August 30, 2005
Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much
CHICAGO - When Jon D. Miller looks out across America, which he can almost do from his 18th-floor office at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, he sees a landscape of haves and have-nots - in terms not of money, but of knowledge.
While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.
Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
At one time, this kind of ignorance may not have meant much for the nation's public life. "Even if you could not read and write, and most New England residents could not read or write," he went on, "you could still be a pretty effective citizen."
No more. "Acid rain, nuclear power, infectious diseases - the world is a little different," he said.
Dr. Miller, who was raised in Portsmouth, Ohio, when it was a dying steel town, attributes much of the nation's collective scientific ignorance to poor education, particularly in high schools. Many colleges require every student to take some science, but most Americans do not graduate from college. And science education in high school can be spotty, he said.
Lately, people who advocate the teaching of evolution have been citing Dr. Miller's ideas on what factors are correlated with adherence to creationism and rejection of Darwinian theories. In general, he says, these fundamentalist views are most common among people who are not well educated and who "work in jobs that are evaporating fast with competition around the world."
But not everyone is happy when he says things like that. Every time he goes on the radio to talk about his findings, he said, "I get people sending me cards saying they will pray for me a lot."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ei=5070&en=631977063d726261&ex=1125547200&pagewanted=print
Wednesday, August 31
Ecopsychology: The force of nature
Science has long recognised this instinctive attraction to nature. Now, an emerging branch of psychology suggests it may be fundamental to our health and wellbeing - and to the future of the planet.
Ecopsychology is grounded in the idea that our innate craving for contact with nature is the result of millions of years of evolution in a natural environment. The problem, ecopsychologists argue, is that industrialisation and urbanisation have tossed those instincts aside. Our detachment from nature lies behind a host of modern psychological, emotional and physical problems, as well as our blasé attitude towards environmental change. Personal and planetary wellbeing, they say, feed into one another.
It may sound romantic and New Age, but the theory is gaining scientific credibility. In evolutionary terms, we are stalled in prehistory. And just as our bodies are unable to adapt to a permanent surplus of calories and the invention of the automobile, so our minds are unable to acclimatise to the peculiar stresses of high-density urban living. We are, deep down, creatures of the countryside, even if most of us see less of it than ever before.
As our environment deteriorates, so does our psychological, social and emotional wellbeing. Escaping the suburban sprawl - either outright, through a weekend's camping, or more locally, through a well-planted window box - could soon be as basic a piece of preventative medical advice as eating fruit and vegetables.
Proponents of "green exercise", for example, believe that the healing power of nature can be harnessed by simply getting out in it and doing something.
For details of ecotherapy courses see http://www.grahamgame.com/. For details of green gyms see www.btcv.org/greengym/
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article308758.ece
Ecopsychology is grounded in the idea that our innate craving for contact with nature is the result of millions of years of evolution in a natural environment. The problem, ecopsychologists argue, is that industrialisation and urbanisation have tossed those instincts aside. Our detachment from nature lies behind a host of modern psychological, emotional and physical problems, as well as our blasé attitude towards environmental change. Personal and planetary wellbeing, they say, feed into one another.
It may sound romantic and New Age, but the theory is gaining scientific credibility. In evolutionary terms, we are stalled in prehistory. And just as our bodies are unable to adapt to a permanent surplus of calories and the invention of the automobile, so our minds are unable to acclimatise to the peculiar stresses of high-density urban living. We are, deep down, creatures of the countryside, even if most of us see less of it than ever before.
As our environment deteriorates, so does our psychological, social and emotional wellbeing. Escaping the suburban sprawl - either outright, through a weekend's camping, or more locally, through a well-planted window box - could soon be as basic a piece of preventative medical advice as eating fruit and vegetables.
Proponents of "green exercise", for example, believe that the healing power of nature can be harnessed by simply getting out in it and doing something.
For details of ecotherapy courses see http://www.grahamgame.com/. For details of green gyms see www.btcv.org/greengym/
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article308758.ece
Saturday, August 27
Friday, August 26
White House denies Vacation
The White House seems to be a little defensive about President Bush's summer vacation. According to the San Bernardino Sun, a spokesman insisted "the reason that Bush is in Crawford, Texas, is due to the renovation of the West Wing of the White House."Said the spokesman: "He's operating on a full schedule; he's just doing it from the ranch instead of from the White House. The only week he had officially off was this last week."Whether he's on vacation or just away, USA Today notes he's been "shadowed by anti-war demonstrators" the entire time.
Who shall we kill next?! http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1555809,00.html
Who shall we kill next?! http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1555809,00.html
Thursday, August 25
Get on Up
http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2005/08/22/umbra-eitheror/index.html?source=weekly
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0816/p01s01-ussc.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050824/ap_on_sc/scientist_global_warming;_ylt=AuY.lIMxIrjdbj11xtKAzogPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25thu1.html?th&emc=th
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0816/p01s01-ussc.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050824/ap_on_sc/scientist_global_warming;_ylt=AuY.lIMxIrjdbj11xtKAzogPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25thu1.html?th&emc=th
Why Hollywood STILL SUCKS
Do these guys sound like alcoholics or what ????
Summer Fading, Hollywood Sees Fizzle
By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: August 24, 2005
setting the movie industry on edge. But many movie executives and industry experts are beginning to conclude that something more fundamental is at work: Too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough.
"Part of this is the fact that the movies may not have lived up to the expectations of the audience, not just in this year, but in years prior," said Michael Lynton, chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment. "Audiences have gotten smart to the marketing, and they can smell the good ones from the bad ones at a distance."
Even Robert Shaye:"I believe it's a cumulative thing, a seismic evolution of people's habits," said Mr. Shaye, chairman of New Line Cinema.
In previous years, he said, "you could still count on enough people to come whether you failed at entertaining them or not, out of habit, or boredom, or a desire to get out of the house.
"It wasn't like the last crop of summer movies were that much better than this summer," said Mr. Shmuger. "This summer has been as deadening as it has been exciting, and there's a cumulative wearing down effect. We're beginning to witness the results of that. People are just beginning to wake up that what used to pass as summer excitement isn't that exciting, or that entertaining. At New Line, executives have been talking about the "sameness of everything" on movie schedules, one executive said.
With the task so large, and so very complex, Hollywood is still grappling with how to broach solutions.
At Universal, Mr. Shmuger said he intends to reassert "time and care and passion" in movie production. Some of his own summer movies, he conceded, should never have been made.
He declined to name them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/movies/24slum.html?th&emc=th
Summer Fading, Hollywood Sees Fizzle
By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: August 24, 2005
setting the movie industry on edge. But many movie executives and industry experts are beginning to conclude that something more fundamental is at work: Too many Hollywood movies these days, they say, just are not good enough.
"Part of this is the fact that the movies may not have lived up to the expectations of the audience, not just in this year, but in years prior," said Michael Lynton, chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment. "Audiences have gotten smart to the marketing, and they can smell the good ones from the bad ones at a distance."
Even Robert Shaye:"I believe it's a cumulative thing, a seismic evolution of people's habits," said Mr. Shaye, chairman of New Line Cinema.
In previous years, he said, "you could still count on enough people to come whether you failed at entertaining them or not, out of habit, or boredom, or a desire to get out of the house.
"It wasn't like the last crop of summer movies were that much better than this summer," said Mr. Shmuger. "This summer has been as deadening as it has been exciting, and there's a cumulative wearing down effect. We're beginning to witness the results of that. People are just beginning to wake up that what used to pass as summer excitement isn't that exciting, or that entertaining. At New Line, executives have been talking about the "sameness of everything" on movie schedules, one executive said.
With the task so large, and so very complex, Hollywood is still grappling with how to broach solutions.
At Universal, Mr. Shmuger said he intends to reassert "time and care and passion" in movie production. Some of his own summer movies, he conceded, should never have been made.
He declined to name them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/movies/24slum.html?th&emc=th
Monday, August 22
Sunday, August 21
Pastafari
Glimpses of the elusive and powerful 'noodly master', mon.I'm hooked, let's get it on the ballot...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
excerpts from 'Globalisation is an anomaly and its time is running out'
Cheap energy and relative peace helped create a false doctrine James Howard Kunstler
Guardian
The big yammer these days in the United States is to the effect that globalisation is here to stay: it's wonderful, get used to it. The chief cheerleader for this point of view is Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times and author of The World Is Flat. The seemingly unanimous embrace of this idea in the power circles of America is a marvellous illustration of the madness of crowds, for nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that globalisation is now a permanent fixture of the human condition.
