A study from the University of California as being reported by the Scientific American, is making the case that the lowest income people among us will suffer the worse effects from climate change (here):

“Climate change does not affect everyone equally in the United States,” said Rachel Morello-Frosch, associate professor at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley and lead author of The Climate Gap. “People of color and the poor will be hurt the most – unless elected officials and other policymakers intervene.”

The report itself (here), has some extremely flawed logic.  Here is the entire section the authors list as their methodology:

This report analyzes currently available data on the disparate impacts of climate change and climate change mitigation policies on low socioeconomic status (SES) groups in the United States that is relevant to the California context (Shonkoff, Morello-Frosch et al. 2009). We have also drawn information from climate change policy, human health, and environmental justice literature to provide background and context for these issues. Our goal was to address some of the prominent public health, equity, and regulatory issues that are pertinent to the policy deliberations surrounding the implementation of AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act as well as federal climate change policy.

The authors do discuss in further detail later that they are really basing their assertions on daily temperature levels from 9 counties in CA during the years between  1999-2003.  They are only looking at mean differences in temperature of 10 degrees Fahrenheit and just to help prove their theory, they include additional data about a heatwave in 2006.

Using this data they extrapolate what has been known since the massive heatwaves of the 1990s that killed hundreds in the midwest.  Those most at risk are the very young, the elderly, and the poor.  Other than infants, this is due to both lower health standards & health insurance as well as lower income forcing some to not use air conditioning as much as they might otherwise.

None of this has anything to do with climate change specifically or in general. This is an issue that has existed for decades.

In 1988, in the USA, a massive heatwave in the midwest killed thousands.  The full numbers are difficult to know, but some reports estimate 17,000 (here).  In 2003 thousands (~35K) died in heatwaves all across Europe, but the cause for the heat was not global warming, but a specific and definable weather pattern known as an anti-cyclone.

Additionally, while they briefly mention things such as increased food costs that would hurt the poor if we move to bio-fuels, they mention nothing about the increase in energy costs that will happen under cap and trade, forced emissions reductions, and other governmental mandates – all of which will make energy more expensive, therefore more negatively impact these same groups of people they contend need our help.

I can’t help but think the whole report seems like a cheap attempt on the author’s part to get half-assed research published and what passes for a science magazine bought published it without question.

How do they ensure the paper is published & noticed?

Easy, rely on everyone’s fear about global warming climate change and then little details, like what the facts actually assert can be forgotten without worry.

The only good part about this for those watching, is it does help show that scientists are not above group think and moving with trends.  They aren’t above this, because like the rest of us, they are humans (except those under dwellers coming out only briefly to read blogs like mine…).

There are good scientists out there who understand that what the real debate is about, or rather what the real debate should be about in reference to climate change.  & That is the trade off between the costs of mitigating it (assuming we can) and the costs/benefits of allowing climate change to continue (assuming again, we can control it at all).

One of the most rational enviromentalists alive is Bjron Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus.  For those truly interested in a rational and fully formed environmental policy, he is certainly someone worth listening to.

Writing for the Huffington Post, Matthew Modine attempts to make an argument about how the automobile should be viewed by society at large.

He starts off telling us why when he rides a bicycle to work, he feels a sense of self satisfaction and since most trips are made to destinations less than 5 miles away, we should all take his advice in order to feel as good as he did.

Leaving aside the fact that not everyone lives in the constantly sunny state of CA and how impractical this would be for most people, I think he also lacks a basic understanding that citizen mobility has increased options for poorest segments of our society.  The ability to be mobile, utilizing cars even, has helped countless people be able to move quickly to places where jobs are more plentiful and higher paying, instead of sticking to where they currently reside.

Even having said that, like most celebrities, he takes his ignorance on the entire subject and moves into the land of the crazy, completely out of touch idiots (whole thing here):

…The automobile took us further and faster than we could have ever done by self-propulsion. But that speed and distance has brought the world to the edge of extinction. We must now look at the automobile with an understanding of what it really is. We must look at the movies and songs that celebrated the automobile with a new consciousness and awareness. We must look at the automobile as a cigarette–a cancer stick–a nail in our collective coffin. The sexy lifestyle that the tobacco industry sold to us contains the same advertising lies and poison which the automobile industry sold and continues to sell to the world. Look at the ads for automobiles and you’ll begin to recognize the lies…

I would hazard a guess though that if he can allow him to do the mental twisting that requires this analogy, it also allows him to rationalize what is most likely his extremely self-righteous attitude towards others who don’t feel the same way.

