Instead of arguing with the current Administration Bohner should say he has proposed an immediate $32 trillion (yes trillion) dollar line-of-credit increase with the stipulation that:
- $50,000 USD be given to every man, woman and child in the US on February 1, 2013.
- Promise everyone a new car, flat screen of choice, diapers, cigarettes, etc. etc. up to another $50,000 USD in value.
Then he should say the current Administration balked at it and refuses to agree...
Then perhaps meaningful debate will begin.
If not, then at least we can discard this stupid "cliff drama..."
Though these last several years have been the hottest on record the predicted "hockey stick" of global warming is still somewhat elusive.
As it turns out temperatures have not risen significantly since 1996 (see this Register article).
The official position of chicken little according to the article is "global warming is still definitely on and the flat temperatures seen for
the last 14 years or so are just a statistical fluke of the sort to be
expected when trying to measure such a vast and noisy signal as world
temperatures with such precision" (underline mine).
You can go to this site to see the underlying scientific data from none other than the East Anglia (of climate gate fame) university data.
That means things like this (with the red hockey stick at the right) from this site
aresimply wrong.
You might wonder how reality could be so different from the wonder of big University science.
Well, it turns out you don't have to look very far.
"There is increasing concern that most current published research
findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may
depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same
question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among
the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a
research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in
a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a
greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where
there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and
analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and
prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in
chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study
designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false
than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed
research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the
prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these
problems for the conduct and interpretation of research."
The lastunderlined section (my own) is perhaps the most telling: "Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings
may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."
Fortunately for all of us the contents of the paper are freely available through the link provided above.
The paper, while somewhat technical, basically points to a "follow the leader" mentality where some event is thought to be statistically meaningful but, due to lack of understanding of statistics and research methodology, is not (see this on the notion of p-value). And, even though the event is not actually significant, others "pile on" with similar "follow-up" studies "confirming" the false premise.
This paper directly addresses the medical field but I see no reason that its methodology and reasoning wouldn't apply to, say, climate science.
The problem here is that today's researchers are simply not understanding how biased their view make their research.
So how can all the "chicken little" scientific studies be wrong?
So the "official" climate track is supposedly this:
As you can see things kind of grow "flat" at the extreme right.
These data show that the temperature is not rising as predicted by the "climate models."
"Not rising as predicted" in academic speak means that the results are, er, well WRONG.
So if the climate model cannot predict a "fluke" is it still a valid climate model?
That's an interesting question for which no one seems to have an answer.
Good science is hard to do - particularly when making sure that what you are studying is not biased in any way.
But today's college grads (as well as those graduating from perhaps as far back as the mid 1980's) were taught to get degrees as a means of a good job and not as a means of pursuing a passion.
(Generally if you do something because you love it you respect the process, i.e., you learn the statistics so that you don't create a bias.)
And with the almighty government funding things its always easier to get more funds for more research, i.e., "keeping your job," by finding problems that need yet more funding (to those with college degrees this is known as a bias).
So my guess is that we are all wasting a lot of time on something no one in fact has a good handle on.
And, even $16 trillion USD in debt our leaders still run after questionable science as if were "gospel."
And, speaking of "gospel" I wonder if the atheists out there who worship at the alter of "science" are aware of this?
I wonder, does this bias creep into things, e.g., evolution, as well?
So, as an atheist does one actually question the fact that much of science might in fact be wrong?
So the current Administration has said “I’m asking Americans to make your voice heard” suggesting that citizens "tweet" their congressman on the "fiscal cliff."
The generation (as I posted earlier) that's a trillion US dollars in debt for its education (which does not seem to offer employment prospects) needs to "twitter" about what to do.
(A flock of birds "twitter" around the bird bath, in a tree, or at the bird feeder. In case anyone noticed these are not the smartest animals.)
We vote to elect leaders.
Why do they need "tweets" to tell them what to do?
Would you use twitter to help steer your car?
Would you use twitter to control how your child is fed?
Would you use twitter to control the arm of your surgeon?
(I had better answer in case you are a recent college graduate: "NO" - its just NOISE like SHOUTING. Except its done electronically.)
Is anyone going actually do something based on the tweets?
"Twitter" is noise, pure and simple. Some 140 characters (based on the packet-switching limits built into mobile phones).
Like a mob shouting.
What do we do by "mob rule?"
Riot.
Pillage.
Destroy.
Loot.
That's why we have elected leaders. They are supposed to represent us. To act on our behalf.
But they don't...
The truth is that our country has catastrophic debt - like Greece.
And now we're using lame phone technology to create electronic mobs to "shout" about what to do.
How about THINKING about what to do.
How about publicly outlining a rational thought process.
Telling the truth about how much debt there really is.
Telling the truth about how little a hundred billion USD will really effect it.
Telling the truth that no one in Washington DC has the balls to fix it.
So instead we turn the impending disaster of our country and our children's future going broke into the ultimate "sound byte" - 140 characters.
Here's a few tweets for you:
"The US is broke."
"The government can't afford all that free stuff you want."
"None of our leaders is even remotely addressing our country's impending bankruptcy."
"We are going into debt to buy your diapers, gas and formula."
The "irresponsible" future is here. The graphic at the right shows that today "student loan" defaults (past due 90 days) now exceed credit card defaults.
That's right.
We've told all those irresponsible credit card borrowers with crappy jobs to "get an education" so they could make more money.
So, being irresponsible, they traded their credit card debt for education debt.
Only one small problem - you can't shake student loan debt even in bankruptcy.
The good old US government is glad to loan you money for education as long as you haven't filed for bankruptcy in the last five years. They don't even bother with asking you what major you're going for.
Poetry? No problem - here's the $56K USD max you can borrow for that.
Ancient Greek? No problem.
Basket Weaving? No problem.
Closer inspection of the chart at the right will show that the education "default" bump is following bumps a few years earlier in credit card and other debt.
A sort of consequence of the new "trickle down" bankruptcy.
In this case it trickles down from generation to generation. Grandparent to parent to child.
Here's a pile of supposedly "free" money - oops, er, its not exactly free, its a LOAN.
The college grads I meet these days would likely not pass this.
Questions like:
"How many parts of speech are there? Name them."
"Name and give the capitals of the states touching the Ohio River."
"Define the Cerebrum; Cerebellum."
"Name three rights given Congress by the Constitution and two rights denied Congress."
"Name the last battle of the Civil War."
Today upon college graduation you likely have a substance abuse problem.
You probably take anti-depressants.
You have an average of $26K USD in debt.
And no job.
So not only has inflation ruined the buying power of the dollar, but "educational inflation" has ruined what is learned.
Our schools turn out ignorant fools.
Fools going into debt so that can know less than great grandma did in 8th grade.