Today's global economic relations are a product of very special transient circumstances, namely relative world peace and absolutely reliable supplies of cheap energy. Subtract either of these elements from the equation and you will see globalisation evaporate so quickly it will suck the air out of your lungs. It is significant that none of the cheerleaders for globalisation takes this equation into account. In fact, the American power elite is sleepwalking into a crisis so severe that the blowback may put both major political parties out of business.
We are now due for another folding up of the periodic global trade fair as the industrial nations enter the tumultuous era beyond the global oil production peak, which I have named the long emergency. The economic distortions and perversities that have built up in the current era are not hard to see, though our leaders dread to acknowledge them. The dirty secret of the US economy for at least a decade now is that it has come to be based on the ceaseless elaboration of a car-dependent suburban infrastructure - McHousing estates, eight-lane highways, big-box chain stores, hamburger stands - that has no future as a living arrangement in an oil-short future.
The American suburban juggernaut can be described succinctly as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. The mortgages, bonds, real estate investment trusts and derivative financial instruments associated with this tragic enterprise must make the judicious goggle with wonder and nausea.
Add to this grim economic picture a far-flung military contest, already under way, really, for control of the world's remaining oil, and the scene grows darker. Two-thirds of that oil is in the possession of people who resent the west (America in particular), many of whom have vowed to destroy it. Both America and Britain have felt the sting of freelance asymmetrical war-makers not associated with a particular state but with a transnational religious cause that uses potent small arms and explosives to unravel western societies and confound their defences.
China, a supposed beneficiary of globalisation, will be as desperate for oil as all the other players, and perhaps more ruthless in seeking control of the supplies. Of course, it is hard to imagine the continuation of American chain stores' manufacturing supply lines with China, given the potential for friction. Even on its own terms, China faces issues of environmental havoc, population overshoot, and political turmoil - orders of magnitude greater than anything known in Europe or America.
Viewed through this lens, the sunset of the current phase of globalisation seems dreadfully close to the horizon. The American public has enjoyed the fiesta, but the blue-light special orgy of easy motoring, limitless air-conditioning, and super-cheap products made by factory slaves far far away is about to close down. Globalisation is finished. The world is about to become a larger place again.
· James Howard Kunstler is the author of The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century
http://us.f408.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=kunstler@aol.com
Guardian
The big yammer these days in the United States is to the effect that globalisation is here to stay: it's wonderful, get used to it. The chief cheerleader for this point of view is Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times and author of The World Is Flat. The seemingly unanimous embrace of this idea in the power circles of America is a marvellous illustration of the madness of crowds, for nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that globalisation is now a permanent fixture of the human condition.
Today's global economic relations are a product of very special transient circumstances, namely relative world peace and absolutely reliable supplies of cheap energy. Subtract either of these elements from the equation and you will see globalisation evaporate so quickly it will suck the air out of your lungs. It is significant that none of the cheerleaders for globalisation takes this equation into account. In fact, the American power elite is sleepwalking into a crisis so severe that the blowback may put both major political parties out of business.
We are now due for another folding up of the periodic global trade fair as the industrial nations enter the tumultuous era beyond the global oil production peak, which I have named the long emergency. The economic distortions and perversities that have built up in the current era are not hard to see, though our leaders dread to acknowledge them. The dirty secret of the US economy for at least a decade now is that it has come to be based on the ceaseless elaboration of a car-dependent suburban infrastructure - McHousing estates, eight-lane highways, big-box chain stores, hamburger stands - that has no future as a living arrangement in an oil-short future.
The American suburban juggernaut can be described succinctly as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. The mortgages, bonds, real estate investment trusts and derivative financial instruments associated with this tragic enterprise must make the judicious goggle with wonder and nausea.
Add to this grim economic picture a far-flung military contest, already under way, really, for control of the world's remaining oil, and the scene grows darker. Two-thirds of that oil is in the possession of people who resent the west (America in particular), many of whom have vowed to destroy it. Both America and Britain have felt the sting of freelance asymmetrical war-makers not associated with a particular state but with a transnational religious cause that uses potent small arms and explosives to unravel western societies and confound their defences.
China, a supposed beneficiary of globalisation, will be as desperate for oil as all the other players, and perhaps more ruthless in seeking control of the supplies. Of course, it is hard to imagine the continuation of American chain stores' manufacturing supply lines with China, given the potential for friction. Even on its own terms, China faces issues of environmental havoc, population overshoot, and political turmoil - orders of magnitude greater than anything known in Europe or America.
Viewed through this lens, the sunset of the current phase of globalisation seems dreadfully close to the horizon. The American public has enjoyed the fiesta, but the blue-light special orgy of easy motoring, limitless air-conditioning, and super-cheap products made by factory slaves far far away is about to close down. Globalisation is finished. The world is about to become a larger place again.
· James Howard Kunstler is the author of The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century
http://us.f408.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=kunstler@aol.com
Big, Fat and Worthy Issue
Can't hear your soul through all the white noise? Communicatin' with your family got you down? Do something about it!
click
http://www.commercialalert.org/
click
http://www.commercialalert.org/
Rooster's Crow
the new Williams Chariot waits to build upon its 14 young miles...Following the seismic ponderments of the last few months, my clan(Beth, Sugi, and I) have voted to delay an expedition to another hemisphere in order to pursue goals here and now. Following promotions and a brief consideration of homebuying, we've elected to invest in a new Toyota Prius, which we picked out this week. Lifeways, Beth has burgeoning projects in dance etc., and Jesse is focusing on graduation. These babies require concentration and a great deal of effort that has been siphoned recently by planning and consideration on the there. So, we now've elected to dig a little deeper and pollute a lot less...
Our Suburu workhorse got about 22mpg, overcame rutted Colorado 4wd roads and put up with many adventures, but the benefits of trading her for this lovely(above) were overwhelming(below). Getting two to three times the mileage, we envision a reinvestment of sorts in the next coupla years here in Lala-land.
Excellent source of info:http://www.hybridcars.com/index.html
From Autoblog 2004:
USA: Hybrid gets top crash test rating
The first hybrid car to be crash-tested by Euro NCAP, the Toyota Prius, was one of eight cars to achieve the top five star occupant rating and also received the highest rating for child protection.
From Consumer Reports:
Highs:
Fuel economy, low emissions, transmission, ride, hatchback versatility, reliability.
Lows:
Steering feel, multifunction display.
Toyota's second-generation Prius is unbeatable for its combination of economy, acceleration, and interior room. It couples a 1.5-liter gasoline engine with an electric motor, and it automatically switches between them or runs on both as needed. The car shuts the engine off at idle. We got an excellent 44 mpg overall in our tests. Shifts are automatic via a responsive continuously variable transmission (CVT). Regenerative braking recharges the battery while coasting or braking. Ride and handing are competent, though the steering feels vague. Access is easy. Reliability has been outstanding.
From Internet Auto Guide:
2005 Toyota Prius
This is now a midsize car. It's roomy, with adult-size back seats and lots of cargo space. And it's also more pleasant to look at, with sleek, futuristic styling. It's easy to spot in a crowded grocery store parking lot.
The real justification to buy a Prius is its extremely low emissions. It produces almost no pollution and is one of the most environmentally friendly vehicles you can drive. The Prius is an excellent choice for buyers who want to reduce air pollution and America's dependence on oil. The Prius isn't cheap, but it's an amazing piece of engineering that achieves those goals.
Check the list of standard equipment, and you'll see that the word "economy" applies only to
Safety is enhanced with antilock brakes (ABS), Electronic Brake-force Distribution (EBD), Brake Assist, and traction control. Standard passive safety features include multi-stage, dual front airbags; three-point seatbelts and head restraints at all five seating positions; and rear seat head restraints that are adjustable. Curtain airbags designed to offer head protection for front and rear passengers and seat-mounted side-impact airbags for torso protection for driver and front-seat passenger.
The side view makes clear the stylists' devotion to aerodynamics. A steeply raked windshield carries the hood's acute angle rearward. An even more steeply raked backlight (rear windscreen) ends in a high spoiler that trips the air stream as it leaves the car, maximizing the aero advantage of the car's almost-vertical back end. Sleek rear quarter windows do more to visually enhance the aerodynamic look than they do for outward visibility.
A tall glasshouse yields exemplary outward visibility. As is the case with many of the latest aerodynamic designs, the driver can't see the front of the car or the hood without leaning forward.
