I'm saddened by America's use of mercenaries in Iraq. These people act as guards, truck drivers, cooks, and a host of other occupations in jobs that support our military and diplomatic presence there. There may be as many as 100,000 of them getting paychecks indirectly from Uncle Sam, supporting 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. In previous wars, soldiers did these jobs. What has changed? Is this a risky business?
One major change is the volunteer army. How many people volunteer to be cooks or truck drivers or supply clerks or ammunition carriers? Not many. Once upon a time these jobs were done by draftees who learned their jobs in 16 weeks, did these jobs for 1.6 years, and were then replaced by more draftees. They didn't earn much. Now, highly paid "mercenaries" do these jobs, and some of them, like the truck drivers, carry weapons for defense. Others, often retired Special Forces or other crack troops, guard diplomats and carry out other high profile assignments. It's strange that these people typically make a lot more money, sometimes a whole lot more money, than the "troops" the Presnit is always talking about.
Another change is the lack of regular soldiers to fill the ranks in time of "war". Even with maximum use of the reserves and National Guard, the Preznit can't keep the surge going. Fortunately for him, these mercenaries don't have hitches that expire or families who are pissed off at tour after tour of combat duty. If GBW makes the price right, new mercenaries will always be ready to go - and if one of them gets killed, it's not one of the "troops" GBW"s always talking about. Unfortunately, the mercenary is just as dead.
I'm saddened because mercenaries constitute a "shadow army", an army motivated more by money than by love of country and the country's values. Mercenaries, therefore, are likely to follow orders that regular soldier's won't follow. This, coupled with the fact that a mercenary's legal status is unclear (are they covered by the Geneva Convention?), leaves the American people at risk for atrocities done both by them and to them. Bush has opened Pandora's Box with his heavy reliance on mercenaries in Iraq. It's a bad mistake. It's war by proxy, only the proxy army is mostly American.
The next administration should close down mercenary training camps in the United States. It may also be a good idea to revoke the citizenship of any American who fights as a mercenary in a foreign country, or, at a minimum, disallow embassy or councillar support for such persons if they get into trouble. I just don't want Americans going around the world shooting people for money, regardless of the "cause". It's time we got serious about accountability for all those who do our military dirty work. They've got to be actually in our military, or they don't belong in a combat zone fighting for us.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Science and God
I'm betting on God. I have a bumper sticker that says "Darwin", then a "plus" sign, then a Christian symbol, an "equals" sign, and lastly, a stick figure of a person. The wife of a friend had these done after her minister husband told her of a discussion that he and I had one day. My theology admits both God as the "designer" of the universe and "evolution" as the process by which I ended up writing this blog.
I'm not alone. In the past day I've had a conversation with a very bright science teacher who said "the more I know about creation, the more I believe that God made it possible", and with a very bright clergyman who felt the same way. Two other scientist friends, one an expert in microwaves and another an eminent chemist, are also convinced about God largely because of their scientific knowledge.
The Good Witch and I are currently watching the DVD series "Sensation, Perception, and the Aging Process" from The Teaching Company. I've been brought up to date on the latest research about how the sensory systems work and how they deteriorate as people get to be my age - 63. The combination of physical structures and brain function that enables our sensory perceptions is awesome, but I can accept that a billion years of evolution could account for who we are today.
I recently mentioned that I had read Carl Sagan's "Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God". Sagan, a brilliant man, was an atheist who demanded testable proof of God's existence. But I think God has left plenty of clues, and proof would spoil His party.
But simply admitting God is a rather dry admission. What's it all about? One could have a negative point of view after pondering how much of the created universe has already been destroyed in giant cataclysms, and understanding that our sun will someday vaporize the earth - fortunatly, in a few billion years.
I hang my hat on the positive idea that God wants to be known, and I believe that I will someday be allowed to know God in some way. I also believe that God is interested in seeing how we can "perfect" the creation by making the most of what we've been given by God and the evolutionary process. If we wreck our world with a nuclear war or indiscriminate carbon emissions, we will have failed to make good on the potential we've been given. We need to expect much from each other.
Do I have any proof for what I believe - absolutely not! But I find comfort in the fact that so many smart people over the millenia have also believed that "in the beginning God". And if God was there at the beginning, there's no reason to assume God has been on vacation since then. In fact, as I look past the Good Witch and out the window to the trees and sky, I think I see God's signature all over my view. The science of the person, trees, and sky is God's design.
I'm not alone. In the past day I've had a conversation with a very bright science teacher who said "the more I know about creation, the more I believe that God made it possible", and with a very bright clergyman who felt the same way. Two other scientist friends, one an expert in microwaves and another an eminent chemist, are also convinced about God largely because of their scientific knowledge.
The Good Witch and I are currently watching the DVD series "Sensation, Perception, and the Aging Process" from The Teaching Company. I've been brought up to date on the latest research about how the sensory systems work and how they deteriorate as people get to be my age - 63. The combination of physical structures and brain function that enables our sensory perceptions is awesome, but I can accept that a billion years of evolution could account for who we are today.
