Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Three Blind Mice I : Krugman, Romm and Roberts Run the Wheel Round and Round

Dave Roberts, of Grist fame, recently wrote a piece disputing that we can know whether transitioning to a “clean” economy cheaply and easily is possible, calling out Krugman (economist aka voodoo practitioner) and Romm (stuffed shirt writer dude) for essentially saying how cheap and easy it would be.

Surely one of the three must be right, or closer to the truth, right? Sure. Dave, you win the Glaucoma Prize for being the Not-Quite-Blind Mouse! But I still hear that wheel spinning. Hmmm… what have we here? We have three VIP dudes talking climate. Why am I not ecstatic? You see, it’s kind of like...

three guys with an STD discussing the merits of prostitution and how to improve it so they can keep getting their STDs. (Let’s say Dave is merely “at risk” for fairness’ sake.)

You see, you can’t “fix” prostitution. It will always exist. There will always be at least a small number that actually choose to do it, but most will be some degree of forced, coerced or desperate. And the Johns and Johnettes, well... People really, really, really like sex and really, really, really like money. And economics is the same. Sex sells. When was the last time you saw an ad that told you something truly useful about a product instead of a guy or gal draped all over it half naked? It's the wheel I hear whirring, whirring, whirring. I hope you will, too, in time.

Just as prostitution cannot, will not, be ended because we wish it, and cannot, will not ever be healthy for the vast majority, economics is the same. Economics cannot be fixed because the flaws that it is based on are inherent. Money, power, desperation, force, greed, desire, all feed economic thought and, especially, economic actions. But it gets worse. While prostitution may exist because of the same basic drives, wants and needs, in many healthy communities where needs are met, there often is no prostitution, even if it is more because of social pressure than anything else. That is, I am contradicting myself: We can have communities without prostitution. That’s a step up from economics: It is impossible for neo-classical economics to produce a sustainable society. Besides, prostitution fills a basic drive. Economics creates the illusion of doing so. Better a prostitute than an economist, if you ask me. Far more honest a profession.

Oh, no I di’int! Oh, yes I did! I just went there. You need to, too, ‘cause if you don’t, we’re all pretty well screwed. (It's OK, you can smile. It was unintentional.)

Economics exists to perpetuate a process of wealth creation and accretion, and nothing more. Oh, sure, you have a pure scientist or two, but read the stuff! It's crackpot! Here's the biggest lie: Current economic thinking can define and guide the creation of sustainable systems.

Because elephants beget mices.

No, the principles of current economics cannot create a sustainable system when they have zero principles of sustainable systems within their number. Elephants to do not beget roses. Never will. For example, endless substitution. Economics never even addresses that there absolutely must be a final substitution beyond which all stops. Sustainable design begins with, so, how much shit we got? What can be done with it? How can we help it make more, faster, while recreating itself endlessly?

These two things are not the same. Elephants don't beget mices.

Economics, it turns out, isn’t based on science, but on philosophy. It uses lots of numbers, sure, and we all know *math* is science, so economics must be, too, right? Sure, so long as you accept that because a soap box derby racer has wheels and a steering wheel it’s a viable commuter vehicle. No, putting on the clothes of respectable science doesn’t make economics a science. What matters are the underlying assumptions. Economics is actually based on human behavior. Markets are not machines, they are aggregations of people. Economics is assumptions about what people do and why. What economics doesn’t do is consider the physical world. Economics must be based in resources to be a viable basis for understanding our world or it’s just a variant of psychology/sociology. But economics isn’t. While there are economists espousing this essential position, even there they do not begin and end with ecology, they merely include it. At least these mice aren’t blind! Merely myopic! And hanging out in the Red Light District of economic fallacy and fantasy.

All the while that wheel keeps spinning, spinning, spinning, but going nowhere. In his piece, Sir Grist writes the following graph,
Take, for instance, Paul Krugman, who crows, in a column called “Salvation Gets Cheap,” that “even under the most ambitious goals the [IPCC] assessment considers, the estimated reduction in economic growth would basically amount to a rounding error, around 0.06 percent per year.” Joe Romm touts the same number in “Climate Panel Stunner: Avoiding Climate Catastrophe Is Super Cheap — But Only If We Act Now.
then fires this shot across their respective bows:
…the idea that aggressive climate mitigation is going to shave precisely 0.06 percent off GDP growth is utterly fantastical.

For one thing, as I’ve said before, the economic models from which IPCC and others draw these numbers are just this side of wild guesses, based on assumptions about economic growth, resource prices, and technological development decades in the future.
Dave d’Grist (I tease, but I like Dave’s work… but like popping him upside his head, too, for not understanding the subject fully) is correct when he says models are guesses. Duh. Any forward-looking discussion is. But his real point is that Blinder Mice 1 and 2 put a huge amount of faith in things that are 1. based on abstractions, 2. are guesses, and 3. have zero connection to the true underlying issue: Resources and their consumption. Actually, #3 is my point. Dave is guilty of this, also. Note he doesn't say they should not do this or economics should not be trusted, he says the models are too unreliable to justify the other two mice trusting them so much. And Dave fails on #3 as badly as the other two.

Economics, once it bothers to consider the real world at all, dismisses it with a concept that does not work in your home or mine: Endless substitution. Yup, they just erase the issue of  resources from the ledger. So, the *basis* of every productive and consumptive act we engage in is completely dismissed as even mattering. Let’s try this endless substitution thingy, though.

I’m out of steak, but there’s hamburger. So far, so good. Except in economics your $5 steak is equal to your $1 hamburger. Home, not restaurant! Try that with your check book! Still, I guess since we ate, it’s OK. Ah, but eventually the hamburger goes, too. Ah, tofu! Tofu steakburger! Dang! Now we ran out of tofu! Err… OK, we can make a heavy biscuit shaped like a steak and smother it in meatless gravy! Yay!

See where this is going? Such people believe this crap!

And even The Grister accepts this insanity. But we need to clarify the insanity. So far all we know is economics ignore resources because they think steak is tofu. Corollary might be oil equals bio-fuels. Same problem. Oil has far more energy than bio-fuels and is far more fungible. Currently, takes around 1 barrel of oil to get ten out of the ground. Tar sands? Maybe 1 barrel to get 3, which is below the estimated rate to maintain our current economic model. Oops.

Oil is used in some form or degree in 95% of everything we produce. Go ahead. Look around. Now imagine either not having 95% of everything, or finding substitutes for some portion of 95% of everything. Now go get a broom and dustpan and pick your brain up off the floor. Five second rule if you want to apply endless substitution and recycle it.

Endless substitution is bull. Thus, the fact the planet is *finite* can no longer be ignored. Ipso facto, that every *economic* decision, and every decision, period, is an ecological decision also can no longer be ignored. Pause with me as we watch that wheel come to a stop and our Three Blind Mice sweep up what’s left of their brains.

Poor mices.

