OREGON: WE'RE NUMBER ONE! (and it's shameful)

I watched some of the Oregon LSU football game the other day (the Ducks lost badly). I enjoy watching sports once in awhile, but I'm increasingly bothered by the high level of hype, and the very big dollars that are associated with college sports (men's).

But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the fact that, according to a recent report released by Feeding America, the national food bank organization, the State of Oregon leads the nation in the percentage of children who are food insecure.  In my state, 29.2 percent of people under the age of 18 years don't get enough to eat, and don't always know where their next meal will come from (based on 2009 data). This is not a "being number one" that we are proud of.

Food insecure kids don't do well in school, and this can harm them for life. It also harms our society and our economy. A number of organizations are helping get food to kids at school that they can eat there, and also take home for the weekend. School staff will tell you (and my wife saw this when she was working in schools) that some kids come to school because they know they'll get a meal there (some parents do, too).

Let's work together to put an end to this problem. Donate money and/or time to organizations that help feed kids. Let your congresspersons know that this isn't right and needs to be fixed.

And when you are cheering for the Ducks, or whatever team you like, as they run onto the field or court, in their shiny new uniforms and shoes and gear, show your team spirit by putting a little more cash in that envelope to the Food Bank.

THE AMERICAN ECONOMY: THE MISSING PIECE

Something I realized recently is that the on-going discussion in this country about the economy, including the high rate of unemployment, is missing a critically important piece, the role of business in solving the problems.

Where is the voice of American businesses in this discussion? I don't mean the quiet voice of lobbyists whispering in the ears of elected representatives. I don't mean the voice of corporate money slipping into the campaign pockets of politicians. I mean the public voice of businesses, a load voice that is talking about how they are or can help solve this mess we're in. After all, it is in the best interest of corporate America that consumers have the money needed to consume.

We hear a lot about corporations, but not much from them. We hear about how many people they are laying off, and sometimes how many they are hiring. We also hear about the record profits some of the largest firms are racking up, and some analyses that they are hoarding profits by not hiring workers. But what are corporations saying?

I had a discussion with my brother recently about the responsibilities of corporations. Corporations are considered to be "persons" by our legal system; so do these persons have responsibilities to be moral and to be good citizens? My brother says no, the only responsibility a corporation has is to maximize profits for it's shareholders. I spent a bit of time on the internet looking at what legal and economic experts have to say on this topic, and they don't all agree. Some agree with my brother; others say that corporate entities have the same responsibilities as other persons in our society.

This morning, as I read through yesterday's (Sunday) New York Times, I found a full page letter from Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, to "fellow concerned Americans." His letter talks about the failure of our government to provide leadership instead of partisan politics. He and 100 other business leaders sent a letter urging the President and members of Congress to provide the leadership needed to end the downward spiral we're in as a nation, and these business people signed two pledges. The first is "to withhold political campaign contributions until a transparent, comprehensive, bipartisan debt-and-deficit package is reached that honestly, and fairly, sets America on a path to long-term financial health and security." The second is "to do all we can to break the cycle of economic uncertainty that grips our country by committing to accelerate investment in jobs and hiring." 


Now that's the voice of business I've been listening for!!  And I hope to hear this voice loader and more clearly as American business people stand up to take this mess head on. 

GOP DENIES THAT EARTHQUAKE IS REAL, CLAIMS HOAX BY SCIENTISTS

(The Scallion) Republican congressional spokesmen held a hurried press conference today following what many people believed was a large earthquake in the D.C. area. "Once again, the American public is being led to believe an alternative reality supported by so-called scientists whose only goal is to increase their grant funding" said Rep. John Boner, "There is no credible evidence that earthquakes are real, in fact, many scientists have stated that they just don't exist." Republicans quickly added that any attempts by the Obama administration or Democrats to increase funding for earthquake research and recovery planning would constitute "job-killing impacts to American businesses, especially those owned by the ultra-wealthy" and would be fought to the death by Republican members of Congress.

In a response, the White House indicated that they would seek a compromise with the Republican leadership that would allow public workers to sweep up any broken glass, without ending the Bush tax cuts or increasing any spending. The White House also signaled that the President might be willing to discuss cuts in Medicaide and Social Security to offset the costs of glass sweeping.

---


- posted from the fisheyepad

Location:Washington, D.C.

WHERE ARE WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES?

The Constitution of the United States of America, in it's Preamble, lists six goals of those who wrote it. One of these goals is to "promote the general Welfare."  Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The most important phrase in the Preamble, however, consists of the first three words: "we the People." With these three words, the framers of the Constitution clearly meant that the nation was to be ruled by the people, not a king, not a dictator, and not the Congress or the courts. Unfortunately, we the people have gone missing.


It can be argued the the general welfare is not being promoted in the year 2011. Instead, the members of the House and Senate spend most of their time promoting their political parties and political agendas. We the People are nowhere to be found. Oh yes, we "elect" the members of the House and Senate, but the reality is that big money decides these elections. We the People have been replaced by powerful corporations, unions, political action committees and individuals of the wealthy class. The general welfare of the powerful is being promoted at the expense of We the People.


The present battle over the debt ceiling being waged by the two political parties is really the continuation of a war of political philosophies that has raged for decades. The Democrats generally agree that "promoting the general welfare" includes providing for those who can't provide for themselves, using entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This side also sees that education and health care are the responsibilities of government. The Republicans generally agree that government should be lean and mean, with controlled spending funded by low taxes. The various social services should be either eliminated or scaled way back, and to hell with They the People who can't make it on their own. And, by the way, leave corporations and wealthy people alone so they can do business as usual (their good work will trickle down and help everyone). 


The reality of 2011 is that the Congress of the United States of America is a dysfunctional entity that is not fulfilling it's sole purpose for being: carrying out the duties assigned to it by the Constitution of the United States of America. The other reality of 2011 is that We the People are not of a unified mind or opinion regarding what the general welfare should be. And so we drift out of control with  inept and bickering politicians at the helm of the ship of state. We are basically out of control.


I don't know what we the people can or should do. Perhaps we need our own Tahrir Square, but I don't think there is a single, unifying cause that will bring us there. I hate the feeling of being adrift, and I hate the feeling of helplessness. I'm comfortable enough in my middle class-ness that I could simply ignore the conditions around me and enjoy my remaining years; but I can't accept that so many other people in this country (I'll save the rest of the world for another post) are truly suffering unnecessarily. I want a "more perfect Union" that truly "promotes the general Welfare." I just don't know how we the People can make it happen. 

AFGHANISTAN: THE USA NEEDS A NEW STRATEGY

I had mixed feelings about the U.S. going into Afghanistan initially, and I grew increasingly against our involvement there as time wore on. At this point, I have absolutely no idea why U.S. troops are still there, and I firmly believe we should pull out. "Nation building" is a joke, not a reason. We don't have a partner for nation building within Afghanistan, and anyway, since when did nation building become a goal of the U.S. government?

Every time my wife and I discuss Afghanistan we agree that the U.S. should leave; however, my wife always brings up the fate of women there when the Taliban regain control, which they probably will. It's not a pretty thought. So I have a new strategy to propose to the U.S. government: help all Afghani women leave Afghanistan. Let's look at the numbers.

The population of Afghanistan in 2011 is estimated to be 29,835,392 people. Of these, 6,149,468 are girls age 0 to 14 years, 8,031,968 are women age 15 to 64, and 380,051 are women 65 and older (that's correct, women don't live as long in Afghanistan as in the U.S. and many other developed nations). The total number of female Afghanis is 14,561,487.

The U.S. budget for operation in Afghanistan for 2012 is $107,000,000,000. That's 107 billion dollars if you got tired of reading zeros. This sum divided by the number of female Afghanis equals $7,348.15 per person. My new strategy is to take this budget and use it to transport and resettle all female Afghanis somewhere other than Afghanistan, in places where they will be safe and will have opportunities to rebuild their lives and have a positive future for their children.

As for the men left behind, well, let's let them figure it out themselves. And good luck to them!

---


- posted from the fisheyepad

IT'S GREEK TO ME: FINANCIAL MARKETS

I like to read the Business Day section of the NY Times. The top story today has the headline "Derivatives Cloud the Possible Fallout From a Greek Default." OK, sounds like I could get some insights into the economic woes of Greece, so I read the article. I have no idea what it all means! 


The situation in Greece is "clouded" by derivatives and credit-default swaps, whatever they are. It sounds like institutions buy insurance against loan defaults of others, and somehow make money from those. 


Let's start where I often start: definitions. 


Derivatives: according to Wikipedia, a derivative is "a financial instrument whose value depends on underlying variables." Um, not very helpful, but let's read on...a derivative "is essentially a contract whose payoff depends on the behavior of a benchmark." O...K....maybe we can find another definition.


Let's try Investopedia - that sounds pretty wonkish. 
A security whose price is dependent upon or derived from one or more underlying assets. The derivative itself is merely a contract between two or more parties. Its value is determined by fluctuations in the underlying asset. The most common underlying assets include stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, interest rates and market indexes. Most derivatives are characterized by high leverage. (I remember studying leverage in high school physics.)


Hmmm, let's read on: 
Futures contracts, forward contracts, options and swaps are the most common types of derivatives. Derivatives are contracts and can be used as an underlying asset. There are even derivatives based on weather data, such as the amount of rain or the number of sunny days in a particular region.

Oh great, now were into forecasting the weather! 


Maybe "credit default swap" will be easier to understand, and I'm liking Investopedia, so let's stay with them. 
Credit default swaps (CDS) are the most widely used type of credit derivative and a powerful force in the world markets. The first CDS contract was introduced by JP Morgan in 1997 and by mid-2007, the value of the market had ballooned to an estimated $45 trillion, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association - over twice the size of the U.S. stock market.


Now we're getting somewhere....let's keep going:
A CDS contract involves the transfer of the credit risk of municipal bonds, emerging market bonds, mortgage-backed securities, or corporate debt between two parties. It is similar to insurance because it provides the buyer of the contract, who often owns the underlying credit, with protection against default, a credit rating downgrade, or another negative "credit event." The seller of the contract assumes the credit risk that the buyer does not wish to shoulder in exchange for a periodic protection fee similar to an insurance premium, and is obligated to pay only if a negative credit event occurs.



So what does this have to do with Greece? Well, what the NY Times article discusses is that there might be large financial institutions that are holding CDS contracts on Greek debt, and if Greece defaults on the debt, these institutions will have to pay out. The trouble is, no-one knows who is holding CDSs on Greek debt and how large these are. If some institutions are holding huge amounts of CDSs on Greek debt, they might be unable to pay out, with very serious impacts to the world economy - again. 


I say again because this is exactly what happened in the good old US of A; remember AIG? That's right, AIG (American International Group) had insured the performance of mortgage bonds through derivatives (there's that term again) and could not pay out on them. As a result, the US government had to bail out AIG to the tune of 182 billion dollars. 


So maybe I do understand this stuff a little bit now. For me, the bottom line is this - the financial institutions on Wall Street and elsewhere have set up this very large and complex system (dare I call it a form of gambling?) that imperils the world economy. Recent history has shown us very clearly that if these big guys get in trouble, us little folk will have to bail them out with our tax dollars. And keep in mind, this derivative and credit-default swap stuff is mostly unregulated. 


Maybe I'll pull my money out of the market and take it to the nearest casino.

"TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD" SEEN AS NEVER BEFORE AND PROBABLY NEVER AGAIN

Tonight we were among a few hundred people gathered in the 1913 Historic Ashland Armory for a "concert performance" of the play "To Kill a Mockingbird" by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The regular staged performance had to be cancelled because of structural damage to the Bowmer Theater building discovered earlier in the day. Numerous people and institutions of Ashland rallied around OSF to make the Armory available and ready for the performance.

Nineteen chairs were lined up across the stage. The actors filed in, sat down, and after an explaination of how this had come together so quickly, each actor introduced her/himself, told what characters they play, and the play began. No set. No props. Each actor standing to play their role, with limited stage movement. And it was wonderful!

The audience sat enthralled on folding chairs borrowed from local schools, hanging on every word and phrase. I can't imagine a better performance, even with a full set, props and blocking. The cast, to a person, brought this compelling play to life using only their acting skills, the words of a great script, and the cohesion of a fine acting company.

Thank you, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, for a once in a lifetime experience.

- posted from the fisheyepad

Location:Ashland, Oregon. USA

WOULD YOU LET THIS DOCTOR EXAMINE YOUR EYES?

(Photo Source)


This is Dr. Assad, an ophthalmologist who trained in Damascus and London. He is 46 years old, his wife was born in London to Syrian parents and is an investment banker. They have three children. In addition to his native language, Dr. Assad speaks fluent English and French, and has traveled widely in the world. He is a very modern man. 


And did I mention that Dr. Assad is the brutal Syrian dictator whose security forces torture and murder civilians? He's the kind of guy who, in addition to giving you a thorough eye examination, would also probably enjoy pulling your eye out of it's socket with his fingers (probably not a technique he learned in medical school)! 


How do educated people like Assad become monsters? And why does the rest of the world put up with guys like him? The answers are, as usual, politics. Answer 1: Assad wants to stay in power; answer 2: world governments have made the usual choice of political expediency over human rights. 


I watched a portion of an Anderson Cooper (CNN) report about the situation In Syria, a report that held nothing back. The violence captured on cell phone videos was shocking and disturbing. Assad's forces are seemingly beating and killing everyone in their sight. Children are being "arrested" and their tortured, mutilated bodies returned to the parents weeks later. The Syrian forces are operating under a scorched earth policy - leave nothing standing, leave no one alive. 


And what is the response by the rest of the world? Elected leaders have harsh words and a few economic sanctions. But world leaders are being extremely cautious, because a Syria without Assad could be a bad geopolitical situation that could make matters in the Middle East worse than they have been under Assad's tight control. 


What we are witnessing, yet again, is the critical failure of humanity to live up to it's potential. Instead of progress and improvement for everyone, we see brutal repression for the benefit of the few, and world indifference for political reasons. The same old same old, endlessly repeated.


Dr. Assad, how do you live with your actions? How do you hug your children knowing that your storm troopers are torturing and murdering other people's children? How do you justify the extreme violence being committed in your name? Are you a human or a monster? 


I recently attended my niece's graduation from medical school. Part of the ceremony was the recitation of the Declaration of Geneva physician's oath. This declaration includes the following statements: 


"I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;" 

"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat...."


Maybe Dr. Assad had his fingers crossed under his gown.


I truly wish I could do something to help the Syrian people. I'll contact my elected representatives and implore them to act, but the reality is that the Syrian people are on their own. The rest of us can only sit and watch the horror on CNN. 

THE OREGON BOTTLE BILL: CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC?

Oregon was one of, or maybe the first state to enact a bottle deposit system, and we've been paying the nickel per certain types of glass and plastic bottles and aluminum cans ever since. We get back a nickel per bottle or can when we take them back to the retail store. Now the Oregon legislature is working on an update to the bill that will include many more bottle types than beer and soft drinks. The bill will also establish a system of bottle redemption centers so that the retail stores will no longer have to deal with bottle returns. And the deposit might increase to ten cents per bottle.

I don't get it.

