Anthropocentrism: The belief that humans are separate from, and superior to, other forms of life and being.
Elements of the environmental movement claim that it is this feeling of superiority which has brought us to our current ecological crisis. A philosophical tradition reaching back to the Old Testament's "dominion" -- and stretching through Enlightenment Rationality and even reverberating in the Frankfurt School -- has posited man as master of the natural world, which is itself stripped of any inner life, meaning, or spirit.
If you contemplate the sources of our environmental crisis you won't be able to avoid the conclusion that consumption of natural resources is among them. But we (i.e., the developed world, and the U.S. especially) consume tremendously greater amounts of resources and energy than the rest of the world. My point being, what is the use of casting blame at the feet of this abstraction "man"? I fear we are spreading the blame around when we should be pointing fingers.
Unpacking anthropocentrism's simple culprit of "man's dominion over nature," I think we can arrive at something more like this: our economy, based as it is on never-ending growth and the enrichment of a progressively-smaller global elite, is consuming natural resources in an unsustainable way while dispossessing more and more people of the means to live lightly on the land.
To approach this from another angle, do you really think the hordes of Christmas shoppers besieging our nation's malls feel they are enacting "dominion over nature"? I for one am not convinced that the umpteenth sweater purchased for one's niece in full knowledge it will never be worn because "I didn't know what else to get!" gives its buyer the deep satisfaction of scoring one for the home team. I think its something more banal: boredom, insecurity, and a credit card.
Bored, insecure, and packing a credit card. The ideal Western consumer. And it is the economy they participate in that has brought us to the brink of collapse, not "man"-writ-large's delusions of mastery over the natural world.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Paul Krugman on (non-) intervention in the market
From an interview with Andrew Leonard at his blog:
There's kind of a weird double-think involved in arguments that the slump should be allowed to follow its natural course. It's true that classical economics says that we should let market forces do their work; but classical economics also says that severe recessions can't happen. This idea that we must not intervene is based on a worldview that is refuted by the very fact that the economy is in the mess it's in.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Real chicken coop update
Here it is!
This is the next box. Its roof is a lid to allow easy access to our hens' eggs:
Nest box on the inside:
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Ken MacLeod on socialism
Imagine if the left had taken the most hostile caricatures of what socialism was and what being a socialist meant, and proceeded to live up to them. Lots of people would now be saying things like, 'I'm not a socialist, but I think capitalism sucks and should be replaced by a system based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution.'
Oh, wait. That happened.
from 'The Falling Rate of Profit, Red Hordes and Green Slime: What the Fall Revolution Books are About'
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
How much is too much? The only thing certain is we're uncertain.
A bit of context: I am reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Green Mars. It is, I don't know how else to say it, saturated with ideas. Ecology is one of the big ones. A reference to Herman Daly in Green Mars got me to this blog post. If its interesting to you, I recommend getting your hands on the Mars trilogy.
Today, reading Daly and Farley's book Ecological Economics, I learned about Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). In brief, a stock of renewable natural resources can tolerate only up to a certain amount of harvest while still replenishing itself to levels from before the harvest. There is a an amount of stock somewhere between critical depensation (the minimum viable population) and carrying capacity that allows for the most stock to be sustainably skimmed each harvest. This is the MSY.
The MSY is clearly important to long term resource economics. We all want to get as much as we can from a stock, and (hopefully) more and more of us want to do so without jeopardizing our children's and children's children's ability to enjoy the same bounty. So, MSY is the place to be.
If we only knew where it is. Alas, the complex interaction of factors that makes up an ecosystem defies our grasp. Summing up the research, Daly and Foster put it succinctly: "We cannot scientifically estimate MSY accurately enough for use in resource managements."
Let that sink in a bit.
At stake is the depletion of a stock of potentially-irreplaceable resources. Overshooting even a little bit could spell disaster, since ecosystems have a nasty habit of reacting non-linearly to our interventions (that pesky trait of complex systems). Given the risks, what is the rational and moral way to define our limits? Very, very, very conservatively.
