the duchy of hetkettle trophish

— alex steffen, helpfully packaging for you something i’ve been fucking around with for nigh on half a year. i wish i’d read th’essay when he wrrrrote it.

Of course, the dead with whom we are speaking when we engage in this nostalgic futurism are the dead visions of an earlier age, and they compel us so strongly precisely because our own visions elude us, offering as yet only terrifying glimpses of a ruined planet. When we look ahead, the skies darken, and we see not aluminum cities of flying cars, but a “global Somalia.”

and that should be the last of the bunch of worldchanging quotes — i seem to have caught up with them. unless they keep being helpful, which they will, i don’t doubt.

ps. one of the greater grandparents.

in memory.

pps. i knew i had included him here. not so fondly, in terms of old dreams.

who run this country

will not abandon war

until oil

is no longer

the foundation

of this

economy

a UN email:

As food and fuel prices around the world soar, the World Food Program (WFP) is facing a $500 million shortfall.… “Of particular concern is the emergence of what I call the new face of hunger — hunger characterized by markets full of food with scores of people simply unable to afford it.”

oil prices make biofuels very appealing. vrum! vrum vrum vrum!

ps. $500 million is about 0.7% what the big three oil companies pocketed in 2006 and the nationalized industries made more, i think.

pps. taxes and tithes alone won’t beat a no-win scenario.

mar 24. waaaa — i beat democracy now! by almost a week! newsletters rock.

mar 25. and now it is truly national news, in the el-lay times. (”.story”? why not “.honest” or “.justthefacts” or “.putdownyourcoffeeyouarenotgoingtobelievethis”? gaaahd.) so this all explains why the wapo’s digifairies automagically aggregated mine with ban ki-moon’s then week-old notice of the food predicament.

so — strategy, anybody?

maybe tell the free-traders preaching trickle-down to put a sock in it, till the weather’s better? yes? yes?

anyone else got the feeling the next “new deal” will be global? the alternatives are sort of ugly, aren’t they. yeah. i think that’s where we are.

In the letter, Sheeran noted that the WFP had attempted to reduce its costs by turning to local and regional markets to buy up to 80% of the food it disburses, a share that grew by 30% over the previous year.

“This not only saves on food and transport costs but is a win for local farmers, helping to break the cycle of hunger at its root,” she wrote. “But even with our mitigation efforts, the cost of our food purchases has risen 55% since June 2007″ and an additional 20% since Feb. 25. “Such increases show no sign of abating any time soon.”

In addition to being hit by spiraling costs of grains and other staples, WFP operations have been hurt by record-high fuel prices and other transport costs.

Food commodities are becoming more expensive because of rising demand in developing countries, natural disasters and climate change, and the shift of millions of tons of grains to the production of biofuels.

The United States is the largest single contributor to the WFP

…and, coincidentally, to the biofuels problem…

accounting for about 40% of the agency’s food and money donations

…and 44% of world gasoline use, about 12x more per person than other industrial-G20 residents…

followed by the European Union. U.S. officials have already warned that it is likely they will be cutting donations to global humanitarian organizations because of higher costs.

or some fucking reason. we forget. maybe solar activity! cosmic rays! or the medieval ice age. or terrorists. or just because we hate you.

feed people. not your car. gas or grain.

if only detroit didn’t have such huge technological hurdles. i wish there were some way to cut US gas demand in a year instead of more than a decade.…

“So why can’t I get a Vanguard right now?”

Instead of employing their talented engineers to install the Vanguard’s full complement of cost-effective global warming reduction features on their own vehicles, automakers are relying on lawyers and lobbyists to thwart consumer and government demand for cleaner vehicles.

it’s all part of their big sue the sky initiative. “are we going to let some crummy atmosphere curtail our freedom of financial innovation? —no, really, i’m asking. i’ve got my hedge fund manager on the phone.”

the vanguard proposal includes E85 ethanol as part of its emissions reduction. obviously, i don’t think that’s practical now. so take that out, and the “near-term technology package” on its own improves fuel economy in each class of car about 25–30%. combine this with a mandatory fuel economy display to teach people how to drive their cars efficiently and you’d get crazy results.

and again, the faster we can figure out how to retrofit current cars, cheap, with that real-time fuel use information, the faster we cut the rest of the fleet’s footprint down to manageable near-term size. it’s a worthy project, while money’s short and big vision’s lacking.

apr 10. accelerometers!

this silly thing’s been rattling around upstairs. i can’t give it the two-step it’s begging, comparing philosophies and traditions, but i can tell you what i think!

i think you get what you can negotiate. if you negotiate well, you get more; if you can negotiate fairly, for mutual benefit, i think you get it longer. if you use violence, the consequences are ugly.

i think everyone who doesn’t serve the public is a thief. the larger the thief, the more effort should be taken to find them, bind them, and rob them in return. (small thieves are barely worth catching, unless they know good jokes.)

often, because of thieves, what you can get is available because of crimes. if you take part of that, you are guilty by touch, but if you don’t take it, you’re foolish.

if you take it a second time, you’re a thief.

ps. and i am just another fool with a computer.

pps. what do i think you get if you don’t treat it all as a network of negotiations — if you’re not a thief — and you’re not getting robbed — i think you get what is stolen for you — regardless of political or economic system.

ppps. proof’s proof even after, i say.

people engage in conflicts and know that conflicts can carry costs. costly punishment serves to escalate conflicts, not to moderate them. [it] might force people to submit, but not to cooperate… winners do not use costly punishment, whereas losers punish and perish.