We are now ready to understand what has just happened. Rather than sitting on our brains and pretending that the crap we make up in those ego-inflated brains is more important than the real world from which literally everything around us comes, we must now accept that every discussion of Climate Change starts not with economics, but Ecology. (Our mice may never recover.) Logically, economics exists only as a subset of Ecology, not as a (voodoo) science above and beyond the ecology.

There are people who understand this. In the ‘70’s Mollison and Holmgren suggested designing our human systems based on ecological systems made some degree of sense. More prosaically, the Limits to Growth study, and its update a few years back, set out a set of possible scenarios, the worst of which we are tracking perfectly thus far. They looked at pollution, population, resource consumption, etc., and concluded we’d have used too much of many things and begin destabilizing. That scenario leads to collapse of our current system around mid-century. I don’t mean an economic slowdown, I mean society falling apart. And there are more. Many more. BTW, the Limits to Growth study didn't include Climate Change, so things are that much worse than seemed then.

But let’s back up a bit. Why the frack is Climate Change being discussed separately from resources if every decision is ultimately an ecological decision? Good galdarned question. Part of it we’ve already discussed: Economics can fix every shortage, which we know to be hubris, at best. The extension of understanding this is false is that it must also mean we *will* run out of things. Worse, we can use even truly, naturally renewable things up so fast that we either destroy the source or they cannot possibly meet our collective needs.

Water, anyone? Planet’s 70% water, yet water shortages all over the globe because we either are using it too fast (declining aquifers, river flows, lakes, reservoirs) or have poisoned it with things like fossil fuels-derived pollutants, er, fertilizers. Water is endlessly recyclable, and it's all over the planet! But we have used the *available* potable water so quickly we are drying aquifers and poisoning systems far faster than nature can replenish them. So we have built purification plants of various kinds. And the situation continues to rapidly worsen.

If we can't keep endless water flowing at rates we can survive on... ummm...

But none of that is THE point. THE point is this: Climate Change is the result of over-consumption of resources. Sure, you understand there’s too much CO2. Sure you understand efficiency can reduce this. Sure you think you can conserve energy. But I didn’t say misuse of fossil fuels, I said misuse of resources. Plural. Peak Oil is perhaps one you’ve heard of, but there is a long list of non-renewable resources also at, near, or past peak. Phosphorus, the P in every farmer’s and gardener’s NPK, is expected to run out around the end of this century. Not peak, but be *all used up.* When we are expected to have 2 – 5 billion more people on the planet. 12 billion people with no phosphorus? We could crash back to prehistoric numbers. 

All because economists think steaks are tofu.

Don't despair, though! We can farm regeneratively and actually build soil instead of depleting it, and phosphorus. But we aren't. Well, most aren't. This is one of the few areas where everyday peeps are listening and asking for organic foods. What you peeps haven't quite figured out yet is that gardening/farming will need to become a daily part of most people's lives because regenerative farming/gardening mot only can sequester carbon and helps create a localized economy (more on this some other time), keeps chemicals like phosphorous and nitrogen from killing our oceans when they run off into them, but preserves resources, or more accurately keeps them stored for later, better use - and keeps them from being used now..... which is less consumption.... which is less growth.... which is less carbon... which is.... moving toward simplicity.

The times they are a' changin'... Why aren't we changing faster, fast enough? 1. You haven't figured out yet just how much the times are a' gonna change, 2. you love your stuff, and are far too comfortable, 3. ask Monsanto, 4. ask the Big Oil and their congressional call boys and girls, and... and... and...

Mostly, you just don't believe it can all go to hell. But it can, it is, it will.

Oh, and “renewable” energy, all those windmills and stuff we are supposed to transition to according to our Three Blind Mice? Rare Earth metals are also a limited resource. Very limited.

Thought experiment: 9 – 12 billion people at, say, European living standards. This would actually mean massively increased consumption for around 5.5 billion people, plus all the new ones still to come. We are already using resources at a rate sustainable only with 1.5 Earths. We’d need 5 Earths or so to have 9 billion or more live like Europeans, and they use 50% of the energy we Americans use.

So…. say we transition to renewables at current consumption (read: lifestyle) rates. Then multiply by 3x, minimum, so it’s fair for all. Wonderful. Happy yeast! (More yeast in a moment.) Now, replace all that infrastructure every thirty to fifty years, forever. Yes, forever. What? You think that substitution crap kicks back in for some unknown future generation? Sorry, no. Tech? Same resource problem. Perhaps it extends some stuff a bit, but it's irrelevant given we are already over-consuming.

We have a problem! Mouse brains clean-up, aisle three! Yeast spillage, aisle four!

About those yeast…

Why else? We discount the future. We have a very difficult time, collectively, giving much of a damn about future generations. On top of this there is "Holy Technology, Batman. Tech will save us!" Except it hasn't. We work as hard, for less, as we did in 1970. Actually we work more: Women are far more involved in working outside the home now. Real wages for you and me? Up 4%, total, since 1970. Total. But our productivity is significantly higher. Thanks, bosses!!! We work ever harder, create more for you and you give us Absolutely Nothing.

Why else? We are Beyond History. Growth (substitution, tech) can and will go on forever simply because it has for so long. It's a lie. We have recessions and depressions. But, yes, since the end of the Middle Ages, say 1200 AD, it's been an overall upward trend. 900 years of growth! Gosh, must be permanent!

Not so much. Any number of more isolated civilizations have risen and fallen over that same time, always with resource and/or climate issues. And many rose and fell before that, too. History is littered with fallen civilizations. And they virtually always try to get over their problems with more, more, more. Then they have nothing. Then they die.

But mostly, we just can't conceive of failure. We can't imagine actually being human. We put people on the moon, for goodness' sake. We own Nature, physics be damned. And, give up my lifestyle? It's my RIGHT as an American!!!!

Except, no.

Dr Al Bartlett thinks you and I might be dummer than yeest. So far, he’s right. Imagine a jar. The world is the sugar in the jar. We are the yeast. Assume there is enough sugar for one hour.It's 11:00. At what time have the yeast eaten half the food? 1 minute before 12? Twelve? 12:01? 12:37? Hmmm? Bet you guessed 12:30. Half the time, half the food.

Nope. Organisms grow to fill the food supply. This is why all natural systems see a saw-toothed population chart. A few too many, they eat too much, some die. A smaller population eats less, the food supply recovers, they balance for a while, then there are too many eaters, food supply falls, eaters die. In a closed system, eventually everything dies as the food is completely consumed. (I’m sure you’ve flushed a forgotten goldfish or two.)

It’s a question of exponents. Any constant rate of growth, or average rate of growth, is exponential. Let’s take that old shampoo commercial, tell two friends who tell two friends who tell two friends, etc. 1 x 2 = 4 > 8 > 16 > 32 > 64 > 128 > 256 > 512 > 1,024 >2,048 > 4,096 > 8,192 > 16,384 > 32,768 > 65,356 > 131,072 > 262,144 > 524,288 >  1,048,576... How many of you have even 16 true friends? After 21 days... Food supplies are similarly limited when doubling is occurring.

The yeast double like this. Notice every doubling is GREATER than all that came before, being more than half of all that’s been consumed ever. For simplicity, let’s say it’s exactly double. Working backwards from 12:00 o’clock, what time do we have half the sugar left, my fellow yeast?

Yup, 11:59. 11-flippin-50-fricken-9. But we have an hour to prepare!

DO we? OK, what time do we still have ¾ of the sugar? 11:58. 7/8? 11:57. 15/16? 11:56. Four minutes before The End of All Yeast, it looks like we have food forever. No wonder our Three Blind Mice think it’s all about economics instead of resources. No wonder you, my little yeasties, think resources will go on forever.

The truth is, we humans have been doubling consumption and population very, very quickly.
Make that timeline equal to one hour and you see what I mean. Charts of resource consumption take the same shape.

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
Albert A. Bartlett
(This whole bit was lifted from Dr. Al.)

Sorry for burying the lede. (I’m lying.) This simple little observation explains why we have used half the world’s recoverable oil, have water shortages globally and will be out of phosphorus by the end of this century. And it’s why we have Climate Change.

In case you missed it, we appear to be sitting at less than one minute before 12:00. Enjoy your meal.

If we had understood our resource base from the beginning, or even 30 years ago, collectively, we would have acted very differently. Of course that assumes we aren’t collectively sui-genocidal, of which I am not yet convinced. Instead, we pumped huge amounts of oil, gas and coal into the air as CO2 and methane (natural gas) thinking they were inexhaustible. Had we thought them exhaustible and thought, gee, if we’ve been around 200,000 years or so and want to still be around in 200,000 years or so, maybe, just maybe, we should slow this little mouse wheel down and do some careful planning, things would be different. Of course, we also thought we couldn't alter the atmosphere so much as to threaten our own survival. (Scientists have known this for more than a hundred years.)

Atmospheric CO2 was only around 315 or 320 ppm in 1950. Population was 2.5 billion in 1950. It’s 7.1 billion today. C02 is 400 ppm. This is not coincidental, it is causal. We had 1 billion in 1804. ONE. C02 was around 280 ppm, which was normal for a warm interglacial period. In 3 million years and around 30 or so glacial/interglacial cycles it never went above about 300 ppm.

CH4 (methane/natural gas) is even worse, up nearly 300%!!!

By 1950 we were at 2.5 billion and CO2 was 315. Today we have 7.1 billion and CO2 is 400. You couldn’t make two curves more similar if you tried.

This begs the question, if Climate Change is caused by resource misuse, isn’t the solution resources wisely allocated? How do we keep consuming and expect to stop Climate Change? Efficiency? Nope. We are massively, massively more efficient than in 1800 or 1850, yet resource consumption continues to rise. In fact, we are more efficient year after year, decade after decade, yet consumption keeps rising.

Population trumps efficiency.

What about stabilizing population? Too late. Remember: 1. Already using at the rate of 1.5 Earths, and most of the planet still lives with less than the poorest of American poor. Five Earths for all of us to live like Europeans. Even more to live like Americans. 2. Fossil Fuels are not the only limited resources. Phosphorus and Rare Earth metals, both vital to the “green” revolution won’t survive this century. And there are hundreds of other similar points I could raise.

Still think Climate Change is about economics? It's like saying planetary physics is about astrology. But let's not argue by analogy. Ecology as the basis of all decision-making is not so trivial. It's First Principles thinking, which is where the best problem solving begins. Elon Musk, to engage in an appeal to authority fallacy, recently said,  
I think it’s important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy. The normal way we conduct our lives is we reason by analogy. We are doing this because it’s like something else that was done, or it is like what other people are doing. Slight iterations on a theme.
“First principles” is a physics way of looking at the world. What that really means is that you boil things down to the most fundamental truths and then reason up from there. That takes a lot more mental energy.
Notice Elon didn't start with economics or how it's always been done? He started with, what the frack is a battery and how the frack can we do it better? So, if our planet is dying by our hand, if everything we have has come from that planet, what *must* be the first consideration in every decision we make, period?

The planet. And not what we *want* from it, but what we *need* from it. And, hold on to your brains, before that we have to ask, what *can* the planet provide? That's a First Principle question. We don't look at historical production and extrapolate, we look at what exists in a space. That is our starting point, whether a balcony flower box or a farm or a bio-region. We need to know what is there first. This includes wind, sun, rain. I's called a resource inventory. (It will include human resources (How many people? What are their skills? Their limitations? etc.?) further steps down the line.)

This is what Mollison and Holmgren realized back in the '70's by merely observing. They teased out of the natural systems they observed underlying principles by which natural systems were organized, then listed them as ways for us to apply the same principles to our human systems. They also proposed a process to apply them that started with what Musk would do decades later: Look. Literally observe, but also look differently. What are the resources in this space? The energy? Let's quantify those first so we know what this space *can* do, *can* provide. Only after they asked what the Earth could do in any given space did they suggest asking what they need from it. Only then did they then say we could seek ways to harmonize the two.

Notice there is no discussion of wants? First things first. First Principles first. Body temp, food, water. Cover those first. Anything else is gravy.

But, by applying natural principles to human/natural systems they found they could speed up Nature's ways. Nature + Big Brained Non-Idiot Humans = More. This is not achieved by appropriating Nature, damaging Nature, but by using Nature's own processes to do what nature does faster, more productively. Nature builds soil very, very slowly as detritous, leaves, bird poop, etc., fall to the ground and are reduced. We can speed this up with mulching, composting, etc. Nature's ways, sped up.

As you hopefully were and/or are now aware, the opposite has been true for the entirety of modern human civilizations. We have sought to feed our wants for 10k years, and the result is we're flirting with extinction.

But, using natural to aid Nature, we can create abundance. Not profit, abundance. Not excess, abundance. And from abundance you can then choose to meet some wants so long as you do not fall back into the wants-first trap and start this craziness all over again.

How do we get from a crisis of over-consumption to meeting global needs and eventually abundance rather than excess? Perhaps you've already guessed. Nature's ways. Start with the resources available. Start with needs.


Everybody, off that freaking wheel! Economics is a Dead Man Walking. As are we if we don't get off that wheel.

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Re-History: Climnate Denialists and World War II

Re-imagine, Dec. 7th, 1941, denialist-style:

Sane People: The Japanese have bombed Pearl!

Not-so-sane People: I don't believe it! Maybe it was the Chinese. Can you prove it wasn't Chinese in Japanese planes?

(Rrrring: Joe? Yeah, this is Big Bottom Profitalot: Buy Japanese military suppliers! Pronto!)

Sane People: Yes! it was the Japanese! Thousands of people saw them as they killed thousands of other people.

Not-so-sane People: Maybe it's a gov't cover-up! That suck-ass, is-he-really-disabled-or-not Roosevelt is probably covering up an ammo dump explosion or some secret operation gone wrong. Can you prove he isn't?

(Rrrring: Joe? Yeah, this is Big Bottom Profitalot again: Find me 100 scientists who will testify before Congress that since most Americans can't tell one Asian from another, Pearl Harbor was probably attacked by African Pygmies! Pronto!)

Sane People: What?! They saw the Japanese planes, tracked them on radar. We shot down some of them! [Don't know if this is historically accurate, but the movies show they did!] They were freakin' Japanese!

Four years later. Europe is over-run. Asia/Oceania are Japanese territories. Africa is German/Italian occupied and being emptied of resources. Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C....

Sane People: See! We TOLD you they were Japanese! Now the whole world is just about under Axis control and they're stockpiling to invade South America and via Alaska!

Not-so-sane People: Well, so what can we do about it? That's how politics goes! It'll cost too much to stop it, and, really, how bad can Axis rule be? No, no, no... far too expensive to fight a war. It's natural. It's survival of the fittest.

Sane People: Aaaaiiiaaiiieeeeiii!!!! (Run screaming from the room, minds blown. Literally.)

(Rrrring: Joe? Yeah, this is Big Bottom Profitalot once again: Buy anything and everything in South America and Alaska! Pronto!)

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Diversion Time: Green Bay @ Seattle on MNF

EDIT: Thanks to Scott Kacsmar for some of the new info here. He has a great writeup on this whole thing, very similar to mine here.

Much has been made of the TD pass at the end of the game, and almost universally it has been decried as the Single Worst Call Ever in the History of Mankind. Upon further review, the call was...


In fact, it's not even close to being a bad call. There should be zero dispute, but this is a good example of the Big Lie: Repeat it often enough, it becomes the accepted truth.

There are three issues that are germane to determining whether the call in the GB at SEA game was correct: What did the ref see, what is a catch, what can be reviewed?

First, what did the official see? He was standing behind and to the right of the scrum. In interviews he has stated he was watching the flight of the ball to the scrum, which means he was standing to the right and had most of his visual attention right. This is important because people whine about the Pass Interference non-call.

Quick aside: It seems he likely just didn't see it given where his attention was focused to the right. The other officials? No clue what they were looking at. Still, this is irrelevant. After the game researchers found that in every case going back five years they found not a single instance of PI being called in a Hail Mary situation. Not one time. It just is not called in these cases, so get over it.

Quick aside B: A non-call is irrelevant to the discussion of any play. Never in the history of the NFL has a non-call been factored into determining the validity of a play by officials. It has zero relevance to the game once it doesn't happen. This can, and should, be dismissed in discussing this play. You can discuss your degree of butt-hurtness all you like, but it's irrelevant to the play.

Back to the officials. What you see on TV is nothing like what they see on the field. Things are moving in real time. They are moving, the players are moving, the ball is moving. And fast. What YOU see on TV has no bearing on discussions of the officials' performance. So the "worst call in NFL history" is actually anything but. It's a simple call, a correct call.

The official is looking at a group of five or six players, all jumping up to get the ball. 10 or more arms reaching up. Five or more helmets. One fast-moving ball. From his perspective he would have seen a tangle of all those arms, not Jennings' or Tate's arms in isolation. A tangle of arms. He would have seen the ball enter a Medusa's nest of arms, not a clear set of one pair of hands. It would have been impossible for him to know which hands were on the ball and whether they were in full control of the ball.

Next, the ball disappears down into that scrum in a fraction of a second. He is not seeing this in slow-mo. The ball isn't visible to him at all. It's within a tangle of at least four bodies at that point, with other bodies in the mix. He cannot legitimately claim to know who has the ball or how securely.

As they fall toward the turf, he has no idea what is going on inside the scrum. How do we know this? We couldn't see it, either, even with slow-mo replays on TV. We also know because none of the officials signaled anything until they were on the ground. What did he do? He ran up to the scrum and peered into it. Why? He had no idea who had the ball. So, just as in every fumble scrum you will ever see, he got in there and determined who had hands on the ball AT THAT POINT. It absolutely does not matter who had hands on it until he looks into that pile, just as with a fumble. They could have been in there playing hot potato with it for all he knew, and it would have mattered not at all. What mattered were two things: Had the ball touched the ground, and did someone, anyone, have possession among that tangle of bodies?

Well, yes, two did: Jennings and Tate. By rule, tie goes to the Offense.

This is far from a terrible call, let alone the worst call ever. If you think it is, you are not thinking. You are replacing what the refs actually saw with what you saw on the myriad replays at the time and ever since. But what you think you saw, or even did see, are irrelevant to whether the play was called correctly or not.

It is important to note that the only footage that shows a look INTO the scrum was never played by the national media. Only Seattle-area viewers saw that footage. That footage clearly shows Tate getting first hand on the ball and never losing contact with it.

So, grow up and stop blaming the refs for your lack of knowledge of the rules and objectivity with regard to what officials saw.

What's at issue? Control and possession. Control has to do with having the ball whether in the air, on the ground or sitting at Gramma's table eating milk and cookies. You have to have the ball controlled by your body without any doubt. Possession is still having control while also being on the ground. Being on the ground can be both feet or any combination of feet, elbows, shoulders, knees, butt, hips, thighs or other major body part, BUT the player must maintain control through the act of hitting the ground. It's not just the instant they touch, unless it's the two feet and no other body part, particularly when two players are fighting for the ball.

A simultaneous catch is determined by who touches the ball first. If you have control first, even if the other guy then also gets control, you are the one making the catch. But let's establish a few things first.

* Do one-handed catches occur? Yes.
* Are two hands required for control? No.

Guess whose hand the ball is in first, without ever losing it thereafter? Drumrolllllllllllll... Golden Tate's.

EDIT: All you need to know about this catch comes in the following images.

The key thing to note is the travel of the ball and how it stops falling downward when Tate catches it. THEN Jennings' grabs it, and is only able to do so BECAUSE Tate caught it and stopped the flight of the ball. IOW, Jennings would have whiffed on the ball without Tate catching it first.

First, the ball hits Tate's hand and just stops. It doesn't bounce or anything, it just stops there. This is a one-handed catch if Jennings doesn't interfere. But because Tate catches it and stops the flight of the ball, Jennings is able to get his hands on the ball.

Remember the simultaneous catch thing? If one player gets control before the other, the first player is awarded the catch?

Golden Tate was in process of making a one-handed catch. Jennings clamping his hands on an already caught ball doesn't make it his catch, even though he has two hands and Tate has one. This changes a one-handed catch into a  three-handed control of the ball. Remember, in numerous cases players have used their legs, helmets, what have you, to catch a ball. ALL that matters is that the ball does not touch the ground and is not being bobbled. That it is Tate's hand and Jennings' hands is completely irrelevant.

Please note Tate's hand is still there, on the ball. He starts pulling it to himself which also pulls Jennings down toward and over Tate himself. It's very clear in all videos you watch. If Tate were not pulling him down, Jennings should land on his toes, but he is pulled completely horizontal before contacting the field. But the key point here is, Tate caught it first in his left hand, then Jennings joined in. From that point to the time of the TD signal, this never changes except that Tate ends up with both hands on the ball before the official signals. That, however, is actually irrelevant.

There is the issue of possession and the original video feed clearly show both Tate's feet on the ground way before any part of Jennings' body touches the field. That means Tate had control first, then joint control, then clearly had possession first.

Folks, this is a an absolutely indisputable Seahawks TD.

So, rather than Jennings getting the ball then Tate grabbing it, it is completely the opposite. Jennings now has ZERO claim to having first contact and control of the ball. At real time speed, it's simultaneous. In the images above, it's Tate then Jennings. This is indisputable.

Gotta love reality... and perhaps a turkey-sized crow for all the unsportsmanlike comments and commentaries towards the refs, Golden Tate and the Seahawks. It was an absolutely, completely and utterly correct call.

Now, let's be honest here: As I have repeated over and over, in real time you can't see this, even on TV, so what is wrong with people's heads that lets them claim the refs should have?

There is NO conclusive, indisputable claim of control by either player as they are falling. Repeat, NO CONCLUSIVE, INDISPUTABLE CLAIM OF CONTROL BY EITHER PLAYER AS THEY ARE FALLING as far as the officials are concerned because they cannot see into the scrum, and were behind it, anyways.

There was a hi-def video I had here before that the link is no longer working for. In it, you could see the ball shift a bit as they were going to the ground. That would indicate neither player had full control as they went to the ground, but both had hands on it and it was not coming out.

The footage available to the refs does not allow them to determine who had the ball. Once the call for a TD is made, the evidence must be indisputable, and it is not. As noted above, the conventional wisdom is flatly wrong, anyway. This means the call on the play cannot be overturned. CANNOT BE OVERTURNED, PERIOD. Even if wrong. Luckily for us (i.e., Seattle fans and those few objective others), the call was not wrong, but was correct.Not only correct, but indisputably... in super slow motion. Tate had the ball first.

Remember: The rule is not simultaneous possession, it is simultaneous catch. There is no catch until control and possession are established.

Now, just who is down first? The following photo and video from a Seattle area TV station clearly show Tate has both feet on the ground long before Jennings does. Tate's feet are down, and stay down, long before Jennings. Jennings is not down until he falls on Tate. Tate has therefore established possession first. (But, to repeat and be fair, in real time it's impossible to see who got the ball first. In slow motion you can't tell who touches first for certain, but it mostly looks like Jennings. It's only in super  slow, frame-by-frame we can see Tate actually gets the ball first.)

This photo (there used to be a video from Seattle's Fox Q13 station there, too) shows Tate's left hand still cradling the ball, and both feet on the ground. That's a catch. Right there, right then, it's control plus possession and equals a catch. But not for Jennings. Not yet. He has not established possession at all.

Seattle Times pic

The following series of pics from a photographer at the same angle shows it slowly so you can be completely sure Tate was down first. Tate's feet are down by frame 3, but Jennings is not down till his second foot hits in frame 7. IF both have control while falling, Tate's ball. Seattle TD.

Seattle Times animated .gif

But, since we have no conclusive, indisputable claim of control prior to both being on the ground, who was on the ground first is actually irrelevant. The next question is, was there a catch of any kind at all? Answer? Yes. Why? The ball clearly never touches the ground, so SOMEBODY caught it.

The only time we can be indisputably sure of control AND possession is when both are on the ground. At that point, BOTH have control AND possession. The rules are clear here: when both an offensive and defensive player have control and possession of the ball, THE BALL GOES TO THE RECEIVER.

The ref that made the call speaks out, and he's correct: Ref Lance Easley Speaks.

Sorry Green Bay, you neither got robbed nor jobbed.


This is the simplest part of this. Once a ruling of a TD is made, regardless whether correct or incorrect, the only question then is about the TD. WHO caught the ball cannot be reviewed. Interference cannot be reviewed. Whether you like or agree with these two rules is irrelevant.

They are the rules. The booth official was not looking to see if PI should have been called.

The booth official was not looking to see who had possession first.

The booth official was looking at whether Tate had the ball and whether the ball hit the turf prior to possession. That's it. Nothing else matters to him. Regardless whether he at that moment thinks the field official screwed the call up or not, he is limited to asking only if the ball hit the turf and whether Tate had possession at the time the TD was signaled.

This is very important: It doesn't matter of he did not have possession at any moment prior to the TD signal, nor if he lost possession after the TD signal. (Which he didn't, just for clarity.) All that matters to that replay official is whether the ball hit the ground and whether Tate had control and possession, jointly or singly, at the time the TD was signaled.

And he did.

TD, game over. And it is SIMPLE and CORRECT. The replay official could not have called it differently without ignoring the rules.

Merriam-Webster definition:
conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport.

I would add to that, not jumping to conclusions and characterizing a play or a result before all facts are clearly known. We all have seen the near-universal complaining and the characterization of this call as the Worst Call in NFL History. All of this was premature, and ultimately proven to be incorrect. Maybe I'm experiencing selective amnesia, but I seem to remember back in my youth ('70's and 80's) that commentators and analysts were careful to couch their observations such to be respectful of the refs. But not on Monday night. It was fair game from the first moment to pillory the call, the refs and even the Seahawks players and team.

The refs were called incompetent and a cry went up about replacement refs. But the guy who actually decided the call was not a replacement. The review official was a regular review official. Ruh-roh! What's the excuse, then? Worst Call Ever not overturned by a regular offical!!

Except that was wrong. But it was always wrong. Anyone who considered that play as a clear-cut and indisputable INT was not thinking.

1. What the refs see on the ground and what we see on TV is VASTLY different. The ref that was behind could not have seen clearly who had control, so called it based on what he found in the pile: both players in possession and in control: Touchdown, Seahawks.

Absolutely, completely and utterly correct call on his part.

2. The other ref that came over from the opposite side ALSO could not have seen who had or maintained possession as they fell. In fact, we have no idea what he saw. We've never seen his line of sight. At best, he could only have seen the first moments of possession. Now, there is some confusion as to what he was signalling. Some think, and this fits the majority meme on this of Worst Call Ever, he was signalling a touchback. If so, based on what he absolutely did see, Jennings with early control, but no possession since he wasn't down, and unable to see who held possession as they fell, was also absolutely, completely and utterly correct on his part. Once he ran around and saw Jennings' hands on the ball, and if you assume they always were, no simultaneous possession, so INT and touchback.

2b. Others believe he was trying to signal time had expired, thus implicitly accepting the TD ruling. If so, an absolutely, completely and utterly correct call on his part.