Driving Impressions
By complementing the gasoline engine's horsepower with the electric motor's torque, the Prius makes better use of the energy stored in each gallon of gasoline, while leaving fewer nasty chemical compounds in its wake. The electric motor, which begins cranking out its maximum torque virtually the moment it starts spinning, gets the car moving and helps it accelerate while it's underway. The gasoline engine steps to the fore at more constant speeds, especially during highway driving, where horsepower is more critical for maintaining a car's momentum.
The hybrid system improves fuel economy further by turning off the gasoline engine when it's not needed, like when you are waiting at a stop light or even when puttering around town at low speeds. Any time the driver's right foot requests more motivation than the electric motor alone can provide, the gasoline engine fires up and joins in.
The transmission is non-traditional, too, though not unique in today's market. Prius uses a continuously variable transmission, which shuns gears for a steel-segmented belt riding on variable-diameter pulleys. This system constantly and automatically selects the most efficient drive ratio to get the car moving and to keep it moving.
Emissions are the lowest of any real car available to U.S. buyers. On the surface, it is bettered by electric cars, but electric cars are impractical and must be recharged using another energy source that, in turn, requires fuel. So in the big picture, the Prius is easier on the environment than electric cars are.
The Prius saves fuel and reduces emisions by scavenging energy that most cars waste. Regenerative braking links the brakes to a generator, helping use the car's kinetic energy to recharge the battery whenever the brakes are applied. Along the same lines, the transmission offers a setting that helps recharge the battery when the driver merely lifts off the accelerator and lets the car coast, most beneficially downhill. In sum, with all these regenerative methodologies, there's no need (and no way, for that matter) to plug the car into an electrical outlet to charge the battery.
Final Word
The Toyota Prius sets the standard for environmentally friendly transportation. It also delivers extremely good fuel efficiency for a four-seat car with an automatic transmission. Just ignore those EPA numbers. Buyers can expect to average something north of 45 mpg.
Saturday, August 20
Rate Your State!
http://www.surveyusa.com/50StatePOTUS0805.htm
Eight cities in Texas are competing with each other to be the location for the George Bush Library. It's BYOB -- bring you own books. ... The George Bush Presidential Library -- that shouldn't take up too much space: a box of cliff notes and pop-up books. . . The only thing Bush ever checked out of a library was Laura. -- Jay Leno
Eight cities in Texas are competing with each other to be the location for the George Bush Library. It's BYOB -- bring you own books. ... The George Bush Presidential Library -- that shouldn't take up too much space: a box of cliff notes and pop-up books. . . The only thing Bush ever checked out of a library was Laura. -- Jay Leno
Friday, August 19
$5 a gallon
U.S. author forecasts $5 gas by next year
CHICAGO, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- An oil expert and author who correctly forecast $3 per gallon gasoline in the United States this year says the price will reach $5 next year.
Craig Smith, author of "Black Gold Stranglehold," told the Chicago Sun-Times there's also a possibility the price could hit $10 per gallon if terrorists strike a major Middle East oil field.
Last year, Smith predicted $3-a-gallon gas and $65-a-barrel crude oil prices this year, and now says oil prices will jump to $80 a gallon by the end of 2006.
Meanwhile, he said complaining about the current spike makes no sense.
"Why are they charging higher prices for gas? Because people will pay it," he told the Sun-Times.
NYT editorial: The Oil Effect
(G)as is now averaging $2.60 a gallon nationwide, nearly a 39 percent increase from last year. At the same time, natural gas prices are up 60 percent to 90 percent around the country, presaging steep home-heating bills in the months ahead on top of high prices at the pump.
With most other prices relatively tame, consumers could weather the energy squeeze if they had a cushion. They don't.
Wage gains for most Americans are barely keeping up with inflation. And according to a recent Commerce Department report, Americans, on average, are now saving nothing each month, so they obviously cannot pay higher energy bills by reducing the amount they save.
That leaves rising home values to cover growing energy costs. According to a recent report by John Makin, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, the housing boom has offset the economic drag of higher oil prices by enabling homeowners to get cash through refinancing or selling at a profit, and by creating a "wealth effect": as their houses appreciate, homeowners feel rich and thus spend freely, even as they neglect to save.
Mr. Makin estimates that a mere leveling off of housing prices would be sufficient to remove the economic boost from real estate. That would slow consumer spending and, with it, the economy.
No one knows when that leveling off will occur. But homes are already becoming increasingly unaffordable, and refinancings are slowing down. There are early signs that banks are beginning to tighten their lending standards. And the Federal Reserve, which has been trying for more than a year to push up mortgage rates, will probably succeed in that endeavor at some point.
The pain that now seems imminent might have been avoided. Conservation could have reduced energy demand and prices, while properly targeted job growth and savings incentives - not tax cuts for the rich - could have built a stronger job recovery, helping to foster higher wages and new savings. Maybe next time around.
And: World running out of time for oil alternatives
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/18/MTFH69017_2005-08-18_13-53-52_SCH850008.html
Time to go look at a hybrid.....
CHICAGO, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- An oil expert and author who correctly forecast $3 per gallon gasoline in the United States this year says the price will reach $5 next year.
Craig Smith, author of "Black Gold Stranglehold," told the Chicago Sun-Times there's also a possibility the price could hit $10 per gallon if terrorists strike a major Middle East oil field.
Last year, Smith predicted $3-a-gallon gas and $65-a-barrel crude oil prices this year, and now says oil prices will jump to $80 a gallon by the end of 2006.
Meanwhile, he said complaining about the current spike makes no sense.
"Why are they charging higher prices for gas? Because people will pay it," he told the Sun-Times.
NYT editorial: The Oil Effect
(G)as is now averaging $2.60 a gallon nationwide, nearly a 39 percent increase from last year. At the same time, natural gas prices are up 60 percent to 90 percent around the country, presaging steep home-heating bills in the months ahead on top of high prices at the pump.
With most other prices relatively tame, consumers could weather the energy squeeze if they had a cushion. They don't.
Wage gains for most Americans are barely keeping up with inflation. And according to a recent Commerce Department report, Americans, on average, are now saving nothing each month, so they obviously cannot pay higher energy bills by reducing the amount they save.
That leaves rising home values to cover growing energy costs. According to a recent report by John Makin, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, the housing boom has offset the economic drag of higher oil prices by enabling homeowners to get cash through refinancing or selling at a profit, and by creating a "wealth effect": as their houses appreciate, homeowners feel rich and thus spend freely, even as they neglect to save.
Mr. Makin estimates that a mere leveling off of housing prices would be sufficient to remove the economic boost from real estate. That would slow consumer spending and, with it, the economy.
No one knows when that leveling off will occur. But homes are already becoming increasingly unaffordable, and refinancings are slowing down. There are early signs that banks are beginning to tighten their lending standards. And the Federal Reserve, which has been trying for more than a year to push up mortgage rates, will probably succeed in that endeavor at some point.
The pain that now seems imminent might have been avoided. Conservation could have reduced energy demand and prices, while properly targeted job growth and savings incentives - not tax cuts for the rich - could have built a stronger job recovery, helping to foster higher wages and new savings. Maybe next time around.
And: World running out of time for oil alternatives
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/18/MTFH69017_2005-08-18_13-53-52_SCH850008.html
Time to go look at a hybrid.....
Thursday, August 18
Is there anybody in there?
Well, George. Here are the likeliest replacements for your gig, and they're not on vacation:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050818/ap_on_go_co/climate_change_alaska
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050818/ap_on_go_co/climate_change_alaska
Wednesday, August 17
Asses
"What we expected to achieve [in Iraq] was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground."
—A senior Bush administration official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB9AGBFCCE.html
State Department experts warned CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans for post-war Iraq security
Planning for post-Saddam regime change began as early as October 2001
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm
—A senior Bush administration official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB9AGBFCCE.html
State Department experts warned CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans for post-war Iraq security
Planning for post-Saddam regime change began as early as October 2001
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm
Tuesday, August 16
Sunday, August 14
How would you like your Oil done?
Bets and I, having recently waethered a spate of obsessive 'whatifweboughtahouse'-ed-ness, have turned now to the logic (or not) of rolling our savings into a hybrid vehicle. Now that the general public is responding to (suddenly very real) concerns about gas costs, and the incipient questions voluntarily raised about oil, war, politics, the price of bananas, economic bubbles, climatic change, and 'stuff'; its a whole new world. Truthfully, its been new for longer than programming and our careers would allow. But perhaps clarity meets us more often than in the past at the gas pump.
