give it up or else

Bill Gates, the white knight of African infectious disease, and one-time founder of Microsucks, now sporting respectable jowls, joined his friend, the long-time illusionist and oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, to call on all wealthy individuals to give up at least half of their wealth before they die. Or if they should be struck by unexpected death, to do so at the time of their demise.

True to his nature as a second mover, Bill's idea was copied from none other than the queen of mean, Leona Helmsley, who set the example by her generous charitable donation to the welfare of Trouble, the fluffy pooch. Money well spent I might add!

Such is the irony of modern capitalism, that one first has to resort to all kinds of deceit and malice to amass people's sustenance and throw them into poverty so that one can then later come around and rescue them by generous donation. It reminds me of amateur hunters who grow pheasants and other wildlife so they can release them in season and hunt them down.

Surely the eager defenders of capitalism will point out invaluable benefits of this system that has now reduced the wealth over half of our countrymen (and -women) to zero or below. Steve Forbes, whose equally impressive jowls attest to his profound knowhow, has recently come out to teach us how wrong we all are and how unfettered capitalism will ultimately save the day.

Mind you, I have nothing against capitalism. It is, like its cousin democracy, the lesser evil. But like all such things, both natural and man-made, it is a double-edge sword that needs to be kept in check lest it causes more trouble than it is worth. And it is in the latter part -the checks and bounds part- that we have been failing so miserably over the last few decades. We have turned the great engine of wealth creation into an evil machine of wealth-shifting and senseless consumption.

Sooner or later we will all pay the price for this travesty.

shadow of the moon

I saw Shadow of the Moon recently. It is an interesting movie in many respects although overall it was more than a bit disappointing. But there was one thing that really struck me and made me realize how precarious our situation on this planet is.

Astronauts in the movie repeatedly mention the 3 billion people on the planet watching their every move. Three billion? Yes that is right. In the 1960's there were "only" three billion people on the planet. Today there are over 6 billion. The world population doubled in less than a normal lifespan.

Nothing drives it home so clearly than seeing footage you saw before, and events you can remember.

Oh, and before I forget, even back in the 1970's pollution was visible from space. So much for those who think we are too puny to destroy our environment.

jobs?

First a representative from Texas and now lawmakers from Louisiana, all crying to save offshore drilling. The Texas guy, John Culberson, called the oil spill a "statistical anomaly." I guess that is what you call a drive-by shooting, unless you are the victim?

In any case, all these good people are just trying to save jobs. We have to drill oil so people have jobs and the economy recovers. That is of course if other people are so kind to burn that oil, greenhouse gases be damned. Never mind the bad stuff, it is all a "statistical anomaly" anyways, so says the good man from Texas.

The real issue is not jobs of course, it is profits. It is easy enough to create other jobs, in alternative energy for example. But that would not help all the fat cats who own shares in oil companies. All that beautiful infrastructure that decorates the landscape. Doing away with it would hurt the profits of the oilmen. And what is Texas without its oilmen? Just ask George.

not connected

Every day thousands of gallons of oil enter the Gulf of Mexico. The spectacle, now surely the worst environmental disaster in US history, is making people mad. Images of dying birds, floating tar balls and once-pristine beaches covered in muck are making America angry. That much makes sense. But do these same Americans make the connection to their gas-guzzling SUV's, their oversized pickup trucks and all the miles they drive each and every day? Hardly.

When asked, people sounded frustrated, angry and upset. Their rage was directed at BP and big oil companies; their sympathies were with the fishermen of the Gulf. But did they for one instant think they themselves were playing an active role in this disaster? Did they ever sit back and think about the true cause of this travesty? Fat chance.

All the journalists heard was people explaining how they NEEDED to drive all those miles, how they NEEDED their big truck, how they NEEDED their cheap gas, how they NEEDED oil and how America NEEDED to free itself from foreign imports of oil and gas.

Well then, there is only one logical conclusion one can draw from all this: we godt what we deserved. And surely there is more to come.

obese and depressed

The American public is seriously unhealthy. More than half are overweight and nearly 1 in 4 suffers from a mental illness, usually depression. How come people in the richest nation on earth are so unhealthy and unhappy?

There are ugly statistics wherever you look. Some show that all the gains society made in combatting infectious disease are now nullified by atherosclerosis, diabetes, hypertension, asthma and other conditions. Obesity plays a key role in all of these.

But maybe you think I am a pessimist and you point out that people live longer lives today than they did in at other times in history? You probably heard the average life-span of 40 years too many times. Clearly people are living longer now? But do they? If you take out infant mortality the difference is not that great.

Furthermore, the key determinants of infant mortality are clean water, sewer systems, and vaccines. By about 1950 most of these issues were solved. There are actually data showing that infant mortality is on the rise again in the US. Surely the numbers are low but the trends are disturbing.

But let's not get distracted. What is it that makes Americans so unhappy and unhealthy? How about being bombarded for hours on end with commercials that tell you how inadequate you are, how you would be so much better off if you owned this or that car, or ate this or that food, or drank this or that beer?

How about being told that in order to be cool you need a TV in every room, a blu ray disc player for every TV, cable and Tivo everywhere, the latest gadget cell phones, new PCs, a larger home, more furniture, a bigger yard, an outdoor kitchen, etc.? Hard to keep up with all of that. Work, work, work. Work and endless insecurity. You are always one paycheck away from being laid off or fired. Not to mention the ever mounting bills, the credit card debt, the home equity loan, the mortgage, the fear of losing your home, the inadequate health insurance, you name it.

Guess what America, it's time to throw out the TV. Time to stop listening to all those voices that keep telling you to buy more stuff, to eat more, to consume more, to drive more.

Throw out the TV, park the car and go for a walk.

texas dumps jefferson

The Education board of the great state of Texas is rewriting history once again. This time they want to make sure kids get it right. And getting it right means just that: right, or as far right as we can possibly go for the time being. In doing so, the board decided to dump Thomas Jefferson. The reason? Apparently, Jefferson committed a grave sin by arguing for the separation of church and state. That, the board found was un-enlightened or possibly even un-American.

