This is a review of Peter Barnes' book Capitalism 3.0; Barnes, an eco-entrepreneur from the flowing meadows of northern California (where I got my Master's degree), still "believes in" capitalism, but offers a number of ideas worthy of consideration to non-capitalists as well, as well as a fairly sketchy version of capitalist history and a theory of the commons that, though sloppy on the details, is worthy of consideration.  Barnes' book can be regarded as an especially ethical example of a current vogue in thinking: eco-capitalism, and it will here be both praised and critiqued as such.

(Crossposted at Docudharma)

Leave it to PBS to bring this very troubling trend to light. God forbid the mainstream media report on this; their advertisers would have a fit.

Imagine my surprise when someone actually talked about it in a more-or-less national blog! We tecnofantasists here are DailyKos, and pretty much all over the blogosphere, always carefully avoid the hard truth that there aren't five more earths out there to raise the standard of living of six billion people to the material levels that the First World enjoys. So this is welcome:

I won't go so far as to say that, to stabilize the climate, we're going to have to contrive a global new deal. But I will say that, soon, there's going to have to be a global accord, and that this accord will have to be consistent with a global new deal, one in which not only the international climate regime, but the international trade regime, the international property-rights regime, the international governance regime and a whole lot of other international regimes are bent, if not broken, to accommodate the realities of the climate challenge. And I will say that today's defining silence about this overarching challenge is inconsistent with any true crash program.

A fundamental rift between conservatives and progressives concerns their distinctive views on regulating what is good for humans. The arch-conservative advocates unmitigated personal autonomy, selfishness, and property rights. regulated only by the individual who "intends only his own gain...led by an invisible hand" of laissez faire competition, which through the equilibrations of supply and demand, they argue, will "promote the public interest."

These days, we modern Americans rarely give a thought to the wisdom of Confucius.  But maybe we should.  I suspect he would have had a thing or two to say about our current national CEO, none of it good.

The Chinese Empire was perhaps the most stable and enduring civilization this world has ever known. It survived multiple millenia and numerous dynasties.  The ruling ethos, "Confucianism," was based on a recognition of and a respect for social capital and the commons.

A little bit more to follow:

The Danger of American Enviromentalism

by Jacob Gerber

Summary: Strong support for global environmental initiatives by the U.S. government will harm justice worldwide.

Jerome A Paris has great diary currently found on the rec list pointing out how much oil companies are struggling still with the damage done to infrastructure by Katrina.

I understand the struggle but it is not like this sort of problem hasn't happened before and been surmounted.

San Francisco was leveled in the great earthquake of 1906 and came back in a most remarkable way. Lets take a look at a way to help the citizens of New Orleans while at the same time help the energy infrastructure for the country and point the way towards progressive taxation with the help of this nifty little article  from a website calle Economicprinciples.com that looks at Mason Gaffney and his recounting of how San Fran came all the way back from destruction and how that can be applied to best rebuild New Orleans.

Far better minds than mine (including that sharp instrument that lurks between Georgia10's ears) have been casting about for a solution to the perceived wonkishness of the Democratic policies.  There's a feeling that we're a piecemeal party.  We have a detailed position on everything -- usually several -- but we're lacking a definition of the core principles on which the party is built.  

Maybe it's only that I'm too old to make a connection with the current zeitgeist, but I don't see why Democrats need a new message, a new frame, or a new way of talking.  All we need is the courage to embrace the philosophy that propelled the party from its inception.

Well it's late at night and I just came up with a rant in another thread that I wanted to share.

Aren't you lucky?

Jump across the fold for the gold ...

(Updated, revised, lengthened from a short post yesterday).

Here is an issue that is vital to the public interest, has wide public support and understanding, and yet little play in the Democratic Party:

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has a press release detailing the latest in budget "reforms" for our National Parks.  A lot of managment-talk is used, but it boils down to cutting, gutting and probably ruining some of our national treasures.  While recent measures to include faith-based messagesin our parks and park commercialization may seem bad enough, cutting the budget is by far the most serious concern we should have.  Indeed, the overall plan seems to be to choke the parks, then, in a few years, make the problem so big that commercialization and privatization is inevitable.(keep reading...)

Probably not (gadfly maybe), but since I "made you look", please read on...

The statements attributed to Professor Eric Pianka, and the RWNM's reaction have been well chronicled by Grand Moff Texan here (also linked by DarkSyde on the FP) as well as by Pianka's own statement What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know that can be found here.  As I became more familiar with the gist of what Pianka was trying to say, I couldn't help but feel a strong sense of déjà vu.

Let's see...professor of biology...check...outspoken...check...population control...check...OH YEAH...Garrett Hardin, Professor Emeritus in Human Ecology at my beloved University of California at Santa Barbara.  I met him nearly 20 years ago at a small lecture and "question/answer" session when I was a student at UCSB.  More on the flip... Update: This diary is intended as low-grade snark. My point is that the ideas that Prof. Pianka expressed aren't really new, so the wingers need to "get over it". I used Garrett Hardin as an example because many outside of the subject area may have actually heard of him. Thanks.

Well, the list is out. Pumbo rubs his hands together. Smacks his ugly oily lips.

The Bush Administration's FY 2007 Budget proposal includes a plan to fund rural schools and county road maintenance by selling nearly a billion dollars worth of federal forests...$800 million of National Forests and $182
million of forests managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Never mind that the  road maintenance in those  forests is estimated at  

a growing $8.4 billion maintenance and reconstruction backlog and receives only 20 percent of the annual maintenance funding it needs to maintain its existing 380,000+ mile road system to environmental and safety standards.

The knowledge generated by we humans is a common wealth. The following executive summary is from the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law
http://www.fepproject.org/...

"recommendations include creating a clearinghouse for information,
including sample replies to cease and desist letters and take-down
notices; a legal support network; outreach to Internet service providers
to encourage help for those targeted by take-down letters; and changes
in the law to reduce the cost of guessing wrong about fair use."

The summary follows: