So much to learn about the world; Wikipedia exposes- and cures- our ignorance

• Dec 22, 2007

So much to learn about the world; Wikipedia exposes- and cures- our ignorance

Amazing the amount of knowledge that there is even to be had, even more so that so much of it has been consolidated.

You learn the most interesting things, which you didn't even know you were looking for at first.

Here are a few of the things I would never have guessed, and have learned since yesterday:



1 In many countries/cultures around the world Santa Claus (or Saint Nick, or whoever) is accompanied by a demonic character, often named Knecht Ruprecht (Servant Rupert), or Krampus (Claw). While Santa gives gifts to good little children, it is the job of Rupert the Claw to punish the bad ones; slightly bad kids are hit with his cane or birch rod, very naughty children are likely to be put into his sack (like Santa's, but empty) and taken away.  A gentler version sometimes has him leaving behind coal or a bundle of sticks in lieu of the beating.
In Italy, in place of Santa is a woman who is an excellent housekeeper and host (and looks a bit like a friendly witch).  She set out to bring the baby Jesus gifts, but got lost, and so instead wanders the world giving gifts to all the children she does find.

2 The island country we know as Taiwan is actually officially called The Republic of China (as distinct from mainland China which is officially The Peoples Republic of China).  In deference to the demands of communist mainland China (PRC) in the UN and other diplomatic settings it is referred to as Chinese Taipei (Taipei is the capital city).
The government / political party which controls Taiwan/Republic of China controlled all of China (mainland and Taiwan) between the time the last dynasty/emperors were overthrown and when the communist party took power, and technically, they still consider all of China to be legitimately party of their territory.
The original inhabitants of Taiwan were most closely related to Polynesians, with Chinese settling there as early as the 1200s.  It was later colonized by the Dutch for 100 years or so, before being defeated by the Chinese when it became a province of China for around 200 years, before being taken over by Japan around the turn of the last century, which controlled it until losing WWII.  AS the communists began to win the civil war only a few years later millions of Chinese loyal to the democratic/capitalistic government fled to Taiwan, ever since running an independent and autonomous - although officially unrecognized - country.
Today 98% of the population is ethnically Chinese (12% of whom have only been there since WWII), only 2% are actually aboriginal Taiwanese.

3 In ancient Greece some of the most politically influential and independent women, and the only ones to be educated, were hetaera, who were among other things, prostitutes.  They filled a somewhat similar role as Japan's geishas or Europe’s courtesans providing entertainment and all forms, including not only sex but everything from music and dance to intelligent conversation.  As with geishas, in some circumstances a hetaera could be purchased outright by a single individual - in one case the price being equivalent to 8 years average salary.
hetaera were the only females who participated in the conversations at Symposiums, a party which was a cross between a place for intellectual discussion and a drinking party.  It seems that in general men were far more likely to be in love with their hetaera than with their wives, whose purpose was primarily only procreation and the upkeep of a household, however, in love or not, they could not marry, as hetaera were never citizens.

Just in time for Christmas

• Dec 17, 2007

Just in time for Christmas

The history and impact of American over-consumption, in easy to digest cartoon form


The Story of Stuff




A much more detailed and in depth documentary (these ideas were actually much more deliberate than most would assume)


The Century of The Self"

3 letters to Utne

• Dec 14, 2007

3 letters to Utne

I got a free copy of the Utne Reader at the SF Green festival.
First one I had ever read, although I recognized the name as something Aileen had recommended years ago.

It was chock full of interesting articles on a wide variety of important issues, many of which are relevant to me.  I think I'll subscribe.

Three articles inspired letters to the editor, (two of which are available to read on their website).

-------------

Salvage Beauty

I realize that the San Francisco Bay Area in CA is not necessarily representative of the rest of the country, but around here at least, this is not exactly news.

Our version of the "Loading Dock" - Urban Ore - in Berkeley, has been open for 25 years.
It opened originally with materials actually extracted from a landfill, and continues today with drop offs from haulers and donations from the public, as well as a recovery team at the nearby transfer station.
They are very profitable, employ a full time staff, and pay haulers and the public for high quality good condition items.
They have by now spawned a number of smaller copycat stores in the area, with somewhat more specialized focuses.

As a hauler myself, I face plenty of competition in this area from other haulers who, like myself, run their trucks on vegetable oil and donate / recycle / reuse and sell as much of what we pick up as possible.

Far from just making an incredible difference environmentally (both preventing landfill and reducing the need for new materials being made), it also makes great financial sense for everyone involved.
People shopping at a reuse store pay a fraction of what they would, many times for materials which are in excellent condition - sometimes never even used!
As a hauler, I pay much less in dump fees than I would if I simply disposed of everything in one place.
And that means that I in turn can afford to charge my customers a lot less.
Everyone wins.
I hope before long every city can take this concept as much for granted as we are able to here.
Until then, keep up the good work, reporting on stuff like this.

---------

Low Rent High Tech

One form of affordable and green housing which everyone always over looks is the RV park.

RVs as transportation are woefully inefficient, but keep one in one place...

RVs are designed to be able to run off of their own battery power and propane tanks off the grid for weeks or even months at a time.
Things like absorption cycle fridges and a tankless toilet (which have high premiums in home versions) come standard.

An RV uses less than 1/25th the electricity of the average American home, and around and 1/15th the average water.

At the same time, it is by far the least expensive (non-subsidized) form of housing. Both in the San Francisco Bay Area and 10 miles out of Manhattan (two of the most expensive areas in the country, where 1 bdrm apts can go for over $1500 a month) an RV space (with full hook-ups for water, electricity, phone, internet, cable, sewer, plus garbage and mail service) can be had for just over $400.

----------

America Incarcerated

I was very happy with my first ever issue of Utne, especially the unusually straight-forward and un-biased article on the issues surrounding the US prison system.  Expect a subscription after I finish this letter.

There were, however, a couple of points I wanted to add.
While it was, briefly, touched upon that everyone, regardless of circumstances, has personal choice and responsibility, it disturbed me how strong the implication was that certain circumstances "make" people commit crimes.  I am a black male, I grew up in a single parent home, on welfare and section 8 (subsidized housing), in a bad neighborhood where the sound of gun shots and police helicopters were only remarkable if they were actually on the same block as us. Not only have I not committed any violent crimes, I was never in any fights growing up, never been arrested, didn't drop out of school, etc. etc...
I don't think that anyone gets to use there living conditions as an excuse for their choices.  There is always something else a person could do to, say, make money to feed their children.