So, I think the Prius is a worthy vehicle, especially considering the quite real possibility of $5.00 a gallon. And now that the monolithic auto industry is beginning to explore the profit possibilities in hybridized fleets, american consumers no doubt can chart a new course.
Which reminds me of the most recent book to delight me. Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress is a much less than 200 page summation of human/bipedal culture and history as it pertains to where we stand in the Cosmos today. If you (may) find yourself outside the 'Jesus Gonna Be Here Soon' camp, thereby omitting the divine salvation/happy ending COP-OUT that gives license to all-sort of curious behavior, this book I highly recommend.
Excerpts:
"Despite certain events in the twentieth century, most people in the Western cultural tradition still believe in the Victorian ideal of progress, a belief succinctly defined by the historian Sidney Pollard in 1968 as "the assumption that a pattern of change exists in the history of mankind ...that it consists of irreversible changes in one direction only, and that this direction is toward improvement."
Our practical faith in progress has ramified and hardened into an ideology- a secular religion which, like the religions that progress has challenged, is blind to certain flaws in its credentials. Progress, therefore, has become a myth in the anthropological sense."
Using the best of scientific and historical analysis from the last century, as well as breaking news 'about Your World, for You, Right Now' in political, cultural, and environmental patterns Wright connects the dots in a world become increasingly frenetic and distracted. Do read!
So, I think the Prius is a worthy vehicle, especially considering the quite real possibility of $5.00 a gallon. And now that the monolithic auto industry is beginning to explore the profit possibilities in hybridized fleets, american consumers no doubt can chart a new course.
Which reminds me of the most recent book to delight me. Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress is a much less than 200 page summation of human/bipedal culture and history as it pertains to where we stand in the Cosmos today. If you (may) find yourself outside the 'Jesus Gonna Be Here Soon' camp, thereby omitting the divine salvation/happy ending COP-OUT that gives license to all-sort of curious behavior, this book I highly recommend.
Excerpts:
"Despite certain events in the twentieth century, most people in the Western cultural tradition still believe in the Victorian ideal of progress, a belief succinctly defined by the historian Sidney Pollard in 1968 as "the assumption that a pattern of change exists in the history of mankind ...that it consists of irreversible changes in one direction only, and that this direction is toward improvement."
Our practical faith in progress has ramified and hardened into an ideology- a secular religion which, like the religions that progress has challenged, is blind to certain flaws in its credentials. Progress, therefore, has become a myth in the anthropological sense."
Using the best of scientific and historical analysis from the last century, as well as breaking news 'about Your World, for You, Right Now' in political, cultural, and environmental patterns Wright connects the dots in a world become increasingly frenetic and distracted. Do read!
Saturday, August 13
Thursday, August 11
national nutritional priorities
Feds Aren't Subsidizing Recommended Foods
August 10, 2005 1:15 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - The government says half your diet should be fruits and vegetables, but it doesn't subsidize the farmers who grow them.
Instead, half of all federal agriculture subsidies go to grain farmers, whose crops feed animals for meat, milk and eggs and become cheap ingredients in processed food.
What's wrong with that?
"Obesity. That's clearly the problem, if you look at the outcome in today's society," said Andy Fischer, executive director of the Community Food Security Coalition, a Venice, Calif., advocacy group.
Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. People clearly are getting the calories they need and more, but they're not getting enough nutrition, diet and disease experts say.
The government's new food pyramid, unveiled in April by the Agriculture Department, aims to improve the nation's health. It recommends that people eat fewer calories and more fruit, vegetables, lowfat milk and whole grains. It also tells people to avoid foods made with partially hydrogenated oils and sweeteners.
Federal farm programs, on the other hand, aim to maintain the financial health of American agriculture. Subsidies encourage an abundant supply of corn, wheat, rice and soybeans. Much of the corn and soybeans is fed to livestock. Some also is turned into nutrition-poor ingredients in processed food for people. For example, toaster pastries contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil that gives them a flaky texture, and they contain high-fructose corn syrup to sweeten their fruit filling. That translates to lots of calories, lots of artery-clogging fat and little or no fiber.
Such foods are becoming progressively cheaper, while the price of fruit and vegetables is rising, said Adam Drewnowski, professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington.
"If we tell a family, you really ought to be eating more salads and fresh fruit, and this is a low-income family, we're essentially encouraging them to spend more money," Drewnowski said.
Many groups are pushing to link farm programs, which are due for an overhaul in 2007, more closely to government nutrition goals.
"Here we are as a society, talking constantly about obesity and diets, and yet our farm policies are not structured to encourage the kind of diet that the food pyramid suggests we should adopt," said Ralph Grossi, president of American Farmland Trust, a Washington-based group that advocates conservation on farm and ranch land.
Here is what the food pyramid says you should eat, based on a 2,000-calorie daily diet:
-3 cups of fat-free or lowfat milk or cheese.
-2 1/2 cups of vegetables.
-2 cups of fruit.
-6 ounces of grains.
-5 1/2 ounces of meat or beans.
Your plate would look quite different if it matched farm subsidies. Estimated to cost $17 billion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the breakdown of farm subsidies includes:
-$7.3 billion for corn and other feed grains.
-$3.5 billion for cotton.
-$1.6 billion for soybeans.
-$1.5 billion for wheat.
-$1.5 billion for tobacco.
-$686 million for dairy.
-$626 million for rice.
-$271 million for peanuts.
The Agriculture Department doesn't just hand out subsidies to farmers and tell people what they should eat. It operates school lunch and food stamp programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC. It also runs the Forest Service and oversees land conservation efforts.
With 100,000 employees and a $95 billion annual budget that includes the farm subsidies, the department has many different objectives, said Keith Collins, the agency's chief economist.
While farm subsidies are intended to provide some income stability and financial assistance to producers, Collins said climate and market prices are much bigger factors when farmers choose what to grow.
"You're not going to find corn in California," he said. "You're not going to find wine grapes in other areas like you find them there."
He pointed out the government does help fruit and vegetable growers: They have access to federal crop insurance, and the department spends more than $400 million a year buying produce and other commodities for the school lunch program, purchasing everything from almonds and asparagus to pineapples and turkey.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has begun a series of "listening sessions" across the country to gather input for the next farm bill, which dictates how subsidies are distributed. But the department doesn't write the farm bill. Congress does.
That's where the influence of the major farm groups comes in. Groups that lobby together on behalf of subsidized crops have more than 60 years of experience under their belts.
"Those are the guys that have been together. They have been through a lot of fights on cutting funding and changing programs," said Mary Kay Thatcher, lobbyist for American Farm Bureau Federation. The federation is the nation's largest general farm organization, which has members who grow subsidized crops as well as produce.
Produce groups, on the other hand, are more loosely knit and have different interests, she said. Rather than lobby for subsidies, they've sought marketing assistance, more dollars for farmers' markets and more government purchases of fresh fruit for schools.
"We don't want to be subsidized, we want our industry to get its fair share of federal support," said Tom Nassif, president of Western Growers Association, which represents fruit, vegetable and nut producers in California and Arizona. "The fact is, we are of equal value to the program crops."
---
On the Net:
Agriculture Department: http://www.usda.gov
August 10, 2005 1:15 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - The government says half your diet should be fruits and vegetables, but it doesn't subsidize the farmers who grow them.
Instead, half of all federal agriculture subsidies go to grain farmers, whose crops feed animals for meat, milk and eggs and become cheap ingredients in processed food.
What's wrong with that?
"Obesity. That's clearly the problem, if you look at the outcome in today's society," said Andy Fischer, executive director of the Community Food Security Coalition, a Venice, Calif., advocacy group.
Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. People clearly are getting the calories they need and more, but they're not getting enough nutrition, diet and disease experts say.
The government's new food pyramid, unveiled in April by the Agriculture Department, aims to improve the nation's health. It recommends that people eat fewer calories and more fruit, vegetables, lowfat milk and whole grains. It also tells people to avoid foods made with partially hydrogenated oils and sweeteners.
Federal farm programs, on the other hand, aim to maintain the financial health of American agriculture. Subsidies encourage an abundant supply of corn, wheat, rice and soybeans. Much of the corn and soybeans is fed to livestock. Some also is turned into nutrition-poor ingredients in processed food for people. For example, toaster pastries contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil that gives them a flaky texture, and they contain high-fructose corn syrup to sweeten their fruit filling. That translates to lots of calories, lots of artery-clogging fat and little or no fiber.
Such foods are becoming progressively cheaper, while the price of fruit and vegetables is rising, said Adam Drewnowski, professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington.
