A Path Toward Sanity

Last Saturday's Rally to Restore Sanity on the Washington Mall, was, of course, an excellent idea. Its need has become intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer. It also begs a rather obvious question, How did we come to lose our sanity in the first place? And now that we've identified this restorative need, what are the shockingly sane solutions that can lead us forward on a path toward sanity?

One thing about restoring sanity as a nation and a culture is that we can't just throw a band-aid or two on a symptom here and there--we must root out its underlying cause. The current cultural course of a better drug or more spectacular distraction isn't going to cut it any more.

From a systems, or an ecological, perspective there's a rather obvious root cause that most people just don't want to think about or would rather deny as being irrelevant. This is the fact that intentionally destroying one's life support system provides a pretty good definition of insanity. And the further fact that we're doing this for no other reason than to support selfish and narrow self-interest makes it even worse.

But, as Thomas Hardy said, "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst."

We could go 8,000 years back in human history, but starting with Enlightenment thinking provides a good enough starting point. The concepts made popular by Locke, Hobbes, and Descartes led directly to the enclosure of the commons and separation from nature and community, the requirement of Industrialism for government debt to fund empire, increasing private debt to fund the growth necessary to pay interest, exploitation of people and planet for private interests, and the clinical diagnosis of the corporate person as sociopathic.

Which brings us to the dire straits we find ourselves in today--catastrophic climate destabilization, peak oil and other depleting resources, biospheric toxicity and other environmental degradations, loss of biodiversity and tearing the food chain asunder, and the ever-widening wealth gap which all emerges from an educational paradigm that no longer teaches how to think but only how to memorize answers and not question authority so we can all become better producers and consumers. No longer denizens of a living sensuous earth, we have become customers at a theme park called America, Inc.

As good a starting point as any on the path back to sanity can begin by demonstrating the necessary leadership at the state level. The states are the main building blocks of the American political system. The national government is one of limited, delegated powers; all other powers are possessed by the states and their citizens. The states empower local governing bodies. This means the states and their legislators must not only be aware of what is happening nationally and globally, but how wider issues affect the legislation enacted at the state level.

The foundation for a shockingly sane solution would be to mature beyond the myth that growth is necessary for progress and prosperity. Humans are naturally inquisitive, innovative, and intelligent--profit is not necessary to be who we really are. We can use relocalization as a practical, affordable process to transition into a sustainable future. We can begin implementing steady-state economies that focus on becoming better instead of bigger. We can support local investment in creating local products, services, and developing local food and energy security. We can return critical thinking skills to our public school curriculum so our students can be prepared for a future that is not going to look like the past. We can protect and restore the ecosystems that are the foundation for our own health and for productive lifestyles, communities, and economies that meet the definition of sustainability.

If you've had enough of the broken promises of a broken status quo, then it's time to vote for a real change, not just hope for a change. Don't settle for more of the same that created today's myriad crises, or that merely curbing the worst of the excesses of whichever party is in power today is the best we're capable of, or that throwing half the deck chairs overboard while doing nothing to change the underlying assumptions of who is sovereign will be sufficient.

I know a systemic alternative to the broken status quo is possible. The only allegiance I owe is to a living planet that can support future generations. If you believe this as well, and find the courage to vote your conscience instead of your fear and elect me as the first independent Arizona state senator, this is the path to sanity I promise to follow.

Continued Insanity or a Shockingly Sane Solution?

As Arizona State politicians remain intent on providing fodder for late-night comedy shows, one candidate steps up to provide a rational alternative.

Oct. 25, 2010, Tucson, AZ – Facing a swiftly crashing global economy and collapsing environment, one US state provides an extreme example of the failure that results from ignoring the actual root causes of its challenges. Arizona's racist legislation, floundering budget, and deficient educational system epitomize a failed response. And the ruling elite there—-as elsewhere—-don't have a Plan B.

This Southwestern state, hitherto known best for the saguaro cactus, has become the laughingstock of the world by passing bill after bill of backward legislation. Even the desert geckos who haven’t yet lost their habitat to sprawl are blushing.

But Dave Ewoldt, an independent candidate for the AZ State Senate, has risen to the challenge by offering an alternative to the deteriorating status quo. This alternative is relocalization—a practical, affordable process to create a sustainable future. Ewoldt’s shockingly sane solution will not only get Arizona back on the path to credibility, but also holds the key to a rational response for people everywhere facing the worldwide crises of climate catastrophe, dwindling energy supplies, resource depletion, and the suffering inherent in a bankrupt economic growth paradigm.

Ewoldt is among a growing number of individuals and organizations starting to seriously examine harsh realities. For example, The International Energy Agency says we're "running out of time" and "forecast a depleted energy supply in the next decade." They then connect the most obvious dots in our economic system today. "Energy availability underpins economic growth, and without the opportunity for future repayment of debt the financial system as we know it could stop working."

Ewoldt has received support for his relocalization platform from nationally renowned authors and leaders in the rapidly growing sustainability movement. Endorsements have come from Winona LaDuke, Derrick Jensen, Jerry Mander, Guy McPherson, and James Howard Kunstler as well as from the National Nurses Organizing Committee. They all recognize what society can reasonably expect if we stay on the business-as-usual course, and they acknowledge relocalization as a viable alternative.

