The Only True Solution For Sustainable Development

The subject of the Conference for Sustainable Development keeps coming up here and there in the media even though it has been over for a couple of weeks now. In this case, a guest editorial in the Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader makes a number of excellent points about sustainable development and how the conference got it all wrong. Rather than focusing on the true causes for the increasing demand upon resources, the conference attendees focused only on the use of those resources and how they should be redistributed.

Philip M. Morse, in his editorial, states, ”The theme of the United Nations conference in South Africa has been human sustainability. But the fact that by the year 2050 there will be three billion more people in the world is ignored. Ten billion people in the world is a given, a premise to be factored into the question of sustainability. But the world and its resources are finite and the end of some critical resources is already in sight.”

One of those resources is water. Though wars haven’t been fought over water in the modern era, that time is soon coming. In the United States alone there are states trying to sustain large populations in areas that are essentially deserts. That water has to come from somewhere, usually hundreds of miles away. Los Angeles is a perfect example of this.

LA wants more of the water that comes from the Colorado River to meet the needs of its people. However, that water will have to be taken away from the farmers in the San Fernando Valley to meet those increasing needs. That can lead to less food production, higher food prices, and even more growth of the population in LA. Where will they get the water for the even larger population?

Would you believe Alaska?

There was at one time a proposal to run an undersea pipeline from Alaska to California to pipe fresh water from Alaskan rivers to dry southern California. How crazy is that? It would probably be cheaper to pay people to move to Alaska from California than to build such a pipeline.

“Resources will determine what is a sustainable population size and at what standard of living. There is a tradeoff between population size and standard of living. The higher the average standard of living, the less the number of people that the environment with its resources can sustain.”

The West has the highest standard of living in the world. It also has a low birth rate, which is still falling. Population growth has slowed, and if the trend continues, will soon reach zero population growth (ZPG). One western nation, Sweden, has already achieved ZPG, if not fallen below that point, much to the concern of the Swedish government. The only non-western nation that I am aware of that is working hard to reach ZPG or NPG (negative population growth) is the People’s Republic of China. Through draconian birth control laws, couples are allowed only one child. There are exceptions made, usually because of the death of a child, but not often. Even they realize that sustaining over 1.2 billion people is a no-win situation. They don’t have the resources they need to sustain a population that size.

“Since World War II, when the world population was about two billion, agricultural productivity increased fivefold in what was called The Green Revolution. It could and should have ended poverty and starvation worldwide, but all we got out of it was more population growth because we failed to reduce the birth rate. At two billion, poverty and starvation might have been ended universally, but at over 10 billion, starvation will likely be the rule for all but the most privileged.”

I’ve seen visions of such a world in the movies. Does Soylent Green ring a bell? Based on the novel “Make Room! Make Room!” by Harry Harrison, it takes place on an overpopulated Earth, one running out of resources. The last bastions of food production, the oceans, are dying. Only the extremely wealthy can afford ‘real’ food. Everyone else is reduced to eating colored wafers of processed plankton made by the Soylent Corporation. But even these will soon run out. And then, miracle of miracles, a new food wafer is made available, Soylent Green. Little do the people eating them realize is that “Soylent Green is people!” Will the ultimate in resource recycling come to be?

“The symptoms of overpopulation are all around us and they are all the issues the environmentalists claim as their own to grow their membership lists while ignoring the basic problem.”

“Environmentalists treat the symptoms, economists behave as if there are no limits, and religious fanatics cannot see anything but good coming from more of God’s creation. All are in denial, but the law of diminishing returns tells us that an additional unit of something does not have quite the same additional value that an earlier unit did. To a person in the desert, a cup of water is a lifesaver. And the second is just as good. The third, if it can be saved, is valuable because it will be needed in an hour. Or if it can’t be saved and carried, it might be useful to rinse off with. But eventually additional cups of water are worthless. If there are already too many people in the world, how can there be any value to adding even more?”

Two nations, India and the People’s Republic of China, have about one third of the Earth’s population. They occupy probably less than 10 percent of the usable land on this world (I’m not counting Antarctica). It’s crowded in both nations. Now picture that kind of crowding everywhere. How would it be possible to sustain such a population with the resources presently available? It wouldn’t. What would the environment be like with 10 billion people on Earth? Probably pretty bad. So what’s the answer? Or rather, what are the answers?

There are two of things that would make sustainable development possible: Population reduction by one half to two thirds of what we presently have, or new resources. Population reduction is easy. Producing new resources is not. Notice I said producing, not finding.

Producing more resources is a way to extend the sustainable development without having to use drastic measures to reduce the population. The problem is that we don’t have a real long-term spaceflight capability. That’s what we need in order to go get these new resources because they are all out in space. Water from Europa; aluminum from the moon; iron, iridium, other minerals, and carbonaceous compounds from the asteroids. It’s all out there for the taking. We just can’t get there very easily or cheaply. That pretty much leaves population reduction, for now.

Population reduction can be handled a number of ways, with the least disruptive being birth control. The days of large families are over. One or two children per family would be it, no more than that. One would be preferable over two. Maybe tax disincentives if there is more than one child? Of course, it would be the slowest method of population reduction.

War is usually a quick way to reduce populations, but it can be very expensive and isn’t one of the more popular methods (except for a few extremists). It probably would get good TV ratings, though.

Out-migration is another way, but as we really don’t have any kind of large spaceflight capability as of yet, moving large numbers of people to other worlds within the solar system isn’t practical.

Plague is always an effective way of reducing populations, but then you have the same problem as war: getting rid of the corpses. Of course, plague can happen all by itself with little encouragement from us humans. The problem will be stopping it before it wipes everybody out. What if someone developed a virus that sterilized a large percentage of the human population, might that not be a non-lethal plague that could do the job in less than seventy years? Phillip Jose Farmer wrote a short story about just such a thing in “Seventy Years of Decpop.”

So what's it going to be? True sustainable development by reducing the world's population to an easily sustainable level? Crash development of space technology to go get more resources or move people off Earth, or both? Or something like the nightmare of Soylent Green?

They Still Don’t Get It

Listening to NPR about the reactions to President Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly has led me to believe that the Europeans still don't get it. Most of the reactions across the Atlantic make it seem as if Bush caved in to the EU and will do it their way. Were they listening to the same speech that I read?

Is it me, or is it that the Europeans don't realize that President Bush did not ask for permission so much as he demanded it, in keeping with the existing Security Council resolutions in regards to Iraq?

The French are certainly feeling all puffed up, strutting around as if they had reined in the "unthinking international cowboy". As Nick Spicer from NPR reported on Friday:

"President Bush's speech pleased the French. His very presence in New York was seen as an acceptance of what the French media call the Chirac plan after an idea the French president has been pushing recently. That plan is to get the Security Council to quickly warn Iraq a final time it must allow weapons inspectors to return and only then consider military action. That way, the UN and especially the Security Council, where France has a permanent seat, won't be undermined. So Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin welcomed Mr. Bush's speech.

'It was France's objective to act but act collectively,' he said. 'On the international scene, only collective action can be effective. Unilateral action could create suspicion and doubt in a sensitive region.' "

'Only collective action can be effective.' Is this guy serious? He's making it sound as if unilateral action on the international scene is ineffective, impossible to pull off. So if the U.S. goes it alone in Iraq, removing Saddam Hussein's regime and rebuilding Iraq into a moderate, democratic, secular nation, does that mean we were less effective than we might have been with the help of the UN? Does it mean we did the impossible?

No, it means the Euro-weenies got it wrong.

What they really don't see is that Bush has suckered them. He's put them right in the position he wanted them – Between a rock and a hard place.

If the UN doesn't meet President Bush's demands to enforce their own Security Council resolutions, he will show them to be weak and ineffective. If they do, then Bush gets what he wants and the UN will look as if they gave in. Of course, they won't look at it that way. To the UN it will appear as if Dubya came to them with hat in hand asking, "Mother, may I?"

In an AP report from Camp David, Maryland (sorry, but I can't seem to get the link working properly), President Bush made it plain yesterday that the United States is willing to take on Iraq alone if the United Nations fails to "show some backbone" by confronting Saddam Hussein. "Enough is enough," Bush said.

"The UN will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we’re about to find out," Bush said yesterday. He added, "Make no mistake about it. If we have to deal with the problem, we'll deal with it."

That doesn't sound like someone asking, "Mother, may I?" It sounds more like "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of our way."

George W. Bush, a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

My dear brother has beaten me to the punch. Again.

I was sitting at work, perusing a couple of blogs during my lunch break, when I came across one of the many references to President Bush’s speech to the UN General Assembly. Though I had only caught bits and pieces at the time he presented it, I did get the chance to read it in its entirety on the White House web site.

It was while thinking about it that I came to the realization that Dubya had pulled off another one.