That being said, my larger issue is actually that the article did not go far enough in explaining society and history's role in creating the undeniable statistical trends which clearly parallel race lines.
While it was before any of our lifetimes, and we tend not to think of as real anything we can not personally remember, the truth is this is a very young country, and nothing in its time can be written off as ancient history. Slavery was incredibly recent: the civil war ended only 142 years ago.  (Contrast that to the time civilization has existed, around 5000 years).  That is in fact only about 2 lifetimes, or about 5 generations.
Meanwhile European Americans have had over 250 years to accumulate and pass down wealth.

In this country more than almost any other since the time of monarchies wealth is generated from already having wealth (which is literally the definition of capitalism), and inheritance is virtually unrestricted.

Most white families, (whether here from the beginning of the country, or immigrating here since then) started out with some amount of wealth (or had connections to someone here who did).  Freed slaves had literally nothing.  The reparations approved by congress never happened.  On top of that, Jim Crow and other discriminatory laws kept Blacks from accumulating any appreciable amount of wealth all the way up until the 1960s, a mere 47 years ago, less than a single lifetime.

That means that while white American families have been accumulating and passing down wealth for 10 generations, black American families are just getting started for the first time ever.

On top of that, our educational system is set up so that the primary source of funding is property and other local taxes, generally at the county level.  This means that wealthier areas are able to provide their kids with more and better equipment, computers, newer textbooks, and attract better teachers.  School which do poorly (largely due to under funding) are faced with having what federal funding is available cut - in other words, our system of penalizing under-performing schools means that the more a school needs money, the less it gets, while schools that are doing well (and therefore don't really need a bonus of federal money) gets more.

Between these two things, unrestricted inheritance and locally funded schools, is it any wonder how few people (of any color) break through the social class of their parents?  In this country we love to point out those rare success stories, such as Will Smith portraying the true story of a homeless stockbroker in The Pursuit of Happiness, but the reality is we have set up a social system that makes upward mobility all but completely unrealistic except in the rarest of cases.

The solution is actually pretty simple.  Although unfortunately I can't imagine anyone of influence daring to suggest either part any time soon given our current political climate.  One would be to essentially eliminate inheritance.  No one should be entitled to get money our resources they didn't earn.  Inheritance sets up a virtual caste system, where the luck of whom you are born to determines your chances in life.  It would be unrealistic to try to restrict it altogether, but a steeply progressive tax ranging from (say) 40% up to 75% seems to me reasonably appropriate and fair - for that matter, the same might be applied to all unearned income, which would also allow the tax rate on people who actually work and are productive to be reduced.
The second would be to make all public schools, K-12 as well as 2 years of college funded 100% on the federal level, with the same per-capita amount going to every school regardless of demographic, test scores, state, or whether it is rural or urban.

I also think that, as the author suggested, the use of drugs should be decriminalized (although the sale of many may be appropriate to remain illegal, use itself should be considered a disease) and given the current demographics this alone would go a long way to reducing the incarceration cycle in African American communities.  This may be more a symptom than a cause though. There are a myriad of other issues that relate to the social dynamics of race in this country as well.
However, I think if we were to change just those to things, a more reasonable distribution of un-earned wealth and an equal educational system, we would see major changes with in a generation or two with out having to do much further micro-management.

They are a little wierd, but maybe they have a good idea or two

• Dec 5, 2007

They are a little wierd, but maybe they have a good idea or two

The Amish, especially those of the Old Order, are probably best known for their avoidance of certain modern technologies. The avoidance of items such as automobiles and electricity is largely misunderstood. The Amish do not view technologyas evil. Individuals may petition for acceptance of a particular technology in the local community. In some communities, the church leaders meet annually to review such proposals. In others, it is done whenever necessary. Because the Amish, like some Mennonite groups, and unlike the Catholicor Anglican Churches, do not have a hierarchical governing structure, differing communities often have different ideas as to which technological items are acceptable.

Electricity, for instance, is viewed as a connection to, and reliance on, "the World", the "English", or "Yankees" (the outside world), which is against their doctrine of separation. The use of electricity also could lead to the use of worldly household appliances such as televisions, which would complicate the Amish tradition of a simple life, and introduce individualist competition for worldly goods that would be destructive of community. In certain Amish groups, however, electricity can be used in very specific situations: for example, if electricity can be produced without access to outside power lines. Twelve-volt batteries, with their limited applications, are acceptable to these groups. Electric generators can be used for welding, recharging batteries, and powering milk stirrers. In certain situations, outdoor electrical appliances may be used: lawn mowers (riding and hand-pushed) and string trimmers, for example. Some Amish families have non-electric versions of vital appliances, such as kerosene-powered refrigerators.

Amish communities often adopt compromise solutions involving technology which may seem strange to outsiders. For example, many communities will allow gas-powered farm equipment such as tillers or mowers, but only if they are pushed by a human or pulled by a horse. The reasoning is that Amish farmers will not be tempted to purchase more land in order to outcompete other farmers in their community if they still have to move the equipment manually. Many Amish communities also accept the use of chemical pesticides and GM crops, forgoing more common Amish organic farming techniques.

The Ordnung is the guide to community standards, rather than doctrine that defines sin. For example, the four Old Order Amish communities of Allen County, Indiana, are more conservative than most; they use open buggies, even during the winter, and they wear black leather shoes even in the hot summer. The restrictions are not meant to impose suffering. In the 1970s, for example, a farmer near Milan Center, Indiana, was ordered by his bishop to buy a conventional tractor. He had severe progressive arthritisand, with no sons to harness the horses for him, the tractor was seen as a need, rather than a vanity. The rest of the community continued farming with horses.

The Amish will hire drivers and vans, for example, for visiting family, monthly grocery shopping, or commuting to the workplace off the farm — though this too is subject to local regulation and variation. The practice increases the geographic reach of the Amish, and decreases isolation: a horse can travel only about 25 miles and then must rest for a considerable period, restricting the Amish to a radius of 12.5 miles from home. Moreover, a horse and buggy can only sustain 10 MPH over an extended distance and so is impractical for emergencies.^[8] Regular bus service between Amish communities has been established in some areas. Hiring a taxi is forbidden on Sundays (as is any transfer of money).

