living it up

According to a KTVU, Bay Area Channel 2, report Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums is living it up at tax payers' expense. KTVU is apparently upset about the sorry state of Oakland, where Dellums was recently elected mayor. So their special reports team went to dig into the public records and found that Ron Dellums, a long time politician and former congressman is greatly outspending his predecessor, Jerry Brown.

I have to admit that the news coming from Oakland is not good. Crime is up, streets are full of potholes, and the schools are performing badly although they appear to have improved somewhat. It is however unclear how much of that is related to Dellums. Most problems were there well before Dellums was elected mayor. Some would argue he was elected to fix these very problems. If that it true, then it certainly remains a campaign promise. However, what really rubs people the wrong way is the Mayor's plan to cut back on city services to save money. Not that he has that many alternatives given the sorry state of the California budgets.

Dellums is well known for his left-leaning policies, and wikipedia calls him the first openly socialist Congressman since World War II. There is no doubt that many are strongly opposed to Dellums and would welcome any criticism of the man as long as it is negative. Given his political orientation, it is obvious where that criticism would come from. Note that KTVU felt it necessary recently to make clear to its viewers that while it is affiliated with FOX, FOX News has little or nothing to do with the contents of its reporting. Now there is a coincidence if I ever saw one.

To be honest, I am not all that upset about another politician getting free rides. They all do. One might say it is probably the main reason why they went into politics. Perks and power. That is what politics is all about. Never mind the advertising tag line of "public service." Remember, the ministry of love?

What is truly interesting about the whole episode is the warped idea people have of happiness and success. An idea that affects Dellums and other politicians as much as it does most of us. It is the consumer society's idea of happiness and achievement.

It appears Mayor Dellums enjoys fancy hotels, flowers, eating in expensive restaurants and being driven around, be it locally by his personal chauffeur, or in the nation's capital using expensive limo services. These, my friends are put forth as the true measures of what we should all strive for and aspire to. That is why it is supposed to irk us that this particular politician is getting all these perks undeservingly so, and at our expense -or at least the expense of the citizens of Oakland. Furthermore, being a left-leaning politician, this is an indicator of his deceitfulness and untrustworthiness. As if right-leaning politicians are entitled to live it up.

It is sad that people equate dining at expensive restaurants, sleeping in luxury hotels, and first-class airline travel with happiness and achievement. These are ostentatious acts designed to impress others. Their only biological benefit is in attracting mates and generating more offspring. Unfortunately, that is often not possible. So what remains is a ritual shell with all the costs of sexual display, but none of the advantages.

These "perks" do not enhance personal well-being. They are more likely to make you sick. Many people sitting in expensive restaurants wish they could have a hamburger and a beer at home. If only they could shed their expensive costumes and untie their restrictive ties. They would feel happier if they did not have to travel and meet strangers. If they could just shed the yoke of consumerism and enjoy life instead.

personalized medicine

One of the most popular stories on the BBC website this week is entitled,"The United States of Advertising." In it, the author takes on the direct-to-consumer (aka "DTC") advertising practiced by the drug industry in the US. One only has to step outside the country for a few hours to realize how unusual and bizarre this practice really is. Needless to say, the drug industry loves it and for a good reason: it really pushes sales of drugs into blockbuster territory. It has nothing to do with healthcare so much as with opening whole new markets for spending and consumption.

The success of DTC is the main reason the pharma industry has overwhelmingly moved their headquarters to the US. Unfortunately, it has also morphed drug development into a business that requires blockbuster sales numbers just to please Wall Street investors. It is called ROI or return on investment. ROI's make anything but a $1B a year drug a non-viable option for the industry. It is a prime example of how unlimited greed distorts our society. In the end we all pay.

The role of doctors in safeguarding patients is now seen as an obstacle to be conquered. The article points out for example that a simple message is sent: "If your doctor is not offering you this drug, maybe you should ask for it." What it does not say and what is perhaps more important, is that if your doctor does not offer you this drug, maybe you should find another doctor. Get a second opinion as they say in the business.

