mostly common sense blog

give it up or else

2010-06-17T07:49:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-13T08:50:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-06-10T22:16:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-08T22:15:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-26T17:33:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-22T09:08:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-11T09:14:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-03T19:28:00.000-07:00

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??

2010-04-29T20:05:00.001-07:00

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

2010-04-28T20:36:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-15T10:17:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-12T18:31:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-10T11:13:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-30T20:02:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-26T08:57:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-16T08:57:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-11T07:26:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-06T17:05:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-05T11:46:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-04T09:39:00.001-08:00

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

2010-02-24T13:14:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-19T16:37:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-18T17:26:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-06T10:40:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-04T07:54:00.001-08:00

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?

2010-02-01T12:35:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-26T10:11:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-21T16:35:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-20T15:48:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-19T11:04:00.001-08:00

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

2010-01-12T08:49:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-06T09:15:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-05T09:02:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-04T08:05:00.000-08:00

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.

politically correct harassment

2009-12-30T09:46:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-29T16:24:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-26T10:57:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-25T09:54:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-18T09:26:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-14T09:22:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-03T08:31:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-27T10:34:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-26T14:28:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-25T15:09:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-24T09:33:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-23T09:14:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-20T09:29:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-11-11T16:36:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-09T14:24:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-06T09:57:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-02T20:15:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-01T08:22:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-30T17:13:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-29T17:59:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-27T14:16:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-26T16:34:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-14T16:22:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-13T10:16:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-12T16:51:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-10T17:07:00.001-07:00

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

2009-10-05T07:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-04T07:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-29T08:31:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-26T09:07:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-24T08:34:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-21T16:36:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-17T19:02:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-16T08:45:00.000-07:00

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.

cold shower

2009-09-15T16:20:00.000-07:00

Showers are synonymous with fresh and clean. They are the hallmark of luxury living and all modern American homes have more at least 2 or 3. Showers are a consumerist pleasure driven by cheap water and cheap energy. They are pushed by soap and shampoo manufacturers and sold on fear. Yes fear, fear of being dirty and stinky. The worst kind of ostracism.

That is why no self-respecting American would dare to go without at least one shower a day. Showers are not only an enormous waste of drinking water but they also waste a fair amount of heating energy. Now it appears they are not good for you either. Rather than being fresh and clean, showers are a fertile breeding ground for molds, fungus, mycobacteria, and other micro-organisms. Despite a wealth of cleaning and scrubbing products, keeping your shower micro-organism free is an impossible task. At best you will end up breeding micro-organisms that are resistant to any and every chemical you throw at them, including bleach.

Daily showers are a fairly recent phenomenon. There is little evidence people fare better or are "cleaner" when they take shower, but there is a fair amount of evidence that hot showers are not so good for your health. To begin with, long hot showers, the kind most Americans cherish are responsible for a lot of skin ailments. Nothing dries out skin like a long hot shower and we could probably do away with 90% of the moisturizers, lotions, and skin care products we love if we just kept our showering to an absolute minimum.

Daily shampoos are even worse. They remove the beneficial oils that protect your hair and make it look good. The more you remove them, the harder your skin glands work to make more and the oilier your hair (and scalp and possibly face) becomes. Better to leave your hair alone and let it shine naturally. Cheaper too.

There is more. The micro-organisms that populate our showers aren't just lining the walls with visible or invisible films. They are everywhere and no place less visited than the ever wet and warm shower head. What better place to incubate bugs? Plastic shower heads with their many microscopic nooks and crannies are ideal for growing tons of bugs.

Furthermore, when you turn on that hot spray, you effectively vaporize and nebulize those bugs and make it so they quickly and effectively spread around the whole room. And there is more. When nebulized like that, the bugs can penetrate deep into your lungs. Fortunately for most people, these critters are not enough to make them sick, although we have to say that nobody has yet looked into asthma, chronic bronchitis (COPD) and other chronic lung ailments. Don't be surprised to read a few years from now that those refreshing clean showers are slowly destroying your lungs.

For those with compromised immune systems however, showers are a veritable death chamber. Even a cursory look in the literature results in tens of proven cases of lethal infections that could be traced to shower heads. And rest assured, those with compromised immune systems now number in the tens of thousands. If you are older, a heavy smoker, HIV infected, have severe lung allergies, are undergoing chemotherapy, or had a transplant, you are one of the unlucky souls who would do better to stay away from the in house death traps called showers.

There is an upside to this story. First, you won't get smelly if you don't shower. People lived happily for centuries without showers. Few people actually suffer from bad body odor. You certainly don't have to believe everything the soap industry tells you. And finally, here is another good reason to save water and energy and live longer and healthier.

health care reform

2009-09-04T16:59:00.000-07:00

It looks as if Health Care Reform will die a slow death. That is to be expected when powerful for profit forces with ample media access stand to lose their lucrative honey pot. Health Care will forever be a problem in America because both parties stand in the way of meaningful reform.

First one would need to take the lawyers out of the picture. We need to end the malpractice lawsuits and the punitive damages. These things accomplish nothing and they cost each and everyone of us a fortune. They cost us in more ways than one. We are denied simple things because people are afraid of being sued, and we pay through the nose for other equally simple things because the liability insurance is so high. We have to fill out tons of paperwork and stand in long lines before we can participate in everyday routine activities.

Unfortunately, the lawyers are a major force in the Democratic party so don't expect anything here. And if the Republicans want to take on the lawyers, they only do so to enlarge the already excessive profit margins of the major players.

Second, we need price controls on drugs, and we need competition for private health insurers. Better would be to get rid of private insurance but that is another matter. Both of these groups are ardent Republican supporters so here is another impossible roadblock towards reform.

The problem is simply this: health care is so full of conflicts of interest that even without a profit motive, it is hard to ensure fairness and equity. If you add in profits, everything goes to hell. If your doctor stands to gain from procedures, he will perform more of them. If the drug company stands to gain from selling pills, they will sell them to everyone regardless of need.

It costs us and it costs us in many ways. We pay for it over and over again, not just directly, but also indirectly. And we get very little value in return. No American Health Plan comes even close to what Europeans take for granted.

Even the wealthy with unlimited access suffer as the profit incentives force them into unnecessary tests and procedures. And the liability issues make it so their doctors and providers practice defensive care (i.e. another incentive to do even more tests). No test or procedure comes free of risk and in most cases the cost benefit is simply not there.

Now you say, but isn't our long life expectancy proof that we have great healthcare?

Unfortunately longevity is not a good measure of success. Longevity correlates well with wealth because good food, clean water, good sewers and an ability to stay away from dangerous (job) situations promote longevity. Anything that brings you closer to a doctor or hospital on the other hand is likely to reduce your quality of life or artificially extend the duration of it in ways that are unsuited for a dog, let alone a human. Every Terry Schiavo does wonders for longevity statistics.

Apart from party politics, one other bipartisan hurdle remains: the moralists. A key benefit of medicine is pain relief. And not surprisingly, pain is grossly under-treated in this country. Not because we don't have good drugs, but because a handful of moralists feel it is imperative to prevent drug addiction. Heaven forbid that a terminal cancer patient should become addicted to morphine! For that simple reason we all have to suffer. And suffer we will, because modern medicine will make sure we don't die a quick death. Euthanasia is out of the question, even if one's condition is hopeless and one's suffering unending. How's that for first do no harm?

gas guzzlers unite

2009-08-19T11:49:00.000-07:00

Sporting a panel that read: "Congress get in touch with America," an oil industry worker bused in by her employer, Anadarko Petroleum, protested the upcoming climate change bill at a meeting in Texas.

