Happy Independence Day!
Enjoy the hot weather, stay cool and refreshed. 🎆🎇
Put a girl in it… 👩🏻🌾
That’s the song that Brooks and Dunn made famous about 20 years ago. And that’s the advice of my counselor to help me find more order and contentment on my life. It’s actually not a bad plan. I have to say I agree with a lot of his idea.
I can go alone for the rest of my life with the freedom to do whatever I want whenever I want. I do like my freedom. But there is a lot of benefit to living together with someone and having a relationship and shared responsibilities. Stools are more steady with more than one legs.
The truth is my off-grid dream or owning a homestead really isn’t super practical to do it all alone. It is nice to have money and invest it, with a dream but it’s hard to make it a reality alone. Plus it seems like all my friends are settling down, buying houses and starting families. While I doubt I’d ever want to have kids except maybe young meat or dairy goats, certainly more hands can bring a homestead closer to reality.
Having an extra leg in the stool means both partners have somebody to fall back on and provide mutual aid. I can shovel horse manure, break ice in frozen water troughs or haul garbage to the burning barrel or slop to the pig pen in exchange for help when my truck breaks down or just needing companionship when I’m lonely or need some one to bounce ideas off of.
I am not sure that I am ready to settle down although truth be told I’m kind of bored with doing the same old trips to the Adirondacks alone. I kind of want to have land and livestock. I’d like to meet some new people and new horizons. I feel like I’ve run low on interesting unique places close to home so maybe the next best thing is new people and groups. Not looking to spend more time with Albany insiders though.
Albany is fine, it pays well and I like my work. But the suburbanite, everything is plastic isn’t the life I want to live. I want to be closer to the earth and be able to take care of myself and my family when things go wrong which are certain to happen in an era of accelerating climate change.
While I want to set down roots, I’m just as committed as ever to get out of New York State eventually, just because of the gun and open burning laws. To say nothing of what is happening to so much farm land and forest with the industrial solar farms or how humane laws and climate change restrictions might make it very hard to have a homestead in New York. I worry a lot about New York versus the kind of lifestyle I want to live eventually. It’s not homestead or rural life friendly.
The Cost of New York Being on the Cutting Edge
Lately there have been a lot of discussion on why New York State is such a high tax state compared to others, and why our state gets relatively little back in funding compared to other states.
The common refrains are that New York is a liberal state, so we invest a lot more in human services, healthcare, welfare and education. That is true to a certain extent. But it’s also not totally true either. Red states actually have a lot better public services then many blue staters want to believe. Another common refrain is that New York is a wealthy state, so we aren’t eligible for nearly the same amount of transfer payments are poorer states. That is also true, although New York also has plenty of pockets of poverty — but we are also the financial capital of the world and home to our nation’s biggest city. Some say corruption is worse in New York then other states. I’m a bit skeptical on that point, I think there are more watch dogs on government then other states — being a such a big state with well funded newspapers. Are Albany politicians really going to pull a fast one over on the New York Times and New York Post at the same time?
But there is another truth that is often ignored. New York often rejects a lot of federal funding. While contemporary reasons for rejecting federal funding may be ideological in nature, the original reason our state rejected federal funding was we chose to be out in front of the federal government — on canals, on highways, on parks, on forests, etc. New York chose to build a lot of it’s infrastructure without federal funding, because we built before the funding was avaliable. Being out front is good, but sometimes it’s really costly to taxpayers.
The New York State Thruway is a prime example of this. Why do people pay tolls to drive on the Thruway, while most other highways are free in New York? Because in early 1950s, the legislature decided our state needed a superhighway. Rather then wait to see if federal funding would become avaliable to build the highway, we decided to do it on our own. A cost bourne 100% by New York taxpayers. While the Adirondack Northway recieved 90% of it’s funding from the federal gas tax, the Thruway recieved 0% of it’s funding from the federal gas tax.
Now could the state have removed the toll booths and recieved federal funding for the highway for maintaince? Possiblity but not likely. The federal interstate act did not allow for grandfathering in existing routes, although some free routes did get upgrades to interstate standards under the act. Rather then eliminate the tolls and seek federal funding for the Thruway, our state has chosen to pay fror it upkeep 100% from state funding, namely tolls but also general fund revenue. If we made it eligable for federal funding, New York would also have to pick up the difference between federal funding and state funding, and it’s not always easy to find extra funding in the gas tax.
