I think that the City of Silverton needs to focus less on future growth and more on relocalization of the economy. The coming years will see increased energy costs, which will dramatically affect the cost of most of our commodities, as most goods are shipped vast distances and their price depends on how much it costs to ship. This “centralized” approached to our daily needs is flawed and doomed to fail, as it is based on non-renewable resources, planned obsolescence and unsustainable growth.

Our community is blessed in that we are located in an area of the world that has the potential to be self-sufficient in regards to most of our day-to-day needs. Instead of hoping for some whiz-bang clean industrial operation to come to town to employ our youth, increase the tax roles and not pollute the environment, we might be better off supporting and encouraging our existing businesses, especially those related to the manufacturing of basic commodities and agriculture.

The City should also encourage neighborhood associations and other local endeavors that will help us deal with the coming lean years. Prior to WWII, this and many similar communities were pretty much self-sufficient. Our town boasted its own manufacturing, food preparation, transportation, and hospital systems. We still have the hospital, but they seemed more concerned with extensive marketing campaigns to promote their extracurricular activities than with community well-being. Everything else, with few notable exceptions are trucked in.

However, society as a whole, is slowly moving towards a relocalization paradigm, even if many city planners fail to recognize it. We see this in our grocery stores with their ever-expanding range of local organic produce; in our vibrant Farmer’s Market and in the creative ingenuity of many of our citizens. We will also see less growth, as folks will have to weigh the options of long commutes to distant jobs versus living in a “cute” community.

We will no doubt see a rise in folks that live here and telecommute via technology. Which is why it probably makes more sense to put resources into broadband telecommunications instead of more asphalt, (which requires massive amounts of oil).

Our society has grown up around the paradigm of cheap energy and rapid mobility. This is changing. But like a thick growth of blackberry vines left untouched for years, we face a very challenging defoliation process to transform our community into something that will continue to prosper and remain an excellent place to live and work. Time to get out the clippers.

“Robert seems to have forgotten about our discussion of Friday and I am beginning to wonder about his sanity.” Carberry said in a message to the group, affectionately called the “FM” for “Factional Malcontents,” the original label Dr. Zubrin applied to all members who oppose his directives.

Zubrin is quoted as commenting “…it is obvious that the motivation behind this agitation is not board expansion, but board takeover.” He further stated that the “FM” group disband immediately: “Your faction was created as dupes of an effort to assist the HMP, [Haughton-Mars Project] in stealing Mars Society property. It needs to admit it was wrong, and disband.” He added.

This latest action by Dr. Zubrin has resulted in the resignation of several Steering Committee members, (including this writer), as well as Executive Director Carberry.

Much of the usual “It costs too much and we should spend it elsewhere” came up, but more than a few, (I counted at least a half dozen times during the 30 minutes I tuned in), where callers, hosts, blog entries and selected experts pooh-poohed the “expense” argument by pointing to the military budgets of the world’s space faring powers greatly exceed ALL spending! Of course, this WAS NOT a US News outlet after all! But the fact that this particular issue was stressed time and again, made my peacenik heart soar like a hawk.

I might add here for the benefit of all that my position is directed towards the excesses of the Military Industry, and not the the men and women in the Armed Forces, (I myself am a USN Veteran). I’m sure or would hope that the views on this program were likewise along those lines.

And of course the usual “Robots vs. People” chestnut was trotted out. Nobody bothered to mention an observation I have made over my many years of being a Martian: Most of the robotics folks I have heard or talked to or worked with ARE pro-human exploration, rather than being part of some “inner war within NASA” of “bots vs. hominids” as it was portrayed on this show. Hyperbole is everywhere…

Towards the end someone finally addressed the economics and benefits from a true space-based economy with unlimited energy and materials. But this point was not stressed or elaborated on, and it needs to be. There is still a great misconception out there that space missions are only footprints and flags, with some pretty pictures thrown in. Concepts like asteroid mines, Solar Power satellites, space elevator, hypersonic transport, space-based manufacturing should be trotted out regularly with telecommunications, navigation and Earth observation.

The other issue/argument that was not even mentioned was the NEO, (Near-Earth Objects - “big rocks”) threat, (at least while I was listening). One would think that just 101 years and one month after the Tunguska impact, that people would be more focused on such real threats. No mention. I tried but could not get through.

