politically correct harassment

It appears our great spies knew about "the Nigerian" (is it just me, or does this sound like a movie title?) well in advance. They even knew his name. His father had gone to the US embassy and told them all about it. How much more of a hint do these James Bond characters need?

The reason why the Nigerian was not on the no-fly list is that his name is harder to spell than Edward Kennedy. Or maybe because, unlike Kennedy, he wasn't a liberal.

Given all that the appropriate response to the incident, as illustrated by news reports from Nigeria and the Netherlands, is to install full body scanners so security personnel can peek at people's privates on the job. Now I can understand the Dutch. They are quite into nakedness as is. The Nigerians probably had no choice, lest we bomb their country back into the stone age.

The appropriate US response is to go out of its way to prevent the impression of profiling. That is why TSA will step up its enforcement of putting liberal US Senators, congressmen and women, and other law abiding citizens on the no-fly list. TSA will also increase its efforts to pat down seniors, toddlers, babies, and expectant mothers. Our guardians will faithfully dump dangerous water bottles, peanut butter jars, and baby formula in an effort to keep us safer.

As part of that same effort our military will increase recruitment among muslims, and the President will no doubt go pray at a mosque pretty soon too.

The good thing is that all these efforts may well cause people to think twice about flying. And in that sense they make it easier for our country to abide by the Kyoto protocol and meet our carbon goals without enraging Republicans.

best wishes for 2010

When the shoe bomber, aka Richard Reid forced all of us to take off our footwear at the airport I joked with a friend, saying "underwear is next." Although I could stand up here and claim magic powers -with witnesses no less-, this one was so predictable I will refrain from saying, I told you so.

So now we will be forced to take off our underwear to pass through security, or submit to a machine that can do it for us. Here is one example of technological progress. But before we get too cynical, it is perhaps good to note that this technology advance may not a bad idea. Here is a chance for all perverts and pedophiles to get a legitimate job at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Hopefully this will be enough stimulation for them to keep them off the streets.

You may wonder what is in store for 2010? No just a new year, but a new decade. If the previous one was a disappointment, be prepared for more of the same. Some things are just too obvious.

-The recession isn't over yet. Another dip is coming. Don't believe the Wall Street hype. These guys have been wrong before.

That reminds me of the PBS interview I saw last night where the guest speaker said, the Wall Street guys think of themselves as survivors, not as people who were rescued. That much is true. But then he added something which is really quite funny. He said, survivors, like a cancer survivor. And there you have it folks. The disease is coming back. I am sure that is not what the speaker intended (or did he?) but it is a very fitting metaphor. A cancer survivor. Who survives cancer I would ask? Only those who haven't seen the end of their remission yet.

-Even if we recover, or I should say, especially if we recover, another banking crisis is bound to happen. This last crisis was bad enough, but what is even more shocking is that nobody did anything to prevent a recurrence:

-the WS boys think they survived, they think they are the chosen ones. The ones who know greed is good.

-the Obama administration did nothing. So much was expected given who paid for the campaign and the festivities. Obama talks tough, but there was no action.

-everyone is ready for a recovery, and by recovery they mean, a return to the good times. The times of unsustainable exuberance. Sometimes you get what you ask for.

-several bad things are bound to happen in this decade. We will run out of key resources. Pollution will skyrocket, and climate change effects will become very apparent. It is unlikely to affect the rich countries much within the next 10 years, but its effects will be seen and felt in the third world for sure.

-we are due for a major pandemic. This one is only a matter of when. We may have dodged H1N1, but something else will surely pop up.

-terrorism will continue unabated. Now that we declared a war on terror, we officially acknowledged there is no end to it.

-there will be great victories, much applause and much flag waving. Face it, everyone is ready for a shot in the arm. But the real problems will not be solved. They will just appear elsewhere and under a different name.

-a showdown with China is imminent.

more terror

We had another terror incident over the holiday. How many more will we need before people start seeing the obvious? The whole war on terror idea is hopelessly flawed. You can't fight wars on terror, or on drugs, or on cancer. It doesn't work. If anything, you will get the exact opposite results of what you are trying to achieve. All phony wars fail. That is what history shows.

Look at Mexico. The situation is a disaster. We won the drug war in Columbia and so it moved. Are there any less drugs? Ask any teen. And what is so bad about drugs anyways? It is not like we are drug free.

The solution to the war on drugs is quite simple. It consist of two steps that nobody wants to take: 1. make all drugs legal--that will save lives. 2. make access to weapons difficult--that will save even more lives. That is the solution. There is no drug problem, there is a gun problem in America today. Unfortunately, nobody wants to see it. Least of all the gun manufacturers.

As for Iraq, the only thing we are doing there apart from fighting a war over oil, is to enrage muslims and make it more likely people will try terror attacks against us and against US targets abroad. Afghanistan is pretty much the same idea. Here too the object is energy (gas pipelines), and unfortunately, here too we are on the wrong side of a civil war.

Once again the solutions are trivial. Get out of Iraq and get out of Afghanistan. There is no dependence on foreign oil. We don't need foreign oil. We can just cut back on our waste and the problem will be solved. If we all drove sensible cars we would not have to import oil. If the military stopped wasting 1 million gallons a day in Iraq and another million in Afghanistan, there would be less global warming.

The issue is not dependence on foreign oil. The issue is that some people want to control oil and gas. All oil and gas, anywhere, whether we need it or not. Why? Because they make money doing it.

And what about the terrorists? It does not take Al Qaeda or Osama or anyone else to blow up a plane. All you need is some high school chemistry and a cool head. It is easy and it is cheap. The ingredients can be found anywhere and they are dirt cheap too. You don't need training camps, or manuals. You don't need supporters. It is nothing new, people blow up stuff all the time. If Timothy McVeigh could do it, then anyone else can too.

We should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan because all we are doing is riling up tempers and creating more instability. Let's kill two birds with one stone. We could buy the opium from Afghanistan and sell it legally in America. How's that for a solution?

one trillion gallons

Every year one trillion gallons of sewage goes into surface lakes and waterways. Those are the lakes we use to supply drinking water. Why does this happen? Because in most places storm drains and sewage drains are one and the same system. During heavy rainstorms, which are predicted to increase as global warming continues, the drains overflow and sewage mixed with rainwater rises to the surface.

And there is other good news: the members of AAA really want to have a car with zero emissions. It is their number one wish. How is that for being environmentally aware? Of course they don't want to drive a small sensible car, or drive less. That would be asking too much of our dear citizens. What they want is a huge powerful monster truck with zero emissions instead. Because above all, we have to impress the neighbors.

And one final thought in the season of waste. All those billions of cards that you sent, the tons of wrapping paper that is now stuffed in your garbage can, the presents that will soon follow and land in the garbage before summer and all the trees that were cut down to celebrate, I hope you enjoyed it because it really created a big mesh that will eventually swallow us whole.

Copenhagen

The Climate summit in Copenhagen is almost over. The result is sadly not unexpected. When it comes to taking effective measures nobody is willing to step forward. Talk about leadership or absence thereof. Change we can believe in? The Romans had it right when they said nil novi sub sole. There is (never) anything new under the sun.

Copenhagen is just the most recent example of human stupidity. Here we have a chance to use reason to avoid a potential disaster in the very near future, yet nobody wants to take the first step. We would rather spend time arguing as to whether climate change is real (it is), whether we caused it (we did, but it doesn't really matter as long as we try to stop it), and other inane hoopla.

Naysayers are quick to point out how much it is going to cost us, or why we should do anything at all until we are absolutely certain that bad things will happen. How is that for reasonable?

The Economist makes several good points: 1. climate change may not necessarily lead to the disasters that we envision, but if there is even at slight chance that it might, we ought to act and act now. 2. the cost of acting now is minimal, at best a 1-2% drop in GDP. 3. Rescuing the financial system from collapse, cost 5% of GDP, yet nobody was too upset about that.

It is clear that the cost is not the problem. The problem is that some individuals and businesses, some very powerful individuals and businesses would see their profits shrink. Overall that would be offset by other businesses growing, but that does nothing to comfort these very powerful individuals. Even though they would probably manage to step in and take over those growing businesses, that part is uncertain and even that little uncertainty is enough for them to boycott all efforts.

Greed, laziness and stupidity are the only roadblocks. Greed on the part of those making profits from the carbon economy, laziness on the part of a subset of general the public, who are too busy to properly inform themselves about the dangers, and stupidity on part of the majority, who will just swallow whole whatever it is the consumerist media feed them.

oil for war, war for oil

I already knew that the oil driven agriculture is unsustainable, using almost 10 calories of oil for every food calorie it produces, but now I found out -by reading the Economist of all rags- that our warfare apparatus is equally unsustainable. The thrifty British use 7 gallons of fuel to bring one gallon of the precious liquid to theater in Afghanistan. One can only wonder how much more the far-less-thrifty Americans use. Only three gallons more and we could grow Roundup-ready corn in the Afghan desert! Time to buy Monsanto stock!

Our esteemed military uses in excess of 1 million gallons of fuel per day in Afghanistan, and a similar amount in Iraq. At least that is what the Economist reports. In the very same article the Economist points out that modern warfare would be impossible without oil. War with oil in a war for oil.