He has that 'Aw, shucks' Texas air about him, the kind that puts one to ease because you figure that while Dubya is a good man, he just ain't that bright. He's soft spoken, not one to thunder and bluster. He's a Good Ol' Boy, in the best meaning of the term.

It isn't until after he's won his sixteenth straight hand at the poker table that you realize he isn't that dumb, and that he had you snookered right from the beginning. He shows you what you expect to see, but not what's really there.

At least not until it's too late for you to do anything about it.

That's exactly what he did at the United Nations on Thursday. He let them think, "What is Bush going to say this time? I could be at the golf course getting in a round instead." But what he gave them was a double-barreled dose of reality.

"All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

And there you have it. He let the UN know that unless they follow through on Security Council resolutions, and specifically those dealing with Iraq, that they would become superfluous. They would become yet another group of self-important 'diplomats' making meaningless noises and taking up valuable real estate in Manhattan. The worst thing that can happen to them would be to become irrelevant, and that's exactly what the UN would become if they didn't follow through. It was the last thing they expected to hear from George W. Bush.

Undoubtedly they will continue to underestimate him.

Too bad for them.

I Like It!

I've got to hand it to Pejman Yousefzadeh. He's got a great idea! Though it is something very like what was done during World War II, he’s updated it and made it very attractive. What is it?

"Adopt-A-Bomb", of course!

Though I think he may have limited the scope a little bit by only mentioning some kinds of ordnance and ammo, it has a certain appeal. I'd like to see it extended to things like air-to-air missiles (AIM-9M Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-7 Sparrow), surface-to-air missiles (Patriot, Hawk, Standard Missile 2-ER), ships (CV, CVN, FFG, LCAC, etc.), air-to-surface missiles (Maverick, Hellfire, etc.), planes (F-4G, F-14, F-15, F16, F18, F117, A-6, A-10, E-2C, E3, S-3B, KC-135, KC-10, B-52, B-1B, B-2, C-130, AC-130, C-17, C-5B, etc.), helicopters (S-60, SH-60, SH-53E, CH-46, CH-47, AH-64, etc.), submarines (Los Angeles class, Seawolf class, Ohio class), tanks (M1A2), APCs (M2), hummers, side arms, LMGs, TOWs, and so on. The list is endless.

Just think of it: You can get before and after shots of a target that the bomb, missile, or plane that you adopted took out! You might even be eligible to receive a videotape of your personal bomb taking out a target! By adopting a bomb, you'll get to have a slogan of your choice painted on the side! And if you adopt two bombs, you'll get the third bomb for free!!

Don't wait! Go to the Adopt-A-Bomb website and order now! Operators are standing by!

Remembrances

At 8:40 AM this morning, everyone at my place of employment stopped what they doing and assembled outside for a brief memorial service. I suspect that this scene repeated itself in one form or another all over America this morning. For some reason the powers that be asked me to be the one to speak for all of us. I have no idea why they picked me. Maybe it was because of some mistaken belief that I am somehow more eloquent than they when it comes to such things, or maybe just the luck of the draw.


At 8:45 AM precisely, I spoke these words to my fellow employees, my friends, my fellow Americans.


"It's hard to believe that it was only a year ago that we watched the horror unfold before us, saw the destruction wrought by the actions of evil men, saw the heroics of police officers, firefighters, paramedics, airline passengers, and ordinary people."

"We watched as our nation grieved, and joined in that grief; we held our loved ones closer; and we prayed for those who lost their loved ones on that horrible day."

"We saw our tragedy bring us together rather than humble us. We did not tremble in fear as our enemies had hoped, but joined together, continued living our lives, worked to heal the wounds, and saw each day as a blessing instead of something to be endured."

"And now we are gathered here to remember those who died that day, and those who served and did their duty and made the ultimate sacrifice to save the lives of others."

I finished at 8:46 AM on the dot. We stood silently for one minute, praying, meditating, or contemplating what had gone on in the previous year.

And then we went back to work, doing what we do best.

Being Americans.

Make The Price of Terrorism Too Horrible to Pay

It was while I was writing a comment to Cold Fury's post about the attack on the Pentagon that I remembered and badly quoted a little soliloquy by John Travolta in the movie Swordfish. In it, he tells the hero, played by Hugh Jackman, how he and his organization plan to handle terrorist actions against the United States.

"They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."

Even to me it seems extreme. But there is that little part of me that wonders 'what if?'

What if we made the price of terrorism so high that it does become unthinkable? What if for every terrorist action there is a horribly uneven and devastating reaction? How long would it be before terrorist actions dwindle away and finally stop? Would someone proposing a terrorist action be shouted down, or better yet, killed by his or her fellows for even suggesting such a thing?

Or would such actions entice terrorist groups to plan and pull off even bigger and more destructive acts of terror? Would they try tit-for-tat? (Of course, our arsenal is much bigger, better, and easier to deliver with pinpoint accuracy). Would it only end when all of our enemies are dead and all of their lands are nothing but radioactive wastelands?

I shudder to think that it would come to that.

But still there is that little part of me that wonders "What if?"

Why They Hate Us

I found this over at Sgt. Stryker’s. It gives us a pretty good idea why the Middle East is the way it is and why hatred for America exists. The hatred for the U.S. is not just in the Middle East, but many places. I think you'll find it enlightening.

A Breath of Fresh Air

After attending a computer show late this morning, I was heading upstate to run a few errands and do a little work on a plot of land I own up in the foothills of the White Mountains. While making the drive through the New Hampshire countryside I was contemplating many of the blogs I'd read about Iraq and the Euro-weenie's reactions to the Big Bad U.S. possible use of its military might against that regime. It was while listening to the special worldwide call in program by NPR and the BBC World Service that I remembered something I'd heard during NPR’s Weekend Edition earlier in the morning. It was something that warmed the cockles of my heart.

There's one other member of the old British Commonwealth that stands by our side:

Australia.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has made it clear that he and his countrymen support America's war on terrorism. Australian Special Forces have been in Afghanistan in support of the U.S. military.

As the Prime Minister said during a press conference in the Oval Office back on June 13th of this year,"Australia is a firm and faithful friend, and we are in there with you in the fight against terror. It still has a long way to go, and I think it's very important that the people don't imagine that the fight is anywhere near complete. And there will be a lot of commitment on our part, and we do respect and admire the contribution that you're making as the leader of the world's response."

When asked about the problem of Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, Howard responded,"Clearly, Iraq's behavior has been -- in relation to the weapons of mass destruction has been offensive to many countries, including the United States and Australia. But the question of any action by the United States is a matter for the United States. And I've indicated before in Australia, and I repeat now that if there are any approaches made to Australia, we'd consider them in the circumstances, at the time, if they occur."

While his statement wasn't a ringing endorsement of actions we might take, he hasn't turned his back on us like so many of our European allies. He realizes that America's actions are America's actions. Not the UN's. Not the EU's. But America’s. He didn't bleat about how we should consult for approval of our actions.

One other thing that he said was "that Americans and Australians like each other, and they find it easy to relate to each other." That's one thing I can attest to, having spent time with quite a number of Australians, both here in the U.S. and Down Under.

There's only one thing I can add to that:

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oy! Oy! Oy!

Yellow Journalism at its Worst

While over at Cold Fury, I came across his comments and a link to a piece by Dodd Harris about a hack job done by the UK Times Online about the U.S. Navy and particularly the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. A bigger piece of slanted, erroneous drivel I've never seen.

Someone in the U.K. Gets It!

A post by David Carr over at Samizdata proves a small point of my previous post: Britain and the E.U. are at odds. Though my conjecture was based upon discussions with friends back in the U.K., it appears that more than a few in Britain are taking a disliking to the E.U. and what it ultimately means for Britain. This dislike is growing as time passes.

Welcome to the club, mates!

They Still Don't Get It

The bleating of the Euro-left is becoming increasingly shrill and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

The E.U.'s selective amnesia is starting to make them sound like spoiled children, the kind that believe that only if everyone does things their way that everything will be all right. They've forgotten the lessons of the past 63 years, forgotten what so many fought and died for, forgotten who made their way of life possible.

After September 11th, few of the E.U. nations did more than send their condolences. Condolences are cheap. Out of the E.U., only the U.K. and Germany went beyond that. Germany sent some of their AWACS aircraft to help defend U.S. borders against further airborne attacks. The British Navy and Air Force helped secure the shipping lanes and helped with ship inspections for those vessels headed in to U.S. territorial waters. The British also helped in the campaign against Al-Qaida and their Taliban supporters in Afghanistan. The rest of the E.U. nations were conspicuously silent or non-committal. Who needs fair weather friends like these?