I just returned from a walk to my local Fred Meyers store, where in addition to shopping, I returned some deposit bottles. This recently remodeled store has a separate small building, across the parking lot from the store, that has four bottle and can return machines. One of the three can and bottle machines was out of order, and the fourth machine is only for aluminum cans. A woman and her two kids were feeding bottles and cans into one machine; they had a half-dozen very large plastic trash bags full. A man was feeding bottles and cans into another machine; he had a shopping cart mounded high with bottles and cans. Another woman was standing and waiting; she had a shopping cart full plus a trash bag of cans and bottles. The can only machine was unused - I had bottles. The two working machines are the type that accept one bottle or can at a time, so I knew I had to be patient. Did I mention that I had three six-pack carriers of glass bottles and two liter-size plastic seltzer bottles? I waited, fed my few bottles into the machine, and got a receipt worth one dollar. Oh joy!

So the future is that I'll need to get in my car and drive to a redemption center, so I'll probably save bottles until I have a truck load (where the hell I'll keep them I have no idea), and then I'll spend a bunch-o-time standing around a smelly, sticky-floored crap hole to have my turn at a machine. Hmmm....get in car, use gas, spew emissions, stand around waiting for the professionals to be finished.....great plan.

We have curbside recycling in Portland. The blue rolling cart is for paper, cardboard, certain plastics, and metals. The green rolling cart is for yard debris. The yellow bin is for glass. The pickup is once a week. So why can't they also give me a bin for deposit bottles and cans, scan in some code that records the credit to my account, and dump it into a machine like the ones at the redemption center that counts them and breaks the glass bottles and shreds the plastic bottles and aluminum cans?

Is this too logical, or what? Someone please help me out here.

SPECIAL REPORT: SEA LION LIBERATION TRAINING CAMP

I have previously posted about and from my friend, Sammy C. Lyon concerning the salmon-sea lion controversy at Bonneville Dam. The first post was in January, 2008, in which Sammy gave his species' position on this controversy. In an April, 2009 post, Sammy gave an emotional eulogy for his uncle, Jack C. Lyon, assumed to be killed by wildlife officials at Bonneville Dam. And in January, 2010, I reported the mysterious movements of Sea Lions along the Pacific coast, and the pending demonstrations by Sammy and his relatives.

And now, in a readmyopinion exclusive, I report on a visit to a secret training camp of the Sea Lion Liberation Front. I was taken, blindfolded, to this remote location, where I was allowed to take exclusive video of the training camp, and interview the Commander in charge. Here it is:

MEMO TO SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON: WOMEN IN SAUDI ARABIA

Dear Secretary Clinton:

I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen of the United States of America about a serious foreign policy topic, womens' rights in Saudi Arabia. I heard a report today, May 4, 2011, on National Public Radio about a group of Saudi women who went to register for an upcoming election, even though the government had announced that women could not vote in this election. They went as a protest against this policy, even though they know what kinds of punishments they could get from the government for this action.

Secretary Clinton, how can we let one of our allies treat women this way? We know, especially now in the midst of tremendous change in the Arab countries, that people in those countries clearly recognize the role of the United States in supporting governments that have or now oppress them. And, although women in Saudi Arabia have some measure of "freedom," such as the right to be employed, they are oppressed in many ways. One example was given in the NPR report today. It told of women who were arrested by the Religious Police for driving automobiles. These women were mistreated while being held, and then flyers were distributed about them saying, among other things, that they are whores. They were subsequently shunned by family members, neighbors and co-workers.

It is no longer acceptable (and really never was) for the United States to turn a blind eye to these kinds of human rights abuses. We are either on the bus or off the bus when it comes to democratization of Arab countries, even those with which we have close economic and security arrangements.

Mrs. Clinton, please work on this issue. Please have serious discussions with the Saudi leaders about how this must end. And please make a public policy statement that the United States supports the rights of all people, including and especially women and girls, in Saudi Arabia and all other countries who count the United States as a friend and ally.

Thank you, Madame Secretary, for taking action on this important topic.

Paul Fishman
Portland, Oregon USA

Copy:
President Barak Obama


- posted from the fisheyepad

THE NEW MIDDLE EAST: IS THERE HOPE FOR A BETTER FUTURE?

This is a post I've thought about for a long time, and even more since the Arab Awakening began in Tunisia earlier this year. What will happen in the Arab countries where citizens are demonstrating, and, in some places, dying for freedom and democracy? How will the United States adjust it's foreign policy to meet the challenges of this new geopolitical region? And what will happen to Israel, the beleaguered democracy in the middle of the Arab world? These questions are in my mind daily as I scan the news trying to keep up. 


Every analyst and pundit and armchair commentator (yes, including me) has a point of view, a theory, a list of facts. One can find support in the Blahblahosphere (I just invented that term, and I think I like it) for just about every point of view. And, being no exception, I'll try below to state my point of view.


History is irreversible. There are enmities in the Middle East too numerous to count; clan-based, tribal, religious, political and national. Most of this is based on the historic "wrongs" of one group visited upon another. To this I can only say: forget the past and look to the future. A certain political party killed your relatives and you want revenge? Another religious group insulted yours and you need retribution? Your ancestors lived in a certain area 2,000 years ago and you want it back? Forget about it! There are no do-overs in history. The important thing is what the future will be for your children and their children and all the generations to follow. 


Do people in the Middle East share common dreams for the future? I would hope that the majority of people in the region would say yes, and that these dreams are for a free, tolerant and secure society, education for their children, good jobs and a comfortable standard of living, and peace. Yes, there are those who think differently, but I have to believe that, given the choice between peace and war, wealth and poverty, education and ignorance, the majority would choose the first of each of these. 