So there you have it, if even the Founding Fathers were infiltrated by un-American sympathizers, we have to make doubly sure that our kids learn the right lessons in school, lest they too be brainwashed by those who hate our great nation, like TJ? Soon Texas will vote to remove TJ from the currency and replace him with their hero, Ronnie.

In the new curriculum students will learn that America is a Christian nation and that the Founding Fathers wanted it to be that way, notwithstanding subversive forces like Thomas J. They will also learn that supporting the government with taxes can be detrimental to economic well being and it too should be considered a subversive act.

If you are confused, don't worry. Just memorize this simple truth: America is good and its government is evil. Did I get that right?

But it isn't just the American government that is bad. All governments are bad, and the baddest of them all is the United Nations. The UN isn't a government yet -oh thank the forces of good and the will of the almighty- but if it were to become one, it would surely be EVIL.

The UN strikes fear in the hearts of all good citizens, and rightfully so, because kids will now learn that the UN can be a danger to personal freedom, a key American value. As long as that personal freedom excludes such things as free speech, freedom of religion and other perverted freedoms that have no place our Christian religion.

I can' think of a more appropriate ending than to say to y'all: God bless America and the Great State of Texas!!

don't blame us

The oil industry has it right," Don't blame us for the oil spill. It's not our fault." Spoken like a true drug pusher. Blame the addict.

Unfortunately, in this case, there is more truth to it than meets the eye. While oil spills cause a lot of damage, they are "hardly the most baleful consequence of America's oil addiction" according to The Economist.

Furthermore, devastating as they may be, spills are not even the main source of oil floating around in the oceans. Offshore drilling accounts for only 1%, tankers and pipelines for only 4%, compared to 33% from other shipping.

What you also may not realize is that much of the oil spilled in this disaster is expected to evaporate before reaching the coast. So never mind the poor sea gulls, watch what you breathe. Honestly people, if you get upset about this look no further than your own garage. That is where the true culprits are.

oil slick

Heard another debate on BBC America about the disaster that is about to unfold in the Gulf. What was truly surprising was that an industry representative stated matter-of-factly that we need the oil and nobody flinched. Everyone just took it for granted. We need the oil and gas to support our way of life. That is a given.

Now if we could just get it out without those embarrassing incidents. Because that is really what matters here, it doesn't look good. When the commentator asked about a major spill in Indonesia, the industry representative's answer focused on regulations, and how some countries don't have good regulations! Duh.

Once again, deafening silence from the opposition. As if regulations is what matters. Never mind the spill, worry about the rules. Never mind either that those rules were probably dictated by the industry, all too happy that there are plenty of countries with little or no regulations!

Nobody, but absolutely nobody mentioned the outrageous living-room-on-wheels SUV's that Americans need to drive to and from work. Nobody questioned our life-style. Even the environmentalist, or should I say the so-called environmentalist focused on the problem at hand, not the bigger picture.

It is obvious that when people think this way, we are never going to solve our problem. If people take our outrageous life-style for granted, we are doomed. We are doomed to repeat what has happened so many times before: arrogant civilizations running into a brick wall at 100 mph. Collapse.

separation of church and state??

The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the 1st amendment recently. It is step one towards theocracy. The Court has now formally endorsed a christian symbol as a national emblem. That is what you get when courts swing to right. For years conservative Republicans have rallied against what they called, legislating from the bench, their code-phrase for judges who interpret the constitution as it was meant to be interpreted and refuse to endorse extremist religious views.

Now that the Roberts court is in session, true legislating from the bench is the law of the land. So we no longer hear those Republican voices.

First the court approved campaign contributions from rich corporations, and now it endorses christian symbols as American symbols. What's next you may ask?

Richard Dawkins correctly points out that we give religious types a very wide berth. For no reason really. Why do we hold back when priests abuse and rape children instead of being outraged and cleaning up the church? What stops the police from searching the premises for evidence of crimes? If any ordinary person abused children the way priests routinely do, we would put them in jail and throw away the key.

We have registries of sex offenders and we protest each and every time one moves into our neighborhood. Everyone gets really upset and we have laws keeping these criminals away from schools and parks. But what about the priests? We let them in and teach our kids!

While these "dangerous sex offenders" are often nothing more than boys who had sex with their girlfriend two days before her 18th birthday, these priests are men who molest boys (and sometimes girls) from age 7 onwards.

And we welcome and worship these men who abuse and rape our children. Why? Because they are priests? Because they are men of god and so they can rape our kids, while we stand around and watch? Surely, if god approves, who are we to criticize them?

And now we can watch when the Supreme Court protects the cross in the Mojave by endorsing it as a symbol of our nation. Go figure!

gusher

The proponents of offshore drilling better take a good look at the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster that is unfolding there should be reason enough to ban all offshore drilling forever. But I doubt that it will have any impact at all. Because the only right response to such disasters is not to protest, or to demand tough penalties, but to get rid of your gas-guzzling SUV.

That is right. Without demand, there won't be any reason to go look for oil in the Gulf or any other place, such as the Alaskan wilderness for example.

More than half the oil we "use" is wasted. It is wasted in traffic jams and needless driving. It is wasted in oversized and overweight vehicles, and it is wasted heating buildings that are empty or sparsely occupied.

It is wasted in generators that produce electricity to power lights, appliances and other devices that are left on 24/7 whether anyone needs them or not.

That is one giant oil spill that nobody wants to contain.

foreclosure

California foreclosures rose 92% in March. Analysts were quick to blame government programs that postponed foreclosures for the sudden rise. Nobody said a word about the newer, more ominous mortgages going past their five-year fixed rate period, although there is little doubt that herein lies the true cause.

Expect more trouble to come. Sure, consumers are spending again. But if you think that will lift the economy, hold on. Without jobs and with more foreclosures to come, it is hard to see how spending can be sustained. Sure, people are spending, but you need to ask yourself why?

