31.10.11

Camille Paglia's words of warning ring true 12 years later

How the Demos lost the White House in Seattle

Written by Camille Paglia, on Salon.com
December 8th, 1999 in response to the Seattle WTO protests:

The battle in Seattle forced a welcome if brief international consciousness on the mass TV audience, which has been preoccupied with domestic issues and celebrity scandals throughout this decade, an obliviousness barely dented by President Clinton’s outrageous boutique bombings abroad. The protesters’ success in hamstringing the WTO, which adjourned without reaching key agreements, will surely inspire more young people to social activism for a wealth of causes. I hope it’s curtains for another style spawned in Seattle — the apathy and whining asexuality of passive-aggressive grunge.

The danger is that this nascent coalition of Democrat-led trade unions with environmental and labor equity groups will get stereotyped as left-loony. When post-adolescent anarchist goons pledge total destruction of the system or when dinosaur Marxists denounce capitalism as “evil” and call all property “crime” (caught on camera in Seattle), this promising movement doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining popular support.

Capitalism, in my view, is the best vehicle of social change. Free enterprise and free thought are inextricably and creatively intertwined. Over the past 200 years, capitalism has enormously advanced global prosperity, even if an unacceptable economic gap remains between the first and third worlds. Though you’d never know it from the snide rhetoric of cloistered liberal academics, modern feminism owes everything to capitalism, which gave women financial independence for the first time in history.

On the other hand, capitalism is inherently Darwinian, and a just society must provide a safety net for the poor. While intrusion by government into the market should be as minimal as possible, it is ethically imperative to monitor working conditions, product safety and environmental integrity. My lifelong scriptural texts are William Blake’s radical poems “The Chimney Sweeper” and “London” (discussed in my first book), which heartbreakingly dramatize the disparity between the powerful and the powerless in newly industrial, polluted England.

Adjusting tariffs or formulating trade guidelines is a very difficult matter when emerging nations interpret U.S. demands as a usurpation of their sovereignty. We need a stronger “green” lobby that will fruitfully ally with its foreign counterparts. And we urgently need a broad-based, rigorously rational progressive party that will, without succumbing to outdated Marxist formulas, challenge the corruption of the major political parties by big money; critique the escalating power of multinational conglomerates; and condemn flagrant corporate greed (as in the looting of company profits through the inflated salaries of top executives).

There is no stopping the high-tech transformation of the world economy — except by Mother Nature, of course, with one of her standard cataclysms (a perennial Paglia prophecy). What is needed is massive educational reform — such as the development of trade schools and vocational programs serving students of every age. The social convulsion of job losses because of migration of industry abroad cannot be wholly prevented by artificial government manipulation. At present, American primary education is failing to provide either knowledge or skills for anyone but those already set on a professional track by their affluent, upper-middle-class families.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presently, many folks are crying out about the shrinking of the middle class and the burden of student debt. We have no manufacturing, we cannot complete with cheaper goods from abroad, and we have sent all our jobs out, so our unemployment is high. We have thousands of people occupying public spaces across the country to protest the wealth of the top corporate CEOs.

You can't say someone wasn't trying to warn you.
-Lauren

Two Kinds of Intelligence by Rumi

Two Kinds of Intelligence

There are two kinds of intelligence: one acquired,
as a child in school memorizes facts and concepts
from books and from what the teacher says,
collecting information from the traditional sciences
as well as from the new sciences.

With such intelligence you rise in the world.
You get ranked ahead or behind others
in regard to your competence in retaining
information. You stroll with this intelligence
in and out of fields of knowledge, getting always more
marks on your preserving tablets.

There is another kind of tablet, one
already completed and preserved inside you.
A spring overflowing its springbox. A freshness
in the center of the chest. This other intelligence
does not turn yellow or stagnate. It's fluid,
and it doesn't move from outside to inside
through conduits of plumbing-learning.

This second knowing is a fountainhead
from within you, moving out.

Transforming Dumpster Home for Camouflaged Urban Living

Dumpster diving is second fiddle to dumpster living.

75 Prefab Floating Homes Form a Houseboat Town in Holland

75 Prefab Floating Homes Form a Houseboat Town in Holland

Holland's solution for density: take to the water.

6 Hours + 2 Adults = 1 Post-Disaster Prefab 5-Person Hom


http://dornob.com/6-hours-2-adults-1-post-disaster-prefab-5-person-home/

White House orders loan review after Solyndra fallout

The head of the administration's bailout programme, Herb Allison, will review the loans and issue a report.

Republicans in the House of Representatives are threatening to subpoena internal White House emails about Solyndra.

Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer highlighted by the administration, declared bankruptcy in August.

The company is also under investigation by the FBI.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is considering a subpoena as it questioned whether Obama campaign donors who were also investors in the project played a role in decisions on the loan.

The White House has released thousands of emails about the Solyndra loan, but has withheld thousands more.

Mr Allison, who previously served as assistant treasury secretary for financial stability, managing the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (Tarp), will not review the Solyndra case itself but will evaluate loans in the energy department's green programmes, worth tens of billions of dollars.

full article here


Uh oh. -Lauren

Rootstrikers

rootstrikers.org

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau


Finally, some good demands:

99 Percent Declaration

-Lauren

Manifesto for Conscious Men

Manifesto for Conscious Men (facebook page link)

Gay Hendricks and Arjuna Ardagh

The Manifesto emerged from the radical transformation that’s underway in the way men and women relate to each other. We’d like your assistance in giving expression and life to this awakening movement. You may know of our work as writers and teachers in the areas of spiritual development and relationship transformation. Now, though, we speak to you primarily as men committed to a new era of co-creation with women. Whether you are a man or a woman, we invite you to join with us in creating the new era.