No wonder then that our military leaders are looking into solar power! Something will be needed to keep all those generators going so our troops can stay warm in winter, and cool in summer.

Some more numbers while we are at it. An armored humvee apparently gets four miles to gallon, while the famed Abrams tank uses four gallons to the mile. Now here is a cash for clunkers program that would make a difference.

Or how about riding bicycles? The added benefit would be that a group of dispersed bikers make a far less appealing target than a humvee loaded with GI's and goodies. Killing a cyclist never makes the evening news and we all know how media hungry these modern terrorists are. Plus, our soldiers would get their much deserved workout patrolling the streets.

Although we are told on a nearly daily basis how our police officers learn from the anti-terrorist tactics developed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so are able to make our streets safer, maybe it is time for some common sense (and a lot less petroleum waste). It is obvious that street violence is much easier to control by having police officers walk the beat. Everybody knows that cops in a car are easy to spot and even easier to avoid. Luckily our local gang members prefer to avoid police cars rather than resort to IED's -at least for now.

Patrolling neighborhoods by car (or humvee) is the most ineffective way to control street violence (to say nothing of the greenhouse gases produced).

Here is something America could learn. From Iraq we learn that the best way to control violence is to take guns and ammunition away. We all understand that and I guess nobody would complain if we violated the Iraqi's second amendment rights to carry arms. Oh, wait a minute, Iraqi's don't have second amendment rights!

From our inner cities we learn that the best way to control neighborhoods is to have people walk the streets.

Ergo, if we took the guns away in America, and we patrolled the streets in Iraq, we could have less violence in both places, and a lot less greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Now there is an idea that has legs.

the lure of war

President Obama, the man who consistently voted against the Iraq war, is now going out on a venture of his own. Perhaps he tried to stay true to his word that the real war was in Afghanistan, but if so, he surely lost track of the context and timing. It was true that the 9/11 masterminds were, at one point, hiding in Afghanistan, and that the Bush administration could have found them there if they had been serious about their quest. At this point however, it matters very little.

It seems obvious that Bush was never interested in Bin Laden. Finding Bin Laden would have created nasty problems for the man who is close friends with the Saudi leadership. Dragging the lost son of a prominent Saudi family in front of blood thirsty revenge seeking crowds and eager news media was a scene George and Dick preferred to forgo. Angry as they may have been at the insult hurled at America, these men were first and foremost practical schemers, who were much more interested in using this great opportunity as a way to get control over Iraqi oil reserves. So after a token action in Afghanistan they quickly turned their attention to what they saw as the real prize, Iraq.

Obama may have been right trying to point this out to America, even at a time when doing so was distinctly unpopular. So unpopular in fact that veteran politician Hillary Clinton decided to go along with the majority and "fight the terrorists in Iraq." However right Obama may have been -or maybe he was just trying to distance himself from George and the Republicans- he is doubly wrong today. That is, if he is really in control, which I doubt very much.

Today's fight is, lest anyone forget, is not about Bin Laden, or 9/11, or terrorism, or any such eye catching headlines. The fight in Afghanistan is and has always been about TAP or some similar plan, or scheme to access the riches of the Caspian gas fields. In that sense it is no different from Iraq. Once again America feels it would be better to have more direct control over an important energy resource. Just as Bush would not trust Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait, so the current power mongers no longer trust the Taliban after their support for Al Qaeda.

In both cases, we are talking about a relationship gone sour. Cheney made many visits to Saddam and as long as the dictator was in our camp, we eagerly and anxiously supported his every move. That included "killing his own people." When he became a threat however we wanted to remove him as quickly as possible. Bush Sr. may have been smart to stay out of the Iraqi quagmire and stop short of Baghdad, but that never sat well with the real oilmen who wanted Saddam over with.

The same applied to the Taliban. While we were never so intimate and cozy with those wild natives, Bush did invite the Taliban leadership to his Texas spread to show them our goodwill and support. Although Afghanistan does not have its own oil, it is an important transit point. Its support for a key American venture, the Trans-Afghan Pipeline or TAP is worth the effort. When the Taliban leadership openly defied Bush after 9/11, he had to teach them a lesson and he quickly did. But as soon as Karzai was installed, Bush and Cheney turned their attention to more important unfinished business. George and Dick quickly forgot about the Afghan natives and focused on Saddam instead.

Now Obama is left to clean up after George Jr. just like George Jr. was left to clean up after George Sr. The Taliban have regrouped and they are threatening the frail Afghan puppet government of our buddy Karzai so something needs to be done to ensure TAP will fly. The energy hawks are fuming and Obama may well be president, but he isn't the one calling the shots here.

So it is that America is once again getting mired in a civil war with no clear outcome. This one, unlike Iraq, has all the trappings of a second Vietnam. In the end, there is no other solution for Afghanistan than the Taliban. The irony however, is that this time around the infamous domino theory may well apply. If we are not careful, Pakistan could fall as a result of our Afghan venture. But that will be something for the next administration to worry about.

free trade: too good to be true

Did you parents ever warn you of deals that are too good to be true? Well, "free trade" is one such deal. Its main benefit is low prices and as we saw earlier, low prices are bad for people.

Free trade is, as the ads say, good for consumers. Consumers being the mindless automatons that consume things. This is how large multi-national companies think of you, the American citizen. They think of you as the American consumer, the last step in a long process that destroys value and shifts money into their pockets.

You are the last step in a long process, but fear not, you are also the top line in their spreadsheet. Because they are the bottom line and we all know what that means: it is the bottom line that counts. They are the main beneficiary of the long chain of consumption. You are just a line item, a cog in the big machine of consumption.

Free trade is only good for consumers to the extent that it induces them to consume more. Consumers are only valuable if they consume items. And what that means is nothing more than incessantly buy and throw away stuff. The throw away step is an integral part of the equation as it is necessary to make room for new stuff. If consumers do not throw out old stuff or if they do not throw it out fast enough, then the final step in the process will jam up and the reaction will stop. And when the reaction slows down or stops -even temporarily- then the flow of wealth into the pockets of the rich slows down or stops.

Free trade is intended to keep prices low, or below real cost, so consumers find it easy to buy more. They are lured into buying more because prices are constantly dropping as goods get commoditized. Commoditization, although "feared" by companies is a key step in the "value chain." Value chain is a misnomer and the process should be called "destruction of value chain" but not only does that sound bad, it is also a mouthful. So we prefer the shorter and crisper label, value chain.

Free trade destroys local economies by finding cheaper items and especially cheaper labor abroad. It can do so because one key cost factor is conveniently ignored: the cost of transportation and shipping. If one can find cheaper labor on the other side of the globe then go for it, because you can ignore the cost of shipping. One can fish salmon in Norway, ship it to China to clean and bring it back to Norway and sell it for less than it would cost to have it cleaned locally.

We are told this benefits the Norwegian consumer. Never mind the Norwegian worker who just lost his or her job. They can be retrained for another job.

Such miracles are possible because of cheap oil. Oil is cheap for several reasons: first, because we choose not to pay the cost of pollution and cleanup. We only pay the cost of exploration and pumping. Second, because we guarantee cheap access through our military.

Let there be no mistake. The main function of our military is "to protect our freedom to access cheap oil." Note that that too is a mouthful so we like to shorten the message. We simply state that the goal of our military is "to protect our freedom." That sounds better too. And it is easier to remember. Besides, the latter part is self-evident. You only have to look at the wars we fight. We fight wars for oil. It is as simple as that.

The military is but one tax we all pay so we can buy more gadgets and eat more food. But it is a tax we willingly pay because we know that "freedom is not free." Neither is free trade.

low prices: good for consumers, bad for people

You always have to wonder when people repeat something over and over again. They must be trying to make you accept something that does not make sense. And low prices don't make any sense. Low prices not only send the wrong message, they are downright harmful for your health and your environment.

At first it seems like a no-brainer. Why would you not buy something for less money? Why would you pay more? Why would you not buy the same thing cheaper? Would that not be a stupid thing to do?

There is a catch of course. But let me first say this. Let's take a look at those examples where people prefer to pay more money and buy items that are more expensive and let's see why they do it. There are items, such as soap and toiletries that people will gladly pay more money for. There are also services, some of which are free, like education, that people will pay a lot for. And in both cases, people will pay more because they think the more expensive product is better. While that may not always the case, in many instances you really do get what you pay for.

You get what you pay for in two ways. If you pay fair value, you receive a lot of value. And if you paid a lot of money, you will value what you got more. Not only will the seller be satisfied and able to make an honest living, which contributes to the good of society, you will be more satisfied too. You will truly feel that you acquired something of value and cherish it as such.

That is not all. If people are able to sell you items at rock-bottom prices, there has to be a catch somewhere. Nobody can sell items below cost. In essence the sellers are "stealing" from somewhere to support their business. And when they do, nasty consequences are likely to follow. Unfortunately, it is not always obvious where the damage happens.

If a food corporation can sell you calories below cost, it isn't just due to "efficiencies." It is due to heavily subsidized petroleum and wanton environmental destruction. To say nothing of worker exploitation. You could shrug and say our environment is alright, and the immigrant workers make a better living here than they would in Mexico or South America. Or you may not care about what goes on as long as you get food for less.

