Daniel Rigney's Open Salon Blog

Good and Evil (Wordcloud)

Fri, 24 May 2013 19:05:57 -0400

By Daniel Rigney, with Wordle

This wordcloud and concrete poem, created with wordle.com, is a meditation on the complexities of the moral universe.

Big Green and Big Carbon

Thu, 23 May 2013 20:05:47 -0400

By Daniel Rigney

A recent Houston Chronicle editorial deplores the power of “Big Green,” described as “the well-funded environmental lobby that stands foursquare against any fossil fuels development.”

I’ve heard of Big Business, Big Government, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and even Big Data, but this is the first I’ve heard of Big Green.

A quick search reveals that “Big Green” typically refers to large mainstream environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund that promote the conservation and preservation of nature. I think of these as the “nature lobby,” though in the end, the laws of nature won’t need a lobby to do what they do. Ask the dinosaurs.

The Chronicle sniffs a whiff of Big Green’s influence in the Obama administration’s decision to delay completion of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Keystone XL, as you probably know, is the 1,700-mile-long carbon catheter designed to drain diluted bitumen (~asphalt) from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas, from whence its product may then be burned domestically or shipped for combustion abroad.

Major environmental groups have opposed Keystone, but the Chronicle editorial neglects to mention that many of these green groups are disdained by fellow environmental activists, such as Naomi Klein (e.g., here and here), precisely because they have substantial funding and investment ties to the fossil fuels industry, and thus are emphatically not “foursquare against any fossil fuels development,” as the Chronicle puts it.

Klein reports that while some major groups, such as the Sierra Club, are moving toward carbon divestment, others are not. Big Green turns out not to be the monolith the Chronicle editorial suggests it is.

Limitations of space probably precluded the Chronicle from probing the complexities of this internal debate within the environmental movement regarding the near-term prospect of a fossil-free economy.

Limitations of space may also have prevented the Chronicle from comparing the lobbying resources of Big (and little) Green with those at the disposal of Big Oil, Big Gas, and Big Carbon in general. If Green in Big, then what do we call Big Carbon?

If David is “Big,” what do we call Goliath?

Nearly all environmentalists oppose tar oil, and for good reason, but many acknowledge, albeit reluctantly, that another fossil fuel, the dangerously potent but marginally cleaner greenhouse gas methane, or natural gas, will realistically be needed as an interim bridge to a world powered by renewable and sustainable energies such as wind, solar, and the yet-to-be-discovered YTBD.

While few environmentalists are avidly pro-gas, many (including myself) acknowledge a realistic need for natural gas as a bridge fuel on the road to clean, renewable energies.

My problem with natural gas is this: It’s one thing for Big Gas to build a bridge to future renewables. It’s something else entirely for Big Gas to seek an endless (and endlessly lucrative) carbon causeway to the future in rapacious pursuit of its own “big green.”

That’s a bridge too far for me, and for the well-being of future generations.

Big Tar is worse than Big Gas.

Switching from coal and oil to natural gas is a little like switching from unfiltered to filtered cigarettes. It’s a step in the right direction, but let’s not pretend it’s a cure for cancer.

Tapping into tar oil, by contrast, is like switching from filtered to unfiltered cigarettes. It’s a step in a deadlier direction.

While natural gas prolongs, but ameliorates, our addiction to what George W. Bush rightly called our “addiction” to fossil fuels, tar oil deepens that addiction.

The environmental impact of oil from tar sands extends far beyond local problems such as pipeline spills and their effects on local ecosystems and water supplies along the way. Tar oil’s (and natural gas’s) most significant toxic effect is on the CO2 number – the number of carbon molecules in the atmosphere per million molecules of dry air.

In general, the higher this CO2 number, the greater the greenhouse effect. Rising levels of greenhouse gas trap heat inside Earth’s atmosphere and progressively warm and destabilize its climate, with potentially disastrous ecological consequences.

As news editors well know, the CO2 number now hovers around 400 ppm (parts per million) in Houston and around the world. The carbon number continues to rise steadily, due mainly to the combustion of dirty carbon fuels. Prior to the industrial revolution, a “normal” atmospheric CO2 reading was 280. By this metric, Earth is now running the equivalent of a high fever and getting warmer.

Climate scientists warn that an increase in atmospheric CO2 increases the likelihood of major climate disruptions, including, just for instance, more and bigger hurricanes in places like Houston – a painfully ironic prospect for what is arguably the carbon capital of the world.

