How Green is Your Greed??

The USA is built upon the premise that the free-market, capitalistic system is best. Simply put, the idea is the acceptance that humans are greedy little buggers, and are most functional when they are working for their own individual well-being.
Fine, I understand that. Now along comes the "green" revolution. Which to me, as a wilderness junky, is an idea whose time has come. Of course, most folks aren't fundamentally too concerned of the paving of the world--(Old Navy vs. forest, Old Navy wins) But the idea that those pesky storms and droughts are something we have a hand in, has gotten some folks attention.
Yet, this brings about the biggest challenge, which I will call green vs. green. In other words, this nation understands our love of "green money", but how will they replace that with the love for a "greener" environment? Some may immediately argue--but why do these have to be mutually exclusive ideas? Well I'll tell you why: for every hippie bicycling to work, at least five more people are dreaming about their big trucks, big houses and new furniture sets.
The next outcry would be: well we have green building and hybrid automobiles! And I agree, beautiful choices--but how long until the masses buy into that notion? And even if they did, could you feasibly steer them towards real change? As in: owning only one hybrid car or building a smaller green house???
I just don't know how it's possible unless we somehow re-wire ourselves. So many folks experience what I call the "castle syndrome". We can't help but want to live in a big pseudo-castle, full of fine furnishings to prove that we have "made it". Chalk that up to so many of our ancestors envying the castles of our leaders, it's in our blood to want to be king.
Even scarier, is the developing world's economic progress. A great thing for human kind, but how will the "green movement" handle all these new consumers? They too want cars, air conditioning, bedroom sets, countless shoes--it's now their time to be king of the castle.
The only answer is a global societal shift in the definition of "status". Kudos to the celebrities who recognize this, by flaunting their new found passions for green houses & cars--but again, these aren't exactly small houses, and could very well be multiple houses...
Which too brings about the sad but obvious point--when the world's economy is based on us buying more stuff and consuming more oil, will a new system replace it based on sustainability????
Thus the battle rages on: green vs. green, thy swords are drawn.

That's Right--Guns Don't Kill People

Just a few days ago, here in Alaska, a young man went on a random shooting spree in Anchorage. He did take a quick catnap in the woods, but then awoke and proceeded to shoot a few more people. Then today, the news reports another young man in Omaha wasn't too happy with his life, so he thought he could at least become famous by assassinating some Christmas shoppers.
What these two young men had in common were that they were both disturbed & angry individuals. They no longer cared about their own lives, nor the lives of others. So on a whim, decided it was time to simply shoot a few folks down.
I'm sure plenty of nuts out there are screaming how you should "lock them up faster" or "death penalty " yada, yada.....
But my question is, how does the death penalty prevent the next upset & suicidal individual from taking out a few people?? And when it comes to incarceration, treatment centers, etc... who can really make a 100% accurate call as to someone's potential to be dangerous in the future?? Hitler thought he did--why he was simply going to eliminate anyone that even had a whiff of non-conformity to them.
So to make a long story short, unless we are going to set up concentration camps for the eccentric or angry (and then still miss the pissed off teen in some high school in Anytown) wouldn't it be easier to just ban assault weapons??
Let the police have their pistols and the hunters their rifles, but the rest of us---keep 'em away!