Two refs, three different facets. And neither had full view of the players and their hands for the full play. Not simple, not easy, not clear-cut. Unless you are watching at home on TV, or watching replays, but without the full range of replays. And now we know you also have to have frame by frame analysis to see The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth, and that is that Golden Tate had first touch and control, then Jennings added his hands, and Tate had first possession. TD.

3. As a fan, player, coach or commentator you have to put yourself in the shoes of the officials. What did they see? What YOU can see is irrelevant. What is relevant is what THEY can see, and the context within the rules of the NFL. That is the only principled thing to do: judge them on what they saw.

If Jennings had control from first touch to gaining possession by touching his feet/body down and still having control, it's an INT. But the refs could not possibly have seen whether his hands moved, they can only assume. But that is not what refs are supposed to do. They must judge based on what is seen. All that is indisputably seen by the refs is Jennings seeming to gain first control (but not indisputably as Tate is also in the mix), Tate being down first, both players with control and possession once both are down. Neither could see what happened in the tangle of bodies as they fell. The proper call there is Seattle TD because it is impossible to be sure the jostling for the ball did not result in Jennings losing full control of the ball. As we formerly saw in the video link that no longer works, he does lose full control when we see his hands moving. (And we, again, now know Tate actually had the ball first and never lost his contact with the ball.)

An absolutely, completely and utterly correct call on their part, even before we knew anything about the frame-by-frame showing Tate getting the ball first.

But even if the call had been wrong, once called, it must be indisputably wrong. The context is important! The replay official can now only overturn the call if there is indisputable proof Jennings not only first had, but also maintained, control of the ball through the act of gaining possession by being down while still having control, and that Tate gained control after Jennings. Most TV angles and quality of replay do not allow this. The one Hi-Def video we do have shows Jennings' hands moving as he is falling to the turf. I can only assume the replay official has the same quality of equipment and saw this. Thus, not only can he not overturn, he must fully agree with the call on the field. But even if he, individually, did disagree, he cannot overturn because it is not indisputable that Jennings maintained control from first touch through full possession nor that Tate did not also have control of and possession of the ball.

He MUST uphold the call, by NFL rule. An absolutely, completely and utterly correct call on his part.

It was and is one of the worst displays of lack of sportsmanship I've ever seen for players, fans, analysts and commentators to be insulting the refs, Seattle players, the Seahawks team and the Seahawks' fan base.

They have all completely failed to remember the refs see it differently than they do on TV or even on the field. Even for the Packers players who have been so unsportsmanlike, their line of sight is not the same as the officials. To assume they see what you see is not logical, so to base your scorn on them based on that is first illogical and thus unsportsmanlike.

Add to that the officials are bound by rules that limit their individual opinion in making a decision. Maybe the replay official thought it was an INT, but it didn't matter, if so, because the evidence was not indisputable. To pillory him for that is ridiculous.

At the end of the day, this was a very, very easy call to make, just not as most think.... or don't think, to be more accurate. It was correct.

Awww... the poor Packers! Their whole season might be gone... what if... what if... what if....?

Good. Let's play the "What if...?" game.

1. What if Green Bay hadn't run into the brick wall of Seattle's Defense, particularly in the first half?

2. What if Jennings had done as instructed and tried to bat the ball away? We all initially thought he could have easily tipped it up and over all their heads since we thought he had first contact at the highest point of contact. Now we know he didn't. But he still could have easily batted it away since Tate only had one hand on it in the initial nanoseconds. After that, Tate had a strong enough grip on the ball that he was able to pull both it and Jennings to his chest. But what if Jennings had tried? It might have gone out of bounds or tumbled to the turf incomplete. But he decided to try to catch it. Perhaps he forgot the tie-to-the-runner rule?

3. What if Kam Chancellor hadn't been improperly flagged on Green Bay's TD drive? Green Bay was not past midfield, it was third down and would have been fourth-and-two without that absolutely horrid call. Talk about a bad call!! He perfectly got his hand into the area in front of the receiver and knocked the ball away. Nobody disputes that was a crap call. Nobody. Yet, there it was: Obviously wrong, but not subject to review. Talk about insanity!!! What a stupid rule!

There was about 11:30 on the clock. Green Bay would have punted. No TD. That play changed the scoring just as much as the final pass did. Without that bad call, there is zero chance of a GB TD on that drive. Score? 7 - 6 in favor of Seattle at the time of the Wail Mary. Seattle's D HELD UP, but that effort was erased by a bad call. And that affected the eventual score. There would have been no pass into the end zone needed in the final seconds. It would have been a kneel down.

4. What if Green Bay hadn't run into the Seattle buzz saw on the two point conversion? If the last play ruling was not reversed, it's a tie game, or a Seattle two point conversion, or GB win if Seattle didn't get a two point conversion. All under Green Bay's control. But, Seattle's D held up AGAIN by knocking the ball away. (Hear that Jennings?). The last call of the last play of the game should have been irrelevant for GB, but it wasn't because they were being punked by Seattle's D.

5a. What about Karma? Seattle @ NYJ, Testaverde's white helmet called a football, and the helmet scores a TD. This wasn't a third game of the season where Seattle had a chance to win 13 more games. No, this was to get into the playoffs. Now that truly was an egregious call. It was completely and utterly wrong. And it didn't cost Seattle just a game, it cost them the playoffs.

 5b. And what if the Seattle vs. Pittsburgh SB hadn't been botched completely and utterly, robbing Seattle of a chance at a championship? You want to talk karma? Please. We're talking about play after play - there were thirteen of them - that jobbed Seattle. It was a bleeping Super Bowl, not some third game of the year, and not just one play!!

Are ya freakin' kidding me? Your poor season is all but over? What if you continue to suck and get beat out of the playoffs by one game? Yeah, what if you choose not to win. You bet! A travesty of the highest order! The greatest football jobbing in history!


5c. And what if Green Bay wasn't the beneficiary of not one, but two completely botched calls vs. Minnesota in 2010? Where was all the gnashing of teeth on the part of the Packers then? Why wasn't THEIR manhood at issue for not admitting they did not win, but were gifted the game? And not only a game, but a playoff spot. That led to a Super Bowl. The hypocrisy is incredible.

6. Green Bay can still end the season 14 - 2. [EDIT: Oops! Lost three more games, including the last game of the season... by three points! Seattle's fault, obviously.] What, exactly, have they been robbed of? Nothing. But I guarantee you that if they have any mettle at all (and based on the unsportsmanlike conduct of the players and organization, that is questionable till the next game proves one way or the other) this loss will light a fire under their butts. They are actually more likely to go 14 - 2 now than they were before this game. Excuse the sarcasm, but those poor, pitiful Packers having to carry such a burden!

C'mon, people. Get real.

Here's my, "What if...?":

What if sportsmanship still meant something in American sports?

Wouldn't that be somethin'...

Monday, January 2, 2012

Methane Clathrate Bomb Detonating?

The Methane Clathrate Bomb may be detonating in earnest. Last summer scientists undertook an emergency research cruise in Arctic waters off of Siberia. They found methane emissions from the sea floor - methane clathrates, or methane frozen inside balls of ice - that were as much as 30x bigger than those found just two years earlier. Fields of methane bubbling up from the Arctic sea floor as side as a kilometer, or 0.6 miles, wide. Over half a mile wide!

I will complete this post later, but chew on these images:

November 2010 atmospheric methane:

Nobember 2011 atmospheric methane:

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

An Open Letter re: Occupy Detroit

I want to thank Yusef for responding and sharing some time with me last night. Good conversation.

As was noted last night, coming together to break bread, eye to eye, is real; you can’t hide, pretend, be lost in your own stuff or you can, should, and will be called on it. This highlights some of the difficulty in dealing with this Occupy Detroit process here in Detroit in reaching out to those who have organized it until now: it’s difficult to get a response.

Two men talking together is not going to solve the problems inherent in thousands of people attempting to come together to do good work, nor necessarily resolve anything in the moment. But it does create conditions for honest communication and perhaps a deeper understanding, partly arising out of give and take in the moment where intellectual and emotional responses interact immediately and the two modes are melded in time. E-mail and written communications do not allow for this.

Racism/~isms In Context
I do not oppose not using “occupy,” but I take a long, long view on all issues. None of what we do is any longer relevant outside of a very long term view. I do not mean to seem dismissive of the concerns others have on any given issue in any given debate; I very simply see many of the issues that divide us, intentionally or not, as being made irrelevant by larger forces over time. The climate and energy issues are so far advanced that designing a survivable future is now in a critical response phase. We don’t have time to solve food, race, and economic issues as separate issues. We don’t have time to solve them as integrated issues. We only have time to design a different future. The beauty of this is a sustainable future cannot co-exist with racism, classism, ageism or any of the other issues we choose to separate ourselves by. These fault lines are largely irrelevant in the sense that a fisherman on a beach working to repair his net even as a tsunami approaches has chosen to focus on the wrong thing. You deal with the emergency first, survival second because there is no survival if you fail to get through the emergency.

We are in an emergency.

Climate is changing so much faster than many seem to understand, and fewer still understand the implications of that. We will be living in chaos long before we reach any given milestone because it is the extremes that get you. Long before the average temperature is 3C higher than in 1850, ecosystems will be destroyed by the 20 days or more of 100F temperatures of an otherwise livable summer, e.g. Ask Texas. The emergency is already here and mitigating it is a multi-decade process, at best. If the methane deposits in the Arctic have already begun a self-propagating decline, we may have already lost the battle – and there are signs that is the case.

The emergency is already here. The scope of that emergency means it is all hands to the fire hoses and bucket brigades; nothing else is relevant.

Racism is not irrelevant in and of itself. It is relevant to how we got where we are; it is relevant to who we are; it is relevant to our daily lives and our immediate futures. But it is not relevant as a primary tool to address the emergency. We cannot undo racism in time frames that equal surviving the emergency. The same can be said for any other divisive issue. It’s a bit like how our vision works: sometimes to see something most clearly we have to look slightly to the side. Focusing on racism, or economic justice, food justice, or environmental justice, etc., is a focus that makes it more difficult to see the full extent of the emergency.

It is this longer term perspective as to what should be dominating our conversations in order to address the emergency that is behind everything I say and do. It is this I attempted to share with Yusef last night.

The Use of Occupy
As a former teacher of English as a Foreign Language, I can boil teaching language down to one simple observation: context is everything. I viscerally respond to the banishment of words because of a context that is not always applicable. Is it a fight we need to have? If in Detroit the term is so offensive, then I guess it should be changed, but we have tongues, teeth, a larynx and lungs to communicate with. Can the offensiveness of the term not be acknowledged, sensitivity to that be offered, yet still retain the word? Are not the offended under some responsibility to understand the use in context, and choose not to be offended when no offense is offered? Is this sort of conversation not what communication is supposed to allow? Is tolerance not the responsibility of all? Frankly, why should I not be offended if a person takes offense when I have not offered any and forces me to abandon language that is otherwise appropriate?

Our actions are not words. Both sides of any argument about connotation have legitimate stances: The offended consider the user of a given word to be intolerant, the user of a word not meant to give offense finds those offended intolerant. Perhaps the tie goes to the former. I mean only to sketch my intellectual ambivalence to the objection to words. I am frustrated that communication cannot allow us to defuse such emotive booby traps.

But how does one not accede to a people whose ancestors have been enslaved, who are the most affected by the current economic slavery? This is obviously a deeper issue than my distaste for not accepting words in their context or the desire to keep a visual/verbal consistency with all the other “occupy” processes evolving. Perhaps in Detroit the time needed to defuse this particular word bomb is a waste of time. Perhaps this needs to be made clear to the GA of Occupy Detroit. There are alternatives. Unified Detroit in Solidarity with Occupy Wall St., for example.

If the GA ultimately chooses not to change it (though given the process of consensus that is a near impossibility… more on that later), I wonder at what is lost if what is now called Occupy Detroit is not joined by the people I know to be doing elegant and important work in this city. If the naming cannot be resolved, what then? If this nascent “movement” should become a vehicle for global mobilization of the oppressed, and Detroit sits out, what does that mean? What are the implications? I come back to the emergency. A survivable future is a global solution. It is a systemic solution and if any given part of the system does not achieve sustainability, ultimately the entire system fails.

Ultimately, this kind of discussion is keeping us from focusing on the emergency and at some point we will have to prioritize or let the world burn and us along with it.

I am frustrated by the opposition to Occupy Detroit for one very simple reason, that to me is obvious, but what I believe to be obvious is perhaps my own ignorance: The consensus decision-making process, as I understand it, makes the dissenter the most powerful person in the room so long as their dissent is legitimate. It is the decision-making process most likely to address dissent because of the ability to block any action given legitimate grounds. This is why I fail to understand why those of you who would seek to rename or refocus Occupy Detroit choose non-participation and a separate process.  You are abandoning your power in the process.

Using Consensus to Address Your Concerns

It is very important to the success of consensus to understand the process and have training in the use of it. At the GA meeting it was clear many did not understand the process. E.g., anyone could have chose to apply the “block” to insist on a fuller conversation about locations. Nobody did, but there was complaint about the decision being “rammed” through when, in fact, it had not been. Nobody blocked, so it passed. The process functioned as designed. Jeff Debruyn left and criticized later. He failed to understand his power to change what was happening lay in participation, not disengagement.

The GA didn’t fail, those who abandoned the process did. Fail is too strong, really, since it seems it was a lack of knowledge of the process that resulted in non-use of its conventions. In fact, those who organized the GA failed, if anyone did, when they didn’t train the GA attendees sufficiently in process. This supports the critique that Occupy Detroit may be moving too fast. Had they made training their first agenda item and taken time to walk through at least the basics of the process perhaps none would have left feeling the process failed.

