Someplace attained a record, unseasonable cold temperature, so my favorite wingnut sent me a link to the story with a snide comment about “Global warming, huh?” This happens every time there is an unusual snowfall or late frost or whatever.
Now, the fact of the matter is, every one of these incidents can be seen as further evidence for the global-warming model. As the earth absorbs heat, it does so very unevenly. There are certain hotspots that warm up more quickly, and other cold spots that take on heat more slowly. The result is that there is more total heat energy in the system, and the atmosphere of the earth functions like one large and very complex heat engine that becomes wilder and more unpredictable in its actions as more energy pours into the system.
Yes, overall, the temperature is going up (very rapidly on a geological scale, but apparently much more slowly on a human scale). But what is increasing much more rapidly than the mean temperature is the total craziness in the weather machinery. More energy, absorbed very unevenly at various points on the globe, means greater turbulent variation in high and low-pressure systems, dramatic and unpredictable shifts in ocean currents, and a general increase in events that are outside the norm.
Put in statistical terms, the variance is increasing much more rapidly than the mean. The net result is that the wild swings in the weather are much more dramatic than are the comparatively small, but cumulatively disastrous, upward trends in temperature. We observe a set of record low temperatures in some locations that seem to cancel out the string of record high temperatures that are occurring elsewhere. But when we attend merely to the individual temperatures, we are missing the main point, which is that we are seeing unprecedented extremes in the weather, and it is these extremes--both high and low--that are the signature of global warming.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
In Defense of Lou Dobbs
Lou Dobbs has apparently been giving air time to the "Birthers," i.e. the loonies who question President Obama's birth certificate, believe he was born in Kenya, etc. The Southern Poverty Law Center sent a letter to CNN calling for Lou to be fired for his racist lunacy. I see the issue somewhat differently, so I wrote the following letter to CNN:
July 24, 2009
Jonathan Klein
President
CNN/U.S.
1 Time Warner Center
New York, N.Y. 10019-6038
Dear Mr. Klein:
Please do not give in to the demands of the Left that Lou Dobbs be censored on the topic of Obama’s birth documentation. Doesn’t the political Right deserve fair treatment? If, as Stephen Colbert once observed, “The truth has a well-known liberal bias,” then isn’t the Right entitled to present a counterbalance of disinformation and deception? As your rival Fox News has so effectively demonstrated, there is ample room for half-truths, deceit, and outright lies in American journalism. Story fabrication in order to advance conservative causes has a long history in the American press, and there is no good reason why you should surrender this viable and even lucrative market to the likes of Hannity and O’Reilly. Put simply, if we don’t have Lou to lie to us, we will have to turn elsewhere to find the fuel to sustain our bigotry and otherwise indefensible hatred, and your viewership can only suffer if you shortsightedly deny a voice to the opinions of the batshit-crazy segment of the population.
Sincerely,
(Jim)
July 24, 2009
Jonathan Klein
President
CNN/U.S.
1 Time Warner Center
New York, N.Y. 10019-6038
Dear Mr. Klein:
Please do not give in to the demands of the Left that Lou Dobbs be censored on the topic of Obama’s birth documentation. Doesn’t the political Right deserve fair treatment? If, as Stephen Colbert once observed, “The truth has a well-known liberal bias,” then isn’t the Right entitled to present a counterbalance of disinformation and deception? As your rival Fox News has so effectively demonstrated, there is ample room for half-truths, deceit, and outright lies in American journalism. Story fabrication in order to advance conservative causes has a long history in the American press, and there is no good reason why you should surrender this viable and even lucrative market to the likes of Hannity and O’Reilly. Put simply, if we don’t have Lou to lie to us, we will have to turn elsewhere to find the fuel to sustain our bigotry and otherwise indefensible hatred, and your viewership can only suffer if you shortsightedly deny a voice to the opinions of the batshit-crazy segment of the population.
Sincerely,
(Jim)
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Another Take on Freedom of Information
I'm a psychologist, and have to do a fair amount of reading in order to keep up with my field--reading that requires access to professional journals. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to get to the journals I need because I am a private practitioner with no academic affiliation. I do have access to some journals because of (expensive) memberships in professional societies, but there are many journals I cannot get to online. As a result, I end up having to submit individual article requests to libraries, write to authors for reprints, beg copies of articles off colleagues, etc.