Each of the countries presently experiencing public unrest will have it's own path to the future. Egypt and Tunisia, for example, already had in place many of the institutions needed to move towards democracy. (Note: by "democracy" I don't mean United States style democracy; I mean some form of public rule.) Libya, on the other hand, had much less. There are no guarantees that any of the many countries experiencing the "Arab Awakening" will end up better places for their citizens than they were, but the chance is there. 


The role of my country, the United States, has always been one of political expediency. The U.S. has made numerous choices to support dictators for political reasons - national security, fighting terrorism - and economic reasons - keep the oil and gas flowing - while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses by these "allies." While I understand this intellectually, I am ashamed by it morally. In Libya, Qaddafi was our enemy, then Qadaffi was our friend, and now Qaddifi is again our enemy. The political winds blow. Mubarak was our ally and recipient of huge infusions of cash and military tools, in exchange for peace with Israel, open trade, and a semblance of solidity in the face of extremism. But when the Egyptian people stood up and roared, it was more expedient to tell Mubarak his time was up. More changing political winds. 


I hope the Obama administration gets it right. There is a political tightrope to walk, and any slip could be the fatal one - politically speaking. The U. S. needs to support the legitimate right of people to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The U. S. also needs to protect it's national interests. I have to think, however, that protecting the rights of people is the way to protect our national interests. 


I have a number of hopes for the outcomes of this present political upheaval. I hope that the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, Algeria and Iraq find forms of peace and freedom that improve their lives and their futures. I hope that secular, democratic governments emerge from the chaos of change. I hope that extremists of all kinds find infertile ground wherever they go, and that the fruits of hatred wither on the vines of tolerance and friendship. 


And finally, there is the hope that an independent Israel and an independent Palestine live side-by-side in peace with each other and all their neighbors. The Israel-Palestine conflict has gone on too long, and the world has grown weary of it. The leaders of the Palestinian and Israeli governments need to seize upon the geopolitical upheavals in their part of the world and quickly find a path towards coexistence. Anything short of that will be catastrophic for everyone. Netanyahu and Abbas need to put down all pre-conditions for resumed talks and get to the table, no matter who is at the table for each side.


Part of this final hope of mine is that the people fighting and dying for freedom in the Arab world will recognize that part of their own liberation is a liberation of thought and understanding concerning the world around them. To these good people I say: don't judge my country, the U. S., too harshly for supporting those who oppressed you. The people in my country will do all we can to get our government to hold out hands of help and friendship for a better future. And don't fan flames of hatred for Israel and the Jewish people; instead, use your newly found freedoms to move the world forward, not backward. We can all work together to write a better future history of the world! 

Why I do not Support the Production of Electricity using Nuclear Power

I've been opposed to the generation of electricity by nuclear power as long as I can remember knowing about it. In the early 1970's I read "The Closing Circle" by Dr. Barry Commoner who used the laws of physics to argue, convincingly I thought, that using a controlled nuclear reaction to produce heat of thousands of degrees to boil water to turn a steam turbine makes absolutely no sense. The ongoing catastrophes in the Japanese nuclear power industry underscore these concerns.

I just left France, where 58 nuclear reactors generate almost all of the country's electricity (we did see a few wind turbines outside of St. Remy du Provence), and overall, about 30 percent of electricity in the European Union countries is generated this way. France and other countries are solid or semi-solid supporters of nuclear power, while others, like Austria, Greece and Ireland (which, according to the airplane digital map we are now flying over) ban the use of nuclear for power generation. German Chancellor Merkel is pushing for nuclear "stress tests" of all existing commercial reactors (source: International Herald Tribune March 24, 2011).

In Japan, the earthquake and tsunami resulted in extensive damage to some nuclear power plants, resulting in unconfined explosions, partial meltdowns, and releases of radioactivity. Facility operators are struggling to gain control of runaway reactors after suffering failures of critical systems as well as backup systems, including backup electrical generators. The magnitude of the earthquake and resulting tsunamis exceeded the design and safety standards of the nuclear power plants (see Footnote 1).

As my friend Bob recently said, the recent experience in Japan is not a wakeup call for us in the Pacific Northwest, it's a final warning. And the rest of the world also needs to heed this final warning.

Here's why I think nuclear power generation is wrong:
1. It is an inherently dangerous technology that requires many more complicated controls to avoid a disastrous accident, compared to any other energy generating facility;
2. The results of an accident at a nuclear power plant have much more serious and long-term consequences, in terms of human health and environmental impacts, than any other type of facility. (To be clear, other types of generation facilities, such as coal and oil burners, emit pollutants, and a major explosion would release much more, some of which are persistent in the environment. However, I think these pale in the face of radioactive particles.)
3. Nuclear waste has always been problematic, and as yet, after many decades of generation, there is not a long-term storage solution. "This is not a problem" the industry tells us; "a solution will be found soon." And so, most spent fuel rods are kept in pools of water - temporary storage - at the nuclear power plants. This is one of the major problems at at least one of the Japanese nuclear facilities affected by the recent earthquake events, the temporary storage facilities have been damaged, and the operators are still desperately pouring sea water on them to try to keep them from exploding.

