Yesteday's post wasn't well edited (I added some clarifiers this morning from my room in Salzburg, Austria). But I was happy writing it, because I felt something was coming together somehow, it felt like something crystallized. Sometimes those are the worst submissions, sometimes the best. But in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr.'s holiday in the USA, I hope that it channels Reverend King's letter written from Birgmingham prison, with pen and paper. No backspaces, no click and delete.
Someone I met and admire here in Europe stayed up with me last night (we arrived on the same flight), arguing and pontificating about Trump's election, e-Waste policy, economics, and family. It was a broad enough discussion, lasted well past midnight. He and I don't always agree, though he's reasonable enough that I hope he'll be able to look back and see the fallacies in the EU position in hindsight (or I will - I had to come back to my room and research some stuff when we left).
The next day, it all seemed to fit in 140 characters. Second, below the first 'pinned' tweet below.
Criticism of method or regulation isn't "attacking" the regulator. It is defending the innocent from unjust prosecution. And a regulator or prosecutor who persists in using methods or enforcement proven to be constructed on false premises is liable for environmental malpractice.
< That's boiled down to 140 characters at left.
Shouldn't we try to get along? Or is the false consensus built upon white privilege, and we need to represent the Geeks of Color, whose comments were ignored in PACE Initiative?
The discussion came in response to Jim Puckett's constant claim that this is an "attack blog" and that I am "insulting" or "attacking" his poor non-profit organization. This has been Jim's go-to response for several years now, since I wrote a guest editorial "We Shouldn't Have to Make That Choice" in Resource Recycling in 2009. It was one of the first blogs turned editorial, and it was cited by Grahm Pickren in his 2014 thesis, Political Ecologies of Electronic Waste: Uncertainty and Legitimacy in the Governance of E-Waste Geographies.
The editors of Resource Recycling liked it, thought it was nuanced. But Jim Puckett, in emails to me personally and to the editors (demanding a right to response, which they gave him) called it an "attack" which he could not let stand. In that email, he threatened to go after me personally, and my business and employees, if I did not refrain from criticizing his policy.
Someone I met and admire here in Europe stayed up with me last night (we arrived on the same flight), arguing and pontificating about Trump's election, e-Waste policy, economics, and family. It was a broad enough discussion, lasted well past midnight. He and I don't always agree, though he's reasonable enough that I hope he'll be able to look back and see the fallacies in the EU position in hindsight (or I will - I had to come back to my room and research some stuff when we left).
The next day, it all seemed to fit in 140 characters. Second, below the first 'pinned' tweet below.
< That's boiled down to 140 characters at left.
Shouldn't we try to get along? Or is the false consensus built upon white privilege, and we need to represent the Geeks of Color, whose comments were ignored in PACE Initiative?
The discussion came in response to Jim Puckett's constant claim that this is an "attack blog" and that I am "insulting" or "attacking" his poor non-profit organization. This has been Jim's go-to response for several years now, since I wrote a guest editorial "We Shouldn't Have to Make That Choice" in Resource Recycling in 2009. It was one of the first blogs turned editorial, and it was cited by Grahm Pickren in his 2014 thesis, Political Ecologies of Electronic Waste: Uncertainty and Legitimacy in the Governance of E-Waste Geographies.
The editors of Resource Recycling liked it, thought it was nuanced. But Jim Puckett, in emails to me personally and to the editors (demanding a right to response, which they gave him) called it an "attack" which he could not let stand. In that email, he threatened to go after me personally, and my business and employees, if I did not refrain from criticizing his policy.