However, I can assure you that you will pay for those "savings" many times over. And the destruction that goes on is in many cases irreversible.

Already we have a situation where over half the population is overweight or obese. Soon up to 1/3 will suffer from metabolic disorders such as diabetes, hypertension and other chronic ills. These conditions will extract an immediate price in medical care, and a long term price in lower life-expectancy, amputations, kidney failure, and blindness. The money we saved on food is going to be spent many times over on medical care. And even if we are personally unaffected, we all have to pay for the ballooning medical costs.

Mass production of food is also wrecking the environment and contributing to global warming, ocean and air pollution, and other ills that make our survival on the planet more precarious by the day. Already a huge area in the Gulf of Mexico is so polluted that no fish can survive there.

We also pay direct costs. We support an enormous military and fight endless wars just to ensure access to cheap petroleum. The cheap petroleum is what keeps our economy humming but because it is so cheap, people do not value it either. They waste it in enormous amounts. In doing so they once again pollute the environment, contribute to inactivity and obesity, To say nothing of the many accidental deaths from traffic accidents.

There are simple ways to make a difference in this madness. You can get a smaller car and drive less. You can have your kids walk to school. You can bike to work. You can buy and eat only locally produced foods. You can stop wasting energy unnecessarily. You can do what is good for you and your community.

mental breakdown

According to the census bureau, the US has 217.8 million adults, ages 18 and over. California has the highest number of adult resident at 26.1 million, followed by Texas, at 15.9 million and New York at 14.7 million. Florida has 13.1 million. All other states have less than 10 million.

According to the National Institutes of Mental Health, there are approximately 14.8 million adults suffering from Major Depressive Disorder in the US. That is more than the entire adult population of New York. Another 3.3 million suffer from Dysthymic Disorder, a milder form of depression. 5.7 million suffer from Bipolar Disorder, formerly known as manic-depressive illness.

These numbers are confirmed by medical prescriptions. Of all prescription drugs issued in the US, anti-depressants make up the largest category with almost 120 million scripts per year. Anti-hypertensive medication is second at 113 million. Even if you don't believe Americans are depressed, you better believe they are under the influence of some pretty potent psychoactive medications.

It gets better, approximately 40 million American adults suffer from an Anxiety Disorder. That is nearly as many adults as live in California and Texas combined. Almost 9 million suffer from the adult form of ADHD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

That brings us to a whopping 72.8 million American adults (33%) suffering from a major psychiatric illness in any given year. NIMH is a bit more optimistic and puts the total figure at 1/4 instead of 1/3. They perform this magic by claiming many people suffer from more than one mental illness at a time. A quarter of the adult population is mentally ill and half of those have more than one mental illness. That sounds even more comforting!

But we are not done yet. An estimated 4.5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's Disease and one million suffer from Parkinson's Disease. Count a few other miscellaneous brain disorders and that brings another million to the table. All in all the number of adult Americans with a diseased brain is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3, but probably closer to the latter. That means that if you have three adults in your household, one of them is mentally disabled. Or if you and your wife, meet up with your neighbor and his wife, one of you is mentally ill.

Now it is up to you how to interpret these data. Either a quarter to a third of the country is mentally ill -which can help explain why some incredible things happen in this country and because of this country- or the pharmaceutical industry has got us all by balls. There is no clearer way to put it.

Borlaug

More than half the country is overweight or obese, yet one in seven Americans goes to bed hungry at night. According to the FAO, the number of malnourished people worldwide rose to over 1 billion this year. That is roughly 1/6th of the world population. Meanwhile that population is on track to grow to 9 billion by mid-century. The only problem it seems, is where will the food come from?

Now that Norman Borlaug, the Nobel laureate widely known as the father of the Green Revolution has died it may be time to ponder this question. Borlaug's introduction of high-yielding plant varieties, combined with very generous helpings from petro-calories, has been credited with making Mexico a net exporter of wheat in 1963, and doubling yields in Pakistan and India. There is little doubt that the Green Revolution caused the enormous population boom that occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. As a result of that boom, both India's and China's populations passed the 1 billion mark.

Many believe Borlaug saved over a billion people worldwide from starvation. For that reason, and for his contributions to world peace through increasing food supplies, Borlaug received the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize. One thing Borlaug certainly contributed to was to grow a lot of people.

And a lot of these people are now very fat people who are increasingly unhealthy and unhappy. When it comes to peace, it has now been amply documented that all of Africa's incessant wars, genocides, revolts and carnages are due to resource limitations and climate effects that follow directly from overpopulation.

Sadly enough, world hunger has not declined. Instead the number of hungry people has only grown. Last year millions more were added to list of the starving and millions will be added every year in the foreseeable future.

One can only wonder where the contributions to world hunger and peace lie? To say nothing of the enormous damage done the environment. The rapid population growth has led to a resource depletion of unheard of scope. Nearly every food source on the planet is at, or over capacity. It has been estimated that the world's oceans will be depleted of edible fish species around 2030. Agricultural land is likewise near capacity and only widespread rain forest destruction is staving off the inevitable, Last year's cereal crop was the largest on record. It could barely sustain the present population, let alone an additional 50%.

However, fear not. our white knight Bill Gates is coming to the rescue. Recently he addressed the first United Nations food summit since 2002. Pretty soon all aid workers around the planet who aren't yet using Microsoft OS's will be outfitted with the latest version of Windows 7. Needless to say the fabulous features of Windows 7 will enable great strides in the war on hunger.

If you think that is a silly or overly cynical statement, think again. When is it finally going to dawn on people that modern technology has yet to solve one problem it did not create? And it has created plenty.

Before we go too far off the deep end here, let me remind you that I do not oppose technology. As a matter of fact I love technology. But I also see the limitations of technology. And one key limitation is that too many people believe technology is the solution to all our problems. No doubt, Borlaug believed technology would end world hunger, when all it has done is exacerbate the problem. He probably believed it would lead to peace, when all it has done is promote genocide in Rwanda, and Darfur.

So far, technology has done nothing but accelerate things.

Technology does speed up life, but more than anything, it seems to speed up our demise.

value

The holiday season is upon us and in America that means we must buy new stuff. For the retailers in America, the holiday season can make or break their year. Because it is now that the public (aka the consumers) will be hitting the stores to buy more. Not that they need anything anymore, but they are still driven to buy more. Like the rats that self-stimulate.

Unfortunately -or fortunately for retailers if you like- most of the new stuff will end up in the garbage before summer. That is right, the half-life of consumer items in America is three to six months. Consumer items have no value to consumers. After the thrill of buying, they are nothing but useless tokens of past "fun" that need to be removed to make room for newer tokens and future fun.

We are constantly told how low prices "benefit" consumers. And that is technically correct. If you are a consumer, i.e. a person who consumes goods, the the lower the prices, the more you can consume or use up or totally destroy. Yes the latter two are synonyms of "to consume."

If you want something of value, then low prices do not benefit you. Low prices mean low value.

Low prices to not benefit people, either rich or poor. They do not benefit the environment either. Perhaps you understand why low prices do not benefit the environment, but why should you worry? The truth is that low prices do not benefit people either. They will not make you satisfied or happy. They will just leave you hungering for more.

Food is very valuable to people. It is one of the most valuable items on the planet. It sustains life. Yet do people value food? They don't. They have access to cheap food and they consume it, adding on layer upon layer of fat. America is overweight because America does not value food, America consumes food.

When you buy something cheap you do not value it. It becomes cheap. It is easy to replace and you don't think much of throwing it out or losing it, or just trashing it. And that is exactly what we see happening. People surround themselves with cheap items and then quickly lose interest in them and thrash them -or push them into the forgotten corner. Sadly, they are also left unsatisfied and longing for more. That too is something retailers love. They even have a name for it, it is called commoditization.

Retailers know people want new things. So they constantly change what they have even if no changes are warranted. The overwhelming majority of changes are meaningless or trivial. Some are annoying and others represent a step backward. But that does not matter so much as long as the new things are different from last year's things, so people will want them in an attempt to satisfy their never ending hunger for value.

There is one very simple remedy to this madness. If you want value, stop consuming.

walmart

Walmart Stores Inc. is the world's largest public corporation by revenue. Many also see it as the quintessential American enterprise. It was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and today it has a market cap of $208 billion. It operates stores all over the nation and in many foreign locations as well.

You don't get to those kinds of numbers selling trinkets unless a whole lot of people love your stores. And what is it that people love so much about Walmart? Look no further than low prices. Walmart is all about cheap stuff. Almost anything you can think off is cheaper at Walmart. And that, we are told is "good for consumers."

Not surprisingly, there are also many who hate Walmart. Walmart has been accused of racism, sexism, resistance to union representation, pressuring employees to vote for specific parties during national elections, and many other not so nice things. Walmart has over 2 million employees, not an insignificant number. However, even if half of them were unhappy, the number of unhappy people would be very small compared to the tens of millions of shoppers who want to get things cheaply. It should therefore not surprise you that actions against Walmart have not been very successful.

Furthermore, Walmart has regained support recently due in large part to the economic crisis. That has led to a much more favorable public opinion than was the case only a few years ago. Back then it seemed that Walmart was the corporation people loved to hate. Now its low prices are a godsend to many families in trouble. Unfortunately, Walmart and what it stands for, is precisely the reason why these families find themselves in their current predicament. Greed and over-consumption are at the core of the current crisis.

