Damek.

This, via WorldChanging:

“Green buildings” sound great. But can we afford them?

The benefits are impressive. Building green means seeking out solar or other renewable power sources, utilizing smart architectural design to maximize natural sunlight and ventilation, and selecting recycled and nontoxic construction materials.

It ain’t just for the environment. These sorts of improvements will also help the health of the people who live and work in these buildings. And that doesn’t just mean physical health – building design can incorporate better arrangements for social interactions, encouraging community and the sharing of ideas and lives that goes with it. So that improves psychological health, and I think that feeds back into physical health, too – body and mind are so intertwined.

Peirce briefly looks at the cost issues, including a short run-down of some great examples of new “green building” projects, and concludes that “the reason only a tiny percentage of new American buildings and retrofits aren’t green isn’t cost. It’s lack of ingenuity or knowledge of new construction techniques — architects and builders wed to the “same-old,” lenders leery of anything unconventional.” (He even brings politics into the mix, but only for a short paragraph, and I’ll spare you any mention of it. Except that one.)

Finally, he states, “As such projects proliferate, maybe we’ll all take notice,” but “All the good individual examples are just reminders… of the massive changes — in attitudes, in priorities, in building construction, in transportation, across the board — that we’ll need for a truly green U.S.A.”

There is reason for hope after all – people just need to work the facts and push for better design. The pessimist in me can’t help nodding with recognition, however, at a comment at WorldChanging which points out that “In our wonderful system neither the BUILDER nor the OWNER nor the BANK typically pays the utility bills.”

I just had to pass this alternatie universe along, I thought it was pretty funny…

And check this, too – it isn’t funny, but somewhere in an alternate universe, it’s common knowledge in the US.

OK, enough politics. I want to write something about fear & democracy, but I think I’ll let it slide for now. You see, Alex and I are going to Oxford this coming week (speaking of alternate universes…), and I’m getting pretty excited about my first trip to the UK. Hopefully I’ll enjoy some Marmite (and possibly bring some home – I used to like Vegemite, but it’s made by Kraft which is now owned by Altria). And after that I’m sure I’ll have plenty of stuff to talk about from the trip, and maybe some photos to share if I can shoehorn Alex into any. So politics will wait for a little while, much to your relief, I’m sure!

Over at his site talking head Andrew Sullivan has an article from about two weeks ago comparing John Edwards and Dick Cheney. Not bad, though I think it’s funny that he repeats the Republican talking points of the time: Edwards is the “fourth most left-wing Senator” (Kerry is supposedly liberal numero uno), and he’s a trial lawyer (the horror!).

First, there’s no mention of where exactly that “extremely liberal” score comes from, or how it was arrived at, though we get the hint that the rating only encompasses “the latest session,” which explains it a bit. How could Kerry and Edwards, two of the party’s standby centrists, be rated most liberal? Could it be because they were both running for president during “the latest session” and therefore A) missed some votes and B) played to their left-wing base in the votes they made? If you look at his record from previous sessions, you find it isn’t quite the same.

And second, so he’s a trial lawyer? Ooh, the big scary trial lawyers who make life expensive for businesses, and get rich in the process. Damn we hate rich people! Let’s vote for Bush and Cheney! I’m not going to get into a big discussion of tort reform, but suffice to say that I think Tort law is the public’s last defense against irresponsible, if not downright immoral, corporate behavior that harms the public.

Anyway, that’s not quite what I wanted to talk about. Sullivan comes to the conclusion that these two not only represent the bases of their parties, they represent the very divide that has split our nation down the middle. As he puts it, the debate face-off between them this fall will be about “the boyish charms of the 1990s versus the cold fear of the new millennium.”

Close, but no cigar. I think it’s no accident that he chose to use the word “cold” there. When I think of Cheney, and the fear this administration fosters, the first thing that pops in my mind is the cold war. This is all about fear, and always has been. This is about people whose power came from the fears of the cold war merely transplanting their roots to a new system of fear. Every time I hear some hawk talking about “the last thing we want is proof that the terrorists have nuclear bombs,” I’m hearing the fear of the last millennium. The fear of Russian bombs lives to this day – the commies have just become terrorists, and Rumsfeld & Cheney, who made their names during the cold war, are just playing the same old games again.

So I think Sullivan is wrong. Fear is what we were supposed to have conquered in the 20th century. Fear is the old. Peace, diplomacy, working with the world to build peaceful ties and actually nurture democracy across the globe – that’s what the 21st century is about. It’s not about ’90s “boyish charms” versus 21st century fear. It’s about 21st century hope versus 20th century hubris. Out with the old, in with the new – or at least, in with the weak soil in which we can sow the new.

So that’s that… more later on fear, terrorism, fundamentalism & democracy later on. Maybe. For now, I have to go to lunch.

From Scripting News, by way of PoliZeros

I listened to most of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on AM radio today, driving from Santa Fe to El Paso. Sandy Berger sure gave them some ammo. After listening to them gloat for a total of three hours, in the end, I couldn’t come up with a rebuttal. I agree with the caller who told Hannity the reason Berger did what he did is that he’s a dishonest man. Exactly right.

If you read this site during the Lewinsky scandal, or the Communication Decency Act, you’d know I won’t go down the moral abyss with the Dems when they screw up. I think Clinton was every bit as corrupt and ineffective a President as Bush is. I don’t buy the Limbaugh-Hannity idea that there’s a great philosophical battle going on. That’s a bunch of bullshit. Both parties are cut from the same corrupt cloth.

I’ll second that.