***
UPDATE: Bad news. Critical depensation is also next to impossible to determine. Meaning, we can push species below a threshold from which their population cannot return, without even realizing. Our ignorance before ecology is a loaded gun.
Today, reading Daly and Farley's book Ecological Economics, I learned about Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). In brief, a stock of renewable natural resources can tolerate only up to a certain amount of harvest while still replenishing itself to levels from before the harvest. There is a an amount of stock somewhere between critical depensation (the minimum viable population) and carrying capacity that allows for the most stock to be sustainably skimmed each harvest. This is the MSY.
The MSY is clearly important to long term resource economics. We all want to get as much as we can from a stock, and (hopefully) more and more of us want to do so without jeopardizing our children's and children's children's ability to enjoy the same bounty. So, MSY is the place to be.
If we only knew where it is. Alas, the complex interaction of factors that makes up an ecosystem defies our grasp. Summing up the research, Daly and Foster put it succinctly: "We cannot scientifically estimate MSY accurately enough for use in resource managements."
Let that sink in a bit.
At stake is the depletion of a stock of potentially-irreplaceable resources. Overshooting even a little bit could spell disaster, since ecosystems have a nasty habit of reacting non-linearly to our interventions (that pesky trait of complex systems). Given the risks, what is the rational and moral way to define our limits? Very, very, very conservatively.
***
UPDATE: Bad news. Critical depensation is also next to impossible to determine. Meaning, we can push species below a threshold from which their population cannot return, without even realizing. Our ignorance before ecology is a loaded gun.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Al Gore dishes it in Sunday's NYT
I love Al! Here is his rockin' Op-Ed from Sunday's NY Times. A smattering of my thoughts:
a) He focuses on energy production and delivery infrastructure. And focus is good. But don't forget the important role of more efficient transportation such as rail. Simple physics dictates that even the filthiest smoke-belching diesel locomotive pulls ten times the weight of a truck for the same fuel. And electrified rail could run cleanly on top of the energy infrastructure he proposes!! ... be still, my beating heart.
b) Al Gore don't beat around the bush (no pun intended): its all about "putting a price on carbon." The best incentive for reinvestment will be making carbon more expensive.
c) Clean Coal is a fantasy. Fairy fuel. President Obama, you better be more in the know on this than your constant mentions of this technology in your campaign would seem to indicate.
d) The last two paragraphs give me chills. Read them and read them again.
--------------------
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Op-Ed Contributor
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
The inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he -- and we -- must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is "unequivocal." To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum -- including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers -- agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America's darkest hour, "The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew." In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop "the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources." His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And -- not coincidentally -- it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds -- and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn't have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and "clean coal" technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of "clean coal," too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting "clean coal" technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I'm all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here's what we can do -- now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis -- and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with "smart" features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid -- $400 billion over 10 years -- pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings -- and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world's efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way -- indeed the only way -- to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama's campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and, as a businessman, invests in alternative energy companies.
View online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
a) He focuses on energy production and delivery infrastructure. And focus is good. But don't forget the important role of more efficient transportation such as rail. Simple physics dictates that even the filthiest smoke-belching diesel locomotive pulls ten times the weight of a truck for the same fuel. And electrified rail could run cleanly on top of the energy infrastructure he proposes!! ... be still, my beating heart.
b) Al Gore don't beat around the bush (no pun intended): its all about "putting a price on carbon." The best incentive for reinvestment will be making carbon more expensive.
c) Clean Coal is a fantasy. Fairy fuel. President Obama, you better be more in the know on this than your constant mentions of this technology in your campaign would seem to indicate.
d) The last two paragraphs give me chills. Read them and read them again.
