The whole pool. Pay no attention to the naked booty distracting you. Look at the POOL.
DJHJD
Saturday, July 29, 2006
I've never ...
I've never had a bird feeder before. Well, I've had this one now for four months, but I've never filled it with bird seed before this morning. I didn't put out a little billboard saying "Free Bird Seed," but I did clean it up and fill it when I fed the dogs.
By this afternoon, the backyard was swarmed with birds. By 7:00 tonight, the bird feeder had attracted blue jays. By 7:30, they were all gone, and the bird seed was too.
Just for fun, I cooked up some hummingbird food, filled the hummingbird feeder, and re-filled the bird feeder. I'm going to have to get up early tomorrow to watch the commotion.
Filled up a planter box with potting soil, and planted some cuttings from the MANY ivy plants - then, set it up on the ledge so that the ivy can start growing up into the lattice.
Have you any idea that I've NEVER thought about plants in my life?
That would be - NEVER.
Anyway, I have been tending to the hanging baskets (which are looking better) and the dogs keep expecting that maybe they'll get some attention out of all of this. Fat chance.
I think that tomorrow, in addition to buying a new wireless router, I'm going to see if I can find some of the plants that are on the list published in today's Chronicle - plants that attract butterflies.
Nicole, this is ALL YOUR FAULT! You gave me that gorgeous Hibiscus, and it's been so beautiful, flowering every couple of weeks, that it gave me ideas. You have only yourself to blame.
And, thanks, by the way, again. Wow.
Let's see if I can nab some of the pictures I took today from my phone and post them.
By this afternoon, the backyard was swarmed with birds. By 7:00 tonight, the bird feeder had attracted blue jays. By 7:30, they were all gone, and the bird seed was too.
Just for fun, I cooked up some hummingbird food, filled the hummingbird feeder, and re-filled the bird feeder. I'm going to have to get up early tomorrow to watch the commotion.
Filled up a planter box with potting soil, and planted some cuttings from the MANY ivy plants - then, set it up on the ledge so that the ivy can start growing up into the lattice.
Have you any idea that I've NEVER thought about plants in my life?
That would be - NEVER.
Anyway, I have been tending to the hanging baskets (which are looking better) and the dogs keep expecting that maybe they'll get some attention out of all of this. Fat chance.
I think that tomorrow, in addition to buying a new wireless router, I'm going to see if I can find some of the plants that are on the list published in today's Chronicle - plants that attract butterflies.
Nicole, this is ALL YOUR FAULT! You gave me that gorgeous Hibiscus, and it's been so beautiful, flowering every couple of weeks, that it gave me ideas. You have only yourself to blame.
And, thanks, by the way, again. Wow.
Let's see if I can nab some of the pictures I took today from my phone and post them.
Saturday post-haste
So, I decided this morning I wanted to buy some hanging baskets for the patio and breezeway area - part of my uniform spruce up of the place here. I had that lunch with Tom down in the gayborhood planned, so I asked him if he wanted to go with me to Kroguuuuurl to see if they had anything (it being time to sell stuff El Cheap.) Off we motored, and they had some very sorry looking plants marked $5/each. Three of them were hanging baskets with viney things and little red flowers thereon (I'm not a plant person.) Tom thought that they were okay, but not great, and that they'd be great for the breezeway, so in we trundled with these three hangers filling the shopping trolley.
At the cashier, naturally, none of the hanging baskets were labelled, so the cashier asked for the floral manager, who came over - looked quickly at the baskets and prounounced "Two bucks for all three." The cashier was incredulous. Two apiece? No, two for everything.
Okay then!
They're not occuping space in the breezeway, and I'll be potting up some of the ivy in one of my unused pots here shortly.
Now, I need two more hanging pots for the breezeway, a hanging baskety thing for the front stoop, and something big and tall for the last big clay pot on the patio.
And something to keep the dogs out of the flower beds on the patio. Like maybe rattlesnakes.
I actually cleaned Ruby up this afternoon after driving home in a light rain. That I hadn't done in eons. I stuck a piece of velcro in between the door trim panel and the door structure to keep it from squeaking, and that seems to have worked like a charm.
These are all good things.
I think tomorrow that I'm going to have to break down and buy a better wireless router. This one keeps cutting in and out, and has the kind of signal stream that a 90 year old man with a prostate problem would have.
I've just spent the better part of an hour digging around looking for more pictures of Hitler's airplane. I found some interior photos of it, but no exterior photos. I did find ONE model of it (pre-war) online, but it's 129 POUNDS (Sterling.)
Oh, and I've fallen in love. Again. With another car. When I began to speak to Guy about it, he queued up the "Divo car shopping music," which he then sent to me. It was a SCREAM. I'm trying to load the pictures and music into my Treo, but I'll post the pictures here in a second.
I need to go downstairs, through the sheets in the dryer and make some soup for dinner.
At the cashier, naturally, none of the hanging baskets were labelled, so the cashier asked for the floral manager, who came over - looked quickly at the baskets and prounounced "Two bucks for all three." The cashier was incredulous. Two apiece? No, two for everything.
Okay then!
They're not occuping space in the breezeway, and I'll be potting up some of the ivy in one of my unused pots here shortly.
Now, I need two more hanging pots for the breezeway, a hanging baskety thing for the front stoop, and something big and tall for the last big clay pot on the patio.
And something to keep the dogs out of the flower beds on the patio. Like maybe rattlesnakes.
I actually cleaned Ruby up this afternoon after driving home in a light rain. That I hadn't done in eons. I stuck a piece of velcro in between the door trim panel and the door structure to keep it from squeaking, and that seems to have worked like a charm.
These are all good things.
I think tomorrow that I'm going to have to break down and buy a better wireless router. This one keeps cutting in and out, and has the kind of signal stream that a 90 year old man with a prostate problem would have.
I've just spent the better part of an hour digging around looking for more pictures of Hitler's airplane. I found some interior photos of it, but no exterior photos. I did find ONE model of it (pre-war) online, but it's 129 POUNDS (Sterling.)
Oh, and I've fallen in love. Again. With another car. When I began to speak to Guy about it, he queued up the "Divo car shopping music," which he then sent to me. It was a SCREAM. I'm trying to load the pictures and music into my Treo, but I'll post the pictures here in a second.
I need to go downstairs, through the sheets in the dryer and make some soup for dinner.
The Second RScP Saturday
Ah, java and peacefulness. I need some more java. Shopping for exterior lighting on target.com - I've called in the professionals. Matticia in Orlando is trying to help, but he's just totally fixated on things that AREN'T what I'm looking for.
I supposed I should just NOT try to find these lamps until I get the house secured.
I was also shopping for cooktops again yesterday (as I mentioned) and still keep coming back to the woman in Huntsville that has the downdraft Whirlpool. I should just go up there and nab it.
Okay, through proper application of known channels, I found just the right exterior lighting .. on eBay. So, all of you who deride me for going to eBay first and always .. this is a big raspberry for YOU (pffffffffffffffft.)
Lunch today with Tom after a haircut, to talk about more web based marketing of a web template he wrote to my requirements.
I supposed I should just NOT try to find these lamps until I get the house secured.
I was also shopping for cooktops again yesterday (as I mentioned) and still keep coming back to the woman in Huntsville that has the downdraft Whirlpool. I should just go up there and nab it.
Okay, through proper application of known channels, I found just the right exterior lighting .. on eBay. So, all of you who deride me for going to eBay first and always .. this is a big raspberry for YOU (pffffffffffffffft.)
Lunch today with Tom after a haircut, to talk about more web based marketing of a web template he wrote to my requirements.
Friday, July 28, 2006
This one's extra special for a few friends of mine
friends who believe that the illegal aliens are getting free health care
From Daily Kos
Don't blame immigrants for healthcare crisis
by Duke1676
Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 06:55:58 AM PDT
Contrary to popular opinion, and the propaganda coming from anti-immigration advocates in Washington, a new study released in health care policy journal Health Affairs found that undocumented immigrants are not the cause of a public health crisis defined by over-crowded emergency departments, higher health care costs, and lower-quality primary care.
The study of 46,600 people living in 60 different communities found that the communities with high levels of Hispanics and undocumented immigrants had far lesser rates of emergency department use than communities with low undocumented representation. Wait, let's repeat that - communities with high levels of Hispanics and undocumented immigrants had far lesser rates of emergency department use than communities with low undocumented representation. By far the largest cause of emergency department overcrowding was found to be an increased use of them as primary care facilities by native born Medicare and Medicaid recipients. This one bears repeating also .. By far the largest cause of emergency department overcrowding was found to be an increased use of them as primary care facilities by native born Medicare and Medicaid recipients
The supposed stress put on our healthcare system by the undocumented has been a cornerstone in much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric coming out of Washington.
According to the official Republican talking points on immigration, Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention, Republican pollster Frank Luntz suggests that candidates should stress that "... as a matter of principle, we should not use our tax dollars to pay for services for illegal immigrants until we take care of the hard-working, tax-paying Americans. This shows voters that you have compassion but that you also understand where your priorities are - and should be."
He suggest that a good way to express this point is to use the following language:
"If we stop people from successfully getting across the border, then our schools won't be as overcrowded, the hospital waiting rooms and emergency rooms won't be as overcrowded, our highways and our streets won't be as overcrowded, our social services won't be as abused, and taxpayers won't be as punished." .... Frank Luntz
This kind of rhetoric works because between 1993 and 2003 there's been a 26 percent increase in the number of hospital emergency department (ED) visits, totaling about 114 million visits each year. Up to one third of these visits were classified as nonurgent or semi-urgent and could have been taken care of by regular primary care physicians.
It has long been assumed that these increases had been caused by the increasing population of undocumented immigrants and the growing number of uninsured Americans using emergency rooms as their sole source of medical treatment. More repeating - It has long been assumed that these increases had been caused by the increasing population of undocumented immigrants and the growing number of uninsured Americans using emergency rooms as their sole source of medical treatment.
According to the study What Accounts For Differences In The Use Of Hospital Emergency Departments Across U.S. Communities? by Peter Cunningham, a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington, D.C., "communities with the lowest ED use tended to have a higher percentage of Hispanics and noncitizens than communities with high ED use." The blame for the increase in ED usage falls not at the feet of the undocumented or the uninsured but rather on those who are the recipients of various government healthcare programs.
At this point, the author himself decides to repeat this point for the cheap seats - let's read that again, shall we?
This study examines the extent to which differences in populations and health system factors account for variations in ED use across U.S. communities. Contrary to popular perceptions, communities with high ED use have fewer numbers of uninsured, Hispanic, and noncitizen residents. Outpatient capacity constraints also contribute to high ED use. However, high ED use in some communities also likely reflects generic preferences for EDs as a source of care for nonurgent problems.
There is much concern that some of the increase will be driven by illegal immigration, which is cited as straining ED capacity in some hospitals, especially along the U.S./Mexico border. However, given the very low levels of ED use among poor noncitizens in general (many of whom are likely to be undocumented immigrants), it is very unlikely that these highly localized problems with ED crowding will affect the nation more generally as the Latino population increases and migrates to other parts of the country. Low use of the ED among noncitizens reflects low use of health care services in general and perhaps fear among undocumented immigrants about being asked about their immigration status.
...as our findings indicate, communities have high rates of per person ED use in part because they have fewer, rather than greater, numbers of Hispanics and noncitizens
Insurance, demographic, socioeconomic, and health factors are strongly related to individuals' ED use, although some of these results run contrary to popular perceptions. For example, in 2003, the uninsured had about sixteen fewer visits on average (per 100 people) compared to Medicaid enrollees, about twenty fewer visits compared to Medicare enrollees, and roughly similar levels of use compared to privately insured people (Exhibit 3). Noncitizens had much lower levels of ED use than citizens did (about 17 fewer visits per 100 people, on average), and the difference between poor citizens and non-citizens was almost twice as large. In terms of racial/ethnic differences, blacks had higher ED use levels than whites and Hispanics did in 2003. More in line with expectations was the higher ED use by poor people (less than 100 percent of poverty) compared to other income groups, and higher ED use by people in fair/poor health and with chronic medical conditions.
Although uninsured people rely on EDs to a greater extent than insured people do because of a lack of access to other outpatient care, their actual use of hospital EDs is no greater than that of the privately insured, probably because fear of incurring the entire cost of an ED visit acts as a constraint on how frequently they visit EDs. Although rising uninsurance rates might not raise ED visit rates among the population, higher levels of uncompensated ED visits in many hospitals are likely to result, especially in public hospitals and other safety-net hospitals that tend to serve a high proportion of uninsured people
The survey found that the one group that accounts for most of the increased usage of emergency departments are those on government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. This is in part due not only to the general health issues of the elderly and poor, but the lack of other services available to this segment of the population. Many physicians are unwilling to take on new low-income patients due to Medicare and Medicaid's limited payment schedules. Ethnically, the study found that blacks were the most likely group to use emergency room services. This would be due to a combination of lack of services in low-income black neighborhoods and a resulting "generic preference for EDs as a source of care" amongst members of this under-serviced community.
High levels of ED use among Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid enrollees are a potential source of increases in ED visit rates in the future. The aging of the population and retirement of the baby-boom generation will greatly increase Medicare enrollment and the proportion of the population who are elderly, who tend to have higher levels of ED use compared to other age groups.
Also, continued increases in private insurance costs could result in increases in both Medicaid and other public coverage of nonelderly people, as well as increases in the number of uninsured people. High use of EDs in Medicaid likely reflects in part little or no cost sharing for health services use, and perhaps lack of access to office-based physicians (because of low physician reimbursement rates under Medicaid)
This study also shows that longer waiting times for appointments with physicians and a higher number of physician office visits relative to the number of physicians in a community increased ED visit levels, and the effects were greatest for poor people (Exhibit 2). In part, this may reflect the fact that physicians with full practices and constrained reimbursement from Medicaid and other payers were less willing to see low-income patients in their offices and more likely to refer such patients to the ED.
As is the case with many of the "problems" attributed to the "immigration crisis", the overcrowding of emergency rooms and the subsequent economic strains put on the healthcare system, can be attributed more to governmental failure to properly administer its public health programs to assure proper care for all Americans, than on the influx of undocumented immigrants. It's just another of the many false preconceptions perpetuated by the anti-immigration proponents to further their agenda of misdirection and blame shifting.
From Daily Kos
Don't blame immigrants for healthcare crisis
by Duke1676
Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 06:55:58 AM PDT
Contrary to popular opinion, and the propaganda coming from anti-immigration advocates in Washington, a new study released in health care policy journal Health Affairs found that undocumented immigrants are not the cause of a public health crisis defined by over-crowded emergency departments, higher health care costs, and lower-quality primary care.
The study of 46,600 people living in 60 different communities found that the communities with high levels of Hispanics and undocumented immigrants had far lesser rates of emergency department use than communities with low undocumented representation. Wait, let's repeat that - communities with high levels of Hispanics and undocumented immigrants had far lesser rates of emergency department use than communities with low undocumented representation. By far the largest cause of emergency department overcrowding was found to be an increased use of them as primary care facilities by native born Medicare and Medicaid recipients. This one bears repeating also .. By far the largest cause of emergency department overcrowding was found to be an increased use of them as primary care facilities by native born Medicare and Medicaid recipients
The supposed stress put on our healthcare system by the undocumented has been a cornerstone in much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric coming out of Washington.
According to the official Republican talking points on immigration, Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention, Republican pollster Frank Luntz suggests that candidates should stress that "... as a matter of principle, we should not use our tax dollars to pay for services for illegal immigrants until we take care of the hard-working, tax-paying Americans. This shows voters that you have compassion but that you also understand where your priorities are - and should be."
He suggest that a good way to express this point is to use the following language:
"If we stop people from successfully getting across the border, then our schools won't be as overcrowded, the hospital waiting rooms and emergency rooms won't be as overcrowded, our highways and our streets won't be as overcrowded, our social services won't be as abused, and taxpayers won't be as punished." .... Frank Luntz
This kind of rhetoric works because between 1993 and 2003 there's been a 26 percent increase in the number of hospital emergency department (ED) visits, totaling about 114 million visits each year. Up to one third of these visits were classified as nonurgent or semi-urgent and could have been taken care of by regular primary care physicians.
It has long been assumed that these increases had been caused by the increasing population of undocumented immigrants and the growing number of uninsured Americans using emergency rooms as their sole source of medical treatment. More repeating - It has long been assumed that these increases had been caused by the increasing population of undocumented immigrants and the growing number of uninsured Americans using emergency rooms as their sole source of medical treatment.
