Here's Something

On the BP spill being the fault of "environmentalists"...

2010-06-01T08:43:00.000-07:00

I've seen a number of emails and conversation threads over the last 10 days that go something like this:

"If you see an environmentalist, give him a good smack in the kisser for this BP tragedy."

The argument, then, goes something like this:

Environmentalists don't want oil companies to drill in ANWR, so they have to drill in the deep ocean.
If they were allowed to drill in ANWR, they could cap an oil leak like this in minutes.
Environmentalists also apparently don't want oil companies to drill in shallow waters, where they can also cap accidents like this easily. Environmentalists are - somehow - forcing oil companies to drill in these deep-water wells, where they don't know what they're doing - hence the BP disaster.

The problem with this approach is simple and straightforward:

There are actually ~4,000 active drilling sites in US waters. Only 25 of those are active deep water wells. Production has been stopped in 33 such wells by Obama, which includes some that were set to go online. Point? Deep water wells are a small percentage of active offshore drilling sites. You can see the exact breakdown here. The 4,000 number is from NOAA, here.
As of 2004, the costs of deep-water oil and gas development have fallen by a factor of three over the 15 years previous to 2004, making it more profitable for oil companies to pursue these wells. These are typically the less profitable of their wells, so some companies, as they invest in alternative fuels, lose their incentive to pursue new deep-water rigs. The government or environmentalists have nothing to do with the equation. This is oil looking for new revenue streams, and deep-water has become easier to obtain.

But, as usual, the blame on "environmentalists," who somehow control where a company that made $13.96 BILLION in profits in 2009 drills their wells, should spread like wildfire through usual channels of misinformation, hysteria, and drama.

Rush Proves the Opposition's Point Perfectly with Oil Terrorist Comment

2010-05-01T12:30:00.000-07:00

I heard today that Rush Limbaugh suggested that the oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico could be the work of domestic terrorists who don't want offshore drilling. You can read the entire transcript in full directly from Rush's website here. You could read the whole thing, but here's the gist of it:

"RUSH: I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. Since they're sending SWAT teams down there now this changes the whole perspective of this. Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they're sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here. "

Set aside the fact that Rush is speculating here and currently the cause of the explosion is not known and is thought to be an industrial accident of some type.

The beauty of Rush's statements is that he proves the problem with oil perfectly. The problem with offshore drilling, oil refineries, pipelines, oil shipments on tankers, and security for oil rich nations and regions is that they are all extremely ripe terrorist targets. Period. Doesn't matter if the terrorists are "hardcore environmental wackos" as Rush calls them, or international terrorists from Al Qaeda or wherever. The result is the same regardless of who blows the target up.

With the case of an oil drilling rig, you get millions of gallons of crude oil spilling into already strained and dying ecosystems. It will cost millions of dollars to clean up, money that is wasted with no return on investment. It will damage ecosystems that are not, unfortunately, valued with human currency values. Local economies will be impacted, and investments, plastic/materials production, and other economic impacts will occur.

That vulnerability = weakness, plain and simple. If you're vulnerable, you're weaker than you would be if you were not vulnerable. And if prices and everything else we do is dependent on that resource, then we're even more vulnerable because our production and our economy are also vulnerable. That's why oil is such great terrorist target. A person with a rifle can shoot the Alaska pipeline - it's been shot over 50 times - or you could blow it wide open and lock up supply for a good while as you damage a large area of pristine wilderness, all for the cost of a bomb and some hiking gear.

Now have a terrorist group blow up 1 wind turbine. Or 10 turbines. You get 10 busted turbines, which would likely be insured, and you'd get X amount of lost power supply to what hopefully would be a dynamic and integrated power grid system. No environmental damage to speak of. No big dramatic clean up costing millions of dollars, risking people's lives, and risking the performance of investments and markets. Same is true with a solar array.

Oil has provided humanity with great things, and it will continue to help us, but it needs to be in a steady decreasing capacity. It's moving into the category of stone tools, spears, bows & arrows, and whale oil. These things had value, but we've moved on to better things. Most importantly, oil has gone from our lifeblood to a liability, and a very serious liability at that. The negatives outweigh the positives. And to continue using it while avoiding implementation of sustainable power is to basically promote and amplify our own weakness, based on domestic security and market security alone - that doesn't even include the pollution and biodiversity impacts of burning fossil fuels.

(Two excellent books on the topic are Brittle Power, and Winning the Oil End Game, both of which were written in conjunction with the US military.Brittle Power is written specifically to the issue of energy security and, even though it was written in the 90s, it's all still relevant today - which is a red flag, of course.)

Buff Jesus

2010-03-17T19:29:00.000-07:00

Had a Jehovah's Witness guy come over the other day and he left some literature. I didn't get to talk to him about fossils, but I enjoyed this pamphlet. I'm noticing a few trends with mainstream religions these days. One is Jesus is getting whiter and whiter all the time. His hair is also getting shorter, although it is a bit longer than the Jehovah's Witness handout I received in 2008 (see post Nov 2008).

Now a new thing, as you can see in this image, is that Jesus is getting more buff. Those arms are getting thicker, the muscle tone is tremendous, and the hands powerful and large. He's starting to look like a John Buscema illustration of Conan.

I don't really have a point here. I guess different religious groups like to think of Jesus in their own way, blacker or whiter, thinner or thicker, long haired or nicely groomed.