"If we tell a family, you really ought to be eating more salads and fresh fruit, and this is a low-income family, we're essentially encouraging them to spend more money," Drewnowski said.
Many groups are pushing to link farm programs, which are due for an overhaul in 2007, more closely to government nutrition goals.
"Here we are as a society, talking constantly about obesity and diets, and yet our farm policies are not structured to encourage the kind of diet that the food pyramid suggests we should adopt," said Ralph Grossi, president of American Farmland Trust, a Washington-based group that advocates conservation on farm and ranch land.
Here is what the food pyramid says you should eat, based on a 2,000-calorie daily diet:
-3 cups of fat-free or lowfat milk or cheese.
-2 1/2 cups of vegetables.
-2 cups of fruit.
-6 ounces of grains.
-5 1/2 ounces of meat or beans.
Your plate would look quite different if it matched farm subsidies. Estimated to cost $17 billion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the breakdown of farm subsidies includes:
-$7.3 billion for corn and other feed grains.
-$3.5 billion for cotton.
-$1.6 billion for soybeans.
-$1.5 billion for wheat.
-$1.5 billion for tobacco.
-$686 million for dairy.
-$626 million for rice.
-$271 million for peanuts.
The Agriculture Department doesn't just hand out subsidies to farmers and tell people what they should eat. It operates school lunch and food stamp programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC. It also runs the Forest Service and oversees land conservation efforts.
With 100,000 employees and a $95 billion annual budget that includes the farm subsidies, the department has many different objectives, said Keith Collins, the agency's chief economist.
While farm subsidies are intended to provide some income stability and financial assistance to producers, Collins said climate and market prices are much bigger factors when farmers choose what to grow.
"You're not going to find corn in California," he said. "You're not going to find wine grapes in other areas like you find them there."
He pointed out the government does help fruit and vegetable growers: They have access to federal crop insurance, and the department spends more than $400 million a year buying produce and other commodities for the school lunch program, purchasing everything from almonds and asparagus to pineapples and turkey.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has begun a series of "listening sessions" across the country to gather input for the next farm bill, which dictates how subsidies are distributed. But the department doesn't write the farm bill. Congress does.
That's where the influence of the major farm groups comes in. Groups that lobby together on behalf of subsidized crops have more than 60 years of experience under their belts.
"Those are the guys that have been together. They have been through a lot of fights on cutting funding and changing programs," said Mary Kay Thatcher, lobbyist for American Farm Bureau Federation. The federation is the nation's largest general farm organization, which has members who grow subsidized crops as well as produce.
Produce groups, on the other hand, are more loosely knit and have different interests, she said. Rather than lobby for subsidies, they've sought marketing assistance, more dollars for farmers' markets and more government purchases of fresh fruit for schools.
"We don't want to be subsidized, we want our industry to get its fair share of federal support," said Tom Nassif, president of Western Growers Association, which represents fruit, vegetable and nut producers in California and Arizona. "The fact is, we are of equal value to the program crops."
---
On the Net:
Agriculture Department: http://www.usda.gov
Wednesday, August 10
best direktor
"In theory," I say, "you should be the accomplished artist who says complex and interesting things, and I'll be the benevolent parasite who encourages you and pretends to understand what you're talking about."
"In theory," says Jarmusch, sucking down a healthy dose of smoke. "We'll see about that."
In art school, one of my painting instructors took our class to see a film called Stranger Than Paradise. That was Jarmusch's first commercial release, and I became an instant fan. Over the next two decades, I followed faithfully as Jarmusch continued to create these heroically small, inimitably patient pictures, filled with austere absurdities and precise, silent punch lines: Down by Law (1986), Mystery Train (1989), Night on Earth (1991), Dead Man (1995), the Neil Young and Crazy Horse concert film/documentary Year of the Horse (1997), Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999) and Coffee and Cigarettes (2003), which he'd begun in 1986 as a series of black-and-white shorts. One of those shorts featured Bill Murray, star of Jarmusch's newest work, Broken Flowers, which recently received the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes.
"Did you know Bill Murray before Coffee and Cigarettes?"
"Yeah, but not really. I wrote a script for Bill in 2001.
Bill Murray's ability to reveal Johnston's simultaneous anxieties and exhaustion without discernibly moving a muscle is a constant and solid pleasure to behold. It's some of his best work. The same _expression passes over Johnston's face when he regards a young girl annoying him with her toy horse on an airplane as when he finds himself painfully alone with an ex's daughter, Lolita (Alexis Dziena), parading through the house in the altogether. Same _expression, but the one appearance wields fatherly authority as clearly as the other betrays vulnerability, lust and fear. How the hell did Murray do that?
"He's a master of that minimal thing," says Jarmusch. "Which is kind of odd for someone initially known for painting in broad comedic strokes. And then to see him work with a tiny, fine, one-haired brush like that, you know? He's really pretty amazing. He can go either way, as far as you want him to."
In general, Jarmusch makes films wherein the pauses and inactions are as important as what transpires between them. But it's difficult to describe inactions in a script, and a venerable Hollywood equation--one page of script equals one minute onscreen--generally prevents studios from investing in such things. As a rule, no studio will even consider producing, for example, a 59-page script as a feature. Won't even look at it.
"The Huns cross Europe, raping and pillaging," says Jarmusch. "You know? That's only half a line, so that must take 12 seconds."
"The cells divide," I propose, "and the race wipes itself out. Five seconds."
"World war decimates the planet."
"My criticism of Hollywood is not that they make films that way, or that films are commercial products in their minds. That doesn't bother me. That's the nature of the 'entertainment industry,' or whatever. My real criticism is that they're so timid. They just force shit down people's throats because of their very conservative marketing analysis and all that. But it's always mysterious, what people are going to like. Even just on a business level--wouldn't it make sense to have a wider variety of products that cost less to produce? Wouldn't you have a better chance of increasing your profit margin? But I don't know. I'm not a business guy, so maybe I'm completely wrong."
Dave Shulman is a columnist for LA Weekly.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/23959/
"In theory," says Jarmusch, sucking down a healthy dose of smoke. "We'll see about that."
In art school, one of my painting instructors took our class to see a film called Stranger Than Paradise. That was Jarmusch's first commercial release, and I became an instant fan. Over the next two decades, I followed faithfully as Jarmusch continued to create these heroically small, inimitably patient pictures, filled with austere absurdities and precise, silent punch lines: Down by Law (1986), Mystery Train (1989), Night on Earth (1991), Dead Man (1995), the Neil Young and Crazy Horse concert film/documentary Year of the Horse (1997), Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999) and Coffee and Cigarettes (2003), which he'd begun in 1986 as a series of black-and-white shorts. One of those shorts featured Bill Murray, star of Jarmusch's newest work, Broken Flowers, which recently received the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes.
"Did you know Bill Murray before Coffee and Cigarettes?"
"Yeah, but not really. I wrote a script for Bill in 2001.
Bill Murray's ability to reveal Johnston's simultaneous anxieties and exhaustion without discernibly moving a muscle is a constant and solid pleasure to behold. It's some of his best work. The same _expression passes over Johnston's face when he regards a young girl annoying him with her toy horse on an airplane as when he finds himself painfully alone with an ex's daughter, Lolita (Alexis Dziena), parading through the house in the altogether. Same _expression, but the one appearance wields fatherly authority as clearly as the other betrays vulnerability, lust and fear. How the hell did Murray do that?
"He's a master of that minimal thing," says Jarmusch. "Which is kind of odd for someone initially known for painting in broad comedic strokes. And then to see him work with a tiny, fine, one-haired brush like that, you know? He's really pretty amazing. He can go either way, as far as you want him to."
In general, Jarmusch makes films wherein the pauses and inactions are as important as what transpires between them. But it's difficult to describe inactions in a script, and a venerable Hollywood equation--one page of script equals one minute onscreen--generally prevents studios from investing in such things. As a rule, no studio will even consider producing, for example, a 59-page script as a feature. Won't even look at it.
"The Huns cross Europe, raping and pillaging," says Jarmusch. "You know? That's only half a line, so that must take 12 seconds."
"The cells divide," I propose, "and the race wipes itself out. Five seconds."
"World war decimates the planet."
"My criticism of Hollywood is not that they make films that way, or that films are commercial products in their minds. That doesn't bother me. That's the nature of the 'entertainment industry,' or whatever. My real criticism is that they're so timid. They just force shit down people's throats because of their very conservative marketing analysis and all that. But it's always mysterious, what people are going to like. Even just on a business level--wouldn't it make sense to have a wider variety of products that cost less to produce? Wouldn't you have a better chance of increasing your profit margin? But I don't know. I'm not a business guy, so maybe I'm completely wrong."