Tar oil is bad news for humanity whether it’s piped to Texas or across Canada to ships bound for China. (Houston-based Kinder Morgan is already extending its pipelines across Canada toward the port of Vancouver.) But tar oil will have perverse effects on global CO2 levels no matter where it’s shipped.

Big Carbon (and the Houston and Texas economies) may benefit from Keystone XL in the short run, but only at the expense of Big Posterity.

But as economist Robert Heilbroner asked provocatively, what has posterity ever done for us?

Big Carbon’s most realistic fear is not the threat posed by Big (or little) Green, but rather the threat posed by Big Science, the prophetic messenger who’s been bringing so much bad news lately to the carbon industry and its derivative economy.

Climate scientists didn’t invent greenhouse heat pollution. They just measured it and tried to figure out where it's been coming from. They’ve homed in on an answer, but few of us want to hear it, least of all those who’ve invested their lives and fortunes in the carbon business.

But don’t blame scientists for bringing bad news. Don’t blame the messenger for the message. Blame the message’s source.

Blame Big Reality.

And good luck lobbying the laws of nature.

Danagram

Elections as Market Surveys?

Sun, 19 May 2013 16:05:40 -0400

By Daniel Rigney

Consider this rather cynical question. Are democratic elections now essentially marketing surveys? I'm fighting the impulse to respond: "agree."

In light of the seeming corporatization of every aspect of American life (including semi-privatized government), are political corporations such as RNCo and DNCo offering voters much beyond the civic equivalent of the Pepsi Challenge?

Are elections mainly a metric that political operators use to measure how effectively they've manipulated consumer attitudes and behavior?

Of course I’m not the first traveler tempted to descend down this road to cynicism. Many others have beaten me to the unblinding insight that political candidates are marketed like commodities on MallMart shelves.

Social scientists, consumer researchers and political consultants have proposed a variety of machiavellian market models to describe how politics now works (at least for some) in the United States.*

Here's one version of the political marketing model in brief:

In the corporate/political world, candidates, parties and policies are “brands.” Political campaigns differentiate themselves from opposing campaigns by selectively contrasting their political "products" with those of competing brands.

Political jurisdictions are “markets,” each with its own distinctive consumer demographics. Political parties compete for market shares of key market segments in key regions, striving to achieve market dominance.

Citizens are “customers” (and, if they have substantial resources, “shareholders" or "stakeholders.")

Public opinion polls, including those held at the election polls themselves, are surveys of customer taste and brand preference. While some political consumers are brand-loyal, others are independent and persuadable. Wooing the latter is the key to achieving political market dominance.

Politics is public relations (when it isn’t just good old-fashioned backroomocracy). It’s mainly about image, not underlying reality. ("I've got one word for you: Optics.")

Nearly all political media are, quite literally, corporate media. Their ultimate aim is not to inform the public but to profit themselves, often by any tabloid means necessary.

And government is just one among many major industries, alongside carbon (I mean energy), banking, tech and others, in the American corporatocracy.

This is the cynical view of American politics to which market models of democracy have led us.

And so, the cynic in me says, when we go to the polls at periodic intervals, we're expressing our market preferences for political Pepsi or Coke, with the occasional wildhair opting for a third-party beverage like green Mountain Dew or Red Bull. On most election days, though, most shoppers just stay home.

In the political marketing model, government comes to resemble a business like any other.

Is this what electoral democracy looks like now – a glorified consumer survey measuring preferences for competing brands? A political Pepsi Challenge?

To a point. But here’s where the Coke-Pepsi analogy breaks down. The differences between or among parties are not always as trivial as the differences among colas or uncolas. Party policy occasionally charts real and critical differences in political and historical direction.

From a progressive viewpoint, the difference between Democratic and Republican policy directions in recent years has been more than just a choice between Coke and Pepsi. It’s been a choice between visions of greater equality (economic, ethnic, gender) and less, between more environmental protection and less, between need and greed, between a real future and an imagined past, between “we’re all in this together” and “it’s everyone for himself.”

I don’t care whether Coke beats Pepsi or Pepsi beats Coke. I do care, though, who wins the democratic challenge. And while I’m far from happy with the Democratic Party and its performance in recent years, I’m a half-a-loaf kind of guy. Half a Democratic loaf beats the alternative -- a vault of Republican dough. It also beats, in my view, the splintering-off of third parties that would undermine an urgently needed progressive center-left coalition.