I recently mentioned that I had read Carl Sagan's "Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God". Sagan, a brilliant man, was an atheist who demanded testable proof of God's existence. But I think God has left plenty of clues, and proof would spoil His party.
But simply admitting God is a rather dry admission. What's it all about? One could have a negative point of view after pondering how much of the created universe has already been destroyed in giant cataclysms, and understanding that our sun will someday vaporize the earth - fortunatly, in a few billion years.
I hang my hat on the positive idea that God wants to be known, and I believe that I will someday be allowed to know God in some way. I also believe that God is interested in seeing how we can "perfect" the creation by making the most of what we've been given by God and the evolutionary process. If we wreck our world with a nuclear war or indiscriminate carbon emissions, we will have failed to make good on the potential we've been given. We need to expect much from each other.
Do I have any proof for what I believe - absolutely not! But I find comfort in the fact that so many smart people over the millenia have also believed that "in the beginning God". And if God was there at the beginning, there's no reason to assume God has been on vacation since then. In fact, as I look past the Good Witch and out the window to the trees and sky, I think I see God's signature all over my view. The science of the person, trees, and sky is God's design.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
My Guess on the Economy
It's a dismal science, but that's what my MBA at the University of Rochester was all about - economics.
I retired before age 54 and I've toiled at a lot of volunteer jobs since then. I'm pretty secure, barring a catastrophic long term illness or a serious meltdown of our economy. Neither are likely, but nothing is impossible.
My prognosis for the American economy is far less rosy. Although the stock market is flying high due to the good profits being made by American corporations, the financial lot of main street Americans is on a downward trend and will likely continue on that trajectory for a long time. Why?
Two major hammers are poised to fall on the average American citizen - the impact of the cheap dollar, and the impact of tax increases to pay for entitlements.
The first hammer is falling as I write, and that is oil prices over $80/barrel and rising. If oil is valued in dollars, and the dollar falls in value, it takes more of them relative to other currencies to buy a barrel of oil. In other words, part of the gasoline price rise at the pump has nothing to do with supply, demand, or insecurity - it is simply that a dollar is not worth as much to those who sell oil. Soon we will be feeling the impact of dollar depreciation in the prices we pay for imported items from many countries, or in the prices we pay in dollars if we travel overseas to a country with a strong currency. Canada is no longer the land of a bargain vacation!
This week the first of the "baby boomers" retired, and 80 million more will follow her in the next 12 years. Unfortunately, there is no chance that Social Security and Medicare will be able to fund the benefits that these people feel they have earned. Either taxes will go up, or benefits will be cut. In either case, these funds will come out of the economy as reduced purchasing power - which means a lower standard of living for both working people and retirees.
Where did these hammers come from? Did they suddenly appear and catch us unawares? No. The first hammer, the depreciating dollar, reflects our government's lack of budget discipline especially during the Bush administration which has lived on a credit card. The lower dollar also reflects creditor nations' awareness that because the U.S. has not funded its entitlements, the U.S. economy will pay a significant future price to catch up.
The second hammer, the unfunded entitlements themselves, also became much more serious during the Bush administration. The president made a halfhearted effort to "fix" Social Security with a privatization scheme, but he retreated from the issue when this plan was not supported. We have now lost almost seven years of "catch up" time because the current administration has not settled the entitlements problems.
Lynn Cheney, speaking on NPR today, said that history would judge the current administration's economic record to be very good, especially considering 9/11. My view is that the administration will be viewed as having spent and dawdled away our economic future. How far can the dollar fall before Bush leaves Washington?
I retired before age 54 and I've toiled at a lot of volunteer jobs since then. I'm pretty secure, barring a catastrophic long term illness or a serious meltdown of our economy. Neither are likely, but nothing is impossible.
My prognosis for the American economy is far less rosy. Although the stock market is flying high due to the good profits being made by American corporations, the financial lot of main street Americans is on a downward trend and will likely continue on that trajectory for a long time. Why?
Two major hammers are poised to fall on the average American citizen - the impact of the cheap dollar, and the impact of tax increases to pay for entitlements.
The first hammer is falling as I write, and that is oil prices over $80/barrel and rising. If oil is valued in dollars, and the dollar falls in value, it takes more of them relative to other currencies to buy a barrel of oil. In other words, part of the gasoline price rise at the pump has nothing to do with supply, demand, or insecurity - it is simply that a dollar is not worth as much to those who sell oil. Soon we will be feeling the impact of dollar depreciation in the prices we pay for imported items from many countries, or in the prices we pay in dollars if we travel overseas to a country with a strong currency. Canada is no longer the land of a bargain vacation!
This week the first of the "baby boomers" retired, and 80 million more will follow her in the next 12 years. Unfortunately, there is no chance that Social Security and Medicare will be able to fund the benefits that these people feel they have earned. Either taxes will go up, or benefits will be cut. In either case, these funds will come out of the economy as reduced purchasing power - which means a lower standard of living for both working people and retirees.