The America Congress is supposed to get in touch with is a gas-guzzler nation that seems to care very little for the future or the environment. It is a nation that burns gas for no good reason. It is all part of the great consumerism wave.

David Leland, a geological map maker for the petroleum industry, was quoted by the NY Times as saying: "We provide a product at a reasonable price, and we're going to get punished for doing a damn good job." What he forgot to mention is that the price is so "reasonable" because his company fails to pay for the environmental damage it does. What he also forgets is that this reasonable price is conducive to some very unreasonable behavior on the part of consumers.

Big oil, like big pharma and many other big businesses realize that they can only keep going the way they are now if the public behaves in an extremely irrational and wasteful manner. People have to consume oil, drugs, and other goodies as if these things have no value.

Unfortunately, this is not a viable long term strategy. The executives with their fat bonuses and lavish lifestyles may not care, but in the (not so) long run their irresponsible behavior is going to cause massive harm and loss of life.

Wouldn't it be better if we could tone down our economic activity to a more reasonable level? We would all be happier and we'd live longer too.

Death panels

2009-08-14T17:32:00.000-07:00

I am sure you are all aware of the fact that the President's healthcare reform plan will not only bring socialism to our country, but it will also encourage embryo-factories, where embryos will be grown to be used for stem cell research, abortion clinics, where young women will be forced to undergo unwanted abortions, condoms and birth control pills in schools so pupils engage in early sexual activity, and death panels, where experts will decide who will live and who will die.

Yes you got it! It is all part of the master plan devised at the UN to make America weak and to undermine religion and family values. Obama is really a UN spy in disguise, who wasn't even born in this country and illegitimately claimed the presidency so he could sell us all out to atheist aliens.

Fortunately for all of us however, the healthcare plan will be administered by the government. That means it will be so inefficient and wasteful we won't have to worry about it. We will just pay higher taxes, but none of the bad things will happen because bureaucrats in Washington won't be able to make decisions in a timely manner.

And so you see, it all balances out in the end!

clunkers

2009-08-11T10:37:00.000-07:00

Congress just expanded the cash for clunkers program. It is a typical example of Washington "dual use," as we used to call civilian programs with military applications. This one is not of the civilian-military dual nature, but rather of the green-consumerism variety. Once again, it is one of those attempts to do the impossible. One that achieves nothing good.

Destroying perfectly good cars and replacing them with new ones, even if those new ones are more efficient, is an environmental disaster. Every time you throw out something that works fine to replace it with something new, you are creating excess waste, and unnecessarily consuming resources. There is no free lunch here, no matter how you add up the numbers.

If Washington wanted to do something they should make gas more expensive. Much more expensive. That -unfortunately- appears to be the only way to achieve our goal of using less fossil fuels. I have never seen another incentive that works and I doubt one exists. I don't like high gas prices but it appears to be the only option.

If you are serious about the environment and the future of our children, then pay more for gas. Pay more and use less. Unlike what you may think this is not silly. Paying more is the only way we can pay for the true cost of gas. Right now, we are not paying the true cost. We are only paying for the cost of finding, refining, and distributing it -and let's not forget the fat margins for the oil companies. But we are not paying for the environmental destruction and ongoing pollution.

No matter what you think, eventually we will pay. The longer we postpone, the more it will cost too, and the more painful it will be. So, wake up and get real. Pay the bills now before it is too late. And tell Congress cash for clunkers is a dumb idea.

payback time

2009-07-17T12:50:00.000-07:00

Is anyone surprised that Goldman Sachs made another fortune? First the government bails them out and then they let them get away with business as usual. No regulation for bankers! A virtual slap on the wrist and some nice rhetoric from Obama was punishment enough for the financial tycoons.

That is what you get when you pay big money for election campaigns and inauguration ceremonies. In the meantime the country is suffering, people are losing their jobs, homes are being foreclosed, while the bankers are churning through whatever excess wealth is left to generate commissions and profits.

Expect another round of excessive bonuses. That is what bankers get when they bring in the goods. And as long as the regulators let them get away with it, they will succeed in bringing in more. This charade will only end when there is no more wealth to be shifted. Since the bankers do not produce anything, and since they don't even finance productive companies, the country will eventually run out of resources to pay their fees. But that will be someone else's problem. We have some "useful" time left before that happens.

What we are seeing is a new financial crisis in the making. But for now, that is something the bankers won't worry about too much. Now they will concentrate on how to spend their lavish bonuses. Why would anyone worry with a safety net like bankers have? The tax payers will foot the bills so Wall Street can extend the party for another couple of years.

Insanity

2009-06-29T08:08:00.001-07:00

I drove through the central valley yesterday and I couldn't help but thinking we are all insane. It was hot as hell, with temperatures in excess of 110F, the air was so polluted you could barely see Mount Diablo from 20 miles away, and yet everyone was driving their monster SUV's as if there is no tomorrow. The freeways were packed even though it was Sunday.

Everywhere there were large scale developments of monster mansions baking in the sun. 4,000+ sq ft. homes that have air conditioners running full blast day in and day out for three quarters of the year. The other quarter they run heaters. Meanwhile, the occupants were probably out shopping in their gas guzzling 8 cylinders, buying more stuff to throw away before year end. No doubt their sprinklers were set to keep their huge lawns bright green too.

When you stop the car for more than a few minutes and get out in the open, you realize that this is no place for human habitation. It is as hot as an oven, there is no water, and there is nothing to do. Humans can only exist in a place like this because of cheap oil and coal. Oil and coal to generate electricity to run the air conditioners and bring in water. Just plain survival for more than a few hours in these conditions takes a fair amount of energy. Let alone doing so useful work.

And it is not as if the people living there realize their predicament or act what one could call responsibly. Far from it. They cool their entire houses to 72 degrees, they water football field-sized lawns, they take several showers a day, they fill swimming pools, they drive monster trucks, etc.

There mere existence comes at an enormous cost, yet they choose to live lavishly and luxuriously. One cannot shake the impression that they seem to enjoy wasting energy. They don't bother to live in a small house, or separate their room, or to turn off their cooler when they leave, or their lights at night, or anything else for that matter. They buy huge mansions, with open floor plans, and they heat and cool the entire spread continuously, whether it is needed or not.

In short, they behave as if everything is available in unlimited quantities. Any normal human looking at this objectively would have to conclude that they have lost their minds. Perhaps it is a good thing that so many of these homes will be foreclosed upon. At least it will cause a substantial cut in energy wastage.

Even so, it appears that sooner or later, this insanity will have to end.

sex and environmentalism

2009-06-25T10:43:00.000-07:00

It isn't just a catchy title. The role of sex in environmentalism or lack thereof is deep and profound. It is also widely ignored. It goes beyond Arnold's lament that environmentalists have failed to make their cause sexy. Because some of the most sexy behavior is very destructive to the environment. There is nothing sexy about being frugal. Not unless times are hard, and even then displays of excess have followers.