We are in the same boat with many of our state’s bridges and tunnels. Could the state have waited a few years and got funding for free crossing over the Hudson River and the New York City metropolitian crossings? Probably yes, as most of the Western States have no tolls, even on their biggest Interstate Bridges. Our state certainly could have gotten 50% of the cost of building and maintaining back on the Hudson River crossings, and 90% in some cases. But we chose to build them before federal funding was avaliable. Now we are stuck with the clunky Bridge Authorities and Triborough Authority, which pays 100% of the bridge expenses through local tolls. Even if we eliminated the tolls, it”s not clear we cold get federal funding at this point. Nor is it clear if we would want to — by refusing federal funding — our state has the “freedom” to set whatever standards it wants on the bridges, including advertising and geometery. Federal highway standards don’t apply to non-federally funded roads.
The federal government maintains locks and canals on most rivers. Our state doesn’t get to take advantage of federal maintaince to our canals. We have the Erie Canal, which is entirely paid again by state taxpayers and those who traverse the canal. We talk about Clinton’s Ditch as being a great advance for our state. It certainly was at it’s time. But we could have had the federal government build it for us had we waited a few years — and put up with the federal government’s dicates. Certainly the Army Corp or Engineers maintains a lot of the nation’s canals. But not in New York. We chose once again to go it alone on our canal system.
One could have imagined that New York City could have gotten the federal government to finance their drinking water reserviors, had that waited a little while longer, and been willing to put up with creation of a federal public authority like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Maybe New York City’s drinking water reserviors would have not only produced clean water, but also greater recreational opporunities and more hydropower had the federal government, not the city built them. But no, our state had go out in front of the federal government — a cost picked up federal government in other states.
No state in America has as big of a state operated wild forest or wilderness as New York does. That’s not saying other states don’t have great public lands that are a mixature of managed forest and wilderness, operated by the federal government. The Adirondack Park is tiny compared to some of the National Forests and Bureau of Public Lands out west. Other states also have developed parks and recreation areas, but many of them are funded and directly operated by the federal government. But not New York, bar a few small historic battle sites, and the relatively small Finger Lakes National Forest. Why not? Our state got out ahead of federal funding and furthermore rejected federal operation of our Adirondack and Catskill Parks.
New York State certainly could have been home to the Adirondack National Forest or the Adirondack National Park. But no, our state rejected that idea off-hand. Vermont decided to protect it’s wild upcountry and mountains with the Green Mountain National Forest, but not New York. Our state once again got out ahead of the federal government, and rather then create a managed forest, we were stuck in the mid-1800s line of thought that all logging was bad and we could only preserve the land by banning all timber cutting for any purposes.
By rejecting creation of a Adirondack National Forest or National Park, our state once again passed up on billions of federal funding. Rather then have the federal government pay for maintaining roads, parking areas, campsites and trails in Adirondack, New York taxpayers are 100% on the hook. The Green Mountain National Forest in contrast has federally funded forest rangers, federally funded maps and recreational facilities, federally funded campgrounds and much more. Instead, our state has chosen to take up this cost because we wanted ideological control over the land — rather let distant Washington politicians decide how to maintain the lands.
There is somewhat a myth that red states have awful public services, while blue states have a much better government. While blue states like New York are often on the cutting edge, getting out on cutting edge before the federal government means New York residents pay dearly. Forgoing federal funds by getting a decade out ahead of other states might have some short term advantages, but it often means our state residents ends up paying for a lot of other things that federal government would have otherwise paid for in coming years.
American Outrage Over Red Blinkers
I hear that Congress passed Trade Promotion Authority for the President. This will certainly mean the demise of red blinkers on the backs of American cars. This is an exclusive American feature on our cars. Unsafe? Maybe. But it’s one of the ways that American cars are globally unique. Heck, even the Japanese have been putting red blinkers on their cars, to be more red-blooded American (and because America requires bigger tail lamps).
Where is the outrage? Red-blooded Americans should have right to red blinkers. Americans shouldn’t put up with foreign countries demanding we have ugly amber blinkers on the rear end of our cars. I’m sure the Republicans will put in a bill to protect the basic American right to have red blinkers on the rear-end of our cars.