To a point I can understand their reticence. Many of the E.U. nations have a substantial Arab immigrant population, and this 'Arab street' is vocal. France probably has the largest population of immigrant Arabs which is probably making the French government nervous. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, is French Moroccan and quite vocal in his hatred of the U.S. and everything it stands for. How many others just like him are presently in France? I doubt that the French government really wants to know, unless, of course, that hatred is turned upon them. The E.U. doesn't want Arab ire turned upon them, so it easier and politically more popular (read 'safer') to condemn the U.S. for any actions it contemplates in its war against terrorism.

Of course, the E.U. doesn't want to be reminded that much of the planning for the September 11th attacks took place in Europe. Some of the funds that financed the attacks were passed through or held in European banks. I'm sure that many of them would not want to undergo the scrutiny of an international commission tasked with hunting down Al-Qaida funds and those helping to hide them. It certainly would be an embarrassment for the E.U. to condemn the U.S. on one hand and to be found out as the money launderers for a terrorist network on the other.

This also brings up the issues of the International Criminal Court and Biological Weapons Convention and American unwillingness to give up our rights as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. The E.U. is pissed off because we won't give up our Constitutional rights, rights we've bled and died to preserve. I don't like the idea of casting off my Fourth Amendment rights to an international organization that does not have the best interests of U.S. citizens at heart. The E.U. doesn't understand that Americans don't trust any government from the U.S. government on down to the that of the local town any more than we absolutely must. But we're supposed to trust a bunch of foreigners because of some lukewarm assurances that they won't violate our rights, yet leave no mechanism to redress any violations of those rights? It's kind of like the old joke that goes something like this:

"How do you say 'Fuck You!' in (whatever language)?"

The answer: "Trust me!"

One of the interesting side effects of what's been happening is the unexpectedly closer ties between the U.S. and the U.K. as well as the increasing suspicions and distrust between the U.K. and the rest of the E.U.. Could it be that the powers that be in the U.K. see that the E.U. doesn't have their best interests at heart? It certainly makes one wonder why the U.K. didn't drop the Pound Sterling as their currency and join the rest of the E.U. in adopting the Euro. Could it be that the much-proclaimed unity amongst the E.U. nations isn't as strong or as unanimous as they'd like us to believe?

It makes one think, doesn't it?

The False Premises of the World Summit for Sustainable Development

With the various factions at the World Summit for Sustainable Development having fought for the right to lambaste the West, and particularly the U.S., for its unwillingness to impoverish itself on behalf of the developing nations, I thought it was about time for me to put in my two cents worth.

It seems to me that many of the delegates lay the blame for the problems in their own countries at the feet of the capitalist West. How dare we refuse to take responsibility for their failures to enter the world market or improve the lives of their citizens? Rather than look to their own governments for incompetence and corruption, it's far easier to blame someone else instead.

Take a look what's happening in Zimbabwe, for example.

When Zimbabwe (once called Rhodesia) gained its independence from Britain, its economy was in good shape. There was little trouble between the new duly elected government of Robert Mugabe and the descendents of the European settlers that decided to stay. They considered themselves citizens of Zimbabwe. For the most part they were farmers, and rather successful ones at that. Life was good. Not perfect, but good.

Fast forward to present day.

Zimbabwe is on the edge of famine. Foreign capital has fled. Robert Mugabe stole the recent elections in an effort to remain in power, extending the corruption that is now the hallmark of his government. Squatters have taken over the most productive farms at the urging of President Mugabe, in an effort to 'return the ancestral lands to the rightful owners'. As a result, the farms no longer produce any food. The original farmers, their families, and their workers have been forced from their lands. Food is in short supply. And it's all the fault of the 'capitalist West'.

I realize that Zimbabwe is only one example, and probably a poor one at that. But it does show one of the themes that pervaded the summit.

The West is also expected to greatly decrease its energy consumption in order to allow developing nations to increase theirs. Despite the fact that using some of the long existing energy technologies is economically foolish, it is what some of the delegates to the summit insist upon. The developing nations should be focusing their attentions on newer energy technologies, such as solar, wind, even nuclear. They should be willing bypass the fossil fuel based energy technologies if they truly want sustainable development.

Of course, if the more vocal developing nations got their way, one of the things they can look forward to is starvation. After all, it is the West, and particularly the U.S. and Canada, that feeds a good portion of the world. If energy consumption was decreased to the level that the delegates want, food production, storage, and transporation would be expensive and difficult, if not impossible. Worldwide food prices would go up as the supply goes down.

Some of the developing countries believe that with a large infusion of cash from the West all of their problems will be solved. Little do they realize that the only thing such an infusion will accomplish is more misery, more poverty, and even greater dependence on the West. Corruption will increase as personal freedoms decrease. There will be no incentive to develop actual industries capable of competing in the world market and enriching its own citizens. It is a disturbing outlook that depends on a discredited theory on the redistribution of wealth: Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

It won't be a quick overnight killing, but rather a long drawn out bloodletting that eventually leads to death.

I know that I am not going to bust my ass 40+ hours a week just to see a good portion of the fruits of my labor shipped overseas to people that have nothing but contempt for me and my country. I am not about to lower my standard of living because of discredited theories of crackpot leftist economists. One does not raise the standard of living or increase the wealth of individuals by pulling others down. All that does is make everyone poor. Rather, it is done by pulling others up.

It's about time the developing nations realize that small but powerful truth.

Comprehending Engineers

While looking through my rather meager electronic archives, I came across this little gem. Normally I'm not one for posting things like this, humorous as it is, but having been involved in electronics for most of my adult life (and a good portion of my teen years) and in engineering for the last ten years, I can say that it pretty well explains us engineering types to the non-engineering enlightened masses (also called mundanes). While I can't take any credit for writing this, I can say "Yup. I would'a done the same thing."

While the scenarios below don't generally apply to 'code warriors' (that's software programmers, to the uninitiated), there is quite a bit of crossover between the disciplines.



* Take One

Two engineering students were walking across campus when one said, "Where did you get such a great bike?"

The second engineer replied, "Well, I was walking along yesterday minding my own business when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, 'Take what you want.' "

The second engineer nodded approvingly, "Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn't have fit."


** Take Two

An architect, an artist and an engineer were discussing whether it was better to spend time with the wife or a mistress.

The architect said he enjoyed time with his wife, building a solid foundation for an enduring relationship. The artist said he enjoyed time with his mistress, because of the passion and mystery he found there.

The engineer said, "I like both."

"Both?"

Engineer: "Yeah. If you have a wife and a mistress, they will each assume you are spending time with the other woman, and you can go to the plant and get some work done."


*** Take Three

What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers?

Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.


**** Take Four

The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?"

The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"

The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"

The graduate with a Liberal Arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"


***** Take Five

To the optimist, the glass is half full.

To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.

To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.


******Take Six

Three lawyers and three engineers are traveling by train to a conference. At the station, the three lawyers each buy tickets and watch as the three engineers buy only a single ticket.

"How are three people going to travel on only one ticket?" asks one of the three lawyers.

"Watch and you'll see," answers one of the engineers.

They all board the train. The lawyers take their respective seats but all three engineers cram into a restroom and close the door behind them.

Shortly after the train has departed, the conductor comes around collecting tickets. He knocks on the restroom door and says, "Ticket, please."

The door opens just a crack and a single arm emerges with a ticket in hand. The conductor takes it and moves on. The lawyers saw this and agreed it was quite a clever idea. So after the conference, the lawyers decide to copy the engineers on the return trip and save some money.

When they get to the station, they buy a single ticket for the return trip. To their astonishment, the engineers don't buy a ticket at all.

"How are you going to travel without a ticket?" asks one perplexed lawyer.

"Watch and you'll see," says one of the engineers.

When they board the train, the three lawyers cram into a restroom and the three engineers cram into another one nearby. The train departs.

Shortly afterward, one of the engineers leaves his restroom and walks over to the restroom where the lawyers are hiding. He knocks on the door and says, "Ticket, please."

Changing Thoughts About the Death Penalty

Steven Den Beste has got me to thinking again. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'll leave that up to you.

His brief commentary on the death penalty, which digressed into an even briefer comment on attacking Iraq, got me thinking about capital punishment and made me realize that over the period of a few years my attitude about it has changed tremendously.

I used to be of the "Fry 'em!" persuasion, as was my brother. In fact, he was rather adamant about imposing the death penalty on the truly deserving and put it all down in to words on our old web site a few years ago. Digging around in my electronic archives I found a copy of his post and read it again. My only thought was, "Were we really that bloodthirsty?"

I'd thought to post it in its entirety here, but figured I'd better check with him first.

He said "NO!"

His attitudes had changed as well, though I admit that there are still a few crimes that I believe are so heinous that the perpetrator richly deserves being irrevocably removed from society.