Start with cars. If people bought cars for transportation we'd all be driving a sensible, high mileage and practical vehicle. But, as I have outlined in this blog before, if you don't know why people buy cars, ask any teen what the real value of "a set of wheels" is. Think about it, why do you need a big box with a 300hp engine to drive an average speed of 27 mph?

Or why do people travel? Remember I highlighted Bill Maher's statement that "people travel to get laid?" The opportunity to find new partners or causal sex is a major driver for the tourist business. Forget about those sight-seeing opportunities. Other than a different backdrop there isn't much to be had here.

How about fashion? Is not fashion intimately connected to sexuality? And what more is fashion than an excuse to throw away perfectly good items prematurely? Fashion is all about consumerism.

Why do teens buy gadgets like mp3 players, cell phones and cameras?

Or why build at 5,000+sq ft mansion? Why show off to your neighbors? Why, other than to show how important and powerful you really are?

Should you get a sailboat or a powerboat? As one guy once told me, "take a look in any marina and see where the chicks are."

Wastefulness in men is inherently sexy because it shows they can afford it. It shows they are a good bet for reproduction. They will be able to provide for the offspring.

So, it should be no surprise that wastefulness and power is an aphrodisiac for young women.

When something is so deeply imbedded in our brains, the chances for real change are minimal.

platinum certified consumption

2009-06-24T07:56:00.000-07:00

It was on the news last night. Two Oakland homes, within mile from one another are vying for the title of most green house in the nation. They are Platinum LEED certified homes and that means they have the bragging rights for being the most environmentally friendly consumers.

Wait a minute? Did I say consumer? Something is clearly wrong with this picture.

One house, the newly built 4,600 sq ft "Margarido House" is a case in point. It is attempting to achieve the first LEED-H Platinum certification. The other house is older but extensively remodeled and quite a bit smaller.

First the good news: Margarido does some things well. It uses locally sourced products, recycled concrete and glass countertops and reclaimed ground water. It has underground storage for rain water. It has drought tolerant landscaping and plants. It also uses LED lights (nothing said about leaving them on all night though!).

Margarido also has the key token of environmentalism: it uses solar panels. However, even with all its solar panels it is not energy neutral. And that had the owner worried. According to the newscast he was planning to buy more solar panels. Buy, buy, buy baby. Buy your way to green!

What about the other bad news? I doubt that Margarido, for all its certification and hoopla can beat our energy use of around $500 a year for gas and electric. You can see our bills in earlier postings. Or our water use of around 35 gallons per day, including a vegetable garden that actually produces food instead of decorative cacti.

To say nothing of the wasteful 4,600 square feet, or the extensive remodeling that its main competitor underwent. What happened to all the materials they ripped out?

What Margarido and other Platinum certified houses are, is examples of a new breed of consumerism. Green consumerism. It may help the "economy" but I doubt it is good for our environment and it certainly won't solve our pollution problem. Better would be not to build Margarido and live in a small house. Better would be to grow veggies in the yard. But who gets platinum plaques for that?

blame the ocean

2009-06-17T09:59:00.000-07:00

State and federal officials have long held the view that the decline of the Sacramento salmon was due to adverse ocean conditions. That conclusion, which sure pleased big agriculture, and endorsed the good works of the Army Corps of Engineers dam-building craze, also conveniently put the blame in a very safe place.

A more recent report still blames ocean conditions for being the immediate cause of the collapse, but it does include an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, river conditions played a minor role. Apparently poor ocean conditions were acting "on top of a long-term, steady degradation of the freshwater and estuarine environment" according to a study by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

How does that sound? Let me give you an analogy to make things clear. If a patient develops lung cancer, which surely could be described as a long-term steady degradation of their lung environment, they will ultimately succumb to a lung infection known as pneumonia. As a matter of fact, their death record will list pneumonia as the proximate cause of death.

The question is do you think the patient died of an infection? If you do, the delta dam builders may have a job for you.

pardee reservoir

2009-06-16T08:23:00.001-07:00

Pardee Reservoir in the Sierras is the heart of East Bay Municipal Utility District (affectionally known as East Bay MUD)'s drinking water supply. It is also a "recreation area" where families can enjoy fishing, boating, and camping, according to the Pardee Recreation Area website. Now EBMUD wants to enlarge the reservoir so as to better serve its customers. No, EBMUD is not thinking of providing more recreation or better fishing. It is thinking of the growing suburbs in the East Bay, with their overly thirsty water-wasting families.

EBMUD, with its token environmental stance -the recreation area is closed during migratory bird season for example- is going to flood and destroy a unique landscape, drain the Mokelumne river, destroy its fisheries, all so its customers in the affluent East Bay suburbs along highway 24 and 680 can water their lawns, wash their cars, and flush their toilets with pure drinking water. ( in case you wondered if I forgot to mention drinking, note that the upscale suburbanites in the East Bay drink bottled water)

EBMUD is considering how the area will grow over the next 20-30 years. That is if we don't run out of food by then or get hit by some other disaster of our own doing. It is no doubt rejoicing the fact that California gave the go-ahead to add a fourth bore to the Caldecott tunnel. Ostentatiously there to reduce traffic jams that aren't caused by the the tunnel itself, the fourth bore will no doubt stimulate further development along the "680 corridor." More people will move into the near-desert area east of the Oakland hills and start watering and flushing as if they lived in Hawaii.

At a time when many agencies are considering removing dam sites and restoring the enormous environmental damage some of these sites have brought on, EBMUD is taking a leadership position by proposing to build a new and larger dam for Pardee. It will add 40+ feet of water to its present reservoir and drain the river to create an eyesore out of what is now one of the more scenic and attractive riverscapes in the state.

In the eyes of EBMUD however, none of that beauty can match the elaborately manicured, over-watered, and over-fertilized lawns of Lafayette and Danville.

GO EBMUD!

the recovery that isn't

2009-06-15T16:24:00.000-07:00

Wall Street got ahead of itself on Friday. Thinking -wishing that is, the most common form of Wall Street "thinking"- that the recovery was at hand, the Dow moved into positive territory for the year. Unfortunately, today's news added a serious dose of reality, showing that not only is the recovery not there, we are most likely nowhere near the bottom yet.

The housing crisis that started it all is far from over. More foreclosures are waiting in the wings. A large number of these are part of the original problem, i.e. homeowners borrowing more than they could afford to pay for houses that sold for more than they were worth. Has anyone forgotten the 5 year rule? The 2004, 2005, and 2006 mortgages are just now starting to reach the end of their 5 year grace period. Then they will reset by 10X or more! How's that for a nasty surprise?

These mortgages were written near the top of the bubble, when home prices were highest and values most out of whack. Furthermore, they were the most "creative" ideas originating from the enormous pool of "talent" that Wall Street accumulated. That means they are by far the most problematic ones. These are the ones people will walk away from.

In the meantime the high rate of unemployment is adding substantial numbers of additional foreclosures, which will lead to a further crash in home prices.

I predict home values will decline another 25-35% before it is all over. "Fake" unemployment (the number the US government uses that does not include everyone who stopped looking for a job, who is working part time, etc. ) will rise well above 12%, with real unemployment closer to 20%. The dollar will continue to slide and we will start seeing obvious signs of deflation.