Where did these hammers come from? Did they suddenly appear and catch us unawares? No. The first hammer, the depreciating dollar, reflects our government's lack of budget discipline especially during the Bush administration which has lived on a credit card. The lower dollar also reflects creditor nations' awareness that because the U.S. has not funded its entitlements, the U.S. economy will pay a significant future price to catch up.
The second hammer, the unfunded entitlements themselves, also became much more serious during the Bush administration. The president made a halfhearted effort to "fix" Social Security with a privatization scheme, but he retreated from the issue when this plan was not supported. We have now lost almost seven years of "catch up" time because the current administration has not settled the entitlements problems.
Lynn Cheney, speaking on NPR today, said that history would judge the current administration's economic record to be very good, especially considering 9/11. My view is that the administration will be viewed as having spent and dawdled away our economic future. How far can the dollar fall before Bush leaves Washington?
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Great Hypocracy of the Christian Right
I just finished reading the late Carl Sagan's "Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God". His wife, Ann Druyan, edited this compilation of his lectures at a well-known conference on "Natural Theology". It was an excellent book.
It seemed odd that Sagan, an athiest, would be invited to give these lectures. I suppose it shows the open-mindedness of the inviting organization. Sagan's premise was simply that he couldn't believe in something that there's no evidence of. He dismissed the "First Cause" argument because he knew nothing about what really caused the big bang, and he believed that religions exist primarily as hierarchical structures that produce the kind of order that humans seem to need. Even though I profess my own version of Christianity, much of what Sagan said resonates with me.
The book's punch line has to do with nuclear war, which Sagan feared could annihilate humanity. At the time he gave the lectures there were more than 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world and the saber-rattling was ominous. Although the chance of large-scale nuclear war is much less now than then, his description of its likely impact on the earth is chilling and sobering. How could we ever have gone so far down this road?
Sagan savages right-wing Christianity in his discussion of nuclear weapons. He points out that primary Christian theology includes the "Golden Rule" as well as Christ's commandment to "love your enemy", yet many Christian countries have nuclear weapons and threaten to use them. How hypocritical!
All this brings me to the world of today and the Christian right wing's rabid aggressiveness, warmongering, and unwavering support of the military-industrial complex. Our media allows these self-described Christians to blatently support the U.S.'s "war of choice" in Iraq and its torture of prisoners without pointing out the total inconsistency between their religion's core beliefs and their own behavior. If Jesus was here today I doubt he would have anything to do with these faux Christians - except perhaps to take a whip to the book-selling tables of their leaders. Since he's not here, we are the ones who should be outraged about our own government's two-faced behavior.
Sagan pointed out that at the time he gave those lectures the world's countries were spending a million million dollars each year on armaments, and he claimed this was prima facie evidence that "religion" had failed us. Nothing has changed.
It seemed odd that Sagan, an athiest, would be invited to give these lectures. I suppose it shows the open-mindedness of the inviting organization. Sagan's premise was simply that he couldn't believe in something that there's no evidence of. He dismissed the "First Cause" argument because he knew nothing about what really caused the big bang, and he believed that religions exist primarily as hierarchical structures that produce the kind of order that humans seem to need. Even though I profess my own version of Christianity, much of what Sagan said resonates with me.
The book's punch line has to do with nuclear war, which Sagan feared could annihilate humanity. At the time he gave the lectures there were more than 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world and the saber-rattling was ominous. Although the chance of large-scale nuclear war is much less now than then, his description of its likely impact on the earth is chilling and sobering. How could we ever have gone so far down this road?
Sagan savages right-wing Christianity in his discussion of nuclear weapons. He points out that primary Christian theology includes the "Golden Rule" as well as Christ's commandment to "love your enemy", yet many Christian countries have nuclear weapons and threaten to use them. How hypocritical!
All this brings me to the world of today and the Christian right wing's rabid aggressiveness, warmongering, and unwavering support of the military-industrial complex. Our media allows these self-described Christians to blatently support the U.S.'s "war of choice" in Iraq and its torture of prisoners without pointing out the total inconsistency between their religion's core beliefs and their own behavior. If Jesus was here today I doubt he would have anything to do with these faux Christians - except perhaps to take a whip to the book-selling tables of their leaders. Since he's not here, we are the ones who should be outraged about our own government's two-faced behavior.
Sagan pointed out that at the time he gave those lectures the world's countries were spending a million million dollars each year on armaments, and he claimed this was prima facie evidence that "religion" had failed us. Nothing has changed.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Socially Responsible Investing - It's Hard to Do
Some people think that socially responsible investing means that they should divest themselves of stock in companies whose business activities they disagree with. Don't like smoking? Sell Philip Morris. Wrong. If Philip Morris is making money, somebody else will buy it, happily. You have accomplished nothing.
I'm involved with a small group of very experienced people who are looking to spearhead true "socially responsible investment". Just to clarify things, "investment" means getting a return on your money. "Investment" is not charity, is not a contribution. Our idea is to identify people or organizations that need money to accomplish socially useful goals, and then loan them the money at below-market rate, say 5-6% for an investment that normal banking channels would not touch.
For example, we'd like to find someone who knows how to rehab inner city housing but does not have the capital to buy the home or purchase the materials needed for the rehab. We could provide the capital and assist the person in learning and performing the skills needed to administer the project. When the home is completed and sold, we get our money back and do a loan to cover his/her next project. The hope is that at some point the person has enough personal capital or credit to do the work independent of us. The benefit is that homes get fixed up, someone builds the skills needed to support a family, and some workers in low income areas get jobs. This would be a good "social investment".
The most interesting outcome of our work to date is that it's hard to find people who fit our criteria. The entrepreneurial spirit is a rare commodity, it appears. But we are continuing the search, and perhaps we'll find an immigrant with spunk who will take our money and do something good with it. I'll keep you posted if something good happens.
I'm involved with a small group of very experienced people who are looking to spearhead true "socially responsible investment". Just to clarify things, "investment" means getting a return on your money. "Investment" is not charity, is not a contribution. Our idea is to identify people or organizations that need money to accomplish socially useful goals, and then loan them the money at below-market rate, say 5-6% for an investment that normal banking channels would not touch.
For example, we'd like to find someone who knows how to rehab inner city housing but does not have the capital to buy the home or purchase the materials needed for the rehab. We could provide the capital and assist the person in learning and performing the skills needed to administer the project. When the home is completed and sold, we get our money back and do a loan to cover his/her next project. The hope is that at some point the person has enough personal capital or credit to do the work independent of us. The benefit is that homes get fixed up, someone builds the skills needed to support a family, and some workers in low income areas get jobs. This would be a good "social investment".
The most interesting outcome of our work to date is that it's hard to find people who fit our criteria. The entrepreneurial spirit is a rare commodity, it appears. But we are continuing the search, and perhaps we'll find an immigrant with spunk who will take our money and do something good with it. I'll keep you posted if something good happens.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Un-Relativity
You've heard the saying, "Everything is relative". Well, I think some things are not relative. Especially the basic things like a roof over your head, clean water to drink, something nourishing to eat, primary medical care, and the opportunity for education to the high school level. Either you have them or you don't.
If you have this basic stuff, the quantity and quality of it really doesn't matter too much. You can have a life without excessive worry and you can enjoy the pleasures of family and friends. Being warm and dry, safe, well-fed, and aware of the world is all most people need in order to wake up without crying every day. And if you have all these things, the first item on your bonus list is having something useful to do.
If you don't have this basic stuff, life is a bitch. It is generally really uncomfortable, really painful, really difficult, and really unfulfilling. Life without the basics is often a competition to obtain them by whatever means, even if that means taking them from others who also have substandard lives, or taking great risks to get to places where those basics might be obtained. This kind of life is precarious at best.
We like to forget that billions of people live (to stretch the meaning of the word) without these basics, and that a few of them even live in the United States. Talk about "human rights" is empty unless these billions are front and center in our conversation and concern. Their problem, generally speaking, is that they were unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong place. They are not just screwed relative to us, they are just plain screwed. (And if the effects of global warming are anything like what is predicted, before long we will have many fewer of these unfortunates to worry about.)
I must admit that I've not done much, personally, to address this problem of humans having to live in sub-human conditions. That's changing - I'm adding my drop to the bucket of compassion. I have begun to understand the concept of things not being relative.
If you have this basic stuff, the quantity and quality of it really doesn't matter too much. You can have a life without excessive worry and you can enjoy the pleasures of family and friends. Being warm and dry, safe, well-fed, and aware of the world is all most people need in order to wake up without crying every day. And if you have all these things, the first item on your bonus list is having something useful to do.
If you don't have this basic stuff, life is a bitch. It is generally really uncomfortable, really painful, really difficult, and really unfulfilling. Life without the basics is often a competition to obtain them by whatever means, even if that means taking them from others who also have substandard lives, or taking great risks to get to places where those basics might be obtained. This kind of life is precarious at best.
We like to forget that billions of people live (to stretch the meaning of the word) without these basics, and that a few of them even live in the United States. Talk about "human rights" is empty unless these billions are front and center in our conversation and concern. Their problem, generally speaking, is that they were unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong place. They are not just screwed relative to us, they are just plain screwed. (And if the effects of global warming are anything like what is predicted, before long we will have many fewer of these unfortunates to worry about.)
I must admit that I've not done much, personally, to address this problem of humans having to live in sub-human conditions. That's changing - I'm adding my drop to the bucket of compassion. I have begun to understand the concept of things not being relative.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
$195 Billion More? No.
President Bush has put forward a supplemental budget request of $195 billion to fund the Iraq occupation and the Afganistan war for the next year.
Just to put that number in perspective:
- It is roughly twice the annual budget for the entire state of California or seven times the budget of Pennsylvania.
- It's also roughly the combined total annual budgets of the U.S. departments of education, transportation, and energy.