According to the study What Accounts For Differences In The Use Of Hospital Emergency Departments Across U.S. Communities? by Peter Cunningham, a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington, D.C., "communities with the lowest ED use tended to have a higher percentage of Hispanics and noncitizens than communities with high ED use." The blame for the increase in ED usage falls not at the feet of the undocumented or the uninsured but rather on those who are the recipients of various government healthcare programs.
At this point, the author himself decides to repeat this point for the cheap seats - let's read that again, shall we?
This study examines the extent to which differences in populations and health system factors account for variations in ED use across U.S. communities. Contrary to popular perceptions, communities with high ED use have fewer numbers of uninsured, Hispanic, and noncitizen residents. Outpatient capacity constraints also contribute to high ED use. However, high ED use in some communities also likely reflects generic preferences for EDs as a source of care for nonurgent problems.
There is much concern that some of the increase will be driven by illegal immigration, which is cited as straining ED capacity in some hospitals, especially along the U.S./Mexico border. However, given the very low levels of ED use among poor noncitizens in general (many of whom are likely to be undocumented immigrants), it is very unlikely that these highly localized problems with ED crowding will affect the nation more generally as the Latino population increases and migrates to other parts of the country. Low use of the ED among noncitizens reflects low use of health care services in general and perhaps fear among undocumented immigrants about being asked about their immigration status.
...as our findings indicate, communities have high rates of per person ED use in part because they have fewer, rather than greater, numbers of Hispanics and noncitizens
Insurance, demographic, socioeconomic, and health factors are strongly related to individuals' ED use, although some of these results run contrary to popular perceptions. For example, in 2003, the uninsured had about sixteen fewer visits on average (per 100 people) compared to Medicaid enrollees, about twenty fewer visits compared to Medicare enrollees, and roughly similar levels of use compared to privately insured people (Exhibit 3). Noncitizens had much lower levels of ED use than citizens did (about 17 fewer visits per 100 people, on average), and the difference between poor citizens and non-citizens was almost twice as large. In terms of racial/ethnic differences, blacks had higher ED use levels than whites and Hispanics did in 2003. More in line with expectations was the higher ED use by poor people (less than 100 percent of poverty) compared to other income groups, and higher ED use by people in fair/poor health and with chronic medical conditions.
Although uninsured people rely on EDs to a greater extent than insured people do because of a lack of access to other outpatient care, their actual use of hospital EDs is no greater than that of the privately insured, probably because fear of incurring the entire cost of an ED visit acts as a constraint on how frequently they visit EDs. Although rising uninsurance rates might not raise ED visit rates among the population, higher levels of uncompensated ED visits in many hospitals are likely to result, especially in public hospitals and other safety-net hospitals that tend to serve a high proportion of uninsured people
The survey found that the one group that accounts for most of the increased usage of emergency departments are those on government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. This is in part due not only to the general health issues of the elderly and poor, but the lack of other services available to this segment of the population. Many physicians are unwilling to take on new low-income patients due to Medicare and Medicaid's limited payment schedules. Ethnically, the study found that blacks were the most likely group to use emergency room services. This would be due to a combination of lack of services in low-income black neighborhoods and a resulting "generic preference for EDs as a source of care" amongst members of this under-serviced community.
High levels of ED use among Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid enrollees are a potential source of increases in ED visit rates in the future. The aging of the population and retirement of the baby-boom generation will greatly increase Medicare enrollment and the proportion of the population who are elderly, who tend to have higher levels of ED use compared to other age groups.
Also, continued increases in private insurance costs could result in increases in both Medicaid and other public coverage of nonelderly people, as well as increases in the number of uninsured people. High use of EDs in Medicaid likely reflects in part little or no cost sharing for health services use, and perhaps lack of access to office-based physicians (because of low physician reimbursement rates under Medicaid)
This study also shows that longer waiting times for appointments with physicians and a higher number of physician office visits relative to the number of physicians in a community increased ED visit levels, and the effects were greatest for poor people (Exhibit 2). In part, this may reflect the fact that physicians with full practices and constrained reimbursement from Medicaid and other payers were less willing to see low-income patients in their offices and more likely to refer such patients to the ED.
As is the case with many of the "problems" attributed to the "immigration crisis", the overcrowding of emergency rooms and the subsequent economic strains put on the healthcare system, can be attributed more to governmental failure to properly administer its public health programs to assure proper care for all Americans, than on the influx of undocumented immigrants. It's just another of the many false preconceptions perpetuated by the anti-immigration proponents to further their agenda of misdirection and blame shifting.
Friday the last one of July
July is already over? What happened to it? How did I miss it?
Friday is already over? What happened to it? How did I miss it?
I think I scared the yard stud to death today. The pool guys came zooming into the driveway, saw the yard stud doing his thing, and then zoomed out of the driveway again, never to be heard from. He's changed his phone number, so I have no idea how to reach him, except for his regular Fridays.
Found a cook top at Sear's for only $220. I think I'll go nab it next week; I don't need a downdraft or ceramic burners.
Today, I re-arranged the pictures in the guest room - it looks about 600% better since I did that. I may actually PAINT that room this weekend. I know, don't get crazy or anything, but ..
I guess tomorrow morning, I'll re-arrange the wall hangings in the office here - that will also spruce things up significantly. I also want to dig out all of the giant weeds in the flower beds (weed beds) and re-pot some things in the back. And peel Jackie like a grape.
Also, tax returns to do this weekend, filing, all kinds of nonsense. And, tonight, I'm meeting Mikey and Ro-Ro out at the seat of Jarred! We haven't been there in four months!
Friday is already over? What happened to it? How did I miss it?
I think I scared the yard stud to death today. The pool guys came zooming into the driveway, saw the yard stud doing his thing, and then zoomed out of the driveway again, never to be heard from. He's changed his phone number, so I have no idea how to reach him, except for his regular Fridays.
Found a cook top at Sear's for only $220. I think I'll go nab it next week; I don't need a downdraft or ceramic burners.
Today, I re-arranged the pictures in the guest room - it looks about 600% better since I did that. I may actually PAINT that room this weekend. I know, don't get crazy or anything, but ..
I guess tomorrow morning, I'll re-arrange the wall hangings in the office here - that will also spruce things up significantly. I also want to dig out all of the giant weeds in the flower beds (weed beds) and re-pot some things in the back. And peel Jackie like a grape.
Also, tax returns to do this weekend, filing, all kinds of nonsense. And, tonight, I'm meeting Mikey and Ro-Ro out at the seat of Jarred! We haven't been there in four months!
Thursday, July 27, 2006
So, did I figure this out?
From today's Houston Chronicle - two biodiesel plants to be constructed; one in Houston, one in New Orleans - look who's BEHIND it. This tells me that there will be a huge shift toward biodiesel in the next five years, and that those who were profiting the most from cheap oil will also profit from this.
The article I saw yesterday from the New York times that suggests that the EPA hasn't yet certified vegetable oil as a motor fuel under the clean air act - that's how they're going to control the market. From the New York Times
So, they get biofuel produced at the current price level (people are used to paying it) - the mighty agricultural corporations develop a huge outlet for the bio product that we destroy every year (not enough demand,) world trade talks are resolved (no more reason to worry about price supports when the market is consuming all that corn already) and we eliminate a fair portion of our annual trade deficit. At that point, what difference does it make that oil is priced in dollars or in Euro? What if the US becomes a net exporter of energy again with our massive ability to produce bio crops? What would that do to our trade imbalance with China, Japan and other countries?
Notice that each of these two biodiesel plants will only employ FIFTEEN PEOPLE. What a huge economic effect for so little change for the American population.
I think we've struck on what the future holds. Peak oil may be a laughable concept that the Bush family and their allies will profit massively from; it will only drive countries without bio capacity into our net.
I also think that we'll know that this is the future if one of our big US oil companies buys a significant ag company, like ConAgra or ArcherDanielsMidland.
These New York Times links are only hot for a week or so. Since this blog isn't for commercial purpose, I'm going to cut and paste the text of each article here for the sake of posterity. These articles are fair use - they're not my own work, and I am re-posting them with acknowledgement to the copyright owners to make more people aware of their content.
New York times article:
July 23, 2006
Green Tech
Grease Is the Word: Fill It Up With Fry Oil
By JIM NORMAN
ON a recent return trip from Massachusetts to my home in New Jersey, a distance of 160 miles, I burned a total of two cups of diesel fuel in my 2001 Volkswagen Jetta TDI.
Since that would indicate fuel economy of more than 600 miles per gallon, something didn’t quite compute.
The missing part of the equation was this: I was returning from Easthampton, Mass., where Daryl Beck, a mechanic well versed in such matters, had just installed a secondary fuel system in my car. The main fuel I used on the drive home was not diesel, which the Jetta was designed to burn, but straight vegetable oil.
I used diesel fuel for only the first 10 miles of the trip. After that, the diesel gauge stayed right where it was while the VW sped happily along on soybean oil — the same stuff that restaurants use for deep frying and salad dressing. I used less than three gallons of oil for the final 150 miles of my trip home, which calculates out to more than 50 miles per gallon. Not bad.
The conversion kit that Mr. Beck installed was produced by Greasecar, a manufacturer of vegetable fuel units for diesel cars; gasoline engines cannot be converted to burn vegetable oil. The kit cost about $900, including an optional temperature gauge and audible warning signal, and another $1,000 for the installation, which takes an experienced mechanic about seven hours.
Now, after more than 2,000 miles on veggie oil, there seem to be few disadvantages to the transformation. My car seems to get slightly better mileage, it seems to run a little more quietly and it has just as much zip as it does on diesel. According to test results I’ve seen, vegetable oil burns somewhat cleaner in most categories than diesel fuel, and emits absolutely no sulfur. What a veggie car does emit is a smell faintly redolent of the kind of oil being burned — or, in the case of used oil, the scent of whatever it might have cooked previously.
Vegetable oil, of course, is a renewable resource that emits no more carbon dioxide than next year’s crop will absorb and requires no drilling for soybeans in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or anywhere else. The environmentally aware will give you even more points in the game of green for using oil previously used for cooking.
You’ll get no points, though, from the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which recently issued a statement stating flatly that using vegetable oil as fuel is a violation of the Clean Air Act and that modifying a car for vegetable oil subjects the owner to a $2,750 fine. [Page 2.]
Justin Carven, the founder and owner of Greasecar, says his company has started the process of qualifying his conversion kit for E.P.A. certification.
Going veggie is not the gas-and-go type of driving Americans are accustomed to. At discount stores like Costco or Sam’s Club, soybean oil costs about $13 for a 35-pound “cubie,” a squarish jug that holds about 4½ gallons. That makes it a few cents less per gallon than the current price of diesel fuel.
It’s possible to pay less — or nothing at all. I have also collected 20 cubies of waste oil, just for the asking, from various restaurants and from a generous fellow greaser with an excess of oil. Now that I have my filtration station up and running in a corner of my garage, even visits to the local big-box store will be few and far between.
There are a few things I must be attentive to: I have to remember to purge my fuel lines of vegetable oil and switch back to diesel a few minutes before ending a trip. If I forget this on a cold night, the oil could congeal and make starting the next morning impossible without the aid of a hair dryer.
I have to remember to use the purge function on my dash-mounted fuel selection switch for no more than 20 seconds or so. If I leave it in purge position, it can allow diesel fuel to flow back into the vegetable oil tank and overfill it until it flows through the air vent, a mess I would rather not experience.
Add a few factors to the category of minor inconvenience that accompanies my energy-independence euphoria: I have to carry a spare vegetable oil filter for that inevitable moment when the original says it has had enough. I also have a filter wrench and a pair of oven gloves to let me change filters while the engine is still hot. And I mustn’t forget the turkey baster: that’s to fill the new filter with vegetable oil from the tank, so I don’t introduce an air bubble into the system, causing the engine to stall.
My trunk is a little — no, a lot — less spacious than it used to be, because of the spare cubie of oil I carry, along with a big funnel that lets me fill the tank without spills. The spare tire also takes up space inside the trunk now; the veggie oil tank occupies the well that used to contain the spare.
Notwithstanding the inconveniences, my wife, Ginger, is as enamored of this experiment as I am. She has claimed the Jetta as her own, but has volunteered to help with the mechanical work to convert another car for me. She calls the experience the “Noah project,” named after our 11-month-old grandson, who she hopes will benefit from a better world if others do the same thing.
Despite the obvious benefits of using a fuel that contributes to the nation’s energy independence, that is relatively cheap and that can be burned after having already served its original purpose — cooking food — it is worth noting that vegetable oil is unlikely to replace petroleum anytime soon.
As the number of conversions rises, users will eventually soak up the supply of used cooking oil. As with ethanol and other agriculture-based fuels, it remains to be seen whether growing soybeans is an efficient way to produce nonpetroleum fuels, since the farming process consumes large amounts of fuel and chemical-rich fertilizers. Also, growing crops for use as fuels could have unforeseen effects on the prices and supplies of food.
The territory is uncharted in other ways, as well, as seen in the comments posted in an online forum sponsored by Greasecar.com. Take the case of “Chase,” a Massachusetts resident who was perhaps not as careful as he might have been in the storage of his cache of oil. “No BooBoo to be seen,” Chase wrote, “but this AM there was a really big black bear with its snout in an opened and overturned 5 gal. Luckily the grease spilled onto my gravel driveway, so it should soak in soon enough. Also lucky she did not get into the 12 other buckets! Some arm waving and yelling sent it packing.”
A frequent question about vegetable oil is whether cars run more sluggishly on it. Consider “TDIGuy,” who sought advice on whether a blown head gasket could have resulted from “running a VW too fast for too long” and “hitting the gas pretty hard.” After receiving some helpful comments, TDIGuy came clean: “When I said speeding a little, and a little hard on the gas, I was actually trying to hit 140 in the car. Managed to get 130, but I think I put too much stress on the engine.”
A common concern about converting a car for vegetable oil is that it could harm the engine. But some people who have done conversions say they’ve seen no damage, even after many miles. Phil Gibbs, a New York City firefighter who makes a 75-mile commute twice a week from his Putnam County home, said he had driven his 2002 Jetta 75,000 miles on vegetable oil with no trouble.
The car had 70,000 miles on it before it was converted. “It runs like it did when it was new,” Mr. Gibbs said. The key, he added, is not switching to vegetable oil until it has reached the proper temperature.
The typical conversion involves installing a parallel fuel system with an independent tank (mine is aluminum, shaped like a hockey puck and holds 13 gallons), a heating system that diverts hot engine coolant through copper coils placed within the tank and wrapped around a specially installed vegetable oil filter in the engine compartment, and a set of solenoid-activated valves controlled by a dash-mounted switch that diverts the flow between diesel fuel and vegetable oil.
There is also a fuel temperature gauge that tells the driver when to switch from diesel fuel to vegetable oil after starting out, and a somewhat representational fuel gauge that gives a rough approximation of how much vegetable oil is in the tank.
Greasecar, the company that built my conversion kit, was started in 2000 by Mr. Carven, a Hampshire College mechanical design graduate who had experimented as a school project on a $300 junk car. He went on to celebrate his graduation with a cross-country trip in an old VW van that he equipped with a vegetable oil system.
Now, Greasecar has 14 employees and ships about 300 kits a month from its shop in a 19th-century brick factory complex.
Many buyers follow the instruction manuals that come with the kits and do the installations themselves. Others, like me, seek experienced mechanics who know exactly what they are doing and keep up with the latest developments in the art of greasing. Several manufacturers of similar kits have loose networks of recommended installers.
In addition to the commercially available kits, many home-built systems are being installed by backyard tinkerers all over the country. You can get in touch with them on Internet forums like the ones at the Web sites for Greasecar.com; for another kit manufacturer, Frybrid.com; and at Biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve.
To convert a car to run on vegetable oil, you have to start with a diesel car; it cannot be done with a gasoline engine. Not all states allow the sale of new diesel-powered passenger cars, and there are different state rules governing the sale of used ones. (I bought mine from B & B Auto Sales in North Providence, R.I., sight unseen, via an eBay auction.) I was a lucky buyer; even though the car had 147,000 miles on the odometer, it was in fine condition, exactly as described by the seller.
I was surprised to learn that Rudolf Diesel, inventor of the combustion cycle bearing his name, originally intended his engine to run on vegetable oil. In 1912, seven years after he introduced his engine at a Paris exposition, he said: “The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become in the course of time as important as the petroleum and coal tar products of the present time.”
For me and my Volksvegan, that course of time is now.
Jim Norman is a staff editor for the Business Day section of The New York Times.
Houston Chronicle article:
uly 26, 2006, 10:18PM
Local biodiesel plant in the works
Another facility is planned for New Orleans
By DAVID S. ROSEN
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
A small Houston company said Wednesday it has created a joint venture with two investment firms to build biodiesel plants here and in New Orleans capable of producing more gallons of the fuel per year than American drivers used in 2005.
