Musings on Homes and Structures and Deep-Green Building

Permaculture has a great list of ideals that apply in just about anything that can be done. It has a lot in common with a gross of other movements both recent and historical. One thing I find in common with all of them is an attention to systems. We like to use the term "attention to detail" as some sort of buzzword for a good, intelligent, "critically thinking" person. "Critically Thinking" is another of those buzzwords. But "attention to macrocosms" might be more appropriate term for a "system-thinking" person, to replace both of them.

Most, if not all, of these movements are conciously or unconciously being Biomimetic. The "inventors" of Permaculture were certainly being so, even if the term "permaculture" was coined in the '70s while "biomimicry" was first said in the '80s. Yet the practice of biomimicry could be said to be much older. As old as the biosphere, one might say. And that is the reason that Permaculture works, is so close to being universally sound.

Thus, for the best house possible, it is essential to consider those rough guiding points:

1. Catch and store energy: This is very important for a building. Because people are generally pretty bad at it (we are too spoiled). We need a home to be a comfortable temperature and environment inside no matter what is happening outside and that takes quite a lot of power. For the best dwelling, that power should not come from anywhere else but home. Ideally.
2. Observe and interact: Watch what nature is doing and consider "vernacular building". What will work in this climate and with your soil and ecosystem. And with your local building materials.
1. Use and value diversity: Notice that diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats, it increases resiliency, and can take advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides. Here is a chance for that "Attention To Detail" motif.
2. Use edges and value the marginal: The interface between things is where the most interesting events sometimes take place and often they are overlooked. Think about the gray areas and how one thing a thousand miles away from another can have profound butterfly effects. These are often the most valuable, diverse and productive elements in the system.
1. Integrate rather than segregate: Thinking about the edges and interplays will probably lead directly to this. Relationships develop between everything; with the right things in the right place those relationships can be very powerful. More than the sum of the parts, so to speak. Things can work together and support each other.
3. Design from patterns to details: By stepping back, we can observe patterns in nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the details filled in as we go.
3. Use and value renewable resources and services: Make the best use of nature's abundance to reduce consumptive behavior and dependence on non-renewable non-local resources. Again, anything that is taken out is returned. Hopefully in folds.
1. Obtain a yield: Think of it as a continuation of point 4. Ensure that you are getting truly useful rewards as part of the work that you are doing; not only for you yourself, but also for the land under the house and the rest of the ecological system around you. Be a part of that system and gear past being regenerative or restorative but progressive. The walls of a house do not really separate you from the rest of the world.
2. Produce no waste: By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available nothing goes to waste. "Waste" is returned to the rest of the system.
4. Use small and slow solutions: Think "Small House Society". Small and slow systems are easier to maintain than big ones. Though sometimes increased size can mean increased efficiency, it also means increased difficulty. Make the best use of local resources and produce sustainable outcomes.
5. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback: Keep learning and keep growing. Keep evolving. Keeping an open and flexible mind is one key to staying young in the head.
1. Creatively use and respond to change: We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time.

Thus, the ideal house depends on where it is put. And thus, like most things good, it is very difficult. In Gunnison it is different than in Denver. In either location, I would rather not "sprawl" and take over yet more land. That seems to me to break some of these points. No matter how great the house is, it is not as good as no house to the rest of the biosphere. Besides, perhaps, a tree. The living trunk and canopy. At least I have yet to see another one. We human beings have claimed plenty of ground, I dare say.

I am intrigued to think about cities such as our local Denver. In order to have a small footprint for a city, one must build up. However, natural building is not very conducive to building up too high It's not possible to build a Rose Tower out of straw. Or even brick.

But what is possible? It would be possible to build a structure more like the Great Pyramid of Giza, which is 480ft tall. The Pyramid itself is probably the tallest "Natural Building" ever made (even if it isn't inhabited). Logistically, it would be difficult to acquire the space in the modern world for such a structure; and it is probably inadvisable from an ecological point of view. But it presents some possibilities.

I would like to see sky-scrapers take some principles from the Deep Green Building movement. Perhaps the natural material isn't very feasible for the supporting framework, but are the local materials in Denver even straw? Perhaps recycled metals and unused foundations could be part of it. Using fly-ash cement in the concrete and other such ideas. Perhaps straw could be part of the insulation, as long as there are good moisture guards. A green living roof seems to be a good idea and is being utilized in cities such as New York and Chicago for office buildings. Then, at least, there is other life atop our cityscapes. If there are enough edible gardens throughout cities, how much would it save on shipping costs? Therefore cut down on the actual cost of living, cut down on the carbon emissions, and become a small carbon storage system. And give office workers a fulfilling thing to occupy their coffee breaks; I have heard that it does wonders for employee moral. Most skyscrapers already have the flat roof that it would require.