Yet great grandma and her generation built the country we live in in large part. Her generation discovered the transistor without which any of our "modern" devices would not work. They built the interstate system of roads. The fought and died in World War I and II.
I doubt a college graduate of today (unless they have a specialized history degree) could tell you much at all about World War I or II.
But at least they know who Katy Perry and Lady GaGa are...
Accordingly the "five-year DNA study apparently suggesting Sasquatch exists, and is not
entirely human and not entirely non-human. It is, says the study’s
author, a hybrid cross of the two."
The research, according to the article was a team led by Melba Ketchum, a former
veterinarian who moved into genetic research 27 years ago and runs DNA
Diagnostics, Inc., based in Texas.
Supposedly the study is being "peer-reviewed" and will be presented shortly. Some of the findings where "leaked" - so though its not April 1st we still may all be fooled.
The StatesmanJournal article says: "Ketchum said the study had sequenced “three complete Sasquatch nuclear
genomes” and determined the species is a human hybrid — “the result of
males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.”
The DNA study said the research in the article "...makes one thing clear: Sasquatch isn’t
nonexistent and it isn’t an ape. It’s human. Or, at least, partly human."
Nice to see that our "education dollars" are being wisely spent on making children wear RFID tags so we can ensure the district gets its funding (see this and this). Little Johnny and Little Suzy's presence is required to get that all important government funding.
These stories are from San Antonio, Texas.
Unfortunately this is not the first case. In a federally funded Richmond, California preschool in 2010 RFID chips were sown into children's clothes.
The tag includes the photo and name of the student, a bar code tied to the student’s
social security number, as well as an RFID chip pinpointing the precise location of the student, including after hours and when
the student leaves campus (according to this article).
These types of system work well for children livestock and have been commercially available for this purpose for some time:
We can't have Little Johnny or Little Suzy skipping out of class and causing the district to slip into financial insolvency.
At least one student, Andrea Hernandez, has declined to wear the tag for religious reasons according to the various articles. As a result the Hernandez family received this letter explaining how their child will be removed from the school for failing to follow the rules:
While there is nothing wrong with identification per se the problems arise when you track the students every movement; this eliminates any notion of privacy.
For example, the school can now know exactly what sections of the library the student is spending time in.
Or how long the student spends in the bathroom, at which urinal or in which stall.
Or who that student is associating with in said bath room.
How long before these bits of information are turned over the police as part of "investigations?"
And why is identification crucial in a school but not in a voting booth?
There's a long article at the WSJ about how the Obama campaign used "big data" to sway the electorate.
As the Lone Wolf I am intimately familiar with the notion of big data because its what drove the last great printing Ha Rah of "personalized marketing." You remember, the expensive casino marketing pitch that was personalized to your specific tastes?
But what does this mean for politics?
Certainly I might care about immigration and you about free education and I might get a specific mailer or call relating to that different from yours.
But what about this: "Multivariate tests identified issues and positions that could move undecided voters..."
Altering a position to sway a voter...?
So unlike personalized marketing that merely offers different choices to recipients we now change our basic position to get more folks into the "will vote for me" pool."
Interesting.
Taken to a not very unrealistic extreme campaigning becomes merely collecting data about a population and fabricating a "straw man" candidate that that has the largest total area in the Venn diagram of possible voting segments.
Then you simply convert the real candidates positions to that of the straw man and you win.
Good thing there are no core "principles" or "morals" to get in the way.
As I pointed out yesterday our society is veering away from critical thinking and independent thought; this model clearly shows how a lack of education makes manipulation of the voting population more effective.
But isn't this the same thing big, evil corporations do?
Poison the land, air and water while making convincing marketing arguments that they are not?
Soon there will be an iPhone app that fill in your details (as the WSJ article says: "... some 80 pieces of information about each person, from age, race and sex to voting history.").
We can all do that and then allow the National Voting Server to simply scan our phones and manufacture a digital candidate that will win.
No one would really even notice.
After all they don't notice that voting is tomorrow when asked how hey voted today. They don't know anything about the political system save for what "big data" tells them.
And they willingly accept "big data" as their source of information.
Anyone who lived in a "swing" state during the last election will tell you that they were literally bombarded day and night with polls and sampling.
Of course, polling is also marketing because you tend to ask leading and revealing questions about your positions while you probe for information. So I suppose that the marketing and sampling also skews the electorate to some degree.
What's fascinating is how "big data" in "big elections" dehumanizes the process.
In the 1960's Star Trek covered this in "A Taste Of Armageddon" - an episode where war is conducted between two planets by virtual computer simulations. If a "virtual bomb" strikes you you must report to the "disintegration booth" to be vaporized.
War is conducted this way because the "[A] conventional war was deemed too destructive to the environments and societies of both planets."
Perhaps actually letting the citizenry decide without a blitzkrieg big data pollsters is too destructive.
What is perhaps most fascinating is that in February of 1967 this topic was suitable for the "working man" to watch at home for entertainment; you know, "Joe Six Pack." The series lasted for two more years after the first (this episode aired in the first) so clearly it was not beyond anyone's ability to understand or comprehend.
Perhaps "Joe" was better educated that today's college graduate - what else would explain why something like this would survive for so many years to come?
Today you don't see anything like this anywhere.
A satirical display of how things "might become" because we have turned into the evil that these shows from forty or more years ago have predicted.
I have little doubt that, with the right marketing and big data, idiots would stream to the "disintegration booth" for termination in a virtual war if they thought it would stop global warming and save the pandas.
We too are headed for a life where we cannot function "alone" without some device to help us through the day. A life where we cede decisions to others when we should take the time to understand the issues and make them ourselves. A life where we willing accept what "big data" tells us to do.
But, like the domesticated dog who is some 30% less intelligent than his wild counterpart, we will pay a price...
We, as a nation, are limping toward the "fiscal cliff."
I don't write much here about politics because there really isn't much to write. When anyone why asks I tell the following stories:
"We are all in a bus headed toward a sharp cliff. The only difference between the two parties is who will press more firmly on the accelerator."
"Think of the US government as running their household like this: We make $25,000 a year. Each year we borrow $10,000. We have $160,000 of 0% credit card debt rolling over to 16% debt over the next few months. We owe grandma and grandpa $250,000. The current "fiscal cliff" discussion is about reducing our annual borrowing by $1,200 or $1,500 per year over ten years."
The arguments about what is wrong here in the cannot be any simpler that this.
I shouldn't have to write about this because its so patently obvious.
Yet few and especially the young seem to be able to grasp this concept.
The most interesting examples I can find for why the young are so lost come from stories I find about modern US universities.
Thirty five years ago modern "big universities" were at a turning point. The radicalism of the 1960's was coming to an end. The modern adherents to the 60's view (peace, love, etc.) had to move on with their lives due to graduation or simply drifting away from school.
Many radicals moved into positions that would decades later put them in a position of power from which to again dispense their ideals.
In the 1970's the world of the university was about "free speech." In those years "free speech" was taken literally. You could say anything. Some things people didn't like but no one prevented (nor wanted to prevent) you from saying it. Free speech was respected. Knowledge was respected.
In those days various radicals still came around to talk and a few still listened.
But one of the primary drivers of the 1960's, Vietnam, ended in 1975 so there was much less fuel for the fire.
In the intervening several years (through the 1980's and part of the 1990's) the role of the "university" changed from education and "free thinking" to ROI. Little Suzy or Johnny had to get a good job after graduation so the goal of the school for a while became to produce "workers." No longer did love for a subject matter. Instead you worried about what kind of high-paying job you could get upon graduation.
But by the 1990's and beyond the old 60's radicals had worked their way up into the management of the college. Their philosophies now had a means for expression: radical environmentalism, anti-capitalism, socialism, anti-religion, "alternate lifestyles" and so on.
Unfortunately these ideas generally don't sit well with the "real world," i.e., the land outside the university environment, so marketing had to be created and stealth used to ensure that no one would pay any attention to the fact that these concepts would be introduced to unknowing children as "gospel truth."
So over the last decade or so the campus has evolved into "closed environment" where the only people with "free speech" are those in charge: administrators, professors, and so forth. There is no "freedom of speech" as defined by the Constitution or common sense. (For a more detailed picture see this article.)
Instead it has been replaced with a sort of "Peter Pan" world of make-believe "never making anyone feel bad."
The 1960's "if it feels good do it" model has grown into the springboard for virtually all sorts of troubling philosophical and actual behavior. The big U serving as a sort of bio-weapons incubator for anti-family, anti-religion, anti-society "free thinking" imposed by entrenched, left-over 1960's idealists.
The rigors of "thinking for yourself" and "critical thinking" are replaced with the childhood fantasy of "never say anything that makes someone feel bad."
Today's college graduate has virtually no ability to drill down into an argument and articulate the pros and cons of each side. They simply don't poses the intellectual horse power to get the job done.
Instead their heads are filled with "mantras." Thus-and-such is bad, never listen to it. Only get your information from such-and-such.
The problem with this model is that it leaves no room for thinking about or understanding the "bigger picture." There simply isn't the understanding or tools necessary to get their intellectual "arms" around the problems.
So today's college graduates simply take what's presented to them as "marketing" and swallow it as the gospel truth. No though. No analysis. No means of thought or analysis. Just "yes, big brother."
Exactly what George Orwell warned us all about.
So let's look at a specific example. (I find this one particularly entertaining.)
Fordham University, originally founded as a Catholic institution in the 1800's is a modern university "in the Jesuit tradition."
Recently a group within Fordham invited Ann Coulter to speak at the university. Coulter is an abrasive, opinionated, in-your-face speaker who often speaks on conservative ratio and television shows.
This was apparently too much "free speech" for a modern university (mind you Coulter is well-published author with her very own ideas about things).
"... There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative-more heat than light-and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.
As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.
"Disgust" was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.
Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully. ..."
McShane's University's answer to Coulter as a speaker is Peter Singer (due on campus February 16 of 2013).
McShane's email uses the quoted word "disgust" to describe implicitly what Coulter's conservative speech means to the University.
Yet "bestiality," "euthanasia," and "infanticide for disabled infants" fails to make the cut.
Now this is purely common sense. (Yes I understand that in the world of academics its not, but out here where the rubber meets the road in the real world "bestiality" and "infanticide" don't make the cut for "common sense.")
So, turning this back to finances let sum this up.
We have a supposedly (and at least traditionally) Jesuit i.e., supposedly Christian, college casting out a conservative, i.e., pro religion and ethics, speaker in favor of one that promotes "bestiality," "euthanasia," and "infanticide for disabled infants."
Hmmm...
If we can't make this judgement correctly how can we think clearly about financial obligation?
"Bestiality," "euthanasia," and "infanticide for disabled infants" are, er, ah, personal choices at best. Ones that come from thinking only about one's self over the obligations one has to a greater society. (Yes I am sure Singer can argue the opposite but fortunately out here in the real world no one is listening - and if they are they are busy keeping there affairs in these areas out of public view.)
So with a focus so "inward" its little wonder that graduates of these institutions, upon entering "the real world," cannot add up simple budget numbers or make rational decisions about how to handle obvious and sever budgetary shortfalls.
For those who still don't understand:
"The bus is headed over cliff. Let's dis-invite someone who will shout out the alarm."
The reason?
Civility. Someone screaming "we're all going to die" as the bus races toward the precipice will undoubtedly make some people "uncomfortable."
Indeed.
Certainly its wrong to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire.
But is it wrong not to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is actually a fire because some people might feel bad or "uncomfortable" about pushing, shoving, stepping on toes, or having to wait for the elderly or infirm to get out first?
Apparently, like Nero, its better to fiddle while Rome burns...
I think this Center for Disease Control (CDC) website provides a pretty good example of why US Government spending is beyond control and government debt is approaching $16 trillion dollars.
There are many realistic threats to people living in the US: terrorism, disease, war, famine, weather.
I have no problem with realistic preparations but this is simply stupid (and no, the site is dated September 27, 2012 so its not some Halloween or April Fools crap).
Good money spent on Zombie blogs, Zombie preparedness, and so forth.
Let's make kids think that disaster is fun!!!
While grandma starves to death in her 5th floor now a walk-up we yuk it up about Zombies.
I expect that the people in NYC affected adversely by hurricane Sandy would prefer to see things about making water safer to drink, tricks to take care of food during electricity outages, and so forth.
They might have actually been able to use it.
When I was about 11 or 12 years old my cousin, who was about two years older than me, managed to get hold of some US Army survival manuals.
This was real information about how to deal with adverse situations: weather, heat, fire, survival, eating, first aid, all of that.
The idea was survival.
Similarly with Boy Scouts info - info on camping, knots, ropes, starting fires, first aid, etc.
As kids we thought about what to do in disasters. Of course as kids you have (or at least kids used too have) a lot thoughts about things like armies attacking and nuclear war.
We had knives, camping gear, mess kits, things like that. Were they really useful in a disaster?
I don't know. There wasn't any disasters but at least we tried to be prepared.
Of course in those days people were much less dependent on things like grocery stores. Most of our neighbors had freezers full of meat, gardens, and pantries full of home canning products.
Not the sort of things you find on the FEMA or CDC sites.
It says this so people don't realize that instead of paying, no doubt in government housing, a huge electric bill for heat each month they could instead just use the gas stove to heat the place (in fact you saw this on the news in NYC).
Of course, if using your gas stove was actually dangerous that 12 hour Thanksgiving turkey roast would be killing many Americans.
But it doesn't.
(Sure there was a gas explosion in Indiana recently but it was unlikely the result of someone cooking, i.e., no one was home at the time of the blast.)
This is not the first time I've seen nonsense on the CDC web site. I wrote "Flu Shot's and Magical Thinking" a few years ago about more stupidity there.
The bottom line is that rather than doing something useful this has all become an industry for people to find busy work, a.k.a. "Zombie Preparedness," to keep themselves employed.
The U.S. Postal Service reported a $15.9 billion USD annual loss today.
Its largest loss ever.
This after missing a number of multi-billion dollar pension payments.
Interestingly the USPS has also reached its "borrowing limit."
What this implies is that not only is the agency losing money but its also borrowed ($15 billion USD - its limit) as well. Add in the missed retiree payments (about $10 billion USD) and you have a total loss on the surface of about $40 billion USD (assuming that they never pay back their borrowing limit which seems likely given the steep drop in mail volume).
The larger US government at its $9.6 billion per day spending rate spends this much in four days.
According to the LA Times that's a loss rate of $2.4 million USD per hour.
The USPS exists because of the US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 known as the "Postal Clause or the Postal Power". This empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".
Note that the government is not required by the Constitution to have a Post Office.
There are some 500,000 employees of the USPS today plus countless retirees. If you count all the vendors, suppliers and so forth there are probably another 500,000 people involved in some way, shape or form.
One might consider that the USPS has a lot of assets and collateral for these losses but if you think about it today's iPhone user probably has little use for bar code sprayers, letter sorters, and so on.
According to the same LA Times article the USPS is confident "Congress" will solve their problem.
I guess we had better up the daily US government borrowing rate from $3.6 billion USD...
Let's take a quick look at what the current Administration and Congress are up to in terms of budgeting.
In the last four years the annual (each year) outlay of the US government was approximately $ 3.5 trillion USD (using this - however there is some variation in the exact amount but for the most part its insignificant).
Each day we spend about $9,600,000,000 dollars ($9.6 billion or 9.6 x 10^9).
Of this $9,600,000,000 about $3.4 billion dollars is borrowed - this is income less expenses which in this case is negative.
The "sequestering" of the budget will cut some $120 billion out of the US Budget each year to save a total of $1.2 trillion over a decade.
Sounds like a lot, right?
It isn't.
The Administration has today countered with a $1.5 trillion dollar savings (which includes tax increases) over the same time. Let's call this an annual savings of $150 billion.
We borrow $150 billion dollars every 50 days (or you could say we borrow $150 billion dollars seven or eight times a year).
So while either the Administrations budget or "sequestration" will cut the government's budget there is
A) no guarantee that we will actually spend less because congress has not in fact passed any budget at all in the last four years. Instead they have passed "stop gap" funding bills. Its hard to imagine anyone doing the math or limiting themselves to actually spend less no matter what is decided.
B) The existing $16 trillion USD in debt is financed in large part with very low interest debt. So even if there were an actual savings in #A above an increase in the interest rates will handily out weight it. For example, at the 2% or lower rates currently in effect the US paid about $251 billion in interest in FY 2011.
According to CNN a 1% increase in interest rates means approximately another $1 trillion USD in interest payments over a decade. So even a modest interest rate increase to, say, 5% could completely wipe out any saving from #A.
Given historical interest rates are as low as they have ever been it highly unlikely the cost of debt will remain this low for long.
The bottom line is that neither the current Administrations plan, the GOP plan nor "sequestration" is a solution to the problem.
Out debt and spending today are totally out of control relative to historic spending (see this chart).
Over all there have always been deficits but since 1971 when Nixon decoupled the US dollar from the gold standard there is no longer accountability, i.e., debt before 1971 on behalf of the US was collateralized (backed) by gold in the US treasure. Since 1971 there is no collateralization other than the good faith and name of the US government.
And the credit rating companies are already lowering out credit rating because we are become a credit risk.
The leaders of this country are misleading the populace on the state of the government's finances.
This is simply criminal.
The plans and proposed solutions jeopardize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid directly.
They jeopardize the poor and the middle class and the rich.
Even if the tax rate were 100% there is not enough revenue to take from the rich to pay for this debt.
The debt has increased some 50% in the last four years.
These reports, such as those in the WSJ, are grossly misleading.
If a commercial entity operated like this similar reporting would be cause for criminal proceedings.
None of these plans does a thing to stop the crisis.
Until people learn the truth there is literally no hope.
Over the last couple of months I have been watching a NatGeo TV series called "Animal Intervention." The show is hosted by Alison Eastwood - daughter of Clint Eastwood (of "Dirty Harry") fame.
I am fascinated with it because the show is truly strange in many ways. (Certainly watch it for yourself if you are interested...)
First some background from my perspective as a viewer...
Each show features segments on people who own exotic animals. Not individuals but, for the most part, persons who own larger "rescue" facilities. Primarily I would say "big cat" rescues with a lot of tigers (including white tigers), lions, bears, and mountain lions.
These animals are large and quite demanding in terms of food and upkeep.
(In the distant past Mrs. Wolf bred English Mastiffs. Now these are large animals as adults - weighing perhaps as much as 225 or more pounds. They are very strong and have very large, sharp teeth. Of course dogs are domesticated but that does little or nothing to reduce the power of their muscles, bones and teeth, i.e., they can be inadvertently dangerous. At times we had five or six of these in our home at one time. The bottom line is I am familiar with some aspects of what it means to have to take care of larger animals. Its a lot of work and it goes on for the lifetime of the animal.)
The majority of what I see on the show are individuals who have devoted a significant portion of their lives and finances (in many cases to their extreme detriment) to their animals.
Fairly typical will be a house with some property converted to a "sanctuary" with maybe a dozen or more large cats and other predators. These people struggle to keep them feed, warm, clean and safe. Typically these folks have some helpers but they themselves seem to take the full financial responsibility. Often the people themselves live in squalor or with little in order to take the animals well. (In one case the woman sleeps in her chair, you can see a loaf of bread and peanut butter and jelly on a table behind her. She tells the hosts she sleeps in her chair and spends all day outside working.)
Most of the places they show appear to be "rescues" built up from donations, i.e., local authorities that "donate" animals seized in, for example, a drug situation. In general the owners of these facilities do their human best to take care of these animals.
Often they describe this as a life-long avocation.
In all cases the people involved seem focused on the best interests of the animals.
Of particular note is the "big cat" owners who seem particularly concerned about the mental well being of their animals.
The premise of the show is Alison and a guest host (a guy) appear to just "show up" at these facilities under what would appear to me to be false pretenses - asking for tours (in the case of places open to the public).
After they review the facilities and people involved on camera they go off to the side and discuss how they really feel about what is shown.
Usually this involves hand wringing over some aspects of the facilities. Some is legitimate, for example elderly people taking care of big cats, some seems "trumped up" - for example a bear in a USDA-approved enclosure that seems to Alison to be "to small."
