Obama’s Ambitious Plan To Reduce GHG Emissions Elicits Hope, Frightening Comparison to Kyoto Protocol

June 25, 2013 § Leave a comment

“The decisions that we make now will have a profound effect on the world that you inherit”

Just a few short hours ago, President Obama gave what was expected to be a landmark public statement, in which he outlined his plan to fight climate change and global warming. While he didn’t necessarily say anything “radical” – that is, we’re not reverting to a pre-industrial society – but he did continue his trend of boldly and matter-of-factly stating scientific truths that many other politicians – certainly no president or even most congressmen –  would usually have the guts and confidence to say. And, of course, if his plans are actually followed through on by the rest of the federal government, then we have some landmark moments – America’s first fully legislated climate action plan.

Though his speech began with some fairly typical remarks, including a framing device involving the “Whole Earth” picture (aka “The Blue Marble”) and the Apollo astronauts, and statements about increasing numbers of record “highs,” shrinking ice sheets, increasingly strong storms and rising sea level. He continued on, and spoke about Hurricane Sandy, droughts in the Midwest and Alaska, and wildfires in the American west. The statement that finally kicked his address into gear was more or less this: Americans feel the effects of climate change not just through environmental disasters, but through economic changes. Increased insurance premiums and taxes are a result of the increasing intensity of storms and of rising temperatures. Perhaps that statement isn’t a jaw-dropping first-of-its-kind statement, but it certainly tells us that Obama is looking at this problem from the right frame of reference.

Obama’s plan lays out three main ways he intends to lead this nation against climate change. First, the most obvious: Cut Carbon Emissions. Here’s where Obama hits it home though: It’s not necessarily about using less energy, or using “green” energy (though both would be nice) – It’s about using energy differently. Obama proposes once again, with perhaps his most convincing attempt yet, that natural gas should be our transition fuel, as he sees benefits in both energy independence (he notes as well that we’re building new nuclear plants and finally producing more oil than we import) and in its comparative cleanliness. He puts his full support behind Natural Gas, promising federal support to make extraction safer and more efficient. Obama’s new budget makes some bold moves to help achieve this first goal. He has asked for the removal of tax breaks for oil companies, and to continue to improve the benefits and breaks for clean/green energy companies.

Within the same goal of cutting carbon emissions, Obama tackles the omnipresent idea of using less energy –  a surefire, yet often unpopular method of reducing CO2 emissions. He reminds us that we have successfully increased fuel economy standards, including for large trucks, and will continue to do so again. In the next decade, he claims, our cars will go twice as far on a tank of gas. Perhaps the most important part of his plan to reduce energy consumption, however, is his efforts to lead at the Federal level. The Department of Defense is  updating to use multiple gigawatts of clean energy, and Obama is setting a goal that within 7 years, all federal buildings will get 20% of their energy from renewable sources. Bold, Mr. President, Bold. Combine that with new, stricter standards for appliances and lights, and we very well might have a fighting chance.

“This will not get us there overnight”

And with that comment, Mr. Obama hits the nail on the head. Step two in the president’s Climate Action Plan is to prepare America for the effects of global warming. Obama acknowledges that we can’t stop our carbon emissions in their tracks, and even if we did, there’s enough carbon buildup in the atmosphere that we would continue to feel the effects even after we’ve stopped producing greenhouse gasses. In the same vein as many authors have recently written (Skaarsgard’s Hot comes to mind), Obama makes it clear that we need to prepare ourselves for the inevitable. Plans to fortify New York Harbor, restore the Everglades,  and better preparing for droughts and floods are exactly what we need to be doing.

“We compete for business with them, but we also share a planet”

The “them” that President Obama refers to are other nations, to whom he plans for us to be a trendsetter. The third part of Obama’s plan is plain and simple to lead the world by example. He wants to push for concrete international agreements and to aid developing nations. This, however, is where I start to worry.

The beginning of Obama’s plan shows great political maturity. He’s done this before, and now he knows the best way to approach an issue like climate change. When he discusses clean energy and new standards, he makes the abundantly clear point that his will not cause any economical set backs. In fact, if it goes the same way as the examples he used – the Clean Air Act, the fight against Acid Rain, the banning of CFCs, initial changes in fuel economy standards, etc – then, he points out, we will see economic growth. “There’s no contradiction between a sound environment and secure economic growth,” he says. The “opportunity” for corporations to fight climate change “Can be an engine of growth for years to come.” Jobs, wealth, GDP – it’s all going to be fine.