I hope the Detroit Facilitation guild will engage and believe steps are being taken to make it so. A link: Consensus Decision-making

* The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Through consensus, we are not only working to achieve better solutions, but also to promote the growth of community and trust.

* With consensus people can and should work through differences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is possible for one person's insights or strongly held beliefs to sway the whole group. No ideas are lost, each member's input is valued as part of the solution.

* Consensus does not mean that everyone thinks that the decision made is necessarily the best one possible, or even that they are sure it will work. What it does mean is that in coming to that decision, no one felt that her/his position on the matter was misunderstood or that it wasn't given a proper hearing.

* For consensus to be a positive experience, it is best if the group has 1) common values, 2) some skill in group process and conflict resolution, or a commitment to let these be facilitated, 3) commitment and responsibility to the group by its members and 4) sufficient time for everyone to participate in the process.

* During discussion a proposal for resolution is put forward. It is amended and modified through more discussion, or withdrawn if it seems to be a dead end. During this discussion period it is important to articulate differences clearly. It is the responsibility of those who are having trouble with a proposal to put forth alternative suggestions.

* The fundamental right of consensus is for all people to be able to express themselves in their own words and of their own will. The fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assure others of their right to speak and be heard.

* If a decision has been reached, or is on the verge of being reached that you cannot support, there are several ways to express your objections:
Non-support ("I don't see the need for this, but I'll go along.")

Reservations ('I think this may be a mistake but I can live with it.")

Standing aside ("I personally can't do this, but I won't stop others from doing it. ")

Blocking ("I cannot support this or allow the group to support this. It is immoral." If a final decision violates someone's fundamental moral values they are obligated to block consensus.)

Withdrawing from the group. Obviously, if many people express non-support or reservations or stand aside or leave the group, it may not be a viable decision even if no one directly blocks it. This is what is known as a "lukewarm" consensus and it is just as desirable as a lukewarm beer or a lukewarm bath.

The key to re-naming Occupy Detroit is to be there. By not being there you are choosing the last option above, which is also the least desirable. Their use of “occupy” is not your use. They may not see the need to change it because they may have little or no sense as to whether this is the objection of a few or the objection of many. Those objecting to the name and speaking from outside the process have very little opportunity to affect change within the group. But by being in the group, you become one of those who must be heard. Your objection immediately achieves validity by your mere presence for you are a co-equal leader of the group. If outside, you have little means to effectively shape the group dynamic.

More so, there is a name committee. If you are on that committee and can speak persuasively to your concerns, this issue may be resolved before even taken to the GA as it is likely a clear, preferably unanimous, suggestion from the committee will eventually be adopted by the GA.

A note on the statement by Yusef and Jenny: Declarations and statements are not really how consensus is done. Much as Yusef and I meeting face-to-face made discussion of all this more immediate, more real, more meaningful and more effective, such is life in consensus. Rather than presenting a statement, you sit in proximity, look in people’s eyes and speak sincerely and personally of your concerns. You have to be there.

This is one time when exerting pressure from the outside is the least likely option to succeed.

Occupy Wall St. as a Two-pronged Attack – What About Detroit’s issues?

There is no agenda because everything is on the agenda.

It is vital to building solidarity between those currently critiquing from outside the process and those within the process that those outside understand Occupy Wall St., et al., is intentionally devoid of specific issues. This does not mean it cannot be successful or that it is not valid. It is the means by which all voices may join and be heard. If you set an agenda, those whose concerns are not on that agenda have no reason to participate. The “movement” is about activating and motivating, it is about inclusion, it is about coming together in one circle to address all issues rather than some people’s issues.

When you ask Occupy Wall St., et al., to specify, you are robbing it of its essence and its power. It is a consensus model, not a debate, not an election, not a win/lose. Within the group and within consensus, present your issue, ask that it be addressed, find the means to address it. There is no need to ask for an agenda, your presence puts your issue on the agenda.

There is a committee to address specific actions. Perhaps it is the means to bring specific issues to the fore. Perhaps those meeting Sunday have an opportunity to form a Detroit-specific committee to ensure local issues get supported by the GA. Whatever the means, there is nothing about the structure of Occupy Wall St., et al., that in any way prevents or interferes with addressing location-specific issues. Bring it to the group, ask for support, and you will likely get actions implemented with the support and assistance of people who otherwise would have been ignorant of the issue you raise.

Make your issue everyone’s issue: be there. Thread actions and activities already progressing in Detroit together via this process. In fact, this sort of process is exactly what Detroit has needed. We talk all the time about silos; we see self-serving choices; we compete for dollars, attention and people. I thought the People’s Movement Assembly might bring the silos together, but so far have not seen this materialize. If “Whateverthename Detroit” and the PMA merge into one process, then all other processes merge into that, we potentially have a true Detroit People’s Movement. Directionality doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the various silos become one silo in which the Food Justice Task Force, e.g., becomes a committee within the whole. The same for the Environmental Justice work, Peace Zones for Life… all of it. Bring ALL voices into one process, prioritize together, implement together.

Imagine such a model supplanting the traditional governmental structure of the city! No mayor, no city council, just neighbors talking to neighbors and sub-groups taking on challenges. Imagine each neighborhood being a committee within a city-wide whole? And that committee having sub-committees?

Mmm…mm…mm. Tasty!

I see sustainability breaking out all over!

There are some difficulties in applying consensus large-scale… but will leave that to those more expert than I.

Occupy Wall St., et al., Doesn’t Really Get it, Either

Above I stated the process intentionally has no agenda which means theoretically sustainability is on the agenda. The problem with that is it relegates sustainability to co-equal status with all other issues. Ecosystem services, however are not an issue, they are the source of life. It is vital ecosystem services become the lense through which all other issues must be viewed; they are the litmus test for whether an action is taken or not. If a proposal to address racism is not sustainable, it is not a solution to racism. If a solution to economic inequality is not sustainable (e.g., let’s build all the homeless a  new house), it’s not a solution.

Whatever movement it is that ultimately brings us all together must first and foremost set as it’s primary objective the preservation of the ecosystem. Failure to do so is an existential threat to all biota of the planet. Link: The Law  of the Rights of Mother Earth
Law of the Rights of Mother Earth (Spanish: Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra)… "gives the 'Mother Earth' the character of collective subject of public interest, to ensure their rights". The law defines Mother Earth as follows: "the dynamic living system made ​​up of indivisible community of all living systems and living beings, interrelated, interdependent and complementary, which share a common destiny. Mother Earth is considered sacred by the cosmovisions of the indigenous originary campesino nations and peoples."

I argue it is the preservation of the ecosystem that is *the* all-unifying issue. I also argue that no sustainable system can co-exist with any of the ~isms we work to attenuate. Thus, designing sustainably inherently and automatically eliminates all of them. Consensus decision-making acts as a means to attenuate selfishness, divisiveness, self-interest, racism, classism, etc. We simply design them all away, solving all problems simultaneously.

I will explore the mechanics of this in another post.