Green roofs are actually one of my favorite ideas. I would love to explore all the potential for them. How could a green roof work on a straw-bale and mud walled building? In a snowy climate like Gunnison? Is is possible to still have solar-tube lighting with a green roof? How much roof/yard should be sacrificed for a solar-voltaic system? Any? Can electricity be cut out all together? Probably not.

In a general sense, not considering the specific limitations of an area, the great question to me is how a building can limit its intake of resources from off of its own land. How little can it take in and how much can it give back. Having a "Net-Zero" (or better) building according to its hers rating is a nice crutch, but it assumes that you have no impact on the house. But what if one wants to drive the house? What if there are days that the house should be hotter and days that it should be cooler? What if there is one tenant who likes their house to be about 80° and the next buyer likes it closer to 60°? The house should be able to preform for both without additional energy. Ideally.

My Ideal House:

Though a city can be argued to be a more "sustainable" place to live because it takes less resources for each person, as an average, I would really rather not live in a city. So I have to figure out how best to make a good house in a smaller town or in the country. Without taking more land, without making myself a nuisance.

Thus I do not think that making a new house is the answer. Perhaps renovation; perhaps a renovation so thorough that the original structure is carefully dismantled and a new structure put up on the old foundation. Then all those pieces of the old house can be used somewhere in the new one.

Despite the call to have a small house, I would like to build a relatively large house. With relatively little square-footage to each resident. Perhaps an apartment building, with four-bedroom apartments and a communal living area and an outdoor square. A garden would be necessary, the roof could be part of it.

The entire utility bill should be covered by the local environment, passive heating and cooling of space and water; solar ovens in each unit and a cool corner for dry-storage and the refrigerator; so that the ambient temperature is close to the temperature inside the box. The heat generated by refrigerators could be piped to other rooms.

Indoor and outdoor gardening; composting equipment applicable for the environment (if it is in Gunnison, for example, something that can produce compost year-round). Most of the lighting being passive solar lighting as well. Essentially, the utility bill for the building should be in the negatives every month no matter what.

I would like the house to be build using as low embodied energy as possible.

The other part of the puzzle, though, is to make the set of houses communal and of social gain to the community as well. Not only for the tenants and home-owners, but for neighbors and passersby as well. If it would be possible for the zoning to support small business ventures; so that, at the very least, excess food could be sold or given back to the community. The house should be such a desirable place to live that it would entice others to follow the example. It should foster community enough that people get to know each other better and become strong neighbors who, even if separated by a move, will stay in contact and fellowship.
It should cost nothing, but generate wealth instead. Of every kind.

All of the doors, therefore, would face into the same space. It would encourage foot traffic, for automobile consideration would be smaller - having no driveway, even, into the property. Though every unit could have a solar oven, there would be one central communal kitchen with a stove big enough to cook for everyone. To encourage relationships. Supplies would be shared like in a commune so that there is less external consumption. Having one kitchen is also more energy efficient than having single separate ones. The mailboxes would be in one place outside of the home for another meeting place. The apartment complex could have an attached shed space for all, but with divisions and the possibility to add partitions and more separations. We don't want to push people's trust too far. But inside, there would be doors, lockable from each side, into the next door neighbor.

Because of solar energy concerns, the complex would probably have to be built fairly linearly; for they would all need southern exposure. The entry-ways would therefore need to be on the north, I think and the sheds could be up there as well, connected or not, The communal area would be on the north with the doors along with some gardens and the walk-ways in (not cement, because that's really hard on people's knees; something softer would be preferable). The communal kitchen would be a thin sliver of an apartment between all of the others so that it could have a solar oven of its own... but then again, perhaps that is unnecessary. Solar cooking is possible in the apartments.

In order for a lot of this to fit and work, it would defy the square shape. There would be less straight lines in this house. The shape would have to be artistic.

Another idea that I liked in a hippy house somewhere in the world is a community comments mailbox. Where people could leave poetry. Perhaps a space for public graffiti and play. Perhaps space for public classes and workshops to be able to be held there, like at the Fred Field center or Parish Hall. The house(s) should be open and valuable.