Walmart is all about excessive consumption. Excessive consumption "on credit." Not the type of credit you charge to your visa or mastercard, although that too is an issue. No, credit as in not paying true value for goods and services. It starts with paying low wages and meager benefits to workers in order to outcompete local stores. This behavior impoverishes neighborhoods all around the country. But it doesn't stop there. There is also the credit as in not paying the true cost of items, especially the environmental costs. That is done by making extensive use of oil to ship in items from low cost producers who are often not subject to environmental regulation. It is augmented by forcing cut throat arrangements with producers. Such arrangements force them into even worse arrangements with their workers (who thankfully are in foreign countries so we don't see them). Ultimately the weak pay the price.

The whole philosophy of paying less, especially paying less than fair value is what will ultimately destroy our environment. If we really want to get control over issues such as global warming, greenhouse gas accumulation, widespread destruction of rain forests and other valuable habitats, we will have to go back to basics. That means we will have to be willing to consume less and pay more for what we use. We will have to stop roaming around the planet in search of whatever it is that we think we lack, and focus on local communities and locally produced goods.

Don't hold your breath.

armistice for phony wars?

On Veteran's Day it is perhaps appropriate to take some time to think about all the phony wars we are fighting. A phony war is any conflict that does not involve two opposing armies. Calling such a conflict a war is more than just a misnomer. It is an intentional semantical ploy with very serious consequences. We all remember how the Bush administration used to insist we were fighting a war on terror. This was not a police matter they said, it was a war. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has persisted in this folly.

The war on terror is just the latest incarnation of a long series of phony wars. The war on cancer comes to mind. It is a prime example of a condition where declaring war has led to much waste and ill-directed effort. Like all phony wars -and I am not the only one, or even the first one to point this out- it has not produced results.

Calling something that isn't, war is always counterproductive. It leads to misdirected efforts, unrealistic expectations, and an avoidance of the real problem. Not surprisingly that means we keep turning corners until we go around like a dog chasing its tail.

The "other" popular phony war, the war on drugs is a case in point. It has not solved any problems, has led to prison overcrowding, a lost generation of minority youth, and more crime. America does not have a drug problem, it has a gun problem. But nobody wants to see it. Guns are a sensitive issue in America, like sex. That should tell you something!

The war on terror is a phony war too. You can't fight wars with terrorists. The reason why people resort to terror is often because they want something but they are not capable of mounting an outright war to get it. So they resort to terror.

These days terror is a much abused term. Basically we call anything we don't like terror, and anyone perpetrating it a terrorist. It is a very broad and very unilateral view that is not conducive to a solution. Terror should be redefined to its original meaning: the use of fear to accomplish a goal. Sometimes the goal is real and people strongly believe in it, but at other times the goal is delusional. That is why psychotic individuals often become de facto terrorists.

A terrorist causes physical damage but always far less than a regular army attack would. The greatest damage is psychological. A terrorist chooses his or her targets to inflict damage but also a maximal amount of fear. That is why civilians are often targets. In regular warfare, civilians are not or should not be the primary target -although every war has had many instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and we Americans are certainly no better than anyone else here.

In any case, the true reason for the war in Iraq is control over massive oil reserves. To do so, we destroyed a well established dictatorship that maintained peace and a relative calm over an ethnic and religious fire pit. We are now left with the consequences, i.e. a very bloody civil war that will last for years to come. Maybe Bush believed he could bring freedom and democracy but then again, Bush runs around with a bible too. A little too gullible I am afraid.

It seems clear that the war in Afghanistan is no different. Although it was said to be the hiding place of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9-11, the true reason for the war was to get rid of the fickle and untrustworthy Taliban rulers and to protect gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. I am not sure we were ever serious about Bin Laden, certainly not serious enough to put boots on the ground. However, we have now dug ourselves into the quagmire of a civil war whose roots are no less deep than the Iraqi civil war. We are also on track to destabilize Pakistan.

All the while we "are fighting the terrorists over there so we won't have to fight them here." That is the mantra at least. If you believe that you may as well believe in Santa Claus and I guess a lot of people do. Because the terrorists (the real ones that is) are here as the Ft Hood massacre shows. Nobody in Afghanistan is a threat to us. Nobody there would stand a chance if they came over here to blow things up. These Afghan war lords would stick out like sore thumb and be arrested before they could board a flight. Leave that level of sophistication to Westernized Arabs from Saudi Arabia.

Does anyone remember 9-11? It wasn't the Afghan Pashtuns that came over here.

It would therefore be good if we, on this day of armistice, declared an armistice on all phony wars. There are better ways to spend our energies and our money.

freedom

Today we celebrate the Fall of the Berlin wall. Not that wall building has necessarily stopped, mind you. Just today the BBC had pictures workers sitting by the Israeli wall. It appears walls are alive and well. To say nothing of the wall America is building on its Southern border to keep the hispanics out. For good measure we called that one a fence instead of a wall.

Why then is the Fall of the Wall such a big issue? For many it signifies the fall of Communism and the victory of Capitalism. But what fall of Communism? China shows that Communism couldn't be doing better, decades after Ronnie the vanquisher apparently "did away with it." Just like he did away with the wall I guess?

The collapse of the Berlin wall means freedom, but what exactly is freedom other than a slogan? Are we truly free? Do we even want to be free? Who says freedom is what people want?

Apparently not the people! A cursory look at humanity will reveal how eager people are to give up their personal freedom, while at the same time singing its praises. It is only a little ironic that America, the most religious of all advanced nations, calls itself the land of the free. Because submitting oneself to religious teachings is one of the most common ways to give up a whole lot of freedom. And people willingly and eagerly submit as we can all witness.

Americans give up freedoms all the time. They join home owners associations to protect the value of their property, giving up the freedom to do with it what they would want. They submit to random drug testing at work. They let the government eavesdrop on their phone conversations or check their library records without a warrant. They let themselves be bombarded with advertising on a daily basis until they are no better than brainwashed automatons.

And look how readily the people were willing to give up even more of their privacy and personal freedoms in the wake of 9/11. The country did away with habeas corpus and nobody seemed to care. The government can lock you up and throw away the key. They never have to charge you. Does anyone care? Far from it! They think it is a good thing.

Everyone gladly submits to all kinds of searches in the name of security, even when there is no evidence that such searching is effective and even when the potential for abuse is well documented. When protections were in place, government officials managed to break the rules and spy on citizens. Do you think it is better now that these protections are no longer in effect?

America supports pre-emptive strikes. That is tantamount to validating thought crimes. 1984 anyone?

When it comes to freedom, all the evidence points the wrong way. People it seems, do not care much about freedom, just as long as they can shop and indulge in other excess. Maybe that is the meaning of freedom? Consumption!

Land of the consumers!

double dipping

Unemployment hit 10.2% nationwide, a number not seen since 1983. In some states, like California and Michigan, it is much higher. And for those unfamiliar with the "US method" of calculating unemployment, or those eager to compare unemployment across different countries, it is good to point out that real unemployment in the US is much higher than 10.2%. The real number probably hovers well over 15% and in some states it may top 20%.

The discrepancies arise because the US jobless benefits are very short term compared to those of other countries. The US has the smallest safety net of any developed country. Many people do not qualify for unemployment benefits and have to make do with part-time jobs or employment that is much below their skill and competence (and pay) level. In other countries citizens are far less likely to be forced into such situations. The US also does not count people who have given up looking for jobs altogether.

Although the rate of unemployment is slowing, I predict that a pickup is to be expected. Foreclosure rates are still quite high and new foreclosures are likely now that people are losing employment. Many odious ARMs are also expected to reset leading to further foreclosures. It seems very likely that the Christmas shopping season will be another dismal failure and when that happens more retailers are expected to go out of business. At the very least new rounds of layoffs are coming.

So why is the stock market rallying? The reason is rather simple. There is tons of money sitting on the sidelines. Many have made fortunes in the bubbles and a lot of money is constantly added to retirement plans (even though it is decreasing now that jobs are lost). The money has to go somewhere and there are few palatable options. Investors have been waiting for (what they consider) a long time and so a rally was unavoidable. Unfortunately this is just more churning and it will lead to further losses which may end up damaging the "recovery" even more.

It is obvious that the stimulus package was way too small. Unfortunately the appetite for more stimulus money is gone. What that means is that the recession will last much longer. But given how destructive our economy is and how it is threatening our long term survival on the planet, that may well be a good thing in the long run. If people were rational, one could hope for a two-pronged solution, where people agree to change their destructive lifestyles in return for help from the government. That seems about as unlikely as convincing an alcoholic to stop drinking. All the money that is put in will quickly go to feed further addiction. And so it is that we, like the drug addicts that we are, will rather go down in flames, than wake up and change.

collapse in Peru

Wonderful piece on the Nazca collapse on BBC news. You may not know the Nazca - it was the first time I heard about them- but I am sure you have seen their most famous works. These were the people that lived in Peru more than 1,500 years ago and left enormous drawings on the desert floor. These drawings are many kilometers in size and they have made that particular desert very famous. A desert of the Nazca's own making, I am afraid to say. The images can be seen from very high up and they have featured prominently in books on UFO's and extraterrestrials. The German UFO man par excellence, Erich Von Daniken was very fond of the Nazca drawings.