--------------------
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Op-Ed Contributor
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
The inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he -- and we -- must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is "unequivocal." To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum -- including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers -- agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America's darkest hour, "The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew." In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop "the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources." His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And -- not coincidentally -- it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds -- and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn't have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and "clean coal" technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of "clean coal," too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting "clean coal" technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I'm all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here's what we can do -- now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis -- and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with "smart" features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid -- $400 billion over 10 years -- pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings -- and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world's efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way -- indeed the only way -- to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama's campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He founded the Alliance for Climate Protection and, as a businessman, invests in alternative energy companies.
View online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/
Monday, November 10, 2008
Climate change means letting go
A weird optimism has improbably prevailed in this post-"Inconvenient Truth" era. Breathless as I am at the possibilities of the Obama presidency, I can't shake the feeling that people still just don't get what the consequences of stopping climate change are. The enthusiasm surrounding the "green economy" might be making things worse. Building the infrastructure to generate, transmit, and conserve clean energy can and will doubtlessly generate scores of jobs. And, yes, as lots of folks have pointed out, these jobs typically cannot be outsourced: turbines and windmills are so massive they must be manufactured nearby, and shipping your house to China to be reinsulated isn't exactly practical. But thinking of climate change as just another challenge for the market to meet conceals the disturbing reality. A real turnaround in carbon will likely require changes in the American way of life nothing short of massive.
Pushing for these changes from the office of the president is both crucial and likely to be politically unpopular. As Bill McKibben says of President-Elect Obama, "It might well wreck his political future, because it would involve — directly or indirectly — raising the cost of continuing to live as we do right now." And that is exactly the point. All the jobs a green economy will produce does not change the fact that the United States currently consumes about a forth of the world's energy. We are living way, way beyond our means.
The necessary reductions in consumption will not be popular because we have gotten used to having our cake and eating it too. The Economist gets right to the point:
This means letting go. Letting go of the sense of entitlement to energy. We have been treating a precious and finite resource as a birthright and a given, and we will be made to see the consequences. Our choice, to intervene in the economy and let the power of price move us away from fossil fuels, or to maintain the status quo and invite disaster. Either way, we will eventually be made aware of our outstanding debt. Let us hope our revelation is the disappointment of not being able to drive as much rather than the loss of something far more dear.
Pushing for these changes from the office of the president is both crucial and likely to be politically unpopular. As Bill McKibben says of President-Elect Obama, "It might well wreck his political future, because it would involve — directly or indirectly — raising the cost of continuing to live as we do right now." And that is exactly the point. All the jobs a green economy will produce does not change the fact that the United States currently consumes about a forth of the world's energy. We are living way, way beyond our means.
The necessary reductions in consumption will not be popular because we have gotten used to having our cake and eating it too. The Economist gets right to the point:
To have a big impact on America’s emissions, Congress will either have to spend a lot of money or dramatically increase the price of fossil fuels. The first option will add to an already enormous deficit; the second is tantamount to raising taxes. So many congressmen will see the first option as unaffordable in a fiscal sense, and the second as unaffordable in a political one.President Obama will need to go over the heads of moderate Democrats elected by oil-hungry constituents to commit a political sin without precedent: deliberately raise the price of oil. Cap-and-trade, straight oil tax, whatever. Oil consumption must plummet and to accomplish this the price of oil must go up, up, up.
This means letting go. Letting go of the sense of entitlement to energy. We have been treating a precious and finite resource as a birthright and a given, and we will be made to see the consequences. Our choice, to intervene in the economy and let the power of price move us away from fossil fuels, or to maintain the status quo and invite disaster. Either way, we will eventually be made aware of our outstanding debt. Let us hope our revelation is the disappointment of not being able to drive as much rather than the loss of something far more dear.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
David Sedaris on undecided voters
From The New Yorker (link) via Lisa:
I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
A new (outdoor) home for the ladybirds
The quintessential Texan name for girls just happens to be the perfect description of our four feathered roommates. Here is the story of the many abodes of Lisa and Grant's ladybirds.