Apology and New Commitment
One intent of the Manifesto is to offer a genuine apology for actions in the past and present, so that we can start afresh with new commitments that can guide us in bringing the new era into reality. Our apology is rooted in the original meanings of the word--to give an account, to acknowledge with regret, to express sorrow for present or past actions. A genuine apology never shames or blames either person, nor does it deny either person’s right to take full responsibility for the actions.

A Commitment To Usher In A New Era Of Worship
We believe that the next step in our evolution rests is a restoration of our capacity for such deep respect, attention and love in human relationships that we become capable of seeing the divine in another. We speak of this as the capacity for a man to “worship” a woman, and vice versa. We know that “worship” is a charged word for many; it has been kidnapped by patriarchal religions and often evokes a sense of subjugation. We wish to restore “worship” to mean a mutual capacity to express and see the the divine dimension in each other, to look through and beyond the personal as a window to the universal.

Dear Woman:

I come to you today as a man committed to becoming more conscious in every way. I feel deep love, great respect and a growing sense of worship for the gifts of the feminine. I also feel deep sorrow about the destructive actions of the unconscious masculine in the past and present. I want to apologize to you and make amends for those actions, in order to bring forth a new era of co-creation with you.

As I become more conscious, I grow more aware of the play of masculine and feminine energies: within me, within you and in all of life. I know that we all have access to the full spectrum of these energies. I also have a growing awakening to the dimension beyond all dualities, free and open as the sky.

I commit to owning and stewarding a masculinity that honors and celebrates us as equals. I know that in order to truly honor you as a multi-dimensional woman, I must stand fully present in myself, and own the gifts I have to share with you. We can create great miracles together by nurturing each other in a conscious way, by treating each other with reverence and respect, and by worshiping the divinity expressed in both masculine and feminine energy.

As men, our relationship to the feminine has often been unconscious. I feel sorrow that women and feminine energy have been for so long subjugated and oppressed. Throughout history, men have raped and abused you, burned you at the stake, bought and sold your bodies for sexual pleasure, barred you from religious and political office, relegated you to subservient chores, forced you to hide your faces and even cut off your organs of sexual pleasure.

I may not have done these things myself, but I am aware of the forces in the unconscious masculine psyche that feel threatened by and then seek to dominate the feminine. Many of the men who have oppressed or abused you are no longer alive. Among the living, many men may be unable to apologize because they remain shackled in a prison of anger, fear and shame. On behalf of my gender, I apologize to you for our unconscious actions when we were angry, scared and in the grip of destructive forces in our psyche. I choose no longer to contribute to those forces, nor to be run by them in my own life. I offer you this apology in hopes that we can make a fresh start in a spirit of co-creation.

I acknowledge that the religions of the past several thousand years have been mainly founded by and propagated by men. We have often acted as if we have the last word on God and the spiritual life, when all we have really known is the masculine expression of those things. As a result, we have suppressed more heartfelt, connective and inclusive spiritualities. I commit now to also honoring the spirituality of the divine feminine.

I honor your deep connection to the earth. As men, our relationship to our planet and its resources has often been motivated by competition, acquisition and domination. We mistakenly believed that expansion would protect us from encroachment, and in the process we violated the sanctity of the Earth and disturbed its natural rhythms. I commit to listening to the intuitive sense you have of how to heal our planet and make it thrive.

I honor your intuition and your profound capacity for feeling. As men, we have often devalued feeling and intuition in favor of a view dominated by data and logic. This way of being seemed necessary to move humanity beyond superstition and animalism, but in the process we lost much of the heart of life. I commit to respecting the arts of feeling, intuition and wisdom of the feminine heart, so that together we can integrate them into a balanced view of life, that honors and includes all wisdoms.

I honor the beauty and integrity of your body. When we nurture each other through our bodies with awareness and devotion, there are no boundaries to the love that we can generate. I feel sorrow that men have used your beauty as a form of commerce in prostitution and pornography. In the grip of lust we have often lacked the skills to ask gracefully for intimacy or to take ‘No’ for an answer. I take a stand against any form of enforced or soulless commercialization of woman’s beauty, and I respect that your body belongs to you.

I honor your capacity for peaceful resolution of conflicts, your ability to apologize effectively and forgive with grace. We men have waged endless wars over our disagreements. In the act of defending our lands and protecting our families, we became addicted to the fight itself. By contrast, it is rare to find an invasion or war instigated by a woman. I apologize for dragging you into these wars, and for the rape, murder, broken hearts and damaged families that resulted from them. We welcome your wisdom in creating a world that can get along without resorting to destruction.

I honor your capacity to listen to your body and its needs for food, rest and playtime. I celebrate your ability to pay attention to what is here, right now. As men, our preoccupation with goals and results often has burnt us out and made us unavailable for relationship. I know we have drawn you into this imbalance as well, so often frustrating your longing to connect. The time for a process-centred way of being is now upon us. I welcome your wisdom to maintain balance in our bodies, and in our ways of meeting.

I honor your sense of compassionate justice. In our justice system, men have dominated as judges and police, build prisons and revered the principle of punishment. I welcome you to work with us in bringing the return of the heart to our system of justice.

I also know that global economics have been dominated by the unconscious masculine, often living in a sense of lack and greed. As a result, many people have been left impoverished and disempowered. With your natural sense of nurturing and abundance, I know we can work together to create a truly caring global economics.

In apologizing to you for the hurts we men have caused you, I acknowledge that I and many of my brothers have also felt hurt by our mothers, our sisters, our partners and ex-partners. As a conscious man I am willing to feel those hurts fully within myself and release them. I forgive you for any ways you may have acted unconsciously, as I forgive myself and my gender for our own waking sleep.

From this day, moving forward, I vow to treat your heart as the sacred temple it is, and I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me and in my relationship to all life. I know that by leaving the past behind and joining hands in the present, we can create a synergy of our strengths. Together, there is nothing we cannot do.