ADVERTISEMENT
Riverstone Holdings, The Carlyle Group and Houston-based Green Earth Fuels plan to construct two facilities beginning later this year.
They would each be capable of producing 43 million gallons of biodiesel per year, mostly from soy or palm oil at first, said Michael Hoffman, managing director of Riverstone.
Wednesday's announcement is further evidence of a healthy biodiesel market.
Chevron Corp. announced in May it was buying a 22 percent stake in Galveston Bay Biodiesel, which is building a plant on the north side of Galveston Island to make the fuel.
In 2005, the United States used 75 million gallons of biodiesel, up from 25 million gallons the year before, according to the National Biodiesel Board.
"The market is growing," Hoffman said.
"Some people are saying we'll be using as much as 1,500 million gallons over the next few years or so. It's growing very rapidly."
Also Wednesday, Nova Biofuels Oklahoma, a subsidiary of Houston-based Nova Energy Holding, released a statement saying it reached an agreement with ConAgra Trade Group to supply feedstock for its first biodiesel plant and sell the fuel it makes. The company is seeking a site in Oklahoma for the plant.
Construction on Green Earth's Houston plant, which it plans to locate near the Ship Channel, could begin as early as August, and be in operation within a year, Hoffman said.
In New Orleans, he said, construction on the facility will likely begin in October.
Biodiesel can be made out of a variety of materials and is used in its pure state or in a blend called B20, which is 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum diesel.
Much of the fuel produced at the two facilities will probably go toward B20, said Jeff Trucksess, executive vice president for governmental affairs for Green Earth Fuels.
Both Green Earth facilities are expected to create 14 jobs at each location, and 50 to 150 people will be needed in the construction of the plants.
Trucksess said while the production at the plants will exceed last year's national consumption, demand for nonpetroleum fuels is skyrocketing.
"Given the current climate in the world, there's a growing need for petroleum alternatives, and more incentive for domestically produced fuels," Trucksess said. "We see significant growth in the immediate future."
david.rosen@chron.com
The article I saw yesterday from the New York times that suggests that the EPA hasn't yet certified vegetable oil as a motor fuel under the clean air act - that's how they're going to control the market. From the New York Times
So, they get biofuel produced at the current price level (people are used to paying it) - the mighty agricultural corporations develop a huge outlet for the bio product that we destroy every year (not enough demand,) world trade talks are resolved (no more reason to worry about price supports when the market is consuming all that corn already) and we eliminate a fair portion of our annual trade deficit. At that point, what difference does it make that oil is priced in dollars or in Euro? What if the US becomes a net exporter of energy again with our massive ability to produce bio crops? What would that do to our trade imbalance with China, Japan and other countries?
Notice that each of these two biodiesel plants will only employ FIFTEEN PEOPLE. What a huge economic effect for so little change for the American population.
I think we've struck on what the future holds. Peak oil may be a laughable concept that the Bush family and their allies will profit massively from; it will only drive countries without bio capacity into our net.
I also think that we'll know that this is the future if one of our big US oil companies buys a significant ag company, like ConAgra or ArcherDanielsMidland.
These New York Times links are only hot for a week or so. Since this blog isn't for commercial purpose, I'm going to cut and paste the text of each article here for the sake of posterity. These articles are fair use - they're not my own work, and I am re-posting them with acknowledgement to the copyright owners to make more people aware of their content.
New York times article:
July 23, 2006
Green Tech
Grease Is the Word: Fill It Up With Fry Oil
By JIM NORMAN
ON a recent return trip from Massachusetts to my home in New Jersey, a distance of 160 miles, I burned a total of two cups of diesel fuel in my 2001 Volkswagen Jetta TDI.
Since that would indicate fuel economy of more than 600 miles per gallon, something didn’t quite compute.
The missing part of the equation was this: I was returning from Easthampton, Mass., where Daryl Beck, a mechanic well versed in such matters, had just installed a secondary fuel system in my car. The main fuel I used on the drive home was not diesel, which the Jetta was designed to burn, but straight vegetable oil.
I used diesel fuel for only the first 10 miles of the trip. After that, the diesel gauge stayed right where it was while the VW sped happily along on soybean oil — the same stuff that restaurants use for deep frying and salad dressing. I used less than three gallons of oil for the final 150 miles of my trip home, which calculates out to more than 50 miles per gallon. Not bad.
The conversion kit that Mr. Beck installed was produced by Greasecar, a manufacturer of vegetable fuel units for diesel cars; gasoline engines cannot be converted to burn vegetable oil. The kit cost about $900, including an optional temperature gauge and audible warning signal, and another $1,000 for the installation, which takes an experienced mechanic about seven hours.
Now, after more than 2,000 miles on veggie oil, there seem to be few disadvantages to the transformation. My car seems to get slightly better mileage, it seems to run a little more quietly and it has just as much zip as it does on diesel. According to test results I’ve seen, vegetable oil burns somewhat cleaner in most categories than diesel fuel, and emits absolutely no sulfur. What a veggie car does emit is a smell faintly redolent of the kind of oil being burned — or, in the case of used oil, the scent of whatever it might have cooked previously.
Vegetable oil, of course, is a renewable resource that emits no more carbon dioxide than next year’s crop will absorb and requires no drilling for soybeans in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or anywhere else. The environmentally aware will give you even more points in the game of green for using oil previously used for cooking.
You’ll get no points, though, from the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which recently issued a statement stating flatly that using vegetable oil as fuel is a violation of the Clean Air Act and that modifying a car for vegetable oil subjects the owner to a $2,750 fine. [Page 2.]
Justin Carven, the founder and owner of Greasecar, says his company has started the process of qualifying his conversion kit for E.P.A. certification.
Going veggie is not the gas-and-go type of driving Americans are accustomed to. At discount stores like Costco or Sam’s Club, soybean oil costs about $13 for a 35-pound “cubie,” a squarish jug that holds about 4½ gallons. That makes it a few cents less per gallon than the current price of diesel fuel.
It’s possible to pay less — or nothing at all. I have also collected 20 cubies of waste oil, just for the asking, from various restaurants and from a generous fellow greaser with an excess of oil. Now that I have my filtration station up and running in a corner of my garage, even visits to the local big-box store will be few and far between.
There are a few things I must be attentive to: I have to remember to purge my fuel lines of vegetable oil and switch back to diesel a few minutes before ending a trip. If I forget this on a cold night, the oil could congeal and make starting the next morning impossible without the aid of a hair dryer.
I have to remember to use the purge function on my dash-mounted fuel selection switch for no more than 20 seconds or so. If I leave it in purge position, it can allow diesel fuel to flow back into the vegetable oil tank and overfill it until it flows through the air vent, a mess I would rather not experience.
Add a few factors to the category of minor inconvenience that accompanies my energy-independence euphoria: I have to carry a spare vegetable oil filter for that inevitable moment when the original says it has had enough. I also have a filter wrench and a pair of oven gloves to let me change filters while the engine is still hot. And I mustn’t forget the turkey baster: that’s to fill the new filter with vegetable oil from the tank, so I don’t introduce an air bubble into the system, causing the engine to stall.
My trunk is a little — no, a lot — less spacious than it used to be, because of the spare cubie of oil I carry, along with a big funnel that lets me fill the tank without spills. The spare tire also takes up space inside the trunk now; the veggie oil tank occupies the well that used to contain the spare.
Notwithstanding the inconveniences, my wife, Ginger, is as enamored of this experiment as I am. She has claimed the Jetta as her own, but has volunteered to help with the mechanical work to convert another car for me. She calls the experience the “Noah project,” named after our 11-month-old grandson, who she hopes will benefit from a better world if others do the same thing.
Despite the obvious benefits of using a fuel that contributes to the nation’s energy independence, that is relatively cheap and that can be burned after having already served its original purpose — cooking food — it is worth noting that vegetable oil is unlikely to replace petroleum anytime soon.
As the number of conversions rises, users will eventually soak up the supply of used cooking oil. As with ethanol and other agriculture-based fuels, it remains to be seen whether growing soybeans is an efficient way to produce nonpetroleum fuels, since the farming process consumes large amounts of fuel and chemical-rich fertilizers. Also, growing crops for use as fuels could have unforeseen effects on the prices and supplies of food.
The territory is uncharted in other ways, as well, as seen in the comments posted in an online forum sponsored by Greasecar.com. Take the case of “Chase,” a Massachusetts resident who was perhaps not as careful as he might have been in the storage of his cache of oil. “No BooBoo to be seen,” Chase wrote, “but this AM there was a really big black bear with its snout in an opened and overturned 5 gal. Luckily the grease spilled onto my gravel driveway, so it should soak in soon enough. Also lucky she did not get into the 12 other buckets! Some arm waving and yelling sent it packing.”
A frequent question about vegetable oil is whether cars run more sluggishly on it. Consider “TDIGuy,” who sought advice on whether a blown head gasket could have resulted from “running a VW too fast for too long” and “hitting the gas pretty hard.” After receiving some helpful comments, TDIGuy came clean: “When I said speeding a little, and a little hard on the gas, I was actually trying to hit 140 in the car. Managed to get 130, but I think I put too much stress on the engine.”
A common concern about converting a car for vegetable oil is that it could harm the engine. But some people who have done conversions say they’ve seen no damage, even after many miles. Phil Gibbs, a New York City firefighter who makes a 75-mile commute twice a week from his Putnam County home, said he had driven his 2002 Jetta 75,000 miles on vegetable oil with no trouble.
The car had 70,000 miles on it before it was converted. “It runs like it did when it was new,” Mr. Gibbs said. The key, he added, is not switching to vegetable oil until it has reached the proper temperature.
The typical conversion involves installing a parallel fuel system with an independent tank (mine is aluminum, shaped like a hockey puck and holds 13 gallons), a heating system that diverts hot engine coolant through copper coils placed within the tank and wrapped around a specially installed vegetable oil filter in the engine compartment, and a set of solenoid-activated valves controlled by a dash-mounted switch that diverts the flow between diesel fuel and vegetable oil.
There is also a fuel temperature gauge that tells the driver when to switch from diesel fuel to vegetable oil after starting out, and a somewhat representational fuel gauge that gives a rough approximation of how much vegetable oil is in the tank.
Greasecar, the company that built my conversion kit, was started in 2000 by Mr. Carven, a Hampshire College mechanical design graduate who had experimented as a school project on a $300 junk car. He went on to celebrate his graduation with a cross-country trip in an old VW van that he equipped with a vegetable oil system.
Now, Greasecar has 14 employees and ships about 300 kits a month from its shop in a 19th-century brick factory complex.
Many buyers follow the instruction manuals that come with the kits and do the installations themselves. Others, like me, seek experienced mechanics who know exactly what they are doing and keep up with the latest developments in the art of greasing. Several manufacturers of similar kits have loose networks of recommended installers.
In addition to the commercially available kits, many home-built systems are being installed by backyard tinkerers all over the country. You can get in touch with them on Internet forums like the ones at the Web sites for Greasecar.com; for another kit manufacturer, Frybrid.com; and at Biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve.
To convert a car to run on vegetable oil, you have to start with a diesel car; it cannot be done with a gasoline engine. Not all states allow the sale of new diesel-powered passenger cars, and there are different state rules governing the sale of used ones. (I bought mine from B & B Auto Sales in North Providence, R.I., sight unseen, via an eBay auction.) I was a lucky buyer; even though the car had 147,000 miles on the odometer, it was in fine condition, exactly as described by the seller.
I was surprised to learn that Rudolf Diesel, inventor of the combustion cycle bearing his name, originally intended his engine to run on vegetable oil. In 1912, seven years after he introduced his engine at a Paris exposition, he said: “The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become in the course of time as important as the petroleum and coal tar products of the present time.”
For me and my Volksvegan, that course of time is now.
Jim Norman is a staff editor for the Business Day section of The New York Times.
Houston Chronicle article:
uly 26, 2006, 10:18PM
Local biodiesel plant in the works
Another facility is planned for New Orleans
By DAVID S. ROSEN
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
A small Houston company said Wednesday it has created a joint venture with two investment firms to build biodiesel plants here and in New Orleans capable of producing more gallons of the fuel per year than American drivers used in 2005.
ADVERTISEMENT
Riverstone Holdings, The Carlyle Group and Houston-based Green Earth Fuels plan to construct two facilities beginning later this year.
They would each be capable of producing 43 million gallons of biodiesel per year, mostly from soy or palm oil at first, said Michael Hoffman, managing director of Riverstone.
Wednesday's announcement is further evidence of a healthy biodiesel market.
Chevron Corp. announced in May it was buying a 22 percent stake in Galveston Bay Biodiesel, which is building a plant on the north side of Galveston Island to make the fuel.
In 2005, the United States used 75 million gallons of biodiesel, up from 25 million gallons the year before, according to the National Biodiesel Board.
"The market is growing," Hoffman said.
"Some people are saying we'll be using as much as 1,500 million gallons over the next few years or so. It's growing very rapidly."
Also Wednesday, Nova Biofuels Oklahoma, a subsidiary of Houston-based Nova Energy Holding, released a statement saying it reached an agreement with ConAgra Trade Group to supply feedstock for its first biodiesel plant and sell the fuel it makes. The company is seeking a site in Oklahoma for the plant.
Construction on Green Earth's Houston plant, which it plans to locate near the Ship Channel, could begin as early as August, and be in operation within a year, Hoffman said.
In New Orleans, he said, construction on the facility will likely begin in October.
Biodiesel can be made out of a variety of materials and is used in its pure state or in a blend called B20, which is 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum diesel.
Much of the fuel produced at the two facilities will probably go toward B20, said Jeff Trucksess, executive vice president for governmental affairs for Green Earth Fuels.
Both Green Earth facilities are expected to create 14 jobs at each location, and 50 to 150 people will be needed in the construction of the plants.
Trucksess said while the production at the plants will exceed last year's national consumption, demand for nonpetroleum fuels is skyrocketing.
"Given the current climate in the world, there's a growing need for petroleum alternatives, and more incentive for domestically produced fuels," Trucksess said. "We see significant growth in the immediate future."
david.rosen@chron.com
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Hump day - links, and other fun stuff
First, let's start off with some really fun links -
This one is a link to a Discovery channel quiz to test your knowledge about natural disasters. About twenty questions, it had a few stumpers (for me, anyway.)
Next, we have a fabulously tongue in cheek video of how Airbus is trying to respond to Boeing's new 787 "Dreamliner." This was NOT produced by Boeing, but I'm sure that they don't mind a bit.
Last night, I came across this one - sticking with my aviation theme for the moment - a series of short clips, combined into a video with music honoring the Boeing 777 - the video calls it the world's favorite airliner - you can dispute that if you choose, but it's MY favorite airliner. Near the end, you get some fabulous video of my FAVORITE favorite airliner - Continental's ship 014 - the Peter Max, and the final shot in the video, taken of a triple landing over the lights at dusk, is also of a Continental Triple 7.
Spent three HOURS at Legacy Health (formerly known as the Montrose Clinic) today - had a 9:30 appointment; they saw me at 10:00, then, I had to wait until 11:00 to talk to the STD/HIV counselor since I had asked that they do a STD/HIV screen while they were drawing blood (more effective use of available funds, you know) and then an hour from that until the tech drew my blood. This is the cost of not having health insurance. I should be thankful that it only took that long. If I followed the "advice" of some of my friends, I should just go to Ben Taub's emergency room for general care and "not pay for it." As a non-critical case, I would sit there for a day or better, and then get a bill for the service.
I was actually "advised" to "just give a fake name, like the illegals do."
Hm. Felony? Sure, why not?
I keep having stuff added to my huge "please get this done last week" pile. I guess that's good - it pays way better than not having anything to do, and I've surely been driving THAT bus since my job with Psycho Judy came to an end nearly five years ago.
Have to get ready for a conference call in twenty minutes. And then, back to pulling on my oar. More later.
This one is a link to a Discovery channel quiz to test your knowledge about natural disasters. About twenty questions, it had a few stumpers (for me, anyway.)
Next, we have a fabulously tongue in cheek video of how Airbus is trying to respond to Boeing's new 787 "Dreamliner." This was NOT produced by Boeing, but I'm sure that they don't mind a bit.
Last night, I came across this one - sticking with my aviation theme for the moment - a series of short clips, combined into a video with music honoring the Boeing 777 - the video calls it the world's favorite airliner - you can dispute that if you choose, but it's MY favorite airliner. Near the end, you get some fabulous video of my FAVORITE favorite airliner - Continental's ship 014 - the Peter Max, and the final shot in the video, taken of a triple landing over the lights at dusk, is also of a Continental Triple 7.