There are starting to appear some open-access, peer-reviewed online journals. This is a development I heartily applaud. I hope this trend becomes the norm for scientific and professional publishing in the future.
In the meantime, however, in most cases we're stuck with the old model of journals put out by for-profit publishing houses and the consequent profit-driven limitations to access. I don't mean to denigrate the profit system per se, but the restricted nature of primary-source scientific information pisses me off, especially when I consider that my tax dollars go to support much of the research to which I am being denied access. But beyond that, I think everyone should have access to this kind of public information. Why should a poor person be blocked from knowledge easily available to the oppressor class?
There has to be a better way to finance the journals. For example, why not add a small amount onto each research grant sufficient to pay for the dissemination of the findings of the research? Or, for those rare research projects without public or corporate financing, perhaps some scheme for government subsidization of publication. Any journal that publishes publicly financed research should be reimbursed from public funds for publishing the results of the research. Seems like a simple and nearly perfect solution to me.
There are starting to appear some open-access, peer-reviewed online journals. This is a development I heartily applaud. I hope this trend becomes the norm for scientific and professional publishing in the future.
In the meantime, however, in most cases we're stuck with the old model of journals put out by for-profit publishing houses and the consequent profit-driven limitations to access. I don't mean to denigrate the profit system per se, but the restricted nature of primary-source scientific information pisses me off, especially when I consider that my tax dollars go to support much of the research to which I am being denied access. But beyond that, I think everyone should have access to this kind of public information. Why should a poor person be blocked from knowledge easily available to the oppressor class?
There has to be a better way to finance the journals. For example, why not add a small amount onto each research grant sufficient to pay for the dissemination of the findings of the research? Or, for those rare research projects without public or corporate financing, perhaps some scheme for government subsidization of publication. Any journal that publishes publicly financed research should be reimbursed from public funds for publishing the results of the research. Seems like a simple and nearly perfect solution to me.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Curmudgeon's Guide to Health Care
I must say I favor a free-market approach to health care: a system in which you can choose your own providers, and where you don't get punished for being taken to the wrong hospital by the wrong ambulance while you're unconscious. You know--a truly competitive system where the good providers get lots of patients and the poor ones get driven out of business because word gets around and nobody will go to them. A system where you and your provider decide what's needed for your care without interference from the corporate beancounters.
Our present system anything but a free market for consumers. Your insurance company dictates what doctor you can see, what hospital you can go to, and whether or not you're going to get that expensive test or procedure. As long as you are well, you are a profit source for them. If you get sick, you become a problem. If you get too expensive to them, they're pretty good at finding ways to dump you. And, as a side-effect of our ingenious employer-based health care payment system, if you get too ill to keep your job, you will automatically end up on the discard heap.
Very few of us can actually afford the kind of care that we might someday need--bypass surgery, say, or cancer treatment. We therefore must have a system in which relatively small payments from the many who do not need expensive interventions help to pay for the relatively few who do need expensive care. That means that the young and healthy need to pay in to the system during those periods of their lives when they aren't using much health care so that their elders can be cared for--and so that someday they too can be cared for in their time of need.
No for-profit insurance scheme will ever provide free-market health care. By their very nature, insurance companies are structured to make profits by denying needed services. They reward the providers who cost them the least, not the ones who save or improve the quality of the most lives.
The great paradox of the Western world is that only way to provide a free market for providers is through universal, tax-funded single-payer health care. In this system, the government serves as the collector and disburser of health care funds. You pay into the health care system--ideally through income taxes--and when you need health services, you go to the doctor of your choice, she treats you, she submits her bill to the government, and they pay. That's the way it works in much of the civilized world, and that's the way it should work here.
Our present system anything but a free market for consumers. Your insurance company dictates what doctor you can see, what hospital you can go to, and whether or not you're going to get that expensive test or procedure. As long as you are well, you are a profit source for them. If you get sick, you become a problem. If you get too expensive to them, they're pretty good at finding ways to dump you. And, as a side-effect of our ingenious employer-based health care payment system, if you get too ill to keep your job, you will automatically end up on the discard heap.