Sometimes there are legal aspects to the situation - USDA (which governs how exotic animals are to be managed in the US for public facilities) issues, animal rights issues, lawsuits, etc.
The upshot of the visit is usually for Alison and the guest host to "decide" that the animals should be "rescued" in some way.
Sometimes this is legitimate, i.e., a woman who had a monkey in her living room which she really could not handle or a guy with a large cat who was ill and really was less able to care for it than he had been. In these cases the hosts attempt to find another "rescue" to place the animal in.
Often, though, its seems illegitimate.
Now I think you have to watch the show very carefully when these cases arise.
In particular I have to question how it is they find "new facilities" for these animals.
In a recent show an elderly woman in Arkansas had some twenty-five plus tigers. All in large cages, all of which clearly loved her (and she them), all well fed, all without dirty or feces caked on their fur, etc. But the woman was also older and had trouble walking.
So the hosts find another "rescue" about three hours away that will take not only the animals but the woman as well (she refused to allow the animals to be taken without her because they would be troubled and confused in their new surroundings).
The new "rescue" is a husband-wife-run place. These folks were also older - I'd say in their late 50's.
They had what Alison considered to be a "better" facility. Some footage shown on the show, however, showed it to be about the same as where the cats had been save for the fact that it was overgrown because the woman had a bad hip.
So the point is this. The "new" home looks to me like basically a facility that would show up on the show in a few years when the new owners get older (or one dies, or gets hurt, etc.)
That is, Alison is merely shuffling the animals around based on her feelings. Perhaps to a temporarily better place but most likely to a facility run by someone just as devoted but currently at a little better place in their "rescue" life.
In another case there was a bear in a small facility - maybe a 12 x 24 cage - concrete floor, heavy chain-link fencing. The owner was a kind of "animal park" and the cage was USDA acceptable. A local animal rights woman with bright purple hair had been suing the park owner to get the bear a larger cage.
Everyone (including the owner) wanted the bear to have a better facility and Alison, to her credit, scared up $5,000 USD to help out but only if some fencing guy she found could do the work. The bear's owner suggested she offer the money as a donation to the park and he would use the money to buy materials (Alison wanted her designated contractor to double the size of the cage) to make a cage about seven or eight times larger. The owner would find volunteers to do the work.
Alison rejected this because the contract was "approved" by someone or something to make "USDA-approved" cages.
Now this cage was not rocket science. Heavy chain link, heavy poles and a concrete pad (though that wasn't needed for the expansion because the expansion was supposed to include dirt). Anyone with reasonable fence experience could have looked at the materials and construction used and simply duplicated it.
Further, Alison, in the same segment, goes to some other local bear owner for "comparison." This guy has a set of zoo-like cages, about four grizzlies and a large area surrounded by a wooden, yes wooden, stockade fence with a single electrified wire running around it.
Well Alison, in her expert opinion, thinks this facility is just great - the bears have a large area including a picnic table.
Meanwhile you can see a subdivision of homes right close by in the background.
Now I've seen what large dogs can do - like go through a metal door to reach a female in heat - and this rinky-tink wooden fence with a electric wire would not slow a bear down for more than a few seconds.
But she demands this other guy to create a much better enclosure.
The bottom line of all this is that Alison, rather than fund actual improvements for the animals, is more worried about what seems to be random nonsense, making herself and the guest host "look good" and "compassionate" and posturing.
Why not just donate the $5K and let the guy hire volunteers to build a larger enclosure?
Why send the animals to "new" facilities that are structurally similar and destined for the same issues when the current ones are run by dedicated people who are already successful?
A little research turned up this Facebook page from one of the segment "guests." He questions the editing of his segment and shows how Alison, on her blog, says his facility is okay, but in the show they make him look bad. One show guest speaks out here:
The bottom line here is that Alison seems quite superficial and ignorant of the obvious big picture.
There are apparently thousands of big cats, for example, in the US alone - more than there are wild - according to a comment made in one of the shows.
The people depicted are extremely dedicated. These animals live a long time, the big cats eat about 40 lbs of food (usually fresh meat) a day. There are few vets equipped to deal with them.
My guess is there is no real money in it even for the big, wonderful, fancy "rescues" that Alison tries to get the animals to go to. Basically a single "issue" (health, death, etc.) at one of these places will send that rescue into problems.
The bottom line is that there is no place for animals that no one wants save for these private "sanctuaries."
Alison's efforts are based on ignorance.
Obviously Nat Geo has spent a ton of money on this. In the case of the bear why not run a simple "kickstarter"-like campaign (using NatGeo's national clout) to raise money for the bigger enclosure?
Get the $10K needed and the problem is solved.
Ditto for the purple haired woman suing the guy - how much lawyer and county time will be spend on a lawsuit?
Why not simply go around and actually help the bear owner get the funds needed?
Some of these animals cannot live in the wild and clearly need rescue.
Others could but would probably be poached so they need rescue as well.
Why does NatGeo profit from these animals misfortune?
Why not focus on a national solution?
Why single out and torture people who are actually doing the "heavy lifting" of caring for these animals?
It seems to me that if NatGeo would do Habitat for Humanity type things to get volunteers - like the purple haired woman - to actually do something about the problem rather than wasting tax dollars and pissing away money on lawyers?
I have no problem rescuing animals. But I have a big problem with shows like this which really serve the animals no purpose at all.
Alison clearly gets gratification when some animal is helped but is this really a good use of her and NatgGeo's resources?
[ From Joe Exotic @ 1:20 PM EST: Joe asked me to post this: ]
Lo and behold a bastion of TV advertising - acid reflux pills - may in fact not be helping people.
According to this recent WSJ article up to one half (1/2) of those with GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) taking proton pump inhibitors don't get any help with their symptoms.
Not that these pills are a good idea in the first place.
For one thing your stomach acid (which the pills inhibit production of) is key to your immune system. Your stomach acid kills bad bacteria you ingest. (You dog's stomach acid is about seven times stronger than yours which is why he can snack on week old sun dried moles without suffering ill effects.)
Its also required for proper digestion of food including breaking it down properly so that you can fully benefit from the nutrients it contains.
Use of these pills creates a situation in your stomach called achlorhydria (see this) - basically low stomach acid. There are a lot of potential side effects as well (see this example).
The WSJ article reveals that for the most part doctors are not even sure what causes GERD or if their advice on, for example, what to eat and not eat, is correct.
There are a couple of simple mechanism I have found to cause indigestion:
- Eat too much rich food too fast. (Need to stay awake on a long drive? Eat a lot quickly so you have indigestion - I've found indigestion much more effective than coffee and caffeine to keep you awake and alert).
- Eat too much rich food right before bead.
- Eat a lot of hot peppers.
Its pretty much a no-brainer to avoid these issues.