In the beginning, there was a trash can:
Ain't no chicken of mine gonna grow up in a trash can. Next came the plastic Tub o' Poultry. A marked improvement, but only until they learned to fly. Here Zenobia has fashioned a perch out of the heat lamp:
It probably goes without saying that everything went to hell with this plan as soon as all four were flying. They took over the storage room and pooped on everything. We needed to get that poop off our files and into our lawn where it could do some good. And since the temperature outside is fine for little chicks (probably hotter than next to that heat lamp) there was really no reason to delay an outdoor dwelling any further. So, two Sundays ago, we decided to upgrade our little poultry operation and give the girls some outdoor digs.
Scavenging parts was easy since our neighbors are remodeling. I found a wooden crate (I think it held flooring tiles) and pried off planks until we were left with just a basic frame. The removed planks were full of nails, which we extracted and reused. Next came staple-gunning the poultry wire. Here's me touching up the frame after the wire roof was installed:
Lisa, as most readers know, is short. This gave her a significant advantage when it came time to blast a dozen cartridges of staples into the interior wood of the coop to hold down the poultry wire. Her sweltering hour-long sacrifice crouched inside proved to me and the whole neighborhood that yes, she loves her chickens. She muttered things like "Just try and pry this off, racoons!" between staple gun pops. Sadly, this episode was not photographed.
The theory behind our structure is that of the chicken tractor, a portable chicken house with no floor. It allows chickens access to the soil and offers protection from predators. It also keeps the crazy things in one place. Furthermore, it can be moved from spot to spot so that the chickens don't wear out any one square of lawn too bad. If desired, you can also leave them in one place a bit longer to prepare it for gardening. They will defoliate, aerate, and leave "fertilizer" all over a piece of dirt. If you decide to build one yourself, don't forget that critters can (and will) dig to get a tasty chicken dinner. We nailed two-by-fours to the base so that they laid flat on the ground, meaning any digging predator would have to dig in four inches. That is probably enough of a deterrent for our tractor's purpose as a daytime house.
We toasted our accomplishment with Chad and Lizzie. Here's the finished product (total cost: about $8 for wire and hardware), doubling as a handy table for the celebratory ales:
Next, I want to enclose a third of the cage's area so the chickens have somewhere to go at night. In the meantime, we will continue bringing them in to the Tub o'Poultry each night in our ritual game of chase-the-hen.
In the beginning, there was a trash can:
Ain't no chicken of mine gonna grow up in a trash can. Next came the plastic Tub o' Poultry. A marked improvement, but only until they learned to fly. Here Zenobia has fashioned a perch out of the heat lamp:
It probably goes without saying that everything went to hell with this plan as soon as all four were flying. They took over the storage room and pooped on everything. We needed to get that poop off our files and into our lawn where it could do some good. And since the temperature outside is fine for little chicks (probably hotter than next to that heat lamp) there was really no reason to delay an outdoor dwelling any further. So, two Sundays ago, we decided to upgrade our little poultry operation and give the girls some outdoor digs.
Scavenging parts was easy since our neighbors are remodeling. I found a wooden crate (I think it held flooring tiles) and pried off planks until we were left with just a basic frame. The removed planks were full of nails, which we extracted and reused. Next came staple-gunning the poultry wire. Here's me touching up the frame after the wire roof was installed:
Lisa, as most readers know, is short. This gave her a significant advantage when it came time to blast a dozen cartridges of staples into the interior wood of the coop to hold down the poultry wire. Her sweltering hour-long sacrifice crouched inside proved to me and the whole neighborhood that yes, she loves her chickens. She muttered things like "Just try and pry this off, racoons!" between staple gun pops. Sadly, this episode was not photographed.
The theory behind our structure is that of the chicken tractor, a portable chicken house with no floor. It allows chickens access to the soil and offers protection from predators. It also keeps the crazy things in one place. Furthermore, it can be moved from spot to spot so that the chickens don't wear out any one square of lawn too bad. If desired, you can also leave them in one place a bit longer to prepare it for gardening. They will defoliate, aerate, and leave "fertilizer" all over a piece of dirt. If you decide to build one yourself, don't forget that critters can (and will) dig to get a tasty chicken dinner. We nailed two-by-fours to the base so that they laid flat on the ground, meaning any digging predator would have to dig in four inches. That is probably enough of a deterrent for our tractor's purpose as a daytime house.