However, perhaps more surprising is that the Nazca once lived in a fertile landscape protected by forests of the huarango tree. This rather bizarre tree is one of the few that can fix nitrogen -through a symbiosis with micro-organisms-. Even so it is a rather rare skill in nature. The huarango tree protected the land where the Nazco thrived and where they built a very sophisticated society that came to a rather sudden end about 1,500 years ago. If this sounds familiar you are absolutely right. Many advanced societies have abruptly disappeared leaving nothing but enormous deserted artifacts behind.

These great mysteries have always intrigued people and they have led to much speculation. How can an advanced society at the height of its power abruptly fall apart? Recently we have uncovered much evidence to elucidate these questions. And time and again the answer has been very simple indeed. Those very smart and advanced humans destroyed the habitat they lived in. The process often took a long time and no doubt many in those societies must have seen it coming. However, their warnings were unheeded. Worse than that, in many cases there is clear evidence that the destruction accelerated prior to the collapse. The society's prominence was often at an all time high right before it fell apart. The Nazco are a chip off the old block.

For many years the Nazco demise was attributed to a strong El Nino event that took place about 1,500 years ago. However, as you can surely imagine, sophisticated and well-run societies are rarely wiped out by a single catastrophic event, no matter how big. Unless they live on an island that blows apart and disappears, people will survive and the survivors will rebuild.

One thing humans are very good at, and have always been very good at, is dealing with catastrophes. There is ample evidence for example, that ancient Alexandria survived many disastrous floods before it finally collapsed. Even in "primitive" times, people were smart and ingenious enough to deal with such events and they would quickly manage to rebound, much like we do today.

New evidence has been presented that the Nazca brought about their own demise through deforestation. The deforestation left them very vulnerable and turned their once fertile soil into desert. It also exposed them to flooding and other destructive events. It now appears that a big El Nino became the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Nazca are yet another example of an advanced society that dug its own grave. The unfortunate fact is that we seem to learn very little from what happened in the past. As the saying goes, he who ignores history is bound to repeat it. And repeat it we will, only this time on a much larger scale.

biology a la Economist

It always surprises me how little people know about biology and the natural world. No wonder then that nearly half of the population thinks humans and dinosaurs coexisted at one point in time. Or that the planet is less than 10,000 years old. What is truly shocking however, is that even the well-educated are so ignorant of the basics. Below is another gem from this week's Economist.

Before we go there it is perhaps good to point out that much ignorance is due to propaganda from people who have an agenda. The agenda is often religious or couched in religious terms, but in the case of the Economist it is likely to find its origin in the capitalist dogma. The capitalist dogma that says private enterprise is the only road to happiness and prosperity. Here we go.

From the Economist, on fertility: "Malthus himself thought richer people would have more children and, as any biologist will tell you, animal populations increase when there is more food." So far so good, although if you are an astute fan of Hollywood movies you can already see who is being set up for later destruction. This time it isn't just Malthus but also "the biologists."

We go on:"To understand why wealthy people differ from well-fed animals, imagine yourself..." and it continues to give the most common rationalization as to why richer people have less offspring. I am sure you heard this before. When you are poor you need children to help you work the land or take care of you when you get older. That must be the single-best example of an after-the-fact rationalization ever. Can you imagine two young people having sex and thinking about this?

First, let's point out the obvious error. The reason the world population increased so quickly starting in the 1950-60's, doubling in a mere 44 years, is clearly due to more food. Everyone knows the poorly- named "green revolution" is to blame for the rapid rise. "Improved" agriculture with better yields made the boom possible. It had a dramatic impact in Europe and the US but even more so in Asia. China grew so quickly that it felt compelled to institute a population-control measure that even the Economist acknowledges was very effective at preventing disaster.

Yes well-fed people reproduce more quickly. Not in the least because most of their offspring survive when well fed. That is no different from well-fed animals. We are -horror of horrors- animals like all the other animals. However distasteful this may sound to religious zealots and wealthy capitalists alike, we are animals and our behavior is very similar to that of other animals.

Second, only after the population started growing and overcrowding became a problem, did fertility start to drop. If you look at it closely you can also see that the more urbanized a group is, the more its fertility drops. Urban populations experience more overcrowding. Ironically enough, the very same Economist article provides ample evidence for this. It points out how many societies saw enormous drops in fertility and how cities (Tehran is used as a prime example) saw larger drops than rural communities. All places with large drops that are mentioned are urban and overcrowded.

And that too is something we see in animals. When populations are stressed and overcrowding occurs, fertility drops.

Despite all the great rationalizations presented, (if you are a poor farmer, blah blah, but if you are a wealthy city dweller, blah, blah), this is not how people behave. They don't think, I am a poor farmer, I will need kids to help me work or take care of me when I am old. As bankers should know because they often say it when peddling 401ks or IRAs, young people never think about being old or what will happen to them when they are old. Young people just love to have sex, consequences be damned.

And so it is time for an immutable law on human behavior: humans don't act rationally, they rationalize their actions.

not getting it right

This week's issue of The Economist shows a baby in free fall with the title "Falling Fertility." The subtitle is even more telling, it reads: "How the population problem is solving itself."

You guessed it, another right wing stab at Malthus and the doom sayers is here. And sure enough, in the very first sentence the editorial picks on Malthus for getting it wrong. How many times have we heard that one?

Well, there are a few problems. First, Malthus got it right: the population is growing faster than the food supply and for many people on this planet -well over 1 billion in case you wonder- food has already run out. They are starving.

"But wait a minute, not fair," you yell. We really do have enough food, we just can't get it to the right places. Or maybe we don't want to, you didn't say that but it is more like it. We prefer to eat it all ourselves and get grossly overweight (I can assure you that that problem will solve itself too!)

Whatever the story may be, I am sure it is of little consequence for those starving. To them there really isn't enough food. They have really outgrown their resources, albeit only locally.

Second, and this really goes to the crux of it all, all global problems solve themselves. The population explosion, the greenhouse gas accumulation, etc. etc. All these problems will solve themselves. It is just that we may not like the preferred solution. It may not matter so much with food as we are rich enough to shield ourselves, and it may not matter so much with pollution and climate change, at least not for a while. But eventually it will matter.

Third, the falling fertility that is "solving" the population explosion isn't much of a solution for the real problem. We all talk about the population explosion, but it isn't the sheer number of people that is the problem. It is the number of people relative the available resources. And what can we say about that? The population growth is slowing down because people use more resources. They are getting richer as the Economist says (hallelujah!)

The people in India and China are more prosperous today so like Europeans before them they need and have fewer children.

To the Economist this may sound like the angels are singing but to a smart observer that throws up red flags everywhere. Because if India and China are aspiring -and gradually coming up to -our standard of living (standard of waste would be more accurate), then 6 billion will be too many. i.e. we are already too many.

As a matter of fact, just bringing China up to our level would deplete all our resources.

I am sure this problem too will "take care of itself." ALL PROBLEMS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. It is just that -as I said before- we may not like the solution. And if we are smart, we may want to think about how to avoid it from happening. Because sooner or later, the "solution" will affect us rich Americans and Europeans too ! And once it does, it will be too late to preserve our beloved standard of living.

rejoice, the recession is over...NOT

It is all over the news. The GDP grew by 3.5% in the third quarter putting an end to longest recession in recent history. Some experts are quick to point out that the "real" number might be even higher. Wow, it is finally over? Drink the koolaid while you can.

There are a few experts who are more cautious and who do worry that the good news may be a bit premature. They point to such factors as government spending and cash for clunkers. They also see other worrisome signs. Such as the fact that 1/20 houses in Las Vegas is in foreclosure. Or that the foreclosure wave is spreading to such far out places like Biloxi, MI, or Sioux Falls, SD, or Lincoln, NE. Should that worry you?

In Merced, CA, 1 in 27 properties is in foreclosure for a total of 3,092 units. Vegas has 40,408 units receiving a notice. Despite optimistic news from the nation's realtors, the negative amortization pay-as-you-go mortgages are still not factored in. Most of these are just starting to reset to their "real" monthly payments. These "real" payments are so far out of whack that we can expect that the vast majority of home-owners won't be able to pay them. Or they won't want to pay them now that their property is so far under water.

They certainly won't be able to pay if they are losing their jobs or have lost their jobs recently.

Unemployment is still rising and a new wave of big layoffs is coming. I am sure that will do wonders for foreclosures, and consumer spending. Christmas is coming and what a Christmas it will be!

Whatever the GDP might say, don't believe it. We are not out of the woods yet. Not by a long shot!

population explosion

According to the US census bureau, there were an estimated 1 million people on the planet in 10,000BC. Apparently since that time the human population has increased continuously until the present day. That seems a bit suspicious to me, but so be it. The rate of growth has also increased continuously and there is only one period of significant deceleration. That happened in the 1,000 year window centered around year 1.