This is what my brother wrote back then:

The Death Penalty is about nothing less than setting the limits of tolerance in a civilized society. At some point a people must say, "This line is as far as you may go and still expect us to tolerate your existence amongst us." There are crimes so heinous that society has the right to declare that the perpetrator has forfeited his or her right to continue to exist. To deny this is to deny that there is a limit to the level of Evil society will tolerate. To deny this is to imply that there might be an excuse for anything anyone might contemplate inflicting upon society. To deny this is to imply that there is no such thing as Evil, and it is the denial of the existence of true Evil that is at the root of many of today's social ills.

The problem with our so-called civilized society here in the U.S. is that we've been far too liberal in sentencing people convicted of capital crimes to death. The standards are far too loose, used too easily. As we've seen over the past couple of years too damn many innocent people have been sentenced to die for crimes they didn't commit. There was misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance by prosecutors, police, as well as defense attorneys. Exculpatory evidence was suppressed in order to produce a conviction. Confessions were obtained under conditions that were troublesome at best. The problem was so irksome that the state of Illinois suspended all executions because of doubts as to the guilt of some of the condemned. If I recall correctly, 117 people waiting execution in prisons all over the U.S. have been released over the past few years because better forensic techniques were used to go over evidence, exculpatory evidence that had been hidden was uncovered, or the real perpetrator was caught and confessed.

Someone once said, "Better that a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man be convicted." That dictum seems to have fallen out of favor to be replaced with the cry of "Hang 'em high!"

First, we must very clearly define which crimes will be subject to Capital Punishment. This might seem an obvious point, but in many cases the law is crowded with special conditions, aggravating circumstances, etc. My suggestion would be that the Death penalty only be considered in cases where the murder was premeditated or contracted, in cases where there are multiple murders, any murder where the victim was forcibly abducted, or any murder of a Law Enforcement officer in the line of duty. There are shades to be defined here, but the basic concept is sound and is supported by most proponents of the Death Penalty. The Death Penalty would be forbidden in cases where murder occurred as a "crime of passion" or where no intent to kill was indicated, or where the criminal admits guilt.

For the most part I can agree with the first line of my brother's statement above. But the crimes that merit the death penalty should be even more narrowly defined. Most serial killers are twisted, killing for reasons that most people cannot fathom. They don't kill for political gain. They should be put away. However, a case of multiple murder in the pursuit of some twisted political agenda is one that should be on the short list. Those that kill with a political aim show that they care little for anything but power. They are willing to resort to genocide to get their way, to validate their ideology. (Hitler certainly fit that bill, as did Stalin. Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein do, too, as do Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. All have murdered or ordered the murder of innocents to further their aims.) As they say south of the Mason-Dixon Line, "Some of these folks jus' need killing."

As to the rest of the crimes my brother listed, even he admitted that there were differing shades that needed to be defined. The problem with that is everyone will have different ideas what those shades will be. That will lead to yet another uneven application of the death penalty. Better not to do it all than to do it poorly.

I was all in favor of the death penalty as applied in the U.S. until a couple of years ago. As I got older (and hopefully a little wiser), I came to see that in too many cases the death penalty wasn't so much a matter of justice, but rather one of vengeance. Maybe it was the thought running through my mind that killing was too good for some of them. Putting those convicted of the most heinous crimes in to a Super Max facility for the rest of their lives would be far more of a punishment than killing them.

The Insanity of Housing Costs

Looking at the cost of buying a home has given me a sense of déjà vu -- It's 1987 all over again.

Housing costs have increased all over the nation, with dramatic changes in a number of states. Starter homes have been priced out of the market for the average wage earner, much like 15 years ago. Many owners of starter homes are adding to or renovating their homes rather than buying new ones because they can't afford to move up. This means the number of starter homes is getting smaller. Contractors and/or developers aren't building housing for middle or low-income families because there's more money to be made building upscale housing.

Rents are going up as well. Very few rental housing units are being built despite a large, unmet demand for such units for the same reason mentioned above -- There isn't as much money to be made as compared to building upscale housing.

Lower mortgage interest rates are also driving the housing demand. There's plenty of money out there for those wanting to buy a house. It's just that there are very few to buy.

Watching the local news last night brought the point home. A TV reporter was interviewing a number of realtors and they all said the same thing: The average house is listed less than three days before being sold. There are usually a dozen or more back up offers waiting in the wings.

In an earlier post my brother mentioned his move from the People's Republic of Massachusetts to New Hampshire. He paid $157,000 for his house. Less than two years ago that same house would have listed for less than $120,000.

My friends Tom and Kelsey sold their home in Sacramento, California and moved to a little town in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. They got a really nice place on a decent lot just off the town green for a cool $119,000. If I recall correctly, their place in Sacramento sold for just under $200,000. Their house in New Hampshire is bigger (if you include the basement, which the house in Sacramento apparently didn't have) on a lot that is 10 times larger than the one in Sacramento. The property they have now would cost $500,000 in Sacramento (Yes, I checked by calling a few realtors out there). The same place would cost $225,000 to $350,000 in New Hampshire's southern tier or in northern Massachusetts. Mind you, we're not talking about a palatial home by any means, but a three-bedroom ranch with a full basement. To afford a home like that in the southern tier, the average family would need a gross adjusted income of between $75,000 and $116,000 a year. That prices many of the average wage earners right out of the market. Many are forced to move many miles away from where they work and endure long commutes in order to find a home they can afford, or put up with substandard housing in a lousy neighborhood.

Not all that long ago there was an extreme housing shortage in the Seacoast area of southern Maine, New Hampshire, and northeastern Massachusetts. Professionals making $60,000+ a year were homeless! One fellow interviewed by the local news media was living in his car (a nice BMW) because he couldn't find any housing, affordable or otherwise. To all intents and purposes he was living outside one of the local health clubs where he was a member, using their facilities to ready himself for work every morning.

What's the answer to this problem? I don't know.

What I do know is that part of the problem in some towns around here is something called 'snob zoning'. Though illegal in this state (and a few others, I should think), that hasn't stopped towns from making it difficult, if not impossible, to build apartment complexes, cluster housing, or low or middle-income housing developments. (It wouldn't surprise me to find that this same phenomenon exists all throughout the U.S., as well as Canada, the U.K., and here and there through the rest of the EU.) Many years ago developers in New Hampshire sued the towns to allow such developments. After a number of years they won the suits as the courts declared the zoning restrictions as written constituted restraint of trade. The state legislature passed a law making such snob zoning illegal. Everything looked rosy.

Then in 1987, the recession hit, the housing market collapsed, and the developments and construction projects were cancelled. Even if developers wanted to build the needed housing today, they'd have to go through the courts again in order to knock down the roadblocks that some towns have put up to get around the law prohibiting snob zoning. If the roadblocks weren't there, there would still be a good two-year wait before they could begin construction as most of the contractors are booked through 2004. (That's why my house won't be started for at least the next two or three years.)

The last thing I want to do is see government become involved. All it would do is make an already bad situation worse.

I suppose we could all wait for this real estate bubble to burst, but I think we'll have a long wait. The conditions that exacerbated the problems in 1987 aren't here today: Interest rates are low; the economy is in much better shape than it was 15 years ago; and the banks are much less likely to approve a marginal mortgage than they were back then.

However, one sign I've seen that bodes ill for the real estate market is the practice called churning.

Churning is the buying of real estate by a speculator, holding on to the property for a given period -- usually three months to a year -- then selling the property at a price substantially higher than the original purchase price. In 1987 there was a group of real estate speculators in the northeastern U.S. that bought and sold properties amongst themselves, inflating the prices of given pieces of property. They would then sell outside the 'circle' and the last buyer would be left with an overvalued house. They would never be able to sell it unless they held on to it for a long time. The mortgage would be worth far more than the value of the property in question. Many homes in the northeast were churned. When the bottom fell out of the real estate market and the economy went in to recession, people were stuck with $100,000 homes with $200,000 mortgages and no way to pay them off. Selling would leave them $100,000 in the hole. So, what many of them did was to abandon the properties, hand the keys to the mortgage holders, and say "Good luck!" That practice and the willingness of a number of banks to give marginally qualified mortgages caused a number of banks to fail. In New Hampshire alone $1.3 billion of real estate was foreclosed. Foreclosure auctions filled 20 or more pages of the statewide newspaper every Thursday. This went on for years as the Resolution Trust Company disposed of the properties. They had to sell it off in dribs and drabs because they didn't want to depress an already depressed real estate market even further.

The real estate market bubble will either level out or burst some time in the future, returning real estate values to a more rational level. But that doesn't help those of us out there looking for a home now.

Does anybody out there have a good idea?