So if economics aren’t going to be the downfall of Obama’s new plan, what will? Obama knows that he faces a divided congress, but he seems hopeful. Referencing the actions of Republican Presidents like Nixon, who pushed bipartisan legislation to solve some enormous environmental problems, he expressed his hope that Congress will come together, and flat-out just make his job easier. He urges Republicans to “call home” – after all, 75% of our nation’s wind power is produced in Republican districts, as does much of our Natural Gas production. But even if Republicans continue to create gridlock, Obama is prepared. Much of what he hopes to accomplish can be done without the help of Congress, who he claims is forcing the EPA, most significantly through the stalling of the appointment of Gina McCarthy as the new administrator, to “jump through hoops” because some Republicans think that “The Environmental Protection Agency has no business protecting the environment.”

Obama has also made it clear that the time for debating the legitimacy of climate change is over. Scientists (according to his data, 97%) agree that global warming is both real and worsened by humans. When Obama reviewed some of the basic facts of global warming and its effects early on in his speech, he did so without trying to convince anyone. As he later stated:  “I don’t have very much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real…We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.”  He’s ready to push forward in spite of opponents, and encourages his supporters to do the same, urging them to: “Push back on misinformation, speak up on facts.” So if the economy wont hold him back, and he’s prepared to work around gridlock and denial, where is his Achilles heel?

I return now to the third part of Obama’s plan, which, as I mentioned, concerns me.  So far, the President has proven himself to be a student of history, working the rest of his plan around the things that have derailed his, and others, environmental policy in the past. With his international aspects of the policy, however, I am forced to be less optimistic. I wholeheartedly agree with the President’s declaration of American exceptionalism, and with his call to lead the world by example, but his call for a concrete international treaty has some potentially devastating flaws.

Much of President Obama’s language regarding international cooperation – an agreement to concrete action, aiding countries that are most strongly damaged by the effects of climate change, and aiding developing nations so that might skip the “dirty” stage of development – invokes an unfortunate comparison to the failed Kyoto Protocol. While all of these goals are not only important, but in my opinion in fact the right way to go, these same suggestions were the foundation of the Kyoto Protocol. If one takes into account the complete lack of success with creating an international treaty (the very same roadblock our President seeks to overcome), its apparent that very little has improved since 2005 when the Kyoto Protocol failed. Copenhagen was only a moderate success, and Cancun followed with little of note. Only in 2011 in Durban did nations that dropped out of the Kyoto protocol, and some nations that were not subject to the Protocol but have since developed (ie. China) agree to even consider signing a “treaty-to-be-named-later.” Has anything changed that significantly that countries that couldn’t agree to the fairly lenient Kyoto Protocol are ready to be completely compliant? And what about developing nations and the global south – they’ve been promised aid for over a decade, and so far there has still been no help to industrialize, with or without fossil fuels.

The question that I pose as a result is this: How does Obama – whose diplomatic skill is more suited towards building, mending, and growing international relationships, and not so much the creation of international law – plan to lead the creation of a binding treaty, and what exactly does he intend to propose as a solution? I think it’s safe to say that the “First World” will again have the support of the Island nations, who are heavily affected and are not necessarily trying to industrialize, but how will he earn the support of the developing world, when, as previously mentioned, the global north has yet to make good on any of its environmental aid promises.

Then of course, there’s the domestic side of this international treaty. Though Obama is no Bush – that is, he won’t be echoing Bush’s infamous statement that “To control emissions of CO2 does not make sense for America” – he still faces the same problem that Clinton and Gore faced initially – getting the treaty ratified by the Senate. The Clinton administration faced Congressional gridlock for sure, but it was nothing compared to the gridlock in our modern Congress. This brings up another important question: Sure, Obama can use executive orders and various administrative departments to circumvent Congress with the domestic aspects of his plan, but there’s not the same kind of wiggle-room with international treaties. Does he hope to wait it out until a hopefully gridlock-breaking midterm election? Does he really think that he has the ability to convince his outspoken Republican opponents to see things his way? Sure, as a lame-duck, he’s got nothing to lose, but there’s a difference between taking a risk and running headfirst into a brick wall.