The author observes that the ads are "sending us in to see the doctor filled with nameless dreads about the symptoms of diseases we might have and a detailed knowledge of the drugs that might help us." This is putting it nicely because the DTC practice not only makes the doctors non-players, it also takes the disease out of the equation. It urges consumers to pop pills whether they are ill or not and whether their doctors think they should or not. I.e. as long as you dread symptoms of a disease you might have, you should take our pill. For good measure the ads are filled with common symptoms that are portrayed as the insidious portents of horrible illness. And those that may otherwise be thought of as harmless are shown as causing great social embarrassment.

Never mind that the symptoms are often caused by irrational behavior, nearly always overconsumption of one sort or another. In the author's case, a minor addiction to beef jerky. While the rational response would be to stop eating something that upsets one's stomach, the "appropriate" response is to keep eating it and go see a doctor instead. Once there, express fear that one maybe affected by "acid reflux disease" or some other horrendous malady, and ask for Nexium, affectionately known to the consumer as the "purple pill." The doctor better behave and do as you demand lest you seek a second opinion on the matter.

In other cases, a little insecurity will do the trick. Not up for intercourse tonight? Maybe you need Viagra, or -if you are frequently interrupted by social gatherings- Cialis perhaps? Aren't you happy that America's pharmaceutical companies are fighting the life-threatening illnesses so we may all live longer?

the weight of the neighborhood

In yet another example of how humans are influenced by their surroundings, researchers announced that obesity rates correlate with the type of neighborhood people live in. In a recent study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, researchers looked at long term residents of several neighborhoods. What they found was that people who live in neighborhoods where walking is discouraged (i.e. your typical suburbia) tend to weigh more. Other studies have found the same trends, people in suburbia are heavier than city-dwellers, and so while suburbia may be "safer" from acute violence, it is worse for you in the long run.



The new study also found that environments that promote social interaction and score high on esthetics are better for women, but worse for men. Women living in such neighborhoods are slimmer, whereas men are fatter. Social activities likely draw women out of the house and engage them in physical activity. For men, on the other hand, it seems social interactions lead to drinking and barbecuing instead. The latter is my take on the study, but it seems plausible and I have some circumstantial evidence to back it up. I often run on a bike path through a suburban neighborhood and often meet groups of women, many with baby strollers, all engaged in a sort of outdoor group aerobics. While I would not go as far as call that serious exercise, it certainly beats sitting at home. Not surprisingly, all these women drive to the trailhead with their SUV's, where they "unpack" their baby strollers and get ready to work up a sweat.

I have also noticed that while men often exercise alone or with a friend, women are rarely seen alone and most often appear in groups. Of the cyclists riding Marin, or the East Bay hills, men tend to ride alone or with one friend, while women ride in small packs. Solitary women are a minority, whereas solitary men are the rule. Men do ride in packs, but only on weekends it seems.

At several of the local clubs, women spend mornings doing group aerobics and other group related pool activities. You rarely, if ever see men do this. Whenever the men at the club have a "social" they barbecue and drink beer. Otherwise, they exercise or swim alone. Although the gender issue is interesting, the main point here is not to highlight gender differences, but to stress the importance of context on all people.

All the available evidence points to the fact that we are much more influenced by our peers and surroundings than we would like to admit. It appears extremely difficult for people to deviate from these local norms for any extended period of time. Subtle and at times not so subtle social pressure is likely responsible. If you are a fitness buff and you move to a "nice" neighborhood, where everyone drives an SUV and mows their lawn military-haircut style, beware. Chances are you will be corrupted, and sooner than you think.

I have often advocated that only way to produce lasting change is to change your environment. You need to find another setting where doing the things that you like doing comes natural to you. Let the environment "force" you to walk, bicycle or run. Such gentle forcing will not be perceived as such and may become pleasurable instead. The neighborhood invites you to do physical activity.

