Wednesday, December 29, 2010
We Want Zero Sum Pollution-now | Scienceray
We Want Zero Sum Pollution-now
Published by http://www.triond.com/users/Barry+Dennis">Barry Dennis</a>">Barry Dennis
December 28, 2010, Category: Biology
We’ve allowed business and commerce, government and institutions to pollute our air, food, water, and airwaves for a long time, and paid them doing so!
It’s time to get it right.
Image via Wikipedia
Image by The U.S. National Archives via Flickr
Let’s try this as a working theory.
No corporation, business, institution,commercial or government enterprise or other “citizen” has the right to change the environment and ecology in pursuit of profit, unless and until their processes become “zero sum” based; that is, restoring and/or improving the air and water used in their processes to the highest quality level, with the goal of zero pollution. Recycling all waste to highest value use through re-manufacturing into other products, or ensuring downstream use by others dedicated to that purpose.There is no inherent right for any commercial, industrial or government enterprise to be anything other than a zero-sum participant in the economy as regards pollution and the environment. If fact, they have a demonstrable duty and responsibility to affirmatively ensure that any of these operations of government or commerce operate ONLY as zero-sum participants, making sure that the quality of air, water and other materials generated through operations are BETTER after the operation of their processes.
If Citizens take the time to reason this through, they may see that giving anyone the right to pollute, or otherwise harm the ecology and environment in the pursuit of profit cannot be allowed for the sake of current and future generations. For hundreds of years government, industry and commerce have been allowed to ignore the effect of their operations on the health and welfare of others.
As long as Citizens are paying for the privilege of buying products and services, and supporting operations of commerce and government, the price will have to include making sure that participants in the economy operate under the zero-sum mandate.
To do otherwise is to further subsidize air and water pollution, food pollution, even radiation pollution.
Licenses and permits MUST include necessary agreements to “do no harm” to the ecology and environment, both internally in plant and commercial operations, and externally by making sure that all by-products are recycled to highest value, treated to equal-or-better than the intake (as in water and air) to the net effect of “Zero Sum,” meaning no addition, dilution or subtraction to the environment from the materials, resources, and processes used.0
Liked itTags: air, chemicals, citizens, Ecology, environment, food, health, Obama, pollution, water, zero sum
via scienceray.com
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Another “Aid Package,” Another Tax | Newsflavor
It’s ironic that the 26 Billion “aid package” to the states is mainly to protect the highest paid civil servants on payrolls with the highest city and state deficits, highest union and pension benefits, and by some standards the least deserving, compared to others with real needs for food, (this aid includes early termination of food stamp benefits for hundreds of thousands); shelter- homelessness due to foreclosures and evictions is way up, and others.
It is supposedly paid for with termination of tax breaks for corporations doing business overseas, and the above-mentioned early termination of food stamps.
Forgetting the obviously skewed vote-buying of teacher, police and fire, and civil service union and other special interest constituencies, it also prolongs the unnecessary economic imbalances that stop free-market, normal economic cycle corrections that have always led to better results in the future, by eliminating waste and improving productivity. (Question: When does most violent crime occur? Answer: At night. Question: when do most police work- day shift or night shift? Answer: Day shift.) See anything wrong with that equation?
The free market system works best in the private sector so when demand slows down,or revenues don’t support a given level of staffing or production, firing and layoffs occur. Unfortunate as they may be, they continue until demand picks up along with revenues.
Public Sector jobs like Police, Firefighters, and Teachers have become, in some cases overpaid, and in most cases so over-benefited, that they are breaking the bank in many states and cities, to the degree of a one hundred percent or higher salary and overtime premium ( for less education), more when ridiculous early-out, and overpaid pensions and easy-to-get disability benefits are included. ( Example:Cop is on 100 percent disability-at $75,000 year plus medical, yet goes sky diving, mountain climbing, golfing, fishes on his own boat, and more).
The free market system is not being allowed to operate as it should.
How much better it would be if this “aid” package were directed at small business creation and financing, which creates over 60% of all the jobs in the U.S., and funds from unused Stimulus Funds and TARP unused and already repaid funds were also included. Then, you might have stimulus that would encourage jobs AND repay the taxpayers..productively. As it is now, these funds are being re-tasked for programs and contracts that primarily benefit union and public sector jobs.
via newsflavor.com
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Guns. Love Them or Hate Them, We Need Them | Socyberty
Courtesy Wikipedia Images Baltimore Sun Main News July 30 Page 2. “Lawsuit challenges Md.’s (Maryland’s) Gun restrictions.” The article details a lawsuit by Second Amendment Foundation supporting Maryland resident Raymond Woollard as a person with legal “standing” regarding restrictions on Permits for Handgun carry. Recent Supreme Court decisions virtually barring States and Cities from unnecessarily restricting gun ownership of any kind prompted the suit against Maryland’s requirement that Woollard demonstrate that his Carry Permit was needed as a “reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” Woollard had been robbed in a home break in, and his family threatened. The man who robbed him was convicted, and moved less than three miles away after his release. Wollard feared revenge among other reasons, and sought a Carry Permit. TRUE IRONY IS THAT RIGHT NEXT TO THIS COLUMN was another, larger in fact, about the burial and mourning events of a twenty-three year old Johns Hopkins researcher, stabbed (while on his cell ’phone with his mother)by multiply-arrested and convicted drug and assault felons.(The article didn’t note whether they were on probation, but should have). Would the twenty-three year old have defended himself with his own weapon, if he had a Carry Permit? What would we be saying if he had done so? Would Pitcairn’s parents, co-workers and friends have thought less of him for defending his life? Would we have offered that justice was served, or at least that a murder was prevented? The point is that our criminal justice system is reactive instead of pro-active, meaning that justice is served after the fact, if at all. (over 60% of assaults, rapes and robberies are never solved, and less than four-in ten of the murders are ever solved). Baltimore has the fifth highest violent crime rate per thousand population of all major U.S. cities, some with millions more in population. It seems that modern society is helpless in the face of crime. Frontier justice in the form of traditional and active self-defense is necessary, a premise which seems to be lost. If permitting and licensing (including proper training through authorized Police and gun dealers and Certified Instructors) were mandated for anyone seeking a Carry Permit (no restrictions except for guns and rifles maintained within a home or business), even included in a high-school senior curriculum, as part of the graduation process, it could help. It certainly would offer better results than the “basket weaving” and other “fiber-fill” courses schools now allow, and prepare people venturing into the real world with the means to defend themselves. Would there be mistakes? For sure. Would the results be a thousand percent less frustrating and demoralizing than reading about home owners and students, professionals and everyday Citizens being raped, robbed and murdered?For sure.
Image via Wikipedia
If you believe that survival is a Citizen’s right which is founded in the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable Right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for everyday Citizens, in the face of relentless crimes of violence, then having widespread Carry permits would force criminals to think twice, even three times about assaulting anyone. I, for one, would feel much better about having the opportunity to defend myself, than I would having loved ones and relatives read my Obituary and Murder article in the newspapers. Oh, and the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest” would turn today’s weak and uniformed into trained and ready to defend themselves and their property. That’s an outcome that might rid the streets of cities of violent criminals faster than our inept system of criminal justice could ever do. Certainly, the recidivism rate-re-offending violent criminals-would drop. Even if modern society and the justice system had every tool and resource available, which they have had, and whose cost continues to rise inexorably, we would still need to revolutionize the system into one in which Citizens can defend themselves, their family, and their home, and be treated with respect for doing so. The Founder’s considered Personal Rights and Responsibilities the foundation of the American Spirit and in fact one of the primary reasons for America’s creation. Self-defense fits the definition admirably.
via socyberty.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)