Put all of the above together, and the rationale for building nuclear power plants defies simple logic. Quite simply, nuclear power is simply too complicated and too dangerous. It's not that the risk is too high, it's that the consequences of an accident are too high. And we can't ever forgetas my friend Scott always said, "Nature is a hangin' judge."

There are those, including many of our leaders, who have recently come around to a position of considering the nuclear energy option as part of our energy mix. A large part of this discussion is fueled by the politics of reducing our import, here in the U.S., of foreign oil (see footnote 1). This is clearly, in my opinion, a wrong conclusion and not really the issue. The issue is not the source of our electrical energy, but our unquenchable demand for it. We expect to be able to suck as much electricity out of the wall outlets as we want, all the time, to fuel our ever-increasing pile of electronic machines and gadgets.

It's way beyond time for us as a society to think about how much we consume, and what the consequences of that consumption are. I'm sitting on an airplane writing on an iPad, and when my power is low, I want - no, I demand as if it is a Constitutional right - that there is an electrical outlet I can plug into. When I've completed this post, I'll send it off into the cloud of the Internet, where it will exist for the rest of time (or perhaps as long as there are humans) on a multitude of computer servers sitting in huge, power-sucking server facilities so that all of you readers can open it when ever and where ever you want.

Guess what folks? As long as we have this attitude, we'll have to continue to develop more electricity generating facilities, and this will include nukes. Face it, nuclear power is big business, and big business always comes out on top.

---


Footnotes:
1. In the engineering world, things are designed based on certain design criteria. For example, a storm water facility might be designed for what is known as a 20-year, 24-hour storm event, and any event larger than that simply overflows or bypasses the facility. There are design criteria for buildings and bridges based on a specific size of seismic event, and the structure is not expected to withstand an event larger than the design event.
2. What few people realize, and as I've discussed in previous posts, most of our "foreign" oil comes to us from Canada.






- posted from the fisheyepad

Location:high above the Atlantic Ocean between Europe and the USA

CONSERVING PROTECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES BY KILLING OTHERS

A recent article in our local newspaper was about the proposal to conserve the spotted owl, an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed bird, by killing barred owls, a species that is moving into spotted owl habitat and reducing spotted owl numbers. For those of you who don't live in the Pacific Northwest, the diminutive spotted owl was in the eye of an ESA legal hurricane here that pitted conservationists against the timber industry and timber industry communities. And it was a nasty fight!

But now, in spite of the ESA and the conservation measures it imposed, the spotted owls are still not doing as well as hoped, and the finger is pointing at the barred owls. The question being asked: should humans intervene in the struggles of nature by killing one species to save another? Some experts and conservationists think that the barred owls are expanding into spotted owl habitat because of human-induced changes in forest habitat. Their conclusion is that further manipulation of nature is therefore justified.

This is not an easy question resolve, and it is not the only situation in which killing one kind of animal to save another is accepted. In the lower Columbia River (the border between Oregon and Washington), federal and state authorities have justified killing California sea lions because they eat too many salmon and sturgeon (see my previous posts - you can search this blog - in which I interviewed Sammy C. Lyon).

So where does this end? I mean, there are a lot of situations where some species of wildlife are killing other, protected species of wildlife. Take a look at the nesting colonies of double-crested cormorants and Caspian terns in the Columbia River estuary, for example. Last year, the estimated 23,000 adult birds and their chicks in these two nesting colonies are estimated to have eaten about 25 million juvenile salmon, including those listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA (http://www.cbbulletin.com/402325.aspx). Holy cow - break out the machine guns!

Maybe it's a good thing humans are the top of the food webs on this planet. Imagine, if you can, some higher form of life in the galaxy that has an inter-galactic Endangered Species Act, administered by the IEPA (Inter-galactic Environmental Protection Agency). And imagine, again if you can, IEPA staff stops by Earth for an inspection, and finds that the activities of Homo sapiens are causing the extinction of many, many other species. You know, things like over fishing; over cutting forests; building roads, dams, and cities; polluting the air, land and water; changing the climate; and etc., etc. Uh oh, open season on human beings!

But seriously, this is a tough one. One of the basic laws of ecology is that everything is connected to everything else, meaning that everything we humans do has some consequence. Are the actions of humans unnatural because they have negative effects on what we have labeled "natural?" Or is everything we humans do part of the natural order of things because we are, after all, a species of wildlife on planet Earth? (This means, of course, that nuclear weapons are natural!)

It's a conundrum.


- posted from the fisheyepad

WTF SARAH-MICHELLE PALIN-BACHMANN?

OK, I have to be civil, it's the PC thing to do. But come on.....

Sarah Palin has had her WTF moment on Fox News. I have to admit, it was a nice play on the part of her handlers to use the "win the future" theme of Obama's State of the union speech to get her WTF sound byte the next day. Watch some of her commentary, if you have the stomach for it.

Michelle Bachmann, the Queen of the Tea Party, televised the Tea Party response to the State of the Union speech. This is also a must see video, at least for a few moments before your automatic regurgitation response sets in. Who is she talking to? What's with the eye makeup?

As always, these two provide high entertainment value. But the puzzling thing is the amount of media attention they get for their wackiness. Bachmann's Tea Party gig got more coverage than the official Republican Party response to the President's speech. Palin's handlers, as usual, found the right sound byte to keep her in the news.

Is there a Palin-Bachmann ticket in the future of American elections?

All I can say is: WTF?