Deflation is already happening, and if you are paying full price for anything these days, you are paying too much. But so far deflation has been largely hidden or it was covered up by "sales" and "deals." Pretty soon that will go away too and people will see prices drop everywhere.

I stick to my recommendation, buy gold. Real gold that is. You may need it some day in the not too distant future.

fuel consumption

2009-06-11T17:08:00.000-07:00

BP, a company that would like to be known as Beyond Petroleum, published its statistical review of world energy recently. According to the WSJ, the BP report has the best data of any energy company report. You can download the report and the statistics from BP's website. If anything, the report makes it clear that we are a long way from being "beyond" petroleum. So much for advertising.

But there is some good news. Fuel consumption in the US in 2008 declined compared to 2007. Which goes to show you that there is nothing better for the environment than a good recession. US fuel consumption in million tonnes of oil equivalent declined from 2,359.6 to 2,299.0. It is not a stunning decline, but it is a start, you could say.

South and Central America did not "participate" in this decline and their consumption rose from 563.5 to 579.6. Note that the US alone uses almost 4 times as much fuel as all of Central and South America combined.

Europe and Eurasia also saw a small rise in consumption from 2,956.9 to 2,964.6. So did the Middle East, going from 577.6 to 613.5. Africa's consumption rose from 341 to 356, and Asia-Pacific went from 3,816 to 3,981.9. The latter gain was almost exclusively due to increased fuel use in China. Unfortunately, most of China's energy use is from coal. No wonder the country has now surpassed the US as the prime greenhouse gas producer.

Along with the US, the UK, Ireland, and Australia saw declines.

BP did mention that reserves are more or less stable (no whopping new discoveries), but it is happy to announce that we will have oil, gas and coal for decades to come. Pollution and global warming will get to us before we can run out of carbo-combustibles.

Happy breathing!

more ocean trash

2009-06-07T19:59:00.000-07:00

It seems quite a few people misunderstood my posting about ocean trash. My concern is not so much with the trash being in the ocean, as opposed to say it being in "its proper place," whatever that might be -the landfill?- My qualm is with the trash itself. Its very existence.

I do agree that it is nicer to live in a community where people put their trash in trash cans and where they don't leave stuff lying around. However that is not my worry with ocean trash. To be quite blunt, the trash in the ocean does not bother me directly. I never see it and I never run across it.

What is worrisome is that we produce so much trash, not where we put it. That is what makes our lifestyle unsustainable. And that is what we need to change if we are going to survive on this planet.

What is deeply worrying is the fact that we produce and throw away perfectly good stuff at alarming rates. The fact that we seem to need a new car every three to five years -and why you could ask? What makes those new cars any better than the car we have? And why do we need a 400 hp car to drive 55 mph -and 25 mph during rush hour?

It is these old cars and other stuff that end up in the oceans.

Like the computer that we need to replace every two years, or a new cellphone that we can'd do without, or a new TV, or new kitchen appliances, or what have you. The fact that our society makes it so that we are forced to throw out good items and buy the latest gadget. In the case of computing that is a direct statement, the older machines simply won't work with today's software, even though today's software is only very marginally more capable (and often less useful) than yesterday's version. In other cases, the "must have" is more indirect and we are told we "need" to buy the latest gadget lest we be seen as failures by our peers.

Those "must have" gadgets have become so unappealing and so uninspiring because the designers can't possibly think any more significant changes to make. Yet Madison Avenue knows how to package them so we feel we can't possibly do without them. Call it peer pressure.

Designers vary the color, or the "style" or some other unimportant but very visible attribute on a regular basis. The technical term for these unnecessary changes is fashion. Fashion has high visibility so your neighbors will know if you refuse to play along. They will know that you are "falling behind," and are no longer "in their league." They will know when to shun you and treat you like the outcast that you are.

ocean trash

2009-06-05T19:06:00.000-07:00

So what did we learn from the recent Air France disaster? And this is in no means meant to be disrespectful towards the victims and their families. But it appears the biggest story is missing from the popular press. I.e. the oceans are very polluted.

If search planes mistake simple ocean trash for the remains of a broken-up airliner there is something very wrong with the oceans. A broken-up airliner leaves a lot of debris. Note that the patch identified by Brazilian authorities was complete with pallets, passenger seats, and an oil slick large enough to be credible. Yet it turned out to be nothing more than "ordinary" ocean trash. That is how polluted our seas really are.

According to some reports there are trash "patches" the size of Texas filled with junk, leftovers, oil and other pollutants. It is apparently not that rare to find old refrigerators or washing machines floating around in the middle of the Atlantic. Trash collects preferentially in areas where currents meet and where seas are more or less calm.

Clearly this is not going to keep going without having some effect on human populations. Sure, it could go on for another 50-60 years, but sooner or later we will pay the price for our unsustainable life-styles.

environmentalism, Berkeley style

2009-05-31T09:04:00.000-07:00

I bet most of the country thinks of Berkeley as a leader in environmentalism. A bastion of the greens; and no doubt this is one honor UC is shooting for. Especially now that "green technology" is such a must-have. It is so cutting edge, and with the new administration in Washington, something that is officially endorsed.

Speaking of the new administration, we won't mention how Barack Obama flew to New York for dinner and a Broadway show. How's that for saving the environment? There are no restaurants in DC worthy of the President? How about that vegetable garden that Michelle started?

UC is following in the President's footsteps here. In an expensive looking brochure -no doubt printed on recycled paper with soy ink, I didn't check;) - UC is trying to highlight how it is focusing on the environment. The cutting edge research may raise a few eyebrows. At least, it should raise a few eyebrows. Hopefully it does more than that!

UC is working on gas saving phones. The project has a killer name: Mobile Millenium. It is a collaboration with the US Departments of Transportation and corporate partners. This obvious consumer angle should not be overlooked. What the MM project is aiming to do is to use volunteer's cell phones to help monitor congestion on side roads as well as on major highways. And here comes the pitch (in bold no less): "If 3,000 users shave 30 hours a year from their commute times, the project will save more than 70,000 gallons of fuel, says the research team."

Applause please !

Or how about this cutting edge idea that is run in collaboration with Google? I quote: "Imagine that your thermostat and appliances are so "smart" they can adjust to peak energy costs throughout the day and night to save you money--and help save the planet." Say that again? Who or what are we trying to save here? How about you become so smart that you turn off your appliances and use less energy? How's that for a killer cutting edge research idea?

UC doesn't stop there. They have a section on "Hatching Green Ideas." Printed in green ink no less! Here we learn that scientists "are experimenting with cutting edge photovoltaic materials to make solar prices "dirt cheap." Cutting edge as in silicon, aka dirt? The dirt cheap is a nice touch.

UC hopes that this will "lead to more impactful products reaching the marketplace," and thereby stimulate more unbridled consumption (that last part is mine)?

The common theme is clear: whatever it is you are doing is good, needed and essential. You HAVE to drive, you HAVE to run your appliances, you HAVE to use energy all the time. You need to buy and consume. That is a given. What our green technology is trying to do is make it so you don't have to feel guilty about it!

We will remove the inefficiencies. Because, you see, the problem is with inefficiencies. If there were no traffic jams, we would have no global warming. If everyone had a "smart" thermostat there would be no environmental impact. And if everyone chartered Airforce One and a fleet of limos to go halfway across the country to eat at a restaurant, then we would all be green heroes.