I wonder if he understands that with smugness like this, he shares more in common with TV evangelists than he does with anything resembling rational, thoughtful adults?

One thing is for certain, if the public debate about environmentalism continues to be told by politicans and celebrities, it’s more likley their cure will be much worse than the problem they are seeking to avoid.

Apparently, our new SCOTUS nominee has a belief that her background, being both a woman and a Hispanic gives her the ability to make better judgments than her white male counterparts.

As reported (here – emphasis is theirs):

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

First, she does have a valid point about judges life experiences being brought into judicial thinking.  & I think it’s a myth wroth destroying that justices are more prone to objectivity than any other human beings.  After all, in the end, we are humans with similar limitations.

Having said that, this portion of her speech seems to imply she’s a racist and certainly should make people question her decision making ability.

She notes, that while there can never be a universal definition of wise, her background makes her more wise?

This is the convoluted logic that has a large percentage of the country banging their heads when reading any judicial opinions as judges everywhere jump over illogical hurdles in order to rationalize bad decisions.  The 9th Circuit is famous for this, but they might start sharing their propensity for illogical gymnastics with a Supreme Court Justice.

& just for the record – Obama’s picks seem a little worthless, two treasury department picks who can’t pay their taxes, but now are trying to run the economy & the IRS.  Many picks never went to fruition due to tax and other problems.  More than one pick that directly broke a pledge of Obama’s and a new regulation he instituted stating no lobbyists in his administration.

It’s as if we don’t even care enough to pay attention, because it’s much more disconcerting knowing these things than being blissfully ignorant of politics in general…

As it is memorial weekend, I’d thought I’d just post a couple recent Congressional Medal or Honor Recipients.

From Iraq (here):

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty: Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an M2 .50-caliber Machine Gunner, 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Adhamiyah, Northeast Baghdad, Iraq, on 4 December 2006. That afternoon his platoon was conducting combat control operations in an effort to reduce and control sectarian violence in the area. While Private McGinnis was manning the M2 .50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner’s hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled “grenade,” allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade’s blast. Then, rather than leaping from the gunner’s hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion. Private McGinnis’ gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death. Private First Class McGinnis’ extraordinary heroism and selflessness at the cost of his own life, above and beyond the call of duty, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

And Afghanastan (here):

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as the leader of a special reconnaissance element with Naval Special Warfare Task Unit Afghanistan on 27 and 28 June 2005. While leading a mission to locate a high-level anti-coalition militia leader, Lieutenant Murphy demonstrated extraordinary heroism in the face of grave danger in the vicinity of Asadabad, Konar Province, Afghanistan. On 28 June 2005, operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, Lieutenant Murphy?s team was discovered by anti-coalition militia sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban fighters. As a result, between 30 and 40 enemy fighters besieged his four-member team. Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force. The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Lieutenant Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his Headquarters, Lieutenant Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team. In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom. By his selfless leadership, courageous actions, and extraordinary devotion to duty, Lieutenant Murphy reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

There are many more acts of bravery, sacrifices, honor, and selfless acts of military members and their families which will never be reported and fully understood.  I think we owe them all our thanks.

More CMH information can be found here.

I wrote a week or so ago about some humans seemingly unending ability to blame others for their mistakes as well as wanting others to help pay for voluntary choices these people made in their lives (here).

Among the proof I used, was an economist writer in the New York Times magazine who blamed easy credit on all his woes.  Making 120K a year, he and his second wife racked up more than 50K in debts and a 400K dollar home.  Both things anyone with a third grade math ability should be able to understand.

Well it turns out, that not only was this mensa candidate attempting to blame other people for his mistakes, we find out he lied.

Megan McArdle writing in The Atlantic, did a great investigative piece on Edumund Andrew’s book, and the excerpt which appeared in NYT Magazine (here).  It appears that bankruptcy is his MO, where he and his family rack up excessive debts, lower their income by reducing consultancy work, then file for bankruptcy as soon as they can a second time.