It by Stephen King, 1986, and It the TV mini series (1990)

I must thank Tim Curry. Without him, I wouldn't be alive right now to write this review. He saved my life while I was watching It. If he hadn't consented to be in this awful, no-good, very bad movie, it would have killed me.

Maybe that's an exaggeration.

But maybe it's not.

I got hooked into reading It by the first 50 pages. They were interesting. They tied back onto each other and and had enough interesting little details that I thought the book would have a fairly complicated plot. In the end, It didn't. By the time I got to page 600, I had started reading really fast. By 700, I was skimming parts that didn't seem like they'd be much more interesting to actually read and weren't important to my general understanding. By page 800, I was skipping parts. By page 1000, I was starting to read again.

But, Jesus, that 3/4 mark was grueling. I was just wishing that Stephen would stop using so many words!  The book managed to end strongly, but it is simply Too Long. Really, It could be thought of as "It 1" and "It 2" (like Thing 1 and Thing 2 but not quite so cool) all rolled into one book and spliced together. It bounces back and forth from "It 1" to "It 2" and, like a disney sequel, they are the same story (Little Mermaid and Lion King are the best example). King uses this feature a little bit, but mostly it gets tiresome hearing about how, 'oh, we're not kids anymore' No shit. 'oh, I hope it's a little different this time. So we can win' Weel, ya kinda did last time. It is a lot of flashback in a lot of book.

Yet watching the "movie" made this book look like an unrivaled masterpiece. I think the movie is the worst thing I have ever watched. Even beating out The Magic Sword. And you cannot see anything in that movie. It is no wonder that King doesn't like people making movies of his stories after this... um... I suppose "It" is an appropriate word. This Thing. It is impressively bad. Out of a core cast of 8 characters, only 2 or 3 give a performance that I would say is better than "L" or "M" acting caliber (There are some who give downright "Z" caliber acting) and even Tim Curry isn't better than "B" acting in this. But it seems fitting. Like he's making fun of his role. He isn't scary, he's funny. And that is what saves your life if you have the balls to try and watch this Wretched Movie. I have been trying for two weeks to find the right way to emphasize how bad this movie is, but I haven't managed to do it yet. It is just awful.

That it won an Emmy does nothing for the reputation of that award. Unless they were trying to award turds like the Razzie. I would have given this movie all of my Razzies. I don't expect the remake to be much better. But unfortunately for me, I am curious.

Some things that should have been done:

• Fired their director.
• They shouldn't have made Bill Denborough stutter. They could have easily changed it to some other "loser" quality.
• They should have only told one of the two stories. It 1 and left out It 2. Because It 2 is dependent on It 1 and It 1 should be a little scarier; since it's about kids.
• Actually build up a character or two. If you are going to spend 195 minutes on a film, then there should be someone to care about. King realizes, while he is writing, that you have to care about a character to get scared (consequently, his books are 1100 pages). The bullies in this movie are so etherial that there doesn't seem to be any thing to worry about.
• Show something scary or just jump two feet into comedy. There is a scene with a rock fight and everyone throws about one rock and one person gets hit and it doesn't even seem to hurt. The whole scene is about 15 seconds long and looks like a girly sleep-over pillow fight in a teen movie.
• Hired some good actors.
• Kept Steven King on the writer's roll. Even if he is long-winded. And not scary.

Somehow, I seem to be alone in my estimation of this movie. It is hard to find other reviews that support my opinion. Seems most people like this thing. So, hell, don't take my word for it. But if watching this movie kills you, it is not my fault.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

The Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini (Eragon, Eldest, Brisingr 2003, 2005, 2008)

(By Ellie:)

So I should be doing homework....or something more productive, like laundry, but I have to get this off my chest:

Someday I'd like to meet Christopher Paolini, perhaps while he's walking down the street, and when he least expects it, punch him as hard as I possibly can in the face.

Why, You may ask, do I want to punch Paolini in the face?

Because! his book series was the greatest disappointment in my entirety of reading!

You see, I love dragons. My room is decorated with dragons and a large chunk of my art is dedicated to dragons. I've wanted to read his books for a while but it wasn't until recently that I've had the time. So I started reading his series in May and I just now finished.

His first book I felt like, "Okay so you can tell this was written by a sixteen year old." But hey, no biggie, I was told by several other people that you gotta trudge through the first book to get to the second which was supposed to be better.

it was not.

