The Atmospheric Cliff
"2012 storm season ranks among busiest"
"Warming permafrost needs attention now, scientists say"
"Are of Arctic sea ice larger than U.S. melted this year"
These three headlines clustered on pages 3 and 4 of my newspaper this morning. The fiscal cliff didn't come up until page 5. Perhaps we have been worrying about the wrong cliff.
The first story noted that we had 19 named storms in 2012, although only one that got up to category 3. If I understand the physics correctly that is exactly what we should expect from global warming. The intensity of a storm is determined by the difference in temperature between between two colliding fronts. The frequency of storms is determined by the average warmth of the atmosphere. Global warming is increasing the average temperature but may actually be narrowing the differences in temperature.
The story about melting sea ice noted that it is causing a rapid rise in sea levels. That reminded me of recent stories in the newspaper about the increasing frequency of damage to beaches and roads on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Land on the Outer Banks costs an arm and a leg but how much is it worth if it is under water or can only be accessed by boat? My daughter, who works for the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in USAID and whose current assignment includes the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean, has told me that at the current rate of sea rise the entire country will be under water by the end of this century. I think that qualifies as a disaster.
The problem with melting permafrost is that it releases large amounts--gigatons--of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane. It creates a vicious circle of atmospheric warming. More gases produce more melting which produces more gases. How soon will we resemble the planet Venus?
My short term solution is to sell my land on the Outer Banks and in the Maldives and invest the money in farm land on Greenland and shore property on Hudson Bay in northern Canada. My long term solution is to die before the end of this century.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Strange Bedfellows.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. I used to have considerable respect for Sen. Lindsey Graham. He seemed to be an independent thinker with some interesting ideas. Now he has become tied to the conspiritorial apron strings of Sen. John McCain. Both are complaining about something that doesn't even matter unless you are a conspiracy buff. Who cares if United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice unwittingly dispensed some inaccurate information about the attack on our Benghazi, Libya embassy? Ambassador Rice was not in charge of our embassies and could not be presumed to have the latest information on the matter. Nor could it have any effect on the fate of the embassy personnel. She was not the right person to ask in the first place. How does that make her a poor candidate to be our next Secretary of State?
Then there is the Simpson-Bowles plan to tackle our national deficit. Erskine Bowles was former Pres. Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff while Alan Simpson was formerly a Republican U.S. Senator from Wyoming. They are working together in the Fix the Debt campaign to push a set of budget cuts and revenue increases that neither party likes very much. It seems unlikely that either Simpson or Bowles would support such a package if they had to do it alone. But together they form a solution that could work if the party leaders would stop tying themselves to the mast of the sinking ship.
The fiscal cliff is the result of a strange cabal of Democratic and Senatorial lawmakers who deliberately concocted a package of tax increases and budget cuts they thought no one would support. The package was passed precisely because everyone expected it would be cancelled after the elections. But why cancel it? Maybe it will send our economy into a new recession or depression but each side can blame the other for it. For the Democrats it puts in place some tax increases that the Republicans wouldn't touch but for which they are now equally responsible. And for the Republicans it makes some cuts that reduce the size of the federal government and make the tea party happy. After we go over the cliff the Republicans can forcefully propose to restore the tax cuts and the Democrats can loudly try to pass legislation to restore the entitlements that were trimmed. What a wonderful show! So I predict that the two parties, while appearing to search for compromise, will secretly conspire in their efforts to let us fall over the fiscal cliff
Politics makes strange bedfellows. I used to have considerable respect for Sen. Lindsey Graham. He seemed to be an independent thinker with some interesting ideas. Now he has become tied to the conspiritorial apron strings of Sen. John McCain. Both are complaining about something that doesn't even matter unless you are a conspiracy buff. Who cares if United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice unwittingly dispensed some inaccurate information about the attack on our Benghazi, Libya embassy? Ambassador Rice was not in charge of our embassies and could not be presumed to have the latest information on the matter. Nor could it have any effect on the fate of the embassy personnel. She was not the right person to ask in the first place. How does that make her a poor candidate to be our next Secretary of State?
Then there is the Simpson-Bowles plan to tackle our national deficit. Erskine Bowles was former Pres. Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff while Alan Simpson was formerly a Republican U.S. Senator from Wyoming. They are working together in the Fix the Debt campaign to push a set of budget cuts and revenue increases that neither party likes very much. It seems unlikely that either Simpson or Bowles would support such a package if they had to do it alone. But together they form a solution that could work if the party leaders would stop tying themselves to the mast of the sinking ship.
The fiscal cliff is the result of a strange cabal of Democratic and Senatorial lawmakers who deliberately concocted a package of tax increases and budget cuts they thought no one would support. The package was passed precisely because everyone expected it would be cancelled after the elections. But why cancel it? Maybe it will send our economy into a new recession or depression but each side can blame the other for it. For the Democrats it puts in place some tax increases that the Republicans wouldn't touch but for which they are now equally responsible. And for the Republicans it makes some cuts that reduce the size of the federal government and make the tea party happy. After we go over the cliff the Republicans can forcefully propose to restore the tax cuts and the Democrats can loudly try to pass legislation to restore the entitlements that were trimmed. What a wonderful show! So I predict that the two parties, while appearing to search for compromise, will secretly conspire in their efforts to let us fall over the fiscal cliff
Thursday, November 22, 2012
A Thanksgiving Prayer
Let us give thanks to the turkey
who
gobbled the corn
as
she strutted her plump feathered breasts
for
all to admire
and
to eat.
Let
us give thanks to the corn stalks
that
turned sun and rain
into
ripening ears of golden grain
to
fatten the bird
and
to eat.
Let
us give thanks to the planet
that
cradled our roots
as
it held us all firm to its bosom
to
breathe its sweet air
and
to eat.
Let
us give thanks to the sun-star
that
held Earth in thrall
as
it plunged through the seasons toward Autumn
to
bring harvest time
and
to eat.
Let
us give thanks to the Big Bang
that
gave birth to stars
and
to time, light and forces of nature
that
brought us to life
and
to eat.
Let
us give thanks to ancestors
who
captured the fire,
and
learned to sow crops and reap harvests,
who
made tools for work
and
to eat.
Let
us give thanks to each other
who
gathered today
to
share thoughts and memories and play,
to
set a great feast
and
to eat.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Land Values.
Headline on the front page of The News & Observer in Raleigh: "Legal mess lies beneath homes."
The article details the difficulties faced by some homeowners when they try to sell a home that stands on land where the title to mineral rights has been retained by someone else. Timber companies in North Carolina have sold hundreds of thousands of acres of land but "retained the right to mine and drill hundreds of feet below the surface of the land". Banks are reluctant to issue mortgages on such land and not without good reason. Legal wrangles could easily eat up any profits from the sale of the mortgage.
Some economists believe that land values are the bedrock of all economic value. A friend of mine argues that a single tax on land values or land usage could and should replace all other forms of taxation. If land ownership can be divided into strata, however, these ideas about value and usage require modification. Can land have two or more sources of value? Should both the owner of surface rights and the owner of mineral rights be taxed? Might underground rights be defined and sold for different levels or different minerals, such as for natural gas and for water? Might air rights also be defined and sold separately?
Is it possible to divide the earth into legal strata? Governments have tried to do that, for instance, in order to regulate air and water pollution by power companies. Courts have struggled to deal with loss of land value caused by subsidence of land over coal mines. We are now embroiled in the issue of fracking for natural gas and its potential effects on other resources such as clean drinking water. The sloughing of chemical fertilizers from the land surface into our streams and rivers and the resultant effects on other resources such as fish has also become an economic issue. And land under water has taken on new economic value as we explore its use for wind farms, tidal power, and oil drilling platforms.
If land ownership is the base on which our economy stands it is obvious that we need to clarify such ownership as to both the rights and the responsibilities of land owners, including governments.
Headline on the front page of The News & Observer in Raleigh: "Legal mess lies beneath homes."
The article details the difficulties faced by some homeowners when they try to sell a home that stands on land where the title to mineral rights has been retained by someone else. Timber companies in North Carolina have sold hundreds of thousands of acres of land but "retained the right to mine and drill hundreds of feet below the surface of the land". Banks are reluctant to issue mortgages on such land and not without good reason. Legal wrangles could easily eat up any profits from the sale of the mortgage.
Some economists believe that land values are the bedrock of all economic value. A friend of mine argues that a single tax on land values or land usage could and should replace all other forms of taxation. If land ownership can be divided into strata, however, these ideas about value and usage require modification. Can land have two or more sources of value? Should both the owner of surface rights and the owner of mineral rights be taxed? Might underground rights be defined and sold for different levels or different minerals, such as for natural gas and for water? Might air rights also be defined and sold separately?
Is it possible to divide the earth into legal strata? Governments have tried to do that, for instance, in order to regulate air and water pollution by power companies. Courts have struggled to deal with loss of land value caused by subsidence of land over coal mines. We are now embroiled in the issue of fracking for natural gas and its potential effects on other resources such as clean drinking water. The sloughing of chemical fertilizers from the land surface into our streams and rivers and the resultant effects on other resources such as fish has also become an economic issue. And land under water has taken on new economic value as we explore its use for wind farms, tidal power, and oil drilling platforms.
If land ownership is the base on which our economy stands it is obvious that we need to clarify such ownership as to both the rights and the responsibilities of land owners, including governments.
Friday, November 9, 2012
The Time Tax
No one seems to have noticed that Tuesday's election results tended to vindicate the judgment of the US Supreme Court in their Citizens United decision. Corporations lie just like people do and money speaks lies just like people do.
The election also showed that we as a people have gotten an awful lot of practice in deciphering and ignoring corporate lies. We are barraged with these lies daily on television, radio, and phone and in newspapers, magazines, and email. If we hadn't learned to protect ourselves from corporate speech we would be much poorer than we are.
The net result is that our business moguls wasted billions of dollars trying to buy an election just as they regularly waste billions of dollars trying to influence our purchases. Not that they don't sometimes succeed, of course. No amount of education will help some citizens. But enough of us knew how to sort the wheat from the chaff that the nation was saved from four years of corporate presidency.
The corporate billionaires could have shaped the outcome of the election to their liking if they were wise enough. All they had to do was donate all that money to charity in the name of their favored candidates. The 47 percent would have roused themselves to vote for their benefactors. But why would the electorate want to vote for the people who for months had tortured them interminably with lying ads?
Advertising is basically a tax we pay for our entertainment and news. Those of us who watch PBS are spared from most of the advertising by simply paying for the service with our taxes. But if you prefer to watch a football game, Fox News, Two and a Half Men or Stephen Colbert (my favorite) you pay the tax with your time. Granted that you can use that time to learn how to parse corporate lies, it is still a terrible waste.
No one seems to have noticed that Tuesday's election results tended to vindicate the judgment of the US Supreme Court in their Citizens United decision. Corporations lie just like people do and money speaks lies just like people do.
The election also showed that we as a people have gotten an awful lot of practice in deciphering and ignoring corporate lies. We are barraged with these lies daily on television, radio, and phone and in newspapers, magazines, and email. If we hadn't learned to protect ourselves from corporate speech we would be much poorer than we are.
The net result is that our business moguls wasted billions of dollars trying to buy an election just as they regularly waste billions of dollars trying to influence our purchases. Not that they don't sometimes succeed, of course. No amount of education will help some citizens. But enough of us knew how to sort the wheat from the chaff that the nation was saved from four years of corporate presidency.
The corporate billionaires could have shaped the outcome of the election to their liking if they were wise enough. All they had to do was donate all that money to charity in the name of their favored candidates. The 47 percent would have roused themselves to vote for their benefactors. But why would the electorate want to vote for the people who for months had tortured them interminably with lying ads?
Advertising is basically a tax we pay for our entertainment and news. Those of us who watch PBS are spared from most of the advertising by simply paying for the service with our taxes. But if you prefer to watch a football game, Fox News, Two and a Half Men or Stephen Colbert (my favorite) you pay the tax with your time. Granted that you can use that time to learn how to parse corporate lies, it is still a terrible waste.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Romney Wins!
How did we ever manage to conduct presidential elections before TV took over? Last night I was watching the returns when the channel (not NBC) suddenly announced "NBC has declared Obama the winner in Ohio." The picture immediately switched to cheering crowds in Chicago and that was it. Everyone everywhere seemed to treat that as the official outcome.
The whole scene reminded me of the famous picture of Harry Truman holding up a front page headline announcing "Dewey Wins!" What if NBC had been wrong? What a terrible responsibility it must be to have to decide when the evidence--a partial count of the votes filtered through analysis of exit polls and projections from dozens of counties--becomes strong enough to pick a winner. NBC turned out to be right this time. I guess that means we can all relax.
Perhaps it is time to dispense with this whole voting thing. I suspect that if we had analyzed all the tweets about the campaigns we could have announced the winner before voting ever started. After all, in presidential elections our votes don't directly decide anything anyway. That honor goes to the Electoral College, a bunch of people whose names did not even appear on the ballot. I suppose it is still possible that the Electoral College could overturn the NBC decision but I doubt that will happen.
I was also impressed by how well the voters were able to ignore the billions of dollars of ads that were showered upon them and the grim efforts of some officials to block people from actually voting. I worked my fingers to the bone clicking to avoid those ads but it was worth the effort. It was also worth the effort to vote early (and often, as they used to say in Chicago) and to live in a state that allowed plenty of time for early voting.
Thank God I didn't retire to Florida! I hear the Floridians may vote to rejoin the United States if they can get their polls up an running. Perhaps they can join us along with Puerto Rico, whose citizens narrowly opted for American statehood in a referendum yesterday. I hope the Puerto Ricans don't ask for a recount.
How did we ever manage to conduct presidential elections before TV took over? Last night I was watching the returns when the channel (not NBC) suddenly announced "NBC has declared Obama the winner in Ohio." The picture immediately switched to cheering crowds in Chicago and that was it. Everyone everywhere seemed to treat that as the official outcome.
The whole scene reminded me of the famous picture of Harry Truman holding up a front page headline announcing "Dewey Wins!" What if NBC had been wrong? What a terrible responsibility it must be to have to decide when the evidence--a partial count of the votes filtered through analysis of exit polls and projections from dozens of counties--becomes strong enough to pick a winner. NBC turned out to be right this time. I guess that means we can all relax.
Perhaps it is time to dispense with this whole voting thing. I suspect that if we had analyzed all the tweets about the campaigns we could have announced the winner before voting ever started. After all, in presidential elections our votes don't directly decide anything anyway. That honor goes to the Electoral College, a bunch of people whose names did not even appear on the ballot. I suppose it is still possible that the Electoral College could overturn the NBC decision but I doubt that will happen.
I was also impressed by how well the voters were able to ignore the billions of dollars of ads that were showered upon them and the grim efforts of some officials to block people from actually voting. I worked my fingers to the bone clicking to avoid those ads but it was worth the effort. It was also worth the effort to vote early (and often, as they used to say in Chicago) and to live in a state that allowed plenty of time for early voting.
Thank God I didn't retire to Florida! I hear the Floridians may vote to rejoin the United States if they can get their polls up an running. Perhaps they can join us along with Puerto Rico, whose citizens narrowly opted for American statehood in a referendum yesterday. I hope the Puerto Ricans don't ask for a recount.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Uteral Utterances.
As a believer in the pro-life position that a human life begins at conception I have been trying to figure out how that belief somehow trumps a woman's right to decide whether to let her body be a baby factory. Even a woman who takes reasonable precautions can find herself in that unplanned condition. It seems unfair both to the woman and to the fetus.
Life can certainly be unfair, but it is a human trait to try to overcome an ill fate if possible. So when is it possible to move a developing fetus in such a way that it can continue its development without benefit of an unwilling uterus? We know that surgically removing the fetus intact is possible at almost any stage of development. Once the little heart starts beating and circulation is established the fetus can be transferred to an incubator. Is it possible that we could develop machinery that would do the job of incubation at an earlier stage? Given the already-developed mechanical wonders of modern medicine I think it is a certainty that we could. So why haven't we done it?
Why have we wasted time speculating about what God intends? Did God not intend that humans develop the ability to build complex machinery? If so we should ban guns. We can now remove and freeze human ova and spermatozoa that can later be unfrozen and combined to generate a fetus that can then be implanted in a uterus. All we need is an artificial uterus to complete the job. Then women can finally cry "Free at last, free at last, thank God we are free at last!"
Oh, I forgot. Someone has to raise the poor little devils.
As a believer in the pro-life position that a human life begins at conception I have been trying to figure out how that belief somehow trumps a woman's right to decide whether to let her body be a baby factory. Even a woman who takes reasonable precautions can find herself in that unplanned condition. It seems unfair both to the woman and to the fetus.
Life can certainly be unfair, but it is a human trait to try to overcome an ill fate if possible. So when is it possible to move a developing fetus in such a way that it can continue its development without benefit of an unwilling uterus? We know that surgically removing the fetus intact is possible at almost any stage of development. Once the little heart starts beating and circulation is established the fetus can be transferred to an incubator. Is it possible that we could develop machinery that would do the job of incubation at an earlier stage? Given the already-developed mechanical wonders of modern medicine I think it is a certainty that we could. So why haven't we done it?
Why have we wasted time speculating about what God intends? Did God not intend that humans develop the ability to build complex machinery? If so we should ban guns. We can now remove and freeze human ova and spermatozoa that can later be unfrozen and combined to generate a fetus that can then be implanted in a uterus. All we need is an artificial uterus to complete the job. Then women can finally cry "Free at last, free at last, thank God we are free at last!"
Oh, I forgot. Someone has to raise the poor little devils.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Virtues and Vices
My brother sent me this quotation from Sir Winston Churchill:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue
of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
My reply to my brother was: The inherent virtue of government is that it is able to mint or
print money, thereby making capitalism possible. The inherent vice of government is
that it spends money, thereby making capitalism necessary.
Headline in my local newspaper this morning: "Lingering joblessness poses long-term
risk: Economists say nearly 5 million jobless for so long warrants action." That is where
capitalism is supposed to step in and make use of the money. Why hasn't it done so?
Actually it has done so. It has made use of the money to purchase machinery and robots
that can do the job faster, better, and cheaper than people. Better yet, the machines and
robots don't form unions, bargain for better wages, strike, ask for pensions or require
health care insurance. That is their virtue. Their vice is that they don't buy anything.
Of course there are still some jobs that are too menial to mechanize or roboticize and
some that are too high-level to give away. Thus we still employ waitresses and doctors,
janitors and teachers, office boys and CEOs, footsoldiers and Generals. These jobs will
remain with us for a while longer.
So how can we employ all those people for whom capitalism has no use? My suggestion:
Turn the vice of government into a virtue. Hire the unemployed as legislators. Expand the
legislature to include all citizens not otherwise employed. Give them a button to push,
tune them in to C-Span and let them vote. Pay them as we do our current legislators.
Then they will have money to spend on the stuff the capitalist machines produce and
everyone will be happy. Except the taxpayers. But that will be all of us.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Buying Elections.
Billions of dollars have been spent on this election to influence voters. In addition to the traditional avenues of conventions, debates, and personal appearances we have been inundated with TV ads and robo-calls and email appeals for money. I sit in front of my TV set with the remote in hand, finger poised over the mute or fast forward buttons. When my phone rings, if I don't recognize the caller, I just hang up. I delete the email appeals for money without even looking at them. I know who you are.
Do those billions of dollars accomplish anything beyond annoying us? Or are they just wasted? Anyone with any sense knows that the ads are lying to us. If that sort of thing actually influences the outcome of elections then democracy is in deep doodoo.
What would be a more useful investment for all that super-pac money? How about encouraging more capable candidates to run for office? You wouldn't have to tell so many lies about them. Voters might even have to choose between two or more candidates who know what they are talking about and can actually do a good job for us when elected.
Think of all the jobs that could be created if that money were spent on something useful! Think of all the buying power that would be put in the hands of the Koch employees if the brothers gave them a raise instead of loading the airwaves with loathsome ads. Instead of complaining about the economy the Koch brothers could actually do something about it.
No matter who wins the election the government will not belong to the people. It will belong to those who bought it. That's nothing new. It is just that the price has gotten higher. Be proud, America! You have the best government money can buy.
Billions of dollars have been spent on this election to influence voters. In addition to the traditional avenues of conventions, debates, and personal appearances we have been inundated with TV ads and robo-calls and email appeals for money. I sit in front of my TV set with the remote in hand, finger poised over the mute or fast forward buttons. When my phone rings, if I don't recognize the caller, I just hang up. I delete the email appeals for money without even looking at them. I know who you are.
Do those billions of dollars accomplish anything beyond annoying us? Or are they just wasted? Anyone with any sense knows that the ads are lying to us. If that sort of thing actually influences the outcome of elections then democracy is in deep doodoo.
What would be a more useful investment for all that super-pac money? How about encouraging more capable candidates to run for office? You wouldn't have to tell so many lies about them. Voters might even have to choose between two or more candidates who know what they are talking about and can actually do a good job for us when elected.
Think of all the jobs that could be created if that money were spent on something useful! Think of all the buying power that would be put in the hands of the Koch employees if the brothers gave them a raise instead of loading the airwaves with loathsome ads. Instead of complaining about the economy the Koch brothers could actually do something about it.
No matter who wins the election the government will not belong to the people. It will belong to those who bought it. That's nothing new. It is just that the price has gotten higher. Be proud, America! You have the best government money can buy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)