The telephone is another technology whose avoidance is often misunderstood. The Amish dislike the telephone because it interferes with their separation from the world; it brings the outside world into the home; it is an intrusion into the privacy and sanctity of the family and interferes with social community by eliminating face-to-face communication. However, some Amish, such as many of those in Lancaster County, use the telephone primarily for out-going calls, but with the added restriction that the telephone not be inside the home, but rather in a phone "booth" or shanty (actually just a small out-building) placed far enough from the house as to make its use inconvenient. Commonly these private phone shanties are shared by more than one family, fostering a sense of community. This allows the Amish to control their communication and not have telephone calls invade their homes, but also conduct business as needed. In the past, the use of public pay phones in town for such calls was more common; today with dwindling availability of pay phones because of increased cellphone use by the non-Amish population, Amish communities are seeing an increase in the private phone shanties.^[9] Many Amish, particularly those who run businesses, use voice mail service.^[10] The Amish will also use trusted "English" neighbors as contact points for passing on family emergency messages. Some New Order Amish will use cellphones and pagers, but most Old Order Amish will not.^[11]

Dress code for some groups includes prohibitions against buttons, allowing only hooks and eyes to keep clothing closed; others may allow small undecorated buttons in a dark color. In some groups, certain articles can have buttons and others cannot. The restriction on buttons is attributed in part to their association with military uniforms, and also to their potential for serving as opportunities for vain display. Straight-pins are often used to hold articles of clothing together. In all things, the aesthetic value is "plainness": clothing should not call attention to the wearer by cut, color or any other feature. Prints such as florals, stripes, polka-dots, etc. are not allowed in Amish dress, although these styles have been adopted by fellow Mennonites.

Women wear calf-length plain-cut dresses in a solid color such as blue. Aprons are often worn, usually in white or black, at home and always worn when attending church. A cape, which consists of a triangular shape of cloth, is usually worn beginning around the teenage years and pinned into the apron. In the colder months, a long woollen cloak is sported. Heavy bonnets are worn over the prayer coverings when Amish women are out and about in cold weather, with the exception of the Nebraska Amish, who do not wear bonnets. When a girl becomes available to be courted, she wears a black bonnet^{[citation needed]}. These unmarried women also wear a white cape.^{[citation needed]}

Men typically wear dark-colored trousers and a dark vest or coat, suspenders (Brit. braces), broad-rimmed straw hatsin the warmer months and black felt hats in the colder months. Single Amish men are clean-shaven; if they are available to court women, they will put a dent in their hat. Married men grow a beard. In some more traditional communities a man will grow a beard after he is baptized. Moustaches are not allowed, because they are associated with the military and because they give opportunity for vanity. The avoidance of military styles has origins in the religious and political persecution in 16th and 17th century Europe. Men of the nobility and upper classes, who often served as military officers, wore moustaches but not beards, and the pacifist Amish avoid moustaches because of this association. The wearing of beards, however, is largely based on the same beliefs against shaving that lead Hasidic Jews and conservative Muslims not to shave their beards. (Amish men who wear beards do not abhor shaving: some men grow a fringe of beard around the edge of the face while shaving the hair off the front of the face, including the moustache. These men refrain from shaving the throat)

During the summer months, the majority of Amish children go barefoot, including to school. The prevalence of the practice is attested in the Pennsylvania Deitsch saying, "Deel Leit laafe baarfiessich rum un die annre hen ken Schuh." (Some people walk around barefooted, and the rest have no shoes.) The amount of time spent barefoot varies, but most children and adults go barefoot whenever possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish

Global Warming vs. Fascism; or, why NASA wouldn’t have stopped Apophis

Global Warming vs. Fascism; or, why NASA wouldn’t have stopped Apophis

[reposted from Nov 19, 2007 - updated 2012 after in person talk with actual climate scientists!  This is the essay that first caught the attention of the editors of Faircompanies, which led to me blogging for them, and eventually to being video interviewed by them.  The follow up video, about hypermiling, came out 2 days ago]


I am a liberal. I am an environmentalist. I commute by bicycle to my job advocating the bicycle as a means of everyday transportation. I run my work truck on modified vegetable oil at significant extra cost compared to petroleum diesel. I have a reasonably strong understanding of the sciences, including an associates in biology and earth science (which encompasses, among other things, geology and ecology)
I could be called a global warming "denier".

I should clarify; I don’t not believe in the same way I don’t believe in "God".
I acknowledge that the world is almost certainly getting warmer, and there is a good chance that humans have had something to do with it. It is certainly possible. 

Look at the graph above (or click the link below)
Graph of temperature of planet earth over time

Note that the time scale is logarithmic.  In other words, each section to the left is 10 times more compressed than the one next to it.  Notice that the right side of the graph is in thousands of years, the left half is in millions.

The graph is a log-scale in order to more easily see the range over different time scales. Each section exists on its own with a linear scale, I just choose this graphic because I think it allows for a better perspective of the over all long term cycles, in addition to the smaller cycles within the large ones. 


Here is the right side, in linear scale.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...


Here is another linear scale, looking at only the recent past (12 thousand years is recent in geological terms), after most major Earth changes had settled down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...




The graph that is used by people who want to convince people of human caused climate change is invariably that of the last 1000 years. 1000 years, on the scale of global processes, is nothing. It is equivalent to looking at specie change or continent movement over the past 1000 years which would "prove" evolution and plate tectonics are myth.

 
However, the question is not "is the Earth getting warmer". That is measurable. The questions are: 1 "is there a net positive or a net negative feedback mechanism?" in other words, will it continue out of control or will it naturally stabilize; and 2 "is it our fault?"

Looking at the larger scale, from the time the earths climate settled into a reasonably stable pattern, there has been a periodic cycle, and we are not outside of the range of normal. From the fact that there have been at least 5 similar cycles so far, there is a strong indication that some negative feedback mechanism at play which serves to keep temperature extremes in check.

This is not to say that the consequences of a temperature increase (like the ones which have in fact occurred, naturally) are not catastrophic. It has been estimated that at least one of those past times of warming contributed to the extinction of up to 90% of all sea life, and 50-70% of land life.  However, humans and our technology wasn’t around to cause it.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the rate of change is outside the normal range - we simply have no way to precisely measure the change over very small intervals of something that happened billions of years before we existed. Nor is a rapid rate automatically indicative of a ever-increasing one. If there is a net negative feedback mechanism (and the historical global temperatures cyclic nature is a strong indicator that there is) it may simply kick in sooner if the rate of change is higher.