Very few of us can actually afford the kind of care that we might someday need--bypass surgery, say, or cancer treatment. We therefore must have a system in which relatively small payments from the many who do not need expensive interventions help to pay for the relatively few who do need expensive care. That means that the young and healthy need to pay in to the system during those periods of their lives when they aren't using much health care so that their elders can be cared for--and so that someday they too can be cared for in their time of need.
No for-profit insurance scheme will ever provide free-market health care. By their very nature, insurance companies are structured to make profits by denying needed services. They reward the providers who cost them the least, not the ones who save or improve the quality of the most lives.
The great paradox of the Western world is that only way to provide a free market for providers is through universal, tax-funded single-payer health care. In this system, the government serves as the collector and disburser of health care funds. You pay into the health care system--ideally through income taxes--and when you need health services, you go to the doctor of your choice, she treats you, she submits her bill to the government, and they pay. That's the way it works in much of the civilized world, and that's the way it should work here.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Something strange is happening in America--
something no virtually no living American has seen as an adult.
People just aren't drinking the Kool Ade any more. The cat's out of the bottle. The genie's out of the bag. There ain't no goin' back now. We have the power, we have the popular will on our side. There's a new game in town, and the politicians had better learn it.
A new poll says 52% want to legalize pot despite a decades-long, intensive propaganda campaign to keep it illegal.
65 or 70% support Obama and/or his supposedly liberal policies, despite a concentrated effort by the M$M media to sink him.
Harry and Louise be damned--57% of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for universal health care.
A large majority would gleefully see the rich start carrying their share of the tax burden.
Everybody, from both parties, is Goddamn sick of seeing bailouts of the corporate criminals who caused the current economic mess with their greed.
Hell, even the teabaggers, if they could figure out exactly what it is they're mad about, would discover that they too are just damned sick of being exploited by the corporate ruling class.
The Republicans and DINOs (who, combined, sadly constitute majorities in both houses of Congress) ignore these signs at their peril. If they manage to thwart the public will on these and a few other hot-button issues, I suspect they are going to find themselves confronting some unwelcome and unexpected turns of events in 2010.
The fact is, the rules of the game seem to be changing. All that corporate lucre will only guarantee your re-election if the public is willing to buy your propaganda message. The poll data I mentioned above indicates to me that this is not necessarily the case any more. People are finding new sources of information, largely online, but elsewhere too. Just as the establishment forces managed to capture public radio and turn it into a corporate mouthpiece, Amy Goodman appears on a thousand little low-power FM stations across the land. Internet radio, satellite radio--new voices appear everywhere, singing songs the corporations don't want you to hear.
Since the beginning of the Republic, with a few slips (such as in the period between 1932 and the end of the War), the rich have controlled public opinion. "America is a center-right country," they screeched.
Well, despite the best efforts of the propagandists, the public doesn't seem to be falling for it any more. The majority is discovering itself. That is to say, we are becoming aware of the fact that we are indeed the majority. There is perhaps nothing more powerful on the political scene that a populism that has suddenly discovered its own popularity.
People just aren't drinking the Kool Ade any more. The cat's out of the bottle. The genie's out of the bag. There ain't no goin' back now. We have the power, we have the popular will on our side. There's a new game in town, and the politicians had better learn it.
A new poll says 52% want to legalize pot despite a decades-long, intensive propaganda campaign to keep it illegal.
65 or 70% support Obama and/or his supposedly liberal policies, despite a concentrated effort by the M$M media to sink him.
Harry and Louise be damned--57% of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for universal health care.
A large majority would gleefully see the rich start carrying their share of the tax burden.
Everybody, from both parties, is Goddamn sick of seeing bailouts of the corporate criminals who caused the current economic mess with their greed.
Hell, even the teabaggers, if they could figure out exactly what it is they're mad about, would discover that they too are just damned sick of being exploited by the corporate ruling class.
The Republicans and DINOs (who, combined, sadly constitute majorities in both houses of Congress) ignore these signs at their peril. If they manage to thwart the public will on these and a few other hot-button issues, I suspect they are going to find themselves confronting some unwelcome and unexpected turns of events in 2010.