Spent three HOURS at Legacy Health (formerly known as the Montrose Clinic) today - had a 9:30 appointment; they saw me at 10:00, then, I had to wait until 11:00 to talk to the STD/HIV counselor since I had asked that they do a STD/HIV screen while they were drawing blood (more effective use of available funds, you know) and then an hour from that until the tech drew my blood. This is the cost of not having health insurance. I should be thankful that it only took that long. If I followed the "advice" of some of my friends, I should just go to Ben Taub's emergency room for general care and "not pay for it." As a non-critical case, I would sit there for a day or better, and then get a bill for the service.
I was actually "advised" to "just give a fake name, like the illegals do."
Hm. Felony? Sure, why not?
I keep having stuff added to my huge "please get this done last week" pile. I guess that's good - it pays way better than not having anything to do, and I've surely been driving THAT bus since my job with Psycho Judy came to an end nearly five years ago.
Have to get ready for a conference call in twenty minutes. And then, back to pulling on my oar. More later.
Following up on Bonddad's Diary, Learning From History
From Daily Kos
by colinb
Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:35:49 PM PDT
Reading Bonddad's diary from earlier today, The 5 Major Flaws of Bush's Economy it struck me that it highlights some very worrying symptoms, but doesn't quite go so far as to quantify the disease.
So later today when I came across this essay from 1996, it hit on some things that seemed all too familiar
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade...Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe.
The names have changed but the faces remain the same.
* colinb's diary :: ::
*
Replace the 1920's with the Late 1990's and Early 2000's
And add housing speculation to stock market speculation
And replace industry with technology and housing
And replace agriculture with manufacturing
And replace the automotive industry with the housing industry
And replace radio with computers, internet, and telecom
And replace installment credit and margin loans with interest only, home equity, and adjustable rate lending
And replace trade surpluses with trade deficits
And replace Europe with China/Japan
And replace Henry Ford with Bob Toll
And replace Andrew Mellon with Alan Greenspan
And replace Calvin Coolidge with George W Bush
Adjust for current dollars
And what do you get?
1920's:
The Great Depression was the worst economic slump ever in U.S. history, and one which spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression began in late 1929 and lasted for about a decade. Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression; however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade. The maldistribution of wealth in the 1920's existed on many levels. Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe. This imbalance of wealth created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1920's kept the stock market artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the maldistribution of wealth, caused the American economy to capsize.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The Possible Depression could be the worst economic slump ever in U.S. history, and one which could spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression may begin in 2007 and last for about a decade. Many factors have played a role in bringing about the possible depression; however, the main cause for the Possible Depression is the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part of the 1990's and housing market speculation that took place during the early 2000's. The maldistribution of wealth in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's has existed on many levels. Money has been distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between technology/housing and manufacturing within the United States, and between the U.S. and China/Japan. This imbalance of wealth has created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1990's and Early 2000's kept the stock and housing markets artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the maldistribution of wealth, has caused the American economy to possibly capsize.
1920's:
The "roaring twenties" was an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nation's total realized income rose from $74.3 billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929. However, the rewards of the "Coolidge Prosperity" of the 1920's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Brookings Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all. Automotive industry mogul Henry Ford provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. Henry Ford reported a personal income of $14 million in the same year that the average personal income was $750. By present day standards, where the average yearly income in the U.S. is around $18,500, Mr. Ford would be earning over $345 million a year! This maldistribution of income between the rich and the middle class grew throughout the 1920's. While the disposable income per capita rose 9% from 1920 to 1929, those with income within the top 1% enjoyed a stupendous 75% increase in per capita disposable income.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The "dot com and housing boom" has been an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nation's total GDP rose from $7.6 trillion in 1996 to $12.5 trillion in 2005. However, the rewards of the "Clinton/Bush Prosperity" of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in 2001 the top 1% of Americans had a combined net worth equal to the bottom 90%. Home building mogul Bob Toll provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. In 2005 Bob Toll earned $34 million in the same year that the per capita income was $34,586 This maldistribution of income between the rich and the middle class grew throughout the late 1990's and Early 2000's. While worker pay grew 32% in the 1990s, executive pay grew a stupendous 500%.
1920's:
A major reason for this large and growing gap between the rich and the working-class people was the increased manufacturing output throughout this period. From 1923-1929 the average output per worker increased 32% in manufacturing. During that same period of time average wages for manufacturing jobs increased only 8%. Thus wages increased at a rate one fourth as fast as productivity increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1923-1929 corporate profits rose 62% and dividends rose 65%
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
A major reason for this large and growing gap between the rich and the working-class people was the increased productivity growth throughout this period. From 1996-2004 the average output per worker increased approximately 28%. During that same period median hourly wages increased only approximately 10%. Thus wages increased at a rate one third as fast as productivity increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1996-2004 corporate profits before tax rose 45% and dividends rose 66%
1920's:
The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich and middle-class. Calvin Coolidge's administration (and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, and as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of legislation to this purpose is the Revenue Act of 1926, signed by President Coolidge on February 26, 1926, which reduced federal income and inheritance taxes dramatically. Andrew Mellon, Coolidge's Secretary of the Treasury, was the main force behind these and other tax cuts throughout the 1920's. In effect, he was able to lower federal taxes such that a man with a million-dollar annual income had his federal taxes reduced from $600,000 to $200,000. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap between the socioeconomic classes. In the 1923 case Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled minimum-wage legislation unconstitutional.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich and middle-class. George Bush's administration (and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, and as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of legislation to this purpose is the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, signed by President Bush on May 28, 2003, which reduced federal income and investment taxes dramatically. Alan Greenspan, Bush's Fed Chairman, was a leading proponent of Bush's tax cuts. In effect, Bush was able to shift more of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class, decreasing the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent by 19% while decreasing the tax rate for the middle 20% by only 4%. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap between the socioeconomic classes. In the 2006 DaimlerChrysler vs Cuno case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of big businesses being able to extort state and local governments for tax giveaways, furthering the shift of the tax burden away from corporations and to wage earners.
1920's:
Three quarters of the U.S. population would spend essentially all of their yearly incomes to purchase consumer goods such as food, clothes, radios, and cars. These were the poor and middle class: families with incomes around, or usually less than, $2,500 a year. The bottom three quarters of the population had an aggregate income of less than 45% of the combined national income; the top 25% of the population took in more than 55% of the national income. While the wealthy too purchased consumer goods, a family earning $100,000 could not be expected to eat 40 times more than a family that only earned $2,500 a year, or buy 40 cars, 40 radios, or 40 houses.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Three fifths of the U.S. population would spend essentially all of their yearly incomes to purchase needed goods and services such as food, clothes, computers, and cars. These were the poor and middle class: families with incomes around, or usually less than, $21,400 a year. The bottom 3 fifths of the population had an aggregate income of less than 23% of the combined national income; the top 10% of the population took in more than 44% of the national income. While the wealthy too purchased consumer goods, a family earning $256,000 could not be expected to eat 12 times more than a family that only earned $21,400 a year, or buy 12 cars, 12 computers, or 12 houses.
1920's:
Through such a period of imbalance, the U.S. came to rely upon two things in order for the economy to remain on an even keel: credit sales, and luxury spending and investment from the rich.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Through such a period of imbalance, the U.S. came to rely upon two things in order for the economy to remain on an even keel: credit sales, and luxury spending and investment from the rich.
1920's:
One obvious solution to the problem of the vast majority of the population not having enough money to satisfy all their needs was to let those who wanted goods buy products on credit. The concept of buying now and paying later caught on quickly. By the end of the 1920's 60% of cars and 80% of radios were bought on installment credit. Between 1925 and 1929 the total amount of outstanding installment credit more than doubled from $1.38 billion to around $3 billion. Installment credit allowed one to "telescope the future into the present", as the President's Committee on Social Trends noted. This strategy created artificial demand for products which people could not ordinarily afford. It put off the day of reckoning, but it made the downfall worse when it came. By telescoping the future into the present, when "the future" arrived, there was little to buy that hadn't already been bought. In addition, people could not longer use their regular wages to purchase whatever items they didn't have yet, because so much of the wages went to paying back past purchases.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
One obvious solution to the problem of the vast majority of the population not having enough money to satisfy all their needs was to let those who wanted goods buy products on credit. The concept of buying now and paying later caught on quickly. By the end of 2005, 26% of all home loans were made with adjustable rate mortgages, and 11% were interest only loans. Between 1998 and 2002 the total amount of outstanding household debt doubled from $16 trillion to $32 trillion. Adjustable rate and interest only mortgages allowed one to purchase more expensive homes for smaller introductory monthly payments. Home equity loans allowed one to borrow on the value of their home to pay for other discretionary goods. This strategy created artificial demand for homes and discretionary goods which people could not ordinarily afford. It put off the day of reckoning, but it will make the downfall worse when it comes. By telescoping the future into the present, when "the future" arrives, there is little to buy that hasn't already been bought. In addition, people can no longer use their regular wages to purchase whatever items they don't have yet, because so much of their wages will be going to servicing their debt.
1920's:
Maldistribution of wealth within our nation was not limited to only socioeconomic classes, but to entire industries. In 1929 a mere 200 corporations controlled approximately half of all corporate wealth. While the automotive industry was thriving in the 1920's, some industries, agriculture in particular, were declining steadily. In 1921, the same year that Ford Motor Company reported record assets of more than $345 million, farm prices plummeted, and the price of food fell nearly 72% due to a huge surplus. While the average per capita income in 1929 was $750 a year for all Americans, the average annual income for someone working in agriculture was only $273. The prosperity of the 1920's was simply not shared among industries evenly. In fact, most of the industries that were prospering in the 1920's were in some way linked to the automotive industry or to the radio industry
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Maldistribution of wealth within our nation was not limited to only socioeconomic classes, but to entire industries. While the technology and housing industries were thriving in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, some industries, manufacturing, in particular, were declining steadily. In the 3rd Quarter of 2005, the same quarter that saw Home Builder Toll Brothers report record quarterly revenues of $1.56 billion, the manufacturing sector saw a net job loss of 51,000 jobs. The prosperity of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's was simply not shared among industries evenly. In fact, most of the industries that were prospering in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's were in some way linked to the technology industry or to the housing industry, which accounted for about 43% of the increase in private sector payrolls from 2001 to 2004.
1920's:
The problem with such heavy concentrations of wealth and such massive dependence upon essentially two industries is similar to the problem with few people having too much wealth. The economy is reliant upon those industries to expand and grow and invest in order to prosper. If those two industries, the automotive and radio industries, were to slow down or stop, so would the entire economy. While the economy did prosper greatly in the 1920's, because this prosperity wasn't balanced between different industries, when those industries that had all the wealth concentrated in them slowed down, the whole economy did. The fundamental problem with the automobile and radio industries was that they could not expand ad infinitum for the simple reason that people could and would buy only so many cars and radios. When the automotive and radio industries went down all their dependents, essentially all of American industry, fell. Because it had been ignored, agriculture, which was still a fairly large segment of the economy, was already in ruin when American industry fell.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The problem with such heavy concentrations of wealth and such massive dependence upon essentially two industries is similar to the problem with few people having too much wealth. The economy is reliant upon those industries to expand and grow and invest in order to prosper. If those two industries, the technology and houing industries, were to slow down or stop, so would the entire economy. While the economy did prosper greatly in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, because this prosperity wasn't balanced between different industries, when those industries that had all the wealth concentrate in them slow down, the whole economy will. The fundamental problem with the technology and housing industries is that they cannot expand ad infinitum for the simple reason that people can and will buy only so many homes and computers. When the technology and housing industries go down all their dependents, essentially all of American industry, falls. Because it has been ignored, manufacturing which is still a fairly large segment of the economy, is already in ruin when American technology and housing industries fall.
1920's:
A last major instability of the American economy had to do with large-scale international wealth distribution problems. While America was prospering in the 1920's, European nations were struggling to rebuild themselves after the damage of war. During World War I the U.S. government lent its European allies $7 billion, and then another $3.3 billion by 1920. By the Dawes Plan of 1924 the U.S. started lending to Axis Germany. American foreign lending continued in the 1920's climbing to $900 million in 1924, and $1.25 billion in 1927 and 1928. Of these funds, more than 90% were used by the European allies to purchase U.S. goods. The nations the U.S. had lent money to (Britain, Italy, France, Belgium, Russia, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Poland, and others) were in no position to pay off the debts.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
A last major instability of the American economy had to do with large-scale international capital distribution problems. While America was consuming in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, fueled by wealth created by consecutive stock market and housing market booms, Japan and China were busy producing all of the goods needed to meet US demand. To fuel this trade deficit, both Japan and China were forced to buy U.S. dollar demoninated debt in the form of US Treasury bonds. In addition, the U.S. fiscal policy led to staggering budget deficits. The U.S. national debt grew a staggering 60% from 1996 (approximately $5 Trillion) to 2006 (approximately $8 Trillion)
1920's:
The weakness of the international economy certainly contributed to the Great Depression. Europe was reliant upon U.S. loans to buy U.S. goods, and the U.S. needed Europe to buy these goods to prosper. By 1929 10% of American gross national product went into exports. When the foreign countries became no longer able to buy U.S. goods, U.S. exports fell 30% immediately. That $1.5 billion of foreign sales lost between 1929 to 1933 was fully one eighth of all lost American sales in the early years of the depression.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The weakness of the international economy will certainly contribute to the Possible Depression. Japan and China are reliant upon U.S. consumer spending to finance their manufacturing industries, which in turn finances the U.S. national debt. If in 2007, consumer spending shows a considerable decline, Japan and China will see their exports to the U.S. shrink considerably, giving them less cause to purchase U.S. treasuries. If Japan and China scale back their buying of U.S. debt at the same time the U.S. sees an economic slowdown, this will be a double whammy to U.S. debt financing. Interest rates will be forced higher to account for less investment, which will create a higher debt service ratio and further slow domestic U.S. business investment. The U.S, government will become like the U.S. consumer, indentured to their own debt service.
1920's:
Mass speculation went on throughout the late 1920's. In 1929 alone, a record volume of 1,124,800,410 shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange. From early 1928 to September 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose from 191 to 381. This sort of profit was irresistible to investors. Company earnings became of little interest; as long as stock prices continued to rise huge profits could be made. One such example is RCA corporation, whose stock price leapt from 85 to 420 during 1928, even though it had not yet paid a single dividend. Even these returns of over 100% were no measure of the possibility for investors of the time. Through the miracle of buying stocks on margin, one could buy stocks without the money to purchase them. Buying stocks on margin functioned much the same way as buying a car on credit. Using the example of RCA, a Mr. John Doe could buy 1 share of the company by putting up $10 of his own, and borrowing $75 from his broker. If he sold the stock at $420 a year later he would have turned his original investment of just $10 into $341.25 ($420 minus the $75 and 5% interest owed to the broker). That makes a return of over 3400%! Investors' craze over the proposition of profits like this drove the market to absurdly high levels. By mid 1929 the total of outstanding brokers' loans was over $7 billion; in the next three months that number would reach $8.5 billion. Interest rates for brokers loans were reaching the sky, going as high as 20% in March 1929. The speculative boom in the stock market was based upon confidence. In the same way, the huge market crashes of 1929 were based on fear.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Mass speculation went on throughout the Early 2000's. In 2005 alone, a record 7 million housing properties were sold. From early 2004 to early 2005, median condo prices rose 16%. This sort of profit was irresistible to investors. Mortgage to Rent relationships became of little interest; as long as housing prices continued to rise huge profits could be made. One such example is Phoenix, AZ, whose median home price rose 43% in one year, even though area income and rental growth remained in the single digits. Even these returns of over 40% were no measure of the possibility for investors of the time. Through the miracle of buying houses pre-construction, one could buy homes without putting any money down and gain equity without ever paying a mortgage payment. Using the example of Phoenix, a Mr. John Doe could put a $5,000 deposit down on a $200,000 house that had yet to be built. If he sold the house at $250,000 a year later after the home was finished, he would have turned his original investment of just $5,000 into $35,000 ($250,000 sales price less $200,000 purchase price less 6% closing costs). That makes a return of over 700%! Investors' craze over the proposition of profits like this drove the market to absurdly high levels. By 2005 the total of outstanding mortgage debt was $9 trillion, on par with the equally staggering federal government national debt. Interest rates are on the rise, with no clear end in sight. The speculative boom in the housing market was based upon confidence. In the same way, the huge market crashes of 2007-2008 will be based on fear.
