Who Speaks for the Earth?

What or where is the formal body politic where the representation of mankind would be considered to represent the silent, but conspicuous presence of the earth? If the rights of the earth are debated, isn't it right to have a forum where some representation of "nature" or the earth's proxy can be present?

Considering the "rights of the planet" it's fair for the accused (nature) to be represented before its adversary (society). Nature has no voice so objections or concessions are not possible. Its natural responses are inadequate because they would happen anyway. Floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, and other phenomena are the transgressors, perpetrators, or adversaries. The planet can defend itself from other planets or the natural events it inflicts upon itself.

We cannot try or condemn the planet for doing what we expect it to do and must adopt a peaceful coexistence. The only situation of complexity then is defending the planet from those forces or transgressions perpetrated by men who violate the laws of men.

Men don't violate the laws of nature; we live with them and acknowledge their role. The laws of physics and chemistry... just are and don't care about man and, moreover, can't be re-written without proof. Scientific study exposes the laws of nature and there are no bounds or limits to the knowledge we may examine, define, and consider to be the words of nature. The language of the universe is mathematics and we must use it when speaking about or debating nature.

Men may violate laws or regulations set forth by men to protect or exploit the planet. These laws then are merely debates among men with outcomes that benefit or penalize men. Mankind then is a steward of the planet that exists to benefit all. Moral codes and moral laws of men are rooted in the religions that emerge to establish a basic formalization that allows men to live with and respect each other.

They may be considered laws of nature among men. It takes a complex justification to establish the relationship of men to the planet, but there is need to understand that relationship in its most primitive form if we are to consider transgressions by men on our planet that may destroy one or both parties. We do know that the planet was here first, but then again the question of "Where did we come from?" becomes a serious matter.

If we are to consider a proxy for earth, then it is feasible to examine our earliest possible representations. The "earth mother" notion from history was a predecessor of the Judeo-Christian faith and other modern thinkings that portray a host and benefactor found in early tribal societies. In our modern age the "Green Movement" acolytes citing their junk science references may also be a more contemporary view. The "greens" are not considered an entity to worship yet. But there is considerable evidence that demonstrates their origins from the devolution of organized religions.

When it becomes a moral issue to eat fish, use a charcoal grill, allocate carbon footprints to individuals or enterprises, it becomes clear that the new "green" moral code places a high value on protecting the earth and its natural gifts from the interferences of men and all that they may do to harm (?) this 4 billion year old sacred object. The new commandments and biblical-like standards for men are intended to save the planet, save the polar bear, go vegan, ... and the like.

However, it may be that the natural events unleashed by nature, and often considered disasters, at least to man, may pale any imbalances introduced by man-made or man-triggered phenomena. Volcanoes are notorious for producing noxious outcomes, but we have no means to stop them or make them right to our human standards.

The fact that man has exploited and made use of natural gifts to enrich the lives of the people individually and humanity in general should hold sway. The quality of life in all societies on this planet is dependent on the natural gifts we have available to use. Most improvements in the lives of people may be attributed to exercising the free will of men (yet another natural gift) to make decisions about their survival and perpetuation.

Killing animals is necessary and essential to survival. Growing sustainable crops or picking wild plants serves the needs also. It is the natural moral code that allows man the right to do so and dominate the environment. Man can use these natural resources to live and better our lives.

Without true stewardship motivated by self interest, the natural gifts may wither, disappear, or become polluted to the detriment of future generations.

Clearly, judicious management of upstream/downstream common law and regulations are necessary and essential. It's the responsibility of moral society to adopt and enact those civilized instruments grounded by a moral code of its members who respect the need for laws of a moral society whose members share common moral values.

The foundation of our capitalistic Western Civilization depends on enlightened men to protect themselves and their resources to thereby sustain themselves, the species, and the resources for further use. The planet Earth, however, does not share a common ground among its human species and thereby cannot develop a common moral thread or theme that is transparent and universal among all members. The civil society we have does not subscribe to the same values across the planet and includes tyrants who only serve a self interest.

In recent times we have seen a greater emphasis on protecting and preserving our planet which is often at odds with the practical realities for man's existence. Men eat fish and may over fish if left unchecked. But banning fishing outright is not always the only answer. People need to eat and have a livelihood that produces capital to fulfill family needs.

When there are no other alternatives to fish it may become a survival issue. To enforce a moral code that protects fish may conflict with the moral code that human life is dear and sacred. As important as survival of the planet may be, the salvation and sustainability of mankind is more important.

A peaceful coexistence must be sought. We do not know how to live without the contributions of mother earth yet. It is tyrannical to make choices favored by a few over the needs of many. The planet offers solutions with abundance in some resources while there is scarcity in others. This is nature at work and we need to adopt natural solutions to natural problems. The free will of men can logically seek or develop such alternatives and may have to if life as we know it is to continue.

Clothes Lines Be Hanged

Connecticut Bill 7259, submitted in the 2009 legislative session, titled Right to Dry, offers us an opportunity to dry our laundry outside in the same sunshine and air of open government. There are rational reasons to dry your wash on a drying rack, line, or tree (?). The bill makes no mention of washed or unwashed, but then it would not be laundry needing a right to dry. You only need a right to dry if you are wet, I guess. The rights then accrue to the laundry. You, of course, can hang from a tree to dry if you are wet I guess without this law.


While seemingly benign, the bill is an overt attempt to circumvent the Constitution's explicit prohibition against any ex post facto law as well as its protection of contracts. When you live in some closed communities, like a condo association or coop, you purchased your property and have a deed, a contract, a mortgage, a legal entitlement that makes reference to published rules to which property owners must abide.

Your contract for a loan, your property's assessment, and the market value, your taxes, your property rights all make reference and consideration for such locally administered practices usually conducted by an elected committee. Presumably you read these before signing anything and understand the connection of these rules to your property and to your own lifestyle preferences.

These rules are guidelines and can usually be changed as the affected community can vote amendments under the administrative conditions set forth. It is fair to think of this as taxation with representation. Don't buy this property or live there unless you can live with the rule requirements.

The US Constitution does not allow a preemption of law unilaterally and protects the sanctity of the contracted conditions and property rights in your association, the value of your investment and the "rule of law" to support the contract. Passing a new "right to dry" law should grandfather existing condominium contracts or, perhaps, mandate a going forward proposition to impose the desired mandate on new associations to accommodate the Constitution.

Pushing a green "clothesline agenda" on unwitting and perhaps unwilling groups who cannot protect themselves from government intervention of dubious value, if not outright invasion of personal freedom and privacy, to say nothing of the impact on property values, is not good democracy.

Eminent domain comes to mind as an extreme interpretation of this murky bill.

To protest this usurpation of our Constitutional rights, we propose that you:
1. Air your dirty laundry.
2. Fly clean white sheets with "No Surrender" written on them.
3. Clean this protest with your participation.

While the green advocates insist on a "right to dry", you could easily hose down your protest banner on a daily basis to maintain a posture/position statement with your laundry as a voice (free speech) proxy. Cluttering the landscape with a sea of laundry is after all the outcome from passage of the bill.

This action will make your neighbors aware of this attempt by government to take over your chosen private way of life and to continue to express your desires with Free Bleach (ooops, Speech)!!!