Taken from my original post at Integral Psychosis

A few days ago I read a New York Times op-ed “Aid at the Point of a Gun” (no link as the piece has since changed to requiring a password).  But the gist of the piece was that, given the military dictatorship in Burma/Myanmar’s obstructionism against foreign aid into the country following the devastating tsunami there, where it is estimated that at least 100,000 people have died and many more hundreds of thousands are further at risk of dying in the storms wake from starvation and disease, it may be necessary to use military force to provide aid against the wishes of the Burmese State.  This same sentiment was recently written in Time magazine.

Now, it’s not that I am in any way against doing what is necessary and prudent in offering any and all help to the suffering people of Burma or elsewhere for that matter.  However, my “bullshit alarm” goes off pretty loudly whenever I hear a proposal for military intervention, and especially when it’s under the guise of the oh-so benevolent and pious U.S. government’s “humanitarian” “concern”.

For instance, if the starvation of hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people were such a concern to the powers of Washington, where is their response to the 35.5 million Americans who live in what is called “food insecurity” (11% of all “households”) or the other 4.6 million who live in what is called “very low food security”, to say nothing of addressing the systematic, societal failures that allow such an instance to arise in the first place (1).  The asinine idea of aid through military force (an invasion of another region of the world) reads as little more than another outlet, a giveback (in fact, in the end a regressive taxation which overly burdens the poor, working, and middle classes the the enrichment of the upper, elite, and ruling classes) to military contractors, big agribusiness, and the oil conglomerate/cartels (the drive for global control of oil supplies is, after-all, far more about military might than consumer markets- military strength at this point in time is inextricably intertwined with oil and fuel resources).  Sending the military into Burma to provide humanitarian aid also has the convenient effect of demonstrating to the regional powers (China, Iran, Russia- who all are against such a proposal) that the U.S. is still capable of operating in new theaters of “war” at it’s pleasure, despite everything else.

As well, if disaster relief is of such concern and import to the Bush Administration, perhaps they could have done something- anything- before, during, and after (even to this day) Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.  The Israelis, Canadians, Germans offered aid: if was refused.  You know who offered aid: Fidel Castro’s Cuba (um, that was refused too).  Interestingly, while most aid was refused from our Western “friends”, it was happily received from China and others.  Yet the failure of agency after agency, policy, and system (i.e., the failure of the State) to rightly provide for the people who were first living in extreme danger, then devastated, and finally ignored, obstructed, and thrown into forced migration for the “development” and privatization (benefit) of the already wealthy and powerful proves that any offer of humanitarianism is a callous and cynical rouse.

Now, I am not by any definition one who is particularly interested in ideas of nationalism, national pride, or some sense of “patriotism” that rests on meaningless rhetoric and sloganeering.  Nonetheless, I am loath to know that it is my money that is going to accomplish- or not accomplish- all of this monstrosity.  It may even be true that the best thing for the people of Burma would be for the international community to act on their behalf to bring relief and supplies- unfortunately, from what I’ve seen of the U.S. in my lifetime, I cannot believe that such actions come from a motivation for anything other than profit an greed.

Word from insiders is that despite all the positive buzz on sites like this, great news coverage in the Times Argus/Rutland Herald and Seven Days, the rumored support of the Vermont Progressive Party, and a campaign role for the legendary Peter Freyne, Deb Richter has opted not to run for Lieutenant Governor after all, due to concerns over balancing such a run with her medical practice.

What does this mean? Well, there are rumors of another candidate (who was considering challenging Richter in a primary, even). Whoever that “other candidate” is, the ball is in their court.

Maybe it’s just time to draft somebody. Ideas?

As its proponents are quick to remind us, Vermont Yankee (with it’s steam leaks, cooling tower collapses, corporate shell games to avoid decommisioning costs – and of course, corporate booster currently residing in the Vermont Governor’s office) currently provides about a third of Vermont’s power, at prices far below those available on the open market, and with relatively low carbon emissions. And “about a third” is gonna be , what – 33%? Maybe 30%?

From the NYT:

JUNEAU, Alaska – Conservationists swoon at the possibility of it all. Here in Alaska, where melting arctic ice and eroding coastlines have made global warming an urgent threat, this little city has cut its electricity use by more than 30 percent in a matter of weeks, instantly establishing itself as a role model for how to go green, and fast.

Comfort has been recalibrated. The public sauna has been closed and the lights have been dimmed at the indoor community pool. At the library, one of the two elevators was shut down after someone figured out it cost 20 cents for each round trip. The thermostat at the convention center was dialed down eight degrees, to 60. The marquee outside is dark.

Schoolchildren sacrifice Nintendo time and boast at show-and-tell of kilowatts saved.

Maybe this doesn’t have to be such a problem after all.

Crossposted to Birding New England:

Vermont is currently the only state in the union which has no documented cases of eagles breeding within its boundaries.  It looks like it’s going to stay that way.

Per The Rutland Herald:

It might have been the inexperience of the female, which still had some of the plumage of a youngster, that led to the loss of the nest within the last week, said Forrest Hammond, a biologist with the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife, who had been watching the pair.

“We suspect, from what the experts tell us, the birds might have left the eggs at the same time. A crow might have gotten the eggs. A seagull (another known eagle egg predator) was seen in the area at about the same,” Hammond said.

“We’re all really disappointed,” he said. “It’s too late for them to re-nest this year.”

But there’s always next year.

“There’s a great big, good nest,” Hammond said. “If there was a problem, it’s a lack of experience. They’ll stick around and try again next year.”

To compound the frustration of Vermont biologists, Hammond said that an eagle pair has been breeding successfully on the eastern shore of the Connecticut River in Plainfield, N.H., for several years, across from Hartland.

I knew about this before the article was published.  I’d had a conversation with a friend about it; he’d been checking on the site and suddenly one day there was no eagle on it, and there were crows around the area.  

Mostly, it just makes me sad, but they have tried nesting several times now and don’t seem to have an interest in stopping, despite the failures.  So maybe there is next year.

Oh, and that photo is of one of the nesting birds.  I took it from our car, making a point of not venturing off the road even though I could have had a much better shot if I’d chosen to.  No way I’m going anywhere where I could interfere with that Eagle’s nest.  Aside from being morally and ethically wrong on every level, it’s just not smart to mess with a bird that big.