In 10,000BC , it took an estimated 1,000 years or 10 centuries for the population to double. There are some minor fluctuations in the estimates but these are probably due to the guesswork involved. By 1,000BC we have an estimated 50 million individuals roaming around. Then the population suddenly starts doubling in approximately 500 years or five centuries. By year 1 we have 170 million people or just 30 million shy of the projected 200 million. And here we see the only noticeable drop ever. It takes another 600 years for the population to reach 200 million.

Starting around 600 the rates accelerate once again. 650 years later we have 400M. Then 550 years later we have 800M and 105 years after that we have 1,600M or 1.6 billion. We are now in 1905 and the doubling rate keeps shrinking. 65 more years until we hit 3.2 billion, then 40 years until we hit 6.4. Luckily, the Census predicts that it will now take 44 years (a whopping 4 extra) for the rate to grow by 50%. You could say, whew, finally!

So what is behind this incredible explosion? It appears that two factors were key. Both involve access to new sources of power and energy. One is the switch from manual and horse-driven labor to machinery and the second is the discovery and wide-spread use of oil. There is little doubt that the so-called "green" revolution is responsible for the biggest boost of all. Clearly what matters most is how much food we can produce. More food equals more people.

Unfortunately our food production system is unsustainable in the long run. It is a system whereby we input almost 10 times as much energy -from oil- as we get out. We get the 10 fold extra by burning through an energy source that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate. And we are going through it in 100's of years. Clearly something is out of whack here.

When the oil industry gleefully reassures us that we are many decades away from peak oil, we may end up feeling relief. The gas-guzzler crowds feel vindicated that once again, the doomsday prophets have failed. But ask yourself this simple question. If we are decades (or even centuries for that matter) away from reaching peak oil, shouldn't we be scared shitless? We are talking about a resource that took 100's of millions of years to get to its current state, and we have been using it for what? 100 years? And we are within a few tens or hundreds of years of depletion?

One thing is for sure, the population graph won't level off nicely like the US census predicts. It may soon start looking like the stock market of the year 2,000. Except that this time around it won't be virtual or paper losses on the way down. It will be real people.

Ford sends the wrong message

We all know Detroit is in trouble. But what are the automakers doing to resolve their problems? The short answer is nothing. They are doing business as usual and waiting for government bailouts.

Don't look to the automakers to help solve the world's problems. Quite the contrary. Ford is touting its new 365 HP Taurus SHO. Who on earth needs a 365 HP car to sit in traffic jams? But wait, that is not the whole story. The car is equipped with EcoBoost™ technology. What is that you ask? Well it sounds good doesn't it? And that is really what matters to Ford.

Whatever it is EcoBoost is doing, it is sending the wrong message. Ford claims you get a V6 engine with all the potency of a V8. Doesn't potency sound like either a sexual term or a drug property to you? No doubt Ford is hoping you will interpret it that way. A car on (sex) steroids. It is an unbeatable combination, especially if you add the feel-good EcoBoost™ to the mix. Green sex steroids for you America.

If Ford has truly devised a way to make engines more fuel efficient, they are also making it very clear why technology will NEVER solve our greenhouse gas problem. The reason is very simple: every time an innovation allows for better efficiency, the industry will use it to build bigger engines and then some. The net result is either neutral or in many cases negative.

Why would anyone need an eight cylinder car? Why do they need a six cylinder? The average commute speed is 27 mph in most areas. Cars not only pollute, they also make people lazy and fat. These fat people then develop all kinds of expensive chronic illnesses such as diabetes and hypertension. All of it to the infinite delight of big pharma, which is ever ready to supply medications to treat such life-long conditions. Can't make money if the patient dies or heals too quickly.

Ironically enough, those same healthcare costs are now cutting into Detroits margins? How is that for karma?

Take my advice. Say no to Ford and its potent dildo. Tell them to build a small fuel efficient car. And then use it as little as possible. You will be happier and live better too. Ride your bike to a breath of fresh air.

a most destructive fall ritual

We are in the middle of fall and that means plenty of leaves everywhere. Although leaves are a natural product and many people profess to be nature lovers, fallen leaves are not welcome in most neighborhoods. The more upscale the neighborhood, the less welcome those pesky leaves are. Unfortunately, well-off neighborhoods have plenty of leaves. Not only do folks in suburbia love trees, they love deciduous trees even if such trees are somewhat misplaced as is the case in much of California. Rich people, it seems love leaves. As long as those leaves hang on trees.

Come fall though, the nature lovers engage in a myriad of destructive habits to get rid of fallen leaves. Many prefer the highly polluting and noisy leaf-blowers, a "high-tech" solution to a non problem. Honestly raking leaves give many people some much needed exercise. But leaving the leaves where they are would be best of all.

Much of suburbia is too lazy and too obese to rake or even to handle something as bulky as a leaf-blower. So in come hundreds of immigrants driving old polluting trucks that are overloaded with junk, to blow away and scoop up those leaves. Will they take the leaves? Of course not, that is what the garbage company does. Another truck to clear the air.

Another method that is often used, especially on patios and driveways is to spray gallons of water. Yesterday we had a horrible storm that dumped more water on San Francisco in a 24hr period than any other storm in the last 47 years. Yet everyone let the water run off, overflow the drains, and flood the streets. And today many were happily spraying the debris and leaves off their driveways using fresh clean water from the tap. And I bet they thought nothing of it. They probably thought they were doing the planet a favor. Cleanliness above all else my friends!

After the leaves have been blown or sprayed onto a heap, they are quickly deposited in those big yard waste bins that Waste Management is so eager to provide. Then they will be hauled out with big polluting trucks driving through the neighborhoods. A third collection cycle with its own truck just to suit our needs. Garden debris makes up almost half of the garbage collected in the US. That is why your garden bin is the largest one you got.

I doubt many people realize that they have just hauled away (or let others haul away) valuable biomass; biomass that when left on the ground will form quality topsoil and replenish the lost nutrients. In any case, it is not the American way to re-use things. We need to get rid of what we have and buy new stuff. So to finish the cycle, our suburban homeowners will now go to the store and purchase petroleum-based fertilizers for their lawns. Fertilizer to provide nitrogen and other ingredients the plants need to grow new leaves. But when those leaves get too long (as in grass), or fall off (as in trees) they get cut and carted away. There goes the fertilizer. At least the part that did not run off and pollute the waterways. Because like all good citizens we dump plenty of fertilizer to grow our environmentally destructive lawns.

Instead of letting the soil reabsorb these nutrients, we blow them around, put them on big trucks and ship them away. Then we go out and buy new fertilizer. Does that make sense to you?

voyeurism

Both Britain and the US are very sexually uptight. While TV overflows with images of carnage and violence, even a hint of wardrobe malfunction evokes a storm of protest, government intervention and high fines. A friend of mine once said, "it's OK to shoot hundreds of people, but god forbid one is naked. That would be horrible!"

In the US it is perfectly acceptable for kids to watch people being butchered or blown to pieces, but revealing a breast is believed to corrupt them in unacceptable ways. Although superbowl games have tons of commercials with violence, Janet's wardrobe malfunction provoked an outcry from concerned citizens warning that "young kids watch these games."

Britain and the US are amongst the most voyeuristic countries. Telescope sales are very high in the US, but most buyers are not amateur astronomers. Most live in cities where stargazing is not an option given the high levels of light pollution. Both countries are also in love with so-called reality TV and internet streaming video that documents every move subjects take. People simply can't get enough of watching what others are doing. Especially when spiced up with a bit of conflict, strife, or mishap. A bit of hyper-realism that is all too familiar for the producers of such shows. They make sure the well watched subjects are sufficiently stressed to make the show appetizing. Esp. since it is forbidden to show what everyone really wants to see: a bit of flesh.

The UK has more "security" cameras than any other country in the world. The average British citizen, going about their everyday business in the city, gets captured more than 5 times a day by public security cameras. The US is rapidly following suit. Cities everywhere are installing cameras, listening devices and other spy equipment. The rationale is always the same: to improve security. It is a good excuse. Research in cities like San Francisco has shown that street cameras do little to deter crime, and given how understaffed the police departments are, do next to nothing to lead to convictions. It is much better to have a few police officers walk the neighborhood. But that too is not allowed in a country where cars are king. Driving through is so much more high tech and so much easier, both for the police and for the criminals.

What happens with all those cameras? A few studies have shown what we all suspect: the images either go unwatched or officers use cameras to spy on attractive sexy young people, especially women. Such study results are always vehemently challenged by authorities. Just like in the infamous Abu Graib case, these are "isolated incidents" and the "perpetrators will face swift justice." Do you really believe this nonsense?

Hold on, because today is a great day for high tech voyeurs. The BBC reports that Manchester Airport just installed a new generation of "naked" scanners. These machines will speed up security checks by quickly revealing concealed weapons or explosives. They will also expose you to "safe" levels of radiation. All of that to clearly show breast enlargements, body (read nipple) piercings, and a clear black and white outline of people's genitals. But wait a minute. It is all for a good cause.

Besides the airport spokeperson was quick to point out that these images are "not erotic or pornographic." Right!

I strongly suspect some people will take a bit longer to scan and some may even be required to submit to a second pass. You can probably guess why. We need to make sure these dangerous individuals with their enlarged breasts are not hiding explosives on their bodies.

