Trying something new

The thing I keep finding about acceptance and forgiveness is the wonderful release and relief it is, to finally let that shit go and leave it behind.

I now see shortcomings as also being something that is between me and my peace of mind, my happiness, my success at life. Thought, word, deed or feeling -- "character defects" is a kinda kludgey way of saying something's not working for you.


I've recognized another dud, and taken action to turn away from it, toward a different outcome. To try something new - just to know that there's a choice, even for me, gives me goosebumps.

It's scary, trying something new, but exhilarating too... a little like flying, right after you make the jump. Except if I crash, I just get up and try something else. "Well, THAT didn't work. I don't have to keep doing THAT."

I keep feeling better and happier, more worthy and able to love and share. I know it's there for all of us.

Blessed Be All

Tell Weather Reporters to Report Global Warming

Dear Friend:

Did you know that over 60% of meteorologists don’t believe in human-induced climate change?

It’s a big problem: weather reporters reach millions of people every night, and right now they’re not telling their viewers the full story about climate change. It's time for that to change.

Meteorologists are meeting this month at the annual conference of the American Meteorological Society, where the AMS Council will vote on a new official statement on climate change. Denier meteorologists don’t want the statement to pass, and are doing everything they can to derail the process. We can’t let that happen.

That’s why I joined the Forecast the Facts campaign, which is calling on the AMS to pass the statement immediately, and then promote it to AMS members so they start telling their viewers the full story on climate change. Will you join me?

Click below and tell the AMS: resist the deniers and pass the new statement immediately!

http://act.engagementlab.org/sign/AMS_Resist_LCV/

Share on facebook.

Tweet this

Please sign the petition and share the page widely. Thanks!

The Unbearable Meaninglessness of Politics

This is why I've given up on the political process to address anything important in a meaningful way:

"Sadly, the budget 'cuts' proposed so far in Washington DC are too minuscule to assist in any credible way, and they practically represent a rounding error, given the numbers involved..."

More to the point: "For the record, these 'cuts' work out to ~$3 billion less in spending each month, or less than the amount the Fed has been pouring into the Treasury market each business day for the past five months." same source

‎"...the entire $38 billion is just 2.3% of the deficit and slightly under 1% of the total 2011 budget."

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/breakdown-draws-near/56594

Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

Wow... neither ironic, nor a straw man... from Marketwatch!!!

Check the stats folks: The last time America’s wealth gap between the Super Rich and the other 99% was this big was just before the 1929 Crash and the Great Depression.

You can’t remember? Or you won’t? America is trapped in “terminal denial,” a setup for failure. Too many still live in the false hope of this Super-Rich Delusion. Do you believe government stats hyping a recovery? Believe Wall Street’s nonsense about a new bull market ahead? Believe Exxon-Mobile’s misleading ads about energy stocks. Believe Bill Gross’ when he says dump Treasuries, and buy his emerging country bonds? Dream on.
Start preparing for the third meltdown of the 21st Century, and depression

Denial and lies. Remember, 93% of what you hear about markets, finance and the economy are guesses, wishful thinking and lies intended to manipulate you into making decisions that suck money from your pockets into Wall Street. They get rich telling lies about securities. They hate any SEC fiduciary rules forcing them to tell the truth.

WSJ Shifts EPA Attack To Accuse Supreme Court Of "Judicial Invention" | Media Matters for America

WSJ Shifts EPA Attack To Accuse Supreme Court Of "Judicial Invention" | Media Matters for America

Now, as the Senate prepares to vote on a proposal that would repeal the EPA's scientific endangerment finding on greenhouse gases and prohibit the EPA from addressing GHG emissions, the Journal has produced another editorial bashing the agency's regulations. This time the Journal acknowledges the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, but claims that the Court "broadly rewrote the definition of 'pollutant'" to "create new powers via judicial invention":

The story of how we arrived at this pass begins in 1999, when Clinton EPA chief Carol Browner floated the idea that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant under the 1970 Clean Air Act and its later amendments. The Bush Administration rejected Ms. Browner's theory, in part because Congress kept rejecting statutory language to that effect.

Several states and green groups sued, and the question reached the Supreme Court in 2006. With Massachusetts v. EPA, a 5-4 majority broadly rewrote the definition of "pollutant," but it also narrowly held that "EPA no doubt has significant latitude as to the manner, timing, content, and coordination of its regulations" (our emphasis). In other words, the Court created new powers via judicial invention but left their use to the discretion of the executive branch.

Did the Court broadly rewrite the definition of pollutant? You be the judge. The Court's decision quotes the definition of pollutant provided by Congress in the Clean Air Act. From the ruling:

The Clean Air Act's sweeping definition of "air pollutant" includes "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical ... substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air ... ." §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word "any." Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt "physical [and] chemical ... substance[s] which [are] emitted into ... the ambient air." The statute is unambiguous.

The Court concluded: "Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant,' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles." The majority further ruled that "Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."

Are We Running Out of Oil? | The Nation

Peak Oil and a Changing Climate: An Introduction
Featuring Bill McKibben, Noam Chomsky, Nicole Foss, Richard Heinberg and more
Watch here.

Richard Heinberg, "The Globe's Limitations: How Peak Oil Threatens Economic Growth"
Watch here.

Nicole Foss, "We Need Freedom of Action To Confront Peak Oil"
Watch here.

James Howard Kunstler, "Peak Oil and Our Financial Decline"
Watch here.

Dmitry Orlov, "Peak Oil Lessons From The Soviet Union"
Watch here.