Together, we can make miracles.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments?

-Lauren

revolutioizing healthcare

You can book a haircut online, reserve from the library, schedule what gym class you will show up to, why not your doctor? Why not use the technology we have to increase communication and relationships between healthcare providers and their patients? Why not cut out administrative costs and keep it cheap for the consumer? A platform that addresses these questions, Hello Health, was started by Jay Parkinson M.D.

Related:
Rock Health

27.10.11

more diesels!

We'll see a "lot more diesels" in U.S. by 2014

As the number of automakers selling diesel vehicles rise, the amount of motorists buying the oil-burning machines will increase, too, claims Jeff Breneman, executive director of the U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars. That statement seems to be simple common sense, right? Well, not so much in recent times here in the U.S.

Automakers selling diesel vehicles in the U.S. have seen demand slowly rise but, Breneman claims, it's the 2025 54.5 mpg CAFE standard that will truly fuel demand for diesels here in the States. Breneman says Mazda and Chevrolet are two of the next automakers that will offer diesel sedans in the U.S., with more to come:
Ford, Toyota or Honda haven't got a diesel for the U.S. yet, but get ready for 2013-2014. That's when we're going to see a lot more diesels. And with the 54.5-mpg regulation coming in 2015, the auto makers have a 14-year window to invest the capital in diesels without U.S. regulations pulling the carpet out from under them.
CAFE regulations aren't the only driving force behind the diesel insurgence. Breneman says infrastructure is key and, with 80,000 gas stations here now offering diesel, the U.S. is ready for oil-burning automobiles.

But will the diesel's rise be a step in the right direction? Well, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently awarded $50 million for diesel projects designed to reduce harmful emissions, but diesel engines still emit 7.3 million tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 333,000 tons of soot annually. And diesel pollution is linked to thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks and lost work days. So, it's unclear whether or not the diesels rise to fame will be as beneficial as thought.

picture perfect life

http://catalogliving.net/

26.10.11

What’s the Value of a Statistical Life?

What’s the Value of a Statistical Life?
Rebecca Goldin Ph.D and Cindy Merrick, June 27, 2011
To Oscar Wilde, a cynic knows the price of everything but the value of nothing; but when it comes to regulation, statisticians understand that we all have our price.

cellphone cancer riskRecently, The New York Times covered a story about the value of life – the statistical value, that is (also known by the acronym VSL). This is the value that government agencies use to evaluate the importance of regulation or legislation. It is the “official” value that your life is worth to the agency. President Obama has recently increased this value across agencies, according to the Times. But the variety of VSL estimates across agencies (and by different economists and statisticians), as well as the political nature of the value itself, makes one wonder – where do these values come from, and what are they good for anyway?

Suppose you are a legislator, and before you is a bill proposing that automakers be required to double the roof strength of new cars. According to the research cited, doubling the strength would save as many as 135 lives per year. Alternatively, for a smaller incremental gain in strength, you could save 44 lives. Knocking at your door are car manufacturers and autoworkers, claiming that new regulation would cost jobs, and consumer products advocates who claim that saving lives should be the priority.

How do you decide whether to sign the bill? Does the number of lives involved make a difference? Perhaps any increase in safely seems like a good idea – but such regulations are not without economic cost. Stricter standards typically mean greater expenses to manufacturers, which translate into higher costs for car buyers.

Would the answer be more obvious if the number of lives saved by double-strength roofs were 1,035 – or 10,035? What if only one life might be saved? Surely at play here is some sense of overall benefit/cost to society based on a value in units of human lives, however vague that unit value may be?

Presidents, legislators, economists, and business leaders have in recent decades sought methods which would make such cost-analyses precise: when is an investment, regulation or subsidy “worth it” in terms of human lives? For such a comparison, one needs a means of conversion, for turning the “apples-to-oranges” (dollars-to-lives) into “apples-to-apples” – or, in this case, dollars-to-dollars. Thus, if we somehow arrive at a dollar value to affix to each life cost by not strengthening car roofs, we can compare the cost of the regulation to the dollar “equivalent” of statistical lives saved. Such a dollar value on lives is known as the Value of a Statistical Life, or VSL.

As appealing as such a solution may be to the sharp-pencils concerned with bottom-lines, the rest of us may squirm in our seats at the thought of being reduced to dollars and cents for the purpose of political negotiation. Just how does one arrive at such a dollar value? And while we’re going down that road, stickier questions inevitably arise: should every life have the same statistical value? Should numbers change based on age, income, education level, or health status?

Insurance companies have their own business-oriented approach, based on risks and pay-outs. If you are a teen driver, expect to pay more for auto insurance, and if you are an overweight smoker, expect to pay more for life insurance. Actuaries base prices on risk profiles, taking into account what they would have to pay if the worst should come to pass. From a business point of view, this is different from the haggling that goes on for VSL; for life insurance, the customer decides the amount of the desired payment in case of death; and for auto-insurance the rates are determined by the possible medical costs in case of accidents. No decision is made on what a life is “worth”. All decisions are based on the required pay-out. The smoking, overweight 65-year-old male, may want more life insurance than the nonsmoking normal-weight 25-year-old female, and he will pay for it.

In contrast, government regulations trump individual preferences. Car manufacturers will not make cars of varying roof strengths in order to allow individuals to choose how much they want to pay for the increased safety. It will be determined by the legal limits. There is no pay-out for an associated death –the price per head can take into account damages to society in a broad sense (such as lost wages to the family, lost tax revenue to the government, lost investment for the educational system, and health costs to insurance companies) but these damages vary dramatically from person to person.