The historical geologic data suggests that it is temperature which affects CO2 levels, not the other way around.

I have heard many times now environmentalists, journalists, and politicians say something along the lines of "there is a scientific consensus" or "the facts are in, the question is what do we do about it" or some equivalent.
There isn’t, and they aren’t.
There is still a great deal of scientific debate. And not like evolution. Its not just scientologists and scienticians who question this hypothesis (it is not a theory by the scientific definition, as evolution is)

[UPDATE:  I have had an opportunity to speak to several actual climate scientists recently, who were in the Bay Area for a Earth science convention.  I had assumed that, more than 4 years after I had written this essay, things would have changed significantly.  Methods would have improved, more data would have come in, and much of what I wrote would be dated. 
Turns out the only thing I learned is that they genuinely believed in the misinformation they were saying. 
I started explaining some of the points written above. 
When I pointed out the Earth has been warmer at times in the past,  I got the same standard answer I've heard from many knowledgeable non-scientists: "it has never warmed as rapidly as it is now". 
Above I argued that we may not have precise enough measurements to make that assessment, but I have since learned we do - and it has gotten much warmer much faster at times before human technology existed.  In recent history the average Earth temperature has gone up about 1 degree over 50 years.  At the end of the "Younger Dryas period" the average Earth's temperature raised by 7 degrees in just 20 years - about 15 times more rapidly. 
Later we talked about the climate models used to make predictions.  Turns out they are using 1800 as a baseline because thats when we started adding carbon to the atmosphere.  Because reality is so complex and we can't accurately take everything into account, the solution is to pretend that natural climate variations don't exist, and that if not for our actions the world would still be exactly hov it was in 1800.  But of course we know that even if we only look at the Holocene (and I would argue that is still cherry picking data) there is a cycle of roughly 5-10 thousand years.  But that is just a sub-cycle of a larger pattern that repeats every 50-100 thousand years.
That cycle is the baseline.
Now, if we were deviating significantly from THAT moving trend-line, we could say with relative confidence that something we did has affected the balance.
Modern climate scientists, with the fastest computers, are not yet able to even accurately model the climate changes that we already know occurred over the past couple billion years - there are just too many variables.
In other words, no one can plug in the starting conditions on Earth, and then have a program figure out where things were 100 million, 10 million, 1 million, 100 thousand years ago.
Without that, there is no baseline with which to determine where we would be today w/o human activity.
If we don't know where the climate would be today w/o us, we have absolutely no way to say what affect we are having.
I think even the experts are making the "emperor is wearing fine clothes" mistake that comes from being in insulated group of people on the defensive]

--


Granted, IF we are contributing to it, and IF there is a net positive feedback, then we may be doing severe damage, and it may be difficult or impossible to reverse it. It may very well turn out that by the time we know for sure it will be too late.
That is a reason to act now.

The irony is in the fact that we already know for sure that our driving and electricity habits damage both human health and our ecosystem at large.

Cancer, asthma, mercury contamination, loss of habitat, acid rain, smog, ground level ozone, soot, nuclear waste which is deadly for millions of years, strip mining, oil spills - not to mention the undeniable link between how much we drive and how many of us are obese (a problem no hybrid can ever solve).

And whether or not we have reached so-called "peak oil", it is indisputably a finite resource. Even if we find a way to develop tar sand fields, maybe it lasts us 200 years instead of 20, but it will not last forever. And as it eventually declines, the oil related conflicts of the past half century (from OPECs US embargo in the 70s to today ongoing war in Iraq) will inevitably increase proportionately.

These are real problems. There is no doubt that they have affects on our world and our lives. There is no question that we are causing them. There is no question that we could easily reduce or eliminate many of them by cutting back on our own (as Americans) luxuries. Technology is also likely to play a role, along with government regulations.

All of these real and undeniable problems have not been sufficient motivation to change our habits and lifestyle, nor even to spur new technology.

Instead, we have glommed on to this idea of global warming, and in order to make it seem more urgent, people claim there is no debate. Most of them no doubt heard it from someone else, and they fully believe it. Someone must have started this particular urban legend, and must have been lying deliberately.


--

But lets say that it turns out that we are significantly increasing the worlds average temperature.
Lets say that we overwhelm the previous millinea’s negative feedback mechanism so that further ice ages become impossible.
Say that it causes catastrophic consequences for us.

This would ultimately cause problems for much of earth’s life, including all humans. Even you live in one of the places which is not affected (or positively affected) you have to deal with the millions of people who now need to move. We can expect rising prices of all sorts, wars over land, food, water. Weather extremes. Bad stuff.
Everyone loses.
However, for any one person: everyone else is driving. Why should I stop? The impact of any one person cutting electricity usage in half or giving up their car is truly negligible when 300 million other people don’t change. Given that, why self-sacrifice?

Game theory has been run many times, by many people. In nature an altruistic strategy can become stable. The cheaters can be penalized to the point where it is to the individuals advantage to be good. This can be seen in some species societies, as well as in computer models.
Among humans however (at least Americans) it never seems to work.
Among educated professionals and business leaders, agreements break down, and everyone loses.
A frequent scenario involves a publicly available fishing grounds. Anyone can fish for free. You can sell what you catch. The fish have a limited rate of regeneration. If everyone takes only a given number of fish, the system is sustainable.
But as soon as its discovered someone else is "cheating" they all, wanting to keep up or "remain competitive", do the same. No one person causes the destruction of the system, yet everyone involved is directly responsible.
This game has been run by sociologists and mathematicians. They know the theory. They still end up "overfishing" their virtual lakes.

This phenomenon is noted in sociology, biology, and economics, and is referred to as the tragedy of the commons

--

There are certain words in our language which have been attached to a certain perception which goes far beyond their meaning. Communism used to be one such word. Political leaders (with help from the media) deliberately demonized the word. There was a time when few Americans could tell you what the word actually meant, although they could tell you without any doubt that they were strongly against it.

In reality, while it has never been enacted exactly as intended (as we are neither democratic nor purely capitalist here), the basic idea has to do with sharing; that everyone should have their needs met before anyone gets to build wealth.
Details aside, it is a fundamentally different way of looking at things.

