image above: American problem solving often results is useless compromise or worse.
From http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/10-reasons-i-wont-accept-a-job-counter-offer
By Christopher Ryan on 23 October 2009 in The Localizer Blog
http://thelocalizer.blogspot.com/2009/10/agenda-setting-for-assured-aggregated.html
A good example of how the concept of agenda setting can drive process can be gleaned by following the health care issue in American politics. While the fundamental need is universal care for all citizens, the discussion has been limited to revising health insurance and ensuring that all citizens purchase it regardless of their circumstances.
John Michael Greer nails it when he says that "most of the plans being discussed in Congress just now deal with the fact that half the American people can't afford health insurance by forcing them to buy it anyway under penalty of law..."
In this sense, the health insurance industry, big medical, and big pharma have set the agenda and placed specific limits on the breadth and scope of the discussion while keeping a lid on the definition of the problem ("Is there a problem? Why exactly are we doing this?"). Again, universal public healthcare is what should be the goal. But a public option plan would be an unfortunate yet nominally acceptable compromise. Yet even when various public option plans are debated, which is infrequently, the best of these options aren't even in consideration.
This type of agenda setting by vested interests is not unique in American politics and in fact it is standard operating procedure. The prima facie result of this arrangement is that some useless compromise (or worse) will be hammered out so that all participants can save face and many people will die due to lack of an ability to seek the care they need when they need it. Many others will declare bankruptcy or befall some other tragic end due to the lack of the ability of our system to address the power of these types of special interests and their paid hack public relations and propaganda firms, think tanks, industry groups, and legal arms. So while this isn't the end of the world or even western civilization, the likely outcome will maintain or enhance the devastation of the poor.
Moving on to the issue that could end western civilization, peak oil and its manifestations has a remarkably good shot at tipping our society into one of several alternative arrangements that will probably not include iPods, stainless steel professional grade stoves, or Dodge Chargers. While there are others who write well and at length about the alternative scenarios (e.g. Holmgren, Kunstler, Orlov), the point to take away is that without cheap, plentiful oil and its derivatives, the growth-based global economy is a cinch to fold up like a poorly staked tent in a desert sandstorm.
The basis of the peak oil postulate is grounded in geology, physics, and some economics. Given the hard science basis for a good measure of the principle, there is little basis in which to argue or compromise. It is what it is and the only variable or uncertainty relates to timing due largely to the obfuscation of those in possession of the resource. Hence the agenda here is owned by the energy elites and public discussion and media coverage generally address issues like drilling, new finds, environmental regulations as obstacles, and alternatives owned by the very same companies.
Finally, we come to the ultimate science-based threat or issue facing humanity today--climate change or global heating. The foundation of climate change science is rooted in physics, chemistry, meteorology, and climatology. The bulk of the scientific community working on this issue consists of governmental or academic researchers with little or no financial connection to industries who are the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. Most of their work is published in peer-reviewed journals which adds further to their credibility although some may still be constrained from revealing the full extent of the evidence or conclusions due to internal or external political pressures.
In other words, it's likely even far more grave than these generally forthright scientists even claim. Yet even with this overwhelming body of evidence that is receiving more detailed and ominous confirmation daily, the fossil fuel industries and water carriers for much of the rest of the growth-based culture and economy have erected a multifaceted set of arguments in denial of these basic facts of climate change. Of course we all know why this is done and how it's generally implemented. The vested interests at stake here are unprecedented and the very form of economic system we're engaged in would be a certain casualty of any effective climate change policy. And of course that's not a likely scenario from a policy perspective.
Thus, the same think tanks, public relations firms, and other industry shills that are trying to defuse health care reform are working around the clock to ensure that climate change policy discussion takes place within a narrow frame of appropriate discussion and that the agenda is set in their favor. The problem here, as David Spratt so well articulates, is that "solving the climate crisis cannot be treated like any other issue, with the demands of each side balanced somewhere in the middle. It is not possible to negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry. The planet cannot be bought off."
But our alleged leadership class continues to believe that human cultural constructs trump physical reality. Why else would the field of classical economics be considered a science? Until physical reality provides incontrovertible evidence in the form of some apocalyptic event, my bet is on this scenario unfolding in a trends extended manner.
Assured Aggregated Destruction
SUBHEAD: Our alleged leadership class continues to believe that human cultural constructs trump physical reality.
image above: American problem solving often results is useless compromise or worse.
From http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/10-reasons-i-wont-accept-a-job-counter-offer
By Christopher Ryan on 23 October 2009 in The Localizer Blog
http://thelocalizer.blogspot.com/2009/10/agenda-setting-for-assured-aggregated.html
A good example of how the concept of agenda setting can drive process can be gleaned by following the health care issue in American politics. While the fundamental need is universal care for all citizens, the discussion has been limited to revising health insurance and ensuring that all citizens purchase it regardless of their circumstances.
John Michael Greer nails it when he says that "most of the plans being discussed in Congress just now deal with the fact that half the American people can't afford health insurance by forcing them to buy it anyway under penalty of law..."
In this sense, the health insurance industry, big medical, and big pharma have set the agenda and placed specific limits on the breadth and scope of the discussion while keeping a lid on the definition of the problem ("Is there a problem? Why exactly are we doing this?"). Again, universal public healthcare is what should be the goal. But a public option plan would be an unfortunate yet nominally acceptable compromise. Yet even when various public option plans are debated, which is infrequently, the best of these options aren't even in consideration.
This type of agenda setting by vested interests is not unique in American politics and in fact it is standard operating procedure. The prima facie result of this arrangement is that some useless compromise (or worse) will be hammered out so that all participants can save face and many people will die due to lack of an ability to seek the care they need when they need it. Many others will declare bankruptcy or befall some other tragic end due to the lack of the ability of our system to address the power of these types of special interests and their paid hack public relations and propaganda firms, think tanks, industry groups, and legal arms. So while this isn't the end of the world or even western civilization, the likely outcome will maintain or enhance the devastation of the poor.
Moving on to the issue that could end western civilization, peak oil and its manifestations has a remarkably good shot at tipping our society into one of several alternative arrangements that will probably not include iPods, stainless steel professional grade stoves, or Dodge Chargers. While there are others who write well and at length about the alternative scenarios (e.g. Holmgren, Kunstler, Orlov), the point to take away is that without cheap, plentiful oil and its derivatives, the growth-based global economy is a cinch to fold up like a poorly staked tent in a desert sandstorm.
The basis of the peak oil postulate is grounded in geology, physics, and some economics. Given the hard science basis for a good measure of the principle, there is little basis in which to argue or compromise. It is what it is and the only variable or uncertainty relates to timing due largely to the obfuscation of those in possession of the resource. Hence the agenda here is owned by the energy elites and public discussion and media coverage generally address issues like drilling, new finds, environmental regulations as obstacles, and alternatives owned by the very same companies.
Finally, we come to the ultimate science-based threat or issue facing humanity today--climate change or global heating. The foundation of climate change science is rooted in physics, chemistry, meteorology, and climatology. The bulk of the scientific community working on this issue consists of governmental or academic researchers with little or no financial connection to industries who are the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. Most of their work is published in peer-reviewed journals which adds further to their credibility although some may still be constrained from revealing the full extent of the evidence or conclusions due to internal or external political pressures.
In other words, it's likely even far more grave than these generally forthright scientists even claim. Yet even with this overwhelming body of evidence that is receiving more detailed and ominous confirmation daily, the fossil fuel industries and water carriers for much of the rest of the growth-based culture and economy have erected a multifaceted set of arguments in denial of these basic facts of climate change. Of course we all know why this is done and how it's generally implemented. The vested interests at stake here are unprecedented and the very form of economic system we're engaged in would be a certain casualty of any effective climate change policy. And of course that's not a likely scenario from a policy perspective.
Thus, the same think tanks, public relations firms, and other industry shills that are trying to defuse health care reform are working around the clock to ensure that climate change policy discussion takes place within a narrow frame of appropriate discussion and that the agenda is set in their favor. The problem here, as David Spratt so well articulates, is that "solving the climate crisis cannot be treated like any other issue, with the demands of each side balanced somewhere in the middle. It is not possible to negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry. The planet cannot be bought off."
But our alleged leadership class continues to believe that human cultural constructs trump physical reality. Why else would the field of classical economics be considered a science? Until physical reality provides incontrovertible evidence in the form of some apocalyptic event, my bet is on this scenario unfolding in a trends extended manner.
image above: American problem solving often results is useless compromise or worse.