So … How satisfied are you with the prevailing market-survey approach to democracy?

Would you say you are (a) very satisfied; (b) somewhat satisfied; (c) somewhat dissatisfied; (d) very dissatisfied; (e) don’t know; or (f) don’t care?

Respond now. Don't make me robo-call you during dinner.

Danagram

*For more on corporate marketing approaches to politics, check out these graphics and this overview of literature.

Urban Wildlife in Portland

Thu, 16 May 2013 00:05:05 -0400

By Daniel Rigney

Can furry and feathered woodland creatures flourish in a cool urban ecosystem? We’re here to find out.

We’re reporting to you from pacific Oregon, where my younger son and I are embarked on a dangerous photo-hunting expedition.

We’re going in search of wild animal species loose in the streets of Portland and its environs, tracking rare specimens of exotic fauna in their most unnatural habitat, the post-industrial city.

Call it wildlife sociology.

In case you don’t believe this tale of big city adventure, we're posting a visual record of our sightings. These pictures don’t lie.

The Big Cats

The Sunday Oregonian reports that a cougar (of the four-legged variety) was chased up a tree by a pit bull last week in a nearby Portland suburb. Several other big cats have been spotted (though none were leopards) in the metropolitan area in recent weeks.

These stories strain credulity. I have to see for myself.

I strap on my trusty holstered Canon PowerShot and head into the field in search of urban game. Soon I'm face to face with my first big cat, found prowling outside Portland’s downtown Union Station.

This friendly tiger, representing the Portland Zoo, is here to help Amtrak celebrate National Train Day.

The Salmon-Cuddling Bear

[Correction: The Trout-Cuddling Otter]

As hunter’s luck would have it, our hotel near Portland State University is hosting a self-described nerd convention – a fun-loving menagerie of young creatives calling themselves “Furlandia.” Some are dressed in animal costumes with furry tails. They look like loveable cartoon characters from a Richard Scarry children’s book.

Here we meet (I'll call him) Douglas the Fir Bear [Correction: Mystery Otter], cradling a soft-toy Oregon river salmon [Correction: a plush rainbow trout named Feesh -- see comment below].

This shot is a two-fer, capturing two of the Pacific Northwest’s most beloved creatures in a single image.

The Bronze Elk

As we continue our journey up the totem pole of urban life, we encounter the rare breed shown below, the majestic bronze elk, atop a pedestal on a green street island near Portland’s municipal buildings. The animal seems startled to see us, but stands patient and still for the picture.

Bronze Beavers

Distant relatives of the bronze elk, this family of bronze beavers gathers outside the Oregon state capitol building in Salem, fifty miles south of Portland. I’m surprised they let us get so close without fleeing or attacking us with their unforgiving metal teeth. These urbanized beavers seem accustomed to town dwellers and their clicking and flashing electronic devices.

I snap this picture, and then tiptoe slowly backward and run for my life.

Only later do I learn that beavers rarely attack humans, though the reverse is not true. Turns out I was the dangerous one in this encounter.

Wild Dogs

More fearsome to me than the urban beavers of Oregon are its wild dogs. The specimen shown below, with oversized head and tiny, spindly body, is seen pedalling footlessly across the length of a psychedelic mural in downtown Eugene, Oregon. In a public plaza nearby, a surviving tribe of ‘68-vintage hippies (it was a very good year) enjoys a lively Saturday afternoon drum circle.

Oregon Ducks and Geese

Eugene boasts one of the greenest universities in the land. The University of Oregon’s colors are green (natch) and gold. Its scenic soft-red brick campus is thick with evergreens. Its athletic mascot, "Puddles" the duck (seen here), looks a little like a rubber ducky from Lake Bathtub, or a cartoon of a cartoon of Donald Duck.

Never mistake Puddles for Benny Beaver, Oregon State University’s mascot, who lodges just up the road in Corvallis. You’ll be insulting them both. Don’t watch what happens here when the two get into an extreme wrestling match at a Pac 10 football game.

It seems a bit odd that we should encounter a gaggle of geese walking freely across the campus of a university whose mascot is the duck, but here they are:

We’re warned that these geese can be aggressive, and that they hiss a lot, especially at athletic events.