In these settings you will be successful without unnecessary effort. Swimming upstream is not something humans are very good at. That is why diets don't work. To lose weight you need to change your life-style. For most people that means you will have to physically move to a new home, a new neighborhood, etc. A neighborhood where everyone is slim. If you can find one of those that is.

freedom and terror

The politics of fear works. And one area where success can be seen is in the loss of personal freedom. Ever since 9/11 both the US and the UK have severely curtailed personal freedoms. Citizens in those countries have been eager to give up the rights and freedoms that many consider to be the hallmark of a free society. In true Madison avenue style the US version of the law that takes away our liberty has been called the Patriot act. Now there is some advertising mojo !

All of this bargaining is done in return for perceived protection from evil terrorists. We have been quick to allow wiretapping, extensive spying into our personal lives, loss of habeas corpus, and the use of torture to extract confessions. The latter has been romanticized in shows such as "24," which is not surprisingly perhaps, paid for by FOX. 24 is meant to show how effective torture really is and how it can save the world. Which is easy of course if you write the script and know who the villains are. In real life the situation is a bit more murky and the suspects are more often than not innocent citizens. There have been plenty of examples of this already, but so far none have had any effect on our collective mindset. Mistreated individuals have often not received as much as an apology, let alone compensation. That while some were carted off to foreign countries to be tortured.

Recently, Gordon Brown in the UK won a victory to extend the time period the government can keep suspects without charging them. That should be surprising given the extremely poor track record of the UK anti-terror efforts. Not only have they killed innocent people in highly publicized events, but they had to let go of nearly everyone they ever arrested on suspicion of terror. The most important accomplishment of UK intelligence has been to ban bottled water on planes. And to promote the sale of travel-size tubes of toothpaste.

Fortunately, the US government seems to be turning in the right direction. Remember however that we have a much longer way to go. Nevertheless, the supreme court just dealt a major blow to the White House by allowing civilian appeals in Guantanamo terror tribunals. Not that it will matter much as I am sure the government will quickly invoke national security to classify any data that could be used in one's defense. Furthermore, they have been extremely careful to limit prosecution to carefully profiled individuals. Individuals nobody will feel particularly sorry for because they look like terrorists. Profiling is not allowed in screening, but it appears alive and well in arrests made.

It has often been said that we let the terrorists win if we suspend our personal freedoms. If that were true, the terrorists already won. But that is a rather naive view. The real winners are those in Washington and London who would prefer a tighter rein on the populace. Those who think that they know best. That anyone who disagrees with their ideas is not patriotic or worse, a traitor. Those who long to consolidate their power and eradicate dissent. The enemy within.

endless war

George Orwell understood that oppressive governments need wars to keep their populace under control. Wars focus the mind like nothing else. And wars also bring the specter of fear, another great means of crowd control. Fear has been applied with great success in America lately. Ever since 9/11 brought real fear into the hearts and minds of East Coast residents -the effect on the West coast was much less pronounced- our government has done whatever it can to make sure these feelings are kept alive. So effective and enticing is the fear mongering that presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton grabbed it from the Republican playbook and used it in her now famous 3 am ad.

The same 3 am ad that alarm companies use on a regular basis to convince home owners to plunk down hard earned cash, and subscribe to never-ending, but hopelessly unproductive monitoring services. Never mind that most burglaries happen during the day time. People are afraid of the dark, and nowhere more so it seems than in America. That must be one reason why everyone feels so compelled to leave their lights on all the time.

Recent studies have shown that fear works. It works even when our conscious mind dismisses it. Or when we make fun of it. It works because it is of primary importance in survival. Humans are a fairly weak species. Nearly every other species is faster and stronger than we are. A small chimp can easily outdo the most buffed up, steroid pumped body builder. And not by some tiny amount. Chimps routinely generate four to five times as much force as Mr. Universe. And they do it without breaking a sweat. As many drunken college students find out even birds like ducks, geese, or swans can be serious adversaries. A deer can kill an adult human in a heart beat. And so many dogs have been killing people lately that we are all aware of the pitbull factor. Yes, we have reason to be fearful out there.