- It's greater than the 2005 Gross National Product of Iran ($187 billion).
What else could be done with this incredibly large sum of money? How about:
- Buying every student in the United States a really nice laptop computer?
- Building many desalination plants to provide the American southwest with water from the sea?
- Your suggestion here...
But the problem is that we don't have the $195 billion. Bush is going to borrow it by selling our bonds to the Chinese, or the Arab, governments. They're the ones who have dollars to lend. After they lend it, they will own more of us.
That's right. Bush is going to borrow money from the Chinese and Arabs, then blow it on a war in Iraq. We'll get nothing for it, but we'll owe it.
This insane president needs to be turned down flat! Or, impeached.
Just to put that number in perspective:
- It is roughly twice the annual budget for the entire state of California or seven times the budget of Pennsylvania.
- It's also roughly the combined total annual budgets of the U.S. departments of education, transportation, and energy.
- It's greater than the 2005 Gross National Product of Iran ($187 billion).
What else could be done with this incredibly large sum of money? How about:
- Buying every student in the United States a really nice laptop computer?
- Building many desalination plants to provide the American southwest with water from the sea?
- Your suggestion here...
But the problem is that we don't have the $195 billion. Bush is going to borrow it by selling our bonds to the Chinese, or the Arab, governments. They're the ones who have dollars to lend. After they lend it, they will own more of us.
That's right. Bush is going to borrow money from the Chinese and Arabs, then blow it on a war in Iraq. We'll get nothing for it, but we'll owe it.
This insane president needs to be turned down flat! Or, impeached.
Friday, September 28, 2007
$14 Trillion and Friends
The most recent projection of the Social Security deficit (unfunded liability) is over $14 trillion dollars. That's the difference between what has been, and will be, paid into Social Security by us and our employers and what the current benefit plan says must be paid out to us in future years. What this means is that our government is worse than Enron, worse than the biggest scammer you can think of, and that every federal politician, but Bush most of all, should be tarred and feathered for not dealing with this elephant in the room. Cowards and bastards/bitches all! Their negligence is going to kill our country in the long run. Better put your own money away, Woozie, 'cause the government won't have anything for you.
And on a brighter note, I'd just like to point out that the best things in life are the people you love and the people who love you. Your spouce, your true friends.
The Good Witch and I just got home from a casual dinner with three old friends in a small cottage on Lake Ontario. The wind came straight into the windows off the white-capped lake below the clouds that showed through the moonlight, and we drank wine, ate salad, chili and cornbread, and had grape pie, fresh peaches, and vanilla ice cream for dessert. It was a beautiful evening in every way, but it would have been nothing without the friendships that we celebrated. Cultivate your friends!
And on a brighter note, I'd just like to point out that the best things in life are the people you love and the people who love you. Your spouce, your true friends.
The Good Witch and I just got home from a casual dinner with three old friends in a small cottage on Lake Ontario. The wind came straight into the windows off the white-capped lake below the clouds that showed through the moonlight, and we drank wine, ate salad, chili and cornbread, and had grape pie, fresh peaches, and vanilla ice cream for dessert. It was a beautiful evening in every way, but it would have been nothing without the friendships that we celebrated. Cultivate your friends!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Celebrating Course Completion!
The Good Witch and I last night completed the 48th, and last, 45-minute lecture of "How to Listen to and Understand Great Music", by Professor Robert Greenberg of The Teaching Company. I'm a little sad, since Greenberg seems like an old friend who I won't see again soon.
How can I adequately explain to you that I will never again listen to music in the same way I did before I took this course? That's the funny thing about learning from someone who knows and loves the subject they are teaching - your life is changed. Although I have always loved music of all periods and listened attentively, I now listen with a brain that decodes much more about the sound I'm hearing. I won't get into the details - I'll just say that the experience of music is much richer to me than it was before.
Maybe music is not your thing, but learning should be. If you are not in school, consider going online to "theteachingcompany.com", checking out what's "on-sale", and purchasing a course that interests you. You won't be disappointed, and you will be smarter and happier for the experience.
We've now completed "The History of Western Civilization - Part I" and the course mentioned above. The next one in line is "Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution: Modern Physics for Non-Scientists, 2nd Edition". In a few weeks the Good Witch will understand the theory of relativity, and I will understand it even better. If you're not learning, what are you doing?
How can I adequately explain to you that I will never again listen to music in the same way I did before I took this course? That's the funny thing about learning from someone who knows and loves the subject they are teaching - your life is changed. Although I have always loved music of all periods and listened attentively, I now listen with a brain that decodes much more about the sound I'm hearing. I won't get into the details - I'll just say that the experience of music is much richer to me than it was before.
Maybe music is not your thing, but learning should be. If you are not in school, consider going online to "theteachingcompany.com", checking out what's "on-sale", and purchasing a course that interests you. You won't be disappointed, and you will be smarter and happier for the experience.
We've now completed "The History of Western Civilization - Part I" and the course mentioned above. The next one in line is "Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution: Modern Physics for Non-Scientists, 2nd Edition". In a few weeks the Good Witch will understand the theory of relativity, and I will understand it even better. If you're not learning, what are you doing?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Global Warming Hysteria - Coming Soon?
I've been reading a new (2007) book by Fred Pearce entitled "With Speed and Violence - Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change". I do not recommend this book for reading immediately prior to bedtime. It's scary.
The author, who does not appear to be a kook but has some real credentials as a reporter, interviewed many scientists who are looking at various aspects of climate change. The chapters describe how each driver of climate change is behaving now, and how it is likely to affect our future climate. I've learned what these experts believe is happening with CO2, methane, peat bogs, permafrost, the albedo, clathrates, ocean currents,and other stuff.
I'm only halfway into the book and the news is all bad, so I'm done reading. If these people are right, we've put the global climate change train on the track, pushed the throttle on full, and retired to the club car for a few drinks while we wait for the inevitable and totally horrific wreck of our planet. Worried about over-population? Fuggetaboutit! Mother Nature will take care of this problem shortly, and the many fewer remaining humans will live in a much different fashion than we do now. We are quite adaptable, you know.
Who knows where this will go? We may have already started that train, or perhaps there is some time left to mitigate our climate-changing activities. But one thing I know: we humans are quite resistant to change. If inconvenience will be required to head off the end of the world as we know it, well, the world is going to end at some point anyway... Our best hope is that all this gloom and doom has been over-hyped and some compensating factors will keep our planet from overheating.
Stay tuned. It seems that the answers to almost all these questions will become apparent in this century, or perhaps in its first half. In the meantime, have another drink on me.
The author, who does not appear to be a kook but has some real credentials as a reporter, interviewed many scientists who are looking at various aspects of climate change. The chapters describe how each driver of climate change is behaving now, and how it is likely to affect our future climate. I've learned what these experts believe is happening with CO2, methane, peat bogs, permafrost, the albedo, clathrates, ocean currents,and other stuff.
I'm only halfway into the book and the news is all bad, so I'm done reading. If these people are right, we've put the global climate change train on the track, pushed the throttle on full, and retired to the club car for a few drinks while we wait for the inevitable and totally horrific wreck of our planet. Worried about over-population? Fuggetaboutit! Mother Nature will take care of this problem shortly, and the many fewer remaining humans will live in a much different fashion than we do now. We are quite adaptable, you know.
Who knows where this will go? We may have already started that train, or perhaps there is some time left to mitigate our climate-changing activities. But one thing I know: we humans are quite resistant to change. If inconvenience will be required to head off the end of the world as we know it, well, the world is going to end at some point anyway... Our best hope is that all this gloom and doom has been over-hyped and some compensating factors will keep our planet from overheating.
Stay tuned. It seems that the answers to almost all these questions will become apparent in this century, or perhaps in its first half. In the meantime, have another drink on me.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Iraq War Cost Update - Your Share is $1,523 Plus Interest
The National Priorities Project has calculated that the "incremental cost" of the Iraq War will hit $456 billion on September 30, 2007. This is money already spent, and does not include any future costs such as the medical treatment and disability benefits for soldiers wounded in Iraq - costs that will be giant in their own right.
"Incremental" means money that we would not have spent if we had not gone to war. For example, regular salaries of troops are not incremental, but combat pay is. Buying vehicles to replace those that have been worn out early or blown up in combat is incremental. You get the idea.
In 2003, when we invaded Iraq, that country had a population of about 25 million men, women, and children. As of September 30, 2007, the U.S. will have spent an "incremental" $18,280 for each of them in our effort to create a working, friendly democracy in Iraq. Or, to put it another way, George Bush has already spent $1,523 on Iraq for every one of the 300 million Americans.
Maybe you don't think this is a lot of money. Here's yet another way to think about it. George Bush could have taken the $1,523 and put it into a Social Security lock box for each one of us, to compound until we retire. If we were 18 this year, that money would grow by about $8,500 until we retired at 65. Now, here's the really bad news: since Bush borrowed this money and added it to the national debt which will not be repaid, we and our children will be paying out $8,500 in interest on this $1,523 over the next 47 years - and a good chunk of that will be going to Chinese investors.
The next time you meet an Iraq War Hawk, remind him or her of the amount his family has spent on the war to-date. For a family of five, that's $7,500, not counting the future medical costs or interest on the debt. Have the results been worth it?
"Incremental" means money that we would not have spent if we had not gone to war. For example, regular salaries of troops are not incremental, but combat pay is. Buying vehicles to replace those that have been worn out early or blown up in combat is incremental. You get the idea.
In 2003, when we invaded Iraq, that country had a population of about 25 million men, women, and children. As of September 30, 2007, the U.S. will have spent an "incremental" $18,280 for each of them in our effort to create a working, friendly democracy in Iraq. Or, to put it another way, George Bush has already spent $1,523 on Iraq for every one of the 300 million Americans.
Maybe you don't think this is a lot of money. Here's yet another way to think about it. George Bush could have taken the $1,523 and put it into a Social Security lock box for each one of us, to compound until we retire. If we were 18 this year, that money would grow by about $8,500 until we retired at 65. Now, here's the really bad news: since Bush borrowed this money and added it to the national debt which will not be repaid, we and our children will be paying out $8,500 in interest on this $1,523 over the next 47 years - and a good chunk of that will be going to Chinese investors.
The next time you meet an Iraq War Hawk, remind him or her of the amount his family has spent on the war to-date. For a family of five, that's $7,500, not counting the future medical costs or interest on the debt. Have the results been worth it?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Tiger, Tiger, Burning Bright!
It's Sunday afternoon. I went to church this morning where a tiny female substitute minister also played a beautiful Chopin variation on her violin together with a large black female guitar player who was excellent. Afterward I went to the ambulance to prepare financial statements for tonight's board meeting, but I took a call shortly after I finished the statements since no other medics were around. Now, after an interesting call, I've been home for awhile watching Tiger Woods win the Tour Championship tournament by an outrageous number of strokes - and also win the very first FedEx Cup. Just another day for Tiger...
2007 is Tiger's 11th year on the PGA tour since he left Stanford University after his freshman year to turn pro. He's won 61 tournaments and over $70 million, and he owns so many records I couldn't begin to relate them. His golf game is unique - no one has ever had as complete a game as Tiger. He hits it far; he hits it straight; he recovers from bad shots; he plays from sand like it isn't there; his short game and putting is possibly the best ever. But none of these things is the #1 reason I'm a great Tiger fan.
My #1 reason for admiring Tiger is that he has an unrelenting drive to excel. His golf game today is nothing like his golf game in 1997, where he won the Masters by 12 shots and embarassed every other top pro golfer. In those days he combined great talent and "feel" with youthful exuberance and confidence. Now though, he's much stronger, smarter, and "technical" - he dissects golf courses like a top-flight surgeon, and he can win even when he's not hitting the ball perfectly. He's changed his swing several times since 1997, struggling to do it a new way and willing to have some dry spells as he changed over. Tiger has never said "I'm good enough", and he's worked as hard as any other golfer to play his best. As a result, he's still as far ahead of the other golfers as he was 10 years ago, even though all his competitors have also improved their skills.
We can all learn a great lesson from Tiger, the lesson that improvement is a continuous goal regardless of our level of success. Even if our objectives fall short of being world class at anything, we can always try our best to do better every day. And that is the #1 reason why Tiger is a more admirable person than I am: he's worked harder and sacrificed more to maximize on his natural ability than I have worked and sacrificed to maximize on mine. Excellence in human activities, even in sports, is important to our species. In golf, Tiger burns bright because he brings in the fuel and keeps it lit at all times.
2007 is Tiger's 11th year on the PGA tour since he left Stanford University after his freshman year to turn pro. He's won 61 tournaments and over $70 million, and he owns so many records I couldn't begin to relate them. His golf game is unique - no one has ever had as complete a game as Tiger. He hits it far; he hits it straight; he recovers from bad shots; he plays from sand like it isn't there; his short game and putting is possibly the best ever. But none of these things is the #1 reason I'm a great Tiger fan.
My #1 reason for admiring Tiger is that he has an unrelenting drive to excel. His golf game today is nothing like his golf game in 1997, where he won the Masters by 12 shots and embarassed every other top pro golfer. In those days he combined great talent and "feel" with youthful exuberance and confidence. Now though, he's much stronger, smarter, and "technical" - he dissects golf courses like a top-flight surgeon, and he can win even when he's not hitting the ball perfectly. He's changed his swing several times since 1997, struggling to do it a new way and willing to have some dry spells as he changed over. Tiger has never said "I'm good enough", and he's worked as hard as any other golfer to play his best. As a result, he's still as far ahead of the other golfers as he was 10 years ago, even though all his competitors have also improved their skills.
We can all learn a great lesson from Tiger, the lesson that improvement is a continuous goal regardless of our level of success. Even if our objectives fall short of being world class at anything, we can always try our best to do better every day. And that is the #1 reason why Tiger is a more admirable person than I am: he's worked harder and sacrificed more to maximize on his natural ability than I have worked and sacrificed to maximize on mine. Excellence in human activities, even in sports, is important to our species. In golf, Tiger burns bright because he brings in the fuel and keeps it lit at all times.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Munitions from Iran? Golly, What a Surprise!
The latest outrage reported by U.S. Army spokesmen is a 240mm mortar round, likely from Iran, that caused the death of one of our soldiers. Its terrible that those dastardly Iranians let one of their big boomers get into the hands of our Iraqi enemies!
Well, guess what? The U.S. and the Iranians both have engaged in arming friendly militias for as long as I can remember. In fact, old Ollie North once sold arms to the Iranians in order to get cash to support the Nicaraguan "contras". Ollie wasn't on official business when he did this (until it was shown that he and Reagan lied about our involvement), and neither are the shadowy Iranians who just happen to have access to weapons that make their way into Iraq. Also, the U.S. just happened to lose a whole bunch of shoulder-fired missles in Afganistan about the time the Russians occupied that country. Apparently it's OK for us but not OK for Iran.
The fact of the matter is that all kinds of weapons tend to leak into irregular war zones. Al Queda is getting its arms and high-tech explosives from outside suppliers, probably in return for cash that came from Saudi Arabia. The Sunni militias are getting more sophisticated arms from their supporters, and the Shiite militias from theirs (Iran chief among them, most likely).
Arms are simply a commodity that follows demand, and the U.S. has created a huge demand in Iraq by destabilizing that country. Why the U.S. administration was clueless about this, and about the giant stockpiles of arms that it left unguarded early in the war, is baffling. Obviously, those in charge were naive at best.
There are reports of semi-organized resistance forces inside remote areas of Iran. If they do exist, do you think for one minute that their weapons were acquired absent clandestine U.S. support? Remember this when you hear the next complaint about Iranian meddling. It's just par for the course in the messy business of sub-rosa Nation -vs- Nation.
Well, guess what? The U.S. and the Iranians both have engaged in arming friendly militias for as long as I can remember. In fact, old Ollie North once sold arms to the Iranians in order to get cash to support the Nicaraguan "contras". Ollie wasn't on official business when he did this (until it was shown that he and Reagan lied about our involvement), and neither are the shadowy Iranians who just happen to have access to weapons that make their way into Iraq. Also, the U.S. just happened to lose a whole bunch of shoulder-fired missles in Afganistan about the time the Russians occupied that country. Apparently it's OK for us but not OK for Iran.
The fact of the matter is that all kinds of weapons tend to leak into irregular war zones. Al Queda is getting its arms and high-tech explosives from outside suppliers, probably in return for cash that came from Saudi Arabia. The Sunni militias are getting more sophisticated arms from their supporters, and the Shiite militias from theirs (Iran chief among them, most likely).
Arms are simply a commodity that follows demand, and the U.S. has created a huge demand in Iraq by destabilizing that country. Why the U.S. administration was clueless about this, and about the giant stockpiles of arms that it left unguarded early in the war, is baffling. Obviously, those in charge were naive at best.
There are reports of semi-organized resistance forces inside remote areas of Iran. If they do exist, do you think for one minute that their weapons were acquired absent clandestine U.S. support? Remember this when you hear the next complaint about Iranian meddling. It's just par for the course in the messy business of sub-rosa Nation -vs- Nation.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Remembering 9-11
Yes, today is a sad day. The bad guys broke through our pitiful defenses, killed many Americans, and scored a huge PR victory on 9/11/01. Unfortunately, our government had been much more concerned about a North Korean missile attack (and spending huge dollars on an anti-missile defense) than about heeding the Clinton administration's concerns about an attack on America by Islamic radicals.
It's also sad because our president and commander in chief, George W. Bush, that day sat in a gradeschool classroom after the second tower was hit and read a book about a goat while looking rather dazed, then ran and hid in a bunker for awhile, until he felt safe.
It's also sad because 9-11 (going after Al-Queda) was used as a pretext to go after non-existent terrorists in Iraq, costing us Americans $1 trillion and almost 4,000 lives.
It's also sad because we remember how many first responders broke every rule in the book by running inside the Twin Towers, only to die there. And we also remember how, just this year, the sadly stupid firemen did the same thing again when an unoccupied building next to the Twin Towers caught on fire - some of them died, too. This may seem heartless, but maybe it's time to expect firemen to obey their own rules. As an EMT, I may break the rules about scene safety, but if I die I don't expect to be named a hero - just call me a brave but stupid guy.
It's also sad because this entire "terrorism" thing is wasting an incredible amount of resources that should be used to deal with a whole bunch of serious world-wide problems that threaten humankind in general. Like Peanuts said, "We have met the enemy and it is us!" It's time for some serious conversation and a halt to all this bullshit.
It's also sad because our president and commander in chief, George W. Bush, that day sat in a gradeschool classroom after the second tower was hit and read a book about a goat while looking rather dazed, then ran and hid in a bunker for awhile, until he felt safe.
It's also sad because 9-11 (going after Al-Queda) was used as a pretext to go after non-existent terrorists in Iraq, costing us Americans $1 trillion and almost 4,000 lives.
It's also sad because we remember how many first responders broke every rule in the book by running inside the Twin Towers, only to die there. And we also remember how, just this year, the sadly stupid firemen did the same thing again when an unoccupied building next to the Twin Towers caught on fire - some of them died, too. This may seem heartless, but maybe it's time to expect firemen to obey their own rules. As an EMT, I may break the rules about scene safety, but if I die I don't expect to be named a hero - just call me a brave but stupid guy.
It's also sad because this entire "terrorism" thing is wasting an incredible amount of resources that should be used to deal with a whole bunch of serious world-wide problems that threaten humankind in general. Like Peanuts said, "We have met the enemy and it is us!" It's time for some serious conversation and a halt to all this bullshit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