But what about the 7% of all Americans that suffer from indigestion every day?
My guess is that their diet is bad, i.e., they eat the wrong foods in the wrong amounts at the wrong times of the day. Not enough fresh vegetables, too much processed food, too many bad oils, those sorts of things.
Big pharma has seized upon the problem to create a $14 billion USD market here in the US for proton pump inhibitors alone.
Doctors prescribe these medications like candy for any hint of digestive problems.
Little wonder nearly half of all those taking them are not helped.
And there is good reason to believe they are not healthful at all.
Personally I have noticed that doctors seem to act is if they are TV commercials regarding these types of commonly prescribed/recommended drugs. You ask questions and basically get the feeling that they really know as much as you (who watches TV ads) do and are simply regurgitating it (no pun intended).
I've also not had indigestion for many years.
I used to get it frequently but then I ate a terrible diet, ate at the wrong times and so on.
But no longer. And with zero medication.
One is reminded of Barry Marshal, the Nobel prize-winning Australian Physician who discovered that peptic ulcers were caused by bacteria and not diet and lifestyle. No one for a decade really believed what he was saying even though he could induce and cure himself of peptic ulcers.
Personally I believe that eating right is the key - one which medical science remains truly ignorant of.
Like obesity, indigestion is a symptom of a larger dietary issues in our society.
The last US budget cycle ended September 30, 2012.
The facts as reported by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) appear in the table above/right (the table is from this WSJ opinion piece).
During the last four years tax revenue has increased.
Outlays by the government jumped in 2009 (a result of Bush addressing the financial crisis) and have stayed elevated ever since.
The real problem is the bottom line as it were. Under all but the last year of Bush the deficit was a few percent of the GDP. Now in 2008/2009 there was a crisis (which was averted) in the automotive, banking and insurance industries.
But the funds that were spend by the Federal government were largely repaid by 2012.
Yet the deficit and outlays have remained and now represent some 10% of GDP.
(To my knowledge the Senate has not provided a budget in the last several years. These numbers are calculated after the fact and reflect what actually happened.)
Note that this spending is not like spending on, say, a house or other collateralized loan obligation where there was some asset to back up the borrowing. No, this is like borrowing 10% of your income each year or month on a credit card.
Now what I find interesting is how these facts are twisted.
A financially illiterate fellow I know posted a link to this Forbes article.
On first glance these articles appear to claim that the last four years of spending (including the last one of George Bush) show that the present Administration has been the most frugal in the last fifty or so years.
But a careful reading of the fact shows that this measurement of frugal spending is measured relative to the crisis year of 2008 (and the 2009 federal budget). So you take the crisis year of Bush and then, when you spend a little less (a percent or two) you wildly claim to be the most frugal government spender ever.
During the financial crisis government spent on things like AIG stock, GM and propping up banks hit the federal budget deficit at about 10% of GDP.
But the crisis financially only proceeded on for a year or so.
Today all these funds are being (or have been) paid back. And we don't need to continue outlaying money is if the crisis is not over - but we are.
During the campaign the current Administration claimed to have generated five million new jobs and that things "were getting better" and that it "just needed more time."
But the government spending has not declined even though revenue is increasing.
So only if you consider the current Administration relative to the peak the financial crisis is it actually spending less.
Clearly you could measure the spending of this Administration relative to World War II as well - in which case they would look cheap.
So a good crisis never goes to waste.
In this case the arterial blood of Lady Liberty is pumping out onto the floor unchecked through a severed limb.
But some cry "It's Only a Flesh Wound!"
The current Administration next plans to appeal to the populace for a tax increase (see this).
Revenue is already increasing (even though the financial crisis).
The problem is not that tax revenue is not expanding (its in fact expanding faster than the economy is growing).
The problem is that the spending is remaining at crisis levels without a crisis.
Most money spent has been repaid or is on track to be repaid.
So why are we still spending like we are in a war or crisis?
So the current Administration has fooled people like my friend into believing its the most frugal ever. Mostly by making only clever relative arguments that focus on the fact that no one thinks about history any more - even history only a few years old.
My friend owns a business so I would have hoped he wasn't that financially ignorant.
But I guess I am wrong...
The reporting elsewhere, MarketWatch and Forbes, are simply what's called spin. Spin relies on ignorance of the facts to change or maintain your way of thinking.
It relies on the reader not bothering (or being too ignorant) to check the facts.
The only firewall left between US and Greece is now the US Congress. US debt is compounding at 10% per year while interest rates are at effectively zero percent (0%).
This means that financing these astronomical deficits is cheap.
But the Administration is doing this with short term (two year notes).
Eventually the notes will have to be refinanced at much higher rates. (Like borrowing 10% of your salary each month or year on "0%" credit cards only to find that in four or more years down the road the "rate" jumps up to a more realistic rate (anywhere from 5% to 30%).
First, some background. In Washington there is a statute for "indecent exposure." It's defined as follows (see this for the full details and exceptions for breast feeding):
"A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes
any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of
another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront
or alarm." [ underline mine ]
Secondly Washington state also has an "anti-discrimination" law passed in 2006 (see this for links to the actual law as passed) that defines discrimination based on both sex (in the traditional external genitals sense) and "sexual orientation."
The law defines "sexual orientation" as "
"... heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being
perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth;"
and grants persons of any "sexual orientation" as defined above "full enjoyment" of what is effectively all public facilities including public locker rooms.
The issue here is interesting because prior to 2006 Washington's anti-discrimination law prevented discrimination based on "sex" - which would mean whether or not your were "externally" a male or a female.
So in the case of using a locker room, for example, it would be clear that any person appearing to be a woman would be allowed into the woman's locker room and any person appearing to be a male would allowed in the male locker room.
Within a given locker room of either gender there is the expectation that everyone in that locker room would be of the same gender.
In the KIRO news story a person who is externally a male was discovered by the parents of a number of female children in the Evergreen college woman's locker room. The parents were parents of children on a local Swim team that rented space from the college.
The issue here is based on the "sexual orientation" definition. The "male" in the story "identifies" her/him self as a female. "Identify" here apparently means believes to be because externally this person is a male and has male DNA.
The parents, alarmed to discover their underage girls viewing what to the girls appeared to be a naked man in the woman's locker room asked the "man" to leave. The "man" claimed that he/she was being discriminated against under the Washington state "anti-discrimination" law because he/she "identifies" himself as a woman.
From the parents perspective they viewed the actions of this "man" as "... conduct [ is ] likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm."
Which clearly it did based on the subsequent actions of the parents - to remove the children from the situation, to complain the administration of the college, and to engage lawyers to make their position clear to the college.
Prior to this law external appearance determined the legal "sex" of a person.
After the passing of the law the "sex/gender/sexual orientation" of a person is now determined by the person's "self image." So while still appearing to the rest of the world as a man a person could now have access to woman's locker rooms by merely "believing" they are female.