We toasted our accomplishment with Chad and Lizzie. Here's the finished product (total cost: about $8 for wire and hardware), doubling as a handy table for the celebratory ales:
Next, I want to enclose a third of the cage's area so the chickens have somewhere to go at night. In the meantime, we will continue bringing them in to the Tub o'Poultry each night in our ritual game of chase-the-hen.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Meet the chicks
These four have been wonderful! Allow me to introduce you to the feathered ladies of Austin (with breed indicated for you poultry geeks out there):
"Zenobia" (Barred Plymoth Rock)
"Cotton" (Barred Plymouth Rock)
"Lightning Bolt" (New Hampshire Red)
"Doña Quixote" (Ameracauna)
Tale of a move
From dawn until dusk three days in the middle of August, Lisa and I could be found hurtling* eastward on Interstate 10 a few yards ahead of our belongings. These were piled into a peeling trailer reminiscent of the Joad family. We did it backwards from the Oakies, out of California and east through the deserts to Austin. Read on for details.
Sunday, August 14 (T minus 4 days)
Anyone who attended Friday's soiree at 7th Ave knows that my original departure date was just ridiculously unrealistic, what with all the beer-drinking and taco-housing to be done. Thanks to (in order of appearance) Kate, Marisa, Erik, Atiya, Michelle, Phillip, J. Higgins, and Ben for sending me off right that night. The next day I was sufficiently panicked to get some packing done, but ultimately decided to postpone leaving until Sunday. Through all these schedule changes Gabe stuck with the plan to accompany me to L.A. He was there to help me fetch the trailer from the mountain man in Ramona weeks before and he was there for the first white-knuckle leg of the trip with trailer loaded. We arrived at Chateau Gulesserian, made several hilarious attempts to back the trailer in (blocking traffic on Longden Avenue for a good while), and after finally succeeding took Gabe to his final destination -- somewhere over some hill, I don't know, L.A. is confusing, but there was a nice view. By this time it was past midnight and time for sleep!
Monday and Tuesday, August 15-16 (T minus 3-2 days)
These days are indistinguishable in memory. There was lots and lots of sweaty packing. I was responsible for packing the Subaru, which I did pretty darn well. Not an inch of unused space and zero visibility, as it should be. Michael D. made me very happy by visiting one night. Lisa's mom was the warm funny lady she always is. Lisa's cousin and aunt visited a lot, too. One night we had dinner at Nene's ("nay-nay"), which is what you call Lisa's grandma if you're in the know. Keiri also visited. I did not end up seeing my dad in El Segundo. Wednesday was our original departure date, but by Tuesday night it was clear we needed another day.
Wednesday, August 17 (T minus 1 day)
The great thing about today was that, thinking we were going to leave in the morning, we already had everything packed. Seta and Lisa had made quick work of the trailer and it was packed to the brim and everything was neatly held down with a tarp. Nothing to do but finishing touches, and plenty of rest to be had.
Thursday, August 18 (Liftoff)
The car is packed, the trailer is hitched, we are ready to hit the road! But the car doesn't start. AAA is called, my battery is bad, it is replaced. In a stroke of luck that still leaves me a bit breathless, the mechanic notices that our trailer tires are inadequate, having cracked sidewalls (I didn't even have a clue that this constituted tire damage). It would have been pretty likely that one would blow during the trip. Thank you. So we made our exit amidst much hugging and crying on all sides and our first stop was a tire shop. Trailer tires replaced super fast (with a crazy air jack that lifted the whole thing --fully loaded!-- right off the ground like it was nothing), and confident in our rig, we finally got on I-10. This road that was to be ours for the next three days.