WORLD HISTORY LIVE: TUNISIA, EGYPT AND MORE

Note: I started this post eight days ago, before the demonstrations in Egypt began. Things happen quickly in this world!

The "Jasmine Revolution" unfolding in Tunisia is, in my humble opinion, an extremely important world event worthy of our rapt attention. How many of us even knew where Tunisia is on the world map before this flurry of media coverage? I actually did because we have spent some time in a small town at the southern end of Sardegna (Sardinia), a Mediterranean island that is part of Italy. I studied a map and realized that from our small Sardegnian town we were closer to Tunisia than to Italy. This made me wonder about Tunisia, and I quickly found that it looked like a possible warm beach vacation spot, except that I'm not particularly fond of big resort developments.

But all of that is another story. The very important story here, one that I didn't know, is about the people of Tunisia and their government. I didn't know anything about the Tunisian dictator until the people chased him out. I didn't know that Tunisia has a constitution that prescribes how a President is succeeded and how and when elections are held. I'm beginning to understand this now, but more importantly, I also understand that a successful democratic movement - a mostly peaceful revolution, if you will - will be a major event in history because of the precedent it will set among the Arab countries.

And so I try to follow the unfolding events in Tunisia. I look for news articles in the NY Times and other sources, and I've found a Facebook page "Support Tunisia" to which people are posting their experiences, analyses and opinions.

Fast-forward a week, and now we're all watching in amazement as tens of thousands of Egyptians take to the streets demanding an end to the Mubarak government and the beginning of freedom and democracy. Many reports emerging from Egypt describe the apparent broad base of support for and participation in these demonstrations.

I think about the possible outcomes of these mass movements - or are they more rightly called revolutions? There are many possibilities in each country, and the results could be good or bad for the people of these countries, as well as for the rest of the world.

As an American, I watch these historic events unfold with an understanding of the role of my government in the recent history of each country. The US has supported the dictatorial governments in both Tunisia and Egypt; however, before I can condemn these actions, I have to stop and think about the geopolitical choices that were made. Both governments have generally maintained more secular societies, while keeping extremist religious organizations from gaining power. US security interests, and the security of US allies in the Middle East, including Israel and Arab nations, have been protected. But the cost to the citizens of Tunisia and Egypt for our security has been high in many ways. On the one hand, people around the world look to America as a symbol of freedom; on the other hand, they see America supporting the very governments that oppress them.

How can we resolve this contradiction? I don't know the answer, but I do know that the answer lies somewhere in the development of education, economic growth, and the development of democratic institutions and processes. None of this will be easy, and every step will be fraught with challenges and dangers. The US can certainly play a major supporting role in these developments, but the people of these countries will have to do the heavy lifting.

I support struggles for freedom wherever they take place. As an American, a person privileged to live in a democracy, I can offer encouragement from afar, and I can also urge my government to do the right thing. I also feel strongly that I can support these movements by staying informed about them.

DENYING THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS

I am really sick and tired of the same climate deniers getting media space over and over again for the same tiring rants against science. There are a very small number of these people compared to the number of scientists who are on record that human-induced climate change is real and a serious threat to society.

Once again our local newspaper, The Oregonian, has published a guest column by our local climate change denier, Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. Dr. Fulks lives near Portland, and has a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago. Is it because he has a Ph.D. in physics that we should believe that he must be an expert on climate? His column lets us know that human-induced climate change is a big hoax being perpetrated by grant-greedy scientists and government propagandists.

And just who is the esteemed Dr. Fulks? Here's a bio for him posted on the web pages of the Rubicon Society of Lane County (Oregon), a self-proclaimed Republican organization that appears to have meetings and speakers at a Chinese restaurant in Springfield, Oregon. But I digress; Dr. Fulks is a physicist who studied "solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays." Also, according to the bio, he has "worked for a think-tank in Santa Barbara, California, primarily supporting the US Defense Nuclear Agency on nuclear weapon effects. When that agency faded away at the end of the Cold War, he supported the US Department of State designing new embassies and working at the US Embassy in Moscow. More recently, he has consulted for various business and government clients seeking to better understand electromagnetic phenomena, related scientific scares, and the concept of acceptable risk."

I googled Dr. Fulks today. I looked through the first dozen pages or so of >8,000 search results, and they all seemed to be his opinion pieces about the hoax of climate change, or links to statements and petitions he's signed about the same. I did find a fascinating site about climate change deniers in which the author researched a large number of these people to try to figure out who they are. He used the google scholar search engine to find published scientific articles by these folks; he found 9 published articles by Dr. Falks, all from the late 1970's and early 1980's, non of which are about climate.

I then did a quick search in the archives of The Oregonian for the past three years and found that they have published the same kind of "guest column" or op-ed about the "hoax" of climate change on February 25, 2008, August 4, 2009, and May 2, 2010. The most recent is today's column. One has to wonder why the Oregonian keeps publishing this guy's stuff without any explanation of who he is and why he seems to be their expert denier.

And what does the good Dr. Fulks say in his column? Well, although he claims that the field of climate change isn't science, he doesn't offer up any science himself. He uses generalizations about earth science and then launches into personal invective against specific individuals in the climate change arena. "Global warming is about politics, not legitimate science" Dr. Falks declares. Unfortunately, this statement is from a man whose science credentials are not in the climate sciences, and who has apparently not done any noteworthy science (i.e. published) for almost the past 30 years. His bio says that he is a consultant to business - I can only wonder who, if any, his clients are.