All in all though, as these types of stories go, I was left with a sense that many of the folks truly GROK the situation. But we have a hard row to hoe trying to convince the retired pensioner that space is a good investment. We need to frame the argument.

Anyway, Happy 4oth Apollo 11!

Regarding the letter to the editor from my old Navy buddy Rick Ernst, (4/23/2009 - “War Is The Only Way To Achieve Peace”). As one of those quoted in the original story, I felt that I aught to respond to Rick’s piece. His is the reaction of many from the starboard side of the isle: He confuses the military with the military industry. That which Republican President and former General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about.

In his abridged history lesson, pretty much the same old chestnuts were trotted out; Saddam was a bad guy, we would have found WMDs if we waited longer for him to develop them, peace in the past was won by the barrel of a gun … sword … spear … club … etc. Is “peace” really a lack of war as Mr. Ernst implies? If so, Germany during the 1930s and the Soviet Union in the 1950s had “peace.”

I get the impression, that many perceive us Peaceniks as misguided starry-eyed dreamers at best, or a danger to the American life style at worst. But as they look into the rear-view mirror of history as a means of interpreting the present, they often fail to take into account several key points:

The first is the fact that the incredible amount of money spent on the military by this country dwarfs not only all other Federal spending, but is also much more than all other nations’ military spending on planet combined! Does this make us safer? Does this make us secure?

Second and most important: We are at a stage in the development of our society that historical analogues are becoming irrelevant anyway, due to our technology. It indeed does make a profound difference when we can actually talk to someone in real time immediately pretty much anywhere on the planet. Never mind the global “brain” that is the Internet, with humans acting as the neurons. This situation has never existed in the history of our species. Never. Ever. Will it make a difference? It already has!

A third point, (that at least applies to me), is that I am not “anti-military.” I am “Pro-Peace.” I am a veteran, like Rick, of the United States Navy. I am proud of my service to my Country and would do it all over again. I am also deeply ashamed at how our Corporate community has co-opted Congress and the good folks in the military for their own profits. I am deeply saddened that “patriots” like Rick don’t recognize this obvious fact, that sits in front of their faces like so much rotten meat. They wave away the flies and talk about bad men with guns and bombs out to get us, while the stench from our rotting neglected society wafts around our heads.

Sure there are bad guys and bad countries out there. Many in the middle East. Several that are our staunch allies. A couple of those that for all practical purposes, consider half of their population property. As to “Iran snubbing the olive branch” I would be more concerned about our other ally, Pakistan, which does possess nukes, and unlike Iran and Venezuela, has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Neither, by the way has Israel.

Gus Frederick

Silverton, OR

To The Editor

It seems that after every accomplishment in the scientific world, there are those that feel obliged to ponder day to day analogs, of what these supposedly vast amounts of monies are being spent on. Or not being spent on. So Anthony Plumer of NE Portland, (06/01/2008 - “What Planet is this?”) was questioning the “…billions of dollars to send a machine to the distant Red Planet…” His down-to-Earth analog was a local street person, implying that we should spend this money on the poor instead. A good point, if not for the $500 billion-plus-a-year gorilla in the room.

I wonder if the young man Mr. Plumer saw was an Iraq vet? I wonder if he realizes that the cost of the Mars Phoenix lander was actually about $457 million, (NOT billion). I wonder if he knows that just one day of Iraq is costing our society around $343 million dollars. ONE DAY.

Me thinks Mr. Plumer’s targets are skewed. Instead of bemoaning money spent on science and increasing knowledge, maybe he should instead look at the incredible waste that is the pentagon. Those numbers are indeed “billions,” and they dwarf all other spending, whether it is human services, infrastructure repair, alternate energy research or space exploration. For the cost of just one week of Iraq, we could send five landers to Mars. Imagine what else we could do for the people on this planet.

Sincerely,

Gus Frederick

When I heard that you had announced that ‘impeachment is off the table’, I believe that most Americans understood that to mean, as I do, that only impeachment of the President was not on the agenda. To foreswear the impeachment of any Federal officers at all would be a dereliction of your Constitutional duty. To impeach the Vice President would not violate any reasonable interpretation of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ to avoid the ultimate confrontation with the President.

(more…)