I look forward to seeing the changes we make domestically, and as the world’s second-largest producer of greenhouse gasses, I am ecstatic that we can begin to make some significant improvements. However, as the rest of the world, particularly China, continues on full-steam ahead, I hope that with further details of his plan, we begin to see his plans for the world as a whole. The world once thought the Kyoto Protocol would save the planet. I hope President Obama studies its failure well, because it might very well hold to key to our salvation.

Obama ended his speech on a poignant note, eliciting from his audience the same feeling that I felt just two weeks ago, when I stood at the top of Cofete, a peak on the Canary Island of Fuerteventura, looking out over the magnificent landscape that was in ultimate peril. It was there that I was reminded what it is the environmental movement stands for, and why I am myself a part of it. We are here, on the just-right planet, which had the just the perfect conditions to create life, and humans, and the beauty that is nature. As Obama said: “That’s what’s at stake.”


Kick It in Sustainable Style.

November 24, 2012 § 1 Comment

The holiday season is upon us! Though Black Friday might be over, there’s still plenty of time until the holidays themselves, and more than likely, also plenty of presents still left to buy. Fortunately, I’m here to tell you about a brand-new, completely sustainable gift.

I discovered this product while watching a favorite TV show of mine, Shark Tank. There have been plenty of “sustainable” products pitched on the show. Some got funded, including an eco-friendly toy box. Some – like a line of products made from recycled chopsticks and a mail-order printer-ink refill service – did not.

However, on an episode I recently watched, perhaps the most appealing – and easily the most sustainable – product was proposed AND funded. I present to you: ReKixx – completely recyclable shoes.

These shoes are made to be 100% recyclable. The “canvas” is a special polyresin blend, and the “rubber” soles are another polyresin blend. To recycle them, all you have to do is mail them back to the producer – and you even get a discount on a new pair for recycling. They’re pretty fashionable too. Check ’em out:

ReKixx are finally hitting the market in time for the holiday season, and would make a great, sustainable gift for your eco-conscious loved ones. I know I wouldn’t mind a pair!

(Note: I am not in any way affiliated with or contracted by ReKixx. I just think they’re awesome.)

The Real Message of the First Thanksgiving

November 20, 2012 § Leave a comment

I can’t remember the time I first heard the story of the first Thanksgiving, but it very well may have been around kindergarten. We all know this story – the Pilgrims land on Plymouth Rock, and are helped to adapt to live off the land by helpful Native Americans – led by Squanto, of course. It was a celebration of the harvest, and only later did it become a national holiday.

As we grow older, we begin to learn a bit more about Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims. Certain details are revealed, corrected, adjusted. We learn that Pilgrims are often misrepresented as dressing like Puritans. We learn about the significance of the Mayflower contact. We learn about all those Pilgrims who died in that first winter. We learn about the massacres that occurred soon after. We learn about the way that this relationship with tribes like the Wampanoag quickly turned towards prejudice and persecution.

When we finally begin to know about something, we begin to contextualize it. You can the first Thanksgiving it as the epitome of intercultural exchange and understanding. On the contrary, you can see it as the beginning of the “white man” beginning his forceful dominance of the American continent.

I choose to see it as a parable of sustainable agriculture.

There’s an important question that kind of gets blown over in schools. Yes, the Native Americans showed the Pilgrims how to farm successfully, but why was this so?

The Pilgrims came from Europe, where farming was practiced much like it is in modern America – if perhaps, on a much smaller scale. Large, sprawling fields grew one crop at a time – usually wheat. Many, many peasants would work these fields night and day, from planting to harvest. What their field didn’t grow, they could trade or buy from others, or at least their Lords could and would.

When the Pilgrims first began to farm in New England, they more than likely attempted to model their efforts on those of their former homeland. This wouldn’t work here, however, and here’s why:

The crops grown in the Americas – in particular, corn – requires quite a lot of nutrition from the soil, and often removes most of the nitrates – one of the most important nutrient groups – within a few plantings. In Europe, similar problems were taken care of by a simple cycle of crop rotations. In Plymouth, however, there was neither the manpower nor the available farmland to do this. Thus, the information imparted by Squanto and his people was invaluable.

How was it that the Wampanoag taught the Pilgrims to farm? The method by which Native Americans had been planting and farming for countless centuries prior: Using the Three Sisters.