Dave Shulman is a columnist for LA Weekly.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/23959/
Housing Vs. Salary Quandary
We just weathered a commited urge to purchase; two weeks of study, research and even touring of 'homes' in Colorado. Suffice to say discouragement was as much a reason for not plunging in as plans for going anywhere else. This (below) is as real as any blue-blooded truth in America today, tho you don't hear much beyond 'BUY NOW, FOR GODS SAKE!'. Lets discuss, all ye who remain....
Study: Even once-affordable cities now too pricey for many
By Jennifer C. Kerr, Associated PressAugust 9, 2005
WASHINGTON - Housing prices are far outstripping salary increases for low- and moderate-income jobs, putting the American dream of owning a home beyond the reach of teachers, firefighters and other community workers in many cities, said a study being released today. The report, by a coalition advocating affordable housing, found that even cities once considered affordable, such as Tulsa, Okla., are rapidly becoming too pricey for lower-income workers such as janitors and retail sales employees.
Six Colorado areas are listed in the study, which found the median price of a home in the United States rose 20 percent in just 18 months, to $225,000. During that time, wages for teachers, firefighters and nurses in most cities remained flat or increased slightly but still fell far short of the salary needed to buy a home, the report from the Center for Housing Policy said.
For example, the median household income for a nurse rose 10 percent between 2003 and 2005, to about $36,000. For a firefighter, wages were flat, remaining at about $37,000 a year. Those salaries don't come close to the $71,000 annual income needed to qualify to purchase a $225,000 home. The number is based on a down payment of 10 percent.
"It's not just the level of housing prices vs. wages but the fact that, especially in some areas, the housing prices are growing so much faster," said Barbara Lipman, the research director for the center. "It's creating this dynamic where people who work these jobs must feel like they'll never catch up. The dream of home ownership may be unattainable."
The study looked at incomes for more than 60 occupations including janitors to accountants. It examined housing prices for nearly 200 metropolitan areas from the fourth quarter of 2003 to the first quarter of this year.
The least affordable places were the usual suspects: San Francisco, Orange County, Calif., and Northeast cities such as New York and Boston. Some of the most affordable places were in the Midwest, such as Waterloo, Iowa; Saginaw, Mich.; and Lima and Youngstown, Ohio.
But Lipman said even cities such as Tulsa and Minneapolis, traditionally thought of as more affordable, are now a concern.
"We're seeing a problem in areas where you'd expect and then beyond that because of the flatness of the wage growth and the increased pressures on home prices and rents," she said.
State affordability
•Six Colorado metro areas are included in a study on affordable housing released today by the Center for Housing Policy:
City Median home price Income needed*
Boulder $285,000 $90,382
Colorado Springs $180,000 $57,083
Denver $220,000 $69,768
Fort Collins$216,000 $68,500
Greeley $191,000 $60,572
Pueblo $116,000 $36,787
• On the Web: Housing affordability by area and occupation, http://www.nhc.org/chp/p2p/* Annual income needed to afford to buy a median-priced home and make at least a 10 percent down payment.
Krugman weighs in http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12krugman.html?th&emc=th
Study: Even once-affordable cities now too pricey for many
By Jennifer C. Kerr, Associated PressAugust 9, 2005
WASHINGTON - Housing prices are far outstripping salary increases for low- and moderate-income jobs, putting the American dream of owning a home beyond the reach of teachers, firefighters and other community workers in many cities, said a study being released today. The report, by a coalition advocating affordable housing, found that even cities once considered affordable, such as Tulsa, Okla., are rapidly becoming too pricey for lower-income workers such as janitors and retail sales employees.
Six Colorado areas are listed in the study, which found the median price of a home in the United States rose 20 percent in just 18 months, to $225,000. During that time, wages for teachers, firefighters and nurses in most cities remained flat or increased slightly but still fell far short of the salary needed to buy a home, the report from the Center for Housing Policy said.
For example, the median household income for a nurse rose 10 percent between 2003 and 2005, to about $36,000. For a firefighter, wages were flat, remaining at about $37,000 a year. Those salaries don't come close to the $71,000 annual income needed to qualify to purchase a $225,000 home. The number is based on a down payment of 10 percent.
"It's not just the level of housing prices vs. wages but the fact that, especially in some areas, the housing prices are growing so much faster," said Barbara Lipman, the research director for the center. "It's creating this dynamic where people who work these jobs must feel like they'll never catch up. The dream of home ownership may be unattainable."
The study looked at incomes for more than 60 occupations including janitors to accountants. It examined housing prices for nearly 200 metropolitan areas from the fourth quarter of 2003 to the first quarter of this year.
The least affordable places were the usual suspects: San Francisco, Orange County, Calif., and Northeast cities such as New York and Boston. Some of the most affordable places were in the Midwest, such as Waterloo, Iowa; Saginaw, Mich.; and Lima and Youngstown, Ohio.
But Lipman said even cities such as Tulsa and Minneapolis, traditionally thought of as more affordable, are now a concern.
"We're seeing a problem in areas where you'd expect and then beyond that because of the flatness of the wage growth and the increased pressures on home prices and rents," she said.
State affordability
•Six Colorado metro areas are included in a study on affordable housing released today by the Center for Housing Policy:
City Median home price Income needed*
Boulder $285,000 $90,382
Colorado Springs $180,000 $57,083
Denver $220,000 $69,768
Fort Collins$216,000 $68,500
Greeley $191,000 $60,572
Pueblo $116,000 $36,787
• On the Web: Housing affordability by area and occupation, http://www.nhc.org/chp/p2p/* Annual income needed to afford to buy a median-priced home and make at least a 10 percent down payment.
Krugman weighs in http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12krugman.html?th&emc=th
Tuesday, August 9
All World's Glaciers Could Melt?
(See http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-05-05.asp if you want the pictures)ZURICH, Switzerland, August 5, 2005 (ENS)
- Global warming caused by human activities may result in the complete disappearance of glaciers from entire mountain ranges, according to the latest update of a United Nations supported report issued once every five years. The World Glacier Monitoring Service warns that the greenhouse effect is leading to processes "without precedent in the history of the Earth." "The last five-year period of the 20th century has been characterized by an overall tendency of continuous if not accelerated glacier melting," says the World Glacier Monitoring Service 1995-2000 edition of the Fluctuations of Glaciers report, complied with the support of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Analysis of repeated inventories shows that glaciers in the European Alps have lost more than 50 percent of their volume since the middle of the 19th century, and that a further loss of roughly one fourth the remaining volume is estimated to have occurred since the 1970s, the report states. "With a realistic scenario of future atmospheric warming, almost complete deglaciation of many mountain ranges could occur within decades, leaving only some ice on the very highest peaks," it says. Concern increases that the ongoing trend of worldwide and fast if not accelerating glacier shrinkage at the century time scale is of non-cyclic nature. While earlier reports anticipated a periodic variation in glaciers, "there is definitely no more question of the originally envisaged "variations périodiques des glaciers" as a natural cyclical phenomenon, the latest report states. "Due to the human impacts on the climate system (enhanced greenhouse effect), dramatic scenarios of future developments – including complete deglaciation of entire mountain ranges – must be taken into consideration," it emphasizes. The report says, "Such scenarios may lead far beyond the range of historical/holocene variability and most likely introduce processes without precedence in the history of the Earth." The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Greenhouse gases emitted by the combustion of coal, oil and gas form a atmospheric blanket, trapping the Sun's heat close to the planet and raising the surface temperature. The World Glacier Monitoring Service is online at: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/
- Global warming caused by human activities may result in the complete disappearance of glaciers from entire mountain ranges, according to the latest update of a United Nations supported report issued once every five years. The World Glacier Monitoring Service warns that the greenhouse effect is leading to processes "without precedent in the history of the Earth." "The last five-year period of the 20th century has been characterized by an overall tendency of continuous if not accelerated glacier melting," says the World Glacier Monitoring Service 1995-2000 edition of the Fluctuations of Glaciers report, complied with the support of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Analysis of repeated inventories shows that glaciers in the European Alps have lost more than 50 percent of their volume since the middle of the 19th century, and that a further loss of roughly one fourth the remaining volume is estimated to have occurred since the 1970s, the report states. "With a realistic scenario of future atmospheric warming, almost complete deglaciation of many mountain ranges could occur within decades, leaving only some ice on the very highest peaks," it says. Concern increases that the ongoing trend of worldwide and fast if not accelerating glacier shrinkage at the century time scale is of non-cyclic nature. While earlier reports anticipated a periodic variation in glaciers, "there is definitely no more question of the originally envisaged "variations périodiques des glaciers" as a natural cyclical phenomenon, the latest report states. "Due to the human impacts on the climate system (enhanced greenhouse effect), dramatic scenarios of future developments – including complete deglaciation of entire mountain ranges – must be taken into consideration," it emphasizes. The report says, "Such scenarios may lead far beyond the range of historical/holocene variability and most likely introduce processes without precedence in the history of the Earth." The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Greenhouse gases emitted by the combustion of coal, oil and gas form a atmospheric blanket, trapping the Sun's heat close to the planet and raising the surface temperature. The World Glacier Monitoring Service is online at: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/
Monday, August 8
doublspeke?