The biggest hills of the trip were right out of Los Angeles. I was worried. The Subaru is trusty but I'd never pulled a loaded trailer up a steep grade in desert heat. Remember, this is car is hardly a tower (the hitch and electrical plugin were both attached manually by yours truly). I put it in low gear, gritted my teeth, and wished for the best as we ascended.
And everything was fine! Over the summit with barely a tremble in the oil temperature gauge. We didn't even really burn all the much gas, considering the load. I took it as a good omen and felt confident as we cruised through Phoenix, a spectacular nighttime thunderstorm, and finally pulled off at a motel in Tuscon.
Friday, August 19 (Day 2 of trip)
Expecting Arizona's university town to have some charm, we checked out downtown before hitting the road that morning. Alas, it was mostly parking lots and the U. itself looked a lot like Niketown in Irvine.
This was our first full day on the road and all that asphalt under the tires was a bit hypnotic. New Mexico had some pretty vistas, red rock and lush greenery. We stopped off at a historic Old West sort of town and enjoyed the Mexican ambiance of the big sandstone central plaza. Lisa noticed a memorial to "the unborn" on the steps of the cathedral.
By late afternoon we were passing twixt the celebratory spiky-things marking the border of Texas. The clouds parted and we were greeted by a rainbow and the ringing of trumpets (two of the previous three claims are true). Of course, this didn't mean we were anywhere near our final destination. El Paso is only half way! The bigness of our new state really set in. Sobering as the thought of another day and a half on the road was, El Paso was still fascinating to drive through. Its downtown shares the banks of the Rio Grande with the infamous Mexican maquiladora town of Ciudad Juarez. San Diego borders Mexico, sure, but by comparison, it and Tijuana feel totally discontiguous. Imagine instead the San Ysidro crossing at Petco Park. Driving along the banks of the slender river in El Paso, the mirror image of the city scarcely yards away on the other side is Mexican land. It is much harder to avoid (or ignore) the presence of our neighbor than in downtown San Diego.
El Paso was the last real town we were to see until Austin. For travelers going east, it marks the threshold of that surreal emptiness that is West Texas. A speck of a town called Van Horn --just motels, a Mexican restaurant, and lots of nailed up plywood-- materialized sometime around dusk. We pulled off. Some motels' marquees boasted "American-owned"; we didn't want to know what sort of hateful nonsense that was supposed to mean, and, being generally suspicious of our fellow Americans, we picked one staffed by some o' them job-gobblin' im'grints. Darn tootin'.
Saturday, August 20 (Day 3 of trip)
From Van Horn to the Hill Country (the thin strip of pretty bisecting Texas; about an hour out from Austin) there is nothing to report. I tell you, West Texas is just empty. An hour or so after having left I-10, around evening, we found Fredricksburg. Its a cool little town doing its best to stave off Walmartization. Dinner (Italian food! Civilization!), quick walk, back in the Subie for the last hour to Austin. It was more eventful than expected. Austin itself was somehow avoiding rain but was surrounded on all sides by a wall of thunderstorm. Soggy, we arrived. We were in our new city.
* Actual speed: 50 mph
Monday, April 14, 2008
Two good things make a day
Two extra special things happened today. One was getting a phone call from Lisa Lady Aventurera, recently arrived in Stockholm! She has spent the last several days exploring the fjords and sleeping on the floor of the Oslo train station. She is so independent. No time to find a room? No problem. The station closes up at 2am? Just ask the custodians to let you stay the night. If you need something, ask, but don't ever assume. If things are less than comfortable, don't panic, there will be a hot shower at a hostel in a few days at most. This is what happens when you mix a zeal for experience with a profound tranquility in the face of incertainty. I love this woman so much. A miniature version of her now peers at my from twixt the folders of my messy desktop. The photo is of Amsterdam, a canal stretching out behind, tough-looking utility bikes parked at her side.