Cheers America! Let the green begin!

sunny outlook

2009-05-27T11:31:00.001-07:00

Consumer confidence is up. That had the markets all jazzed up and we saw another rally yesterday. Unfortunately, it won't last. Consumers may feel more confident now that the sun is out and the weather is getting warmer, but it won't lead to economic recovery. We are a long way away from that. Much more hardship is to come before we can start dreaming about recovery.

The sunny mood was everywhere. Several newscasts did specials on Memorial Day sales and retailers tried to sound hopeful and upbeat. Even the real estate guys saw signs of a "turnaround" or a "reduction in inventory." Call it a calm before the storm. Rest assured that another round of foreclosures is coming our way. The first reason is quite simple: the moratorium imposed by the new administration is about to run out. The second reason is far less obvious but much more damaging.

The most onerous mortgages, the ones with negative amortization and pay-as-you-go schedules have yet to reset. Their 5 year grace periods will be ending soon. Starting this summer the first ones will hit their resets. When they do, a major wave of foreclosures is inevitable, even if the economy stays where it is (or improves). California will be especially hard hit as most of these "creative mortgages" were written in the golden state.

Foreclosure is inevitable is because people who bought houses with such mortgages were unable to pay their true mortgage rate 5 years ago when they acquired the house. They are even less likely to be able to pay it now.

What will happen soon is that people who could not afford a 30 year mortgage of say $400K will now suddenly have to a pay a 25 year mortgage of $425K. With no equity in their homes and the residual values hovering around 50-60% (i.e. $250-300K in our example), these people will walk. They would be fools not to.

There is a third reason: the deteriorating job market. Everyone who have lost their jobs since the crisis started is also in trouble. That has added an additional pool of foreclosures in the prime mortgage category. People who have equity in their homes but who can no longer afford to pay the remainder of their loans.

All three factors are likely to exacerbate our problems starting this summer. Expect another big drop in housing prices. To be followed soon thereafter by another big wave of job losses and layoffs.

fear mongering

2009-05-22T07:56:00.000-07:00

Even though the Bush administration is now history, its fear-mongering tactics are alive and well. Pushed by none other than Mr. Cheney himself, who takes every opportunity to remind Americans how well the Republicans really did before the Obama landslide rolled over them. Not surprisingly, Mr. Cheney's fear-mongering works as well as it did before. It seems people never learn.

Mr. Cheney is not alone. The health care industry is also reviving their old fear-mongering tactics. Harry and Louise are back to let us know how the government is going to prevent us from accessing our preferred doctor, how we are going to be added to endless waiting lists, and how the bureaucrats are going to make health care decisions for us. Wait a minute? Isn't that already happening? Isn't that what every respectable HMO excels at?

Of course, no amount of reality can remove irrational fears. We all think there were no major terrorist attacks after 9/11. So we are eager to believe that whatever the Bush administration did must be responsible for that. It never occurred to us that terrorists do not have the resources to mount repeated frontal attacks of this magnitude on the same target. Especially not when the element of surprise is lacking. Terrorists did attack the West after 9/11, both in London and Madrid, but in our book, that does not really count.

One cannot help but noticing that fear works very well in America. During the cold war, Americans were more on edge about the Russians invading Western Europe than Western Europeans were. And there are plenty of other examples too.

One reason fear works so well in America is because people are very isolated. They are often displaced, i.e. far removed from the friends and family they grew up with. They are living among strangers, people they hardly know, and people they cannot really count on. Furthermore, they are exposed to a constant barrage of commercials and "breaking news" stories that remove all context, all critical thinking and all common-sense averaging.

Americans are also kept on edge by uncertainty. Most of us have no job security, no health security, none of the basic securities that people in other advanced societies enjoy and that make them less vulnerable to turmoil and less likely to be swayed by ads.

All that is not good, but I suspect some people think it is just the way they like it. It is good for business. People who are on edge spend more and they spend more often. They use more resources, they pursue more paths. They make better consumers.

spare the air and running off cliffs

2009-05-18T09:00:00.000-07:00

The past weekend set new records in several Bay Area locations. Saturday was also a "Spare the Air Day." Do you think people bothered? I doubt it. I went running on Saturday and people were driving busily up and down the freeways, causing traffic jams everywhere. You might think that because it was weekend day, people would try to drive less.

On weekdays, spare the air rarely amounts to anything. People "have to" go to work. They need to participate in the rat race so they can afford to keep up with the neighbors. Or make the payments on that overpriced McMansion they bought years ago. Or pay for a new "hybrid" car. In short, they need to do their patriotic duty and keep up the consumption and consumerism that is the engine of our wealth.

Weekends are no different. After working hard all week, who can blame us for wanted to go on a little trip? Or drive junior to the little league, and then to soccer, and then to chess, and then.. Well, you get the picture. We have obligations to fulfill. We have things to do, important things, things that cannot be derailed by a spare the air announcement.

Ever seen a herd of cattle run off a cliff? I doubt that you have seen this happen in real life, but surely you have seen this in one of the many nature shows on TV? Or you may have read that the plains Indians used this technique to hunt down bison?

Surely you must have wondered, what could possibly possess these dumb animals to be so stupid as to run off a cliff? You must have wondered, what were they thinking? Well, search no further because the answer is at hand. We, humans are running off a cliff too. And what are we thinking? Probably the same thing those cattle thought.

We have always done things this way. It has always worked in the past. We must follow the herd. We must go with them or be left behind. Surely they know what they are doing. Things are fine, so why worry. Aaaahhh, a cliff... Never saw that coming!?!?

stress tests

2009-05-09T07:44:00.000-07:00

Let's all rejoice now that our financial system has passed the stress test. Sure the bigger banks need some more money, but fundamentally -whatever that means in this context- they are fine. Unlike the auto-industry, my friends, our banks are essentially well-run businesses led by the best and the brightest our country (aka the world) has to offer. That is why we keep on paying them these huge bonuses. Because, god forbid, what would happen if they ran away? Where would that leave us?

Let me make two observations: the banks and financial institutions caused this crisis. It wasn't the government that said the banks were wrong, it was the market. The "free" market, in case you wonder. Fraud, misbehavior and in general irresponsible management practices got us in this mess. All the while, those same bankers paid themselves huge salaries and bonuses and they threw lavish parties. They still do.

Yet for all their bad behavior the banks were hardly chastised. Even when they continued to pay themselves exorbitant bonuses, the government did not intervene. The Obama camp continued to give them funds and they are planning to give them more. The Obama camp even sat down with them to prepare a stress test. Just like your teacher sat down with you in high school and told you the answers to your exams? Oops got that wrong!

Now take the car makers. The car makers were badly run for sure. They were in trouble. Yet look at how the government responded to them. Obama fired the CEO of GM. He is prepared to let the auto makers go bankrupt. He is withholding funds and beating up auto makers and their unions to renegotiate contracts. The UAW, unlike the Wall Street Bankers has to make concessions. And in this case we are not talking about paying back some undeserved bonuses. We are talking about people forgoing cost of living increases, health care and their retirement benefits. Of course these people are not the geniuses that we need to keep around to run our economy!

You think this is fair? You think this shows leadership in Washington?