One can never be too sure and when it comes to safety. I am sure we all understand what is at stake here.

food shortage

The FAO thinks food production will have to increase by 70% over the next 40 years. It predicts that unless more land is used for food production, 370 million people will face famine by 2050. 370 million seems like a large number until you hear that the world population is expected to grow by 2.3 billion by then. Maybe we should hit the brakes somewhere? What if we only allowed a growth of 2 billion? That would go a long way to solve the problem it seems.

The FAO, like many other organizations and businesses does not think that way. To them the growth is a given if not a must. To businesses and politicians it always is. How can you grow a business if the population declines or stays the same? Ergo, come what may, we have to find a way to solve this problem.

The FAO thinks we need to increase agricultural investment in developing countries by 50% or $83 billion annually to avoid disaster. I am not sure if the FAO took into account the effects of declining fish stocks, scarcity of land and water, and the effects of increased levels of CO2 (with or without global warming) in the atmosphere. Research has shown that many crops, and especially those that Africans and Asians depend on for staples, dramatically reduce their yields when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations. So even if the world does not warm, rising CO2 concentrations alone will spell disaster.

However, rest assured that the climate is changing. And climate change is predicted to causes losses of up to 30% in Africa and slightly over 20% in Asia. These are also the areas of the most intense population growth. Not surprisingly these are also the areas with the most young adults. And young adults without jobs and without food tend to get very antsy if not outright belligerent.

Something's got to give here, and it isn't going to look pretty.

health care issues

Today we read in the NY Times, "Mammologists wanted" that delayed diagnosis of breast cancer is the most common and second most costly claim against American doctors. And therein lies a big problem. First of all, I disagree with the consensus that early diagnosis improves survival in breast cancer (or almost any cancer for that matter). Although it sounds plausible enough, this idea is based on a faulty hypothesis about the way cancer develops, spreads and kills. It is also caused by warped statistics and the fact that we do not know the natural history of malignant looking lesions.

So here is the first issue. American doctors, eager to help patients, and esp. militant patients as one finds in breast cancer, have popularized the notion that early detection is key. That it saves lives. Several agencies and scientific bodies have lent credibility to this nonsense and it is now generally accepted that early detection is necessary.

The second issue is even more daunting. And once again it rests on a faulty assumption. And that assumption is that cancer grows locally until it hits a certain size, at which point it will start spreading. But many cancers do not evolve that way. In many cases, finding the early lesion is not trivial. But it is rather easy to go back (hindsight is 20/20 as they say) and "find" the earlier lesion that -now by definition- someone must have "overlooked." I.e. a vague shadow may not be identifiable when you look but when you come back months later and know it is there, well that is a different story. Now that you know the right answer, interpretation is easy.

Can you see where this is going? We treat too many people who then survive, but would have survived anyways. These people add to the statistics and make it more plausible that we should think early detection is key. Now lots of women whose cancers are found "late" start complaining that their lesions were overlooked and go see "legal help." Enter the lawyers, another highly paid profession that has no business in medicine or healthcare. Someone has to pay these lawyers, and the exorbitant fees they charge and the even more ridiculous and exorbitant "settlements" they get.

Once the lawyers are in, the docs start practicing more "defensive medicine," doing even more tests and more procedures so as to make sure nobody can come after them later. Before you know it the whole system is dangerously and expensively out of whack. Ironically enough nobody benefits from this, certainly not the patients. Many more of them suffer complications, while others are told they have "cancer" and need expensive treatment and lots of anxiety for lesions that would regress naturally if left alone. These people not only suffer tremendous mental anguish, they also undergo needless chemo -and some die or get very ill- and they no longer qualify for most healthcare after that. Not to mention all the extra economic hardship they suffer.

And who pays for all this? Your healthcare system. Your premiums.
You pay for unnecessary treatment, for longer than necessary treatment, for high malpractice insurance fees, for experts and more experts to read and re-read xrays, etc. etc.

And what does it buy you? Has survival improved? Except for a few cases, it hasn't. If you include the iatrogenic morbidity the end result is probably zero. That is the long and short of it.

ronnie

As every schoolchild in America knows, Ronald Reagan defeated communism. His innovative policies also caused the current financial crisis but that is another matter. Let's stay positive for now and focus on the good parts of this story. Ronnie is after all one of our most beloved Presidents and he is the one President all Republicans aspire to equal-surely none would dream to surpass him as that is impossible. No doubt many Republican faithful lie awake at night wondering what has happened to their country and hoping for a second coming of their Messiah. Ronnie is as enduring a hero of capitalism as his famous namesake Ronald McDonald. Both stand for everything that is right in this country.

It is hard to sack nice people, no matter how badly they mess up. That is the advice I was once given by a senior executive when faced with having to let go of a person who was universally loved but incompetent. Nice guys just smile at you and make you forget everything else. And that is the problem when dealing with Ronnie. Who could forget his infectious grandfatherly smile? Not even the Berkeley students of the sixties who faced a much more grimacing governor. What better icon to have than a smiling superhero who defeated the most evil of economic systems and showed once and for all that communism is an abject failure.

Unfortunately, Ronnie is long dead and buried but communism is alive and well. The People's Republic of China just celebrated its 60th anniversary on October 1. And China is not just any communism. China's brand is seen by many as the quintessential and purest form of communism. The vile economic system that leads to poverty and despair. But we better stop here lest we upset our Chinese friends who now hold so much of our debt. Growing at double digit rates, theirs is an economy that keeps many in the West awake and drooling. China of all places appears to be the only big nation on the planet to have weathered the current economic downturn. A recession so big it evoked memories of the Great Depression. But weathering is putting it mildly. The Chinese economy is still growing.

So it is perhaps appropriate to revisit an old cliche:
Ronnie: Communism is dead
Communism: Ronnie is dead.

green navy

The Navy is now running ads touting how green it is. Well, there you have it, if the Navy can do it so can you. And I mean that very literally. Because unless you are a multi-national corporation with obvious disregard for the environment -an oil company for example- chances are you already are a few orders of magnitude greener than the Navy. So why not tell everyone about it?

I am sure many will take this message to heart and sign up for the Navy so they can help the environment. People signing up for the military tend to have a weak spot for protecting our natural resources. But they also contribute in other ways.

The Navy kills people, which does help with the overpopulation issues, and hence does contribute to less pollution. Unfortunately, they tend to do so in a very wasteful manner. They also preferentially kill people from third world countries so sadly the net balance is not in their favor. People in third world countries just don't have the means to cause much pollution over their lifetimes. And last but not least, even though the Navy has an impressive kill record, the numbers just don't add up. There are just too many people on the planet for them to have an impact that matters. But perhaps the new sonar will help kill enough wales to make up for it?

It appears the Navy is also trying to support proponents of nuclear energy. Their angel of good tidings is a woman nuclear engineer. That is a sweet touch. The Navy of course has a lot riding -or shall we say sailing- on nuclear energy. Its aircraft carriers, warships and submarines are powered by nuclear reactors. And the Navy is also a proud tester of nuclear weapons. Those of you not born yesterday, probably heard of Bikini Atoll, a true testament to environmental stewardship.

There, under the banner of operation Crossroads, the Navy managed to demonstrate its green thumb in way that was hard to beat. Even if you never heard of it, chances are you saw a picture of the famous Baker shot. It was a test like no other. Here is one radioactive fish, courtesy of Baker, that the Navy may want to use to light up their future green commercials.

good for your health

A story posted on CNN today confirms what I have been saying all along. Recessions are good for you. You smoke less, eat less, eat out less, and drive less. Add in less shopping and more exercise and you can see why we all need a recession. Given the current wave of obesity, make that a long recession. Nothing will do more for public health than a severe reduction in consumption.

The recession has other beneficial effects as well: it decreases air pollution and the production of greenhouse gases. It slows global warming. There is less traffic and less cargo being shipped around. We decrease ocean pollution. All those things are good for the planet (which really means our habitat on the planet, because the planet itself does not really care) and ourselves. Another good thing is that people rein in their reproduction and that helps with overpopulation.

It appears that even the increased stress from losing one's job, or worries about providing food and shelter for one's family is rather insignificant compared to the gains we make elsewhere. Remember, there is no free lunch, ever. And to stay on theme: suicides do increase during recessions and depressions, but that effect is so small as to be negligible.

If anything, the research confirms how flawed, misguided and unhealthy our economic model really is. Rather than bring good things to us -isn't that the way we think about a thriving economy? That it is good for us?- a thriving economy cuts down on our life-expectancy, both as individuals, and as a species on this planet.

No, you are not better off when you have a bigger house, a bigger SUV, a bigger TV, and a bigger stereo. You are not better off when you can buy all the soda and food you like. You are not better off when you can travel to faraway places. Those things don't make you healthier or happier. All that talk about health and happiness is just false advertising and it is about time that someone cracks down on it.

You will not feel better if you eat out. You will just get fatter and fatter. You will not be better off if have a faster car. Quite to the contrary, you may feel frustrated more often in the inevitable traffic jams. You will not be healthier if you have a bigger house. You will just have a bigger headache to worry about and you will have to yell louder to find your family members. You will not feel better if you take long hot showers, you are drying out your skin and may contract a deadly lung infection. The list goes on and on.

boycott ebay

Meg Whitman wants to take California back to the stone age. These aren't my words. These are the words of a Republican governor by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And he is right. Why on earthy would Meg want to overturn the few environmental regulations we have? To create new jobs? You got to be kidding? Destroying the environment cannot bring long lasting value-creating jobs. It is always a stopgap measure.