Abortion in the Healthcare Debate

2010-03-16T10:38:00.000-07:00

The context of abortion in the US health care debate shows how too often we Americans tend to frame the problems of our time incorrectly. Today, there is tension and anger over "public funding of abortions," or tax money going towards women's abortions. In many cases, such as with international financial support to other countries, this extends to other services like contraception and sex education as well.

When you trace this conflict back to the source, the opposition to abortion is nearly always religious in nature - or "the right," and those in favor of abortion rights are typically women's rights groups and other "liberal" organizations.

But really, aren't we ALL in favor of fewer abortions? Fewer unwanted pregnancies? Nobody really wants an abortion, and nobody really wants to perform them either. Women seek abortions because of the circumstances they find themselves in. So, if we were to reframe the idea, "What is the best way to minimize the number of abortions?," then we would look at those circumstances and work on those.

Many would like to outlaw abortions, but currently about 70,000 women die each year worldwide from unsafe abortions, which are typically performed in countries where abortions are outlawed. That's a lot of people, and when those women die they impact their children that are already born and their families and jobs, etc. The rate of abortions in almost every nation is around 3% of women - regardless of whether or not the country has outlawed abortions or not. So outlawing abortion seems to keep the 3% rate the same while making the death rate of women much higher in nations where abortions are illegal. Therefore outlawing abortions doesn't minimize the number of abortions, but rather increases the deaths of women who are seeking abortion. Are we trying to kill more women? Or have fewer abortions? Additionally, the outlaw approach also leaves the circumstances that drive women to abortion untreated.

One place to start might be to look at the country with the lowest abortions world wide, and that country is currently, and has been for decades, the Netherlands. They come in at 1%, fully 2% lower than the rest of the world. They also lead the world in the lowest teen pregnancy rates. The Dutch and external research groups say these numbers are the results of things like sex education, readily available contraception that is fully covered by universal health care, more open discussion of sexuality, and a general trend towards understanding and accepting things like human sexuality, the need for contraception, and the details about abortion.

When comparing the Netherlands to a poor African nation, you'll also find a ton of other differences and variables as well. But the health care approach, especially in this country, is a good place to start because it's readily attainable and quantified.

Abortion should be dead-center in our health care debate - yet it's a hot potato because of misguided religious forces. Do Christians want fewer abortions? If so, then they should fully support the most effective system in the world, which is currently a universal health care system that fully supports sex education, contraception, and access to safe abortion. Saying abortion is wrong doesn't lower the number of abortions. Action does.

If not, then one has to ask what the real motive is here. Is it the welfare of the citizens of the United States? Or is it a religious objective?

Abortion should be a common-ground rallying point for all Americans. Instead it remains a divider that is holding this country back.

Pew Research Test

2010-02-13T09:39:00.000-08:00

Pew has as short interactive quiz on current event knowledge, real basic stuff in the news. 66% of the general public people that have taken this quiz (as of 2/13/10) got more than half of the 12 questions incorrect. This has to have a large impact on how people see issues, regardless of politics.

This takes about 60-90 seconds to complete, and it's pretty interesting to see where you fall and where the rest of the public falls on these questions.

http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/index.php

Some context on misinformation, a brief look back

2010-02-08T10:37:00.000-08:00

About 16 months ago, there were all sorts of claims about Obama that I think are interesting to look back on now.

For example, a big one was that Obama will not put his hand on a Bible, since he's Muslim and will only put his hand on the Qur’an. Except, of course, that he's Christian and put his hand on Lincoln's Bible when he was sworn in. But, that emotional, dramatic misinformation was held to be truth by many who were against him, and was one of the primary rumors circulating through blogs, word of mouth, television, and mass emails leading up to the election.

Another one circulating at the same time was that Obama would not say the Pledge of Allegiance or put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. We heard that he was a "radical Muslim" who "will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance." Misleading photographs and text were mass emailed all over the place, and discussions of this stuff wound up on blogs and TV. That was wrong, too.

We heard that Obama had no birth certificate and was therefore not a US citizen and therefore could not be the President. Obama provided a copy, and the Hawaii state government confirmed his certificate. You and I need so show our birth certificate just to get a passport! Why would the CIA, FBI, and all the other government powers not have checked this out before letting anyone be the president of the US?

Then there were all the claims that Obama is/was the anti-Christ. I guess we'll just have to see on that one. Snopes has a great long list of these things that you can scan in a minute or two here.

But the most important thing to take away from all this misinformation, emotion, and drama is this: The same folks in the mainstream media that were happy to puff up these lies leading right up to the election are the same folks that you'll hear today going on about death panels in health care (and the long line of other ridiculous claims about health care reform circulating out there) and many other claims. However, considering that most everything said previously has been proven false, I'd recommend looking at multiple, varied sources before taking something hook, line and sinker. And look at the source. Is someone who said that Obama wouldn't put his hand on a Bible the same one telling you that the new health care plan will kill old people? If so, you may want to find a new source of information so you can make informed decisions as a responsible citizen of the greatest democracy in the world.

If you don't like Obama and/or his policies that's fine, just please make sure you form your opinions based on skeptical thinking and reasoning. It's for the good of the country.

Another Beef Recall

2010-02-03T08:08:00.001-08:00

These seem to be cropping up every month like clockwork, sometimes every two months. This time it's from a slaughterhouse in Missouri.

For those who haven't seen it, put Food, Inc on your Netflix list. It's not gruesome or PETA-flavored, but a business-view on food production in the States. It does show nicely how you buy chicken that's been treated with ammonia to kill all the bacteria that result from filthy meat processing plants, where production has exceeded human ability to inspect and clean the meat before it's processed.

Another book that is more gruesome, but still wonderfully vivid and eye-opening is Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz. I'll have to do a longer review here but it's a great read if you want to know how the packing industry works.

Bomb One MInute; Pray the Next

2010-02-01T20:17:00.000-08:00

I watched the trailer for Frontline's upcoming show this Tuesday, Digital Nation. In that trailer, they show a US Predator drone pilot bombing a target in either Iraq or Afghanistan from a location near his home in the US. The pilot then drives home and prays to Jesus Christ before dinner.

Now, I'm not really saying anything is right or wrong in that. But there is a pretty stark dichotomy there. Or maybe there is no dichotomy, and I'm missing something.

Here's the link to the trailer and show if interested.

Why are you so angry about Obama?

2010-01-30T20:00:00.000-08:00

There are so many people that are rabid in their open anger (sometimes hatred), hostility, disrespect for, or whatever, of President Obama, that frankly, I've been surprised. I mean, I remember the Tea Party folks starting up in April of 2009, scarcely 4 months into his first term. GW Bush didn't even show up for his first year for the most part until Sept 11, and Cheney was having secret energy commissions and the whole bit and nobody seemed to mind at all. I didn't like that, but I didn't lose respect for Bush until his Axis of Evil lunacy.

If you're one of those people that just hate Obama or just seeing him makes you angry, I'm genuinely curious as to what your reasons are. Why do you hate him? What, specifically, has he done to make you so angry or disappointed? And, if you think of it, perhaps you could mention where you get your news and information each day as well (and be honest).

Because I'll be honest, when I hear the arguments against him, and when I hear his responses, such as this past week when he met w/Republicans in Baltimore, his answers make sense to me. They seem well thought out. Maybe I'm an idiot - it's very possible. And I know he's a politician. But I'm just not seeing anything to be so angry about. So please let me know why you're so angry.

Thanks in advance for your time and candor.

Is your waist larger than a "Japanese woman's"?

2009-08-23T22:09:00.000-07:00

Here's the latest rumor about health care reform. Are you ready? It's a great one. Easily the best one I've heard yet.

Some women are dressing after working out at a local health club, talking to each other in the women's locker room. They begin languishing about "ObamaCare," and how, if Obama has his way, every single woman in the USA will be forced to have her waist measured. If her waist size is larger than "the average Japanese woman's" waist - then she will be denied health care.

The women friends who told me this said that even though they weren't friends with the other women, they had to say "No, that's not true." And the women said "Yes." And my friends said "No." And I guess that's as rough as things get in the ladies locker room.

But can you believe that one? That's terrific. "Now, ma'am, remember, if you can't fit through this tiny hole, then I can't help you medically in any way, under any circumstances." I'm not even sure where this stuff comes from. It sounds like something nine-year-olds would make up sitting on a street corner.

Successful, sustainable preventive medicine doesn't work that way, where you're forced to do something or meet a requirement, and if you don't, then they take away your health care. In universal systems - everyone has health care. They don't take it away. That's the whole point of having universal care. Effective preventive medicine provides monetary incentives for medical personnel to have healthier patients. It would even be possible to give, say, tax breaks to people for maintaining their health within their power to do so, like by joining the YMCA, quitting smoking, altering their diet, taking prescribed medications properly, etc.. But I'm pretty sure there's no point in measuring people's waists, and then denying X% of American women health care based on that. That would be a large percentage, like what, 70%? 80%? How would any official ever be elected or re-elected into office supporting such a plan? What would be the purpose of it? Why wouldn't someone in the market simply pick up 80% of women after they were rejected? The list of faults with this idea is very, very long.

But it does shed light on some of the folks that are worried about losing the health care they already have, at least the kind of person that would believe such a story. I guess it's lost on some people with care that if they're so worried about losing their care that they'll believe the waist line story (when their health plan is not even in jeopardy beyond their imagination), then imagine how stressful everyday life is for people that don't have any health insurance right now. Or for a person dying of cancer in an uninsured household, with bills piling up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I'm guessing the next argument will be, "If we cave in to Obama's health care plan, they're going to take our guns away and force our children to be socialist Muslims." I mean, that wouldn't even surprise me at this point.

When you think about health care, think about health care. Ignore politics. What do you think Americans need? Who's talking about what you think is important? Who's not talking about those things? That's what we need to be asking ourselves to encourage strong debate. There are good ideas on both sides, but emotional hysteria solves nothing.

Lazy People Looking for Free Care?

2009-08-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

I keep hearing from people against any type of universal care (whether private, hyrbid, or government) that the people who go to clinics are just lazy people looking for a handout. "It's free!" they say, "of course they go!" But most issues you can solve by looking at yourself. I have had insurance over the years, so for me it's "free" to go too, but I only go when I need to. Why would you go wait in line all day to get rushed health care or dental work among thousands, in a tent, unless you had no other choice?

The real litmus is to hear the docs and nurses that work the free clinics speak - you know, the people on the ground doing the grunt work. They say the care they give for free in tents and stadiums is just like working in the third world, and that most of the folks they see are working and don't have care of any kind.

It's either hard for some people to imagine not having care, or they just don't care, but a great way to illustrate it is to watch the latest Bill Moyers show, called Critical Condition. Three families are highlighted. One guy in the show works two jobs for an annual total of $14k, and really illustrates the point. He works two jobs, makes $14k, and obviously cannot afford insurance. His wife gets ovarian cancer, delays treatment for fear of the bills, but ends up needing to have her ovaries removed and follow-up chemotherapy. After surgery, treatment, and medicine, the bills go up over $100k, approaching $150k in the end. How's he supposed to pay for that? How's he supposed to afford medicine and chemotherapy? This guy works hard in the USA.