Oh....Kay. Before I go off on all the reasons I didn't like his books, I'll mention the things I did like:

I liked the dragon Saphira, she was at least a fairly interesting character, my bias coming from the fact that I like dragons. I also liked the story of Roran and his escape from the Ra'zac and the survival of Carvahal, it kept me interested (page turner). I liked the idea of the dragon and it's rider sharing a consciousness and being equals, instead of some guy taming a dragon and riding it around like it's his pet. Oh and Angela was a fairly interesting character.

Now the reasons for wanting to punch Paolini in the face:

One: his writing style. His dialog is similar to his narration. Although there are a few characters who have a different way of speaking (Angela, sometimes Saphira), for the most part everyone has the same dialog and says similar things. I suppose I could pull out a few examples from the book but I'm lazy.

Oh! and how he uses descriptions. He'll describe the tiniest, most unimportant shit, like the shadows on his knuckles, the way a sunrise looks, the way the sap dribbles off a tree and bla and bla and bla and bla and bla. I think there's a way to do description which helps your reader to see what it is you are describing all the while giving them the liberty to have their own picture in their head. And quite honestly you don't need to describe a sunrise in explicit detail. Everyone has seen one at least one.

Two: the character Ayra... I wouldn't cry if she dropped dead, you know, just in the middle of the story. So, anyways, Eragon falls in love with this elf warrior and, well, she has the dullest personality out of everyone in the book. It would be like falling in love with an angry stump. A bitter, angry, sad little stump protruding from the ground. She hardly laughs, smiles, or does anything for that matter other than fight and be angry. Quite honestly, I'd like to know how many guys would fall for someone so boring and angry just because she's a hot elf with a tattoo.....uh I might be mistaken.

Three: The Urgals vs. Raz'ac. So the series has like two bad guy groups, the brutish Urgals and the dreadful Raz'ac. What I liked about the book was that Oromis and Glaedr, Eragon, and Saphira's mentors, teach them both that the Urgals are not necessarily bad evil creatures, just simply misunderstood. He explains to the hot-headed Eragon that it's not right to judge them, for having a different culture and bla bla bla and that they do not deserve to be driven to extinction.
BUT FUCK THE RA'ZAC! kill them all, they're evil bitches they are! In fact Eragon you should wipe them off the face of Alaglasea!

Ahem..

Four: Eragon gets to celebrate with the elves the blood oath celebration, in which he is given a gift that restores his body and makes him look elfy... Yay.
In the celebration there are a set of twin elf ladies, who get naked and show off their--get this--Rainbow dragon tattoo. Rainbow....Dragon.....Tattoo. Singular.
They then dance and the dragon tattoo comes to life and blesses Eragon. But seriously... A shimmering Rainbow Dragon Tattoo? Does anyone else think that sounds incredibly cheesy? It makes me constipated it's so cheesy! Oh other cheesy things

• Brom in diamond tomb - CHEEZE


• The dwarves giant rose shaped gem thing - CORN


• the name: Saphira - Big serving of mac and CHEEZE!


• Riders having a sword the same color as their dragon - Blaaaarge!


• Flaming Blue Sword - Corny Poopie (And that's the Rating!)


• Ayra - WTF. Why does she exsist?


• The elves themselves.... Legolas would cry

Five: The Ancient language. So this language is like cheating, It makes it too easy to write the story. So how the language works is that whenever someone speaks in this language they have to tell the truth, and if you promise something in this language you can't go back on it. So basically the bad guys, never really have their own motives, the reason why they do bad things, is because the one bad guy Galbatorix, has forced them to swear loyalty to him in the ancient language. Basically if something difficult arrises in the plot Paolini just has to say..."well they swore in the ancient language." Grrrrrrrrrr! So Hitler was able to kill a shit ton of people with his Nazis, do you think they swore in some ancient language?

Six: The gore. Alright so I think a lot of Epic fantasy writers look up to Tolkien and his works because he really set the scene for how we view fantasy, including elves, dwarves and the like. He's also a pretty good writer and story teller. Thing about Tolkien is that he himself was a soldier in world war one and lived through world war two. And yet in his writing he never describes the battles in explicit detail. You watch the movies and the battle scenes are epic, you read the books and they almost seem diminished.