Remembering September 11th

After reading Cold Fury's rant about remembrances of 9/11 scheduled for next month, I felt it was time to put my memories about that horrific day in to print. I also plan to add my memories to those already posted at the September 11th Digital Archive. You might want to check the web site. Personal accounts and photos taken from those in and around Manhattan are available to read and download.

Like many people on the East Coast, I was at work that morning. I was in the engineering lab trying to finish the paperwork on a project that was soon going in to production. It was shortly before 9 AM when one of my coworkers came through the lab, telling us an aircraft had crashed in to one of the World Trade Center towers. I turned on the radio at my desk and tuned to the local NPR stations. As I listened to the reports, one reporter interrupted to inform us that a second aircraft had crashed in to the second tower. At that point all of us in the lab knew we were under attack.

And then my pager went off.

One thing I have to explain is that I have been involved with emergency services since I was a teenager. These days I volunteer as a communications reservist for the state Office of Emergency Management and am a captain in the Civil Air Patrol.

Pages flew fast a furious, from both OEM and CAP. It looked like I would busy from that day on. Staying at work from that point on became impossible. I headed home to change and gather a few changes of clothing and stuff them into my flight gear bag. From then on it was hurry up and wait.

I didn't stray far from the telephone or the TV. I watched as first one tower, then the other, collapsed. I remember thinking They should be rolling the credits any time now. But the credits never came. This wasn't a movie. It was real.

In the mean time, reports about an aircraft crashing in to the Pentagon came in, setting off another surge in pages from OEM and CAP. Reports from the TV also stated that the FAA was ordering all non-military aircraft grounded. That would complicate things for CAP, but as it is part of the U.S. Air Force, it wouldn't complicate things much.

I turned on my scanner and listened to the local aircraft frequencies. Boston Center was directing aircraft to land at the nearest airport, regardless of what their destination was supposed to be. I also listened in on the HF frequencies that are used for contacting and controlling transatlantic flights. All aircraft westbound were told they could not enter U.S. airspace. Some aircraft decided to turn around and head back to Europe. Others continued west and landed in Canada. In less than three hours the skies above America were empty. The lack of contrails in the upper atmosphere or the sound of aircraft passing overhead was eerie, surreal.

The rest of the day was a blur. So many things were happening. So many things were not happening. I don't know how many times I watched the towers being hit and the subsequent collapse. No matter where I happened to be, I didn't stray far from a radio or TV. Somehow it still didn't seem real to me. It wasn't until later that evening while watching the evening news that reality came crashing in.

There was a series reports about reactions around the world to the attacks in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania. It was the report from London that brought it home to me. I don't remember what the correspondent said, but the images that played during the report caught my eye.

It was the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, something I've seen many times when I've been in London. Normally, after the routine changing of the watch and the playing of God Save the Queen, the marching band plays something martial and stirring as they march off the yard of the palace. But this time they did something unprecedented.

As they approached the gates of Buckingham Palace, they stopped. They stood motionless for a moment, then raised their instruments.....

......and played the Star Spangled Banner. It was then that the tears began to fill my eyes, the reality of what had happened washing over me like a tidal wave. Hearing our national anthem played in a foreign country, seeing the anguish and tears on the faces of the people watching, knowing that many of them were American and just as importantly, knowing that many were not, made it real for me. As un-macho as it is for me to admit this, I bawled my eyes out for the next hour. Even thinking about it today makes me choke up.

But watching that display of solidarity and condolences in England brought to mind a line from a movie I've always liked, Pulp Fiction, spoken by Samuel L. Jackson, that pretty well summed up my feelings toward our enemies:

"Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is He who in the name of Charity and Good Will shepherds the weak through the Valley of Darkness, for He is truly His brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon the with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the LORD when I lay My vengeance upon thee!"

Energy and Home Design

It's funny how one doesn't think about such ubiquitous things like electricity, heating, cooling, lighting and so on until they aren't there, or if you are trying to design something that uses all of these things. In my case I'm in the process of designing my house, one I hope to break ground on sometime in the next two to three years.

It would have been easy to use one of the many cookie cutter designs, the same type that have been used for a long time and seen everywhere throughout North America. But after talking with a friend of mine, I decided to take a different path.

Even with today's modern materials and design capabilities, most modern homes are not as nearly as energy efficient as they could be. With changes to existing designs, homes would require less energy to heat or cool the interior, use more efficient electric lighting to illuminate the living spaces, as well as reduce the ambient noise level inside even with the windows open. (Noise is a particular pet peeve of mine.) Cost isn't really an issue, as many of the changes required to make homes more efficient are cost neutral.

Most people have a picture of a solar house, passive or active, as an ugly box with weird angles and lots of windows. Nothing can be further from the truth. I've seen houses that look only a little different from 'normal' houses, but have extra insulation and better placed windows to take advantage of solar gain during the colder seasons of the year. The designs also allow for more efficient cooling and ventilation during the warm months. Some of these concepts have been around for centuries, but have been forgotten or abandoned in favor of more 'modern' systems.

I visited my friend Frank's home in the town of Ossipee, New Hampshire not long ago. He built the place a couple of years ago, siting it near the peak of a hill he owns. You must understand that Frank is your stereotypical New Hampshire yankee: frugal, thoughtful, and innovative. One thing you have to say about him is that he doesn't like to spend a penny more than necessary to do anything, including building his house. When I saw it I was awestruck.

Frank got it right: Passive and active solar heating systems to heat the house and for hot water, with the passive systems also capable of assisting to cool the house in the summer. Photovoltaic and wind generator systems provide electricity. He is off the grid because the local utility wanted almost $27,000 to run power lines to his home. The only problem he has is that sometimes he has too much generating capacity, even in the winter, so he uses the excess electricity to heat his garage using electric baseboards! He says he plans to reduce the generating capacity in the future by selectively disabling the PV panels or wind generator. He overestimated the electric load of running the systems in his house by a factor of 50%. Part of the cause was that the original estimates were based upon older appliance inefficiencies as well as the use of traditional electric lighting technology, i.e. incandescent lights.

While Frank's house is modern technology and design taken to an extreme (including the costs), new homes in general could make use of many of the same features: larger windows with low emissivity glass help heat the home in the winter; a wrap-around porch along the east, south, and west sides of the house will keep the summer sun from entering the windows and help keep the house cool (and I do love those porches); proper shading using strategically placed deciduous trees; winter wind breaks using properly placed evergreens; quieter, more efficient appliances and heating/cooling systems; fresh air heat exchangers that allow regular changes of air within a house during the winter without loss of heat (and the nice thing about them is there are no moving parts!); use of indirect lighting and compact fluorescent lights; use of 'dark sky' exterior lighting, meaning that any exterior lights illuminate the ground and not the sky (this also reduces the amount of energy needed to light outside walks, porches, and entryways). A lot of these things could be done without adding to the cost of building the home. It's more a matter of how something is used in a home, not whether it is used at all.

And so I endeavor to design and build a place that will be cheap and easy to heat, cool, light, and still run all of my electronic gizmos, but won't bankrupt me in the process.

Wish me luck....

Terrorism 101

Susanna Cornett has an excellent post on her blog, delving into terrorism and what we should do about. Thanks to Cold Fury for the link!

The Western Media, Dupes of the Palestinians?

There is an excellent article in NRO by Daniel Doron about how much of the western media believes most of what the Palestinians and their supporters tell them without question. The media seems willing to accept whatever it is fed, making them nothing more than a mouthpiece for Yasser Arafat and his cronies.

Tested by a Great Evil

It is said that every generation is tested by a great evil. During the twentieth century alone the world faced evil, great and small.

From the late thirties through the mid forties Nazism and the militaristic Empire of Japan threatened freedom throughout the world. The depraved beliefs of the Nazi hierarchy led to the deaths of millions of innocents throughout Europe. Untold numbers died under the rule of a harsh Japanese military regime. Both the Nazis and the Japanese believed that all other races were inferior and lived only to serve or die at the hands of the master race. The niceties of civilization belonged only to those in power. But through force of arms both of these evil empires were torn asunder and wiped from the face of the earth.

Starting in 1917, the Communist threat came in to being during the Bolshevik Revolution. For a short while after the revolution it appeared that the downtrodden had finally had found champions. Then the terror began and the killing continued. The gulags were filled with the disillusioned and those brave enough to speak out. The Great Stalin killed more of his own people than the Nazis ever did. Over four generations lived under the repressive rule of tyrants until the Soviet system collapsed under its own weight, unable to compete against the free peoples elsewhere in the world. Another evil empire gone, with Communism thrown on the trash heap of history. Only a few Communist nations still exist and even they have had to make changes in their ideology in order to survive. Soon enough, they too will fade away.

Though the roots of the problem started in the twentieth century, it is during this century that we now face another of the great evils -- extremist Islamic fundamentalism. Dennis Prager defines some other great evils and the pattern that these evils follow. There are four parts to that pattern that he outlines:

1. The evil takes hold.

2. The evil has myriad defenders even among otherwise decent people.

3. The evil is vanquished after destroying an uncountable number of lives.

4. After the evil is vanquished, there is virtually unanimous agreement that it was indeed evil.

Extremist Islamic fundamentalism certainly meets the first two criteria. While I personally don't paint all Muslims with the same broad brush, I do believe the extremists have taken the tenets of the Faith and twisted them to their own nefarious ends. Of my Muslim friends and acquaintances, all decry and condemn the twisted evil that has infiltrated their faith. And before some of you slam me for that statement, allow me to remind you that extremist militant Christian fundamentalists have committed acts as evil as those of the Islamofascist pinheads. Remember the Crusades? What about the Inquisition?

Mind you, I am not an apologist for Islamic extremists. I find religious fanatics of any stripe to be dangerous as they will find ways of justifying any act, no matter how horrific. Genocide is not out of the question for fanatics such as these.

Actions that horrify us are rampant in the Middle East. As Dennis Prager mentions in his column, many in the West deny extremist militant Islamic evils.

"Afghanistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Palestinian society have created totalitarian regimes that, in each or all cases, have terribly oppressed women; enslaved and slaughtered a million blacks who refuse to be subjugated to Islamic totalitarianism; use religious police to whip men who drink alcohol; torture Christians who live or work there; have developed a unique theology of cruelty in which God is depicted as a provider of scores of young women to all Muslims who blow themselves up while murdering Jews and Americans; and, like Nazism, it has made Jew-hatred its centerpiece. And throughout much of the Muslim Middle East, girls are murdered by fathers and brothers in 'honor killings' if they are so much as perceived as having spent time with a male unapproved by the family."

"It should not be difficult to call all this evil, but just as with the previous evils, many Western voices not only defend these regimes and doctrines, they reserve their condemnations only for those who oppose the evil. Apologists like best-selling author Karen Armstrong, the professors of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), professors in other fields, the leftist European and American press -- all these deny Islamic evils. Just as their predecessors blamed America for the Cold War with Communism, and dismissed anti-Communists as 'war mongers' and 'fascists', today's deniers of evil blame America and Israel for Islamic terror and label terror's opponents 'bigots', 'Islamophobes' and, of course, 'war mongers'."

How many must die, how many atrocities must be committed, how much suffering must take place before we face the test of this Great Evil and end it? How long before the apologists see that they are wrong, even if they will never admit it to anyone but themselves?

It's the Logistics, Stupid!

Stephen Den Beste has an excellent post about how wars are won with logistics. It illustrates that the Allies battles against the Germans in WWII were won by the fact that the Allies simply had more war materiel and the means to get it to the front. It isn't necessarily how good your weapons are, it's how many of them you have and where they are that count.

The Persian Gulf War was a war of logistics: The Coalition simply had more of everything and knew how to move it when and where it was needed.

The Bill of No Rights

Though this has been floating around for quite some time, I figured it couldn't hurt to post it here as a reminder. What prompted me was a post from Cold Fury slamming the poor wretches bewailing the state of their investments in the stock market. Some were upset because now they might actually have to work until they're 65 rather than retiring at 50 or 55.

So, without further ado, here is The Bill of No Rights

****************************************************

We, the Sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, Restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our Nation safe, Promote positive behavior and Secure the Blessings of debt-free Liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, Hereby try one more time to Ordain and Establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.

We hold these Truths to be Self-evident, that a whole lot of People were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I - You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth.

More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II - You do not have the right to never be offended.

This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III - You do not have the right to be free from harm.

If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you ,and all of your relatives, independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV - You do not have the right to free food and housing.

Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V - You do not have the right to free health care.

That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI - You do not have the right to physically harm other people.

If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.

ARTICLE VII - You do not have the right to the possessions of others.

If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII - You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.

We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX - You do not have the right to a job.

All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X - You do not have the right to happiness.

Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.


Copyright © Lewis W. Napper

Random Thoughts on a Sunday Afternoon

Borrowing a page from Thomas Sowell, I hereby offer some thoughts that have been running around in my mind most of the weekend.

*****

Why is it that when we come back from vacation we need a vacation to recuperate from the vacation? It always seems to me that I need a couple of days to rest once I get back from vacation, even if I didn't go anywhere!

*****

According to a source (which I don't happen to recall at the moment. After all it is Sunday), there are approximately 850,000 words in the American English lexicon and 450,000 words in the British English lexicon. I'm not sure why that disparity exists unless it has something to do with American willingness to make up a word when existing words just won't do. Or maybe it's because America is such an acronym-loving nation, even when things are, at times, FUBAR. Then these acronyms become a word in and of themselves, and that's no SNAFU. It seems that most English speaking nations also have the propensity to borrow words from other languages when it suits. But one must remember that English is something of a bastard language, being a mixture of Germanic, Latin, Celtic roots. Now add all of the bits and pieces we've borrowed from Asia, the rest of Europe, Africa, Australia, the Pacific Islands, and North and South America. (In New England, where I happen to live, there are many towns, rivers, lakes, ponds, streets, and even states that borrow their names from the Algonquin-speaking tribes. For instance, in Massachusetts there is a lake called Chauggagogmanchauggagogchauggbunamungaggog. Today they call it Webster Lake. I guess too many people were cramping their tongues trying to pronounce it.) Even with its rather bass-ackwards grammatic structure, English is a language spoken by more people in more places on this earth than any other. (Yes, I know there are over 1.2 billion Chinese speakers, but most of them are located in one area on the Asian continent.) English is everywhere.

*****

Why do we park in a driveway, but drive on a parkway? Does one get high on a highway?

*****

Have you ever noticed that the small packages of nuts or potato chips or Cheez-its are damn near impossible to open easily without causing the contents to fly all over the place, while the large bags of the same thing seem to open all by themselves when you don't want them to?

*****

One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to driving on the highway is when somebody rushes past you and cuts across three lanes of traffic to beat you to the exact change lane at a tollbooth. Then, when it's finally their turn to drop their 75 cents in to the coin chute, they realize they don't have any change. Some will sit there for quite some time, checking pockets, purses, and under seats to find enough change. Others will just pull away after 30 seconds or so and take their chances. And on one occasion I witnessed someone stuffing a folded dollar bill into the bottom of the coin chute, plugging it up. Unfortunately I see this behavior all too often, and mostly it's folks from Massachusetts and New York heading up to the lakes and mountains on Friday afternoon/early evening or heading home on Sunday (or Monday, if it's a three day weekend).

*****

I happen to be fortunate enough to live on the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee in central New Hampshire. Most times it's a joy. But once the summer season rolls around it becomes a mixed blessing. The summer people arrive. Those of you that live near summer tourist destinations know what I mean when I say 'summer people'. There are two kinds.

The first kind are the folks that come for a week or two and stay at one of the resorts, rental cottages, or camp grounds. I'll also include the folks that only spend weekends at family owned cottages. They are, for the most part, pretty nice people, friendly and giving. They enjoy the area and have a good time.

The second kind, however, give the rest a bad name. They are the 'summah people'. This term is spoken in such a way as to be unmistakably derogatory. These are the folks that come to one of the summer resort areas and act as if everyone having the good fortune to live there year round are their servants and underlings. They have no concept of private property, except that their property is private and yours is not.

I've had the misfortune to have to deal with one of the second kind since the weekend after Memorial Day. He rents a boat slip located behind my home. On one occasion he left his dog tied up to a tree in my back yard for the entire day while he was out on his boat. The dog was a Boxer, and not particularly friendly. Due to the length of the rope he used to tie up his dog, access to my back yard and the rest of the boat slips was impossible as the dog would lunge at anyone approaching the dock or entering the back yard.

The local police department was called when one of the other slip renters couldn't leave his boat because the dog would snap and growl at him and his family every time they stepped on to the dock. Just as the Animal Control Officer was about to slip a control noose over the dog's head in an effort to take him away, the owner arrived back at the dock. The invective that followed would have made a longshoreman blush.

His attitude was "I rent this damn slip and I'll do what I want!" It didn't matter to him that the only thing he was renting was the slip and access to it through a private yard.

This fellow has also parked in my driveway, blocking access to my garage and everything inside. On one weekend his SUV was there from Friday afternoon until Sunday evening. I didn't know it was his until he returned and I saw him loading his gear into it. I asked him to please park on the side of the road like all the other slip tenants. His response was "F**k YOU!" He then got in to his SUV and drove off.

My neighbors have use of the driveway when they have relatives or friends visiting for the weekend. On one particular weekend, this fellow again parked his SUV in front of the garage, blocking access. My neighbor's relatives were also visiting, so they parked their cars in the driveway, blocking the SUV in.