August 5, 2005 12:13 PM PDT
Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived
Believe it or not, it's perfectly legal for police to rummage through your garbage for incriminating stuff on you -- even if they don't have a warrant or court approval.
The Supreme Court of Montana ruled last month that police could conduct a warrantless "trash dive" into the trash cans in the alley behind the home of a man named Darrell Pelvit. The cops discovered evidence of pseudoephedrine and Naptha -- a solvent with uses including the manufacture of methamphetamine -- and Pelvit eventually ended up in prison.
Pelvit's attorney argued that his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash, but the court rejected the argument and said the trash was, well, meant to be thrown away.
What's remarkable is the concurring opinion of Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson, who reluctantly went along with his colleagues but warned that George Orwell's 1984 had arrived. We reproduce his concurring opinion in full:
Justice James C. Nelson concurs.
I have signed our Opinion because we have correctly applied existing legal theory and constitutional jurisprudence to resolve this case on its facts.
I feel the pain of conflict, however. I fear that, eventually, we are all going to become collateral damage in the war on drugs, or terrorism, or whatever war is in vogue at the moment. I retain an abiding concern that our Declaration of Rights not be killed by friendly fire. And, in this day and age, the courts are the last, if not only, bulwark to prevent that from happening.
In truth, though, we area throw-away society. My garbage can contains the remains of what I eat and drink. It may contain discarded credit card receipts along with yesterday's newspaper and junk mail. It might hold some personal letters, bills, receipts, vouchers, medical records, photographs and stuff that is imprinted with the multitude of assigned numbers that allow me access to the global economy and vice versa.
My garbage can contains my DNA.
As our Opinion states, what we voluntarily throw away, what we discard--i.e., what we abandon--is fair game for roving animals, scavengers, busybodies, crooks and for those seeking evidence of criminal enterprise.
Yet, as I expect with most people, when I take the day's trash (neatly packaged in opaque plastic bags) to the garbage can each night, I give little consideration to what I am throwing away and less thought, still, to what might become of my refuse. I don't necessarily envision that someone or something is going to paw through it looking for a morsel of food, a discarded treasure, a stealable part of my identity or a piece of evidence. But, I've seen that happen enough times to understand--though not graciously accept--that there is nothing sacred in whatever privacy interest I think I have retained in my trash once it leaves my control--the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Sections 10 and 11, notwithstanding.
Like it or not, I live in a society that accepts virtual strip searches at airports; surveillance cameras; "discount" cards that record my buying habits; bar codes; "cookies" and spywear on my computer; on-line access to satellite technology that can image my back yard; and microchip radio frequency identification devices already implanted in the family dog and soon to be integrated into my groceries, my credit cards, my cash and my new underwear.
I know that the notes from the visit to my doctor's office may be transcribed in some overseas country under an out-sourcing contract by a person who couldn't care less about my privacy. I know that there are all sorts of businesses that have records of what medications I take and why. I know that information taken from my blood sample may wind up in databases and be put to uses that the boilerplate on the sheaf of papers I sign to get medical treatment doesn't even begin to disclose. I know that my insurance companies and employer know more about me than does my mother. I know that many aspects of my life are available on the Internet. Even a black box in my car--or event data recorder as they are called--is ready and willing to spill the beans on my driving habits, if I have an event--and I really trusted that car, too.
And, I also know that my most unwelcome and paternalistic relative, Uncle Sam, is with me from womb to tomb. Fueled by the paranoia of "ists" and "isms," Sam has the capability of spying on everything and everybody--and no doubt is. But, as Sam says: "It's for my own good."
In short, I know that my personal information is recorded in databases, servers, hard drives and file cabinets all over the world. I know that these portals to the most intimate details of my life are restricted only by the degree of sophistication and goodwill or malevolence of the person, institution, corporation or government that wants access to my data.
I also know that much of my life can be reconstructed from the contents of my garbage can.
I don't like living in Orwell's 1984; but I do. And, absent the next extinction event or civil libertarians taking charge of the government (the former being more likely than the latter), the best we can do is try to keep Sam and the sub-Sams on a short leash.
As our Opinion states, search and seizure jurisprudence is centered around privacy expectations and reasonableness considerations. That is true even under the extended protections afforded by Montana's Constitution, Article II, Sections 10. and 11. We have ruled within those parameters. And, as is often the case, we have had to draw a fine line in a gray area. Justice Cotter and those who have signed the Opinion worked hard at defining that line; and I am satisfied we've drawn it correctly on the facts of this case and under the conventional law of abandonment.
That said, if this Opinion is used to justify a sweep of the trash cans of a neighborhood or community; or if a trash dive for Sudafed boxes and matchbooks results in DNA or fingerprints being added to a forensic database or results in personal or business records, credit card receipts, personal correspondence or other property being archived for some future use unrelated to the case at hand, then, absent a search warrant, I may well reconsider my legal position and approach to these sorts of cases--even if I have to think outside the garbage can to get there.
I concur.
Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived
Believe it or not, it's perfectly legal for police to rummage through your garbage for incriminating stuff on you -- even if they don't have a warrant or court approval.
The Supreme Court of Montana ruled last month that police could conduct a warrantless "trash dive" into the trash cans in the alley behind the home of a man named Darrell Pelvit. The cops discovered evidence of pseudoephedrine and Naptha -- a solvent with uses including the manufacture of methamphetamine -- and Pelvit eventually ended up in prison.
Pelvit's attorney argued that his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash, but the court rejected the argument and said the trash was, well, meant to be thrown away.
What's remarkable is the concurring opinion of Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson, who reluctantly went along with his colleagues but warned that George Orwell's 1984 had arrived. We reproduce his concurring opinion in full:
Justice James C. Nelson concurs.
I have signed our Opinion because we have correctly applied existing legal theory and constitutional jurisprudence to resolve this case on its facts.
I feel the pain of conflict, however. I fear that, eventually, we are all going to become collateral damage in the war on drugs, or terrorism, or whatever war is in vogue at the moment. I retain an abiding concern that our Declaration of Rights not be killed by friendly fire. And, in this day and age, the courts are the last, if not only, bulwark to prevent that from happening.
In truth, though, we area throw-away society. My garbage can contains the remains of what I eat and drink. It may contain discarded credit card receipts along with yesterday's newspaper and junk mail. It might hold some personal letters, bills, receipts, vouchers, medical records, photographs and stuff that is imprinted with the multitude of assigned numbers that allow me access to the global economy and vice versa.
My garbage can contains my DNA.
As our Opinion states, what we voluntarily throw away, what we discard--i.e., what we abandon--is fair game for roving animals, scavengers, busybodies, crooks and for those seeking evidence of criminal enterprise.
Yet, as I expect with most people, when I take the day's trash (neatly packaged in opaque plastic bags) to the garbage can each night, I give little consideration to what I am throwing away and less thought, still, to what might become of my refuse. I don't necessarily envision that someone or something is going to paw through it looking for a morsel of food, a discarded treasure, a stealable part of my identity or a piece of evidence. But, I've seen that happen enough times to understand--though not graciously accept--that there is nothing sacred in whatever privacy interest I think I have retained in my trash once it leaves my control--the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Sections 10 and 11, notwithstanding.
Like it or not, I live in a society that accepts virtual strip searches at airports; surveillance cameras; "discount" cards that record my buying habits; bar codes; "cookies" and spywear on my computer; on-line access to satellite technology that can image my back yard; and microchip radio frequency identification devices already implanted in the family dog and soon to be integrated into my groceries, my credit cards, my cash and my new underwear.