The Three Sisters is perhaps the most ingenious yet simple agricultural method ever devised. A few corn stalks – maize, as they would call it – are planted, surrounded by squash plants, and covered by climbing beans. The three work together, benefiting each other, creating ideal environments for each plant.

The maize, which is the largest grain provider of the three, provides a structure on which the climbing beans can grow. The beans in turn puts nitrogen back into the ground, while the squash works to prevent weeds and pests.

If modern farms took a note from the Native Americans, we’d be in much better shape agriculturally. Today, we are the Pilgrims of the modern era, and boy are we screwing up. We, just like our forefathers, are trying to farm in large monocultures – huge, one crop farms, that grow anything from corn to chickens to beef – and only that. There’s plenty wrong with this system of farming, and rather than listing them, I’ll just explain the solutions.

Polycultures. Polycultures are the solution. The Three Sisters are a perfect example of polyculture, and are exactly why and how the first Thanksgiving needs to become a something that teaches us more than history. In his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan presents the working of a “grass farm,” a pristine example of polyculture at work. On this farm, grass feeds the pigs and cows, who help the grass and other crops grow better via their manure. Pigs work hand in hand with the compost to create better crop outputs and to renitrogenate the soil. Without use of pesticides, antibiotics, or most industrial feed supplies, this farm, and those like it, produce unbelievable quantity at a fairly sizable quantity.

The other reason why this polyculture is to be preferred as the premeir method of farming is the low use of fossil fuels. The problem that the Pilgrims faced early on was, as I mentioned, the need for a large labor force to work their giant monocultures. In modern society, we have replaced the slaves and peasants of our past with tractors and plows, reapers and combines, all of which are making us slaves to big oil instead. A polyculture, since everything is produced on-farm, can be run with little manpower and little machinery – an incredible bonus for our nation and our planet.

On a final note, let me wish a happy Thanksgiving to all. I hope you are all safe and healthy, and lastly, I hope that we all learn from our past this Thanksgiving.



Obama: Country is Obligated to Tackle Climate Change

November 14, 2012 § Leave a comment

Last week, I mentioned an uptick of Climate Change talk in the media. Today, as part of his fist White House press conference since March, he mentioned the need for climate change solutions. Here’s the Washington Post’s coverage of it:

President Obama said the country has an obligation to future generations to address the issue of climate change, but he acknowledged there is a palpable lack of consensus on the matter.

“I don’t know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point,” Obama said at his afternoon press conference.

The president noted that the political differences that arise on environmental issues extend beyond those falling along party lines. “There are regional differences,” he said.

But, he added: “we have an obligation to future generations to do something about it.”

Change is coming. Fast.


The Morning After, and She Still Looks Pretty.

November 7, 2012 § Leave a comment

The world appears to be ending: Hurricane Sandy has ravaged the east coast, a nor’easter is now blanketing the northeast in snow, and the DOW dropped over three hundred points this morning. Weed is legal in two states; gay marriage added two more to its list. The country that President Obama is going to face in his second term is one that has changed drastically in the course of a week.

He couldn’t have asked for a better set-up.

The Four Years After the Day After Tomorrow.

With all that has transpired in the past week, it’s safe to say that if the nation isn’t already in a state of crisis, it’s on the brink. People are likening the weather situation to that of 2004’s The Day After Tomorrow or the more recent 2012 (in which the American president was also Black). I repeat again, however: President (elect) Obama could not be coming (back) into a better situation.

The United States, at this critical juncture, needs a leader who will handle this the right way. I can safely say that Obama, in his Federal-to-State-to-Local aid-giving approach has been pretty damn effective. He’s been praised by the once-republican Mayor Bloomburg, and by the heavily Republican (and recent GOP Convention Keynote Speaker) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his handling of the rescue and aid efforts in response to Hurricane Sandy. He’s likely going to face challenges like this in his coming four years, so it’s nice to know that he’s on top of it.

As mentioned in my recent post about Hurricane Sandy and the climate science that explains it, while we can’t blame global warming for Hurricane (Superstorm/Frankenstorm) Sandy, we can safely say that global warming created the conditions that allowed it to build as large and as damaging as it did. (If you’re still confused as to how this work, check out this video). To quote Bill McKibben, perhaps the leading climate activist in the world right now, from his latest book, Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet

“Earth has changed in profound ways, ways that have already taken us out of the sweet spot where humans so long thrived. We’re every day less the oasis and more the desert. The world hasn’t ended, but the world as we know it has— even if we don’t quite know it yet. We imagine we still live back on that old planet, that the disturbances we see around us are the old random and freakish kind. But they’re not. It’s a different place. A different planet.”