Late Sunday afternoon rolls around and the fellow arrives back at the dock. After loading his gear in to the back of his truck, he pounds on my door and demands that the other cars be moved so he can leave. I told him I had no way to do that. I explained that the cars belonged to the neighbors and that they had permission to park there. I also reminded him that he did not.

He left, went to the neighbor's door and pounded on it. He got no response as no one was home. He was then back at my door demanding to know where they were. I told him that they were out on their boat. He then wanted to know when they'd be back.

My answer: "How the hell should I know?"

After he sat around and stewed for a while, he called his wife on his cell phone so she could drive up to Lake Winnipesaukee and pick him up. She arrived a couple of hours later. Not more than five minutes after they left, my neighbors pulled in at their slip.

When I got home from work Monday afternoon the SUV was gone.

Since then, his SUV has been towed from my driveway (once); the Marine Patrol has cited him for dumping oil into the Lakeport Channel when he pumped his bilge (twice); and the city billed him for the clean up of the oil slick by the fire department.

He just doesn't get it.

*****

I've ridden motorcycles for years. For years I had no opinion one way or the other about loud pipes on motorcycles. Then, last year during the annual Motorcycle Week, I became a firm believer that too many motorcycles are TOO DAMN LOUD! The old adage that 'Loud Pipes Save Lives' is just so much crap. I don't need to hear somebody on their Harley at 2 in the morning while they're still three miles away. I don't need the ear shattering blast of exhaust at a stoplight when the rider twists the throttle less than three feet away from me. In many cases the only time a driver might hear such a motorcycle is after it's already passed them. Only now are the state and local police around here starting to enforce ordinances already on the books dealing with loud exhaust systems.

War with Iraq

Isntapundit has an interesting view on war with Iraq, as well as a link to his commentary on editorials in The Nation and the L.A. Times, against and for invading Iraq.

Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the Dogs of War....

It seems that some of the media pundits have been saying that the only way the Bush Administration will be able to take away attention from the ongoing corporate corruption scandals, and the shrill allegations from the left of wrongdoing by Bush and Cheney, is for the U.S. to invade Iraq.

Though the motivation behind such an invasion is less likely to be what Liberals imply and is more a pre-emptive action to prevent greater chaos in the future, I have to admit that it has a certain appeal.

Mind you, I'm no warmonger. I'd be the next-to-the-last one to say "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." (My dear brother isn't quite so...umm....magnanimous.) But removing Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party is looking more attractive all the time. Despite the anger from the Muslim world that such a move might create, I believe that many of Iraq's neighbors will quietly applaud our actions and breathe a sigh of relief.

Of course many of the Liberals in the U.S. will bewail the death of Iraqi civilians, but that's what happens in war. During the Gulf War, Saddam had civilians moved into and around Iraqi military installations and weapons facilities in an attempt to prevent their destruction by Coalition air power. It did give pause to the Coalition military commanders, but in the end those installations and facilities were destroyed. Civilians did die. The Coalition couldn't allow the use of hostages, and that's what these civilians were, to deter the campaign against Saddam and the Iraqi military. It is a horrible fact, but civilians are always killed in war, either by accident or by design. The U.S. military tries hard to limit civilian casualties, but it's impossible to avoid.

Despite the pasting Iraq took during the Gulf War, it is still a formidable military power. Saddam Hussein still has designs on becoming a major player in the Middle East, if not the outright overlord. He covets Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and many other Gulf states. He wants to be the Great Leader of the Arab world. I believe he's willing to kill as many people as necessary to achieve that end. I also believe he'd be willing to use weapons of mass destruction in his bid for power as he's used them in the past against Iran during the nine year war with Iran, and against the Kurds within Iraq. I doubt it would bother him in any way if the people of Iraq have to die in order for him to attain his goals. He certainly seems to be willing to kill his own people if he thinks he will gain some advantage in doing so. He has done so to stifle any opposition to his rule within Iraq.

Were the U.S. to invade and conquer Iraq, what should America do once the war is won? Maybe it's time to do some real nation building along the lines of the Marshall Plan after World War II. Perhaps if we had done that after the Soviet Union had withdrawn from Afghanistan, the Taliban would have never come to power and Al Qaeda would not have had a secure base of operations. We must do that in Iraq, for the consequences of not doing it will be far greater than we can probably imagine.

Malpractice- Kill All The (Tort) Lawyers, Redux

An earlier post of mine mentioned the problem some states were having retaining doctors, and specifically obstetricians. A report on ABC's World News Tonight shows that the problem is worse that I had originally thought.

ABC's report focused on two OB/GYNs in the town of Cleveland, Mississippi forced to close their joint practice because their malpractice insurance premiums rose 500%. (No, that isn't a typo- five hundred percent!). They couldn't afford the premiums and the only choice they had was to close the practice, abandoning a number of patients, one less than three weeks away from delivering her child. Women in Cleveland will have no choice but to travel 40 miles to another OB/GYN, and the worry is that he may not be able to practice much longer for the same reason. The average premium increase in the Mississippi delta region was 400%!

This problem reaches far beyond Mississippi. Nationwide, malpractice premiums for OB/GYNs have risen over 160% in the past 10 years. The increasing number of malpractice suits and large settlements over those same ten year period are to blame. The American Medical Association says there are nine states in the U.S. that have reached crisis proportions when it comes to malpractice premiums and doctors leaving their practices. Another 18 states are showing signs of the same problem.

Dr. Thomas Purdon, former president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports, "In the past year, at least 10 to 20 percent of all OB/GYNs in the country have either stopped delivering babies, stopped doing gynecological surgery, or even given up practice altogether."

Some may argue that the malpractice suits were justified, that the doctors being sued screwed up. In some cases, I'd agree with them. But I'll bet a lot suits were filed because a patient or family wasn't happy with the way things turned out. Maybe a newborn had some health problems that didn't become evident until the child was born. Maybe a new mother had health complications from the birth. Some of this would have been unforeseeable. Some of these problems could have been caused by the mother herself for not following the doctor's orders during her pregnancy. And sometimes, shit just happens.

But don't fret! Here come the lawyers! They'll get you a load of cash to ease your suffering!

So your baby was born with a club foot? Not a problem. Sue the doctor!

Labor was brought on prematurely because of a traffic accident and the baby later died? It must be somebody's fault. Sue the doctor!

It was a boy rather than a girl? I guess somebody screwed up. Sue the doctor!

There were unexpected complications during and after the birth? Somebody should have expected them. Sue the doctor!

And so on, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

If this isn't a call for tort reform, I don't know what is. If it doesn't stop here, then one medical specialty after another will fall. And then we'll really be in trouble.

And so the chickens have come home to roost.

I'll go out on a limb here and bet that female lawyers and the wives of lawyers have a really tough time finding an OB/GYN that will take them on as a patient.

Maybe payback is a bitch.......

UPDATE: On Thursday, July 25th, ABC's World News Tonight reported that the two OB/GYNs in Cleveland, Mississippi were contacted by an insurance carrier that offered them short term coverage. Their practice will remain open for the time being, but this is only a reprieve. Their coverage will expire in a couple of months.

First, Kill All The (Tort) Lawyers-- an Update

A comment posted by Vegard Valberg about the McDonald's Hot Coffee incident in my earlier post pointed me to a website that blew away the veil of an urban legend. My understanding of the incident was quite flawed and this website cleared that up. Usually I check my facts, but in this case I really screwed up. Rather than post the entire thing, I'll just post the Mythbuster link and let you read it for yourself. Thanks for setting me straight, Vegard!

First, Kill All The (Tort) Lawyers

Shakespeare may have had the right idea, at least when it comes to tort lawyers. You know the ones. They have slick TV ads implying that everyone is entitled to money because they've been wronged by someone/something/someplace, that it's not your fault that you were too stupid to read the directions before immolating yourself and burning your house to the ground. It appears that the message that is taught to the populace over the years has changed from taking responsibility for your own actions to finding someone else to blame instead. At least that's what the tort lawyers want you believe. They've made the stereotype of the ambulance-chasing lawyer become all too true. It is because of this that tort reform has become more important than ever.

Why?

Because without it business, medicine, recreation, or just plain living will become damn near impossible.

There was a movie some time back titled Cherry 2000. It was a comedic sci-fi picture that gave a brief glimpse of a possible future America where dating was negotiated by lawyers. The details were worked out to the nth degree, including such mundane things as holding hands, kissing, or an arm around a shoulder at a movie would be allowed, and to what extent. If a relationship developed beyond that, the lawyers would then negotiate such things as sexual relations including the type, frequency, location of said sexual acts. Observers would be present to make sure that both parties lived up to the contract. When I first saw that bit in the movie I thought it was hilarious. But now I wonder if it might actually come to pass. If it does, then we as a society are doomed. And rightfully so.