They are spending because they have money and they have been sitting on it for a long time, holding their breath. Now it is time to let go. This letting-go is likely to last a bit longer as everyone is eagerly awaiting the recovery and making -wishful thinking- statements about it. There is little doubt we will see a bounce and that bounce may well last into summer.

With the advent of spring, reproductive juices are flowing and that always leads to more optimism, more joy, and more spending. When spring gives way to summer and no jobs appear reality will surely intervene sooner rather than later.

androgynous

As our modern society has expanded, longevity has become the rule. While many will attribute this to medicine and excellent medical care, the true causes are closer to clean water, good sewers and plenty of food.

Controlling infection is what longevity is all about. The less trouble bugs can make the better we humans fare. And the more androgynous we become. Bugs are, after all the true cause of sexual reproduction. Without infectious agents, there is no need for sexual reproduction. When the future is predictable and infection in check, asexual reproduction is the way to go. It is easier and faster.

A recent study showed that women who live in countries with high mortality due to infectious disease, prefer more macho looking men. They also tolerate polygamy and prefer to share one alpha male with other women. All in all it is a better deal than having your own -somewhat less alpha- hubby.

Clearly, when the future is uncertain, we want sex and we want sexual dimorphism. We want men that look and behave like men. Like or not, but aggression seems part and parcel of such male behavior. It isn't just aggressive looks that women in such situations crave.

When the future is more certain, and our offspring are more likely to survive, we prefer men with more feminine and tolerant traits and we don't want share them. Hence we become monogamous.

If we could, I guess we would become genderless as well.

In that sense we are very much like other species that manipulate sexuality and gender according to the environment. We are, fortunately or unfortunately, a bit more constrained and we can't simply change gender or become genderless on a whim. But we do display all the other traits, just stopping short of actual physical transformation. That is, of course, if you ignore those transgender surgeries.

All in all those who long for the past, "when men were men...," here is a simple recipe: bring back the bugs. Unfortunately, it looks like that is about to happen.

the good of the universal church

Everybody who cares to open their eyes can see that religion is all about sex and control. What better place to bring this all together than having a priest, who represents ultimate power and control to the believers, mess with their young children? After all who can blame men who trumpet celibacy as a virtue, for the occasional transgression? There is only so much one can do to live against one's innate drives.

Isn't it funny that those who rally against non reproductive sex engage in such acts themselves?Or that those who rally the loudest against homosexuality are closeted homosexuals? Do we smell a whiff of denial here? Didn't we just see politicians with free government health insurance rally against such insurance for others?

Unfortunately idols get away with a lot. Just look at OJ. No doubt the pope too is hoping that this glove won't fit and his innocence be thusly demonstrated. It would be best for the good of the universal church after all!

gop logic

For those of you with no sense of history, which ironically enough includes almost the entire Tea Party movement, here is a reality check as seen in The Economist, March 27 issue.

About what we now affectionately call Obamacare: ."..closely resembles the approach the Republicans themselves offered up as an alternative to Hillarycare in 1993."

There is more:

"Despite the resemblance, the Republicans have been swift to denounce the legislation as an abomination and its centerpiece -an obligation on all citizens to buy health insurance on the pain of a fine-as a violation of the constitution."

Other similar parallels have been drawn, in particular to the healthcare solution proposed by Mitt Romney -now a staunch critic of any reform- in Massachusetts.

And that just goes to show you that the opposition to healthcare reform, probably the most needed reform in the country, is driven by nothing more than partisan politics and backed up by nothing more than threats and hot air.

TSA tries to be funny

Here is a double standard for you. Don't try to make a joke, especially not one about guns or bombs, at the airport. We all know that doing so will result in jail time, fines, and tons of nasty treatment. TSA it seems, hates jokes. But only if you, the passenger, about to be treated like a criminal -guilty until proven innocent- try to make light of the ridiculous situation.

TSA itself has no problem making fun of you. They love to tell jokes. They must know the joke is on us and what better way to show who's in charge than to make fun of the people who are about to have their privacy invaded, and now thanks to amazing technology, their privates exposed. TSA apparently thinks this is all very funny, and not only do they have screeners making bad jokes and thereby delaying everyone, but TSA has gone to a full media assault using videos to make fun of passengers trying to get their luggage on a plane.

At a recent TSA checkpoint that uses the new naked scanners, one bright officer thought it was very funny to tell people over and over again to empty their pants. He reminded everyone to remove everything from their pockets. Don't leave any nuts in your pockets because we will see them, he said with a big smile on his face. Now how is that for a good joke?

TSA also showed videos of clowns trying to get past security with overloaded packs. Don't these idiots know that one is only allowed one tiny bag, containing no dangerous liquids -water comes to mind- or other subversive materials like toothpaste and mouthwash? That is exactly how TSA sees the traveling public, a bunch of morons who don't understand the important security measures that keep our skies safe.

The reality is a bit different. Time and time again tests have shown the incompetence of the screening process. People get past the elaborate security charade with all its scanners, X ray machines, and magic wands, with knives, ice picks and other forbidden items. Meanwhile busy TSA officers stop moms with babies to look for explosives in sippy cups. Elderly people are searched while those in wheelchairs create traffic jams at the magnetic scanners. All of it in the name of no profiling. No wonder TSA thinks the whole process is one big joke!

extremists vying for attention

Yesterday, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner tried to outdo themselves to appear like right wing extremists to please the crowds in Orange County. You may remember that Orange County is the county where people must waste water. It is therefore not surprising that extremist views are welcomed here.

Apart from the regular Republican mantras such as cutting taxes, Whitman and Poizner tried to show how they would fire people, deny them healthcare and basic benefits, run them out of the state, and make their lives harder in other meaningful ways. Clearly both these former business people mean business when it comes to race, ethnicity, and other controversial issues. Like good business people, they also know how to word these proposals so nobody could accuse them of being racist.

Mr. Poizner will balance the budget by cutting taxes. Already the state has a multi-billion dollar shortfall, but that will not stop Mr. Poizner from making matters worse if he needs to do so to get elected. Ms. Whitman, no doubt remembering her days at the helm sucking up to Wall Street, will fire tens of thousands of state workers. Apart from the moral outrage, one has to wonder how a consumer economy will recover if more people are forced into bankruptcy and more housing will go into foreclosure.

Both candidates acted as if they had just returned from a three year vacation to another planet.

Clearly the debate was underwhelming enough so that no TV station deemed it necessary to waste airtime on such sloganeering. Or maybe they were afraid the advertisers would balk at broadcasting extreme views that play well in Orange but might infuriate the rest of the electorate?

genomic waste

One can understand that laymen may have a hard time understanding evolution and its implications. Especially in a country like America, where evolution is often treated as a philosophical idea akin to religion, instead of the scientific notion it really is.

Evolution is not palatable to the common folk. They already feel intimidated by all the smarts around them. The last they want to hear is that they are descended from monkeys, with the obvious implication that they are closer to those monkeys than the smart ones, who must -by definition- be more evolved. All of this is hogwash of course, but try to explain that to the press.

However when a bunch of geneticists start wasting money because they don't understand the implications of natural selection, one has to wonder. That is precisely what happened when the HapMap project was announced. One could argue the scientists can be forgiven for there are many forces here to cloud the picture.

First, there was the enormous inventory of sequencing and PCR machines that now stood idle. Second there were the government bureaucrats, who felt somewhat disappointed when the much ballyhooed genome project failed to deliver all the medicines and therapies they had promised to their sponsors. Third there were the very people who drove much the project, many of whom were mathematicians and physicists, who never sat down and thought about evolution. And finally, there was the master of them all, the kumba-ya singing apostle of fundamentalism and science, who was appointed the high priest of the project.

But face it, HapMap was and is a glorious failure. Even more so than the genome project itself. That project had at least one redeeming factor: a lot of technology was developed that has other uses. Much like the velcro and the space project one could say.

HapMap was based on the mistaken assumption that common diseases would be caused by common gene mutations and that these would be relatively easy to find if one applied enough genotyping and sequencing volume. Enough brute force, it was truly an American idea.

Nobody ever thought that maybe, just maybe, natural selection would have weeded out these common errors before they could become common. That simple notion, the first one that is taught students when they learn about biology, escaped the great minds of the genome.

Now hundreds of millions of dollars later, they are finally coming face to face with reality. They are finally realizing the old saying, "garbage in, garbage out."

People can ignore evolution if they choose to do so. They can ignore gravity too. But when they do, it will cost them dearly. Such is the nature of reality. It is a bit different from religion.

orange country logic

Orange County isn't know for its smarts. But now the city of Orange is pulling out all the stops. The city is suing a couple who removed their front lawn, thereby reducing their water usage from 229,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009. Given California's problems with drought and the fact that some cities in the Southland are contemplating or are building desalination plants, one would think that the couple would win an award.

But the city of Orange does not think so. It thinks the Ha's are criminals for not wasting water. Its laws require that residents waste water. The city forces residents to cover significant portions of their front yards with live ground cover. The Ha's front yard is not overgrown with weeds, it is not an eyesore according to the LA Times. Furthermore, the Times reports it has recently been covered with wood chips, drought tolerant plants and a nice fence.

None of that is not acceptable to city officials, who claim city codes require that 40% of the yard be landscaped predominantly with live plants. And that is why the couple will have to appear in Orange County Superior Court on Tuesday to challenge the city's lawsuit against them.

big business fights climate change

Just in case you wonder, Democrats are not that different from Republicans. All lawmakers listen to the beat of one drum: big business and its campaign contributions. Even if doing so goes against the wishes of voters, or common sense. These lawmakers figure their donors will be successful at convincing voters anyhow. History has shown that they are often right to think so. Nobody is as brainwashed as the American voters. American voters are the only ones who gladly and proudly vote against their own interest as is clearly shown by what is happening around Health Care Reform.

A democratic senator from West Virginia, aka coaltown, John D. Rockefeller IV introduced a bill that would put a two year freeze on the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. It was just one of many proposals from both chambers designed to delay or overturn the EPA's regulations.

What is Senator Rockefeller IV worried about? That fossil fuel prices could go up? How is that for logic? Fossil fuel prices should go up. They should go up by a lot. Anyone who cares for the future of humans on the planet knows that. Only higher prices will deter people from wasting energy and producing more greenhouse gases.

Guess what Rockefeller is waiting for? Clean coal? He calls it a technological breakthrough to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels. He also said," Today we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy." What he really meant was, "today we are setting back environmental regulation by several decades to please my big business campaign contributors."

The oil and mining industries immediately started lobbying for Rockefeller's bill, although the American Petroleum Institute was clearly upset that the bill did not go far enough. "We don't know why the freeze on EPA authority isn't made permanent," a policy analyst for the Institute said.

reagan bills

Conservatives want to put Ronnie on the $50 bill. What better way to celebrate a man who lies at the root of our current fiscal mess!

Patrick McHenry, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, made the proposal. He says his generation needs its own heroes and that it is time to honor President Reagan. McHenry is 34, a proud member of Generation X.

Reagan would bump Grant, the 18th President and a general in the civil war. Grant is a hero to the Union Army who led them to victory over the Confederates. It may be good to point out that that is something that does not sit well with the people South of the Mason-Dixon line. Grant like Reagan was hugely popular -in the North that is- and like Reagan his presidency was no great success. Oops, I forgot the conservatives do think Reagan was a success.

Reagan's leadership in the cold war and his economic policies and tax reductions -that we will pay for in decades to come- no doubt put him on par with Grant's accomplishments in McHenry's mind. Of course Reagan can be forgiven since he suffered from Alzheimer's disease. McHenry though has no such excuse.

Although anti-Reagan opinion focuses on Iran Contra and the failure to recognize the AIDS epidemic, Reagan's credit card economy is his real handiwork. Granted (sic) that economy made some people outrageously wealthy. So why not put their hero on the $1,000 bill instead? Or on some CDO's?

good things happen in bad times

General Motors will close Hummer maker of the impractical, ostentatious, and downright ugly shoeboxes on wheels. The company had originally hoped to sell the brand to Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machines company, but the $150 million deal fell through after the Chinese government dragged its feet granting approval.

GM's Vice President of Corporate Planning and Alliances, John Smith was disappointed. I, on the other hand, am elated to see these ugly monsters bite the dust.

This is the third time since GM emerged from bankruptcy protection that a deal to sell an unwanted asset collapsed. That should tell you something. Either GM does not know how do deals, or its assets aren't what they are cracked up to be. Both Saturn and Saab will also bite the dust after deals to unload them collapsed.

GM is also closing Pontiac, although it never tried to sell that business.

dasani feel-good nonsense

With great fanfare Dasani, a Coca-Cola company, has introduced the PlantBottle™. In case you didn't know PlantBottle™ -yes it is a trademark- is "an important innovation in the ongoing efforts of Dasani® to reduce environmental impact and advance towards the goal of 100% renewable and recyclable bottles."

It is with great pride and broohaha that the folks of Dasani have now reached 30% (or just short of 1/3 of their stated goal). Not that it matters much of course, because it is truly besides the point.

The environmental damage done by bottled water is not due to bottles alone. Far from it. The bottle is actually a minuscule part of the problem. Even if the folks at Dasani manage to achieve their technological wunderkind, it won't make much of a difference. The key issue in bottled water is with the water itself.

Water is a very heavy substance. Bottling water in small containers and moving those around is the problem. Transporting water is an energy intensive business. Water also has a very high heat capacity. That means it takes a lot of heat to change its temperature. Cooling water and keeping it cool is another very energy intensive business. It is highly polluting in case you did not know. Especially since the same or better quality water is available right from your tap.

Don't fall for Coke's tricks. The only green thing to do is to avoid bottled water like the plague that it is.

home-grown terror

First it was Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma. Only he wanted to live to watch the spectacle. Now Joseph Stack is upping the ante. In a veritable mini-9/11 suicide attack he crashed his plane in the IRS building in Austin, Texas. Officials were quick to point out this wasn't a terror attack. Austin police chief Acevedo called it, "an intentional act by a sole individual."

We are drawing a fine line here. If flying your plane into a building and killing people is not terror then what exactly is a terror attack? Is it not terror because Joseph Stack was an American, or because he was a "sole individual?"

Note that Joseph left a message stating his intentions. He knew what he was doing. Granted the message was "rambling and lengthy" but he did rail against the government and the IRS in particular. He also killed people and destroyed an official building, or at least a building housing 199 IRS employees.

If that doesn't amount to terror what does?

stockman's take

NPR aired a short interview with David Stockman, the former budget chief of Ronald Reagan, last night. Mr. Stockman may have surprised many by saying banks needed to be regulated. He, who once ran a hedge fund, sounded surprisingly like Nobel laureate Krugman when he laid out his vision for small banks and a split in banking between deposit banks and wall street gunslingers.

He also acknowledged that the tax cuts, a key Reagan platform, did not work. He probably knew that all along, as did all the other Republicans, but their goal, after all, was to fill their wallets, country be damned. Each and every tax cut they implemented added to their and their friend's bottom line and that is what this was all about. The fact that so many not-so-well off people went along just shows you how brain-washed the whole country is. It is another example of people voting against their own self-interest.

Stockman also predicted that the era of tax cuts is over. What we are facing now is a decade of tax increases. The cutting is over, there is nothing left to cut. What we need now is to put money in the government's coffers so it can take of our long-ignored issues.

jobs and why the economy won't recover anytime soon

If you think the economy is on the mend, think again. Never mind the upbeat news reports from Ford and the fact that Cisco will hire 2,000 people. Remember that Cisco laid off close to 10 times that number in 2009, not to mention the cuts in pay and other restructuring efforts. Cisco's CEO is just trying to sound optimistic and ride the wave of profits for a while longer so the well paid executives have time to cash in their options and collect their bonuses.

Let me, once more, repeat the basic dilemma. Over half the American households have zero net worth. They are worth nothing. They are living from paycheck to paycheck and that is all that is keeping them off the street. Never mind that they were probably stupid enough to worry about the deficit, and raise their voices against healthcare reform, so that if they get ill, they will be on the street for sure. They are also getting older like so many Americans and have no retirement benefits either. What that means is that things will get worse, a lot worse, before they get better.

However bad that may sound, widespread poverty alone is not enough to cause an economic crisis. Unless the economy in question is dependent on consumer spending. Unfortunately, two thirds of the US economy is directly related to consumer spending. The real wealth producing jobs and skills have been exported to China, because it was cheaper to do so.

So what do you get when you need consumers to spend and those consumers have no money?

But wait a minute! What about the fabulous stock market rally of 2009?

Here is a very simple explanation for this bizarre phenomenon. Remember that a fairly large group of people made a lot of money in the years prior to the crisis. As a matter of fact, because of the wealth shifting that forms the basis of our economy, these people are extremely well off.

When the crisis hit, they did not want to be seen as indifferent, or out of touch, so they curtailed their spending along with everyone else. They also pulled their remaining money out of investments for fear of losing more. Yes, they did lose, but their losses -unlike those of the rest of America- were paper losses only. You know, the ones that give you tax breaks.

For a while that worked fine and the rich suffered alongside the poor. We won't detail the hardships they endured, which were no doubt heart-wrenchingly terrible, but focus on what came next instead. By about mid-year the rich were tired of suffering so they started looking for ways to put their money to work. They also exhaled and started spending. There is only so much suffering the well-off can partake in before they get tired.

So we got a little rally.

Now consider this. The majority of foreclosures in both residential and commercial real estate are still to come. More people will lose their homes, home prices will fall more and more families will go underwater leading to deteriorating fundamentals -how is that for econo-speak?

Job losses are mounting and even the most optimistic, non-delusional, experts predict things won't get better before year end. Meanwhile Obama has lost his shine, and the Republicans are eager reduce the deficit that was started by the war in Iraq, and increase the tax cuts for the rich. That can only lead to more job losses.

Forget the deficit. If we can't get jobs the deficit will only keep growing. We can't save our way out of this hole as the Republicans seem intent on doing. We have already tightened our belts to no avail.

Without income, there is no solution. And unless someone is willing to spend big time, there won't be jobs to produce the only possible solution: income. See a vicious circle?

brain washed or just plain stupid?

Only 66% of the population of the great state of Texas has full health insurance. Over one fifth of children there have no cover at all. Yet the opposition to health care reform in Texas runs at 87%. Texans apparently believe the legislation is socialist, godless, and a step on the road to a police state. Why they would have such ridiculous and outrageous ideas is anyone's guess.

It is not often that one finds people so determined to vote against what is to their immediate personal benefit. In this age of smart phones, smart bombs and smart cars, it seems we are left with a whole lot of dumb people.

According to Drew West, in his book Political Brain, people are not stupid. He argues the reason why people vote against their own interests is not because they do not understand what that interest is, or have not had it explained to them. It is apparently because they consider having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know better is seen as a betrayal.

Let me get that straight. If a politician were to offer you $100,000 cash -I think that is an underestimate of what good health insurance is worth, but so be it- you would say no because you felt that having someone else, who acts like they know better, decide what is best for you is a betrayal?

I agree that the reasoning sounds really smart, but I doubt that anyone would say no to a $100,000 check. No matter how much they hate being treated like idiots. Because idiots is what they are. If they can't see that this healthcare reform is directly going to benefit them, they must be idiots.

Let me offer an explanation that makes a bit more sense. First of all, these people are not too bright. I know one is never supposed to say that and it threatens to derail a good argument and prevents people from listening to me, but I would say it needs to be said. These people are not too smart.

Second, and because they are not too smart, they are very suspicious. That too is quite common. People who aren't too bright are often taken advantage of and all of them must have lots of painful childhood memories where smart looking people got the better of them. That has fueled a strong aversion towards sweet talkers. And what better sweet talkers than politicians? It is obvious these people are unlikely to listen to politicians. But Europe has lots of dumb people too and that has not prevented them from acting this way. So there is more.

Apart from being suspicious, the not-so-bright are also paranoid. They are afraid, and they are very susceptible to the Harry and Louise type ads. Those types of ads never aired in Europe and Europeans had good healthcare long before TV ads could brainwash them.

These ads play on important fears: -that one will not have access to the best doctors. Note that none of these people has access to such doctors now, because they cannot afford to go there.

-that care will be denied to save money for the government. Note once again that these same people are now barred from care because they cannot afford it or because their insurance company will not pay or threatens to dump them.

-that government bureaucrats will make decisions for them. Note that company bureaucrats already do so for insured Americans. There is no equivalent of that in Europe.

-that the country will turn to communism. This one is for the patriots. Note that all Western democracies except the US have solid healthcare systems without being communists.

-that the deficit will skyrocket. This one is for the more sophisticated among the dummies. The ones who want to show off to their kids and peers by pretending they are Wall Street tycoons. The ones who think they can afford to be worried about the debt burden.

war with China

It seems increasingly likely that a war with China is on the horizon. As that nation keeps growing, its demands for ever shrinking resources become louder and clearer. So too its displays of force. Most recently, the excursions into the China Sea and the gas-field disputes with Japan have racked up tensions in the East. These are signs nobody should ignore.

It is clear that China's economy is growing at a furious pace. Despite a worldwide recession and presumably lower demand from the West, China keeps on chugging along. Although it initially showed signs of collapse, that danger is now averted and it appears China will keep growing no matter what. Unfortunately for us, that means an even greater danger is developing.

I have remarked earlier that there are few options here. Either China cools off, or implodes or we are on a path to war. It will not happen in the next few years, but you can see it coming from a mile away. There simply aren't enough resources on the planet to bring China up to our standard of living. Not that that standard of living is all that wonderful, mind you. It is mostly a standard of waste. But apparently, that is what humans crave. The ability to gobble up and waste tons of goodies. And it appears this is one nightmare that will ultimately come true.

ungovernable

Under the title, "It hasn't been pretty" the Economist reviewed the status of the health care reform bill, before the Massachusetts debacle. As everyone knows, the Economist is not exactly a liberal or left wing publication. As a rule it sides with conservatives and although it is not as extreme as the Wall Street Journal, it is usually in the same camp.

Reading the article makes it plain that the US is undemocratic and coming close to being ungovernable. The results in Massachusetts only add more evidence here. One senator will block a bill that was approved -albeit in different incarnations- in both houses. And that senator is part of a very small minority yet he will stop the majority in its tracks. Clearly democracy is dead. If that doesn't worry you, wake up.

The article lists four key issues. First is the undemocratic nature of the US Senate. With two senators representing each state, regardless of population size, the Economist points out that 41(sic) senators from the 21 smallest states, representing 10% of the population could band together and block any bill.

This perverse consequence (sic) of the Senate's make-up may never have been so apparent as now, due to the second issue, extreme partisanship. More than 7 out of 10 votes in the Senate are party-unity votes according to Congressional Quarterly. There are no more compromises being made in the US Senate. That is why we are approaching ungovernability.

The third issue is lobbying. This was also pointed out by others. According to the Centre for Responsive Politics $425 million was spent in the first nine months of 2009 to induce modifications in the bill. Former CMS commissioner Thomas Scully gave a talk recently where he pointed out how the Obama administration had struck deals and paid off hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and the health-insurance industry before the bill even took shape.

What this shows more than anything is who really controls the legislative process in this country. It is not the will of the people, but the interests of multi-billion dollar corporations that comes first. Without such horse-trading the bill would never have made it to the floor.

So whatever you think or learn about Congress making laws, rest assured that these laws have already been vetted and adjusted to make sure that the real powers get what they need. This is de facto a oligarchy of corporate big-wigs making law.

Lastly, not to be forgotten, is pork. Pork is the item that usually gets the most bad press, and it is certainly a nuisance item and something that adds unnecessary cost and complexity to the process. But pork is not a threat to democracy. It is also an order of magnitude less evil the other three issues.