Wage-Risk and Price-Risk Studies
Government regulatory agencies use economic data from various studies of society’s risk choices. Wage-risk studies reflect the relationship between a person’s income and the risk of injury, death, or other hazards on the job, while price-risk studies measure a person’s willingness to pay to reduce exposure to risks in their lives (for example, real estate prices increase with distance from a polluted river or hazardous waste dump).

Many factors affect wages besides on-the-job risk, such as an employee’s education level and a variety of market forces. Standard statistical models have been developed to “disentangle” these other factors from the wage-risk preference exhibited by a labor force. In 2003, W. Kip Viscusi and Joesph E. Aldy published a meta-analysis of market research worldwide that has sought, with a range of econometric methods, to establish useful measures of VSL and social behaviors with respect to risk, both in the world’s labor forces and in product markets. They describe the simple wage-risk dynamic this way:

The firm’s demand for labor decreases with the total cost of employing a worker. The cost of a worker may include the worker’s wage; training; benefits such as health insurance, vacation, child care; and the costs of providing a safe working environment. Because worker costs increase with the level of safety, for any given level of profits the firm must pay workers less as the safety level rises…For any given level of risk, workers prefer the wage-risk combination from the market offer curve with the highest wage level.

In one price-risk study evaluated by Viscusi and Aldy, the “cost” of using a seatbelt is measured. The study estimated that eight seconds of time are required to secure the seatbelt. This time can be monetized by using an individual’s wage rate: the fact that individuals are willing to spend the time to put on the seatbelt implies (to an economist) that the risk of death or maiming for riding without a seatbelt is “not worth” (to the individual in question) the additional wage that he or she would earn by being paid for those eight seconds. Over many pieces of data like this, economists are able to get a sense of what risks are worth the money by individuals.

In the studies reviewed by Viscusi and Aldy, there was a trend showing a positive correlation between income and what they called “premiums for bearing mortality risk.” In other words, controlling for other factors, jobs with increased occupational hazards tend to pay people more for the risk. In economist lingo, relating a change in income to a change in demand for some commodity (including such commodities as “lower risk”) is known as income elasticity. The research consistently shows positive income elasticity with respect to risk-reduction considered as a monetized commodity.

Where VSL numbers come from
Ultimately, such analysis can be used to generate a number in dollars for VSL, using something called the standard wage equation. In their meta-analysis of wage-risk studies, Janusz Mrozek and Laura Taylor give a straightforward explanation of the math behind the numbers. The wage equation is a statistical estimate of the breakdown of wages due to a worker’s profile. Variables in the equation account for demographic factors like age and education level, and job characteristics like risk of injury, as well as overall risk of death on the job. VSL is computed as the rate of change of a worker’s wage with respect to the change in risk of death.

For example, suppose that the increased risk of death on a job is 1 in 10,000 compared to a job with no observable job-related death, and that a worker is paid an additional $0.35 per hour for accepting this risk. Assume the worker works 2,000 hours per year (40 hours per week times 50 weeks), so that $0.35 x 2,000 = $700 per year in wages is paid to the worker for death risk. Since the expectation is that 10,000 people would be paid this additional $700 per year in wages per one death, the statistical value of life is given by the total marginal wages earned ($700 x 10,000 = $7,000,000) per death.

One agency’s VSL is not another agency’s VSL
Of course, not all methods produce the same monetary values for VSL, and many differ significantly. Some research generates its data across a workforce for a particular industry, while other research is collated from multiple industries. Most vexing is that various government agencies use VLS numbers that vary by millions of dollars. The US government’s Office of Management and Budget gives guidelines for evaluating the VSL (as it does in a 2003 Circular) but does not give any advice as to what the value should actually be.

When the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration proposed in 2009 that roof crush standards be upgraded so that, in a rollover, a passenger vehicle would be able to withstand up to 3 times the weight of the car before crushing, it estimated an extra cost to consumers of about $875 million to $1.4 billion per year. And by stating that about 135 lives would be saved from such a safety upgrade, it refers to a VSL of between $6.4 million and $10.4 million. Such an upgrade failed in popularity during the Bush administration for being far more costly than the value of human lives saved. In 2009, the Department of Transportation, of which the NHTSA is a part, updated the VSL to be used across the department for economic analysis to $6 million.

In 2004, the FDA proposed improvements in the bottled water industry, based in part on the risk of cancer due to arsenic sometimes found in bottled water. They used a VSL of between $5 million and $6.1 million to justify the cost of new regulations. In 2009, the FDA again used $5 million as their VSL in regulating the egg industry for the prevention of salmonella poisoning. Several other recent regulatory proposals use the same $5 million amount, indicating that for the FDA, your VSL has not changed since 2004.

The EPA by all appearances has put in the lion’s share of research on VSL among government agencies. They make available their own set of guidelines for evaluating VSL and doing other similar analysis, and make transparent their past and current VSL numbers, as well as the procedures they used to arrive at them, via their web site. They currently post a value of $7.4 million in 2006 dollars.

Government agencies are not the only people interested in using VSL to put a figure on human life. In their analysis of the burden of cost to the US caused by women who fail to adequately breastfeed newborns, Harvard researchers Melissa Bartick and Arnold Reinhold, used a VSL of $10.56 million in 2007 dollars, more than twice as high as the FDA numbers, and at the high end of the range suggested by the Office of Management and Budget and used in the majority of research on the topic ($1 million to $10 million, based on data from 2003).

And, in an interesting twist, West Virginia University researchers turned to the same Viscusi report used by the EPA in their analysis of mortality cost of coal mining in Appalachia. They adjusted Viscusi’s 2003 values to 2005 dollars (for the year the report was published), coming up with a VSL range between $4.6 million and $7.7 million.

But while the variation of VSL muddies the waters of honest cost-benefit analysis, an agreed-upon means of comparing our risks and costs as laborers and consumers could help make some decisions less politicized. We may not all be in agreement about whether we should pay for extra roof strength on a car, but if we agree on the VSL, we can argue about the cost associated with legislation in relation to the calculated benefit in terms of lives saved. It’s apples-to-apples, even when our lives are in the balance.

One thing we should be clear about: VSL is not about the actual worth of a life or about the monetary cost if that person dies (such as lost wages); it’s only about the (statistical) money that risk of death is worth to humans who take on those risks in exchange for wages. Its calculation is fraught with cultural bias and perception of risk as much as anything factual about the risk itself. It only pretends to put a number on our value as human beings.

trying out wordpress.com

I imported this blog to wordpress:

renzimm.wordpress.com

There are some benefits to wordpress over blogger, but I am feeling out which one is better.
Please recommend/comment.

Thanks,
Lauren

24.10.11

hangin with Shiva

MOVE YOUR MONEY

http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/

Occupy Wall Street Backs a Nationwide Boycott Against Banks

Ultra-green Seattle office project draws corporate HQ, complaints

Ultra-green Seattle office project draws corporate HQ, complaints

Developer Skanska USA has signed Brooks Sports as anchor tenant for a planned ultra-green office building between Wallingford and Fremont, but some neighbors question how far the city should bend its rules to make the project happen.

Developer Skanska USA is set to announce Thursday that Brooks Sports has agreed to move to an ultragreen office building Skanska plans to build on this corner at North 34th Street and Stone Way. Seattle planners already can bend some development rules for projects that promise to be extra-green.

But how much flexibility is too much?

That's the question raised by a proposed deep-green office building on the border of Wallingford and Fremont.

Developer Skanska USA announced Thursday that it has signed an anchor tenant for most of its planned five-story project at the foot of Stone Way North. Running-shoe and -apparel maker Brooks Sports, now based in Bothell, has agreed to move its headquarters and 300 jobs into the building sometime in late 2013.

But the developer says the innovative building won't pencil out unless planners permit it to deviate from zoning rules even more than the city already allows.

At issue: another 10 feet of building height.

The outcome is important to the future of green building, says Skanska executive vice president and regional manager Lisa Picard. "We have to show there is profit potential in projects like these," or none will be built, she says.

But critics say city planners, in their zeal to satisfy Skanska, have run roughshod over the neighborhood.

The Wallingford Community Council already has appealed a city decision paving the way for the project.

It's just too big, says Lee Raaen, the council's president.

"I have mixed feelings. I like the concept of 'living buildings.' But I look at this particular building in this particular location, and it's going to be way out of place."

Second to seek approval

Skanska's Stone Way project is just the second to seek approval under a "living building" pilot program the city adopted in late 2009.

It allows planners to approve up to 12 projects over three years that don't comply with all the usual zoning and building rules — provided a building will use just one-quarter as much energy and water as a comparable conventional project.

To qualify, it also must meet at least 12 of the 20 requirements of the "Living Building Challenge," widely considered the toughest green-building standard on the planet.

All that green appealed to Brooks, Skanska's new tenant. "Sustainability is a value of our brand," says President and CEO Jim Weber. "We want to have the least impact on the planet that we possibly can."

What's more, he says, the Stone Way building was competitive with less-green properties the company also considered.

Picard acknowledges Skanska's building won't be as green as the first building approved under the city's pilot program, the Bullitt Center now under construction on Capitol Hill. It bills itself as the world's greenest office building.

But Bullitt's prospective tenants all are deeply involved in green building, and are paying a premium to locate there.

Skanska's project, in contrast, aims to attract more-conventional tenants with market rates, Picard says.

That's why the building represents a step forward, she adds: "If we can't figure out a way to make these buildings financially sustainable, then we're only going to see one of them."

The "living building" pilot program already allows qualifying buildings to be 10 feet taller than zoning ordinarily permits. Skanska wants another 10 feet.

Its building would be 65 feet tall, on a site where the height limit now is 45 feet.

That's mostly so the building can be five stories, not four. The extra floor would be shops and perhaps restaurants at ground level.

That retail floor was a key to signing Brooks, Picard says. The running company — a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway — plans to open a prototype store there.

The popular Burke-Gilman Trail is just across the street. Brooks hopes to turn the building into a trailhead of sorts, Weber says, where Burke-Gilman users can start and finish their workouts.

"We wanted a headquarters that really reflected the essence of our brand ... . Where else could you have an office right on a running trail?"

The first-floor retail also will engage the community in ways a pure office building wouldn't, Picard says, helping make it a living building in another sense.

Appealing to some

Skanska's vision appeals to some in Wallingford and Fremont.

Stone Way is "an odd, pseudo-industrial street that really doesn't do much for the neighborhood," says attorney Ryan Gist, who lives nearby.

Two aging retail buildings now occupy Skanska's site. A new, high-profile project there could give the community a much needed center, Gist says.

"It could become a gateway to the neighborhood," says Robin Daly, who owns a paint store a block away.

But teacher Ted Lockery, another neighbor, says the building would be "grossly inconsistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood," blocking views of Lake Union and downtown.

"It would tower over everything else all around it," agrees Raaen, the Wallingford Community Council president.

He says he's as concerned by the process the city is following as by the proposed building's size.

The city's Department of Planning and Development has drafted an amendment to the pilot program allowing planners to award qualifying projects another 10 feet of height — but only on sites zoned like Skanska's.

That change in the program still must be approved by the City Council. Meanwhile, the department announced last month that the amendment doesn't warrant an environmental-impact statement.

Raaen calls that an end run, and the community council has appealed the question to the city hearing examiner. A hearing is scheduled Nov. 29.

Department spokesman Bryan Stevens says the amendment doesn't award Skanska the extra 10 feet — it simply authorizes it.

And the amendment doesn't apply only to Skanska's site, he adds — more than 20 other properties conceivably could be affected. The site-specific effects can be weighed when the building's design is considered, he says.

The city's Northeast Design Review Board, an advisory group, is tentatively scheduled to examine the project Nov. 21.

Lockery says the department is being disingenuous: Its support for Skanska is clear, he says.

Gist, his neighbor, doubts the neighborhood will suffer any negative consequences.

But even if it does, he says, "They are far outweighed by the regional, or even national implications this project has."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Wallingford residents concerned about this building:

1) Get over it. Jobs are better for your community than how your house will look in relation to this building.

2) Your house is not next to the building anyway, this is already a semi-industrial street. Stop trying to separate jobs from houses. Sustainable-business minded employers within walking distance of homes, other businesses, and recreation? No, that sounds terrible. We should keep everything separate so we have long commutes and have many many parking structures.

3) Know your neighborhood's history, consider connecting to it:


Wallingford's Boom Years: The 1920s

Once the hill between the University District and Fremont was regularly served by public transportation it rapidly filled in with bungalows and box houses. By the mid-1920s, the Wallingford District was downright buoyant. In an illustrated two page 1925 profile of the neighborhood published in The Seattle Times, Wallingford is described as “one of the most active and important component parts of the city of Seattle.” The profile continues:

“Less than 20 years ago this district was sparsely settled with a few dwellings and a number of small farms. Today it is the home of a population roughly estimated at more than 50,000. It contains as its main business thoroughfare north 45th street which has established a record in development of growth not surpassed by any suburban business street anyplace in the nation. The tremendous business growth and development has come about the last few months ... Less than eight months ago business property in the heart of the Wallingford District on 45th Street was estimated at a value of $50 dollars a front foot. Today the same property is changing hands at a value of $250 per front foot, an increase in value which surpasses, according to the Wallingford businessman, those in the thickly populated centers of Southern California cities and even the Atlantic Coast cities of Florida.”
4) Employers of this size and particularly this mindset, add value to a neighborhood in non-monetary, non-job ways too. I foresee increased transportation planning, street maintenance, and community events.

-Lauren

infrared heating- interesting

http://www.redwellheating.com/home/benefits/about-infrared.html

housing market crash is bad for our health

Wall Street Journal: Is the Housing Crisis Making People Sick?

Of those who had, 22% developed depressive symptoms over the next two years, compared to only 3% of those who weren’t delinquent. Twenty-eight percent reported food insecurity — meaning they were hungry or did not have adequate access to food in their households — compared to 4% for those who weren’t behind on their payments.

And about a third said they were not taking medications properly due to cost, compared to 5% of those who weren’t delinquent.

abandoned power station from the 50s

Abandoned Journey photos


U.S. manufacturing at the turning point

U.S. manufacturing at the turning point

Posted by Jon Talton

We know a few things about manufacturing: It produces more high-wage jobs than most service sectors; it's suffered since NAFTA and China's entry into the World Trade Organization, with tens of thousands of American factories closing and sectors such as textiles being decimated, and yet until recently manufacturing had been a bright spot in what passes for recovery. We know it's critical to the Seattle-area economy, and not just with Boeing. Then there are things we think we know, such as manufacturing here faces an inevitable decline because of a surplus of cheap labor and unfair trade practices overseas.

Still, a recent report from the consulting firm Booz & Co. and the University of Michigan's Tauber Institute for Global Operations says that American manufacturing is both stronger than generally thought, and yet at a critical crossroads that will determine its future.

"As labor costs and currency rates play a smaller part in manufacturing decisions, there is an opportunity for U.S. business leaders and policymakers to rise to the challenge and create conditions that support manufacturing," said Arvind Kaushal, Booz & Co. partner. "The potential for a rebound is there, but only if the right actions are taken." The report identified sectors where the U.S. is a global leader, including aerospace, semiconductors, medical equipment and machinery. Then the ones on the edge: Paper, plastics, electrical equipment and components, computer equipment, fabricated metal products, pharmaceuticals, printing and some auto equipment companies, all "besieged by low-cost overseas competitors. They could become global competitors themselves or see their operations displaced to other countries."

The report recommends four broad areas of focus to encourage a manufacturing revival:


  1. Think and grow regionally. The U.S. needs to build a better future with Mexico, shifting less-demanding, labor-intensive processes to that country while helping to build a safer consumer economy there and retaining highly skilled work in the U.S.

  2. Develop and attract skilled talent. The U.S. needs more robust manufacturing education programs, immigration reform, and promoting the attractiveness of manufacturing careers.

  3. Foster high-impact clusters. The public and private sectors can build geographical concentrations of suppliers, service providers and academic institutions, reinforced by investments in infrastructure.

  4. Simplify and streamline the tax and regulatory structure. The official U.S. statutory corporate tax rate stands at 39 percent. Closing the gap between statutory and effective rates (typically 28 percent) would be a revenue-neutral way to put U.S. manufacturing on a level global playing field.

Friday poll results: They're pretty overwhelming: 85 percent of respondents want to bring back Glass-Steagall to control the big banks, and more than 70 percent are moving their money to a credit union or a small bank.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sincerely hope it's true that this many people are moving their money to credit unions.

-Lauren

from New Urban Network: Dig, baby, dig

Dig, baby, dig by Charles Marohn

When will States stop shooting up federal money for infrastructure? Why not turn yourself into a powerful, desirable State and not have to answer to the federal gov't? The feds will not help States maintain anything, so why not cut them out as much as possible?
-Lauren

Our systems for funding new infrastructure are stuck in the 1950's. Our systems for funding maintenance of existing infrastructure are not serious. Combined, these approaches create outcomes that can't be justified by people considering themselves rational, let alone great.

challenging kids differently about the world around them.

Reuse garden to teach kids real skills, creativity, in community terms



Barton describes the need to “hit them hard when they are young,” challenging them to think differently about the world around them.

21.10.11

green roofs!

Cheers to D.C.

Green roof novelties include bees, bocce and beauty

Occupy Wall Street has developed a library

At Zuccotti Park, a People's Library

Walking past Occupy Seattle and hearing "this is what it looks like when the 99% rule" I thought: it looks like a bunch of people standing around shouting (albeit cooperatively)? This is not a society I would participate in. I want to see the Occupy Movement show America what it values. This library is a great example. What should it look like?

Obama should be sued and Nobel Peace Prize returned.

http://petitionbureau.org/obamapeaceprize

I fully supported Obama's campaign, but since we are still occupying 2 countries and will add a third soon enough, I don't understand why he should be lauded for upholding peace. Why would you give this to any politician?

17.10.11

Mitt Romney lip reading video


"I will force spiders and badgers on the enemy."
(pretty good tactic, since honey badgers don't give a shit)

16.10.11

Atlantic article on Occupy Wall Street: attack reality, not the symbol


In the Joan Didion essay "Goodbye to All That," the California born writer observes that it is not possible for people in the East to appreciate what New York City means to other Americans. "To an Eastern child, particularly a child who has always had an uncle on Wall Street and who has spent several hundred Saturdays first at F.A.O. Schwarz and being fitted for shoes at Best's and then waiting under the Biltmore clock and dancing to Lester Lanin, New York is just a city, albeit the city, a plausible place for people to live," she writes. "But to those of us who came from places where no one had heard of Lester Lanin and Grand Central Station was a Saturday radio program, where Wall Street and Fifth Avenue and Madison Avenue were not places at all but abstractions ("Money," and "High Fashion," and "The Hucksters"), New York was no mere city."

Instead it was "an infinitely romantic notion, the mysterious nexus of all love and money and power," and so it remains. The Occupy Wall Street protestors beat their drums in lower Manhattan within sight of big financial firms and their suits. But their chants aren't aimed at Goldman Sachs and its board, or junior executives who commute in from Connecticut, so much as the average American's idea of Wall Street. The symbol is what gives the protestors and their movement the bulk of its strength -- and it is, at the same time, the movement's fatal weakness.

How to explain this seeming contradiction?

The protestors benefit by treating Wall Street as an abstraction because it permits them to tap into familiar narratives. Allies are made of everyone who believes, as so many do, that dishonest financial elites take advantage of the basically honest masses; that big, greedy corporations maximize their profits by screwing regular folks; that the top one percent of Americans possess wealth that is obviously incommensurate with what they've earned relative to "the 99 percent."

For Occupy Wall Street, the problem is that a counter-narrative every bit as familiar also appeals to many Americans. These are people who believe that wealth in this country accrues to talented people who work hard and benefit their fellow man through the market; that envying the successful is a kind of poison corrosive to any society; that to attack Wall Street is the same as declaring that you've got no confidence in capitalism itself; and that for all its flaws, our free market economic system has generated tremendous wealth and prosperity for rich and poor alike.

So long as the protestors in the financial districts of American cities attack symbolic Wall Street, they'll attract folks who see the world the same way that they do. As Matt Yglesias writes, it's "an incredibly useful platform for engagement and education." But an attack on symbolic Wall Street inevitably provokes a backlash by defenders of symbolic Wall Street, for whom it symbolizes different things. The ensuing debate is no likelier to end in a declared winner than a long conversation about political philosophy between Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter.

There is a time for battling over first principles and political philosophy, especially for those of us who enjoy doing it. But it isn't all the time. How remarkable that in America, where the political spectrum is so narrow relative to other countries, and the consensus in favor of being a mostly free market liberal democracy so large, our politics is so frequently mired in ideological battles; and waged in rhetoric that is absurd when one reflects on the continuity in ideology and policy from one Congress and presidency to another. It's no wonder that so many Americans are frustrated by political debate, political protest, and political campaigns. More often than not, they're all conducted at a level of abstraction that is both needless and maddening.

What drum circle would I join?

One dedicated to the proposition that it's often enough to grapple with the world as it is -- to see that we're not confronted by the impossible question, "Is Wall Street basically good or malign;" what we must actually answer are questions like, "What sort of regulations, if any, should govern the market for derivatives of mortgaged backed securities," and "Should the federal government subsidize home ownership," and "What should the reserve requirements be for lending institutions.”

Those are contentious questions, and they can't be totally separated from value judgments or political philosophy. But they're manageable, in a society that agrees about as many things as ours, if we take them discretely, and avoid elevating them into symbolic battles about bigger things whenever it is possible. Figuring out precisely how to feel about Occupy Wall Street or "We are the 53 Percent" is difficult for many. Much easier to decide that it's wrong to create a mortgage-backed security filled with loans you know are going to fail so that you can sell it to a client who isn't aware that you sabotaged it by intentionally picking the misleadingly rated loans most likely to be defaulted upon; or that it actually doesn't make sense to blame Wall Street for inflation in college costs, the student loan market they spurred, and the culture that sent a message to too many young people that borrowing for education is always a good investment.

What I wonder is how many of the protestors realize that the case against symbolic Wall Street is actually much weaker than the one against actual Wall Street. Symbolic Wall Street is the financial center of earth's most prosperous country. Actual Wall Street's most powerful firms bear responsibility for the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression. At times, actual Wall Street violated the law. It squandered many billions of dollars, inflating the market for mortgage backed securities that the people in charge didn't even understand. Taxpayer money was subsequently redistributed to these firms. That is a powerful case that reform is needed.

There is, however, a robust market in America for ideological thinking, for turning every matter into an epic battle in the war between right and left, red and blue, "the 53 percent" and "the 99 percent." Doing so swells the profits of Fox News and the email lists of Occupy Wall Street organizers and their allies, among many others. They're all in theoretically defensible businesses; but perverse incentives are at play, and we ought to insist, regularly, that we won't go along.

We ought to avoid always treating politics as "an infinitely romantic notion," for while there is a time for doing so, it's too often indulged. We too seldom address problems with solutions characterized by pragmatism and narrowness; we too seldom celebrate a proposal precisely because it permits us to improve the status quo without having to grapple with the bigger questions.

14.10.11

I recently met Craig Thompson's when he spoke about his new graphic novel, Habibi.

I first saw a panel of Craig Thompson's illustration in the home of a family friend, Pegi, when I was about 16 (2001 or so). It was a depiction of a baby Moses down the river type scene, but if I remember correctly, it was not meant to imply only Moses. A great thing for a teenage dealing with duality to ponder. Within a year, Pegi gave me a copy of Craig's first book, Goodbye Chunky Rice. I could relate to the characters and found a desire for grace, both in the story, and in Craig's ability to produce something like this with only a few more years to his wisdom and talent than I had at the time. A friend of mine and I started saying "doot" as our little signal of a joyful moment to pay attention to.

I read Blankets in 2009, living here in Seattle, when I was in the dregs of the worst period of my life. I was unemployed, soon to lose my highly influential grandmother to Alzheimer's, and in a less than deep relationship. I read the book on a bleak afternoon, sitting in a former garage-turned-family room, with wood paneling, a perfect setting to relate back to whitewashed Wisconsin winters, where everything and everyone feels further away than they really are. I had a different upbringing from Craig, so I did not relate to the book on the level that I think many other readers did. It was more like hearing a story about someone you had met before. I felt connected to him by virtue of Pegi acting as a mentor to both of us through different types of hard times and creative attempts.

I heard earlier this year that Craig would come out with a book called Habibi. I was very surprised and intrigued to hear the arabic title. I thought about what he was doing with his career. To be able to depict Blankets so personally, perhaps he could scale that feeling up to people from another culture? It would be a feat.

I want to share a few things Craig said at his talk at the Seattle Central Library. He is as well styled and poignant as his books, while still maintaining a blatancy to his continued investigation of the world and how it makes him feel.

-Drought: in the desert setting of course, but also in love, in spirituality, in sex, and for him, vast stretches of drought in being able to work on the book.

-Someone started asking personal questions about his early religious situation (Blankets, they also referred to his recurring themes in sexuality). He said "Imposed religion can really cut out a person's own spirituality."

-He had been turning Rumi poems into panels and quoted "You keep breaking your heart until it opens." I have found this to be terribly true.

-He referenced the Picture Bible has having influence on his comic paneling and especially certain scenes in Habibi, he met another graphic artist who said the same thing. I had that bible at some point and remember being curious about drawing comics because of it too.

-He said to succeed in writing fiction is to find or arrive at a piece of truth in a pile of lies. Also: "The biggest fiction of fiction is to have an ending since we never get to see endings in our lives." This one was huge for me. It made me wonder if all the storytelling in the world wasn't just a coping mechanism we employ to more gracefully handle the idea of our own death.

-He has a goal to never depict guns or tv sets, but has no problem depicting filth, plumbing, other real or working things.

- On relationships: "They draw out all your deepest issues and neuroses and confront them."

Meeting Craig was unfortunately brief. The endearing thing he does is draw a character in each book he signs. We paid mutual homage to Pegi and bid adieu.

The book looks beautiful. I will hopefully finish it soon. Here is a visual review:

Washington Post visual review

13.10.11

Atlantic Article: All the Single Ladies

All the Single Ladies

I recommend reading the whole article, but I've included what I think is the most interesting portion below. I am frustrated that the author does not see being a mother as a valuable job.

-Lauren


It wasn’t until we moved to farms, and became an agrarian economy centered on property, that the married couple became the central unit of production. As Stephanie Coontz explains, by the Middle Ages, the combination of the couple’s economic interdependence and the Catholic Church’s success in limiting divorce had created the tradition of getting married to one person and staying that way until death do us part. It was in our personal and collective best interest that the marriage remain intact if we wanted to keep the farm afloat.

That said, being too emotionally attached to one’s spouse was discouraged; neighbors, family, and friends were valued just as highly in terms of practical and emotional support. Even servants and apprentices shared the family table, and sometimes slept in the same room with the couple who headed the household, Coontz notes. Until the mid-19th century, the word love was used to describe neighborly and familial feelings more often than to describe those felt toward a mate, and same-sex friendships were conducted with what we moderns would consider a romantic intensity. When honeymoons first started, in the 19th century, the newlyweds brought friends and family along for the fun.

But as the 19th century progressed, and especially with the sexualization of marriage in the early 20th century, these older social ties were drastically devalued in order to strengthen the bond between the husband and wife—with contradictory results. As Coontz told me, “When a couple’s relationship is strong, a marriage can be more fulfilling than ever. But by overloading marriage with more demands than any one individual can possibly meet, we unduly strain it, and have fewer emotional systems to fall back on if the marriage falters.”

Some even believe that the pair bond, far from strengthening communities (which is both the prevailing view of social science and a central tenet of social conservatism), weakens them, the idea being that a married couple becomes too consumed with its own tiny nation of two to pay much heed to anyone else. In 2006, the sociologists Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian published a paper concluding that unlike singles, married couples spend less time keeping in touch with and visiting their friends and extended family, and are less likely to provide them with emotional and practical support. They call these “greedy marriages.” I can see how couples today might be driven to form such isolated nations—it’s not easy in this age of dual-career families and hyper-parenting to keep the wheels turning, never mind having to maintain outside relationships as well. And yet we continue to rank this arrangement above all else!