To the Unions.... My bad

After considering some of my comments made about Unions in my last post I realize that I should probably clarify what I mean, and where my opinion comes from.  Much of the knowledge of scamming the companies comes from my dad, who was constantly tempted throughout his college days at the University of Dayton to quit school and work in industry.  The enticements were great: great pay, great vacations, great security.  What amplified these enticements was a little exercise in worker's rights--as per the union--that veteran employees had perfected over time.  When you retire you get severance pay, which is calculated by multiple factors--the largest of which is time of employment.  But should you decide that you made the wrong decision in retiring, Jordan wasn't the only one, you are guaranteed your position at the company upon your return.  So what they would do is retire, get their severance pay, and go on vacation for a year then come back and start it all over again.  

In the grand scheme of things this "rotation" of workers minimally effects the coffers of the corporation.  So let's think about what would effect a producers bank statement the most... hmmmm... aha! I've got it, what if nobody bought their product?  Yeah, that would greatly deplete their investment capital because they would be getting 100 percent negative returns on their investment--0 cents to every 100 pennies.  And that is also what happened.  My dad also tells me how he remembers driving by the GM factory and seeing a fleet of toyotas and hondas; rather indicative of the workman's confidence in his own labors.  

Now, that is a micro-example.  It also disregards any price information about American cars versus foreign cars.  The economists, not the magazine, answer to this is quite simple: "American companies were making less attractive products for the price without responding to the market."  The talking head would go on to assert that the competition and lower prices were better for the consumer because it meant more people could get more shit for their money.  Although the economist would not say shit, they would say goods.  I'm inserting shit, because that's what it is.  

In the short term, this is true.  Lower costs help the consumer.  But what if the consumer is working for a company that relies on the American market to sell its products, and yet still refusing to buy from that company?  Then that consumer is essentially buying him or her self out of a job and selling her or his own labor overseas.  Then what are we left with?  Imported goods that we consume, creating a totally consumer culture in which few jobs, if any even exist anymore outside the realm of healthcare, law, politics, and maybe the education that now only the rich can afford with their already accumulated wealth.  Oh yes, I almost forgot, their will also be people working at all these stores, at least until the internet evolves to the point at which everyone will just buy shit online because the cost of transportation to reach these concentrated areas of consumerism (malls) will be so damn high (oil). 

So the story of the Unions is one which we can all sort of learn from on many levels.  I think the first and foremost lesson is that we should all take pride in our work, put in the effort to do a job or make a product that you yourself would want to purchase--it doesn't speak to highly for Ford and GM when all their assembly line workers are driving Toyotas and Hondas.  The next thing I think we can take from this is that short term savings is a false improvement in the market.  Do we really need to accumulate that much shit to make ourselves happy, or should we actually take the time to budget our finances.  Rather than trying to buy the most we could figure what we actually want to spend our money on; this would make each dollar more precious and thus result in more consumer research, which might even cut down on the need for consumer protection laws.

Cheaper is not always better, if you actually want to live on a budget.

Subsidies for Greener Pastures or Protectionism...

...you decide-

WIth burgeoning oil prices the demand for other carbon based resources has flown into full swing. Just yesterday there was an article on the Times website that talked about the revival of a once dead Japanese coal mining town as a result of an increasing demand for coal, due to rising oil prices. The article was heartwarming and talked about the beauty of a once dead industry coming back to life if only for a few last gasps. What's particularly disconcerting about this image is that it talks of revivals of gasping old technologies, it talks of the beauty of stasis, trying to make sure nobody has to change their living to adapt to a modern world. No, I don't think we should stop using our best sources of energy, but I do think the time has come to stop groveling over the paychecks of workers that refuse to change their livelihood and want to be protected as a result; if we're not careful we'll have the 70's Unions all over again that exploited their power to deplete the pockets of industry, effectively forcing companies to move over seas where there are actually employable people. To be sure, not everyone working was involved in the scams; it's more a case of a few ruining it for many.

Which brings me to my next point with regards to a certain pipeline project that is being born on the North Slope of Canada and calls for, according to the Times, a 500 million dollar subsidy to TransCanada (here). This subsidy is designed to jump start the project that, according the pushers of it, will stimulate and stabilize the American economy with jobs. If anyone reading this was around during the New Deal you might think about the huge Public Engineering projects designed to stimulate the economy during FDR's reign: not a permanent, stabilizing solution, not even that long-term as was discovered after enormous amounts of government deficit financing went into the system that, in the future, would provide desert carpets of lush green for anyone willing to pay to play, golf that is.

But it's difficult to argue with the fact that those public works projects provided jobs for many unemployed Americans. That's where this situation in Northern Canada is different. Turns out, even according to the Times that BP and ConocoPhillips-the two companies competing with TransCanada on this matter-have said they already plan to build a pipeline and invest 600 million dollars of their own money to do it without subsidies. This means they will be forced to respond to the market (i.e. the consumer-YOU) and provide gas at rates that people will purchase it, because without doing this they would be making a negative investment. That's not something either of these companies wishes to do, because staying in business is the assumed goal of having a business.