The American public has already felt some ill effects, and it will only get worse.

Some examples:

-- Some school and public playgrounds have had jungle gyms, slides, seesaws, and swings removed because of liability lawsuits or the fear of them. In some cases playgrounds have been closed outright because the municipalities didn't want to be sued in case little Johnny fell down or little Susie scraped a knee.

--Does anyone remember this one? A woman purchased a cup of hot coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru. After paying for the coffee and taking the cup of hot coffee from the employee working at the drive-thru window, she placed the cup of hot coffee between her legs, then drove off. When she then stopped at the exit of the McDonald's, the action of her moving her foot from the accelerator to the brake squeezed the cup of hot coffee between her legs. The extra pressure on the cup caused the plastic lid to pop off and spew hot coffee over the inside of her thighs, scalding her and causing first degree burns. She sued the McDonald's franchise and won because they hadn't warned her often enough that their hot coffee was hot!

Update: See below about the real McDonald's Coffee incident.

-- In some states physicians are leaving practices or moving them because malpractice insurance rates are so high. In Mississippi, for example, lawyers pressing malpractice suits have put so much pressure on the medical profession that physicians are voting with their feet or changing to less demanding professions, leaving many people there with less medical care. In Nevada, obstetricians are becoming an endangered species as more of them drop their OB practices or relocating them due to high malpractice insurance premiums. A friend of mine from my high school days dropped obstetrics from her OB/GYN practice because the only ones making any money from it were her insurance company and her lawyer.

-- A side effect of malpractice suits with large damage awards, even those suits based on junk science, has been to increase the cost of health care. Physicians now order extra tests to verify a diagnosis. This is not to double check the diagnosis so much as to gather exculpatory evidence for any malpractice suits that might be filed.

-- Small business are being forced to pay for the clean up of polluted waste sites even though the U.S. government admits they had nothing to do with the improper disposal of wastes. In one case, a number of auto repair shops, garages, and auto dealers in southern New Hampshire and northeastern Massachusetts are being billed for the clean up of a toxic waste site owned by a hazardous waste disposal firm. The various small businesses involved had contracted with the waste hauler in southern New Hampshire to properly dispose of used motor oil, coolant, ATF, and other fluids collected from their maintenance and repair operations. The waste hauler was licensed to haul and dispose of the waste. Little did the client businesses know that the hauler was dumping the waste into open, unlined pits rather than recycling or processing the waste as had been contracted. To quote Weirs Times columnist Publius, "There have been efforts made to correct the way in which the removal of designated Superfund sites is financed.....but the basic problem remains. The E.P.A. has eliminated the concept of fault from consideration in assessing fines and penalties. The federal bureaucrats are robbing even small business people who may face bankruptcy in cases where they readily admit that they have done nothing wrong, and have met every requirement of law and regulation in disposing of their waste." Who is responsible for this mess? One guess, boys and girls.

Two other points Publius makes that ring true, at least to me. The first:

"While it is true that the Clinton/Gore administration was more of a Lawyer's Government than any other thus far in American history, the removal of the concept of fault from consideration in lawsuits from torts to ACLU allegations of abusive Christmas decorations has been an ongoing process for decades. This single element is enabling members of the trial bar to suck up an ever growing share of the wealth of the U.S.A. on the flimsiest of pretexts even when buttressed only by junk science as has been the case with breast implants."

Dow Chemical was bankrupted due to a lawsuit about the health problems associated with the use of silicone breast implants. Incomplete data was massaged to prove that breast implants caused a host of health problems, though there was no comprehensive clinical study performed to prove the allegation. Studies done after the fact proved that there was an increase in certain autoimmune diseases or weakened immune systems amongst some women that had implants, but the increase was shown to be due to a risky lifestyle. Women with similar lifestyles but without breast implants showed the same increase of these same autoimmune diseases and immune system deficiencies. So it wasn't the breast implants that caused the problems, but rather the unhealthy lifestyle of the women affected. Of course this didn't affect the billions in damage payments made by Dow and the millions collected by the lawyers.

The second point:

"There was a time when attorneys at law were professionals who were available to advise and represent citizens who claimed to have been injured by the wrongful actions of another person or entity. Today TV viewers face a deluge from often shady characters from who they wouldn't buy a used car."

How many businesses in this country have had to pay large sums for injuries real or faked, not because they were at fault, but because they had deep pockets the lawyers thought worth picking? How many times have lawyers filed suit in shotgun fashion, naming anybody or any company even remotely connected to an allegedly defective product or service? I recall an instance where a trucking firm was forced to pay a claim in a defective and injurious product lawsuit even though the firm had done nothing more than haul the product from the factory to a distribution warehouse. The firm had nothing to do with the design, manufacture, promotion, or sale of the product in question. The firm had no financial ties to the manufacturer. The only thing the trucking firm was guilty of was taking on a contract to haul a product from point A to point B.

With the actions of September 11th in mind, trial lawyers must be drooling at the prospect of millions and millions in dollars in fees collected through class action suits as the result of terrorist acts committed against the U.S., its businesses, and its citizens. The fact that the actions of September 11th can be considered an act of war hasn't stopped many of these lawyers from filing suits against the airlines, the FAA, the New York Port Authority (owners the World Trade Center), the airports where the hijackers had boarded the aircraft, and a number of other entities and companies. Other than tying up the courts for decades, what purposes will these suits serve other than to enrich these bottom feeders?

Hmm. Could it be there might be a solution here? Is it possible, just possible, we could sic these lawyers on Al Qaeda? Could we solve two problems at the same time by allowing these two forces to wipe each other out?

On the other hand, they might just end up joining forces and then we'd all be doomed..... *sigh*


Update: A comment posted by Vegard Valberg about the McDonald's Hot Coffee incident pointed me to a website that blew away the veil of an urban legend. My understanding of the incident was quite flawed and this website cleared that up. Usually I check my facts, but in this case I screwed up. Rather than post the entire thing, I'll just post the link and let you read it for yourself. Thanks for setting me straight, Vegard!

"Cultural Diversity" and the Balkanization of America

Seeing the uproar over the decision by three judges of the Ninth Circuit court over the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance got me to thinking about the melting pot that is supposed to be America.

My maternal grandparents came from Finland. They arrived knowing no English. In time they learned it. My grandfather was a machinist, my grandmother a housewife and housekeeper. Over the years, they managed to earn their way in to the American Dream. My grandfather started his own business in Hartford, Connecticut- Swan Tool and Die. My grandmother had cleaned the houses of other Americans, some native born and some immigrants like her. They had a nice home in Wethersfield and a summer cottage on the seashore in Madison.

Never once did they complain about being pressured to forget their cultural heritage, forget where they came from. Why?

Because it never happened.

They came to America to make their fortune, to raise a family, to become Americans.

My mother grew up speaking English. Her older brother had been born in Finland, but he learned English at a young age and probably forgot most of the Finnish and Swedish he knew. My grandparents wanted them to be Americans. And they were. But they never forgot their heritage.

But over the past couple of decades it seems that an increasing number of politically correct liberals believe that immigrants shouldn't have to give up their cultural identities and backgrounds and be assimilated into American culture. They expect us to forget and suppress our cultural heritage in favor of those of foreign lands far away. They seem to think that foreign cultures are superior to western culture, and specifically American culture. They appear to believe that cultural diversity is all important and that everything else should be sacrificed to attain it, even if it means the destruction of the very thing that entices immigrants to risk everything to come to America.

If these misguided souls had their way, America would be a series of ethnic and cultural enclaves, miniature reproductions of all of the foreign lands immigrants left behind. There would be no pseudo-homogenization, no 'melting pot' that is America. They don't seem to realize that American culture was created by taking the best of many other cultures and adapting it, making it our own. If we do it the way that those screeching about cultural diversity want it done, all we would do is recreate the very conditions that so many fled by coming here. The very political, ethnic, cultural, and religious tensions that existed elsewhere would now exist here. There would be ethnic cleansing, dictatorships, oppressive theocracies, and a host of other problems that we really don't want here. We would become another set of artificial Balkan states, along with all the strife that comes with it.

There's nothing wrong with remembering and celebrating our cultural roots, remembering where we came from. There's no problem with observing customs 'from the old country', as long as they don't violate any laws. There's nothing wrong with speaking a language other than English when amongst your family and ethnic peers. But don't expect everyone else in America to bend over backwards to preserve your cultural heritage at the expense of American culture. If someone wants to preserve their cultural heritage and not be assimilated into our culture, not learn our language, not be bound by our laws and our culture, then why did they leave their homes and come here?

To paraphrase Alexis de Tocqueville, "One can go to France and never become French. One can go to England and never become English. But one can go to America and become an American." It's about time that the misguided few remember that.