Unfortunately, the only defense against fear-inducing advertising is to limit your exposure. I know that you will say, it doesn't affect me, I can see through it, I ignore it. I think it is funny. But brain studies show what Madison Avenue knows to be true. It does affect you and very powerfully so. The White House knows too. In these times of economic uncertainty, high gas prices, and a dying American dream, nothing better than to engage in a bit of war dance to keep that brain occupied and focused.

First there was Al Qaeda, then Afghanistan and finally Iraq. Unfortunately, none of these turned out the way we wanted them too. We let Al Quada get away and then the "battle" turned into an endless search for a tall man with a beard wearing a robe. There are plenty of fearful images out there, but a soft-spoken, tall and skinny bearded fellow is not one of them. Even if we know he is very dangerous. This type of rational thinking does nothing to the fear centers in our brain. Neither do beat up, grimy looking fellows like the "9/11 mastermind." They are less scary than good-looking Ted Bundy. What we need here is some good direct and subconscious stimuli. Like the 3 am ad.

Ditto for Afghanistan. It turned out to be a dusty, backward, stone-age patch that nobody cares about. No photo-ops here either. Iraq was fine as long as we had Saddam and some feigned resistance, but once we got rid of him, and nothing changed what more is there to do? The place turned into an endless rioting quagmire. The images on TV look like LA after the Rodney King trial, except a bit more bloody. Poor neighborhoods with burned out cars and foreign looking natives. How is the mighty American military ever going to score here? Not even the machine gun fire can dispel the image of inner city. Neither can John McCain walking around in a bullet proof vest in a place that looks every bit like South Central LA. Shopping?

Desperate for images, we tried Syria and North Korea. North Korea had the "bomb," except it proved to be a dud. It is a poor country and we all know it. Poor countries are the last thing on earth for us to fear. Nothing here either I am afraid. Furthermore, Kim Jung Il is too aloof to be scary to us. He looks so passe, like the Soviet Union in the last century.

Syria also eluded us. Assad is too much of a cold fish to arouse much enthusiasm and Damascus looks too much like the friendly souk where you buy peppers and henna. But Iran is a godsend. Ahmenidjad is a natural enemy. He taunts us, he laughs at us. He displays all the attributes Madison avenue needs to make a successful enemy. And he is endorsed by the Israelis who are also looking for serious distractions. Our friend Olmert too is quite desperate for diversions.

Unfortunately the Europeans are yawning. They can't be roused. Their stance on Iraq proved correct and now they are smug. And that is why our beloved President is out there rallying the troops. Forget about the mortgage crisis, the sluggish economy, the high gas prices. Let's get our European friends to help us out a bit here. We need to unite against a common enemy. We need a coalition of the willing. The willing to pay that is. Because we are bit cash strapped at the moment. So if you have the cash, we have the fear. Let the games begin.

the ideal solution

Most people are aware of climate change and most are smart enough to agree with the prevailing scientific view that humans are causing global warming. Those that don't, either don't get it, or more often perhaps, don't want to get it. They prefer to be left alone and continue doing the things they have always done and more. Those that do seem to care and argue against, are often misguided but sometimes it appears the issues are simply too complex for them to understand. Or perhaps they think that by endlessly repeating the same argument, it will somehow become reality.

Regardless of whether you "buy into" global warming, it is clear enough to those willing to look that we are faced with a myriad of problems that all find their roots in having too many humans wasting too much stuff. We are running out of fish, our only way to produce enough meat is unsustainable, the forests are disappearing, the coral reefs are turning to wastelands, and everywhere you look pollution is rampant, etc. etc. The list is endless and what is more important, these items are perhaps easier to understand than climate science. You may not buy that the world is getting warmer, but you can certainly see that it is getting hopelessly polluted and that our natural resources are being depleted at breakneck speeds.