In the US we learn to value individual freedom above all else.
Our most basic and fundamental value is freedom - "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" (and, though not written down, that is generally assumed to include pursuit of profit).
Victimless crimes aside, for the most part we feel that as long as we are not directly hurting a particular individual, we should be allowed to do whatever we want.

Ones right to fish should not be infringed upon.

Obviously there are many examples in reality where this outlook leads directly to overall harm for everyone involved.

Global warming, if we are in fact making it worse, will be one of those things.
So far, with the wide spread belief that the debate is over, much has been talked about, little has been done.
Average fuel economy is still far below what we had the technology to produce decades ago. The best hybrid gets worse mileage than a cheap compact car from 10 years ago. (note that CO2, the gas thought responsible for global warming, is a natural result of combustion. A more well built and efficient engine does not emit less CO2. The only way to decrease it per mile is increasing overall mileage)
New power plants are still being built as electricity use is still climbing.

In order to produce real results, we as a society would have to be willing to restrict both the options of individuals and the profit potential of corporations. We are loath to do either.
In fact, we generally feel this is immoral, even if the ultimate consequence is a diminished happiness for everyone (or even, perhaps, our ultimate self-destruction).

--

As it turns out, we are probably safe.
It has been less than a year since increased observation led to this conclusion.
The chances were originally estimated at 2.7% (1 in 37) that in 2029 or 2036 we would be hit by a rather large asteroid called Apophis. It was about 2 years between the time the possibility was noticed and the time it was determined to be safe. Astronomers revised estimates still predict that it will pass closer to the earth than our geosynchronous communications satellites.

Apophis is over 1000ft in diameter, weighs 50 million tons, and travels 18.5 miles every second.

You would think this would have been something more people would have heard about, people would have talked about it, there would have been international conferences, discussions, debates, and public input on who would take the initiative to, say, put a tracking device on Apophis so we would have better data, how long we should wait before acting, and begin plans of what to do if it turned out a collision was likely.

Perhaps it was because the statistical likelihood seemed smaller. Perhaps it was because we prefer to think nature (not just life, but all reality outside of humans) can do no wrong. Perhaps it is as random as what celebrity the media chooses to focus on in a given week.

Ultimately though, if it kept looking more and more likely that Apophis would hit us, eventually someone would likely say something.
And amid the resulting furor, a lot would be said, but chances are, not so much would be done.
The question would be, who is going to pay for this?
Few countries would have the technical capacity to change the course of an asteroid.
The US would resent spending their own tax dollars (which will be at quite a premium by 2029) on a project that is going to save the whole world. It might not even hit our country. Everyone else should chip in at least equally.

--

Fascism refers to a political system in which it is assumed that the good of the overall society supersedes the best interests of individuals.
A fascist superpower would fire up some rockets ensuring a killer asteroid did not hit the Earth, and that would be the end of it. The research would be government funded, and if need be industries would be commandeered to build whatever was deemed the most effective solution. The choice would not be left up to the individual owner of a factory that makes rockets, nor would it be left up to the "free market".

In a pure free market, if a comet is coming, everybody dies.

Fascism, while accurately thought of as authoritarian or totalitarian, is often if not always a populist movement. In places it has arisen in the past it has been supported by the very poor, working class, small business, big business, intellectuals, land owners, and farmers. It is anti-individualistic and anti-liberal, which is why it has grown to be accepted as synonymous with "evil" as the US has strengthened and exported its ideals around the world. It is opposed both to the free market and to communism. It is opposed by both the extremes of the political left and right in the US, in both cases due to the restrictions of individual freedom (social in one case, economic in the other).

Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating fascism.
I just feel the need to question those things we all take as obvious fact when obviously many other people have felt differently at times. Instead of going along with our local beliefs, whatever they might be, perhaps at times we should question if the ’others’ in the world might not have had something useful going, something we could learn from. Instead of adopting a pre-made ideology, maybe pick and choose the good parts from each, see the problems in each, and maybe come up with something altogether new. It would sound crazy to claim to be a liberal who who thinks a lot of liberals are whiny crybabies living in a dreamland, to believe in much of libertarianism and want to eliminate the corporation, or to vote green and believe there is something positive or valuable in fascism. Or would it?

For my more feminine friends

• Nov 5, 2007

For my more feminine friends

It isn't about strength to weight ratio.



Don't let your natural estrogen to testosterone ratio deter you.


It is a matter of will.


(Well, that, and lots and lots of practice)


The term is "traceuse" (French) and I think we need more of them.
After all, consider ice skating, swing dancing, gymnastics, and track & field.  Plenty of our gentler and more attractive gender in those sports.  Parkour is really no more than track plus gymnastics applied to a real world setting.

Speaking of which, these two show how these things can be very practical and useful skills to be comfortable with in real world situations.  You never know when something like the following may happen to you!...

unborn humans and social conservatives; mixing emotion and politics

• Oct 29, 2007

unborn humans and social conservatives; mixing emotion and politics

I went to see the exhibit where they dissect human cadavers, coat them in plastic, and display them in various poses in a cross between anatomy education and a morbid art form.

Two of my three companions skipped the section with embryos and fetuses, as well as a pregnant woman.

I found this surprising, as I found it among the most interesting of the sections there.

They said it made them uncomfortable (particularly in light of a job which involves pregnant women.)

I pointed out that they are, and interact with, people all the time, (like us, right then), and all the other dead people were people. But they felt it was different.

Although my third companion had not skipped this section, she found their aversion entirely understandable.

I've been thinking about that. People in general seem much more protective of pregnant women than anyone else.

Murdering a pregnant woman is seen as significantly more heinous than ordinary murder. A pregnant woman will cause people to give up a seat on the train who would not do the same for, say, an overweight person, or someone visibly tired, who may appreciate it just as much.

I suppose the roots may be biological, as embryos are delicate, or it may be social, but it seems pretty prevalent. The reason isn't important though.
Every person who feels this in someway should be able to understand the strong feeling of "right-to-lifers".

People who are against abortion are not misogynists, they are not advocating women be considered less important than men, or less in control of their bodies. They feel that life is valuable before birth. Apparently liberals feel this way too, just instinctively. When we argue that a several month old embryo doesn't have a brain, we are looking at a scientific issue. But in another, also objective, sense, there really are only to concrete lines that can be drawn - conception, and birth. defining trimesters is very imprecise, and so in a way, a bit arbitrary. Of course if you believe (as most of the most passionate pro-life people do) that man is made in the image of God, then brain development is irrelevant, as the human soul is injected at the moment of conception.