Another guy has a back problem that starts off as pain but slowly hunches his back over and fuses the bones of his spine to his ligaments. He makes $45k w/3 kids and a wife. They live in a below-average apartment, and can't afford insurance. He couldn't even get a diagnosis for his hunch-back condition. Over time, and as a result of being part of this high-profile documentary, UCLA eventually agreed to do his corrective surgery for free. The surgery was worth $300k, but would have been less had he had insurance and there was early intervention. He even went to Mexico and got a quote of $40k, but even that was too much money since he had to have it all at once. All the surgeons on the show said that 50 million without coverage was a problem. Another guy that works hard, who almost died and left his wife with three kids - which, had that happened, would have been another type of financial burdon on the state, since it's unlikely that with a fourth kid on the way and no skills, that she would have been able to find work.

I ask anyone who's against health care reform to take 45 minutes and watch this show. I have real trouble seeing what could be biased about a show that depicts three hard-working American families struggle with health care issues. The reality is separte of politics. If you consider yourself an American that really cares about hard-working Americans instead of just yourself, I implore you to not only watch the show but also start thinking more objectively about this issue.

Comments from an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner on Health Care reform

2009-08-19T14:11:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting note from an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner concerning the health care debate. She's been working in the emergency room for almost 30 years. Her note was in response to an inflamatory email regarding the futality of health care reform. I offer this note here not as a way to say anything in particular, but simply to share the point of view of a seasoned ER practitioner with anyone who is interested:

She says:

First of all, if you ask a great many nurses, mid-level providers and physicians there are many in favor of a single payer system but have not been allowed to be at the table for discussion. This is in most part to fear from the conservative right and the power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobby.

Secondly, we already ration health care. Many insurance companies take months to schedule proceedures, if they agree to pay for them at all. We are ALL paying for the lack of health care of both our own citizens as well as others here illegally. We pay because they come to the ER and we have an obligation to care for them. We pay because people without health care are far sicker as they get older and have been unable to receive preventative care or early diagnosis and treatment of chronic illness resulting in more severe chronic illness and more secondary complications. We pay because these people are far less productive in our society.

The United States far outspends other countries on our health care and we are NOT healthier. We practice medicine to avoid lawsuits, many of them frivolous because after all, my illness or misfortune MUST be someone else's fault and there MUST be some way for me to benefit at someone else's cost. Without tort reform, we cannot hope to decrease unnecessary spending in the health care system.

A single payer system would insure that everyone is covered and golly you might need to wait a little while for that plastic surgery boost or elective bunion repair. Suppose anyone will die from that? I do not believe we will ration necessary care to those who are truely ill and in need. We do not have to duplicate the Canadian system or any other. We can create our own but we have to start somewhere to begin to change what is a topheavy, overmanaged, corporate and insurance and CEO benefiting system that is NOT making us a healthier country. So there you have it, for whatever it is worth."

M. Allin

ARNP

Keep your eye on the ball, America

2009-08-19T13:03:00.000-07:00

Can you believe this?

Congressman Barney Frank of MA was holding a town hall meeting, when a person got up and asked him this question on health care:

"They say we need to limit Medicare expenditures in order to reduce the deficit, that’s the origin of this [healthcare] policy. This is the T4 policy of the Hitler policy in 1939, where he said certain lives are not worth living, certain people, we should not spend the money to keep them alive. Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy, as Obama has expressly supported this policy, why do you support it?"

Frank replies, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Never mind that Medicare is a government program, and the long list of things associated with that when compared to the T4 "argument." Overall, however, this woman's statement clearly shows the lunacy of the current discussion. The hysteria created when people in high positions and on mass media put out false comments and confuse the debate at hand.

It obviously stems from Sarah Palin's comments on "death panels," and ties in with more and more disturbing comments I hear from everyday people on Facebook or in person today. About how Obama is a "dictator" or an "emperor." An emperor? How so? Obama was elected into office in the strongest democracy in the world, partially on a platform of health care reform. To avoid the mistakes of the Clinton administration, he set broad goals and is having the Congress work out the details of reform on a committee made up of 3 members from each political party. His administration's officials have stated over the weekend that they're open to dropping the public option entirely. That's called compromising.

Where's the emperor part come in? I'm having trouble seeing that. Maybe someone can help me out there.

The idea on the table is how to improve health care. Let's try to keep that in mind. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

Chuck Grassley Comments on Health Care

2009-08-19T11:33:00.000-07:00

One of the fundamental problems with the current healthcare debate is that of inaccurate portayals of other health care systems worldwide. Opponents are continuously bringing up single-payer discussions as a method of attacking reform, when a single-payer (government) health care system is not even on the table. In interest of improving health care, we should be looking at what works/doesn't work from single-payer systems, private systems, and hybrids, and applying that knowledge to our own healthcare design. We should not be attacking any attempt at reform AS a single-payer "government run" system and only looking at the negative aspects of a single-payer system, often using false-negative statements on top off that incorrect context as well. This creates a smoke-screen of misinformation in an already complex debate.

Adding to the distortion of mischaracterizing reform as a single-payer "government run" system are many statements that are just flat out false. A terrific example is when the Investor's Daily Editorial page said that if Stephen Hawking had lived in the UK, the British health care system would have let him die. Specifically, they said:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Never mind that Hawking is actually from the UK, and credits the NHS with the treatment of his condition and his existence. A hilarious, short editorial on this was done by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post.

But the Investor's Daily editorial is printed. The unfortunate readers of the Investor's Daily are already misinformed, already repeating the rediculous statement on the golf course, or in their daily conversations, or on Facebook. The misinformation spreads rapidly, and it further entrenches opinions that are not based on fact.

Inaccurate editorials are one thing, and are bad enough. But when leaders involved in deciding the direction of our health care system don't get basic principles right, that worries me even more. Of particular interest were comments I heard yesterday from Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa concerning, again, the NHS in the UK. You can hear his comments here, but he said:

"I’ve been told that the brain tumor that Senator Kennedy has because he’s 77 years old would not be treated the way it’s treated in the US, in other words, they say well he doesn’t have long to live, even if he lives another 4 or 5 years. They’d say, well, we have to spend the money on people that can contribute more to the economy."

The problem with the quote is that it's completely false. As with the Stephen Hawking example, the NHS would care for a 77-year old with a brain tumor, plain and simple. There would not be a meter running next to the bed. There would not be a limit on care. There would not be refusal to treat based on pre-existing conditions, as in the US, and there would also not be a cutoff to what's covered - as in the US. Is the US treatment of cancer and some other critical conditions better than the UK? Certainly. But nobody is advocating throwing away all US medical knowledge and adopting the NHS system. Most thinking humanoids are advocating taking what works, and adapting it to the US system.

Lord Ara Darzi is one of the world's leading surgeons at St. Mary's Hospital, in London. Upon hearing Grassley's above comment, he replied,"That's the most ludicrous thing I've heard. Not just false, but lies to set fear against reform." He went on to say, "it's not just false and distasteful, it's not what I expected, someone in senior political roles to be disseminating fear against the system."

Grassley's misinformed comment goes along with whole concept of government-run, single-payer systems deciding who lives and who dies with "death panels." Even though that's not on the table as a White House-sponsored option, it's considered part of the "slippery-slope" argument, where if we cover the poor with a government plan then everyone will run from private insurance to public, and soon it would be government run. Two problems with this argument. The first is the basic fault of the "slippery slope" argument, that if you do this one little thing then the whole world will collapse. The second is that all of the health care systems that perform better than the US are government run. They are mostly universal, single-payer systems run in democracies - not socialist countries. Some socialists countries, like Cuba for example, do rank higher than the US on the WHO rankings, but most are democracies.

I would take more time to research a magazine article than Grassley is doing to make policy decisions, and that worries me. He's making decisions to shape our medical care, and he has no idea how things work in the UK.

And again, Grassley's comment is out there in the public. It carries weight because he's the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and he's working directly on health care reform. Talk shows will pick it up, run with it, and repeat it over and over. People will start to believe it's true, even though it's not.

The sad thing is that Grassley has some good ideas about health care reform, but his whacked out, false ideas jeopardize the whole process and fuel an overly-emotional debate. The even sadder thing for all of us is that maybe the reform opponents are right about some things. But they muddy the water up so badly with false statements, that all of that is lost too. In the end, the everyday folks that are suffering now...will continue to suffer later - only they'll be many more of them as time goes on because costs are soaring and fewer companies and people can afford it anymore. But Grassley will still have his insurance, which in the end, is likely what he's most concerned with.

Important Message from SGT. Vaja U. Mailier

2009-08-11T11:36:00.000-07:00

Today I got a mission-critical email from SGT. Vaja U. Mailier, Georgian Soldier. IRAQ:

Good day and compliments, I know this letter will definitely come to you as a huge surprise, I am SGT. Vaja U. Mailier, a Georgian Soldier, serving in the Infantry battalion, Iraq.

I am desperately in need of your assistance and I have summoned up courage to contact you. I am presently in Iraq and I found your contact particulars in an address journal. I am seeking your assistance to evacuate the sum of $8.750,000:00 to the States or any safe country, as far as I can be assured that it will be safe in your care until I complete my service here. This is no stolen money and there are no dangers involved.

Respectfully,
SGT. Vaja U. Mailier
Georgian Soldier. IRAQ

I didn't know my contact particulars were in an address journal anyplace. But the chance to evacuate $8.750,000:00 seems very appealing, even though I'm not sure how much money that actually is. It was obviously earned on the up-and-up by a Georgian Soldier working honestly, in Iraq. And there is no danger involved. It's a win/win!

I can't wait to get involved and help this person out.

Lucy Exhibit

2008-12-29T23:00:00.000-08:00

I was skeptical about whether or not I cared about the Lucy exhibit that is currently on display at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle. But after getting there and going through the whole thing, it has altered my view and context of humans and where we are. In a nutshell, "Lucy" is the name given to set of 40% complete fossil bones found in Ethiopia of a hominid (any member of the biological family Hominidae to include living or extinct great apes, and humans and pre-humans). She is thought to be 3.2 million years old.

When you first enter, you go through a series of exhibits about the history of Ethiopia. This alone for me was fascinating, because for whatever reason, just my own ignorance I suppose, I thought nothing of Ethiopia. I knew it was a place where people starved, and that was about it. Ethiopia is one of the world's oldest nations, and was the home of the Aksumite Empire, one of the four great powers in the 4th century BCE, along with China, Persia, and Rome. The Aksumite Empire was the first to convert to Christianity, and has long been a place where Christian, Muslim, and Jewish people have lived together. The exhibit hilights the accomplishments of this country from the time of King David through contemporary history. The events leading up to current conditions in Ethiopia are fascinating and maddening, including Mussolini spraying Ethiopian men, women and children with chemical weapons in 1935, to avenge Italy getting its ass kicked by Ethiopia in the First Italo-Ethiopian War. For as much as people complain about the problems in Africa, it's interesting to note how nearly all of the causes are easily traced back to Europe, the US, Russia, or Asia. Invasions, slavery, diamonds, oil - whatever it is, you can see the clear line of cause. (Endless Enemies by Jonathan Kwitny, a WSJ reporter, clearly illustrates these ties). So anyway, even just the historical aspects of Ethiopia were mind-numbing.

But then you come to learn that Ethiopia is also the main location where successive evolutionary hominids have emerged and then set out across the planet. It is, essentially, the birthplace of human beings. Most likely, we ALL have a common grandmother from this region who lived about 200,000 years ago. While it's mildly interesting to find out that you're 1/32 Native American, or that your great aunt slept with a person of a different race, or that some guy 6 generations back was a prince or a duke or whatever, to me it's 10,000 times more incredible that all the humans currently living on Earth are brothers and sisters coming from the same common point of ancestry. We butcher each other over differences in religions, territory, water, mates, money, resources, and whatever else, and this point is lost. It seems that instead we should learn more about Ethiopia, even travel there, and respect it for what it is in context of human evolution and civilization. Ethiopia is and has been (for 5M years) a monumental place for humans, yet in the contemporary world it is considered almost completely insignificant.

One of the best things about the exhibit is how it starts with the oldest known fossil hominid skulls, and works up through time to the modern homo sapian skull. The skulls, for the most part, start off small and get progressively larger while the face becomes steadily more flat. After the last skull, you enter the room where Lucy's bones are laid flat in a glass case, surrounded by a large, curved wall mural, a portion of which is shown below:

That's about 1/6 of the total mural, but this is the part that shows Lucy standing on the rock to the left of the river, holding her baby. There is also a model of Lucy (photo at top) where she has been reconstructed using her very complete fossil skeleton.

The progression of skulls and the mural depict roughly 5 million years of evolution, starting with small chimp-like creatures and going up to today with modern humans. Modern humans are not the end of the process - our evolution continues to this day and we will look different, if we survive, thousands of years into the future. That was one of the major things that hit me at this exhibit, not just that we'll keep changing, but just how short a span of time 5 million years is. Think of it like this: The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life arose quickly, between 4.5B and 3.8B years ago. In that time, there have been 5 major extinctions in which at least 50% of life has gone extinct. The last major extinction was 65 million years ago, the one that killed off the dinosaurs. Today, the sixth mass extinction is occurring and increasing rapidly, with the loss of about 3,000 species per year and growing. But the thing that struck me was that humans have gone through all of their evolution to today in only 5 million years at the tail end of that 65M since the last mass extinction. Many of those evolving hominids lived for thousands of years, and each of them had their own lives, history, customs, trials, tribulations, all that life going on and on, and it's just a tiny slice, just a minute sliver of what has happened on Earth to date, and even just a tiny fraction of what has evolved since the last of five major mass extinctions.

The ease with which life becomes extinct and changes on this planet is the same as us eating a cheeseburger or taking a walk. It happens often, and will happen again. And as important as we seem now, it's apparent that Life and Earth could care less. Their indifference is either our opportunity for success, or our recipe for failure - the choice, it seems, is ours to make or break.

If Lucy comes to a museum near you, GO SEE IT. There is some controversy about moving the actual bones around, and I agree with most of the scientists I've read on this, that they could have easily substituted replica bones for Lucy's actual bones, but since this thing is on display and taking a six-year tour of the US, you might as well go if it comes near you.

California Fires from NASA

2008-11-17T21:21:00.000-08:00

Amazing footage from NASA showing the CA wildfires. The image came from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

For people that don't "believe" that human activity changes the atmosphere (whether it's global warming or something else), I think looking at something like this, and the range of the smoke, coupled with the images of the Earth's atmosphere below start to form a perspective on what's happening. These are just one set of wildfires. There are fires all over, and pollution, and wars and whatever else going on too.

Ever take off in an airplane on a clear day, and you can see smoke from small fires on the ground going on for miles? Or the smoke stacks from a plant? It's really something.

Look at that! Like a razor thin veil between everything you know...and pitch black, death-cold outer space going off in all directions longer than our brains can comprehend. If you think about that too long, you'll get the pink spiders, the jim jams, the blue Johnnies, the snakes in the boots. You know, mania a potu. You'll go fucking nuts.

This is why, no matter what astronauts think before they go into space, they always come back down with a marked appreciation for the fragility of our planet.

I guess we're not supposed to think about it that much. We'd lose our drive to go to work and pay bills. We'd wind up like Alvy in Annie Hall:

Doctor in Brooklyn: Why are you depressed, Alvy?
Alvy's Mom: Tell Dr. Flicker.
[Young Alvy sits, his head down - his mother answers for him]
Alvy's Mom: It's something he read.
Doctor in Brooklyn: Something he read, huh?
Alvy at 9: [his head still down] The universe is expanding.
Doctor in Brooklyn: The universe is expanding?
Alvy at 9: Well, the universe is everything, and if it's expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything!
Alvy's Mom: What is that your business?
[she turns back to the doctor]
Alvy's Mom: He stopped doing his homework!
Alvy at 9: What's the point?
Alvy's Mom: What has the universe got to do with it? You're here in Brooklyn! Brooklyn is not expanding!
Doctor in Brooklyn: It won't be expanding for billions of years yet, Alvy. And we've gotta try to enjoy ourselves while we're here!

Bigfoot Corpse

2008-11-14T16:25:00.001-08:00

Yeah well the bigfoot corpse that turned up this summer, that nobody was allowed to see, has just mysteriously disappeared from the news, the world, and everything else, because obviously these rubes were just scamming people to get website traffic, or sell T-shirts, or something. The news agencies carried the possibility that this might be true but I haven't heard any follow-up that it's a sham. Sadly, I think that leads a certain, er, subset of our population to conclude that this sort of thing in factual. Perhaps we'll hear of a cover-up, but I'm pretty sure this one will just disappear until these jokers discover another bigfoot they can't show anyone.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" certainly holds true with giant ape-like creatures romping through our forests. Also: Where'd all the UFOs and Bermuda Triangle stuff go?

Ancient Hairstyling and Teeth Whitening Services

2008-11-11T11:45:00.000-08:00

When the various religious folk come by the front door, as they've done over the years, I very politely tell them I'm an agnostic and, if they persist, I show them a trilobite fossil, at which point they usually come back later with an elder. So, I treat them with respect as long as they treat me the same, which they most often do.

Sometimes, however, a person has to show a degree of skepticism. For example, here's a flier some fine young men left me during one of my many front door religious discussions. Check out The Christs' haircut! That's like a $60 wash, cut, and blow-dry by any American city standards of today. You can even detect a bit of gel in there as well. And those teeth! My, but they are super-white, and perfectly straight. I mean, I know Jesus is the son of God, but his hair was supposed to be longer, and it was likely messed up a lot, I would imagine.

This is almost as bad as the image they use that has all the animals living together in perfect harmony in Heaven...what will the lions eat??? And why make an entire animal kingdom based on killing and consuming other organisms if you're just going to change it all in Heaven?

The young lads always look at the non-believer with a bit of pity, as they turn and leave the house...

Screw Columbus Day

2008-10-11T14:49:00.000-07:00

Look, some things are just ridiculous, and Columbus Day is right up there at the top. Columbus Day is a celebration of a guy that "discovered" two continents that were home to millions of people who already lived there, and had been there for about 14,000 years. That's bad enough, but of course there's more. The image above shows a glimpse into how the Spaniards under Columbus, under direction from Spain and the Catholic Church, treated the Indians where the Spaniards visited.

When Columbus got to the "new world," he first ran into the Arawak "Indians," who had no steel, greeted them with kindness and trade, and welcomed them to the new land. Columbus wrote in his log:

They...brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things...they willingly traded everything they owned...They do not bear arms, and do not know them. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane...They would make fine servants...With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

As soon as I arrived in the Indies...I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.

I guess it was too much trouble to, you know, ASK. Columbus needed financing for his voyages, and reported back to Spain exaggerated reports and promises of gold, and Spain was driven to get more gold at the time, in conjunction with the Catholic Church. So Spain equipped him with 13 ships, 1200 men, with the aim of acquiring slaves and gold. On this, Columbus wrote, "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold." Most of the slaves died in captivity. In Haiti, in a span of 2 years, half of the 250,000 native peoples there were dead from slavery, mutilation, murder, or suicide, as many killed their children to keep them from the Spaniards. The Indians tried to defend themselves, but they were no match militarily for the Spaniards, and they were hunted down with dogs and killed. Many records were kept by a young priest named Bartolome de las Casas, of the slaves put to work in mountain-high gold mines in Cuba:

Husbands and wives were together only once every eight or ten months and when they met they were so exhausted and depressed on both sides...they ceased to procreate. As for the newly born, they died early because their mothers, overworked and famished, had no milk to nurse them, and for this reason, while I was in Cuba, 7,000 children died in three months. Some mothers even drowned their babies from sheer desperation...In this way, husbands died in the mines, wives died at work, and children died from a lack of milk...and in a short time this land which was so great, so powerful and fertile...was depopulated...my eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write...

Neato. What a guy to celebrate every October, eh? As Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States writes, "When we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure - there is no bloodshed - and Columbus Day is a celebration."

Well I for one am going to work my ass off on Columbus Day. He was a good nautical navigator and sailor - but that's pretty much it. F*ck Christopher Columbus. I'm tired of celebrating ignorance and rewritten history, and giving honor to low-life genocidal jackasses who committed mass crimes against humanity.

What holiday could we replace Columbus Day with? I have some ideas. I think we should replace Columbus Day with Hero's Day - A day where each person around the world picks a person they are inspired by, whether it be their parent, or a scientist, or a person they know in town, or someone famous, or Carl Sagan, Senator John Lewis, Einstein, Gandhi, a 9/11 firefighter, Jack Lambert, Eleanor Roosevelt, Chesty Puller, or whoever you're into. Then celebrate that and tell your friends and family why you like that person, share ideas, and keep us talking so we don't go back to butchering one another in 10, 20, or 30 years.

Some Perspective on Nuclear Power

2008-10-08T15:09:00.001-07:00

Rocky Mountain Institute has worked successfully for years with industry, government, and the military, implementing free market solutions that maximize profit and money saved, while implementing sustainability and environmentally sound principles. RMI and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins have long advocated energy efficiency. Last night, this solution was discussed during the Presidential Debate, briefly summarized here.

Also interesting were RMI's comments on nuclear power that came out today via email:

The issues of renewable energy and energy independence have taken center stage in both media and political conversations lately, but the means of achieving various energy goals have proven to be rather controversial. Proposed options dominating news headlines include clean coal, nuclear energy, and offshore drilling. Is there an energy path that we can all agree upon?