But enough already, let's assume you are sensible enough to see the obvious. The question is how to fix it? It appears that the ideal solution is also the least palatable one. Many people who do understand the seriousness of our predicament, will nonetheless object to the only proven solution. That solution is also the most elegant of all and it requires no technology breakthroughs, or alternative energy, or what have you. Simply make things more expensive. Raise prices. The only way to make humans appreciate the value of resources is to make it so they can ill afford to use them. Only then will they modify their behavior and act sensibly. It appears we aren't smart enough to stop ourselves. We are like addicts who cannot refuse another drink, no matter how bad it will be for our health. And worse, even if we tried to abstain and not touch the drink, as soon as someone else did, we'd be all over them with envy and all hell would break lose.

Rising prices have several beneficial effects. Not only do they reduce consumption, they also have a negative effect on population growth. And right now, that is very important. We are near the limit of what the planet can sustain. Especially if we all live or want to live the way Americans do. If that is the goal, it would probably be better if we reduced the size of the world population by a good 30-40%. If we could somehow all agree to live sensibly, we could perhaps keep the total near 6 or so billion, but not too much more. That scenario is however extremely unlikely.

Oh, and one last thing. If we don't have the stomach to make the necessary changes, they will be made for us. That, my friends is going to start happening soon enough for most of us to notice.

dirty laundry

In addition to flushing clean water down the toilet, we use it to wash our clothes. Approximately 15%-25% of daily water use goes into laundry according to some sources. A top rated energy saving washing machine uses as much as 5,000 gallons of water per year or about 14 gallons a day according to Energy Star ratings. Energy Star ratings are issued by the government and assume a healthy amount of washing. Actual numbers are probably a bit lower, although you never know. A recent UK study found that the average UK household uses 21 liters or 6 gallons a day to do laundry.

Washing machines maybe practical but they are enormously inefficient. According to the same British study, a washing machine uses about 35 liters (or 35 kgs) of water for every kg of laundry. I am assuming this refers to front-loaders that are ubiquitous in Europe. Front-loaders use a lot less water than the more common top-loaders favored in America. Hey, we live in the desert so why worry. Whereas front loaders spin the wash through a layer of water at the bottom, top-loaders soak the entire tub. In doing so they use 3-4 times as much water.

It doesn't stop there. All that water has to be pumped and heated and that is no small matter. Water is heavy and it has some of the highest heat capacity of any commonly used substance. Calories, a measure of energy are defined as the amount of energy it takes to heat 1g of water by 1 degree centigrade. To heat 35 kgs of water by 35 degrees takes 1,225 kcal or 4,800 BTU. But that is only half the story. Once the wash is done, people use even more energy to get those same clothes to dry.

Although most households in the US have ample sunlight to dry clothes, nearly everyone these days uses a dryer. In some communities, hanging one's laundry to dry is against home owner association rules. God forbid that the neighbors would have to look at your laundry. That is simply not acceptable. Much better to waste tons of energy to dry your clothes. This is, after all, the land of plenty. The added benefit of course is that your clothes won't last as long, which is good for business too. But let's turn to more sensible approaches.

I read today that a UK company, spun out of Leeds University plans to introduce a "waterless" washing machine. The machine uses as little as one cup of water to run a load of laundry. The magic ? Plastic chips ! The company is appropriately named Xeros, derived from the Greek word dry, and it plans to start selling machines next year. The added benefit is that your clothes won't be wet so there will be no need to use the dryer or to face the ire of the neighborhood moral enforcers. It remains to be seen how successful the machine will be. So far, all we have is a press release.

Given that major cities like Barcelona in Spain are now forced to ship in water by boat, and that entire provinces in Spain are drying up and becoming part of the Sahara's northward expansion, this is a timely invention. Hopefully Americans will be smart enough to import these machines should they become successful in the UK and Europe. Until then, try to conserve water if you can. Experts predict it will be the next battleground.