Take a look at the donor lists for the presidential campaign. Look at the donor list for Congressional campaigns. Who paid for the lavish parties and the "historic" inauguration of our new president? Are you surprised at what is happening?

Unfortunately it doesn't stop there. By failing to intervene and fix the banking system, our government has all but assured that the crisis will continue. Maybe not immediately so, as the financial wizards can surely cook up another bubble of prosperity. But it won't last. At some point we will have to pay the piper. And the longer we wait the more we will have to pay.

Right now we are seeing the money bubble. Instead of building, we are printing.

The government is printing money at an ever increasing rate. Money that is essentially promissory notes. Ever wonder what will happen when people no longer want all that paper? When people suddenly lose trust? You think it can't happen? Remember how housing prices could never go down either? Think again (and buy some gold. You may need it to buy food one day).

waves

2009-05-04T08:21:00.000-07:00

Flu pandemics, like wildfires, come in waves. And like wildfires they leave out obvious targets that subsequently become the area of intense study and even more intense superstition. After major fires one can drive through neighborhoods and see perfectly intact houses in the middle of total destruction. Often one will see scribbles or large graffiti on those houses, where the occupants thank god for saving them.

One will also see scientists studying this interesting phenomenon, or even trying to model it. Another big waste of tax payer dollars.

Why bring this up? Well first, because the flu pandemic isn't over yet. Pandemics like wildfires have waves and they too leave out obvious targets. There are two lessons to be learned. One is that overly optimistic and naive interpretations of 1918-9 are likely to be wrong. Back then, some cities survived in the middle of mayhem, not because of actions taken by local governments, or any other foresights, but simply because these things are part of how large systems (pandemics, hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) behave. They skip obvious targets.

The second lesson is that a mild spring wave should not lull anyone into thinking the danger has passed. All major pandemics that we know of -that is mostly those in the 20th century- behaved this way. First there was a mini version of the pandemic, not too infectious and certainly not too virulent, that went around seeding pockets here and there. That was followed by two to four waves of much more intense disease, the first one of which was usually the worst. That is the 1918 scenario. After a mild disease in the spring, the truly deadly wave came later in the fall of that year.

Experts are eager to point out that in 1918 we did not have anti-virals or vaccines. We did not even know what caused the flu. Surely we must be better off now? Dream on.

Vaccines take months to develop and they can only prevent the flu. Once infected it is too late. It is possible that we will develop a vaccine against the H1N1 by fall. And that may help. Although the fall virus will be different (viruses "evolve" on a fast time-scale), it may remain close enough so that the vaccine confers some immunity.

As for anti-viral drugs, they must be given within the first couple of days to be effective. Now it is interesting to point out that many in 1918 were dead within 9-12 hours. And that most of those were killed not by the virus per se, but by the immune reaction it evoked. That is one of the reasons given for the high mortality among 18-34 year olds during that pandemic. Unlike seasonal flu, pandemic flu tends to favor young and healthy adults.

If a 1918 scenario develops, it seems highly unlikely that antivirals will do much good. What may help -and what we have enough of now, but did not have back then- are steroids. Steroids and respiratory support. Only it is hard to implement such measures when emergency rooms are overwhelmed with cases.

One more thing: what played a key role in 1918 was the widespread crowding of young people in army camps. That situation created a true pool of naive (as far as infection goes) candidates. Clearly, that situation does not exist today. But what does exist is many more people, living much closer together, and traveling a whole lot more.

What WHO should do now (which they can't really do) is implement very severe travel restrictions. That seems like the logical thing to do. Only it is so incompatible with the free market and consumer society that nobody will even contemplate it.

As for you, what can you do? Get infected! Seriously, getting infected now, when the disease is mild, will give you free immunity. The best immunity you can buy. But there is one catch. If we all do it, we will instantly have the pandemic that we are so desperately trying to avoid.

You see, there is no free lunch.

biology's revenge

2009-04-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

Isn't it ironic that when you try for generations to survive on meager rations and then suddenly you find food aplenty, that your biology turns against you? Because that is exactly what happens in the real world. Take a look at the Pima Indians and type II diabetes. It is an extreme case, but the same process is going on all around us. Right now it is affecting nearly every one of us. Ever heard of obesity? It is now the norm.

A recent large scale study shows that eating red meat everyday shortens your life-expectancy considerably. Not to mention all the environmental destruction that is caused by all these people insisting on eating red meat every day. If the arteriosclerosis and cancer won't get you, the climate change will quickly put an end to this meat-lovers party.

If you think it is not true, go to the great city of Coalinga, CA. There, close to interstate 5, you can experience first hand the wonders of cattle raising. Stand by the Harris ranch and enjoy the methane and other fumes for a few moments. Then, when this is deeply carved into your brain, go take a look at the Harris meat packages at Safeway.

And just in case you thought of switching to fish for that extra dose of omega-3, be aware that fishing as we know it is coming to an end. Nearly all known fisheries are at, or over capacity. The end of fishing is coming within our life-time. No amount of fish farming will be able to stop that now.

Why worry about declining fish stocks, when you can just buy omega-3 supplements at Costco?

How about one very simple reason? No supplement has ever been shown to be beneficial. Whenever a supplement, vitamin, or mineral, found to be "associated" with improved "this or that," was tested in a real prospective study, the results were crystal clear: no cigar!

The reality is actually a bit worse. In most of those studies the supplement, mineral, vitamin, what have you, was found to be detrimental. I.e. the people taking it did WORSE than the controls. And this happened not just once. Just about every time, something was tested, be it vitamin C, vitamin E, lycopene, blah-blah, the people taking it did WORSE than the control group.

Save yourself some money. Stop buying vitamins and supplements. Let's do away with a superfluous, polluting, and unnecessary industry. And while you're at it, cut out the red meat. Eat more vegetables and fruits. Which ones you may ask? Should you eat apples for quercitin, tomatoes for lycopene, blueberries or pomegranates for anti-oxidants, or any other "magic" food?

NO, no, and no. You should eat local fruit and veggies. The best ones are the ones in your garden. Next comes those grown locally, preferably from a farmer's market. If you really have to, get some at the supermarket. But avoid those out of season, shipped in from other continents fruits, no matter how "healthy" they are supposed to be.

Health is a local thing. You adapt to your environment. It is a long term process and it has been going on for generations. What is good for someone else, living somewhere else, may not be good for you here and now. Remember the Pima Indians, they were fine before there was sugar a'plenty.

adaptation

2009-04-28T21:44:00.001-07:00

Just saw this youtube clip by a comedian, entitled "People are never happy." In it the character makes fun of people who complain about airlines. It really made me think, because I used to fly a lot and airlines really do treat their customers badly. You get no room, bad food, poor service, etc. The airline "experience" is not one to remember. Certainly not for frequent flyers.

However, as was pointed out in the clip, we should be overjoyed. We can fly. We can get from one end of the continent to the other in approximately 5-6 hours, and we are extremely likely to arrive in one piece. It is fast, safe, and relatively inexpensive. Compare that to what transcontinental travel used to be like only a century ago. It took months, one had to endure hardship almost continuously, it was dangerous, it was very expensive, etc.