The answer is yes, and this morning Rocky Mountain Institute and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins were featured in a New York Times blog in response to last night's Presidential Debate. Energy efficiency, a solution at the core of RMI's work, was discussed as a viable and economically profitable resolution to both energy and economy issues. New York Times writer Kate Galbraith points out that RMI and Amory Lovins have consistently advocated the benefits of a soft-path approach to energy, with efficiency at it's core. You can read the article here.

When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and "micropower" (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!

These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in "Forget Nuclear," and fully documented in "The Nuclear Illusion," available for download here, which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal Ambio.

Hopefully our vision will help put these widely publicized issues into perspective and move us all toward a better understanding that takes us beyond politically divisive issues to collective and viable solutions.

I would also recommend a terrific, free book called Brittle Power, released by RMI for the Pentagon in 1982 but as relevant as ever.

Boobies, Noddies, and Charles Darwin

2008-08-12T16:02:00.000-07:00

I like books about men on ships. I think you know what I'm talking about. One such book is Journal of Researches, by the hilarious Charles Darwin. Nobody describes a beetle or fungi with more gusto. The book is a collection of his journal entries that he made while on the historic voyage aboard the HMS Beagle around 1830. Why, already, on page 21, while on the island of St. Paul's of the Cape Verd Islands, he finds the only two kinds of birds on the island; the booby and the noddy. I'm writing to share this quote with you:

"Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors that I could have killed any number of them with my geological hammer."

Something about the image of a young Darwin out on some remote island, the Beagle perhaps bobbing at anchor somewhere behind him, sitting on a rock, and picturing himself braining boobies with his hammer, strikes me as funny. And really, it's a pretty good joke for a naturalist spending most of his time chasing after bugs in 1831.

Happy People Dancing on Planet Earth

2008-07-24T21:09:00.000-07:00

This is just a fabulous video. I dare you to watch it. If you're having a bad day, the video will be even better. You may have seen videos with Matt in them before, but I like this one the best. You have to watch the whole thing, all the way through to get the full effect. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080722.html

If you like it you can learn more about Matt here http://www.wherethehellismatt.com/about.shtml We're considering inviting this guy over for some food. He lives in Seattle.

Leopard Kills Crocodile in Africa

2008-07-20T22:53:00.000-07:00

This is an incredible series of photographs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/18/ealeopard118.xml A photographer was in Africa to shoot hippos, and caught this leopard attacking and killing a croc, pulling it from the water.

Bigfoot

2008-07-16T14:30:00.001-07:00

So, after 40 years, we still can't get a clear photograph of bigfoot? What the hell's up with that? I asked the Bigfoot Researchers Organization (BFRO) http://www.bfro.net/, but not surprisingly, got a fuzzy answer. Here's my email:

Hi : Just read your accounts of six bigfoot encounters...a suggestion: Telephoto lens and FOCUS when you shoot! This way, you can work to prove the skeptics wrong instead of battling against them. I'm in WA with an SLC with telephoto and can shoot pretty quick, if I see one, I'll catch it on film and send it to you.

His reply:

Thanks for your support and I'll pray for your success, but untill then listen to the radio show on wednesday and maybe we will all learn something new. www.bigfootliveradioshow.com

So essentially, he's saying "Shut-up and buy bigfoot stuff, you idiot." It's comforting to know you're always welcome to go on a bigfoot hunting expedition. Maybe there's one near you! They are selling DVDs, T-shirts, and all sorts of things, but there's not many photographs, save the one we're all familiar with from 1967. They have a handy comparison photo of a "real" bigfoot, and then a silly one of a person in a bigfoot costume.

Nelly.

Finally, I can check my urethra in public restrooms!

2008-06-26T17:43:00.000-07:00

Exciting Robo-Toilet technology, if you missed it, in Japan (where else?). Each high-tech toilet opens automatically when it senses an approaching humanoid; emits pleasant odors; makes noises to conceil your noises; plays music; and allows you to test your blood pressure and urethra (not sure how that part works). I'm wondering about all the germs on the touch pads, or for that matter, the urethra-tester.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-toilets-video-ap.html

Just think, a couple hundred years ago, we just pooped outside. Now look at us!

Who Killed the Electric Car?

2008-06-23T20:37:00.000-07:00

I was skeptical about this documentary, based on its too-biased web site. But overall this was well done and presented factually. It covers the release of the General Motors EV1 electric car, and it's subsequent pulling by GM off the market. Basically, GM would not sell the vehicles to people but would only lease them, and when the leases expired, they came and got the cars, then smashed them and recycled the parts. They would not permit anyone to buy the cars; even the last one on display at a car museum had its engine removed. What the hell is that all about? This film gave me a good sense of the powers that be, and how they make idiotic decisions that will effect all of us in the long run.

The best part of this film is that it ends on a high note. People are building better car batteries, they are improvising cars to give them miliage over 100 mpg, and alternative organizations like RMI and Google are working around the inbred, selfish, jackass corporate goon mentality of crippled companies like US automakers, who have ignored foreign competition, market forces, and impending energy changes for well over 30 years. People are not waiting for US car companies to come out with something; they are making them on their own, working the competitive market, and I will jump in as soon as I can with anything I can get my hands on. We are looking for anything to replace our V-6 Mazda Tribute and join the 2000 Honda Insight, which now has 175,000 miles on it and still (knock on poly-synthetic urithane fiber or wood) going strong.

Good general update on the topic in RMI's latest newsletter, downloadable in PDF format here http://rmi.org/sitepages/pid106.php.

But good movie, check it out if you havne't seen it.