Perhaps The Oregonian thinks this is balanced journalism. I say it's bullshit, pure and simple. What I don't understand is why people who deny human-induced climate change do so.

LET US SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT WE ELECTED

This post is specifically to the attention of those of us who voted for Barak Obama for President of the United States. And I want liberals and progressives (whatever that really means) to take note. We elected Barak Obama to be our President, so why don't we give him a chance to preside? It's OK to let him know our opinions; in fact, it's our duty to do that when we have specific points of view. But why do we, as a group, jump all over him every time he does something we think is a betrayal, or a cave-in, or too centrist compared to what we thought - or hoped - he would be? I've been guilty of the above, like when he made the Bush tax cut deal with the Republicans. But I really flopped back and forth on my feelings over that Presidential decision, and in hindsight, I think he did what had to be done in order to accomplish more important things.

I think we're all very proud of our President this week; repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; ratification of New START; and medical aid for 9/11 responders. But if we take the time to look, this Administration and Congress have accomplished a hugh number of things, many of which are precedent-setting. Here's a great compilation of achievements, most of which didn't make the news. If you take the time, you'll have to agree that this President, and this soon-to-be-changed Congress are actually doing an incredible job.

Take a moment to remember what the Cheney-Bush administration was all about, if you haven't thoroughly moved all those memory files from your brain to the trash and emptied the trash. I shudder when I think about it, and I flip into a rant about how that gang should be brought to justice for all the crimes against humanity they perpetrated.

Or try to imagine an Administration of John "Old Grumpy" McCain (if you can figure out who the hell he is on any particular day) and Sarah "Momma Grisly" Palin. That is truly a scary thought, and good for us that we voted the other side!

So I have a suggestion for all of us, one that I've started to heed; let's let President Obama be our President; let's trust him and support him; let's let him know when he does things we support, and let him know when we have ideas about things we want him to do. And truly, let's control our anger and direct it where it is most deserved. But better yet, let's turn anger into pro-active action. If we liberals and progressives spent 1/10th the time that we take to rant against our own and turn it into political activism, like so many of us did during the 2008 election campaigns, we'll do a lot better in the coming years of Republican and Tea Party organized negativism.

President Obama - thank you! I support you, and I appreciate the work you are doing for America and the world.

THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT AND THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

I want to personally thank Mr. Obama and the leaders of the Republican Party for extending my much-needed tax breaks. I'm certain that I speak not just for myself, but for all the other CEO's and executives and Wall Street money managers who's life style was threatened by the proposed ending of our cherished George W. Bush tax cuts. Now we can breathe a collective sigh of relief, and continue to stimulate the economy with our spending.

As a CEO, I make a modest $20 million a year, certainly not as much as many of my colleagues, but with a variety of stock options and other perks, I do OK. The gracious extension of the Bush tax cuts for me and my friends will keep me from paying an additional 4% on my income tax, amounting to a savings of $800,000 out of my annual salary. I'm anxious to go out and spend that money, and do my part for the economy. I think the first thing I'll do is buy a few more Mercedes cars for my family - I love that German engineering. And we've been thinking about another small vacation home in Spain, because we're getting a bit tired of always going to the ones we have in Italy, France and the Virgin Islands. The folks in Spain will be very appreciative of how the money we'll spend will boost their local economy. My wife and daughters will love going on a shopping spree for clothes in Paris, and my sons have been nagging me to do some yachting in the Mediterranean. Which reminds me, some of that extra cash will go for some new interior decorating in a couple of our yachts; there's a terrific place in Nice, France I've heard about that does great work.

So thank you Mr. President, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor; thank you for your wise governing that will allow me and my family, and our many friends, to keep our hard-earned millions and continue to use it to boost the economies of countries around the world.

Your friend,

John. Q. C. Eyo

P.S. the campaign donation check is in the mail

FOLLOW-UP: FEEDING COAL TO CHINA

In a post yesterday, I used the example of U.S. coal being shipped to China by an Australian company. Little did I know the depth of the story! An article in the NY Times today goes into detail about how China has changed from a coal exporter to a coal importer, and the magnitude of imports is growing rapidly. Environmentalists in the U.S., Australia and other countries are besides themselves over this turn of events, as well they should be. The moves away from producing electricity by burning coal in these countries, in order to reduce climate changing emissions, don't deal with exporting coal so someone else can burn it. By exporting coal we're exporting climate changing emissions to other countries. This is a serious turn of events.

Of course, nothing is black and white in the world, or, as we used to always say, everything has two sides. One reason China has changed from a coal exporter to a coal importer is that their coal is mostly high-sulphur, the wrong kind to burn if you want to reduce climate change and polluting emissions. So China is importing low-sulphur coal as part of their overall strategy to reduce the most harmful emissions.

At the same time that they are building coal-fired power plants at a fast pace, China has also accelerated the building of wind and nuclear energy generation facilities. They have overtaken the U.S. in wind energy production and will soon be the world's leader in nuclear energy production. But coal-fired generation remains the staple for generation of electricity in the rapidly expanding Chinese economy.

As the old Chinese saying goes: may you live in interesting times.