The fact is, the rules of the game seem to be changing. All that corporate lucre will only guarantee your re-election if the public is willing to buy your propaganda message. The poll data I mentioned above indicates to me that this is not necessarily the case any more. People are finding new sources of information, largely online, but elsewhere too. Just as the establishment forces managed to capture public radio and turn it into a corporate mouthpiece, Amy Goodman appears on a thousand little low-power FM stations across the land. Internet radio, satellite radio--new voices appear everywhere, singing songs the corporations don't want you to hear.
Since the beginning of the Republic, with a few slips (such as in the period between 1932 and the end of the War), the rich have controlled public opinion. "America is a center-right country," they screeched.
Well, despite the best efforts of the propagandists, the public doesn't seem to be falling for it any more. The majority is discovering itself. That is to say, we are becoming aware of the fact that we are indeed the majority. There is perhaps nothing more powerful on the political scene that a populism that has suddenly discovered its own popularity.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
THE LIBERAL AGENDA
I've been hearing a lot lately about some Liberal Agenda that President Obama is about to inflict on us unwilling Americans any second now. Well, this kind of talk scared me as much as the next red-blooded patriot, so I did what any right-thinking person would do under these circumstances. I rushed out and bought up all the 9mm pistol ammunition I could find in the local sporting goods stores. (In case you didn't know it, 9mm is by far the most popular round for home defense.) Turns out all I could find was 3 very overpriced boxes because everyone else seems to have thought of doing this before me. Well, maybe that was for the best, considering that I don't own any 9mm firearms.
Then I started to wonder--what exactly is this Liberal Agenda, anyway? I asked around and nobody down at the Dew Drop Inn seemed to know exactly for sure, so I started searching with the Google and whatnot, and I finally actually found a copy posted on one of those liberal socialist websites. So, without further ado (whatever that is), I present to you--
All NASCAR events will immediately be outlawed.
Alcohol will no longer be served in public places, but tavern and bar owners may apply for re-licensure to serve marijuana and effete coffee-based beverages.
Abortions will be available on demand for everyone, and will be mandatory for any pregnant woman who is not a card-carrying Democrat.
Gay marriage will be legalized, as will inter-species domestic partnerships.
All military vehicles such as tanks, airplanes and ships will be painted in rainbow colors to signify inclusiveness, and will be emblazoned with pink triangles.
Atheism will immediately be proclaimed the State religion. Anyone refusing to evolve into an atheist will be sent to a Darwinian re-education camp.
Illegal immigrants will be given preference in federal hiring.
Church services will be outlawed everywhere and replaced with Sunday-morning sensitivity training and yoga.
All guns will be confiscated immediately. People who voluntarily turn in three or more firearms will be awarded free surfboards.
All faith-based charity funding will cease immediately, and the funds will be diverted to the new Adopt-A-Terrorist programs that will be starting up in every state.
Then I started to wonder--what exactly is this Liberal Agenda, anyway? I asked around and nobody down at the Dew Drop Inn seemed to know exactly for sure, so I started searching with the Google and whatnot, and I finally actually found a copy posted on one of those liberal socialist websites. So, without further ado (whatever that is), I present to you--
THE LIBERAL AGENDA
All NASCAR events will immediately be outlawed.
Alcohol will no longer be served in public places, but tavern and bar owners may apply for re-licensure to serve marijuana and effete coffee-based beverages.
Abortions will be available on demand for everyone, and will be mandatory for any pregnant woman who is not a card-carrying Democrat.
Gay marriage will be legalized, as will inter-species domestic partnerships.
All military vehicles such as tanks, airplanes and ships will be painted in rainbow colors to signify inclusiveness, and will be emblazoned with pink triangles.
Atheism will immediately be proclaimed the State religion. Anyone refusing to evolve into an atheist will be sent to a Darwinian re-education camp.
Illegal immigrants will be given preference in federal hiring.
Church services will be outlawed everywhere and replaced with Sunday-morning sensitivity training and yoga.
All guns will be confiscated immediately. People who voluntarily turn in three or more firearms will be awarded free surfboards.
All faith-based charity funding will cease immediately, and the funds will be diverted to the new Adopt-A-Terrorist programs that will be starting up in every state.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Life Sentences for Teens
CNN is carrying a story today about kids sent to prison for life. According to their story, "at least 73 U.S. inmates -- most of them minorities -- ... were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison for crimes committed when they were 13 or 14, according to the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit organization in Alabama that defends indigent defendants and prisoners.