Meg is not kidding however. She wants to use her "own" money, up to $100 million of it, to roll back the times. That $100 million is money she "earned" as founder and CEO of eBay. It is money, we the people put in her pocket and now she is going to use it against us. I say we teach her a lesson. And it will be a win-win.

eBay has long since stopped being a place for good bargains. I routinely find better deals running a Google search. And Google is better in more ways that one. They ignore spaces and other variants of spelling to get you the information you need. No surprise there, Google is not for nothing the best search engine on the web. And unlike Bing, it lets you make your own decisions.

I sure hope the people of California are smart enough not to support an environmental disaster like Meg Whitman. And I also hope they teach her a lesson by taking back some of that money they pumped into eBay. She doesn't deserve it.

so you thought it was over?

It amazes me how easily people give in to wishful thinking or are swayed by a bit of summer optimism. There are those who seriously believed the recession was over. You could add the White House, the Fed and some associated economists, but of course one does not know whether those guys really believed it (I hope not) or whether they were just doing what they are paid to do, i.e. be super-optimistic and give rosy forecasts.

In any case, even my friend Krugman seems convinced we have averted disaster. And that may well be true, we may have averted a sudden collapse of the financial system with all the havoc that would produce. However that does not mean we are out of the woods. Far from it. For several decades now Americans have lived as if there were no tomorrow. They have outspent themselves and accumulated debt. More than half of the households in the country have zero net worth. All of that in an economy that depends on consumer spending for 3/4's of its value. It is not something you can remedy in a few months, or even a few years.

There is a silver lining to all this. I already noted that greenhouse gas production -as well as habitat destruction- is dropping. That is good. People are also consuming less. That is good too, even though it will cause more hardship in the short run. Hopefully it will cause enough hardship so we make some changes to our economic system. And that is what worries me the most. Change is always hard and changing this economic system will be super, super hard to do. To be honest, I hope it will happen, but I am almost certain it won't.

It may be impossible to change the current economic system unless the US collapses or revolution ensues. That is the lesson we learn from history. No matter how much trouble a country is in, and or how many people rebel, the rich tend to get richer and the poor poorer until the latter are so downtrodden and destitute and so numerous that a revolution is inevitable. We are a long way from that scenario.

The other option, a loss of economic driving force, the disappearance of the engine, resulting in a collapse of the empire, seems far off too. Although the latter is the more likely scenario for the US, it is at least fifty to a hundred years out. Waiting for such an event is not a smart thing to do. We should try to remedy our problems before they run out of control.

So what can we do to change?

The solution is quite simple. We need to learn to live within our means. We need to consume less and we need to focus on our local area when it comes to shopping, production and jobs. We need to stop driving, flying and shipping stuff around so much. We need to remove the non-value creating parts of the economy, the ones that depend on cheap oil and environmental destruction.

Unfortunately that is not what we see happening. Instead people are desperate to keep up their life-style and they revert to shopping at Walmart instead. That is the wrong thing to do. These people are behaving like drug addicts who will settle for a cheaper fix, as long as they get some fix.

What we need to do is do away with chain stores like Walmart that destroy local economies and sell goods below cost. We need to replace them with smaller stores that pay fair wages and sell local goods, not trinkets shipped in from China. That would lead to a revival of local job opportunities and jobs that create real value instead of churning through excesses. We need to disable most of our financial institutions. These guys bring no value whatsoever. Apart from causing regular boom and bust cycles they make everyone poorer on a daily basis by charging fees while creating nothing of value.

We need to let of go of this crazy economic system that just shuttles wealth around instead of creating it.

sick economy

The IEA estimates that greenhouse gases will drop by more than 2% for 2009. About 3/4 of that drop is due to the recession. The anticipated fall is greater than any previously recorded. Something is clearly working when it comes to climate change. We can reduce our economic activity for example.

If the drop proves anything it is how sick our "economy" really is. How it is an economy of consumption and waste. And to think that some people would like to fix it. To what purpose? So we can make the planet uninhabitable sooner rather than later?

Don't get me wrong. Economic activity is good. Humans need a thriving economy. But it has to be an economy that creates long term value. And that is not something our present economy does. Quite to the contrary. We have an economy that is all about slash and burn. It is all about waste and consumption.

Now you may argue, so what it has served us well. But has it? Not unless you are one of the richest 1% in the country. Otherwise your net worth has most likely decreased rather significantly. You may not feel that way (yet) and the constant brain washing in the media will certainly try to make you think otherwise, but the facts are in. Everyone is constantly getting poorer while the richest of the rich get wealthier.

It has also not made you happier. Here too the facts are undeniable. More people than ever are depressed or suffer from stress. It is a stress imposed by trying to keep up with the consumer society. Trying to outdo the neighbors by buying new stuff and spending more money. Companies constantly try to get you to spend money you don't have. It is called credit. And if you indulge in it, it will enslave you forever. It is worse than heroin.

Our economy does two things really well: 1. it destroys our habitat and threatens our long term survival on the planet, and 2. it shifts wealth from the masses into the hands of a very select few. So select that you, the average American citizen, are not one of them. Not by a long shot. You are one of those being robbed blind and you may not even notice it.

So while you may hope for economic recovery because you need a job to pay your bills, you should think about what you are getting yourself into. Because you are not an innocent player. You, with your consumerist habits, are part and parcel of this economy. Your desire to always throw out things and buy new stuff is the "engine" of this economy. And it does not have to be that way! You can easily put a stop to it.

Begin by buying local. Only buy stuff that has value and will last. Get rid of your cars and do some exercise. Throw out your TV. The list of things you can do to help is endless. And guess what? Doing these things will create local jobs. Real jobs that have value because they are worthwhile. Think about that!

Cheap imported stuff is the problem, not the answer. Walmart is not the solution. Walmart is the problem. Walmart is a big machine that serves only one purpose. To make the Walton's richer. And it does so by ripping off the poor. Walmart can sell you stuff below cost, because it does not pay the full cost of what it buys. It does not pay for the waste and pollution it creates. And it uses cheap offshore (read slave) labor to create its widgets. But Walmart is not alone. It is just one of the many corporations that form the core of our sick economy.

rome

Ever thought the US is starting to resemble ancient Rome? Rome went from a democracy to a totalitarian empire. The same could very well happen here. And Rome's demise was followed by the infamous Middle Ages, something that is a distinct possibility for the upcoming century if not sooner. Only this time the event is more likely to be world-wide in scope rather than limited to the Western World.

In many ways the US is similar to Rome just before the empire. It dominates the world, it has gotten rid of its main competitor and it is ready for a Pax Americana. Granted the match is not one to one and there are some shifts in the time-line but the similarity is there.

The US is dangerously close to becoming a totalitarian empire. In some ways it is already there. I previously pointed out how real power is now in the hands of very few citizens. These super-rich effectively control our destiny. Sure we go and vote, but it matters very little how we vote and there are no more real choices left.

The legislature is becoming increasingly ineffective and superfluous. California is already pretty much ungovernable as many have pointed out, but even the US Congress is more often than not deadlocked until some rich guys come along and spread some money around to get what they want.

While it is true that the rich usually get their way, even in a democracy, never has so much power been concentrated in so few hands. It is only a matter of time before we formalize it into a dictatorship of sorts.

democracy?

We Americans like to go out and bring democracy to the world. But perhaps it would behoove us to look more closely to what is happening at home before we go out and try to help others. America of all countries is surely not a democracy.

Consider this: the top 1% in this country own more than the bottom 99% combined. If you think a democracy is possible in a country with such inequity, think again. Even if you -like most Americans- secretly dismiss the homeless and the poor, and believe the "true" inequities are much smaller, definitely think again.

More than anything, the so-called middle class, and that includes the upper middle class, are the true victims of this deplorable state of affairs. The middle class are the only ones who have enough money to feed this greed machine. Never mind the poor and the homeless. They literally don't own anything so they cannot be robbed.

The homeless and the poor may very well suffer, but they are not really counted when it comes to wealth. They simply don't count, not just in your secret dreams, but in everyday reality. They are not part of any statistic and nobody really knows who they are or how many of them exist.

When it is said the top 1% own more than the bottom 99%, then the bottom 99% means those people who are not part of the top 1% but are still counted because they have jobs, social security numbers, driver's licenses, jobs, homes, etc. It means the rest of us. The American consumer. The ones who can vote but somehow never seem to use their vote to protect their own rights.

Modern America is closer to a Vegas casino than you think. In its vast halls there are millions of people playing the losing game. They do so because they are led to believe they may one day be rich by playing the game join the rich. But in reality they are slowly but surely robbed of all possessions they have, and -as the recent credit crisis shows- then some.

And where are the top 1%? They are the ones running the casino. You never see them because they are hidden behind the scenes. All you ever see are their enforcers and their highly paid entertainers. In this world the entertainers are called president, senator, and representative. They are the ones that keep you hooked to the machines. And when their magic fails, there are always plenty enforcers to keep the peace.