1920's:
This speculation and the resulting stock market crashes acted as a trigger to the already unstable U.S. economy. Due to the maldistribution of wealth, the economy of the 1920's was one very much dependent upon confidence. The market crashes undermined this confidence. The rich stopped spending on luxury items, and slowed investments. The middle-class and poor stopped buying things with installment credit for fear of loosing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest. As a result industrial production fell by more than 9% between the market crashes in October and December 1929. As a result jobs were lost, and soon people starting defaulting on their interest payment. Radios and cars bought with installment credit had to be returned. All of the sudden warehouses were piling up with inventory. The thriving industries that had been connected with the automobile and radio industries started falling apart. Without a car people did not need fuel or tires; without a radio people had less need for electricity. On the international scene, the rich had practically stopped lending money to foreign countries. With such tremendous profits to be made in the stock market nobody wanted to make low interest loans. To protect the nation's businesses the U.S. imposed higher trade barriers (Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930). Foreigners stopped buying American products. More jobs were lost, more stores were closed, more banks went under, and more factories closed. Unemployment grew to five million in 1930, and up to thirteen million in 1932. The country spiraled quickly into catastrophe. The Great Depression had begun.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
This speculation and the resulting stock and housing market crashes may act as a trigger to the already unstable U.S. economy. Due to the maldistribution of wealth, the economy of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's was one very much dependent upon confidence. The market crashes have and may further undermine this confidence. The rich may stop spending on luxury items, and slow investments. The middle-class and poor may stop buying things with home equity loans for fear of losing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest. As a result industrial production may fall. As a result jobs may be lost, and soon people may start defaulting on their adjustable rate mortgages. Homes bought with adjustable rate mortgages may be foreclosed, discretionary purchases of technology items may grind to a halt. Real estate markets and technology companies may begin piling up with inventory. The thriving industries that had been connected with the technology and housing industries may start falling apart. Without a home to flip people may not need granite countertops or new flooring; without the latest high definition plasma tv, people may have less use for the latest high definition dvd. On the international scene, the currency rich nations may move away from U.S dollars. Foreigners have already stopped buying American products, and we won't be able to get our competitive advantage back if other countries start devaluing their currencies in order to sell excess supplies of products to other Non-U.S markets. More jobs may be lost, more stores may be closed, more banks may go under, and more factories may close. Unemployment may grow. The country may spiral quickly into catastrophe. The Possible Depression may begin.
Bonddad is all gloom and doom? I'd say he has reason to be.
by colinb
Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:35:49 PM PDT
Reading Bonddad's diary from earlier today, The 5 Major Flaws of Bush's Economy it struck me that it highlights some very worrying symptoms, but doesn't quite go so far as to quantify the disease.
So later today when I came across this essay from 1996, it hit on some things that seemed all too familiar
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade...Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe.
The names have changed but the faces remain the same.
* colinb's diary :: ::
*
Replace the 1920's with the Late 1990's and Early 2000's
And add housing speculation to stock market speculation
And replace industry with technology and housing
And replace agriculture with manufacturing
And replace the automotive industry with the housing industry
And replace radio with computers, internet, and telecom
And replace installment credit and margin loans with interest only, home equity, and adjustable rate lending
And replace trade surpluses with trade deficits
And replace Europe with China/Japan
And replace Henry Ford with Bob Toll
And replace Andrew Mellon with Alan Greenspan
And replace Calvin Coolidge with George W Bush
Adjust for current dollars
And what do you get?
1920's:
The Great Depression was the worst economic slump ever in U.S. history, and one which spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression began in late 1929 and lasted for about a decade. Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression; however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade. The maldistribution of wealth in the 1920's existed on many levels. Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe. This imbalance of wealth created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1920's kept the stock market artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the maldistribution of wealth, caused the American economy to capsize.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The Possible Depression could be the worst economic slump ever in U.S. history, and one which could spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression may begin in 2007 and last for about a decade. Many factors have played a role in bringing about the possible depression; however, the main cause for the Possible Depression is the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part of the 1990's and housing market speculation that took place during the early 2000's. The maldistribution of wealth in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's has existed on many levels. Money has been distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between technology/housing and manufacturing within the United States, and between the U.S. and China/Japan. This imbalance of wealth has created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1990's and Early 2000's kept the stock and housing markets artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the maldistribution of wealth, has caused the American economy to possibly capsize.
1920's:
The "roaring twenties" was an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nation's total realized income rose from $74.3 billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929. However, the rewards of the "Coolidge Prosperity" of the 1920's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Brookings Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all. Automotive industry mogul Henry Ford provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. Henry Ford reported a personal income of $14 million in the same year that the average personal income was $750. By present day standards, where the average yearly income in the U.S. is around $18,500, Mr. Ford would be earning over $345 million a year! This maldistribution of income between the rich and the middle class grew throughout the 1920's. While the disposable income per capita rose 9% from 1920 to 1929, those with income within the top 1% enjoyed a stupendous 75% increase in per capita disposable income.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The "dot com and housing boom" has been an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nation's total GDP rose from $7.6 trillion in 1996 to $12.5 trillion in 2005. However, the rewards of the "Clinton/Bush Prosperity" of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in 2001 the top 1% of Americans had a combined net worth equal to the bottom 90%. Home building mogul Bob Toll provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. In 2005 Bob Toll earned $34 million in the same year that the per capita income was $34,586 This maldistribution of income between the rich and the middle class grew throughout the late 1990's and Early 2000's. While worker pay grew 32% in the 1990s, executive pay grew a stupendous 500%.
1920's:
A major reason for this large and growing gap between the rich and the working-class people was the increased manufacturing output throughout this period. From 1923-1929 the average output per worker increased 32% in manufacturing. During that same period of time average wages for manufacturing jobs increased only 8%. Thus wages increased at a rate one fourth as fast as productivity increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1923-1929 corporate profits rose 62% and dividends rose 65%
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
A major reason for this large and growing gap between the rich and the working-class people was the increased productivity growth throughout this period. From 1996-2004 the average output per worker increased approximately 28%. During that same period median hourly wages increased only approximately 10%. Thus wages increased at a rate one third as fast as productivity increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1996-2004 corporate profits before tax rose 45% and dividends rose 66%
1920's:
The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich and middle-class. Calvin Coolidge's administration (and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, and as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of legislation to this purpose is the Revenue Act of 1926, signed by President Coolidge on February 26, 1926, which reduced federal income and inheritance taxes dramatically. Andrew Mellon, Coolidge's Secretary of the Treasury, was the main force behind these and other tax cuts throughout the 1920's. In effect, he was able to lower federal taxes such that a man with a million-dollar annual income had his federal taxes reduced from $600,000 to $200,000. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap between the socioeconomic classes. In the 1923 case Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled minimum-wage legislation unconstitutional.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich and middle-class. George Bush's administration (and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, and as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of legislation to this purpose is the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, signed by President Bush on May 28, 2003, which reduced federal income and investment taxes dramatically. Alan Greenspan, Bush's Fed Chairman, was a leading proponent of Bush's tax cuts. In effect, Bush was able to shift more of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class, decreasing the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent by 19% while decreasing the tax rate for the middle 20% by only 4%. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap between the socioeconomic classes. In the 2006 DaimlerChrysler vs Cuno case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of big businesses being able to extort state and local governments for tax giveaways, furthering the shift of the tax burden away from corporations and to wage earners.
1920's:
Three quarters of the U.S. population would spend essentially all of their yearly incomes to purchase consumer goods such as food, clothes, radios, and cars. These were the poor and middle class: families with incomes around, or usually less than, $2,500 a year. The bottom three quarters of the population had an aggregate income of less than 45% of the combined national income; the top 25% of the population took in more than 55% of the national income. While the wealthy too purchased consumer goods, a family earning $100,000 could not be expected to eat 40 times more than a family that only earned $2,500 a year, or buy 40 cars, 40 radios, or 40 houses.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Three fifths of the U.S. population would spend essentially all of their yearly incomes to purchase needed goods and services such as food, clothes, computers, and cars. These were the poor and middle class: families with incomes around, or usually less than, $21,400 a year. The bottom 3 fifths of the population had an aggregate income of less than 23% of the combined national income; the top 10% of the population took in more than 44% of the national income. While the wealthy too purchased consumer goods, a family earning $256,000 could not be expected to eat 12 times more than a family that only earned $21,400 a year, or buy 12 cars, 12 computers, or 12 houses.
1920's:
Through such a period of imbalance, the U.S. came to rely upon two things in order for the economy to remain on an even keel: credit sales, and luxury spending and investment from the rich.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Through such a period of imbalance, the U.S. came to rely upon two things in order for the economy to remain on an even keel: credit sales, and luxury spending and investment from the rich.
1920's:
One obvious solution to the problem of the vast majority of the population not having enough money to satisfy all their needs was to let those who wanted goods buy products on credit. The concept of buying now and paying later caught on quickly. By the end of the 1920's 60% of cars and 80% of radios were bought on installment credit. Between 1925 and 1929 the total amount of outstanding installment credit more than doubled from $1.38 billion to around $3 billion. Installment credit allowed one to "telescope the future into the present", as the President's Committee on Social Trends noted. This strategy created artificial demand for products which people could not ordinarily afford. It put off the day of reckoning, but it made the downfall worse when it came. By telescoping the future into the present, when "the future" arrived, there was little to buy that hadn't already been bought. In addition, people could not longer use their regular wages to purchase whatever items they didn't have yet, because so much of the wages went to paying back past purchases.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
One obvious solution to the problem of the vast majority of the population not having enough money to satisfy all their needs was to let those who wanted goods buy products on credit. The concept of buying now and paying later caught on quickly. By the end of 2005, 26% of all home loans were made with adjustable rate mortgages, and 11% were interest only loans. Between 1998 and 2002 the total amount of outstanding household debt doubled from $16 trillion to $32 trillion. Adjustable rate and interest only mortgages allowed one to purchase more expensive homes for smaller introductory monthly payments. Home equity loans allowed one to borrow on the value of their home to pay for other discretionary goods. This strategy created artificial demand for homes and discretionary goods which people could not ordinarily afford. It put off the day of reckoning, but it will make the downfall worse when it comes. By telescoping the future into the present, when "the future" arrives, there is little to buy that hasn't already been bought. In addition, people can no longer use their regular wages to purchase whatever items they don't have yet, because so much of their wages will be going to servicing their debt.
1920's:
Maldistribution of wealth within our nation was not limited to only socioeconomic classes, but to entire industries. In 1929 a mere 200 corporations controlled approximately half of all corporate wealth. While the automotive industry was thriving in the 1920's, some industries, agriculture in particular, were declining steadily. In 1921, the same year that Ford Motor Company reported record assets of more than $345 million, farm prices plummeted, and the price of food fell nearly 72% due to a huge surplus. While the average per capita income in 1929 was $750 a year for all Americans, the average annual income for someone working in agriculture was only $273. The prosperity of the 1920's was simply not shared among industries evenly. In fact, most of the industries that were prospering in the 1920's were in some way linked to the automotive industry or to the radio industry
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Maldistribution of wealth within our nation was not limited to only socioeconomic classes, but to entire industries. While the technology and housing industries were thriving in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, some industries, manufacturing, in particular, were declining steadily. In the 3rd Quarter of 2005, the same quarter that saw Home Builder Toll Brothers report record quarterly revenues of $1.56 billion, the manufacturing sector saw a net job loss of 51,000 jobs. The prosperity of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's was simply not shared among industries evenly. In fact, most of the industries that were prospering in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's were in some way linked to the technology industry or to the housing industry, which accounted for about 43% of the increase in private sector payrolls from 2001 to 2004.
1920's:
The problem with such heavy concentrations of wealth and such massive dependence upon essentially two industries is similar to the problem with few people having too much wealth. The economy is reliant upon those industries to expand and grow and invest in order to prosper. If those two industries, the automotive and radio industries, were to slow down or stop, so would the entire economy. While the economy did prosper greatly in the 1920's, because this prosperity wasn't balanced between different industries, when those industries that had all the wealth concentrated in them slowed down, the whole economy did. The fundamental problem with the automobile and radio industries was that they could not expand ad infinitum for the simple reason that people could and would buy only so many cars and radios. When the automotive and radio industries went down all their dependents, essentially all of American industry, fell. Because it had been ignored, agriculture, which was still a fairly large segment of the economy, was already in ruin when American industry fell.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The problem with such heavy concentrations of wealth and such massive dependence upon essentially two industries is similar to the problem with few people having too much wealth. The economy is reliant upon those industries to expand and grow and invest in order to prosper. If those two industries, the technology and houing industries, were to slow down or stop, so would the entire economy. While the economy did prosper greatly in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, because this prosperity wasn't balanced between different industries, when those industries that had all the wealth concentrate in them slow down, the whole economy will. The fundamental problem with the technology and housing industries is that they cannot expand ad infinitum for the simple reason that people can and will buy only so many homes and computers. When the technology and housing industries go down all their dependents, essentially all of American industry, falls. Because it has been ignored, manufacturing which is still a fairly large segment of the economy, is already in ruin when American technology and housing industries fall.
1920's:
A last major instability of the American economy had to do with large-scale international wealth distribution problems. While America was prospering in the 1920's, European nations were struggling to rebuild themselves after the damage of war. During World War I the U.S. government lent its European allies $7 billion, and then another $3.3 billion by 1920. By the Dawes Plan of 1924 the U.S. started lending to Axis Germany. American foreign lending continued in the 1920's climbing to $900 million in 1924, and $1.25 billion in 1927 and 1928. Of these funds, more than 90% were used by the European allies to purchase U.S. goods. The nations the U.S. had lent money to (Britain, Italy, France, Belgium, Russia, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Poland, and others) were in no position to pay off the debts.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
A last major instability of the American economy had to do with large-scale international capital distribution problems. While America was consuming in the Late 1990's and Early 2000's, fueled by wealth created by consecutive stock market and housing market booms, Japan and China were busy producing all of the goods needed to meet US demand. To fuel this trade deficit, both Japan and China were forced to buy U.S. dollar demoninated debt in the form of US Treasury bonds. In addition, the U.S. fiscal policy led to staggering budget deficits. The U.S. national debt grew a staggering 60% from 1996 (approximately $5 Trillion) to 2006 (approximately $8 Trillion)
1920's:
The weakness of the international economy certainly contributed to the Great Depression. Europe was reliant upon U.S. loans to buy U.S. goods, and the U.S. needed Europe to buy these goods to prosper. By 1929 10% of American gross national product went into exports. When the foreign countries became no longer able to buy U.S. goods, U.S. exports fell 30% immediately. That $1.5 billion of foreign sales lost between 1929 to 1933 was fully one eighth of all lost American sales in the early years of the depression.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
The weakness of the international economy will certainly contribute to the Possible Depression. Japan and China are reliant upon U.S. consumer spending to finance their manufacturing industries, which in turn finances the U.S. national debt. If in 2007, consumer spending shows a considerable decline, Japan and China will see their exports to the U.S. shrink considerably, giving them less cause to purchase U.S. treasuries. If Japan and China scale back their buying of U.S. debt at the same time the U.S. sees an economic slowdown, this will be a double whammy to U.S. debt financing. Interest rates will be forced higher to account for less investment, which will create a higher debt service ratio and further slow domestic U.S. business investment. The U.S, government will become like the U.S. consumer, indentured to their own debt service.
1920's:
Mass speculation went on throughout the late 1920's. In 1929 alone, a record volume of 1,124,800,410 shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange. From early 1928 to September 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose from 191 to 381. This sort of profit was irresistible to investors. Company earnings became of little interest; as long as stock prices continued to rise huge profits could be made. One such example is RCA corporation, whose stock price leapt from 85 to 420 during 1928, even though it had not yet paid a single dividend. Even these returns of over 100% were no measure of the possibility for investors of the time. Through the miracle of buying stocks on margin, one could buy stocks without the money to purchase them. Buying stocks on margin functioned much the same way as buying a car on credit. Using the example of RCA, a Mr. John Doe could buy 1 share of the company by putting up $10 of his own, and borrowing $75 from his broker. If he sold the stock at $420 a year later he would have turned his original investment of just $10 into $341.25 ($420 minus the $75 and 5% interest owed to the broker). That makes a return of over 3400%! Investors' craze over the proposition of profits like this drove the market to absurdly high levels. By mid 1929 the total of outstanding brokers' loans was over $7 billion; in the next three months that number would reach $8.5 billion. Interest rates for brokers loans were reaching the sky, going as high as 20% in March 1929. The speculative boom in the stock market was based upon confidence. In the same way, the huge market crashes of 1929 were based on fear.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
Mass speculation went on throughout the Early 2000's. In 2005 alone, a record 7 million housing properties were sold. From early 2004 to early 2005, median condo prices rose 16%. This sort of profit was irresistible to investors. Mortgage to Rent relationships became of little interest; as long as housing prices continued to rise huge profits could be made. One such example is Phoenix, AZ, whose median home price rose 43% in one year, even though area income and rental growth remained in the single digits. Even these returns of over 40% were no measure of the possibility for investors of the time. Through the miracle of buying houses pre-construction, one could buy homes without putting any money down and gain equity without ever paying a mortgage payment. Using the example of Phoenix, a Mr. John Doe could put a $5,000 deposit down on a $200,000 house that had yet to be built. If he sold the house at $250,000 a year later after the home was finished, he would have turned his original investment of just $5,000 into $35,000 ($250,000 sales price less $200,000 purchase price less 6% closing costs). That makes a return of over 700%! Investors' craze over the proposition of profits like this drove the market to absurdly high levels. By 2005 the total of outstanding mortgage debt was $9 trillion, on par with the equally staggering federal government national debt. Interest rates are on the rise, with no clear end in sight. The speculative boom in the housing market was based upon confidence. In the same way, the huge market crashes of 2007-2008 will be based on fear.