The other extra special thing was putting in my first volunteer shift at Groundwork Books. A few days ago, while vigorously conversing at GW with Kate and Tad about, what was it?, anarchism and postermodernism and EVERYTHING, I thought: "Standing around books and talking makes me happy. I should work here." It felt very natural asking the folks behind the desk when I could start. On my first shift, Adriana and Charles showed me that, alas, there is more to working at a bookstore than standing around talking. I learned how to stock books and how to process incoming invoices. And, I folded at least a hundred sheets of poorly photocopied "something"-forms. They had "something" to do with making textbook orders for courses.
By the way, if more professors went through Groundwork it would be a real boon.
Elsewhere in the day there was some good comps paper drafting, and I spread the joy of dolmas to colloquium attendees.
The other extra special thing was putting in my first volunteer shift at Groundwork Books. A few days ago, while vigorously conversing at GW with Kate and Tad about, what was it?, anarchism and postermodernism and EVERYTHING, I thought: "Standing around books and talking makes me happy. I should work here." It felt very natural asking the folks behind the desk when I could start. On my first shift, Adriana and Charles showed me that, alas, there is more to working at a bookstore than standing around talking. I learned how to stock books and how to process incoming invoices. And, I folded at least a hundred sheets of poorly photocopied "something"-forms. They had "something" to do with making textbook orders for courses.
By the way, if more professors went through Groundwork it would be a real boon.
Elsewhere in the day there was some good comps paper drafting, and I spread the joy of dolmas to colloquium attendees.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Am I a terrorist? The "chilling effect" of the Green Scare.
Today I've started reading up on the radical community in Austin, Texas. Here are some resources:
Monkeywrench Books. A non-profit collective bookstore and community space.
The New Texas Radical. News website.
On the Fringe. Weekly radio show on UT-based KVRX, which recently aired a talk on so-called 'Eco-Terrorism' -- if that sounds interesting, read on!
Will Potter is an articulate and funny journalist and graduate of UT. You can hear him talk about the campaign to label animal rights and environmental groups as 'eco-terrorists' at On the Fringe above.
The FBI has recently declared ecoterrorism or 'ecotage' as the number one domestic terrorist threat. You read it right. Groups like Earth First! and the E.L.F., who have never been implicated in violence against human beings, who in fact disavow violence, are defined by the federal government as more dangerous than abortion clinic bombers, more dangerous than heavily armed right-wing militias, more threatening even than Al Qaeda.
What effect do these overtures on the part of the government have on activist groups? Potter describes it as a "chilling effect," a hesitation to get involved rooted in a fear of being branded a terrorist, which is a word with an increasingly broad meaning. In fact, government rhetoric on ecoterrorism now often defines it as anything causing lost profits. Meaning, if I do something that can be linked to an American corporation making less money, I am a traitorous terrorist dog. Unconditional cheerleading for a rosy business climate is the new patriotism.
This in effect criminalizes an indispensable tactic of progressive groups, the pressuring of consumers to 'vote with their dollar' and not support irresponsible corporations. If otherwise legal activity such as leafleting, petitioning, etc., can be shown to impact the bottom line of environmentally destructive corporations, this is now terrorist activity?
We have the right to try our hardest to make it unprofitable to destroy the earth (or abuse workers, torture animals, commodify our education, marginalize dissident voices in the media, pump cheap fatty foods into poor neighborhoods...). To this end we have time-honored traditions such as petitioning and boycotting, as well as acts of civil disobedience such as sit-ins and sabotage. And, lest we forget, a glance at the history of social movements in this country shows that these tactics are as American as apple pie. If they are 'terroristic' because they threaten the profit and privilege of the powerful, then I am proud to call myself a terrorist.
Monkeywrench Books. A non-profit collective bookstore and community space.
The New Texas Radical. News website.
On the Fringe. Weekly radio show on UT-based KVRX, which recently aired a talk on so-called 'Eco-Terrorism' -- if that sounds interesting, read on!