Right now the future of automobile motion looks like a hydrogen fuel cell which depends on a supply of natural gas for re-fueling, so the question becomes do you want to give the government money to invest (keep in mind that they would have gone out of business long ago) or do you want to save that money to buy the gas that is in the interest of BP and ConocoPhillips to supply as dictated by the market demand?

Before you answer that question you might want to know that it seems out of your hands because of the purchasing power we put in the hands of our leaders, according to the governer of Alaska, “We don’t have time to mess around. It is time to get the project built and not just keep guessing what the oil producers want from the state.”

I think it's time they start asking the people that pay their salaries (you, and me) what they want from the state.

I really don't like you, John

John Edwards, responding to Hillary Clinton's remarks about the Civil Rights Act and its role in creating "real change":
"Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale," he said.

"I completely agree!" I shouted, smiling at this man's wisdom. "And you are?" I asked.
"Oh, I'm the guy running on a campaign that's all about creating change - you know, for president - the most important, most powerful position in Washington,"Edwards said (in my imagination).

I paused, looked around, scratched my head, squinted a little, and finally asked:
"Could you possibly be more of a hypocrite?"
"It would be difficult," he said.

The Times is confused

Regular readers of the New York Times know that the Grey Lady fancies herself a champion of the common man. Recent articles and editorials have focused on the hardships faced by ordinary folks confronted with the rising costs of energy and food, as well as the number of jobs being lost overseas due to evil international trade and big, scary corporations. See what I mean here, here, and here.

The Times is also opposed to anything involving actions taken by the Bush administration, pretty much regardless of what they are. So naturally, when pro-business lobbyists (corporations! ew!) start lining up in support of last-minute reforms, a ludicrously-biased article (not an editorial) against any and all of the proposed changes qualifies as some of the news that's fit to print. Trouble is, the Times pretty much cherry-picks all the bad stuff that would come from the reforms without considering any potential benefits, advocating policies that will worsen the problems they courageously publicize in the above examples.

If rising energy costs are a problem, especially as temperatures are dropping all over the northern US, shouldn't we be looking for ways to let energy companies offer lower prices for their product? If you write for the New York Times, the answer is no.

At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with “the greens.”

It may very well be that letting coal mining companies dump their waste products in streams is a bad idea that should be made illegal. The sticking point is that that people don't just dig up coal and dump rocks into streams because they think it's fun - they do it because they're trying to make electricity, which is an expensive process. Paying people to drive trucks long distances for a more environmentally-friendly dumping site will inevitably raise the costs of energy production. That the Times is simultaneously against people being cold in the wintertime (a very bold stance, by the way) and pretty clearly against any reforms that might lower the price of energy is simply irresponsible journalism.

The Times is also - along with most of the normal world - bravely and vehemently opposed to hunger. Supporting measures that might reduce the cost of chicken production, however, seems to be a little further than the paper is willing to go.

Perdue Farms, one of the nation’s largest poultry producers, said that it was “essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,” and that a reporting requirement would place “an undue and useless burden” on farmers.

But environmental groups told the Bush administration that “ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.” And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.

I'm not entirely sure what that last sentence means (surely concentrated ammonia in a barn is different from a few parts per million in the atmosphere), but again we are faced with a direct conflict of interest. Chicken is food, which can help make hunger go away. Unfortunately, those nasty prices sometimes get in the way of everyone having as much chicken as they want. So of course, if hunger is a problem, food prices are the cause. Letting chicken farmers lower their costs (one might think) would be a good thing.

The way this article is written is pretty obviously slanted, but the real problem with it is that big business lobbyists are portrayed as evil money-grubbing planet-destroying poverty-spreading Bush cuddlers. Environmental lobbyists are quoted and presented as people who just care about the earth, and what could possibly be wrong with that? The consequences of the regulations they support aren't really given any thought.

Personally, I care more about hungry, cold people than I do about ammonia or river contamination, but really I care about both. I don't think writing an article explaining the costs and benefits of both sides would be too difficult. How much cheaper would energy be if coal companies could dump their waste products wherever they want? How many more people could buy chicken if farmers didn't have to worry about putting ammonia into the air? Is ammonia pollution really a problem? If so, how much should we be worrying about it? The Times doesn't seem to know the answer to these questions, and I doubt they thought to ask them in the first place. That's alright, though. Nobody really pays attention to national papers of record anyway.

Oh.

Big day for Venezuela

Chavez' constitutional reforms are being put to a national vote today. Maybe they'll be passed enthusiastically by a completely legitimate election, maybe not. But I'm having a hard time envisioning a guy like Hugo throwing up his hands and acknowledging the "will of the people" if the results don't go his way. That's just me, though - we'll see what happens.

These are the new storms, same as the old storms

One of my greatest annoyances in today's world of environmentally-sensitive college students is the tendency for people my age to blame almost anything weather-related on global warming. Seemingly no climatic event can escape global warming's sinister influence.