I think this "reasoning" based on feeling may explain a good deal of (social) conservative views. Things like gay marriage, religion in schools and politics, porn and prostitution, sex-ed in schools, the death penalty, media censorship, or that every person should be responsible for themselves, what statistics say are irrelevant, what the practical consequences of a policy are, are irrelevant.

On abortion we argue that a woman should have a choice in her reproductive choices. To a pro-life person this makes no more sense than arguing a mother should retain the right to kill her newborn. In each issue we put forth our own arguments, instead of addressing the issues the people we argue against raise.
Perhaps a more productive tactic would be to attempt first to understand our opponents view point, and then focus on education. Education of the science and statistics, but also of our own universal feelings. Anger management involves becoming aware of ones self. Irrationality management should contain the same. We need to acknowledge that we all feel unborn humans are valuable, and we all want rapists and murders put to death, we all feel homosexuality is a little gross, and that certain things shouldn't be said on TV. Then we can decide whether giving into these visceral feelings is worth the consequences. And only then can we begin to articulate our arguments in a way that will mean anything to the people we want to convince.


--


This belief based not on information and fact but on visceral feeling, it explains the vice grip religion still has on humanity. Its irrelevant how well evolution explains everything. Its still unbelievable. The Selfish Gene is one of my favorite books of all time, but I still find life incredible. Divine intervention feels more right. Its irrelevant that we can induce mystic visions and divine experiences with drugs or electrodes to anyone who has experienced it first hand.

Combine this way of experiencing life with the "why would anyone care about anything other than money; issues which affect society at large don't have any bearing on me personally" attitude described in my last blog, and I guess conservatives become pretty understandable.

Perhaps understanding the opposition could lead to more effective ways of working with them (read "working with" as "defeating") but I'm not really sure how. I suppose the only way is education. Lots of it. Not only on facts, but on the psychology of politics, and of self. In real people it seems awareness of our own underlying neurosis, obsessions and hang-ups precedes a rapid transformation. Could this work for society at large? I just don't know.

From my blog at faircompanies.com "what we are up against"

• Oct 26, 2007

From my blog at faircompanies.com "what we are up against"

My neighbor came by a couple days ago.
(Neither the conservative in a tiny trailer nor the tweaker / junkies, I've never written about this one before)

I have new professionally made signs on the truck now, so its obvious I am running on bio-diesel (I think we had spoken about it once before a year ago or so).

He had read an article in National Geographic.

He came over to tell me that Bio-Diesel cost more than petroleum diesel.
Of course, I was already aware of this.

He asked why I used it.

I explained how being domestically produced and renewable meant we as a country were less reliant on imports, particularly from unstable places like the Middle East.
He was surprised that I thought we got a significant amount of oil from the Middle East. He thought it comes mostly from Mexico and South America.
I acknowledged that we do get a lot from those places, but it is not as much as we use, and we import huge amounts from across the ocean as well.
I asked why he thought we were in Iraq. He may actually have not heard me, because he is hard of hearing. Who knows?

So I went on to explain the significant difference in emissions, both in terms of greenhouse gases and regular air pollutants.

He was amazed that I actually cared about that, or felt it was a personal issue.

I pointed out that I have to breathe. He said "well we ALL have to breathe"
"That's exactly my point"

When I mentioned that we pay much less for gas than most places, he said he didn't believe it. He went on to say that the article said in Italy they pay over $6 per gallon. Yet he was still sure that because of license fees and unspecified taxes, we still paid more per gallon in the end.

When I pointed out that gas prices will explode within the next decade as supply gets lower, he said he doesn't expect to be around that long (which is odd - he is retired and hard of hearing, but he still has brown hair, and is very active. He still rides his Harley. He isn't all that old. I think.)

I asked if he had kids. He said they were older than me. I asked if he was concerned at all about the air quality and economic climate for them. His response was not straight forward, but seemed to be a combination of 'it won't get too bad in their lifetimes either' and 'someone will solve those problems sooner or later'.

He kept going back to asking why I would spend more on fuel if I didn't have to. I said it was a matter of being a good citizen, like voting. I decided against asking if he voted.

He found it very interesting that I felt that things like international politics and the environment were relevant to me personally.
He insisted he had NEVER met anyone who thought that before. (Or at least no one who admitted it.)
I said I had a lot of customers who felt that way.
He said "maybe in San Francisco". "And Berkeley" "Well, yeah in Berkeley".
We live in Oakland. Oakland in right in between SF and Berkeley. He has lived here for at least a decade or two (I can't remember, it may have been longer) and has never met what you might call an environmentalist!?!?

This is a guy who occasionally flies an American flag over his home (more often its the Jolly Roger).
He babysits for another neighbor. He never rants about "liberals". We talk now again - we both have motorcycles, so sometimes about that. He tells stories of his life. Regular guy. He wasn't the slightest antagonistic about my views. He was just surprised.

He could see how if that stuff mattered to me it might be worth it to buy bio-diesel. For him, he said, all that mattered it the dollar cost.

We tend to focus on the exploitative corporations, corrupt government, fundamentalist religious people, and hummer drivers.
I think our biggest obstacle is all the ordinary people in between. We shouldn't be an "extreme", but unfortunately, in this country, we are.

I am in Playboy magazine

• Oct 19, 2007

I am in Playboy magazine

 

November, 2007 Issue, page 46.

Its so fun to be published.  Now, not just my handful of blog readers, but Playboy's 3 million readers (well, ok, maybe half of them just look at the pictures.  I imagine with the availability of free hardcore internet porn a higher percentage actually reads it) have to hear my thoughts and opinions.

I remember writing the letter to the editor, but I hadn't realized I had ever sent it.  Guess I did.
They reversed my first and last names.  That's ok.  Trust me, "Kafele Bakari" is really me.

In answer to your question, no, there is no naked picture of me.  It is possible that I was naked when I wrote it, but not very likely. 

Incidentally, the first topic on that page, by Brett, I believe it is the first time I have ever heard anyone (besides myself) point out what he does.

Bike helmets - (I still don’t like the sound of my recorded voice)

• Oct 1, 2007

Bike helmets - I still don’t like the sound of my recorded voice

You'd think that after having been the vocalist in several bands, recording some solo stuff (like my profile song), and all, I'd be used to it.