And therein lies a key lesson about happiness. We constantly adapt and adjust our expectations. And that is one reason why so many people are unhappy, despite being very well off. They always want more. They always think things will be better if they only had that bigger house, that faster car, that latest gadget.

However, as soon as they have it, they take it for granted. There are more gadgets to acquire, better things to possess, more experiences to have. It is a never ending quest. And they are never satisfied.

What does this have to do with the environment you ask? Well, everything, really. It is this never ending desire to want more, to consume more, to waste more that will ultimately drive us to extinction. And we won't be any happier for it. We are just deluding ourselves thinking we need this or that item, adventure, vacation, you name it.

Our consumer society constantly reminds us of all the things we don't have, all the experiences we are not part of, etc. etc. And like defenseless addicts, most of us cannot resist. We need our next hit to be happy.

swine flu

2009-04-27T14:23:00.000-07:00

I am sure that by now you heard about the Swine Flu that is raging in Mexico. I am not sure if raging is the right word since a mere 150 dead in a country like Mexico is barely above the noise. Not that I want to be callous about the loss of life, but, as some people have pointed out, this may be much ado about nothing.

It is interesting to note that this swine flu has already killed almost as many people as the much talked about bird flu of 2006/7/8. That flu did kill an enormous number of birds, but somehow the human toll never materialized. What also did not materialize was the much feared human to human transmission. This time it is different, since it is clear to all that the swine flu does transmit from human to human.

It does not transmit through eating pork and all the worries (and falling stock prices) about that sector are based on a misunderstanding of the disease. Maybe people are confused because in the earlier (bird) flu, contact with birds was strongly discouraged. But then again, not all diseases are identical. Maybe the public can be forgiven for not understanding these "subtleties."

Another reason why the swine flu has caught headlines (apart from the bird flu hangover, and the human to human transmission) is that we all know a pandemic flu is coming. Although we don't know where and when, we can be pretty sure -given the life cycle of flu pandemics- that we are in for a big one. A big one means one that kills tens of millions worldwide. Much like the big earthquake we are all waiting for in here in California, a major flu pandemic is a certainty.

Unlike what most people seem to believe, flu is a very deadly disease. It is not because we all suffer several bouts of flu during our life times, and recover swiftly and pretty much without sequelae in about 1-2 weeks, that we should think of flu as an innocent disease. It is up there with all the major killers that get a lot more coverage in the press.

Furthermore, a pandemic flu, like the one in 1918, is quite a bit more virulent than a "regular" flu. There are many reports of perfectly healthy young people who died within hours of developing symptoms. Some that survived the initial attack died several days later. Granted a large number of those died of bacterial superinfections -and we now have some remedies for those- but it would be ill-advised to be too cavalier about that. It may very well be that such a virulent flu followed by a bacterial lung infection is refractory to antibiotics (even if the bugs are not resistant). That is true because there is a difference between killing the micro-organism and ending the disease process. That too is something the public does not understand very well.

some basic facts

2009-04-14T14:51:00.000-07:00

For those of you who think the crisis is over here are some basic facts. Basic facts that make it highly likely that this crisis will not resolve itself quickly. Facts that are not a matter of opinion or partisan politics.

And just for the record, these facts clearly demonstrate that our current economy is not sustainable in the long run. So, whether you are a fan of American style capitalism or not, it will have to change. Maybe not now, or maybe not yet, but eventually it will.

1. 2/3 of our present economy depends on consumer spending.

2. more than half of the American households have zero net worth.

3. true unemployment (not just the people standing in line for benefits) is close to 15% and rising.

4. half of the aging population do not have enough money to make it through their retirement years.

5. more than three quarters of the country is in a state of denial or ignorance.

Now you tell me how this crisis will end.

Or you can just stick your head in the sand and make optimistic statements based on wishful thinking.

What we need is a complete overhaul of our economic system. Nothing short of that will do.

limbaugh logic

2009-04-12T08:58:00.000-07:00

I saw the infamous Rush on CSPAN the other day. His speech to Republican faithful. In it he said, no whining. He is a real man. He doesn't whine and he doesn't think his followers should either. Maybe they use opioids for the pain?

In any case, not too long after his famous no whining statement, which he repeated several times for emphasis, he explained what he really wanted and why he had said he wanted Obama to fail. Why? Simple, because he wanted America back. He wanted to have the America that he grew up in, back.

Mommy! I want my America back! I want things to go back to the way they were! I want to be a baby again and have you take care of me!

How's that for not whining?

carbon computing

2009-04-08T08:01:00.001-07:00

According to a new IBM ad, the world's datacenters produce more carbon in a year than 36 million homes. There are about a 110 million households in the US, for reference.

IBM's conclusion? The world needs smarter IT, and presumably IBM is ready to deliver those smarts. So much for the hype. Do you wonder how much extra carbon those smarts need?

My solution for the datacenter mess? Take a look at what is stored in those datacenters. Do you think I exaggerate when I estimate that 99% of the information is completely useless? I am willing to bet most of it is duplicated many thousands of times over. Probably 90% of it is never looked at by anyone at any time. A lot of it is printed out over and over again to decorate reports, office memoranda, powerpoint presentations, and the like. Never mind the trees!

Take a look at your own computer. How many email messages are in your inbox? 5,000 plus? How much of your hard disk is filled with junk that you never ever use? Remember the days when 20 megabytes was a lot of storage space? That is not too long ago. Now, anything less than a gigabyte is considered puny.

And who do we have to thank for this? How about Microsoft? Have you noticed that the Office suite has grown several orders of magnitude in the last decade? But why? Does it have more functionality? Is it more useful now? I bet if you are honest with yourself you will admit that it doesn't. You may conclude that it is worse now than 10 years ago, when it did not have all those bells and whistles that you never look at. I certainly think it is worse.

IT is just a micro version of the larger problem. Resources are too cheap so nobody values them. There is too much cheap storage available so what do people do? They get lazy. They keep everything around. They store stuff just in case they might need it one day.

Here is an interesting computing idea. Next time you buy, downsize.

remembering America

2009-03-31T21:30:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered how people will remember America? As the empire that rose from a distant European colony and prospered after it removed the natives? As a nation that lived above its means and spent money it did not have? A realm that bloomed because of cheap oil and became so utterly addicted and dependent on that oil that its entire foreign policy was dictated by oil wars? As a people that elevated senseless consumerism to a new religion? A fat overindulgent mass behaving like a bunch of undisciplined teens wreaking havoc on the environment and wasting resources as if there were no tomorrow? Zombies brainwashed by never-ending commercials, urging them to spend and spend more, to consume and consume more, to trash and trash more?

earth hour

2009-03-29T09:38:00.001-07:00

Apparently Vegas dimmed its lights Saturday for Earth hour. Dimmed is what the paper said. One cannot expect Las Vegas to go dark. Although some notorious items apparently did go without illumination. For one hour the sign, "Welcome to fabulous Las Vegas" was dark. And so were the Luxor's space beams. How is that for progress?

The soon to be renamed Sears Tower, the Golden Gate bridge, the Sydney opera house, the Eiffel Tower, all these landmarks went dark and stayed dark for one full hour.

I hope you didn't feel the urge to pull out the good-old SUV from your garage to go and watch it happen. Or that you were one of the guests at the Bank of America tower drinking cocktails with battery-operated "ice" cubes, served by waiters who carried flash lights and wore battery operated head lights? Because if you did that, it pretty much defeated the purpose.