1920's:
This speculation and the resulting stock market crashes acted as a trigger to the already unstable U.S. economy. Due to the maldistribution of wealth, the economy of the 1920's was one very much dependent upon confidence. The market crashes undermined this confidence. The rich stopped spending on luxury items, and slowed investments. The middle-class and poor stopped buying things with installment credit for fear of loosing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest. As a result industrial production fell by more than 9% between the market crashes in October and December 1929. As a result jobs were lost, and soon people starting defaulting on their interest payment. Radios and cars bought with installment credit had to be returned. All of the sudden warehouses were piling up with inventory. The thriving industries that had been connected with the automobile and radio industries started falling apart. Without a car people did not need fuel or tires; without a radio people had less need for electricity. On the international scene, the rich had practically stopped lending money to foreign countries. With such tremendous profits to be made in the stock market nobody wanted to make low interest loans. To protect the nation's businesses the U.S. imposed higher trade barriers (Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930). Foreigners stopped buying American products. More jobs were lost, more stores were closed, more banks went under, and more factories closed. Unemployment grew to five million in 1930, and up to thirteen million in 1932. The country spiraled quickly into catastrophe. The Great Depression had begun.
Late 1990's and Early 2000's:
This speculation and the resulting stock and housing market crashes may act as a trigger to the already unstable U.S. economy. Due to the maldistribution of wealth, the economy of the Late 1990's and Early 2000's was one very much dependent upon confidence. The market crashes have and may further undermine this confidence. The rich may stop spending on luxury items, and slow investments. The middle-class and poor may stop buying things with home equity loans for fear of losing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest. As a result industrial production may fall. As a result jobs may be lost, and soon people may start defaulting on their adjustable rate mortgages. Homes bought with adjustable rate mortgages may be foreclosed, discretionary purchases of technology items may grind to a halt. Real estate markets and technology companies may begin piling up with inventory. The thriving industries that had been connected with the technology and housing industries may start falling apart. Without a home to flip people may not need granite countertops or new flooring; without the latest high definition plasma tv, people may have less use for the latest high definition dvd. On the international scene, the currency rich nations may move away from U.S dollars. Foreigners have already stopped buying American products, and we won't be able to get our competitive advantage back if other countries start devaluing their currencies in order to sell excess supplies of products to other Non-U.S markets. More jobs may be lost, more stores may be closed, more banks may go under, and more factories may close. Unemployment may grow. The country may spiral quickly into catastrophe. The Possible Depression may begin.
Bonddad is all gloom and doom? I'd say he has reason to be.
Letting it Shine: Anti-Gay Bigotry & Black Churches
Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 01:45:51 PM PDT
I've posted many times about the particular brand of homophobia found in some black churches. So much, in fact, that probably some readers here have grown weary of hearing about it, and at least one has told me that my anger regarding the subject is a sign of "self-hatred." I'd probably say that my anger stems from my own experience of the phenomenon.
I've written about black ministers like Willie Wilson, Alfred Owens, and Eddie Long spewing anti-gay hatred from the pulpit, black ministers in Indiana praying for more discrimination against gay people, another black minister who announced he'd ride with the Klan as long as they opposed marriage equality, and about how another black minister turned his back when Dwan Prince's mother asked for help in the wake of a gay bashing that left her son in a coma and in a wheelchair afterwards. And I've written about how all of the above effect the HIV/AIDS epidemic in black communities.
So, yes, I've beaten that drum a lot. Maybe too much, but as a black gay man it's something affects me -- even as a non-christian -- and thus it's something I can't not talk about.
* TerranceDC's diary :: ::
*
But maybe it's to much coming from me, as I admit my own pain and anger related to the subject are still rather raw. So I was interested to see Andrew Sullivan take up the subject with a post to Billy Porter's column about his own experience with the black church as a gay man.
So here I stand. Speaking up, speaking out, and letting my glorious light shine like it should. I recently sat in the New York City hospital room of my dear friend Kevin Aviance after he was savagely beaten on an East Village street for being gay, and I thought to myself, Where are our leaders? Where are the people with influence who will stand up for me and my gay brethren? I am disappointed with our government. I am disappointed with our nation. But I am the most disappointed with my African-American 'Christian' brothers and sisters who stand proudly on their pulpits and use the Bible to regurgitate the very same hate rhetoric that was inflicted on the black community not so long ago.
I never considered myself an activist in the past. I respect that title too much to take it lightly. But with the recent increase in hate-bias attacks directed toward our community, and the struggle for us to gain the simplest of civil rights, I am filled with a raging sense of activism. Our bodies, our health, and our basic civil liberties are at stake. It is time to let the world know: We will not let you take our God away. We will not be ignored! We will not be denied! And if God is going to send us to a burning hell for being the people that He created us to be--we'll see each and every one of you there.
"Shine! Let it shine! Let it shine! Let it shine!"
Porter, a Broadway performer, wrote his remarks before performing at a Soulforce protest at James Dobson's Focus on the Family headquarters. I admire Porter's stand, though different from my own choices -- for he remained within the faith he was raised in, and has apparently chosen to stay and fight, whereas my own choice was to leave it behind. I also join Porter in his questions.
Where are our leaders? Where are the people with influence who will stand up for me and my gay brethren? In terms of high profile leaders within black churches, I can only think of a few. Jesse Jackson, Michael Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton come to mind, and other ministers who attended the black church summit in Atlanta earlier this year. But not many more than that, though there are probably countless others working anonymously against homophobia in their own churches.
The irony is that many black ministers are joining a movement that has it's roots in decades-old battles against desegregation, without knowing or caring. I've just finished Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and I'm two-thirds through The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, and both books detail how African-Americans who normally lean Democratic on policy issues have joined a movement that Michelle Goldberg calls Christian nationalism in her book and that James Rubin calls Christocratic in his, because it appeals to their religiously-based conservatism on social issues. Both books also go into detail about how this movement rose in part from opposition to the advances of the civil rights movement. (All of which leads to the irony of a black minister declaring he'll "ride with the Klan" so long as they hate gay people as much as he does.)
After quoting Porter, Sullivan sums up merely saying "The battle has only just started." I fear he's right, and I think Porter and others like him are the people best equipped to fight it; to become the leaders whose absence he writes about. In her Advocate column about "Taking Back the Black Gay Movement" Jasmyne Cannick wrote about the need for black gays to start speaking up in our own communities. She's exactly right.
But in assessing Porter's and Cannick's statements, I'm left wondering where exactly I could begin to enter the picture in the work that needs to be done in that arena. As I've written before, much like the person Cannick mentions in her column, I no longer have any real connection to any black community beyond the other black gays & lesbians I keep in touch with online. As a non-christian who isn't likely to ever return to the faith, it looks like a good part of the battle is going to take place in a territory where I no longer speak the language, know the landscape or share belief.
Maybe the best I can do, following Porter's example, is to let "this little light of mine" shine where I am for now. Maybe if some of us are shedding light on the inside while others of are shining our lights on the outside, the darkness in between will be illuminated; maybe even eliminated.
I've posted many times about the particular brand of homophobia found in some black churches. So much, in fact, that probably some readers here have grown weary of hearing about it, and at least one has told me that my anger regarding the subject is a sign of "self-hatred." I'd probably say that my anger stems from my own experience of the phenomenon.
I've written about black ministers like Willie Wilson, Alfred Owens, and Eddie Long spewing anti-gay hatred from the pulpit, black ministers in Indiana praying for more discrimination against gay people, another black minister who announced he'd ride with the Klan as long as they opposed marriage equality, and about how another black minister turned his back when Dwan Prince's mother asked for help in the wake of a gay bashing that left her son in a coma and in a wheelchair afterwards. And I've written about how all of the above effect the HIV/AIDS epidemic in black communities.
So, yes, I've beaten that drum a lot. Maybe too much, but as a black gay man it's something affects me -- even as a non-christian -- and thus it's something I can't not talk about.
* TerranceDC's diary :: ::
*
But maybe it's to much coming from me, as I admit my own pain and anger related to the subject are still rather raw. So I was interested to see Andrew Sullivan take up the subject with a post to Billy Porter's column about his own experience with the black church as a gay man.
So here I stand. Speaking up, speaking out, and letting my glorious light shine like it should. I recently sat in the New York City hospital room of my dear friend Kevin Aviance after he was savagely beaten on an East Village street for being gay, and I thought to myself, Where are our leaders? Where are the people with influence who will stand up for me and my gay brethren? I am disappointed with our government. I am disappointed with our nation. But I am the most disappointed with my African-American 'Christian' brothers and sisters who stand proudly on their pulpits and use the Bible to regurgitate the very same hate rhetoric that was inflicted on the black community not so long ago.
I never considered myself an activist in the past. I respect that title too much to take it lightly. But with the recent increase in hate-bias attacks directed toward our community, and the struggle for us to gain the simplest of civil rights, I am filled with a raging sense of activism. Our bodies, our health, and our basic civil liberties are at stake. It is time to let the world know: We will not let you take our God away. We will not be ignored! We will not be denied! And if God is going to send us to a burning hell for being the people that He created us to be--we'll see each and every one of you there.
"Shine! Let it shine! Let it shine! Let it shine!"
Porter, a Broadway performer, wrote his remarks before performing at a Soulforce protest at James Dobson's Focus on the Family headquarters. I admire Porter's stand, though different from my own choices -- for he remained within the faith he was raised in, and has apparently chosen to stay and fight, whereas my own choice was to leave it behind. I also join Porter in his questions.
Where are our leaders? Where are the people with influence who will stand up for me and my gay brethren? In terms of high profile leaders within black churches, I can only think of a few. Jesse Jackson, Michael Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton come to mind, and other ministers who attended the black church summit in Atlanta earlier this year. But not many more than that, though there are probably countless others working anonymously against homophobia in their own churches.
The irony is that many black ministers are joining a movement that has it's roots in decades-old battles against desegregation, without knowing or caring. I've just finished Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and I'm two-thirds through The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, and both books detail how African-Americans who normally lean Democratic on policy issues have joined a movement that Michelle Goldberg calls Christian nationalism in her book and that James Rubin calls Christocratic in his, because it appeals to their religiously-based conservatism on social issues. Both books also go into detail about how this movement rose in part from opposition to the advances of the civil rights movement. (All of which leads to the irony of a black minister declaring he'll "ride with the Klan" so long as they hate gay people as much as he does.)
After quoting Porter, Sullivan sums up merely saying "The battle has only just started." I fear he's right, and I think Porter and others like him are the people best equipped to fight it; to become the leaders whose absence he writes about. In her Advocate column about "Taking Back the Black Gay Movement" Jasmyne Cannick wrote about the need for black gays to start speaking up in our own communities. She's exactly right.
But in assessing Porter's and Cannick's statements, I'm left wondering where exactly I could begin to enter the picture in the work that needs to be done in that arena. As I've written before, much like the person Cannick mentions in her column, I no longer have any real connection to any black community beyond the other black gays & lesbians I keep in touch with online. As a non-christian who isn't likely to ever return to the faith, it looks like a good part of the battle is going to take place in a territory where I no longer speak the language, know the landscape or share belief.
Maybe the best I can do, following Porter's example, is to let "this little light of mine" shine where I am for now. Maybe if some of us are shedding light on the inside while others of are shining our lights on the outside, the darkness in between will be illuminated; maybe even eliminated.
Energy Independence and Public Transport
From Daily Kos
by BruceMcF
Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:19:20 PM PDT
All to often, the idea of Energy Independence has its priorities reversed. Scratch under the surface, and all too often the question lurking is, "How can we get as close as possible to Energy Independence without any real changes in the way we live and move?"
Stop and think about that ... really think about it, with your heart instead of your habits of thought. People - good people - are fighting and dying right now in Iraq in an failing occupation, following a successful invasion ... in pursuit of a continued Energy Dependence policy.
In your heart, do you think that is a fair price to pay? If you do, do not read any further.
* BruceMcF's diary :: ::
*
The Real Question
The real question is, "What changes do we need to make to the way we live and move to accomplish Energy Independence?"
I have already sketched out the dimension of the problem on another site, starting with Real Energy Independence. We rely in imports for about 27% of our total energy needs ... and that is a value that is rising, as our total domestic energy supply has been stable, and our energy use has been rising.
So what does this mean? We either need to:
* make every single thing 37% more efficient (that is, 100/73, so we can do with 73% what we do now with 100%)
* make three quarters of our energy use 56% more efficient
* make half of our energy use 117% more efficient
* make one third of our energy use 555% more efficient
In other words, the narrower the range of things we change, the more radical the change has to be.
Now, we can make some headway on this by increasing our domestic energy supplies. For example, if Germany, with much higher population density, can obtain more than 3% of their electricity supply from wind, it does not seem impossible for the US to obtain 10% or more. Also, as discussed in another site, domestically grown biofuels ... if they are Bone Fide biofuels, and not Hoax Biofuels like corn-starch-ethanol ... can stretch our crude-oil based fuel supply.
But everything gets much, much easier if we make big gains in a big energy using industry. And that is why I have been focusing on Transport.
This diary focuses on public transport, because private transport is where so much of the problem lies.
Where Is The Feedback Loop?
If something seems like it is going headlong in one direction, without anybody deciding that it has to go that way ... the first step to understanding it is to ask, where is the positive feedback loop?
A positive feedback loop means that the consequence of a driving force has its own impact, which amplifies the driving force.
If something that seems like an obvious solution seems to keep getting stalled, never getting off the ground ... the first step to understanding it is to ask, where is the negative feedback loop?
A negative feedback loop means that the consequence of a driving force has its own impact, which undermines the driving force.
A lot of things built on a positive feedback loop seem to just "go on their own", without anybody doing the driving. They are self-amplifying. And a lot of things based on a negative feedback loop seem to just "run out of gas", without anybody standing in their way. They are self-braking.
One benefit of looking for positive and negative feedback loops is to protect us from going overboard in seeing a conspiracy behind every bush (or maybe that is a conspiracy behind every Bush).
To be sure, people do conspire. However, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist, so it is important to rule out non-deliberate explanations anyway, even if only to strengthen the case.
And more importantly, when you find the aspect of the problem that is not a conspiracy, then nobody is doing that particular part of the problem on purpose. Any substantial change will generate opposition. A modest change that helps turns off a positive or negative feedback loop can therefore be a very strategic change to accomplish.
What are the private transport feedback loops
How did we get so dependent on a single form of transport? No human society has been this dependent on any single form of transport other than walking.
Positive feedback loop: Buy a car. Now there is another car on the road. That increases congestion. Too much congestion leads to demand for more expressways. More expressways mean people can settle further away from work. The further you live from work, the more miles you drive each day. The more miles everyone drives, the more congestion there is. The more congestion there is, the more demand there is for more expressways.
Negative feedback loop: Buy a car. Costs include operating costs and overheads. Public transport charges users for operating costs and overheads. You have an incentive to drive whenever feasible. Public transport overheads are spread across fewer fares, so fares are put up and/or services reduced. More users are encouraged to buy a car.
Positive Feedback Loop: Suppose higher income people are more likely to buy cars. Retailers want to attract these people. They offer free parking, which means paid for by all shoppers whether they need a parking space or not. The parking around retail outlets increase the walking distance. This makes people who can afford them more likely to buy a car.
How Do You Decide to Fight A Feedback Loop
The very, very first thing to bring into this self-interest. For people who like to drive, everything that forces people to drive makes everyone's life more miserable. More traffic congestion, more difficulty finding a parking space, and in places with "plenty" of parking, an endless walk to get from the car to the front door.
This is not about denying people the freedom to choose, it about providing them with the freedom to choose.
And, ultimately, We Americans Decide The Price of Our Gas when we decide how much we are going to burn up. The present high price of gas is demand and supply. We don't have substantial supplies to bring onto the market, so all we can do to push the price down is to take demand off the market.