Sasquatch

A popular local donut shop in Eugene features a life-sized representation of a gray-faced and heavily-furred creature known variously as Sasquatch (in North America), Yeti, and the Abominable Snowman (in Asia). The representation below is allegedly based on Native American descriptions of late 19^th-century sightings in the Pacific Northwest.

This well-fed Sasquatch loves the artisanal donuts (bacon and maple, mango tango, Mexican hot chocolate, etc.) on offer here. His tee-shirt reads like a cryptic answer to a zen koan: Where is the magic in a donut?

“The Magic Is In the Hole.”

Scariest Species of All

As frightening as Sasquatch may be to some, we encounter one urban species stranger and more dangerous than Sasquatch and all the other urban creatures combined. I refer, of course, to the species pictured below.

It’s homo sapiens. Tiptoe slowly backward and run for your life.

Danagram

:] I am the walrus.

Readers easily amused by this post may also be amused by "Bayou Diversity in Houston."

The Corporate League: Top 30 Teams

Thu, 9 May 2013 10:05:21 -0400

By Daniel Rigney

Now that sports in the U.S. have gone almost entirely corporate, why not take the next logical step and create a Corporate Sports League (CSL)?

The practice of naming stadiums and arenas after corporate sponsors has been a hallowed financial tradition in modern pro sports for years. Here in Houston, for instance, the baseball park is named for an orange juice company (Minute Maid), the football stadium for a private utility (Reliant), the basketball arena for a Japanese car (Toyota), and the new soccer stadium for a Spanish bank (BBVA).

If we can name coliseums after corporations, why not the teams themselves? Suppose metropolitan teams took their names from the largest Fortune 500 U.S. companies headquartered in or near them? Imagine what these corporate power rankings might look like if they were framed as athletic league standings.

Here are the Corporate Sports League's current standings, listed by each team’s metropolitan headquarters in order of revenue ($b), as ranked in the Fortune 500:

1. Little Rock Walls (the Wal-Mart team)

2. Dallas Exxons (not to be confused with the city’s soccer team,

the Dallas Texans)

3. Oakland Chevrons

4. Houston 66’s (Phillips 66, no kin to the old Houston Colt 45's)

5. Omaha Berkshires (sounds better than Omaha Hathaways)

6. San Jose Apples

7. Detroit Generals (or Motors) – that’s GM’s team

8. Bridgeport Generals (or Electrics) – that’s GE’s

9. San Antonio Valeros

10. Detroit Fords (cross-town rivals of the G-Motors)

11. Dallas ATT&Ts -- the @’s for short

12. Washington Fannies (Fannie Mae. Make up your own joke here.)

13. Providence CVS’s (ranked above their arch-rivals, the Chicago

Walgreens)

14. San Francisco McKessons (described by Fortune as “the

country's largest drug distributor”)

15. San Jose Hewlitts (or Packards?) Is HP the Packard of the

industry?

16. New York Verizons

17. Minneapolis Uhgs (UnitedHealth Group)

18. New York Morgans (“Chasing a championship since 1799”)

19. Columbus Cardinals (Cardinal Health)

20. New York Machines (IBM)

21. Charlotte BankAmericards (Go Cards? Go Bankers?)

22. Seattle Wholesales (Costco Wholesale -- Go Wholes?)

23. Cincinnati Krogers

24. St. Louis Express or St. Louis Prescriptions (Express Scripts)

25. San Francisco Wells (or Fargoes?) Will they go far?

26. New York Cities (Citigroup)

27. Chicago Archers (Archer Daniels Midland)

28. Cincinnati Procters (or Gamblers?)

29. Newark Prudentials

30. Chicago Boeings (formerly the Seattle Boeings)

Looking farther down the list, we find the New York Pepsies (PepsiCo, at 43) currently leading the Atlanta Cokes (57) in a storied rivalry.

Surprisingly, several tech all-stars failed to make this year’s top 30 -- the Seattle Microsofts (at 35), the Seattle Amazons (49), the San Francisco Googles (55) and their regional rivals, the Faces (Facebook), far down at 482. But just wait til next year.

From New York to San Francisco, the Fortune 500 are the giants of corporate America. This is the US elite league of the business game. But this is no ordinary sports league, and these are no ordinary teams. The stakes in this game are higher, because the ball they’re playing with is the planet Earth.

Call it earthball.

Danagram