I know that the notes from the visit to my doctor's office may be transcribed in some overseas country under an out-sourcing contract by a person who couldn't care less about my privacy. I know that there are all sorts of businesses that have records of what medications I take and why. I know that information taken from my blood sample may wind up in databases and be put to uses that the boilerplate on the sheaf of papers I sign to get medical treatment doesn't even begin to disclose. I know that my insurance companies and employer know more about me than does my mother. I know that many aspects of my life are available on the Internet. Even a black box in my car--or event data recorder as they are called--is ready and willing to spill the beans on my driving habits, if I have an event--and I really trusted that car, too.
And, I also know that my most unwelcome and paternalistic relative, Uncle Sam, is with me from womb to tomb. Fueled by the paranoia of "ists" and "isms," Sam has the capability of spying on everything and everybody--and no doubt is. But, as Sam says: "It's for my own good."
In short, I know that my personal information is recorded in databases, servers, hard drives and file cabinets all over the world. I know that these portals to the most intimate details of my life are restricted only by the degree of sophistication and goodwill or malevolence of the person, institution, corporation or government that wants access to my data.
I also know that much of my life can be reconstructed from the contents of my garbage can.
I don't like living in Orwell's 1984; but I do. And, absent the next extinction event or civil libertarians taking charge of the government (the former being more likely than the latter), the best we can do is try to keep Sam and the sub-Sams on a short leash.
As our Opinion states, search and seizure jurisprudence is centered around privacy expectations and reasonableness considerations. That is true even under the extended protections afforded by Montana's Constitution, Article II, Sections 10. and 11. We have ruled within those parameters. And, as is often the case, we have had to draw a fine line in a gray area. Justice Cotter and those who have signed the Opinion worked hard at defining that line; and I am satisfied we've drawn it correctly on the facts of this case and under the conventional law of abandonment.
That said, if this Opinion is used to justify a sweep of the trash cans of a neighborhood or community; or if a trash dive for Sudafed boxes and matchbooks results in DNA or fingerprints being added to a forensic database or results in personal or business records, credit card receipts, personal correspondence or other property being archived for some future use unrelated to the case at hand, then, absent a search warrant, I may well reconsider my legal position and approach to these sorts of cases--even if I have to think outside the garbage can to get there.
I concur.
Wednesday, August 3
Tuesday, August 2
Oil Companies Discover Sustainability
By Charles I. Burch, Prairie Writers Circle. Posted July 30, 2005.
The companies have yet to admit that no scheme for providing sustainable energy can rely on petroleum.
More stories by Charles I. Burch
Sustainability is big in corporate America today. The word, that is. Once an arcane term used chiefly by foresters and agricultural researchers, "sustainable" has become the label of choice that executives use to describe their businesses.
Perhaps the most laughable of the newly "sustainable" corporations are the oil companies. Pumping a finite resource like oil out of the ground must be one of the least sustainable endeavors on the planet. But this doesn't bother the oil industry, which knows a powerful public relations word when it sees one.
The most recent ConocoPhillips annual report has a section titled "Technology Achieving Long-term Sustainability," and the CEO writes of the company's "sustainable growth plan." Annual reports from ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil speak of "sustainable development." And BP and Shell issue reports on the sustainability of their operations. There are even auditors willing, for a fee, to vouch for the statements in these "sustainability" reports.
All this when Arthur R. Green, lecturer for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and former chief geoscientist of ExxonMobil, says world oil production is nearing its peak.
The history of U.S. oil production is instructive.
Domestic oil output steadily rose until it peaked in 1970. Since then production has declined despite the technological know-how of domestic oil companies and the considerable incentive of high prices. Domestic oil production in 2003 was less than 60 percent of its 1970 level.
To meet our demand we import foreign oil. More than 56 percent of what we used in 2003 came from other countries, and the proportion increases every year.
Increase, taper off, then decrease -- world oil production will follow the same pattern. Some experts think world output is very near its peak already, while others say the peak will arrive sometime between now and 2050.
Five complications make this grim picture even bleaker.
First, the world's largest oil reserves tend to be in countries with unstable governments. Unrest can disrupt supply.
Second, insiders have been suspicious for some time about oil reserve figures claimed by certain Middle Eastern countries. In 1987 the United Arab Emirates claimed reserves of 33 billion barrels; in 1988 they claimed 98 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Iraq and some other Middle Eastern countries also reported similarly implausible sudden increases. These figures probably owe more to politics than sound science.
Third, China, until 1993 a net oil exporter, now imports more than 40 percent of its oil and is the world's third largest importer, after the United States and Japan. With 1.3 billion people, one-fifth of the world's population, and an economy that has quadrupled since 1978, China is developing a world-class thirst for oil. China and the rest of Asia now consume about as much oil as the United States.
Fourth, as demand climbs past supply, already high oil prices will rise even higher. The "energy crisis" of the 1970s showed how sensitive overall inflation, interest rates and the stock market are to increased oil prices. The oil squeeze will not just raise the cost of energy. It will affect the entire economy.
Fifth, even as oil becomes more scarce, development of replacement fuels remains on the back burner. Do not expect the oil companies to do more than token research on other fuels. True, they do have experience taking on large projects and have sophisticated ways of analyzing risk. But their investment and expertise are in petroleum.
If an oil company makes a genuine sustainability breakthrough -- figuring out, for example, how to make hydrogen efficiently with solar power -- you can be sure the company will publicize this rather than promote the pleasant fiction that its current operations are sustainable. The reality is that no scheme for providing energy sustainably can rely on petroleum.
But do not expect to hear that from oil executives.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/23805/
The companies have yet to admit that no scheme for providing sustainable energy can rely on petroleum.
More stories by Charles I. Burch
Sustainability is big in corporate America today. The word, that is. Once an arcane term used chiefly by foresters and agricultural researchers, "sustainable" has become the label of choice that executives use to describe their businesses.
Perhaps the most laughable of the newly "sustainable" corporations are the oil companies. Pumping a finite resource like oil out of the ground must be one of the least sustainable endeavors on the planet. But this doesn't bother the oil industry, which knows a powerful public relations word when it sees one.
The most recent ConocoPhillips annual report has a section titled "Technology Achieving Long-term Sustainability," and the CEO writes of the company's "sustainable growth plan." Annual reports from ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil speak of "sustainable development." And BP and Shell issue reports on the sustainability of their operations. There are even auditors willing, for a fee, to vouch for the statements in these "sustainability" reports.
All this when Arthur R. Green, lecturer for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and former chief geoscientist of ExxonMobil, says world oil production is nearing its peak.
The history of U.S. oil production is instructive.
Domestic oil output steadily rose until it peaked in 1970. Since then production has declined despite the technological know-how of domestic oil companies and the considerable incentive of high prices. Domestic oil production in 2003 was less than 60 percent of its 1970 level.
To meet our demand we import foreign oil. More than 56 percent of what we used in 2003 came from other countries, and the proportion increases every year.
Increase, taper off, then decrease -- world oil production will follow the same pattern. Some experts think world output is very near its peak already, while others say the peak will arrive sometime between now and 2050.
Five complications make this grim picture even bleaker.
First, the world's largest oil reserves tend to be in countries with unstable governments. Unrest can disrupt supply.
Second, insiders have been suspicious for some time about oil reserve figures claimed by certain Middle Eastern countries. In 1987 the United Arab Emirates claimed reserves of 33 billion barrels; in 1988 they claimed 98 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Iraq and some other Middle Eastern countries also reported similarly implausible sudden increases. These figures probably owe more to politics than sound science.
Third, China, until 1993 a net oil exporter, now imports more than 40 percent of its oil and is the world's third largest importer, after the United States and Japan. With 1.3 billion people, one-fifth of the world's population, and an economy that has quadrupled since 1978, China is developing a world-class thirst for oil. China and the rest of Asia now consume about as much oil as the United States.
Fourth, as demand climbs past supply, already high oil prices will rise even higher. The "energy crisis" of the 1970s showed how sensitive overall inflation, interest rates and the stock market are to increased oil prices. The oil squeeze will not just raise the cost of energy. It will affect the entire economy.
Fifth, even as oil becomes more scarce, development of replacement fuels remains on the back burner. Do not expect the oil companies to do more than token research on other fuels. True, they do have experience taking on large projects and have sophisticated ways of analyzing risk. But their investment and expertise are in petroleum.
If an oil company makes a genuine sustainability breakthrough -- figuring out, for example, how to make hydrogen efficiently with solar power -- you can be sure the company will publicize this rather than promote the pleasant fiction that its current operations are sustainable. The reality is that no scheme for providing energy sustainably can rely on petroleum.
But do not expect to hear that from oil executives.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/23805/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)