There is no time frame or means "test" to determine this for anyone but the person making the determination for themselves. So, for example, the person in the story could have "decided" to be a female minutes before the event occurred or years.
There is no age limit either - so, for example, twelve-year-old boys could simply change their self image for access to the girls locker room - clearly based only on their own self interests.
Clearly parents of small children have no access to this process and would likely be suspicious of persons found in this situation.
The college's subsequent actions was to move the "swim team" to another, smaller and private locker room where only the swim team would have access.
The purpose of the law is to provide anyone of any sexual orientation "full enjoyment of" all facilities and to prevent them from feeling "... treated as not welcome, accepted, desired or solicited."
So one has to wonder if the female children in this case felt "not welcome" in this environment.
What's patently clear is that these two laws are clearly in conflict.
The new 2006 changes to the anti-discrimination law removes "objectivity" from all law, such as indecent exposure as defined above.
The standard of "affront or alarm" is now dependent not on the disposition of the "victim" but on the perpetrator's "self image."
For example, I could imagine myself to have no gender what-so-ever and walk through the world stark naked and expect "full enjoyment of" virtually everything society has to offer.
With the perspective of the perpetrator the focus of such situations there is no longer the possibility of, for example, an objective jury in a criminal action. The "facts" are new by definition one the "self image" of the perpetrator which can only, surprise, be defined by the perp his- or herself.
Hence "guilt" in a crime cannot be determined by actions because the actions are relative to the perpetrators "self image" alone.
The result is that gender and "sexual orientation" are devalued by this law.
Clearly the college directly created a situation (by renting the pool to the swim team knowing full well that small children could be exposed to these situations) where a naked person of the opposite gender created "affront or alarm" (the children reported this to their parents as a problem).
What about the "sexual orientation" (or lack of it in small children as the case may be) of the children and their "right" to "full enjoyment."
Clearly that "right" was by design taken from them - hence it is now less valuable because they no longer enjoy it.
These laws are clearly logically inconsistent now and, because this law is new, there exists no case law regarding how to handle these situations.
Which exposes small children to even more jeopardy in this sense.
Must "full enjoyment" literally expose children to naked persons of the opposite physical gender?
These children were lucky that they were not exposed to a person that felt it necessary to self identify with some sort of violent sexual orientation - an orientation which is not prohibited or banned and clearly could be construed as physically threatening.
Like my posts on the failure of education and debt its clear that this situation is a similar failure.
Whatever you're beliefs are relative to discrimination laws that create purely "subjective" means to determine discrimination based on the "state of mind" of a potential perpetrator is pure insanity.
NOTE: For those that are interested in or have followed the content of
this blog I am moving forward with the more intellectually challenging
aspects of it at a new location. Please contact me for information if you are
interested.
I found a new group that's well beyond the ancient astronauts in terms of being out there.
One element is the "Mars has a blue sky" group.
There are a lot of other weird pictures of Mars but this crew thinks there is a NASA conspiracy to paint the sky red (as its often shown below).
Who knows.
But there is a related group that thinks there is instant and direct transport to mars.
Imagine this: as a child, for example, you are excluded from a family or school event for some reason - you're too small, too young, etc. - and as a result you feel physical pain.
You have to wonder how far this extends...???
What if a truck full of live fish overturns killing the fish? Does someone feel actual pain on behalf of the fish? (This actually happens - see this about a similar incident in California.)
This explains a lot when you think about it.
I know people who are this way - they literally imagine their way into misery over what they think might happen. Not over what does happen and not over actual evidence.
Of course on the other side there are people who don't feel as much, very little or nothing at all about involvement in social situations.
I suppose too that some people feel pleasure over mathematics problems.
In another area we now are faced with a critical criminal and social crisis: false tweets.
Yes, indeed, though its not even possible to imagine apparently not all people tweet the truth!
There is an article here. The genesis was some idiot who tweeted about the NYSE being under three feet of water and the governor being taken to a secure shelter during hurricane Sandy.
The reaction was "OMG! False tweeting during a crisis!"
Its apparently associated crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
I wonder who's going to police this?
And what about the "re-tweeters?"
In the case of the NYSE tweets various news sources repeated them (re-tweeted).
Of course, the information on twitter is free - so I suppose its "worth what you pay for it..."
I suspect that tweeting is tied in with how people feel about things, such as math as I wrote above.
Nice happy tweets make you feel good.
Unpleasant ones (or ones that require your brain to actually work as it does with a math problem) probably hurt.
I suppose like the "depression hurt's" ads on TV a while back.
Which makes you wonder even on the political front: Do people who's head's hurt with hard problems face them or run away?
What kind of problem solvers will you find - those who's head hurts when hard problem or those who's head's don't?
This is rather scary.
Would an electorate filled with those who's head's hurt with "hard problems" be able to vote for "hard solutions" without pain?
What about political tweets that make your head hurt? Literally...
Do you run away from them or hone in on them?
Do you want people who's head's hurt from hard problems in charge of hard problems?
It also explains why "hard news" that is thought provoking turns so many away: it literally makes their heads hurt.
There are more troubling aspects of hurricane Sandy and lack of preparedness.
One is the fact that tomorrow there is an election for President of the United States. There seems to be a great interest in politicizing the hurricane in support of the current Administration. For example, this article from the Huffington Post says that "... strongly suggests that it is the failure to stabilize the climate that
creates the greater risk of an enormous growth in governmental power."
The meaning here is that left to range "out of control" the climate will force a larger government on the people than today's attempts at climate law.
(Of course this debate rages as the temperature in the Northeast drops and those without shelter, food and heat are left to fend for themselves... Funny how smart people like Bloomberg fail to think through these sorts of details.)
Of course there are many, many discussions of climate change, pro and con. But today, sadly, we have the added political element of Sandy: "Oh my God! Climate change has triggered a disaster." (For example, NYC mayor Bloomberg endorsing Obama because he will address "climate change" - hint, hint, its why NYC is suffering).
Though I have posted it before I post it again here for discussion: the Wikipedia post-glacial "Sea Level Rise" chart.
I provide it here to go along with this (as one of very many) discussions about sea level over the last 10,000 or so years.
Please, please read, study and think about the pro and con arguments yourself and ignore the "factoids" offered by the political machines.
The truth is that no one has a clear idea, except at a very gross level as depicted in the chart above, what sea levels have done historically.
We can reasonably know that when much of the planet was covered with ice the levels were lower (perhaps 15,000 years ago). But there are many reason we simply don't know what the exact levels have been - even since the times of the Romans.
For one thing, there is no "absolute" scale from which to measure sea level from.
Our seas and land exist on top of large tectonic plates that move. Left, right, up and down. They float on a sea of lava. The pressure of the oceans, atmosphere, their own movement, the tidal pull of the moon, natural silting activities related to rivers and so on cause them to "flex" and, for example, earth quakes are a consequence of pressure release of this flexing.