Anyway...
so,

Fridays I switch off with a co-worker.

I thought it was my day off. I get the phone call "Are you coming in?"

"huh?"

"you know you're supposed to be at the bikestation, right?"

"oh $@! really? I'm so sorry. I'll be there in like an hour"

"And the film crew is waiting for you"

"WHAT??!!??!!"

"Theres a film crew here waiting for you"

"What the hell are you talking about?"

"Didn't the manager tell you?"

"No. Are you serious?"

"Yeah, I'm serious dude, there right here."

And its true. When I get in, there they are.

They wanted me to talk about bike safety and helmets.
Not that I am an expert on the subject, I'm just a guy who rides, a former messenger, one-time long distance tourer, and now a mechanic. None of that qualifies me as a safety consultant, but, I guess i know a bit more than average, and everyone is there waiting, so I figure what the heck?

This was all months ago.

The video has just been released.

You can see it here: http://www.yourhealthconnection.com/topic/mmbikesafety

They cut everything but the helmet stuff, for time reasons.

Here at the bike station we have about 30 helmets for retail sale. Turns out almost all of them are size small, and small is very small. I don't know why this is. We needed a helmet for the demonstration. None of our helmets fit anyone. Besides extra small we have a handful of extra large. I can't remember how we ended up finding one that was remotely close enough to use in the video, but as you can see, we did.

Then we needed someone for me to use it on. The model was one of the film crew. She was very reluctant to put on the helmet wrong, in order for me to correct it, because she thought people seeing it would think she was an idiot, instead of a model.
At the very end, after the credits, you will notice she got them to put in a note to that affect.
That's my favorite part.

There must be something wrong with me

• Sep 28, 2007

There must be something wrong with me

I say "have a good night"

They respond "enjoy your weekend"

It sounds pretty stupid, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I always feel like maybe they are trying to show me up with a superior salutation (wait, does that mean greeting? what is the term for goodbyes?)
Like I should say "on yeah, well enjoy your whole week! Have a good month!!!! I hope your whole life is filled with meaning, pleasure, and goodness - motherfucker!"

These thoughts would not occur to normal people would they?


Here is an unrelated question.
I have asked it before, but no one ever answered it.

I have 7 readers (one of the 8 is really me)
This blog has supposedly been read 16 times today, and 95 this week, although there have only been 2 posts.
Who are you? Where did you find me? Why don't you ever comment? Or are the same 7 people refreshing the page over and over and over, 13.5 times each, (or is it all Beth, who mentioned doing something like that once, refreshing the page 83 times this week?)
On average each post has had 26 views. Maybe thats normal. Someone must be reading this and knows the answer and refuses to tell me. You, whoever you are, are just so weird.



See my new profile picture? One of the earliest cars with the Tango. It probably won't be the car of the future, but it should be. 2 Passenger electric car, powerful, fast, full steel racing style roll cage, thin enough t lane split or park between 2 regular parking spaces facing the curb. The traffic jam would go the way of the model T.
Unfortunately, the reasonably affordable models are only concept cars until they get more funding.

George Cloony bought one of the first of their top of the line sports models.



hour and a half till I get to go home...

Abridged list of enemies in EarthBound on SNES

• Sep 26, 2007

 

You may well be wondering why I am posting an abridged list of EarthBound NPC adversaries.

I have no good answer for you.

All I can say is that was one of the greatest games ever, primarily because of the various people and things your character had to battle.

They never made an English version of the sequel. (It was a Japanese game. I read that the characters and scenarios were in part making fun of American culture)

If I remember correctly, this list is in order of difficulty (i.e. the ones near the bottom are more powerful)
I picked only the ones which amused me most. There are many more like this in the game.

Spiteful Crow
Mobile Sprout
Unassuming Local Guy
Ramblin’ Evil Mushroom
New Age Retro Hippie
Annoying Old Party Man
Territorial Oak
Mole Playing Rough
Happy Happyist
Worthless Protoplasm
Handsom Tom
Smelly Ghost
Urban Zombie
No Good Fly
Zombie Processor
Slimy Little Pile
Armored Frog
Plain Crocodile
Violent Roach
Rainboob
Smilin’ Sphere
Cute Li’l UFO
Mad Taxi
Crazed Sign
Annoying Reveler
Scalding Coffee
Mystical Record
Musica
Enraged Fire Plug
Clumsy Robot
Dali’s Clock
Abstract Art
OverZealous Cop
Kiss of Death
High Class UFO
Demonic Petunia
Even Slimier Little Pile
Hostile Elder Oak
Big Pile of Puke
Manly Fish
Manly Fish’s Brother
Master Barf
Lesser Mook
Atomic Pover Robot
Starman Deluxe
Ego Orb
Soul Consuming Flame
Psychic Psycho
Molecule
Loaded Dice
Carefree Bomb
Wild ’N Wooly Shambler

Love

Sep 18, 2007 

Love

My definition:

Several parts, all absolutely necessary without exception.

(In no particular order)

Intimacy:

Which I consider to also consist of two parts –

Trust: one should be willing to tell the other what they think and feel.

Comfort: one should be as comfortable doing or saying anything in front of the other as they would be if they were alone

Care: I define this as not only feeling sympathy, but the willingness to make a personal sacrifice for another's gain. One is not only willing, but will take the initiative to give up something they want, or to do something they don't want, in order to make the other happy. This should be up to, and including, a one to one ratio – i.e. a sacrifice of equal magnitude to the gain the other gets from it. In any particular instance the ratio can be higher (I give up something I strongly want to give you something you moderately want) but overall it should not exceed 1:1; that would be an indication of a non-mutual, and ultimately unhealthy, relationship.

Enjoyment: A desire to be with the person, just for its own sake. Not because it makes the other happy, not because one should, not because they provide some particular useful thing, but just because it is enjoyable to spend time with them.

Understanding: Both knowledge of and understanding of the reasoning behind the other's beliefs, principals, opinions and preferences, and having one's own beliefs principals, opinions and preferences known and understood. This does not mean that each must necessarily agree with them all, but they should know what they are and why.

All of these things must be present for me to call it love. Any one or any two of them I would not be comfortable calling love. I certainly have felt one or two of these for others before. Never before all three for the same person. I had to experience it before I could formulate my definition, and so I have used the term in circumstances which I wouldn't today. To me, it is not an easy thing to come by.