Will Potter is an articulate and funny journalist and graduate of UT. You can hear him talk about the campaign to label animal rights and environmental groups as 'eco-terrorists' at On the Fringe above.
The FBI has recently declared ecoterrorism or 'ecotage' as the number one domestic terrorist threat. You read it right. Groups like Earth First! and the E.L.F., who have never been implicated in violence against human beings, who in fact disavow violence, are defined by the federal government as more dangerous than abortion clinic bombers, more dangerous than heavily armed right-wing militias, more threatening even than Al Qaeda.
What effect do these overtures on the part of the government have on activist groups? Potter describes it as a "chilling effect," a hesitation to get involved rooted in a fear of being branded a terrorist, which is a word with an increasingly broad meaning. In fact, government rhetoric on ecoterrorism now often defines it as anything causing lost profits. Meaning, if I do something that can be linked to an American corporation making less money, I am a traitorous terrorist dog. Unconditional cheerleading for a rosy business climate is the new patriotism.
This in effect criminalizes an indispensable tactic of progressive groups, the pressuring of consumers to 'vote with their dollar' and not support irresponsible corporations. If otherwise legal activity such as leafleting, petitioning, etc., can be shown to impact the bottom line of environmentally destructive corporations, this is now terrorist activity?
We have the right to try our hardest to make it unprofitable to destroy the earth (or abuse workers, torture animals, commodify our education, marginalize dissident voices in the media, pump cheap fatty foods into poor neighborhoods...). To this end we have time-honored traditions such as petitioning and boycotting, as well as acts of civil disobedience such as sit-ins and sabotage. And, lest we forget, a glance at the history of social movements in this country shows that these tactics are as American as apple pie. If they are 'terroristic' because they threaten the profit and privilege of the powerful, then I am proud to call myself a terrorist.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
It's good to feel useful
Today, while petitioning against the hateful anti-gay ballot initiatives to "protect" marriage in California, I explained the initiative and why even straight people should do all they can to prevent it from getting on the ballot -- to a smartly-dressed Latino family fresh out of Sunday Mass. In Spanish. Our volunteer group was nearly entirely white and I was the only Spanish-speaker. It seemed pretty clear to me from the family's reaction to my rap in English that the message wasn't getting through. A simple Ustedes hablan español, no? was all it took to start up what turned into an informative chat. They were very receptive to the message. Y sí, claro, firmaron la petición.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Spooky music
I ran into an old friend in Butte today, working at a record store. We talked about a crop of new bands playing a loose assortment of styles centered around rural America and punk rock. Here's a few of them:
Those Legendary Shack Shakers
When Robert Plant and Jello Biafra are ardent fans of the same group, it has to mean something. Have a listen to the following tracks and decide what that "something" is.
Those Legendary Shack Shakers - Agony Wagon
Those Legendary Shack Shakers - Ichabod
.357 String Band
Milwaukee's own brand of "streetgrass" delivers an obligatory bit of Americana: the temptation song, starring the Devil himself!
.357 String Band - Up Jump the Devil
Slackeye Slim
If Hank Williams and Danzig collaborated on an album produced by George Romero, it would sound really weird. If that album were played through a CB radio and then rerecorded to half-melted cassette tapes, it might sound something like Slackeye Slim. His myspace page has all the free songs you can handle.
Those Legendary Shack Shakers
When Robert Plant and Jello Biafra are ardent fans of the same group, it has to mean something. Have a listen to the following tracks and decide what that "something" is.
Those Legendary Shack Shakers - Agony Wagon
Those Legendary Shack Shakers - Ichabod
.357 String Band
Milwaukee's own brand of "streetgrass" delivers an obligatory bit of Americana: the temptation song, starring the Devil himself!
.357 String Band - Up Jump the Devil
Slackeye Slim
If Hank Williams and Danzig collaborated on an album produced by George Romero, it would sound really weird. If that album were played through a CB radio and then rerecorded to half-melted cassette tapes, it might sound something like Slackeye Slim. His myspace page has all the free songs you can handle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)