overcoming dependency is not a communal undertaking

on page 135 of Peak Everything in the chapter titled The Psychology of Peak oil and Climate Change, richard heinberg says, "following bush's statement more than one commentator advocated the development of a twelve-step program to rid america of its addiction to petroleum. the original twelve-step program of alcoholics anonymous was religion based, so it might not be useful to an entire modern seni-secualr society. but two steps could well apply:
.admitting we have a problem, and
.making a searching and fearless inventory of our energy consumption."

my experiences with twelve step programs have been less than fulfuilling, mostly because the bulk of the twelve steps have nothing to do with transcending addiction...they are basically concerned with perpetuation the organization...what is striking is the heinberg has chosen the only two steps that actually do pertain to overcoming dependency...alas...in his introduction he says that the chapter "...offers some suggestions on what sorts of group therapy might help us to kick the habit."(p.26)...two decades of dealing with my own alcoholism raised some red flags...it's not that aa or group therapy don't serve a worthwhile purpose...they just don't resolve anything...what they do is show you that there are other people grappling with the same problems you are...you are not alone...always good to know...it will also show you that a lot of things are relative...some people seem to be having a much more difficult time than you are...some seem to be breezing through (it only seems that way)...someone who does not have your financial troubles may have much more serious health issues to face...or maybe your marriage has fared better, or your legal status...as bad as it is things could be worse...also good to know...the dependent are a nosey bunch...therapists make us tell our stories for their own reasons, but beyond their agenda, you can compare notes on what you're facing and how you're coping...come away with a few more tools for the meager tool-kit rehab provides...and we're drawing in on the salient point here...at some point you have to take what you've learned and apply it to yourself...you are the only one who can do this ...overcoming dependency is not a communal undertaking ...a group can butress your resolve, but at some time you have to decide what you're going to be, and then be that...this applies to any addiction...nicotine, crack, alcohol, or fossil fuels...the only way to turn aside from their use is for you to do it...and that will not be simple...propagands for the "business as usual" group is running strongly the wrong way..."ford's got you covered" and general motors is inviting us along for the ride on the "next one hundred years of innovative engineering" ...lots of pushers out there...group therapy can help set direction, but the work will have to be done one addict at a time.

about what i expected

"however, i opposed h.r. 2454 because i believe it could be improved in several specific areas that would prevent its provisions from causing a net loss of jobs, particularly in the vulnerable manufacturing sector. given the gravity of our environmental and economic circumstances, it is worth taking the time and effort to ensure that we get this legislation right the firsts time."


that's a quote from a form letter my representative in the house sent me in response to my request that he vote in favor of the american clean energy and security act of 2009. obviously he did not, but, for reasons that are both artificial and manipulative, felt the need to explain. the first congressional district here in indiana is, if anything, something of a dinosaur in that manufactuing jobs still exisit here, albiet in much smaller number than in past years...this means that there is a significant union presence in the electorate so jobs are of particular sensitivity as a political issue...politicians of all sorts and philosphical bents are careful to show sympathy, if not solidarity, with the working class and its issues...hence my reps reference to job loss and "the vulnerable manufacturing sector." damn straight! is the desired response from me to this cheerleading and a glowing appreciation for pete's efforts on the part of us suffering mill rats. all fine and good until you come to the realization that a good number of those "vulnerable" jobs are at the big bp/ammoco refinery up in whiting and that the folks there might not be in favor of the "clean" part...pete expresses his environmental concerns while industry in his district continues to use lake michigan as a vast sump for industrial waste...part of why they built the steel mills here a hundred years ago was because the lake provided easy transport for iron ore from minnesota, and a place to dump all the toxic crap steelmaking produces...once you've got all that going into the lake what's a little benzine going to hurt? anyway politicians are adept at obfuscation and glib dissembling...it's part of the trade...don't let them confuse you.

fairness or control?