Note that the first 3 can exist without being mutual.

Any of the four can exist without the other 3, which would constitute a friendship.

Having, say, 3 of the 4 could make a very special and important relationship. But having all 4 makes a qualitatively different relationship. It is what separates a close friendship from a life partner, or a healthy "long term relationship" from an unhealthy one.

Each of the 4 can be present in varying amounts. None is likely to be 100%, at least not 100% of the time. In some cases a deficit in one (partial, not complete) may make a relationship unsustainable. Which is more important, and the exact amounts needed may vary from person to person. Ultimately, once all 4 are satisfied, there is no significant advantage to going to someone "better". There is some inherent value to commitment, (both emotional and practical) and any improvement in a new person would be only a quantitative change, not a qualitative one, and therefore would have to be very large indeed to be worth it. In a conflict, as long as all 4 are present (or have been, and can reasonably be expected to be again) it is probably worth the effort and difficulty to work things out. If one is missing, and has little hope of ever being present, it is probably better to let it go. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I can't help but to think that most people would prefer a partner who satisfied each of those requirements (mutually). Perhaps I am mistaken, but I also can't help but to think that there are very few (if any) people who can find all 4 in the same person with relative ease. I think that even the simplest, most easy going person would have trouble finding someone they were compatible with. Perhaps there are some who genuinely, under the layers of pride, distrust, fear, and "principal" really have no desire to have a life partner – but I doubt it.

Nostalgia means "I love you"

• Sep 18, 2007

Nostalgia means "I love you"

A few minutes ago my iPod, randomly shuffling between a 605 track playlist, played "Everyday" by Dave Matthews Band.
I was putting up window tint, and not thinking about you at all at the time.
It immediately made me think of - not of you exactly, but of the feeling of you, the general thought of you.

Within the next second, it reminded me of Stanford and then El Cerrito. Then again, not really the places, but the feelings that go along with them, a memory not of any particular site or sound, but of the feeling I had when I was there

And of course, the places themselves were of no significance, it was the person I was with who made those places interesting, something to look forward to.

I have the feeling of "nostalgia" now and then, from different things, about different things. In one way it is a good feeling, but usually it is more just interesting than it is pleasant. The good component is usually balanced by an unpleasant part, which is much too subtle to explain, almost too subtle to even notice, but it is there none-the-less.

I can't remember a feeling of nostalgia which was as filled with warmth. Warmth is precisely it. It was all pleasant feeling, even with what has been going on recently. It made me realize something:

I think I really was in love with you, long before I was aware of it, long before I told you, long before I admitted it. Not just "love" in the sense that I have loved you all along and continue to, not just care and positive regard, but "in" love, with that extra little special something which is indefinable.

-A digression:

I have updated my theories of love. I used to belittle the feeling of "in" love as either being "just" a crush or infatuation, or lust, in any case, not real, not sustainable.
These certainly can be factors, and the three can be impossible to distinguish sometimes. But, when accompanied by "real" love (you know what I mean), the distinction comes in the indefinable element.

You can list the factors which make a person someone you would love, but there are always other things, subtle, indefinable, unplaceable things, which are still very real despite being incommunicable, which are the extra element, which make it "in" love.

Sometimes I would say I loved you, and you would ask why, and I might say I wasn't sure. Which you took to mean it was either untrue or meaningless. But really, it was very true, and very meaningful. Probably more so than the list of qualities could ever be. You do fulfill the 'list', but another person who filled the list might not be the same to me as you are.

I had always assumed that when people used the term "chemistry" they were essentially talking about lust. But, this morning I was thinking about all this; you said something to the effect that if certain others had specific qualities, (and maybe they will turn out to) I would really like her - but I don't feel for anyone, now, ever, quite the way I did (and still do) for you, even back when I didn't admit it. Perhaps it could be called "chemistry"; whatever it is, it's missing with others.

I was also thinking about commitment. I used to think that if any two people are together, and a 3rd comes along who is better (by the standards of the 'list') for one, they should, logically, split, and be with the new person.
I disagree with that now.
There is an activation energy, a minimum threshold, which must be overcome for that formula to be valid.
The up hill which must be passed consists of many things:
The difficulty and unpleasantness of breaking up, the giving up of an acquired closeness, risk in replacing someone you know is good for you with someone you merely suspect to be better, and the lack of the stability, comfort, and reassurance which comes with commitment - whether or not it is ever acted upon.
The person has to be not only better in an absolute sense, but so much better as to be worth all of those negative aspects of both the transition and the mind set. For, even if the long term benefit of a new person outweighed the difficulties of the transition, just having that mindset means both people would have to live forever with the constant threat of the loss of their partner. This in and of itself would cause problems, jealousy, unhappiness, stress, fear, discomfort. For, no two people could ever be 100% perfect for each other 100% of the time, and the possibility of someone "better" is always present.
But when the drawbacks of a transition to a "better" are taken into account, the amount of "betterness" required grows considerably.

And when I think about it, you, for me, are too close to ideal for someone else, no matter how much "better" to ever overcome that threshold energy. You, plus the threshold, equals an unimaginably unrealistic vision of perfection - a perfection plus; it makes as much sense as sentencing 10 consecutive life sentences, its simply meaningless.

Given that, I know now that I would be willing to commit to you.
Not just "getting married" in the legal sense, or buying a house together, or even having a child together.
But as a decision inside myself.

I know that you don't feel that way. Which is unfortunate and sad, but its ok. It doesn't change my feeling, nor my willingness. If someday in the future you were interested, you should know where I stand. I realize that you probably feel completely different than me on the subject, and definitely at least somewhat differently, and also that even if you did see it the same way, you have doubts as to whether or not I could be that person for you. I suspect you will come around after going through what ever you have to in the mean time, but maybe I'll turn out to be wrong, and then that's just the way things go.

If we can not be together in the long run, I think I will want to know you again, be friends with you... eventually.
That would be hard for me, very, especially at first. I will still love you, and I will probably still be in love with you too. (Right, "still". As in, I'm beginning to suspect that I have been all along, but since its constant, I don't notice, like the hum on an airplane, except when it is unusually strong.) And, since we have already separated, most of the elements of that threshold are irrelevant, I am still confident you will remain my first choice for life partners. But a little of you is better than none at all, (once I get used to it), just like it is now. Another thing I think you should know.