Paolini hasn't gone to war. I'm pretty sure he hasn't killed anyone. But he's fine with going into explicit detail on every battle scene or gory event in his books. One particular scene that stands out in my mind, is when bloodthirsty Roran is fighting in battle, and he's practically fighting all by himself with an injured shoulder and leg, and somehow he ends up standing on a hill twenty feet high composed of dead bodies, bodies of the soldiers he killed. All of them who probably swore to Galbatorix in the stupid ancient language. (that's convenient)

Eragon and Arya kill a group of soldiers with their bare hands, one of which pleaded for his life before Eragon killed him. Of course they go to battle a bunch more times and kill some more, and then they kill a little bit more. Towards the end of Brisingr, In the last battle of the book, Eragon is described as being "surrounded by a mist of blood".

I'd honestly like to take Paolini, stick a sword in his hand, ship him overseas to fight in the military and see how well he can hack someone to bits.

It's not that a little bit of gore is a bad thing, and he does mention the twinge of guilt his characters have for killing people, but I feel that he describes it to such a great detail, that it's just immature. I'm not sure how his books have gotten to be so popular, because he writes like a guy who plays too many video games, or maybe a pampered home-schooled rich kid....tell me if I'm close?

In the end I think my question is, will I read the last of the Inheritance Cycle? Hmm maybe. As long as I get to throw the book at his head.

(Anybody have some suggestions of other fantasies series I might actually like? I need to cleanse my brain of all this cheese, corn and gore.)

Birth Rate

Steve King (a representative from Iowa) thinks that if we cover birth control and allow our birth rate fall below our replacement rate (death rate) then we are a "dying civilization".

Perhaps Steve has never heard of a diet.

Right now we are not anywhere near risk of being a "dying civilization". The population of humans on earth is about 70,000 times too many people (population we should have: ~100,000 divided by the population we do have: ~ 7 billion.) I think that we just need to go on a diet. Otherwise we are liable to die of congestive heart failure. Has anyone ever been so obese that their own weight crushed the life out of them like a trash compacter? That will be the fate of our species.

North Dakota Pharmacy Ownership

Once again, big retail stores who also run pharmacies are trying to overturn North Dakota's pharmacy requirements. Right now, a pharmacy in North Dakota must be at least 51% owned by a licensed pharmacist. Because Walmart, Walgreens, or other supermarkets are not owned by actual pharmacists, they cannot open in the state.

The big stores argue that they would provide cheaper drugs to North Dakotans than local pharmacists can if they were allowed to operate here. Many of them now publish lists of prescriptions they offer for $4. "Hundreds of Prescriptions" are claimed. However, out of the 310 drugs which Walmart lists, only about 135 are unique drugs; most of them are repeated as different dosages once or twice, Amoxicillin is listed 16 times. And among the drugs on the list is Ibuprofen.




The list, of course, does not apply to high cost drugs. It also does not work in conjuction with any other financial aid including insurance, which covers 93% of North Dakotas seeking a prescription.




Everyone is hoping to find things for less. But the fact is that North Dakota already has a cheaper average prescription cost than the national or regional average. We also have more pharmacies per person which would suggest greater competition between businesses. For contrast, over 50% of the pharmacies in Sioux Falls, Billings, and Cheyenne, outside of North Dakota, are shared between only 3 businesses.




However, as Kevin Oberlander, a local pharmacist explains, costs are not in a competition system, "it is a managed system" of "take it or leave it contracts" and the $4 prescription promise is a marketing ploy. "These are high profit companies, They know how to make money." If they are offering $4 prescriptions, they are making that cost up somewhere else.




The real issue to Kevin is access to care. "The law is good for the patient. I will argue that to the bitter end." Kevin has colleagues in other states jealous of our requirement. One of his friends, who has worked in a big-box store pharmacy and has some ability to fight for his patients still has decisions made for him by non-medical people. "It is not about the patient. Sometimes decisions are made for us and we have no say in that."




"We are not guaranteed low prices, especially when competition goes away." says Mike Schwab Executive Director of the North Dakota Pharmacists Association. Along with Oberlander, he fears that if the law passes, we will lose many of our pharmacies and that once we lose them, we cannot get them back. "People will lose access to care." says Oberlander. Compared to South Dakota and other similar states, we have fewer counties without a pharmacy and these big box pharmacies have been involved in many court cases for unethical conduct in the last few years. Which North Dakota has not had to suffer.




North Dakota is the only state in the Union which still has a pharmacy ownership law, which Mike believes is good for health and safety; the supreme court agrees as this issue has made it to that level in the past. We should "value being the only state with this law." says Mike, "sometimes being different is a good thing and I like to think that there was some foresight here".