Every single driver in America that does not want to pay $5, $7.50 or $10 per gallon should be cheering for as much to be done as quickly as possible to seduce some other American into using public transport.
Now, take that and add on top the tragedy of the oil being purchased with the blood of our men and women overseas, and it is not hard to want to change the driving forces. But only if we think about it ... with our hearts, as well as with our heads.
How Do You Fight A Feedback Loop
If we decide to fight these feedback loops, some straightforward steps are possible. I'm going to focus on one.
Now, the roadwork loop works in part by diverting funds into roadworks. If we set up our budget system so that funding public transport routes fights with funding roads for cars, then roads will win.
So flip that around. Bring public transport funding along for the ride. In particular, we can borrow to build public transport routes, as long as those routes are used ... because that investment will reduce our Energy Dependence, help reduce gasoline prices, and overall be good for our economy.
So, for every $1 in federal funding going to roads, $0.10 is allocated to the National Public Transport Fund. The money is allocated on a per-capita basis, for every country and each incorporated town or city. Under very simple rules, they can drawn on the fund so long as:
* they are devoting an equal amount from their own resources
* the infrastructure is used by public transport
* the infrastructure is not used by private transport
This harnesses the roadworks positive feedback loop to fight the vicious circle of declining patronage. The key is the per-capita allocation. The infrastructure subsidy is highest per rider in exactly those places where the viscious circle bites the deepest.
It also helps fight the income-segregation loop. There is a reason why dedicated-route systems attract higher-income riders on average than ordinary buses. A regular city bus that shares the road travels at the speed of traffic, when moving. And on top of that, it stops and starts for passengers. So a regular city bus is always slower than traffic. dedicated route system (Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, Monorail, Subway, High-Capacity Rail etc.), on the other hand, is not slowed down by traffic.
People on public transport because they cannot afford the alternative have to take whatever is available. People with higher incomes will take public transport if it offers them a benefit over driving. And its a dedicated route system that can offer a quicker trip to some of these people.
But, public transport is not possible where I live because ...
Public transport is impossible because ... these suburbs are not designed for it. This is a common problem.
Over the long term, it is possible to "infill" development, using availability of mass transit to and between key locations are part of the process. These examples from the Sierra Club give an idea of how this "retrofitting" process might work.
However, in the short term, once you have the support for constructing the route, you can start from the congestion, out, and anchor the "outer end" of a dedicated public transport route in a park and ride parking lot. After all, the purpose of this is to pull traffic off the road, so the target riders can get to the parking lot.
And, indeed, once people get used to that, then a short bus ride to connect to the dedicated public transport route allows them to leave the car at home.
A dedicated public transport route is impossible because ... there is no place to put the route.
"We can't go at ground level because the Interstate is in the way, and it costs too much to dig a subway".
I know for a fact that this is never true, because the Aerobus technology allows the route to be suspended, using suspension cable rather than obtrusive monorails. Pylons in this system can be placed as far as 2,000 feet apart. The present commercial applications are in a pair of locations in China, connecting an island city center to the remainder of the city on the coast, and providing a transport corridor for a city at the fork of a river.
For a technology that can be used to bridge rivers, or get from the mainland to a neighbouring island, getting over an intervening Interstate Highway is a piece of cake.
I have to be careful here ... I am not presenting this as a magic one-size-fits-all solution. There are upsides and downsides to subways, heavy and light rail on the ground, monorail, elevated heavy rail, and suspended light rail. What I am saying is, this is proof that a dedicated route can be put through, so the question becomes how many options are there, and which one to put in.
And I'll go even further than that ... which ones to put in. Once you have people on public transport, they are potential riders for other types of mass transport. Provide the interchange stations and make sure that the fares and ticketing work together. For example, the Bilbao Light Rail system, which provides an interconnection to two different heavy rail lines, and gives access to the major tourist attraction in the city, the Guggenheim Museum.
Public transport is impossible because ... nobody will use it.
This is a common view, but it is based on a simple, basic misperception. Most parts of America depend very heavily on cars for a wide range of transport tasks. It is easy to think, "everyone uses cars" and ask the question, "what system can replace that for everybody?"
This is thinking in stereotypes, where "most" turns into "all" and "few" turns into "none". However, what we need to do is to think on the margin. Out there, somewhere in your town, suburb or city, is someone who is the most likely to switch to public transport.
We know they are there, because $3/gallon gas is increasing public transport use!
Will they switch if you make quicker and more convenient services available to them. Of course they will. Does that mean that, automatically, most people will follow along? No, of course not.
With the kind of changes we will be making in the next ten year (assuming we start changing at all), most will still be driving for most purposes. Relatively few will be using public transport for relatively few purposes.
We are making headway as long as that is a smaller majority driving for a a smaller majority of purposes.
Social Engineering Versus Social Development
What is the bottom line? The bottom line is that I have no idea how much progress we will make if we start trying. But trying clearly offers better hope for success.
And what is the present federal policy: by and large, failing to try.
I am not going to sketch out a transportopia for you here. However, if a community with 5% public transport reliance shifts to 10% ... that is progress. That shifts the incentives to developers to cater to that market. That shifts incentives to retailers to cater to that market.
And the impact of those shifting incentives may not be big ... but they are better present than absent.
And there is more than that modest argument. There is also the point that in some places around the country, trying a little harder will spark off a substantial positive feedback loop. A suburban shopping mall is worried that it is losing business to the traditional streetside shopping, and provides a free door to door shuttle bus to the light rail station ... so people who only used the light rail for commuting can now pop by the mall on the way home ... and the property values of residences convenient to the light rail line goes up ... and developers work out a way for higher density housing to attract a middle class family ...
Or maybe another and completely different positive feedback loop.
That's why the policy has to be across the board, nationwide, no matter what some expert says about "what is the efficient investment". Its necessary to push everywhere, because somewhere, and we do not know where, the transport system only needs a little push to get over a hill and start rolling down the other side on its own.
by BruceMcF
Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:19:20 PM PDT
All to often, the idea of Energy Independence has its priorities reversed. Scratch under the surface, and all too often the question lurking is, "How can we get as close as possible to Energy Independence without any real changes in the way we live and move?"
Stop and think about that ... really think about it, with your heart instead of your habits of thought. People - good people - are fighting and dying right now in Iraq in an failing occupation, following a successful invasion ... in pursuit of a continued Energy Dependence policy.
In your heart, do you think that is a fair price to pay? If you do, do not read any further.
* BruceMcF's diary :: ::
*
The Real Question
The real question is, "What changes do we need to make to the way we live and move to accomplish Energy Independence?"
I have already sketched out the dimension of the problem on another site, starting with Real Energy Independence. We rely in imports for about 27% of our total energy needs ... and that is a value that is rising, as our total domestic energy supply has been stable, and our energy use has been rising.
So what does this mean? We either need to:
* make every single thing 37% more efficient (that is, 100/73, so we can do with 73% what we do now with 100%)
* make three quarters of our energy use 56% more efficient
* make half of our energy use 117% more efficient
* make one third of our energy use 555% more efficient
In other words, the narrower the range of things we change, the more radical the change has to be.
Now, we can make some headway on this by increasing our domestic energy supplies. For example, if Germany, with much higher population density, can obtain more than 3% of their electricity supply from wind, it does not seem impossible for the US to obtain 10% or more. Also, as discussed in another site, domestically grown biofuels ... if they are Bone Fide biofuels, and not Hoax Biofuels like corn-starch-ethanol ... can stretch our crude-oil based fuel supply.
But everything gets much, much easier if we make big gains in a big energy using industry. And that is why I have been focusing on Transport.
This diary focuses on public transport, because private transport is where so much of the problem lies.
Where Is The Feedback Loop?
If something seems like it is going headlong in one direction, without anybody deciding that it has to go that way ... the first step to understanding it is to ask, where is the positive feedback loop?
A positive feedback loop means that the consequence of a driving force has its own impact, which amplifies the driving force.
If something that seems like an obvious solution seems to keep getting stalled, never getting off the ground ... the first step to understanding it is to ask, where is the negative feedback loop?
A negative feedback loop means that the consequence of a driving force has its own impact, which undermines the driving force.
A lot of things built on a positive feedback loop seem to just "go on their own", without anybody doing the driving. They are self-amplifying. And a lot of things based on a negative feedback loop seem to just "run out of gas", without anybody standing in their way. They are self-braking.
One benefit of looking for positive and negative feedback loops is to protect us from going overboard in seeing a conspiracy behind every bush (or maybe that is a conspiracy behind every Bush).
To be sure, people do conspire. However, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist, so it is important to rule out non-deliberate explanations anyway, even if only to strengthen the case.
And more importantly, when you find the aspect of the problem that is not a conspiracy, then nobody is doing that particular part of the problem on purpose. Any substantial change will generate opposition. A modest change that helps turns off a positive or negative feedback loop can therefore be a very strategic change to accomplish.
What are the private transport feedback loops
How did we get so dependent on a single form of transport? No human society has been this dependent on any single form of transport other than walking.
Positive feedback loop: Buy a car. Now there is another car on the road. That increases congestion. Too much congestion leads to demand for more expressways. More expressways mean people can settle further away from work. The further you live from work, the more miles you drive each day. The more miles everyone drives, the more congestion there is. The more congestion there is, the more demand there is for more expressways.
Negative feedback loop: Buy a car. Costs include operating costs and overheads. Public transport charges users for operating costs and overheads. You have an incentive to drive whenever feasible. Public transport overheads are spread across fewer fares, so fares are put up and/or services reduced. More users are encouraged to buy a car.
Positive Feedback Loop: Suppose higher income people are more likely to buy cars. Retailers want to attract these people. They offer free parking, which means paid for by all shoppers whether they need a parking space or not. The parking around retail outlets increase the walking distance. This makes people who can afford them more likely to buy a car.
How Do You Decide to Fight A Feedback Loop
The very, very first thing to bring into this self-interest. For people who like to drive, everything that forces people to drive makes everyone's life more miserable. More traffic congestion, more difficulty finding a parking space, and in places with "plenty" of parking, an endless walk to get from the car to the front door.
This is not about denying people the freedom to choose, it about providing them with the freedom to choose.
And, ultimately, We Americans Decide The Price of Our Gas when we decide how much we are going to burn up. The present high price of gas is demand and supply. We don't have substantial supplies to bring onto the market, so all we can do to push the price down is to take demand off the market.
Every single driver in America that does not want to pay $5, $7.50 or $10 per gallon should be cheering for as much to be done as quickly as possible to seduce some other American into using public transport.
Now, take that and add on top the tragedy of the oil being purchased with the blood of our men and women overseas, and it is not hard to want to change the driving forces. But only if we think about it ... with our hearts, as well as with our heads.
How Do You Fight A Feedback Loop
If we decide to fight these feedback loops, some straightforward steps are possible. I'm going to focus on one.
Now, the roadwork loop works in part by diverting funds into roadworks. If we set up our budget system so that funding public transport routes fights with funding roads for cars, then roads will win.
So flip that around. Bring public transport funding along for the ride. In particular, we can borrow to build public transport routes, as long as those routes are used ... because that investment will reduce our Energy Dependence, help reduce gasoline prices, and overall be good for our economy.
So, for every $1 in federal funding going to roads, $0.10 is allocated to the National Public Transport Fund. The money is allocated on a per-capita basis, for every country and each incorporated town or city. Under very simple rules, they can drawn on the fund so long as:
* they are devoting an equal amount from their own resources
* the infrastructure is used by public transport
* the infrastructure is not used by private transport
This harnesses the roadworks positive feedback loop to fight the vicious circle of declining patronage. The key is the per-capita allocation. The infrastructure subsidy is highest per rider in exactly those places where the viscious circle bites the deepest.
It also helps fight the income-segregation loop. There is a reason why dedicated-route systems attract higher-income riders on average than ordinary buses. A regular city bus that shares the road travels at the speed of traffic, when moving. And on top of that, it stops and starts for passengers. So a regular city bus is always slower than traffic. dedicated route system (Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, Monorail, Subway, High-Capacity Rail etc.), on the other hand, is not slowed down by traffic.
People on public transport because they cannot afford the alternative have to take whatever is available. People with higher incomes will take public transport if it offers them a benefit over driving. And its a dedicated route system that can offer a quicker trip to some of these people.
But, public transport is not possible where I live because ...
Public transport is impossible because ... these suburbs are not designed for it. This is a common problem.
Over the long term, it is possible to "infill" development, using availability of mass transit to and between key locations are part of the process. These examples from the Sierra Club give an idea of how this "retrofitting" process might work.
However, in the short term, once you have the support for constructing the route, you can start from the congestion, out, and anchor the "outer end" of a dedicated public transport route in a park and ride parking lot. After all, the purpose of this is to pull traffic off the road, so the target riders can get to the parking lot.
And, indeed, once people get used to that, then a short bus ride to connect to the dedicated public transport route allows them to leave the car at home.
A dedicated public transport route is impossible because ... there is no place to put the route.
"We can't go at ground level because the Interstate is in the way, and it costs too much to dig a subway".
I know for a fact that this is never true, because the Aerobus technology allows the route to be suspended, using suspension cable rather than obtrusive monorails. Pylons in this system can be placed as far as 2,000 feet apart. The present commercial applications are in a pair of locations in China, connecting an island city center to the remainder of the city on the coast, and providing a transport corridor for a city at the fork of a river.
For a technology that can be used to bridge rivers, or get from the mainland to a neighbouring island, getting over an intervening Interstate Highway is a piece of cake.
I have to be careful here ... I am not presenting this as a magic one-size-fits-all solution. There are upsides and downsides to subways, heavy and light rail on the ground, monorail, elevated heavy rail, and suspended light rail. What I am saying is, this is proof that a dedicated route can be put through, so the question becomes how many options are there, and which one to put in.
And I'll go even further than that ... which ones to put in. Once you have people on public transport, they are potential riders for other types of mass transport. Provide the interchange stations and make sure that the fares and ticketing work together. For example, the Bilbao Light Rail system, which provides an interconnection to two different heavy rail lines, and gives access to the major tourist attraction in the city, the Guggenheim Museum.
Public transport is impossible because ... nobody will use it.
This is a common view, but it is based on a simple, basic misperception. Most parts of America depend very heavily on cars for a wide range of transport tasks. It is easy to think, "everyone uses cars" and ask the question, "what system can replace that for everybody?"
This is thinking in stereotypes, where "most" turns into "all" and "few" turns into "none". However, what we need to do is to think on the margin. Out there, somewhere in your town, suburb or city, is someone who is the most likely to switch to public transport.
We know they are there, because $3/gallon gas is increasing public transport use!
Will they switch if you make quicker and more convenient services available to them. Of course they will. Does that mean that, automatically, most people will follow along? No, of course not.
With the kind of changes we will be making in the next ten year (assuming we start changing at all), most will still be driving for most purposes. Relatively few will be using public transport for relatively few purposes.
We are making headway as long as that is a smaller majority driving for a a smaller majority of purposes.
Social Engineering Versus Social Development
What is the bottom line? The bottom line is that I have no idea how much progress we will make if we start trying. But trying clearly offers better hope for success.
And what is the present federal policy: by and large, failing to try.
I am not going to sketch out a transportopia for you here. However, if a community with 5% public transport reliance shifts to 10% ... that is progress. That shifts the incentives to developers to cater to that market. That shifts incentives to retailers to cater to that market.
And the impact of those shifting incentives may not be big ... but they are better present than absent.
And there is more than that modest argument. There is also the point that in some places around the country, trying a little harder will spark off a substantial positive feedback loop. A suburban shopping mall is worried that it is losing business to the traditional streetside shopping, and provides a free door to door shuttle bus to the light rail station ... so people who only used the light rail for commuting can now pop by the mall on the way home ... and the property values of residences convenient to the light rail line goes up ... and developers work out a way for higher density housing to attract a middle class family ...
Or maybe another and completely different positive feedback loop.
That's why the policy has to be across the board, nationwide, no matter what some expert says about "what is the efficient investment". Its necessary to push everywhere, because somewhere, and we do not know where, the transport system only needs a little push to get over a hill and start rolling down the other side on its own.
The End of Roe v. Wade: The El Salvador Experience
If you like voting Republican because of the "fiscal conservatism," never mind that they tend to run up the biggest deficits - let's also be very clear what you're inherently supporting with your vote - an aggressive and intrusive pro-life position.
This article is from an ECONOMIC newsletter that I receive, one that's SO conservative that sometimes it causes me to gnash my teeth. This is what an educated, thinking conservative believes about the pro-life movement (this is a fair use excerpt, not my work:)
In the latest battle between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, in March of this year, South Dakota passed legislation to ban all abortions, except those that are necessary to save a woman's life.
Of course, state law cannot override the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling by the Supreme Court that protects the right to an abortion under the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy. So why the new state law?