Of course, if our American Automakers were patriotic but want to be trade-friendly, there is an alternative they could adapt. They could use clear glass and have yellow light bulbs. That way the blinkers appear white — blending in with the backup lights — until somebody hit’s the blinker button and they turn yellow. But that might cost Detroit 50 cents more per car and that is simply un-American.
I need to stop describing myself to people as being mentally ill 😜
I mean, people might start to believe that if you keep repeating that phrase in describing yourself to others.
I have different ideas then might be popular in society, like the worship of polyvinyl chloride, a material I despise on so many levels. I just despise the lawns of suburbia, the smart televisions, the marble countertops, the green veneer of electric cars and solar panels on the roofs of McMansions. I don’t want to live life the normal way, with the 2 1/2 kids attending a good school.
Is it a tougher row to hoe? Yes. But not wanting such things doesn’t officially make you mentally ill, because mental illness is defined in the context of being non-functional in society, rather then simply rejecting tacky societal norms.
Lawns are buffer space 🌾
Lately there has been a meme on social media attacking the suburbanite lawn, the vast space of empty green, manicured and cut to a perfect height, fertilized and sprayed to ensure no weeds or unwanted grasses.
You can be critical for good reason to the suburban, chemically treated lawn – especially those who put so much care into it they don’t want people to even walk on it. Lawns – even with robust grasses like fescue – are pretty delicate, they turn brown due to a lack of rain and quickly can become mud and worn if they are repeatedly walked across by people, animals or livestock.
But I do see benefits to having a small, largely natural lawn too. For one, grasses and their roots tie down the dirt and mud so your not tracking it all indoors. If you have land that isn’t productive – it’s buffer space than you don’t want to be a nuisance.
Buffer space is important. Setting your house back from trees means less likely for storm damage when a branch comes down. Being back from the road means less noise from passing cars and noxious fumes. It provides a defensible space during wild fire. Livestock like pigs have odors, cows and roosters are noisy. For both reasons of noxious odor and fire safety, you don’t want your trash burner near your house. Hay, cows and campfire don’t smell that bad but burnt plastic, hog manure and fermented grain aren’t exactly wonderful smells to be drifting in your window whole eating dinner.
Buffer space is important. But every foot of grass you have for buffer could be forage or forest producing useful agricultural or forest products. It’s a trade-off but can be made reasonably well if buffer is limited and it’s largely natural with common grasses and weeds, while surrounded by natural forests, local plants and cleared of invasive species.
My allergy to home internet service, air conditioning and television
I am an unusual person this day of age choosing to live without home internet access or air conditioning. It’s part of my choice to live simply and without modern conveniences that a lot of folks have. My budget is pretty tight these days and while I could make such things fit I choose to do without.
But I also worry if I made my apartment too comfortable if I would ever go out. What is the incentive to go to the library or down to the park if I had internet at home? Why ever go outside in the summer months if my apartment is perfectly chilled to a delightful temperature. No need to drive up to the Adirondacks for a swimming hole or a cool night in the woods if I can sit next to the cool breeze at home.
Maybe my objection to air conditioning is a bit silly. I mean there are plenty of people who live off grid down in Missouri and Oklahoma and other southern states and they have air conditioning – you can build a big enough system with batteries and solar to keep cool year round. Plenty of farmers and homesteaders have air conditioning – sure they’re barns might be sticky but their tractors and trucks are air conditioned – and when they’re done with chores they climb into an air conditioned tractor cab, office or home. People who fish, hunt and camp in the summer typically lack air conditioning.
The same is true for the internet. Having high speed access to the web doesn’t mean you can’t go outside or enjoy life away from home. It’s just more convenient than looking for a free hot spot. Having internet access at home might be essential in the future for some remote work jobs, especially if i want to run a business from my off-grid cabin. But still it seems kind of imprisoning to have the unlimited, always on flow of information at your house.
Not owning a television. Well that’s one I can’t criticize. I don’t see much benefit to commercials. I do watch my favorite off-grid and homesteading channels, the real farmer channels and some stuff about electronics and electricity – mechanical shit – but not anything I’d find on commercial television. I download them as free from YouTube.
*Maybe my views are changing but I still have to think living with less is a better way of life. I like my toys but it’s better to enjoy them outside rather than inside.