We can be idealist all we want, but we won't create a government without pork. There will always be pork or benefits that representatives bring home to their constituents. One could safely argue that pork is of the essence in democracy.

However you feel about pork, it simply doesn't work to build a government without it. So stop worrying about pork and focus on the real issues that threaten this country.

massachusetts

Much has been said and will be said about the senate vote in Massachusetts, but in reality the outcome was not unexpected. Especially not in light of what happened earlier in Virginia and New Jersey. And even less so when you hear the talk inside the beltway. Democrats are bracing for a loss of up to 30 seats in midterm elections. Clearly they know something is up. Some of the more prominent ones have already preempted a defeat by declaring they won't run again.

There is no doubt that this string of losses is a rebuke to Obama. The new president's popularity is low compared to that of his predecessors. He barely tops Carter and comparisons with Carter are sure to follow. Unfortunately a lot of it is of his own doing.

The keys to defeat lie in the unrealistic expectations that were only topped by the even more unrealistically high fundraising. Both are coming home to roost.

I agree with Krugman at the NY Times that Obama made serious mistakes. The stimulus was too small and it did not reach the intended beneficiaries. The bankers got bailed out without so much as a slap on the wrist, while middle class families are losing their homes, their retirement, and their savings. It is obvious Obama is in bed with Wall Street. I pointed this out before and predicted it would cause major problems.

I also agree with the Rutten at the LA Times that the administration did not do a good job explaining healthcare. While it addresses the 30 million uninsured, it appears to offer little or nothing to the 270 million who have insurance. All they can see is more deficits that they know they will have to pay for. Never mind that their coverage could lapse, that they might be bumped when they need it, or that they will find out it does not cover their expenses. For now it appears to them that things are OK.

But Rutten goes further. He points to the anger that he says is due to the fact that American middle class families are worse off than their parents. Some of that may be a factor. The American economy is not so much a wealth creator as it is a wealth shifter. It has shifted massive amounts of wealth from the poor and the middle class into the hands of the few. In doing so it has bankrupted over half the population. The shifting is running out of resources to shift.

Everything was done by deceptive means. US style capitalism appeals to people's worst behaviors such as greed, lust, pride, envy and gluttony while making fun of altruism, cooperation, and moderation. It pits people against their friends and neighbors. It uses fear and anger and preys on feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. It relies on illegal immigrants and workers on job-related visas that have no bargaining power and can be used to undercut the wages those who seek a decent living. It uses layoffs to boost quarterly earnings, and promote job-insecurity in workers.

It has promoted women, not because it believes in feminism, but because additional lower paid workers helped create an environment that is aversive to organizing, unionizing, and bargaining power. It also helped create a false sense of wealth and that drove more consumption.

It uses open markets and tax payer subsidized oil to bring in items from abroad, where labor laws are lax and environmental issues of no concern. It treats many parts of the world as colonies to be stripped of resources and valuables.

Furthermore, the unfortunate situation is leading to a country that is becoming ungovernable. The State of California has already reached that impasse. Soon the nation will follow. Like Rome before it, the American republic may soon become a dictatorship or go down in anarchy.

emotional response

The quake and devastation in Haiti has fueled a charity drive of immense proportions. It is too bad that we did not feel the same way towards the Haitian people before the disaster struck. Other than use the country's many orphanages to ensure a steady supply of adoption babies, most people in the US did not care much for Haiti or the fate of its people.

Haiti is a prime example of a poor country that was raped and destroyed by Western powers. At the root of Haiti's problems lies an environmental disaster that was fueled by greed and over-exploitation all inflicted by its former colonial rulers and later trade partners. Haiti is used as a prime example of how not to do things in Jared Diamond's famous book, "Collapse." The story of Haiti, the poorest country in this hemisphere, is contrasted with that of the Dominican Republic, a nation that shares the same island real estate but fared rather well, even by absolute measures.

There is another thing I would like to point out at this time. It was first highlighted after the Sept 11 attacks, when it became apparent that the Red Cross was using charitable donations given on that occasion for other purposes. Clearly the Red Cross was doing the sensible thing, albeit in a somewhat sneaky manner. Unfortunately, common sense is not a quality that characterizes many Americans, who would rather go for the gut.

The actions of the Red Cross, deplorable as they may have been to many people, were actually very reasonable and ensured a maximal bang for the buck. When it comes to helping people, it is often better to stay cool and rational and apply funding where it can help, rather than be overly emotional and waste money. And wasting money is something we Americans are very good at, especially in times of disaster. The majority of funds raised on such occasions never reach the intended victims. But god forbid that these funds should be used to help others. Isn't it so much better to just throw the money out? Or buy trailers that sit around in Arkansas while the people in New Orleans beg for shelter? Because that is what happens in the real world.

But then again, you could argue Americans do not just want to help any random person. If they did, clearly we would have better social programs in this country. It appears Americans mostly want to show the world how generous they are, or maybe they feel the need to something to get rid of that little bit of guilt they experience when watching poverty in their cities and around the globe. I am not sure, do you know?

rain barrels

It seems cities are slowly coming around to the idea of rain barrels and rain storage. Last night we attended a meeting to discuss the benefits of rain water capture. It is simply amazing how little people know about it. You would think that individuals living in a near desert would be aware of the value of water. But that turns out not to be true. Very likely it is because water is so cheap. You turn on the faucet and let it run. You take long showers and flush toilets, all blissfully unaware of how unsustainable these habits really are.

It is not just a matter of being unsustainable --although that should really be a top priority. But people do not care much about the future as long as that future is not immediate. They always think, we are too busy, and besides we will fix all our problems in due time. They have been told over and over again about the American spirit and how it will overcome all ills -until such time of course when the ills are too big to overcome.

But we need to think about the immediate effects. The flooding, the mudslides, and the 1 trillion gallons of sewage overflow every year. These things are real, and they can be helped by simply collecting rain water and releasing it later. Even if we did nothing else but collect the water on our roofs and then release it the next day -which would be a bit stupid given all the good uses for rain water- we would save millions of dollars.