This new planet, she’s a feisty one. It’s gonna take a man with a plan to keep things going.

Red, White, Blue, Black, and – Green?

Ok - So he's not THAT green.....

Barackoli….Ok, so he’s not THAT green…

Obama’s that man, and he’s got a plan. Sure, it includes some great effort in responding to disasters, but you can just keep bailing the boat out – you’ve to plug the hole.

Before you can plug the hole, it helps to know what it is. Fortunately for us, President Obama, unlike many of his opponents on the right (Fun Fact: 20% more Republicans believe in demon possession than believe that Global Warming is real), understands that our excessive use of fossil fuels has pushed the climate to it’s breaking point. Climate Change is real. It’s imminent. And it’s dangerous.

President Obama isn’t usually given too much credit in the media for his environmental responsibility. Granted, up until recently, no one really has been. Despite this fact, however, Obama’s got a pretty solid history of doing the right thing for the environment. The short list:

  • Sending the Keystone Pipeline plans back to the drawing board, effectively preventing anything from ever getting approved.
  • Working on and supporting a Cap and Trade proposal that would have put a major halt on the fossil fuel industry.
  • Using the Clean Air Act to impose six new regulations, limiting various major airborne pollutants, including the first ever national limits set on mercury.
  • Setting new standards for automobile emissions – the strictest ever, in fact – requiring an average of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
  • A goal has been set by cutting federal agency greenhouse gas emissions by 28% by 2020.
  • Electricity generation from renewable sources has doubled since Obama took office.
  • 2 Million new acres of wilderness were reserved, in addition to restoration programs in places like the Everglades.

I won’t lie and say that there’s been much coverage of all of this – Obama himself has done a pretty poor job of bringing his success up in speeches – but nonetheless, progress has been made. A lot of progress has been made. And there’s more to come.

Politically Charged

One thing has caught the eye of many during these past few months of campaigning. Energy. In particular, the effects of our nation’s oil dependence. It’s bad for the economy. It’s bad for the environment. Perhaps most alarming to the American people, however, is the effect on our global politics. We’re stuck in the Middle East. At this point, our dependence on oil has two possible futures: We burn to death slowly in a stifling climate, or we burn quickly in a fiery bombing from any of a dozen possible suspects, ranging from small terrorist sects to entire nations. Either way, it won’t end well.

Obama’s got a plan to fix this: Get us off of foreign oil, and on to domestic oil. Ok, so it’s still oil. Not the best possible solution. However, it greatly alleviates the political-economic tension, and I mean, it does save some oil and fossil fuel emissions in the reduced transport. Not great however.

Good thing the plan doesn’t stop there! As he’s made clear over and over again, and as his website currently promotes heavily, the plan to fix American oil dependence (part 2) is: Renewable Energy. Yes, you heard me right. Wind. Solar. Geothermal. A little bit of Nuclear here and there. Obama is and has dedicated public lands to the production of wind, solar, and geothermal energy, and he is proposing various updates to our grid to make it “smart,” and able to manage all of this energy without the devastating blackouts, like the one my family on Long Island have been living for almost two weeks.

He’s got a plan. He’s got some backing in the Senate. Maybe we have a chance.

Voices From the Peanut Gallery

I like to think I’m a pretty smart guy, but I’m no expert. However, these guys are:

“There was only one candidate in this race who doubled down on our nation’s clean energy economy. There was only one candidate who consistently fought to hold oil and coal companies accountable and only one candidate who stood up for landmark protections to keep toxins out of our air and water. And there was only one candidate who took historic steps to mitigate the climate crisis.  Because of those positions, President Obama faced an unprecedented assault from deep-pocketed oil and coal execs who inundated the airwaves with millions of dollars in attack ads.”

– Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune

“The American people have rejected the candidate who mocked the threat of climate change on behalf of the carbon industry. Americans of all political persuasions agree that the president’s job is to explain existing threats to the public welfare, and lead the nation in tackling them head on. Obama’s forthright response to the immediate disaster of Superstorm Sandy demonstrated his ability to lead in a crisis. Now he must tackle the root causes of that disaster, including the terrible scourge of carbon pollution. The campaign over, President Obama must end his climate silence and speak out. …Talking about climate change will not be enough. What is needed is bold action, and that will require overcoming any number of practical and political challenges. … Words alone won’t save us, but silence seals our fate. It’s time for President Obama’s silence to end.”

–ClimateSilence.Org and Forecast the Facts

“Big Oil-backed special interests brought unlimited resources to bear this election cycle and were expected to overwhelm the presidential race. But voters … chose a different course – reelecting a president who has championed building a clean energy economy.”

– League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski

“During his first term, President Barack Obama strengthened the economy and created jobs by issuing executive orders improving fuel economy standards and advancing manufacturing and building efficiency. The president invested heavily in energy efficiency through the Recovery Act; weatherized more than a million homes; and made energy efficiency a central pillar and the ‘first fuel’ of choice for the nation. … We expect — and will press hard — for President Obama and his team to continue on this important path to make the United States the most energy productive country in the world.”

– Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy

(Quotes courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle)

All’s Well That Ends Well

Last night, as the election was called, I had my coverage tuned to two different stations. Of course, I followed CNN, waiting for the official announcement. The other channel, however, was Comedy Central, with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s coverage of the elections. Yes, they’re comedians by trade, but as it often is, with comedy comes the truth.

In particular, Stephen Colbert brought on an old friend of The Report, Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan, a British expatriate, is a noted conservative who, in recent times, has begun to stray from many of the views of the Republican Party. In explaining his support for Obama and why he was pleased with America’s choice, he made a short, direct, incredibly poignant statement: “I want the Republican Party to understand that global warming is happening.”

Global warming is happening. We need to stop it. Barak Obama has got a plan. We’ve got new faces in the House and Senate. Maybe, just maybe we can work together. Maybe, just maybe, we might save our country, and our planet. America appears to have made the right decision, on the environmental front at least.

I leave you now with a quote from last night. Obama, in his victory speech, made a wish, for “A nation….that isn’t threatened by the danger of a warming planet.”

Goodnight, Ladies and Gentlemen. A new horizon approaches. God Bless America.

TV Talks Temperature: Climate Change and the Media

November 3, 2012 § 2 Comments

The nation is abuzz with talk. It’s pretty apparent that Hurricane Sandy was no ordinary storm. There was clearly some other force at work here. And up until recently, most of the nation would never know.

Climate Change is that unspoken cause. The media avoids it like the plague – at least until now.

The change was almost instant. After Hurricane Sandy hit on Monday night, the “mainstream media,” as some of our right-wing friends might call it, couldn’t avoid the fact any longer. Climate change caused Hurricane Sandy. It caused Irene. It caused the droughts this summer, and the super snow storms last winter. They avoided the topic for years on end. Now, the cat’s out of the bag.

Take this video from MSNBC for instance:

MSNBC Climate Change Coverage

For those of you who don’t know, his first guest was governor Andrew Cuomo, son of the much beloved former governor Mario Cuomo. He’s a pretty serious politician, and he’s not afraid to say something on TV. The tides have turned. It’s ok to talk about climate change now.

Cuomo’s not afraid to make some bold statements either, and I like to believe what he says to be a pretty widespread opinion at this point:

Anyone who says there’s not a dramatic change in weather patterns, I think is denying reality….I said to the President kiddingly the other day, ‘We have a 100-year flood every two years now.’

Let me repeat that. The governor of one of the biggest, most prominent states in the country, just made it clear, on national television, that climate change is real. This is a BIG DEAL.

How will this come to affect the fight against climate change? Only time will tell. My advice, however, is this: If there was ever a time to strike, it’s now. Make a statement. Get the word out. People are listening. People are ready for change.

Let’s go!


Satire Hits Home: “Nation Suddenly Realizes This Just Going To Be A Thing That Happens From Now On | The Onion – Americas Finest News Source”

November 1, 2012 § Leave a comment

It’s technically satire. It’s the truth. Read it. Laugh, then catch yourself and realize its not a joke.


Nation Suddenly Realizes This Just Going To Be A Thing That Happens From Now On | The Onion – Americas Finest News Source.


%d bloggers like this: