader has also been waging his battle, and scoring many important victories, for longer than the Green Party has been around. Since 1996 the Green Party and Ralph Nader have found common cause in the Presidential elections and have forged ahead together. It is not time to abandon that alliance. Ralph Nader needs our continued help.
The 2004 Presidential race is a three way race between George Bush, John Kerry, and Ralph Nader, at least as far as the general public and media see it. A separate Green Party candidate will not register in the public perception and will only serve to draw needed energy off the opposition candidate who represents the Green agenda, Ralph Nader.
The Duopoly candidates both support the war in Iraq and continued Israeli aggression, they also both support the petro-economic model advanced by the military-industrial complex. Nader opposes these in meaningful ways that continues to attract new voters, voters that may ultimately identify with the Green Party. It is crucial that the Green Party be a part of this fight, and not split the effort in a sectarian battle over party memberships and rules.
I have always seen Ralph Nader as a pre-Green, he is from an earlier generation who's political identities formed prior to a Green consciousness being present. Green is a 21st century identity, Nader started battling in the 1950's. It does not matter whether he is a Green Party member, he is an iconic figure that the Greens need to emulate, and of course support. Ralph Nader is in his seventies, the Green Party is vigorous with youth and speaks to the young generation with the offer of a new identity. Part of that identity is to look to the heroes of the past. But were Martin Luther King jr. or Thomas Jefferson Greens, no, but we appreciate their efforts nonetheless.
We Greens need to appreciate Ralph Nader's efforts, and support him in the fight he is in. The Green Party cannot offer up any candidate who will be more in the fight than Nader, and Nader needs our help in this round because he is fighting with very limited resources. Perhaps Nader will accept Peter Camejo as a running mate, and recement the Nader/Green alliance.
As far as Kerry v. Bush goes, I personally feel that Bush's dismissal is pretty certain as his mismanagement of the operation is quite obvious for all to see. His stumbling ineptitude is bleeding the White House, and like the coach of any team or any CEO, when the team goes south the owners bring in a new manager. In steps John Kerry who's positions, particularly in foreign policy, are nearly carbon copies of Bush's. Kerry supported most of the major legislation and all of the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration. A Kerry victory will be a very hollow victory for the left because all of the wars and economic models will keep on going. And if Bush does win in November, he will be looking at a growing pile of potential criminal indictments that could very possibly lead to an impeachment in the second term. George Bush failed at every business he ran, he is failing as President, he will likely lose in November.
Ralph Nader though can bring in many new voters to the Green ranks, because they can see that he is the true opposition candidate, and the Green Party is the true opposition party. Ultimately I believe the history books will treat Ralph Nader very kindly, and will note his association with the Greens as crucial to the growth and success of the Greens.
Sincerely,
Ed Dodge
Brooktondale, New York
Sunday, May 30, 2004
why blog?
Why start a blog? I just need to start writing something and this is a nice format where I can have a running rough draft that few people will see, but will be available if someone does happen to want to see it.
My main issues are political. I feel a need to articulate my vision for what a Green solution would be to some of our political and economic problems. The world is obviously heading down a bad path towards economic, environmental, and social upheaval. There are solutions though to most of the worlds problems, it is a matter of finding them and implementing them.
I believe there is a Green solution. I am from the Deep Ecologist school of Green thought, I believe that on a mental level human society needs to reevaluate its relationship with the planet, and move on from the dominatrix model where people seek to dominate the environment and bend and shape nature to fit the will of people. I imagine that the dominatrix model is rooted in people's struggle to survive in harsh environments where life is easily snuffed out and day to day survival was very difficult. In response people have developed all sorts of tools and technologies to help us build and protect ourselves from an often unforgiving planet. People have succeeded all too well, we now live in a manner where people have become the greatest threat on the planet, and our reproduction rates are skyrocketing. We now have the tools to completely reshape the physical earth, we can uproot forests in a matter of hours, move huge quantities of earth, fill in wetlands, create new lakes, divert rivers, and of course lay concrete and asphalt for as far as the eye can see.
Our efforts to reshape the Earth to ensure our own survival has unfortunately brought with it massive environmental harm and poisoning of the Earth, and ultimately ourselves. This has to stop. We have tostop poisoning the Earth and learn how to build and manage our societies so we live in a manner that is harmonious with the life of the planet, so that we can ultimately survive in the long run.
My main issues are political. I feel a need to articulate my vision for what a Green solution would be to some of our political and economic problems. The world is obviously heading down a bad path towards economic, environmental, and social upheaval. There are solutions though to most of the worlds problems, it is a matter of finding them and implementing them.
I believe there is a Green solution. I am from the Deep Ecologist school of Green thought, I believe that on a mental level human society needs to reevaluate its relationship with the planet, and move on from the dominatrix model where people seek to dominate the environment and bend and shape nature to fit the will of people. I imagine that the dominatrix model is rooted in people's struggle to survive in harsh environments where life is easily snuffed out and day to day survival was very difficult. In response people have developed all sorts of tools and technologies to help us build and protect ourselves from an often unforgiving planet. People have succeeded all too well, we now live in a manner where people have become the greatest threat on the planet, and our reproduction rates are skyrocketing. We now have the tools to completely reshape the physical earth, we can uproot forests in a matter of hours, move huge quantities of earth, fill in wetlands, create new lakes, divert rivers, and of course lay concrete and asphalt for as far as the eye can see.
Our efforts to reshape the Earth to ensure our own survival has unfortunately brought with it massive environmental harm and poisoning of the Earth, and ultimately ourselves. This has to stop. We have tostop poisoning the Earth and learn how to build and manage our societies so we live in a manner that is harmonious with the life of the planet, so that we can ultimately survive in the long run.
