Archive for August, 2006
The Baby Boomers
I listened to a podcast today that encapsulated the root cause of our growing economic predicament. Peter Gross says is far better than I could, so here’s the link:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=81848505
(This link brings you to the iTunes podcast directory listing; the podcast in question is 09/06 - No Cuts, No Butts, No Coconuts)
It’s worth 15 minutes of your time. Guaranteed.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Aug 30th, 2006
Newtonian Politics
Newton’s third law of motion states, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
I propose that a similar law dictates the realm of geo-politics. Five years ago this September, the US was horrified by a brutal act of terrorism. A dozen young men felt so strongly about the destruction of Western power that they sacrificed their lives to fulfill that barbaric act.
I tread very lightly here, because I don’t want to diminish that horrific day nor idolize the criminals who perpetuated the act. Nonetheless, if we are to grow as a nation and learn from past events, we must be willing to have a frank and honest discussion regarding terrorism and the state of the world in 2006.
What could possibly drive a young man to devote his young life to the destruction of a symbol of Western power? What drives a man to mass murder? What events could lead to such a terrible act?
Many of our national leaders suggest this: “They hate our way of life.” This childishly simple answer may be sufficient for some, but I know that anyone–regardless of political persuasion–knows this excuse leaves much unanswered.
What would Newton say? The acts carried out on September 11, 2001 followed an equal and opposite reaction.
Again, I am not trying to justify mass murder. Far from it, I wish nothing more than to prevent it from ever happening again. But if this dream is to be realized, we must recognize the ills perpetuated in our name over the past decades around the world.
For every civilian we torture in illegal prisons, we breed another potential terrorist. For every apartment building we mistakenly bomb, we disrupt the peaceful process of community and encourage radical movements. For every day we occupy a sovereign nation, we strengthen the insurgency.
Especially at this crucial time, we need leaders who are brave enough to face the tough reality of the modern world. Gut-check emotions don’t bring peace any more than the pronouncement “mission accomplished” ends a war. Don’t let our government be run by children who believe the answer to political unrest is a great sound bite.
As we learned five years ago, the stakes are far too high.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Aug 28th, 2006
Corn
We grow quite a bit of corn in this country (something to the tune of 12 billion bushels per year) and it’s primarily used for two things: feeding livestock and fueling cars.
The use of corn to produce ethanol is rapidly gaining popularity as oil prices soar. There are two points of debate regarding ethanol production. The first is that the process is a net energy loss. I don’t want to get too far into that argument, but I will state that most scientists agree that the whole system is a net energy gain (albeit small). The more interesting debate is that of resource allocation–namely, how much corn we should be putting into our fuel tanks at the expense of putting it into our stomachs as food.
Herein lies the crux of the problem: almost all the corn grown in the US is fed to livestock (primarily cattle) which are then eaten for food. Due to the magic of the food chain, this means that it takes about 25 calories of corn to produce 1 calorie of beef. For years, this wasn’t really a problem since we had plenty of corn (too much, actually) and no other good use for it. With ethanol fuel on the scene, it’s high time we reevaluate the agricultural industry in American and change our priorities.
Feeding corn to cattle violates the basic rules of nature. Cattle aren’t designed to digest corn–they are designed to eat grass. They can survive on corn, but it diminishes their immune system, forcing ranchers to inject antibiotics to keep the cattle [marginally] healthy. Another side effect of corn feed is that it allows (encourages?) ranchers to use a feedlot in place of free range. This exacerbates the issue of disease and introduces a host of vectors for spreading nasty bugs like E. coli.
There is a small but growing contingent of ranchers who are going back to the grass-fed approach to raising cattle. This creates a healthy animal, it’s far less energy intensive (since you’re cutting out all the corn production) and the meat is tastier.
Feed cattle grass. Feed cars corn. Everyone is happy.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Aug 26th, 2006
The Tax Myth
Political campaign season is opening up earlier this year in Wisconsin, with gubernatorial and congressional candidates already firing shots across the bow. My daily commute offers time to check in on these candidates via public radio and I’ve already noticed a common theme: taxes.
It’s an oldy but a goody: the republican candidate bemoans taxes and paints the picture of lowly citizens breaking under the heavy load. The democrat parries with the question of services–namely, which to cut along with taxes. The same debate seems to surface every two years and rarely are fresh ideas brought to the table. What frustrates me to no end is the underlying premise that taxes are bad (or evil, or an unwelcome burden, or a tool of Satan, or whatever).
Taxes are not bad. Taxes are not good. Taxes are simply a means of allocating resources to further some goal. Taxes can do great things–I know this having attended public schools for 17 years of my life. Taxes can do terrible things–look at our current situation in Iraq.
The debate should not be focused on more taxes versus less. If my tax dollars were well spent, I would happily pay a 90% income tax. Example: might you support a higher gasoline tax, if that money were spent on public transportation and transportation efficiency improvements? What if improved efficiency lowered the national demand for oil and allowed gas prices to return to the $2.00 range? Might we, I dare say, actually save money in the long run?
Take one of my favorite examples: Minnesota. My home state has historically ranked high among other states in terms of tax burden. Yet somehow (to the frustrated amazement of republicans everywhere), the state continued to thrive and attract new citizens. Surely, we Minnesotans needed our heads checked. In reality, the state used the tax revenue to offer world class schools and services, making Minnesota a great place to live. Amazing!
Don’t put up with the more/less taxes debate. If you hear someone starting it, challenge them. It’s a meaningless argument devoid of reason.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Aug 16th, 2006
Airport Security
From my experience with air travel over the past five years, nothing has really changed much in the way of airport security. The TSA routinely fails their internal security tests and ranks worst among federal agencies in terms of worker competence and management (which says a lot). The latest explosives scare in London has sent everyone over the edge of paranoia once again. Heaven forbid we allow Juicy Juice on a plane.
My biggest frustration is that the TSA and other federal officials seem to be obsessed with high tech solutions. Now, I love future technologies as much as the next guy (well, probably even more so) but I also understand their limitations. The problem is thus: any security system, no matter how secure or how high tech, can be circumvented by a motivated individual.
The fallacy of high-tech high-security is very tempting. Who wouldn’t want to subscribe to the belief that a few $5 million back-scatter-mass-spectrometer-photo-reactive-floozibumbles will stop all terrorists in their tracks. But reality has a nasty little habit of crashing the party, and this is exactly what’s happened with airport security.
The group of scoundrels responsible for the London scare weren’t stopped by airport security. They were stopped by good old fashioned police work. What we need is more well trained, well paid, well equipped people, not higher tech.
. . .
And please, could we stop taking off our shoes?
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Aug 15th, 2006
Hot Hot Hot
I’m out on the east coast in the midst of a pretty bad heat wave. Daily highs have been in the mid 90s and above for the last week. Parts of New York and Connecticut have lost electricity as electrical lines are overwhelmed by demand. A few people have already died of heat exhaustion.
The news media are treating this as an emergency–and it is–but it is not unique or without warning. When will people start to connect these yearly heat waves to the [likely] root cause: global climate change? How many years of record temperatures does it take?
I’m no marketing genius, but this seems like a pretty good time for our fearless political leaders to bring up two crucial issues: global climate change and energy consumption.
Is it any surprise that people are unprepared to modify their personal consumption, even if a power outage could be prevented? We’ve heard for the last six years that our energy policy is based solely on production, not consumption. Try to convince the people in Queens who haven’t had reliable electric service in weeks. Might they consider reducing consumption if it means uninterrupted power?
As for global climate change, I think that the last few weeks are a pretty solid backdrop for a national campaign on reducing our impact on the global climate. If we don’t do something now–even if that something is but a gesture of good faith–I don’t see any reason not to expect more of the same next summer and beyond.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Aug 3rd, 2006