Their scale of movement is a few millimeters a year (these plates an be thousands of miles across in both directions and miles thick).
All of the land from which we measure ocean level is on these plates as is the all the seas we are trying to measure the levels of.
So the very first problem you encounter when "measuring sea level" is that what standard do you measure it from?
The underlying land moves around as does the bottom of the sea.
So how can any measurement which is less than this movement be accurate?
The answer is it cannot be - certainly not within millimeters.
Like global temperature its not really a useful metric.
Yet this does not stop people from Bloomberg from using it in a political fashion.
Nor does it stop those ignorant of the science and big picture from believing it as simple gospel truth.
Historically, see this article, hurricane Sandy had a moderate impact on the northeast.
However, today's disasters seem much "larger" than those which were in fact far worse for several reasons.
First, there is more to damage today. More people, more infrastructure, "worse" choices as to where and how to build things, and so on.
Secondly, we have extended the coast lines by building "artificial" lands out into the rivers and seas - particularly around NYC.
Third, there is more "news" today - more companies vying for more notice and more ad revenue - so the disaster can profitably be made larger for the benefit of "big news" (on both sides of the political equation).
So any reasonably thoughtful analysis of the Sandy situation shows that Bloomberg hasn't one single leg to stand on when claiming "climate" is the reason for the misery in the northeast.
And, in fact, things he himself could control, i.e., building codes, expansion of land into the water, etc. somehow seem to escape his mind when having these discussions.
Which is worse, that Bloomberg foists this fantastical nonsense on the freezing masses or that they believe it even while freezing or walking up fifty-one flights of stairs after buying water?
The crime here is one of ignorance.
Had the populous been taught to "think for themselves" instead of merely accepting random "factoids" as gospel truth things might be different. Instead of having the latest fifty-one inch LED TV they might have had water, a generator, and gas handy. (Or perhaps instead of $25K is student loan debt they might have had a vast disaster plan???)
The northeast has traded self-sufficiency for debt and comfort.
Climate blame is merely a hand-wave to distract the ignorant masses from grasping the fact that for the last few decades they've been sold a useless "bill of goods" relative to their safety and security.
So let's see where things are four days in after Sand (the 72 hour "grace" period of civilization has worn off)...
(In no particular order...)
FEMA, which has many large power generators, has managed to deploy one (yes, count'm one) in Connecticut (see this). There are still some 300,000 people without power in Connecticut. FEMA said some four power generators were installed in NJ as of Thursday.
In New York it will be ten more days until power is restored. Hospitals are evacuating patients - apparently no FEMA generators have arrived (but don't worry, the FEMA bureaucrats are busy decided who can use what generators; that will only take another week or two...)
In New Jersey non-union power crews who were specifically invited to Sea Side New Jersey were turned away because they are non-union (see this).
The bottom line is many are facing two weeks without power.
Next is looting. And these days its not just a brick through the local TV store window.
First there's grandma. More than likely that senior high-rise is full of pain killers - lots of them. Seniors fear being attacked for this reason.
Google "ny looters " for hundreds of thousands of links.
Looters have broken into pharmacies, food stores, and so on.
Residents of Staten Island (one of the five NYC boroughs) are pleading for food and clothing.
Then there are the miles-long gas lines (links to stories, images, info on fights, etc.). Note that without power most gas stations cannot function so people move to stations along the NJ Turnpike that are known to be open.
Part of the problem is that like California NJ and NY require special gas. This is refined locally. However, Sandy has knocked out the power to these refineries. Governor Christie has waved requirements that special gas be used but there are still shortages.
Perhaps 50% of gas stations in NY and NJ are open.
While the news calls this a "super storm" remember that Sandy was only a Category 1 storm when it made landfall. (Katrina was a Category 4.)
NY and NJ are lucky the storm was not more intense.
People in NYC are left walking up 51 flights of stairs in high-rise buildings where generators are not present or have failed. (You need to go out for water and so on.)
Seniors in these building have little choice regardless of their health.
Most stores have sold out of critical items like "C" and "D" batteries (see this).
At the end of the day big government is going to do little to help anyone in a timely or efficient manner.
So that leaves you to prepare for yourself if you can.
If you live somewhere where there is no hope of serious preparation, e.g., the 50th floor of NYC high rise, you really have only one option: leaving.
There was plenty of warning time so traveling to relatives or other "out-of-town" location would have been the best option - particularly if you lived where flooding was likely.
Similarly for coastal towns.
For those living further inland where storm surge is unlikely you have to assess what's going to happen locally: Will rivers rise from rain? Will ponds or lakes overflow? ...
You need to decide if you can stay or go.
If you stay it seems clear that you need to be able to manage yourself for a couple of weeks without power (about the time it takes FEMA to get a generator to you area - and not that you could actually make use of it - I suppose you'd have to drag your fridge full of now-rotting food down to the local disaster center...)
This requires some planning and preparation.
(No one is laughing at "Dooms Day Preppers" in NY and NJ.)
There are all manner of related websites (see http://www.nycpreppers.com/). Sadly this particular site requires you to be a member, i.e., have planned ahead, to use it. (I suppose all those nasty "preppers" are sitting smugly in their bunkers watching Fox News.)
In all seriousness.
People need to start thinking ahead about this sort of thing. Hurricanes are not the only kinds of natural disasters: there are earthquakes, floods, storms, tsunamis, snow storms, bad water, bad food, and on and on.
Modern society cannot and will not save people - its mostly populated - at least from what I can see - with those that only think about themselves.
So you should too.
Not in the sense that you don't care about anyone else but instead in the sense that you must take care of yourself.
"No, No" you object, "I have no extra money..."
I doubt it.
Put away a few cans a week ($2 - $4 USD worth) in a safe place. In a year you'll be prepared with food. Ditto for water.
Don't have enough room?
Then expect trouble in a disaster because yes, there is a price for you decisions... Perhaps create a "bug out bag" with enough supplies to at least get out of town.
Big government wants you to feel comfortable with them in charge. But remember, when the going gets tough no one at the government has any personal stake in things going well in the aftermath. They are far away making decisions with zero input from you the victim.
And sadly, at least in NJ, your politico-union affiliation is going to have an effect as well.
I wonder, if anyone dies after the Alabama power crew is turned away will someone look to blame the local IBEW?
Nope - grandma will just die at home, frozen, and NJ will revel in its #48 out of 50 in creating new business rating...
(Note too that since at least 2005 there have been fewer than normal hurricanes.)
So on the one hand you can drive a Prius in the hopes that the carbon savings will prevent the next hurricane from damaging your home - and you may be right on there.
But I think the smart money is on much more direct and useful preparations.
Bohner's a fool...