As I read these unGodly statistics, I am once more reminded that in Ameria, life imprisonment is for retail killers only. Wholesale murder isn't illegal.
Case in Point #1: The Ford Pinto Memo.
In the 1970's, Ford put out the Pinto with a defect that caused the car to explode in a ball of flame if rear-ended. They then ran a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to modify the car to eliminate the defect. Here is their calculation (from Wikipedia):
Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires
Expected Costs of producing the Pinto with fuel tank modifications:
* Expected unit sales: 11 million vehicles (includes utility vehicles built on same chassis)
* Modification costs per unit: $11.00
* Total Cost: $121 million
<= 11,000,000 vehicles x $11.00 per unit>
Expected Costs of producing the Pinto without fuel tank modifications:
* Expected accident results (assuming 2100 accidents):
180 burn deaths
180 serious burn injuries
2100 burned out vehicles
* Unit costs of accident results (assuming out of court settlements):
$200,000 per burn death*
$67,000 per serious injury
$700 per burned out vehicle
* Total Costs: $49.53 million
<= (180 deaths x $200k) + (180 injuries x $67k) + (2100 vehicles x $700 per vehicle)>
Thus, the costs for fixing the Pinto was $121 million, while settling cases where injuries occur was only $50 million. With such a difference in costs, Ford decided to manufacture and market the Pinto without fuel tank modifications.
Nobody was ever held criminally responsible for this decision.
*By the way, the $200k and $67k figures for the average value of a lost or injured adult life is drawn from the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) calculation of the estimated costs to society of automobile accidents. It is not a low-ball figure fabricated by Ford. (For example, the $200k for death was calculated by adding estimated direct costs of $163k -- such as loss of future earnings, plus $37k of indirect costs -- such as hospital and insurance costs, legal and court costs, victim pain and suffering, funeral costs, and property damage.)
Case # 2:
The Bush Administration prevaricated their way into an elective war using supposed intelligence information that they knew to be bogus. Total cost, at least 1 million lives, and the ruin of the cultural artifacts of an ancient civilization.
Penalty? None.
"The 73 are just a fraction of the more than 2,000 offenders serving life sentences for crimes they committed as minors under the age of 18."
As I read these unGodly statistics, I am once more reminded that in Ameria, life imprisonment is for retail killers only. Wholesale murder isn't illegal.
Case in Point #1: The Ford Pinto Memo.
In the 1970's, Ford put out the Pinto with a defect that caused the car to explode in a ball of flame if rear-ended. They then ran a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to modify the car to eliminate the defect. Here is their calculation (from Wikipedia):
Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires
Expected Costs of producing the Pinto with fuel tank modifications:
* Expected unit sales: 11 million vehicles (includes utility vehicles built on same chassis)
* Modification costs per unit: $11.00
* Total Cost: $121 million
<= 11,000,000 vehicles x $11.00 per unit>
Expected Costs of producing the Pinto without fuel tank modifications:
* Expected accident results (assuming 2100 accidents):
180 burn deaths
180 serious burn injuries
2100 burned out vehicles
* Unit costs of accident results (assuming out of court settlements):
$200,000 per burn death*
$67,000 per serious injury
$700 per burned out vehicle
* Total Costs: $49.53 million
<= (180 deaths x $200k) + (180 injuries x $67k) + (2100 vehicles x $700 per vehicle)>
Thus, the costs for fixing the Pinto was $121 million, while settling cases where injuries occur was only $50 million. With such a difference in costs, Ford decided to manufacture and market the Pinto without fuel tank modifications.
Nobody was ever held criminally responsible for this decision.
*By the way, the $200k and $67k figures for the average value of a lost or injured adult life is drawn from the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) calculation of the estimated costs to society of automobile accidents. It is not a low-ball figure fabricated by Ford. (For example, the $200k for death was calculated by adding estimated direct costs of $163k -- such as loss of future earnings, plus $37k of indirect costs -- such as hospital and insurance costs, legal and court costs, victim pain and suffering, funeral costs, and property damage.)
Case # 2:
The Bush Administration prevaricated their way into an elective war using supposed intelligence information that they knew to be bogus. Total cost, at least 1 million lives, and the ruin of the cultural artifacts of an ancient civilization.
Penalty? None.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