Ewoldt believes that the leadership necessary for rapidly changing times requires an alternative as meaningful as it is comprehensive. This is the primary distinction between Dave and his opponents in the state senate race, who merely offer either more of the same that created the current debacle, holding actions, or distractions.

Ewoldt says, “Arizona legislators have a responsibility to focus on solutions and ignore attention-grabbing distractions. My vision, backed by a realistic and viable implementation plan, can transform Arizona from laughingstock to global leader.”

Ewoldt is poised to make Arizona history by becoming the first independent elected to the state legislature. More information about the shockingly sane solutions being offered by Ewoldt as he connects the dots to create a sustainable future can be found at the campaign website.

A Response on Endorsements

The 2010 Tucson Weekly Endorsements were printed in its Oct. 7, 2010 issue. In the LD 28 State Senate race, it went with the incumbent, and simplistically brushed aside the only rational solution being offered with, "Ewoldt's agenda is too neo-hippie for even us." So, I guess we've at least finally gotten an admission the Weekly is just a right-wing rag. Anyway, here's my response, a shortened version of which was sent to the Weekly as a letter to the editor.

My relocalization platform is neo-hippie? Democracy, conservation, putting Main Street before Wall Street, requiring corporations to assume their responsibility to help maintain the amenities they benefit from and clean up their messes, funding an educational system that prepares our youth for rapidly changing times, and a practical, scientifically based plan to make Arizona a global leader in sustainability and the new economy instead of fodder for late-night comedians is neo-hippie?

The International Energy Agency says we're "running out of time" and "forecast a depleted energy supply in the next decade." They then connect the most obvious of the dots: "Energy availability underpins economic growth, and without the opportunity for future repayment of debt the financial system as we know it could stop working."

The recent Bundeswehr report by German military analysts acknowledges Peak Oil and points to a likely reduction in standard of living that might render societies less stable and make them more attracted to extremist political positions. Investment will decline and debt service will be challenged, leading to a crash in financial markets, accompanied by a loss of trust in currencies and a break-up of value and supply chains--because trade is no longer possible. This will lead to the collapse of economies, mass unemployment, government defaults and infrastructure breakdowns, ultimately followed by famines and total system collapse.

The Pentagon's Hirsch Report concludes that it will require at least two decades to put an alternative energy infrastructure in place IF we start before peak occurs. It is now generally accepted that peak in conventional liquid fuels occurred between 2005 and 2008. Supply is now 5% below demand, and the Obama administration predicts this gap will increase to 10% by 2015.

The world's top climate scientists say we no longer have the luxury of merely discussing whether or not we should make changes, but must start lowering greenhouse gas emissions TODAY. We must start immediately heading down toward 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, not fervently pray that things will somehow be OK if we allow it to increase to 450 ppm, considering the calamities already occurring from allowing it to reach 390 ppm.

Does the Weekly consider all the above to be neo-hippie organizations and individuals? Are you aware of any other elected official or candidate that is offering ANY type of Plan B? The only "solutions" I've heard are minor attempts to mitigate the worst of the damage, doing even more of what created this mess, or pointless deck chair reshuffling.

It seems what you're really saying is that you know you can neither counter nor refute my arguments on issues or my pragmatic responses to them, so you're reduced to childish ad hominem attacks. What specific part of my platform do you consider to be unrealistic, other than the Powers That Be simply say, "We won't allow that"?

Oh, and it probably wouldn't be too wise to continue ignoring the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, increasing biospheric toxicity, our increasing body burden and disease rates, depletion of global fisheries, increasing desertification, dwindling fresh water supplies, topsoil loss, ocean acidification and growing dead zones, and the growing wealth gap as the middle class disappears.

Since the majority of Americans agree we must start addressing these critical issues now, the Weekly clearly demonstrates it is so far out of touch with reality it's difficult to find the words to adequately describe it. It seems that not only has critical analysis become a lost art, but so has the ability for independent thought. This is a clear dereliction in the duties of the Fourth Estate.

Is it really the Weekly's opinion that Arizonans don't deserve better, or just that they aren't capable of better? I disagree on both counts.

Beyond that, I'm really not sure what else to say, or a different way to frame it, that might make my platform more understandable, and why it is so urgently necessary. The alternative I'm proposing, relocalization, which includes steady-state economics and moving toward sustainability by using the same natural systems principles healthy, vibrant and resilient ecosystems have been successfully using for billions of years, presents a practical, affordable and comprehensive plan that addresses the roots of our current crises. While it may not be possible to totally stave off the coming collapse brought on by our failing system--considering how far down that path we already are--relocalization provides the only realistic plan I'm aware of that can provide, at the very least, a foundation for a democratic, equitable and sustainable future where coming generations at least have some positive possibilities to begin rebuilding.

Provided, of course, that we don't continue to make things worse by continuing to support the status quo, or remain content to think that slapping a band-aid on a symptom here and there will be good enough. People across the political spectrum agree we must become sustainable, and even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in a speech on Oct. 4, 2010 to the Annual Meeting of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, said the current trajectory of government finances is unsustainable and that the U.S. is on the brink of a financial disaster.

And the best advice the Tucson Weekly can offer is to carry on with business as usual. Well, at least we have the New Southwest to fill the void for an alternative paper in this town.