In Europe, where it rains a lot, people collect rain water. Many use it to water their lawns, or vegetable gardens in the brief dry spells that occur during the year. But many more use it to flush toilets, do laundry and even take showers. You may shudder at this idea, because you probably think rain water is dirty. You may think that having it fall onto the earth and seep through many layers cleans it up. Isn't that what the commercials for alpine water tell you? Think again.

Rain water is very pure. It does acquire some stuff while on the roof and in the gutters, but the damage done there is rather minimal. Especially once the storm has picked up some steam. The flow is so large that it quickly cleans the surfaces. And whatever dirt is picked up will quickly settle in a large storage tank. The real problem with rain water -if you were to consider using it to drink- is storage. That is where the contamination happens.

However, it is not something to worry about. This type of contamination is not only easy to remove, it also does not matter much for most uses. Much of our daily water use does not require ultra-clean water. Most water is flushed down the toilet. You don't need ultra-pure water to flush your toilets. Nor do you need it to do the laundry. You don't even need it for showers.

But the main problem is not here. It lies in making rain water storage and use easy. As easy as turning on a faucet. Because people are lazy. They want things automatic. And making rain water use automatic is trivial when you are building a house. Unfortunately, most homes are built without such provisions so that leaves retrofitting. Retrofitting however, is expensive and it is not something people will do without incentives. They would rather vote for a desalination plant. That is easy.

So here is an idea for our government. Give out grants and create incentives to retrofit homes. Make water expensive too so people start thinking they need to start saving or do something about it. That would be a sign of leadership. Cancel that desalination plant. There is plenty of water running down the drain after every storm that hits California.

play doh, peanut butter, and dangerous things

You'll be happy to know that TSA stopped a dangerous terrorist toddler from taking the banned substance, known as play doh aboard an airliner. Apparently, this life-saving intervention was made possible by the new technology known as total body peepshows. It was not revealed where the toddler had hidden the dangerous material that some experts say rivals PETN in consistency.

The parents were happy TSA had intervened and saved so many innocent lives. The politically correct were quick to point out this great example of the benefits of not profiling. "Profiling is just wrong," they were quoted as saying, "this latest incident shows that even Caucasian toddlers traveling with their mothers can be extremely dangerous."

The CIA, the NSA and other overpaid spy agencies may not be able to put two and two together, but when it comes to saving the traveling public, TSA is clearly on the dough.

harboring terrorists

You may have thought that after George W's strong words, nations would shy away from harboring terrorists. Think again! What better way for warlords in poor countries to attract US funding than having a few rogue terrorists hiding in the bushes?

The beauty of it all. A terrorist can be anyone you don't like. Political rivals, religious or non-religious types, anybody anywhere who is not in charge but wants to be can become a terrorist. Especially if they have ever resorted to, or can be accused of resorting to violence.

Did you notice how quickly our friend Putin reacted to George's battle cry? He almost beat Israel to the punch and that is saying something. Those pesky Chechen's quickly became terrorists with links to Al Qaeda. And here is another benefit. Proving ties to Al Qaeda is as easy as it comes. The US intelligence machine even managed to link Saddam to Al Qaeda. Anyone and anybody can be tied to Al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, once you are labeled a terrorist you automatically qualify for membership in Al Qaeda.

Yesterday's guest at the NPR Newshour was quick to point out that the leadership in Yemen has every incentive to harbor Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda's presence means US foreign aid to Yemen's leadership. Once Al Qaeda is gone, Yemen would be left to its own (very meager) devices.

In case you think this is a new development, think again. Latin American dictators have played this same game with drug lords. Think Columbia. Where would Columbia's leaders be without cocaine? Left to fight their own desperate wars.

Even Afghanistan is making drug appeals lest the call of terror alone be insufficient. But they need not worry so much. The TAP alone will do the trick.

monuments to failure

Today, the world's largest building -828 meters- opened in Dubai. It is supposed to be a bold statement and a testament to the achievement of Dubai, a small nation that many think is showing the way to the future. (It surely is but not the future these people envision)

Visitors to Dubai will tell you how advanced and futuristic the country looks. They will tell how America has lost its edge and how all the new gadgets -if gadgets are not a sign of progress what is?- are in Dubai. Some friends have urged me to visit Dubai to get a glimpse of what is to come.

Face it skeptics around the globe, isn't Dubai's latest phallic symbol the ultimate proof of success? And isn't it a great way to forget all about that nasty little default?

When Jared Diamond argues how the people on Easter island kept on hewing statues in the face of habitat destruction, some of us would tend to wonder. Are people really that stupid? Would they really go on with their silly quests when everything around them is falling apart? Would they not stop and try to fix the problems instead? The short answer is no.

It is customary in the West to look upon civilizations through the lens of buildings and monuments. The great civilizations of the past are those that have left behind stone or steel ornaments. The more imposing the monument, the more advanced the society, is our mantra. So it is good to see when history in the making highlights the fallacy of that argument. Monuments are better seen as illustrations of failure. Sorry Parthenon!

It has been argued before that collapse nearly always comes at the pinnacle of success. And there are a a couple of reasons why this counter-intuitive idea is so plausible. First, there is the inherent lag time. The tower in Dubai was started when all was going great. It continued to grow while Dubai was falling apart. It had already been set in motion. Much like the continued housing construction in 2008-9 when the bubble burst. These projects were already financed and what were builders to do but to keep going?

Second, collapses are abrupt events that happen when human societies -which have even larger lag times due to the life expectancy of individuals- overextend themselves. This is far more likely to happen when populations are near a max. At the max, consumption and waste is near its peak too. Dubai is a fake economy built on oil. When oil runs out, so will Dubai. It is an inhospitable place made to look good by energy. Like a patient on a respirator. When you pull the plug it is over.

Third, when primates are idle -and I say primates because the following applies to monkeys and apes too- the arts flourish. Zoos have shown that bored apes start painting when given the opportunity. When people are idle they find something to do. And what is there to do other than build and decorate useless and imposing structures? Leave a legacy.