…But en route to that moral, it turns out the story has been tidied up a little.  Patty Barreiro, Andrews’ wife, has declared bankruptcy twice.  The second time was while they were married, a detail that didn’t make it into either the book or the excerpt that ran in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.

Andrews’ desire to shield his wife is understandable–hell, laudable.  No decent person wants to parade their spouse’s financial trouble in front of the world.  But this is material information that changes the tenor of his story.  Serial bankruptcy is not a creation of the current credit crisis, and it doesn’t just happen to anyone, particularly anyone with a six figure salary….

He obviously left certain facts out that would make him appear less knowing than he actually was in order to blame the evil banks, easy credit, and anyone else but himself.

While people lying to themselves is nothing new and in fact a known human condition where your belief in yourself makes you feel uncomfortable with the reality of yourself.  This is known as cognitive dissonance and most humans seemingly lie to themselves.

However, most humans don’t write books that are this poorly vetted by both the published and the NYT Magazine.   They probably failed under a condition known as confirmation bias, where what was written was so close to what they already believed, they took it as the truth, but we should expect much more out of those people that seek to educate the public through writing and publishing.

At some point, hopefully, the media will see their complicity in this and other ongoing issues.

Historians will likely write, and correctly so, about the politicans who pushed policies that led us into this mess.  Hopefully someone will also write that in a representative government we get the government we deserve.

One of the most important factors in human history has been the ability for thousands of years of different civilizations sharing their knowledge.  The European community recieved their base line of information from the Arab community, which recieved their base line of information before that from the Greeks.  Each civilization added, examined, and moved that information forward.

Indeed as Issac Newton once reportedly said, “If I have seen further than others, it’s only because I stand on the shoulders of giants.”

In that frame of mind, Wolfram has begun the development of a computatational search enginge known as Wolfram|Alpha.  It will allow complex mathematical algorithms against data sets they hold as well your own data sets which is surely the first step into giving more people access to better research tools.  Here is the one page summary:

You can also preview different types of queries and algorithms possible.  It’s well worth a look.

Overall however, allowing this information to be easily accessible to the public at large versus the university researcher, will allow people everywhere the ability to innovate on a scale not previously seen.

There is still a ways to go and one must have a decently firm grasp on what it is they want to view, but anything that supports the openess of more information to all of humanity is something we should always view as good.

This week has been a week of debate on the future of Gitmo. As the President has found out, his campaign pledge is a much more difficult question that once thought. Sincere people on both sides raise great points.

The idea we can indefinitely detain these individuals through the end of a “War on Terror” that is unlikely to ever end, seems to go against basic human rights. However, even the President’s own party voted overwhelmingly this week to not allow those prisoners any refuge in American prisons and other countries don’t want them (article here):

…On the other side of Capitol Hill, the Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to block the transfer of any Guantanamo detainees to US soil, refusing to give President Obama the $80 million he wants to close the prison by January. The 90-6 vote echoed an overwhelming House vote last week, showing the skittishness of Obama’s Democratic allies on the issue…

Mr. Obama & Mr. Cheney have both weighed in this week as well (article here):

…Both gave speeches on Thursday May 21st: Mr Obama at the National Archives, home of the American constitution, and Mr Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute, the favourite nest of the now-rather-quiet neoconservatives…

…Fine, unexceptionable words, delivered with the usual eloquence. But Mr Obama looked like a man whose closest brush with terror had been watching “Independence Day”. Mr Cheney, by contrast, had been there. He recalled the moment on September 11th 2001 when he had been bundled from his White House office into the presidential bunker. It had not made him a different man, he said, but it had focused all his thoughts on the safety of the country. Another attack might come at any time…

For now it seems, the brand new, 200 million dollar state of the art facility which contains not only a prison, but also courtrooms for military tribunals, is going no where.

Update – Secretary Gates weighs in (article here):

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the Obama administration had no choice but to order the shutdown of the prison at Guantanamo because “the name itself is a condemnation” of U.S. anti-terrorism strategy.

In an interview broadcast Friday on NBC’s “Today” show, Gates called the facility on the island of Cuba “probably one of the finest prisons in the world today.” But at the same time, he said it had become “a taint” on the reputation of America.

Just a great quote I ran across recently posted without comment:

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer.  War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.  When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.  A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration.  A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.  As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”