The Trabues at Cowan Creek Music Week

Sarah, Donna and Dan
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

This last week was a blast. It was great to be around a bunch of folk of all ages and a variety of backgrounds, making music and dancing together. While people came from all over, we were predominantly Kentuckians and folk from this region.

I was proud of and impressed by the music and community-oriented traditions that we have here in Kentucky and the great talent of even the younger students and newer players. I can't imagine a more beautiful or fun way to spend a week, bar nothing. Not Cancun. Not Paris. Not jolly old London-town.

No offense to any of those places, but for me, give me the hills of the southeast and some of its genuine community and music anytime.

Playground Playas

Playground Playas
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

Banjo Feller

Banjo Feller
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

Mountaintop Removal: Man vs Nature

Mountaintop Removal
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

The picture above is what remains of the top of Black Mountain, KY. The picture below is the still barren valley beneath Mt St Helens. Both Mountains lost their tops in horrible disasters. The difference between the two, unfortunately, is that Black Mountain is a self-inflicted wound.

The land around Black Mountain in East Kentucky is phenomenally beautiful. The diversity of the flora and fauna and verdant forests have been the reason some have called the Cumberland region our own rainforest.

My family and I have just spent a week in these lovely hills learning and playing Old Time folk music at the Cowan Creek Music Camp. It was a wonderful week and we appreciate all the work the people at Cowan Creek and Appalshop put forth to celebrate the region. Please check out their work sometime.

I just hope that the mountains are still there for my children to return to when they're my age.

Mt St Helen Stump and Barren Valley

Mt. St. Helen Stump and Barren Valley
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

Peace

Boys at El Regadio School
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

The Problem with Hegemony, Part I

In discussing the Iraq Invasion (yet again!) over at another blog, I asked the question of the war-supporters:

1. Ought laws be followed?

And the follow up:

2. You're now president. What laws would you propose that everyone should follow that we're willing to follow as well?

This led to the response:

Yes, laws should be followed.

The second question is asked from a perspective in which the US should be accountable to international law. I don't believe that. I don't think the US should participate nor adhere to ANY international law, because usually those laws are not favorable for us.

Every free person on this planet is free because of America, we've NEVER been on the side of evil and that has earned us the right not to have our motives questioned.

!

And I followed up with this breakdown of his logic, as I saw it:

So, as I understand it, you think that any nation that has never been on the side of evil has earned the right to not have their motives questioned? Those blameless nations can decide if and when and whom they need to bomb for whatever purposes.

Conversely, those nations that are not blameless/that HAVE been on the side of evil don't get to bomb when and whom they please? Is that a fair assessment?

If so, then who decides which nations are the blameless ones who've never been on the side of evil and which nations aren't?

I paused for a response and none was forthcoming and so I continued.

You see, there are too many logical difficulties with your reasoning. The feeling that we must make our own rules is fairly common in human nature, but it is an immature belief based upon fear, emotions, immorality and inconsistency that is hard to justify if you are concerned about logic, justice and morality.

Once you've said that only blameless nations can choose to bomb others, two immediate problems pop up.

1. There are no blameless nations and it would be naive to think so. I love my country; I think her Constitution and history are something to be proud of. But, God bless us, we have made mistakes.

We have chosen to embrace evil at times when it seemed the best choice in a bad situation.

We have targeted and bombed cities of civilians (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

We have supported terrorists (contras, the Salvadoran gov't) with weapons, money and training.

We have supported corrupt, murderous despots (Saddam, Pinochet, Somoza) and subverted democracy in other sovereign nations.

I fully understand that some who made these decisions did so thinking they were doing the best they could. But we know all about good intentions. A nation which has killed whole cities of children and committed war crimes and supported terrorism CAN NOT claim to be blameless.

=====
I'll split this essay up here, so folk could deal with each of the parts separately if they wish. Unfortunately, I will be away from my computer much of this coming week, so I may not have a chance to respond right away, but feel free to make comments.

I Played the Flute for You...

Fountain Ladies
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

The Problem with Hegemony, Part II

2. The second (and even larger) problem is, WHO decides who's blameless? Each nation itself?

Or does the US get to make the call for the rest of the sovereign nations in the world?

OR, do we rely upon an outside source such as a World Court or UN?

Do you see the problem?

If each nation itself is deciding what rules to create and obey and which ones not to, it'd be like each person in a city deciding unilaterally which laws they'll obey. You're talking anarchy, chaos. You're talking terrorism and hell on earth. Might makes Right is cool only for the fleeting time that you're the mightiest.

On the other hand, should the US decide for everyone else? It'd be ridiculous to think thusly. One of the core tenets of conservatism (and democracy) is self-determination. I don't WANT to make your decisions for you. I sure as hell don't want you to make my decisions for me. One nation making the calls is the ultimate in Big Gov't and could only lead to despotism.

And that leaves us with only one possible solution: an international source for justice (in conjunction with local laws). That leaves us with the terrible task of coming together and agreeing that some things are just wrong and struggling to find just ways to oppose the worst of human behavior and yet allow for local sovereignty at the same time.

Yes, this is problematic, too. What if despots or terrorists have the majority at the UN? What if a world court finds some group guilty of crimes they didn't commit? I think this approach is a horrible, horrible solution.

Its only redeeming factor is that it is better than the despotism of One Nation/Big Brother rule or the lawless hell on earth of Every nation for itself/Might makes right. Of the three alternatives, it is the one with the best hope for finding a semblance of justice and peace and working out real solutions to the oppression and genocide which plague our nature. It is the only one that can be logically justified.

Working together internationally will without a doubt fail, but you must remember that so will the other solutions.

Again, I offer the local example. I can't unilaterally decide that murder is okay for me if I think someone is offensive. The local gov't ought to intervene and stop me if I tried. A local gov't can't decide they want to hang all Left-handed people. A state gov't ought to step in and intervene if it tried. A state can't take the homes of all brown-eyed people, sell them and split the proceeds amongst the blue-eyes. A federal gov't ought to intervene if it tried.

The rule ought to always be local sovereignty and personal liberty. But when that nasty old human nature gets a-hold of us and the individual or locality begins making oppressive decisions, we need to come together to create larger rules. It's how we operate as a nation (in theory) and it's the only way that makes rational sense as a world.

Ferngully

ferngully
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.

A Must Read on Peak Oil

And no, I'm not talking about whatever drivel I might put to paper, so to speak, but rather what someone else has to say. I'll link to that commentary shortly.

But first, I'd like to offer a couple of quotes from folk warning about the dangers of peak oil (Peak Oil, n. the condition at which oil production has reached its zenith, and from which point on, oil production will decrease and oil prices increase).

The quotes:

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.

and,

What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy in America.

Who are these alarmists? Anti-corporate environmental wackos with an agenda? They're none other than Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, respectively.

If our esteemed oil barons-in-chiefs think we're facing dire times with a looming oil shortage, who am I to disagree? But how bad could it be? I mean, if gas gets expensive enough, we'll simply drive less, right? That's how the market works to self-correct, right?

Maybe not, if this fella is anywhere near right. Please read at least a bit of what Matt Savinar says at Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash. Or, for a shorter but excellent essay on the situation, visit our old friend, Eleutheros.

Is Savinar exaggerating the consequences of our actions? Perhaps. With our limited capacity for genius, we simply can't guess with complete accuracy what the results of bad policies will be. But he makes an intriguing case that's hard to ignore. What do you think?

Dan and Jordan

Dan and Jordan
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.