Ex-Iowa Gov. Vilsack’s Supposed Offer To Cut Greenhouse Gases
To make “corn gas” or put another way “GMO gas” as it might be called, it takes from 3.5 to 5 gallons of water to make one gallon of GMO gas, but how much oil does it take to make the pesticides and the energy that is needed to create GMO gas? And of course we don’t need to mention how Vilsack cut the legs out from under local communities in Iowa who would have liked to take a stand on some of these issues by signing that bill that “outlawed” any local control regarding “seeds”.
In a way what Vilsack is proposing is replacing one form of pollution with another form of pollution. Corporate America is going to do - no is doing to promote more tech solutions for the tech-knowledge mayhem they (the corporate tech Mafia) have already created. They are campaigning for a new “greased grove road” that will only end in another dead end and a more weaken “Earth Community”.
How do we construct a response to all this madness? Where is the “Earth Jurisprudence” that would allow us to point out what Monsanto/Vilsack are up too? To objectify this and then turn it into more of the same tech crap that got us into the mess we are presently in, is just another from of insanity. We all know what the definition of insanity is, don’t we? “in·san·i·ty n 1. extreme foolishness or an act that demonstrates it 2. legal incompetence or irresponsibility because of a psychiatric disorder
What’s the connection to GMO corn, not to hard to figure out is it.
Here’s another angle via YouTube on our King Vilsack
- Posted by Frank Arundel
——————-
Frank,
You have put your finger on it: the only candidates and the only “solutions” we are offered are ones that continue the charade, while destroying human and nature’s communities. Vilsack and “GMO gas” are the latest flavor combination being offered on a menu that serves only pre-packaged and shrink-wrapped “food” for non-thought. Allowing nature to be nature and people to make decisions for their own communities is beyond the imagining of a culture based on domination of all by a few. Those who refuse to choose from among the “alternative” forms of political and industrial “solutions” are labeled misfits, malcontents, eco-terrorists or worse.
Off-putting as are the labels, I don’t see how Earth Jurisprudence (or whatever term is used to indicate symbiotic sanity rather than parasitic insanity) can ascend to the status of a real alternative until people take seriously their individual responsibilities, and perhaps more to the point their competence to participate actively in changing the way decisions are made for their own communities. Many of us travel far and wide, attend conferences and lectures, post insightful papers and wise essays, and share a vision of sane justice for living systems that seldom becomes the basis for governing decisions. Thinking globally, we generally fail to act at all, often on the premise that without a few well-placed global “wins” we can’t save the planet. So we wait for the right candidate, the right policy, the best compromise and a lucky break.
Not one of us doesn’t live in a particular place. Not one of us doesn’t breath particular air, drink from a particular stream, make choices about where the particular food we eat comes from. Not many of us believe we have the right, the authority, the competence, the clout to make governing decisions about the particular stream, air, food source on which we depend for life. Or if we do believe it, we talk about it to like-minded out-of-towners. We create a tragic sub-culture of victims.
But what if people in the communities where we live did believe they have the right, the authority, the competence, and the clout, and then acted on that sense of authority, with confidence? What if majorities of people who depend on a particular stream, field, breeze, acted within the framework of that ecology, as stewards and participants, with rights and responsibilities in it and on its behalf? What if we, in the places where we live, refused to obey laws and policies that usurp those rights and responsibilities?
Though posed hypothetically, these “what ifs” are not meant hypothetically, and here and there some communities are beginning to take seriously their responsibilities, authority and competency to reject the technological “alternatives” offered as the only legal choices, and to assert the authority and right and competency to make decisions that escape the treadmill of “production above all else.” It is possible for communities to refuse the role of resource colony for the commodification of every thing, and it is more necessary than ever for communities to assert self-governance that rejects orthodox choices among the lesser of the proposed evils.
If we don’t exercise our responsibilities, our authority to self-govern, right where we live, do we imagine we can do it on the global scale? Do we really believe our best ideas, our most well articulated plans will or should be embraced and applied to all communities, when we can not implement them right where we live? Should we leave it to the national governing structure and continue to beg to be heard in the halls of power? Are we jealous to replace the status quo with our own vision, bypassing via some watershed election or stealth candidate the informed consent of everyone effected by the changes we think most appropriate? Do we distrust our judgement on these matters so much that we wouldn’t dream of trying out our ideas in our own community first, by educating our neighbors and joining with them in local self-governing decisions that implement the community’s best ideas as binding law? How indeed do we construct a response to the madness of false choices, if we refuse to act where we have power to act, and if we remain afraid to make a stand where we are and where we live? Are we going to wait for everyone to agree everywhere before we dare? Is it possible to lead by example? Who are we waiting for?
- Posted by BenGPrice@aol.com, CELDF