Simple. If pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood challenge South Dakota's decision in court, the issue might be taken all the way to the top. Which is exactly what the state's lawmakers hope for. With the help of pro-life Supreme Court judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas--as well as the recently appointed conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito--they believe Roe v. Wade may soon be a goner. Which could in turn trigger a landslide of anti-abortion legislation in other states.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit corporation for reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education, 18 states currently have laws in place that could be used to restrict abortions.
Illinois, Kentucky and Louisiana have so-called "trigger" laws that would come into effect as soon as Roe v. Wade has been overturned. And in 13 other states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin--a pre-Roe abortion ban is still on the books. In some cases, like Vermont, the ban was deemed unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court and so might not be immediately enforceable in the event of a Roe repeal at the federal level.
While we will duck addressing the morality of one side of the underlying arguments or another, we thought a look at the possible consequences of an overturning of Roe v. Wade would be of interest.
And on that front, no place in the world provides a more useful or current model than El Salvador.
In an April 9 article titled "Pro-Life Nation," the New York Times Magazine reported: "In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed--rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother--don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions."
What that kind of harsh legislation can lead to is vividly described by NYT journalist Jack Hitt: "El Salvador... has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus--the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal."
Generally, the abortion provider faces 6 to 12 years in prison, the woman herself 2 to 8 years, and anyone who helps her 2 to 5 years. Still, if it is deemed that the fetus was viable, prison time for the woman can be upped to 30-50 years.
Far from preventing abortions altogether, the country's strict laws have driven women to back-alley abortions and do-it-yourself attempts, with varying success.
Since their implementation, teen suicide attempts have mysteriously skyrocketed. "According to a study on attempted suicide and teen pregnancy published last year by academics at the University of El Salvador, some girls who poison their wombs with agricultural pesticide (its efficacy being a Salvadoran urban legend) would rather report the cause of their resulting hospital visit as 'attempted suicide,' which is not as felonious a crime nor as socially unbearable as abortion," states Hitt.
A popular solution among Salvadoran women is the ulcer drug misoprostol that, when inserted in the vagina, can cause contractions and bleeding that will look like a miscarriage to hospital personnel.
Hospital staff is obliged to report suspicious cases to the authorities. Investigators will then come in and start gathering evidence for an abortion, including interviews with family and friends, the woman's medical records, and forensic exams of her vagina and uterus as a "search of the crime scene."
The flipside, says Hitt, are the truly life-threatening complications that can arise, for example in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg fails to move into the uterus and instead gets stuck in the fallopian tube--a condition that, as the fetus grows, inevitably leads to the rupture of the fallopian tube, killing the fetus and often the mother as well.
But under El Salvador law, physicians are not allowed to terminate a woman's pregnancy until it is certain that the fetus is dead, no matter what the risks for the mother--which has proven to be a precarious tightrope walk for hospital emergency staff.
However oppressive the Salvadoran abortion laws, some U.S. pundits seem to find them appealing. Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, head of Virginia-based Human Life International, says "El Salvador is an inspiration," calling it an important victory in the "counterrevolution of conscience." And Rep. Jim DeMint (SC-R), when asked in a 2004 interview with Tim Russert whether he would prosecute the woman in cases of abortion, danced around the issue by suggesting that "Congress should outlaw all abortions first and worry about the fallout later."
Act first, think later: A virtual guarantee for trouble ahead.
[We'd like to hear our readers' opinion on this no doubt emotion-laden matter. Send us your thoughts at feedback@caseyresearch.com.]
This article is from an ECONOMIC newsletter that I receive, one that's SO conservative that sometimes it causes me to gnash my teeth. This is what an educated, thinking conservative believes about the pro-life movement (this is a fair use excerpt, not my work:)
In the latest battle between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, in March of this year, South Dakota passed legislation to ban all abortions, except those that are necessary to save a woman's life.
Of course, state law cannot override the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling by the Supreme Court that protects the right to an abortion under the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy. So why the new state law?
Simple. If pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood challenge South Dakota's decision in court, the issue might be taken all the way to the top. Which is exactly what the state's lawmakers hope for. With the help of pro-life Supreme Court judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas--as well as the recently appointed conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito--they believe Roe v. Wade may soon be a goner. Which could in turn trigger a landslide of anti-abortion legislation in other states.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit corporation for reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education, 18 states currently have laws in place that could be used to restrict abortions.
Illinois, Kentucky and Louisiana have so-called "trigger" laws that would come into effect as soon as Roe v. Wade has been overturned. And in 13 other states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin--a pre-Roe abortion ban is still on the books. In some cases, like Vermont, the ban was deemed unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court and so might not be immediately enforceable in the event of a Roe repeal at the federal level.
While we will duck addressing the morality of one side of the underlying arguments or another, we thought a look at the possible consequences of an overturning of Roe v. Wade would be of interest.
And on that front, no place in the world provides a more useful or current model than El Salvador.
In an April 9 article titled "Pro-Life Nation," the New York Times Magazine reported: "In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed--rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother--don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions."
What that kind of harsh legislation can lead to is vividly described by NYT journalist Jack Hitt: "El Salvador... has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus--the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal."
Generally, the abortion provider faces 6 to 12 years in prison, the woman herself 2 to 8 years, and anyone who helps her 2 to 5 years. Still, if it is deemed that the fetus was viable, prison time for the woman can be upped to 30-50 years.
Far from preventing abortions altogether, the country's strict laws have driven women to back-alley abortions and do-it-yourself attempts, with varying success.
Since their implementation, teen suicide attempts have mysteriously skyrocketed. "According to a study on attempted suicide and teen pregnancy published last year by academics at the University of El Salvador, some girls who poison their wombs with agricultural pesticide (its efficacy being a Salvadoran urban legend) would rather report the cause of their resulting hospital visit as 'attempted suicide,' which is not as felonious a crime nor as socially unbearable as abortion," states Hitt.
A popular solution among Salvadoran women is the ulcer drug misoprostol that, when inserted in the vagina, can cause contractions and bleeding that will look like a miscarriage to hospital personnel.
Hospital staff is obliged to report suspicious cases to the authorities. Investigators will then come in and start gathering evidence for an abortion, including interviews with family and friends, the woman's medical records, and forensic exams of her vagina and uterus as a "search of the crime scene."
The flipside, says Hitt, are the truly life-threatening complications that can arise, for example in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg fails to move into the uterus and instead gets stuck in the fallopian tube--a condition that, as the fetus grows, inevitably leads to the rupture of the fallopian tube, killing the fetus and often the mother as well.
But under El Salvador law, physicians are not allowed to terminate a woman's pregnancy until it is certain that the fetus is dead, no matter what the risks for the mother--which has proven to be a precarious tightrope walk for hospital emergency staff.
However oppressive the Salvadoran abortion laws, some U.S. pundits seem to find them appealing. Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, head of Virginia-based Human Life International, says "El Salvador is an inspiration," calling it an important victory in the "counterrevolution of conscience." And Rep. Jim DeMint (SC-R), when asked in a 2004 interview with Tim Russert whether he would prosecute the woman in cases of abortion, danced around the issue by suggesting that "Congress should outlaw all abortions first and worry about the fallout later."
Act first, think later: A virtual guarantee for trouble ahead.
[We'd like to hear our readers' opinion on this no doubt emotion-laden matter. Send us your thoughts at feedback@caseyresearch.com.]
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Tuesday - waiting for the monsoon
Which (the monsoon) seems not to be coming. I've been cleaning these last few minutes; reorganizing the metal desk, going through unpaid bills and indexing them, going through paid bills and filing them, trying to create more space for myself here. it's not all glamour, you know!
For my next trick, a bunch of shredding! Then, I'll have the room to spread these papers out and sort them. My filing stack just keeps getting bigger, and bigger. Maybe tonight.
three hours later
Well, some amazing things have taken place - I laminated the men's health wallet cards that I've been toting around for nearly ten years - FINALLY. Now, I just have to cut them into individual cards and voila!
I've folded, tossed, shredded, cleaned, organized, tallied, paid, written ..
For my next trick, a bunch of shredding! Then, I'll have the room to spread these papers out and sort them. My filing stack just keeps getting bigger, and bigger. Maybe tonight.
three hours later
Well, some amazing things have taken place - I laminated the men's health wallet cards that I've been toting around for nearly ten years - FINALLY. Now, I just have to cut them into individual cards and voila!
I've folded, tossed, shredded, cleaned, organized, tallied, paid, written ..
Monday, July 24, 2006
Monday, Monday ver. 826.01
So, last night, I was fiddling around on the internet ('cause that's what I do.) In my fiddling, I went from big airplanes for sale (because I saw one on a newsgroup) to little airplanes for sale (scale models) to looking for little Hitler airplanes to finding out that Hitler's personal airplane in 1938 was painted EXACTLY the way I dreamed it.
How about that? Isn't that something?
Been working today; filing, receipts, research, loans, paperwork, teleconference, lunch with Chuck, reaming out the HEB pharma manager, picking up the mail, making bank deposits, paying bills, emails, writing a business proposal.. and laundry. I still feel like I was lazy today.
I'm watching "Foul Play" with Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn. Seeing all of the cars from my teen years is pretty cool. I had forgotten the car chase scene with the Japanese couple who are in the back of the highjacked limo. Fun stuff.
Talked a bunch with Secret Agent Man again today. Was hoping to spend time with him.
I guess it's time to start looking for another place to hang my hat(s.) This place is going to be unavailable in about another six weeks.
How about that? Isn't that something?
Been working today; filing, receipts, research, loans, paperwork, teleconference, lunch with Chuck, reaming out the HEB pharma manager, picking up the mail, making bank deposits, paying bills, emails, writing a business proposal.. and laundry. I still feel like I was lazy today.
I'm watching "Foul Play" with Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn. Seeing all of the cars from my teen years is pretty cool. I had forgotten the car chase scene with the Japanese couple who are in the back of the highjacked limo. Fun stuff.
Talked a bunch with Secret Agent Man again today. Was hoping to spend time with him.
I guess it's time to start looking for another place to hang my hat(s.) This place is going to be unavailable in about another six weeks.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Sunday evening signals
So, the last four days have been jam-packed with work, meetings, driving, church, meals, more driving, telephone calls until the battery is dead, more meals, more driving, more church, more driving...
And two naps.
Last night, watched a great movie - now watching another. You can check out what movies I've been watching on my 360 site, or you could ask to be a netflix friend with me.
I'm assiduously avoiding the telephone tonight - i need some decompression time before another packed work week. I need to work on the church's website tonight, though.
And two naps.
Last night, watched a great movie - now watching another. You can check out what movies I've been watching on my 360 site, or you could ask to be a netflix friend with me.
I'm assiduously avoiding the telephone tonight - i need some decompression time before another packed work week. I need to work on the church's website tonight, though.
What Did You Expect, America?
From Daily Kos
by SusanG
Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:16:59 PM PDT
Would you hire a babysitter who hates children and thinks they should be eliminated? Or who declares for years in your hearing that children are irritants who should be starved to be small, unseen and mute?
Would you hire cops who think laws are stupid and useless and should be abolished?
Would you hire a conductor for your orchestra who believes music itself an abomination?
Then why would you hire - and you did hire them, America; they are your employees, after all, not your rulers, despite their grandiose pretensions - members of a political party who think government is useless, ineffective, bloated and untrustworthy?
You've hired for your kitchen the chef who spits in your food because he despises preparing meals.
You've hired for your yardwork the gardener who sets out to kill your roses to demonstrate his assertion that they will die in your climate.
You've hired for your office the accountant who's staked his career on proving no accurate books can be kept.
In electing Republicans, America, you put people in charge of institutions they overtly, caustically loathe and proudly proclaim should not exist. Good thinking, USA, and stellar results: Katrina, Iraq, Medicare D, trade and budget deficits, mine disasters and on and on and on and ...
Conservatives have declared officially for decades that they hate public programs and love private business. Why then, do Americans profess shock when these same people run the public credit card up to bunker-busting levels to line the pockets of friendly corporations, leaving taxpayers - current and the as-yet unborn - the bill? It's the dine and ditch mentality writ large, and American citizens are the unfortunate waiters having their lowly pay docked to cover the deadbeat loss - and their future grandchildren's pay docked as well.
We are witnessing an orchestrated, unprecedented transfer of public wealth to private pockets, a national one-party feeding frenzy that's making beggars and beseechers of us all, and yet many Americans stand around muttering in a daze of semi-apathetic befuddlement about gosh darn how did all this come to be and how sure as shit, uh-huh, those Republicans shore were right, government doesn't do a the little guy a damn bit of good, no sirree bob. Better drown it some more. Cut them taxes, privatize something, anything, pronto!
Kee-rist on a pogo stick.
If you put people in charge of running a project they are ideologically committed to proving a failure, it will fail.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. But hey, I'm a Democrat. You know, one of those people who think universal quality public education is a massive good to society, that maintaining our highways and levees and bridges and dams is part of what makes this country great, that paying first-responders and nurses what they're worth helps guarantee our public health and safety, that providing for fellow citizens who fall on hard times is not only the ethical thing to do, but the pragmatic one, ensuring that this country does not incubate a permanently inflamed and disgruntled underclass ready to drop a match on a pool of social gasoline.
Here's a thought - just a thought, mind you, beloved America: Perhaps it's time to return to government the party that has an ideological stake in making it ... you know ... succeed. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to raise our sights a wee bit and elect people who think public service is more than an opportunity for the "Biggest! Fire Sale! Ever!" for their friends and loved ones. Perhaps it's time to insist on greater - if not great - expectations from the employees we decide to hire or fire every two years to carry out our will under the constitution.
As one-party Republican rule has clearly shown, when you expect incompetence, corruption and deceit from your government, you get exactly what you vote for. In spades.
by SusanG
Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:16:59 PM PDT
Would you hire a babysitter who hates children and thinks they should be eliminated? Or who declares for years in your hearing that children are irritants who should be starved to be small, unseen and mute?
Would you hire cops who think laws are stupid and useless and should be abolished?
Would you hire a conductor for your orchestra who believes music itself an abomination?
Then why would you hire - and you did hire them, America; they are your employees, after all, not your rulers, despite their grandiose pretensions - members of a political party who think government is useless, ineffective, bloated and untrustworthy?
You've hired for your kitchen the chef who spits in your food because he despises preparing meals.
You've hired for your yardwork the gardener who sets out to kill your roses to demonstrate his assertion that they will die in your climate.
You've hired for your office the accountant who's staked his career on proving no accurate books can be kept.
In electing Republicans, America, you put people in charge of institutions they overtly, caustically loathe and proudly proclaim should not exist. Good thinking, USA, and stellar results: Katrina, Iraq, Medicare D, trade and budget deficits, mine disasters and on and on and on and ...
Conservatives have declared officially for decades that they hate public programs and love private business. Why then, do Americans profess shock when these same people run the public credit card up to bunker-busting levels to line the pockets of friendly corporations, leaving taxpayers - current and the as-yet unborn - the bill? It's the dine and ditch mentality writ large, and American citizens are the unfortunate waiters having their lowly pay docked to cover the deadbeat loss - and their future grandchildren's pay docked as well.
We are witnessing an orchestrated, unprecedented transfer of public wealth to private pockets, a national one-party feeding frenzy that's making beggars and beseechers of us all, and yet many Americans stand around muttering in a daze of semi-apathetic befuddlement about gosh darn how did all this come to be and how sure as shit, uh-huh, those Republicans shore were right, government doesn't do a the little guy a damn bit of good, no sirree bob. Better drown it some more. Cut them taxes, privatize something, anything, pronto!
Kee-rist on a pogo stick.
If you put people in charge of running a project they are ideologically committed to proving a failure, it will fail.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. But hey, I'm a Democrat. You know, one of those people who think universal quality public education is a massive good to society, that maintaining our highways and levees and bridges and dams is part of what makes this country great, that paying first-responders and nurses what they're worth helps guarantee our public health and safety, that providing for fellow citizens who fall on hard times is not only the ethical thing to do, but the pragmatic one, ensuring that this country does not incubate a permanently inflamed and disgruntled underclass ready to drop a match on a pool of social gasoline.
Here's a thought - just a thought, mind you, beloved America: Perhaps it's time to return to government the party that has an ideological stake in making it ... you know ... succeed. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to raise our sights a wee bit and elect people who think public service is more than an opportunity for the "Biggest! Fire Sale! Ever!" for their friends and loved ones. Perhaps it's time to insist on greater - if not great - expectations from the employees we decide to hire or fire every two years to carry out our will under the constitution.
As one-party Republican rule has clearly shown, when you expect incompetence, corruption and deceit from your government, you get exactly what you vote for. In spades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)