From http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/10-reasons-i-wont-accept-a-job-counter-offer
By Christopher Ryan on 23 October 2009 in The Localizer Blog
http://thelocalizer.blogspot.com/2009/10/agenda-setting-for-assured-aggregated.html
A good example of how the concept of agenda setting can drive process can be gleaned by following the health care issue in American politics. While the fundamental need is universal care for all citizens, the discussion has been limited to revising health insurance and ensuring that all citizens purchase it regardless of their circumstances.
John Michael Greer nails it when he says that "most of the plans being discussed in Congress just now deal with the fact that half the American people can't afford health insurance by forcing them to buy it anyway under penalty of law..."
In this sense, the health insurance industry, big medical, and big pharma have set the agenda and placed specific limits on the breadth and scope of the discussion while keeping a lid on the definition of the problem ("Is there a problem? Why exactly are we doing this?"). Again, universal public healthcare is what should be the goal. But a public option plan would be an unfortunate yet nominally acceptable compromise. Yet even when various public option plans are debated, which is infrequently, the best of these options aren't even in consideration.
This type of agenda setting by vested interests is not unique in American politics and in fact it is standard operating procedure. The prima facie result of this arrangement is that some useless compromise (or worse) will be hammered out so that all participants can save face and many people will die due to lack of an ability to seek the care they need when they need it. Many others will declare bankruptcy or befall some other tragic end due to the lack of the ability of our system to address the power of these types of special interests and their paid hack public relations and propaganda firms, think tanks, industry groups, and legal arms. So while this isn't the end of the world or even western civilization, the likely outcome will maintain or enhance the devastation of the poor.
Moving on to the issue that could end western civilization, peak oil and its manifestations has a remarkably good shot at tipping our society into one of several alternative arrangements that will probably not include iPods, stainless steel professional grade stoves, or Dodge Chargers. While there are others who write well and at length about the alternative scenarios (e.g. Holmgren, Kunstler, Orlov), the point to take away is that without cheap, plentiful oil and its derivatives, the growth-based global economy is a cinch to fold up like a poorly staked tent in a desert sandstorm.
The basis of the peak oil postulate is grounded in geology, physics, and some economics. Given the hard science basis for a good measure of the principle, there is little basis in which to argue or compromise. It is what it is and the only variable or uncertainty relates to timing due largely to the obfuscation of those in possession of the resource. Hence the agenda here is owned by the energy elites and public discussion and media coverage generally address issues like drilling, new finds, environmental regulations as obstacles, and alternatives owned by the very same companies.
Finally, we come to the ultimate science-based threat or issue facing humanity today--climate change or global heating. The foundation of climate change science is rooted in physics, chemistry, meteorology, and climatology. The bulk of the scientific community working on this issue consists of governmental or academic researchers with little or no financial connection to industries who are the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses. Most of their work is published in peer-reviewed journals which adds further to their credibility although some may still be constrained from revealing the full extent of the evidence or conclusions due to internal or external political pressures.
In other words, it's likely even far more grave than these generally forthright scientists even claim. Yet even with this overwhelming body of evidence that is receiving more detailed and ominous confirmation daily, the fossil fuel industries and water carriers for much of the rest of the growth-based culture and economy have erected a multifaceted set of arguments in denial of these basic facts of climate change. Of course we all know why this is done and how it's generally implemented. The vested interests at stake here are unprecedented and the very form of economic system we're engaged in would be a certain casualty of any effective climate change policy. And of course that's not a likely scenario from a policy perspective.
Thus, the same think tanks, public relations firms, and other industry shills that are trying to defuse health care reform are working around the clock to ensure that climate change policy discussion takes place within a narrow frame of appropriate discussion and that the agenda is set in their favor. The problem here, as David Spratt so well articulates, is that "solving the climate crisis cannot be treated like any other issue, with the demands of each side balanced somewhere in the middle. It is not possible to negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry. The planet cannot be bought off."
But our alleged leadership class continues to believe that human cultural constructs trump physical reality. Why else would the field of classical economics be considered a science? Until physical reality provides incontrovertible evidence in the form of some apocalyptic event, my bet is on this scenario unfolding in a trends extended manner.
No comments :
Post a Comment