i just got home from the union hall where we voted on a contract proposal for the upcoming year...the company and the union held two days of negotiations earlier in the month ...not much to talk about really..we all know how the economy is doing...two days was doubtlessly enough time...the vote was scheduled for today..okay...things to print...stories to get straight...but what irritated the hell out of me was the secretiveness the union behaved toward the rank and file with...they told the negotiating committee to keep quiet, and they did...leaving everyone to speculate about what was in the proposal...so why do i pay these guys to represent me? so they can keep secrets about something that impacts my future? i asked one of the business agents why all the secrecy and he fed me a line of bullshit about how he thought that it was fair if everyone heard the proposal at the same time ( this in itself was bunk...not everyone in the bargaining unit came to the meeting, so everyone did not hear it at the same time...others will hear what went on filtered through the biases of the tellers...the acceptance was not unanimous...i suppose there was a quorum...but only just...another hole in his explaination) and he illustrated his point with a story about a contract they negotiated for installers ( we are an industrial production group) he said that people on that negotiating committee talked and all sorts of rumors started and he had a hundred people walking into the ratification vote saying thay were voting against it because that all had the wrong numbers...at which point i thought that if these bozos had been upfront with their installers from the beginning and had been a bit transparent instead of secretive the installers would have had the real numbers involved in the contract and there would have been no misconceptions...so is it about fairness or controlling events? if you walk into a meeting, discuss the terms for five minutes and call for a vote who has time to digest the implications and ponder possible outcomes? it's all about controlling the outcome and getting through the process while investing as little time in return for dues as possible...john r. commons business unionism...cost-effective representation as viewed from the supply side ...members=dues=assets...negotiations=debits=loss...they simply have more in common with management than with rank-and-file...craft union philosopphy is irrelevant to industrial workers

what did you expect?

okay...the good work in iraq is done....they have a new constitution and their security forces are capable enough that our troops have removed themselves from urban centers and their commanders are turning their thoughts to the afghan poppy fields...and yet the suicide bombings go on...the kurds in the north are working quietly on their own constitution and planning to take kirkuk to control the northern oil...the shiite millitias in the south are still armed and waiting..and politicians in baghdad and washington talk about a non-existant "unity"...iraq is an abstraction at best...created from the old ottoman provinces of baghdad and basra by the british in 1921 under the mandate they received from the leauge of nations...in 1926 they added the province of mosul and created a pseudo-nation of arabs, curds, shiites, sunnis, assyrians, armenians, and iraqi turkmen which has owed its "unity" mostly to a series of kings, millitary dictators, and foreign interventions...the last dictator is gone and the occupation is winding down...everyone who was ever gassed or shot at or forcibly relocated is going to have an axe to grind and when the lids off they will grind away...another failed attempt at imperial nation building? no doubt. that still leaves the nagging question of why we thought that a bit of outside interference was in order in the first place...after all saddam was a client of ours during the reagan years...fought a proxy war aginst the evil iranians for us...shook don ruimsfeld's hand at a photo op...he was on our side...at least until he started making noise like he was going to try to corner the kuwaiti oil market...the bushes are oilmen and that got their attention...somnething had to be done...the first bush sent sadam back inside his own borders and felt that that was enough...bad pr to go in for the kill on a former client with so many still on the rolls...the first bush was ex-cia and understood the value of intimidated assets...the second bush was just stupid, but his handlers saw an opportunity to create a subservient client in the wake of one gone rouge...a client that would represent imperial energy interest and povide a safe base of operations in the area, at least until the oil gave out...then it wouldn't matter...the empire is only as strong as its energy resources, and even if it didn't need to directly control the oil it did need a direct presence in the are so no-one would get the wrong idea about who was top dog in the energy market...unfortunately the cultures that make up iraq aren't co-operating...they don't seem to mix well, and they all seem to have agendas with the empires energy plans well down the list...our little adventure in nation building isn't going to work out any better than the one the british tried eighty-eight years ago...in the end, left to their own devices, the people who live there will decide if they're a nation or not...kurdistan in the north...a shiite state affilliated with iran in the south...and some sunni dominated hellhole of a rump iraqi state inbetween...welcome to the empire.