Then again, millions of people no doubt turned on their TV sets to watch these famous landmarks go dark. Courtesy of hundreds of TV camera crews, who pulled out all the stops to capture the scenes. Never mind the miles driven, the generators that ran, and the elaborate energy wasting toys that were needed to ensure we could all witness this historic event in real time.

I have an idea. Why don't we turn off all those lights every single night? And then once a year, we can celebrate earth hour and turn everything on for 60 minutes. How is that for a nice twist? WWF where are you?

another baby boom and a perfect storm

2009-03-20T19:54:00.000-07:00

We are in the midst of a new baby boom. Last year more children were born than at the height of the post-war baby boom (1957). If you think that is good news, think again. We are rapidly running out of room on this planet.

If you live in California, you may think -based on your travels through our renowned deserts- that we have room a'plenty. Unfortunately, we humans need more than just land. We need water and California is already having trouble providing water to its existing residents, let alone to newcomers. Sure, most of California's water goes to (big) agriculture -another one of those welfare programs for the richest of the rich- but that agriculture provides much of the US, Europe and Japan with fruits and vegetables. Like all irrigated ecosystems, California is losing farm land every year. California's irrigation has already depleted valuable fisheries and it is bound to cause more trouble for the oceans in the future.

Climate change will only accelerate these trends. Our consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow unabated and the effects of greenhouse gas accumulations continue to surpass our wildest predictions. That means sea levels will rise more than our worst case scenarios, and desertification will be more extensive. These trends will further reduce agricultural areas.

According to the latest research we are headed for a perfect storm when it comes to growing world populations and dwindling resources. That storm is predicted to hit around 2030, give or take a decade. What that means is that it is close enough for many of us to start witnessing its effects during our life-times. Unfortunately for some of us, it may become the reason our life-span will turn out shorter than expected.

It seems most likely that such a storm will hit more or less out of the blue, much like the credit crisis we just experienced. All these types of events, be they financial, biological, ecological, or what have you display similar patterns of behavior. Mathematically speaking, these events are very similar.

So while many will see it coming, and there will be clear telltale signs and warnings, most people will ignore these, and a significant number will think the scenario impossible or absurd. It seems highly likely that the run-up to the storm will be characterized by behavior that is truly excessive, and -in retrospect- incomprehensible.

The same happened during the housing crisis. Prices kept rising and everyone thought it would never end. People took on more and more risk, and were feeling more and more optimistic about the future (one reason we are having a baby boom now). And then very suddenly the bubble collapses.

The only difference being, that a resource crisis will be many times bigger and many times more painful than a financial crisis. Tens of millions will die, and many more will be faced with starvation, malnutrition, infectious diseases, and other mortal dangers.

what the consumer wants

2009-03-15T10:01:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I heard that California wants to outlaw some energy-wasting big screen TVs. It seems like a no brainer to me. It appears that the race is on to impress one's neighbors with ever expanding screen sizes that do nothing more than waste huge amounts of energy to beam advertising into your life. TV's have become second only to heating and cooling in their energy consumption and the state wants to do something about it.

That does not sit well with the plasma TV association, or some such trade group whose goal it is to sell as many plasma TVs as possible regardless of the environmental impact. The organization readily decried California's stance as one that denies to give the consumer what the consumer wants. Honest TV installers were worried that they would be labeled criminals for attending to "people's needs." Oh how I do feel sorry for them!

Surely it is hard to think of something more un-American than to deny the consumer his or her every whim? Therein lies a battle cry more shrill than any other. The State of California is going to limit the choices we as consumers have! Surely they must be communists!

We are a long way from the famous Rolling Stones song, "you can't always get what you want." In this case it behooves us as society to pause for a moment and reflect upon this dismal state of affairs. Have we really regressed to the point of becoming temper-tantrum throwing toddlers? Do we always have to get what we want -to say nothing of how these "wants" and "needs" are artificially created through clever advertising?

Is it really so bad if the state provides some adult supervision? Is not adult supervision what we really need? Wouldn't a bit of adult supervision have gone a long way to prevent our current housing crisis? What if someone had told these "poor innocent victims of foreclosure" that it was a stupid idea to buy a house they could not afford? Would that have been so evil?

It is precisely the Reagan idea of laissez faire that has gotten us into our present trouble. You can always get what you want. "This is America," says none other than 24's Jack Bauer in the new Bank of America ad. An America that is as bankrupt as Bank of America.

You can get whatever you like, even if it damages the environment. The world after all, is here to please your every foible and fancy. Don't worry about anyone else. When you buy a stereo the goal is to drive your neighbors crazy. That is the message of conveyed by many car stereo ads. And not surprisingly, many teens and would-be-teens are eager to follow such smart advice.

You can have whatever you want, even if you can' t afford it. That is the Reagan message of hope. Don't worry America, there is always credit. No wonder half of the American households have negative net worth. Isn't it time for some adult supervision?

afraid to face the music

2009-03-14T09:51:00.000-07:00

I heard another economist talk on KQED last night. This one was from Harvard -I forget his name, not that it really matters in the scheme of things.

Once again the story was the same: the administration is not doing enough to mitigate the crisis. It is afraid to "grab the bull by the horns." The monster bailout is too little, too late. And then there was more talk about "toxic assets" and possible bank failures. It appears nobody wants to admit these toxic assets are not toxic as in, "of questionable value," they are simply worthless. Totally and completely worthless. There are no "toxic" assets because there are no assets to begin with.

Anyone who talks about selling toxic assets or setting up a clearinghouse to sell toxic assets is yet another scam artist trying to fool the public into buying worthless paper. No wonder savvy investors are not interested in the Geitner plan. They've learned their lessons.

Unless and until we face these facts, the crisis will not get resolved. Not only that, the longer we wait, the more serious the problem will become and the more damage will ensue. It is one pill the Obama administration does not want to swallow. It is one danger they are not prepared to tackle.

The reality is that all of the nation's major banks are de facto bankrupt and will have to go through bankruptcy procedures of some sort to be salvaged. Since everyone seems to agree that we need those banks, we cannot simply let them go out of business. That would be an even greater disaster and might cause a profound lack of trust in our currency. If that happens all bets are off. That is why I think you should own real gold. Real, as in tangible metal.

Even though Obama does not want to admit to it, the solution is simple: the US has to nationalize its major banks. At the very least it has to nationalize these banks for some short period of time. In essence much of it has already happened. We the tax payers are keeping these businesses alive. We are the de facto owners.

What is truly shameful however, is that the government did not want to get legal ownership in return for its cash. It did not want to become a shareholder with shareholder rights in return for the money it donated. Therefore its bailout money is nothing more than a donation to the rich. No wonder people are getting upset!

And why did that happen, you may ask? Because the folks in Washington are simply too chicken or too stubborn to admit that the great capitalist Reaganomics system has failed. That there is no other way out than to nationalize the financial system in order to avoid total disaster.

If stubbornness is the cause then we are seeing something that is eerily reminiscent of the previous administration's stubbornness to admitting failure in Iraq. If that is true, then change was just another empty campaign promise. If stubbornness is not to blame then there is only one alternative: weakness. I am not sure which is preferable.