Unseasonably-warm fall day? And to think, people say global warming isn't a problem. Big snow storm in January? Global warming causes extreme weather patterns! Endangered species? Global warming. Bad crop season? Global warming. Really cold winter day? Global warming.

For many such students, the horrible event of hurricane Katrina's landfall was simply fuel to the fire. All those displaced and devastated people would have been saved if we'd just stopped using fossil fuels, don't you see? ... Storms get stronger and more frequent because of global warming, didn't you know that? ... Just look how much stronger hurricanes are today - look how much more damage they're causing! ... and on and on.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm refuting global warming as an existing phenomenon. Clearly the earth is warmer now than it was in the recent past, and clearly human beings are putting things into the sky that cause the planet's temperature to increase. What remains to be seen, however, is whether we humans have had an impact equal to that of lighting a match in a building of several stories, or to, say, turning on the oven in your kitchen (see Coyote Blog for a better explanation).

Beyond any doubt, however, is the fact that strange weather patterns have existed as long as there has been weather. Pick any cold climate. Pick Vermont. Vermont has been having the occasional crazy-warm days in the middle of December for centuries, just as there have been temperatures on July nights that dip into the 40's. I have heard someone remark, aghast, at the powerful affects of global warming during the weirdly warm days every goddamn time. But, of course, no one mentions the cold days, they just complain about the cold. Similarly, hurricanes have been happening for a very long time. Just because we happen to see a big one come along at the same time as lots of people start to learn more and more about global warming does not mean that the two are related.

Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute, summarizing a study performed by Roger Pielke, Jr. of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, explains:

Is the planet warmer than it was? Yes. Is there any trend in hurricane-related damages in the United States, where good records of damages exist? After accounting simultaneously for inflation, population, and property values, no.

Even without accounting for population increases (which have been large), Katrina doesn't top the damages list. Again, Mr. Michaels:

Katrina pales in comparison to the Great Miami hurricane of 1926. Pielke gives two estimates, averaging around $148 billion. AIR pegs it at $160 billion. Given the trajectory of property values and population in Florida, Pielke notes that a $500 billion hurricane (in today's dollars) should be quite likely by the 2020s.

A little history. After the Great Miami and Katrina, the remaining top ten storms (in descending order) occurred in 1900 (Galveston 1), 1915 (Galveston 2), 1992 (Andrew), 1983 (New England), 1944 (unnamed), 1928 (Lake Okeechobee 4), 1960 (Donna/Florida), and 1969 (Camille/Mississippi). There is no obvious bias toward recent years. In fact, the combination of the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes places the damages in 1926-35 nearly 15% higher than 1996-2005, the last decade Pielke studied.

Michaels adds at the end of the article that monetary damages from hurricanes and tropical storms do show an increasing trend, but only if factors like property values (above inflation) and population aren't taken into account. It's just a silly, childish way of comparing costs, almost as bad as comparing earthquake damages in pre- and post-1849 San Francisco without adjusting for the fact that there was no one around before 1849.

So stop it, environmental people, if you're reading. I'm right there with you on the whole defending the environment thing, really, but citing stupid day-to-day anecdotal evidence confuses a very important debate about the future of our race and planet. Thank you.

I will continue putting bullets through my foot as long as my opponent pledges to do the same

The setting: CNN/YouTube Republican Debate

The question (#11): will you eliminate farm subsidies?

The answer (from Giuliani and Romney): blah, blah, energy independence, blah, can't rely on other countries to supply our food, blah blah, NOT UNTIL EUROPE REDUCES THEIR OWN EVEN LARGER SUBSIDIES.

That'll show 'em.

European governments punish their own people by confiscating the equivalent of billions of dollars in tax revenues and putting it toward the propping up of inefficient, expensive farms. They could simply let European citizens select their own food based on price and quality, but they don't. As a response, the US government turns around and does the exact same thing to Americans. Fantastic.

Sort of like a hostage negotiator who grabs someone off the street and shouts into the hijacked building, "LET THE PRISONERS GO ...OR THIS POOR BASTARD GETS IT!"

Fear and Loathing in Guanajuato

Last night I was lucky enough to get invited to a costume party at a friend of a friend of a friend's apartment. I didn't really have a costume, so I shaved most of my week-old stubble, leaving behind a red, horseshoe-shaped Hulk Hogan style goatee and flavor saver – which I think might become a Fu Manchu with a little cultivation – to go with my already unkempt sideburns. I threw on a grey wool zig-zag-patterned Mexican-style tunic, a bright white cowboy hat, a pair of khakis, and I was ready to go. I still didn't have a costume, but at least I looked like a dumbass.

Around seven o’clock my Norwegian roommate and I headed out, ate some dinner, bought several 40-ounce bottles of Mexican beer, and rolled to a different apartment to pregame. The group waiting for us there consisted of one American, one Mexican, one German, and five Norwegians, all but two of whom had put together a costume of some sort. We sat around the kitchen counter for a few hours, drinking the beer, listening to music, and trying to determine the best adhesive for six-foot-six inch Burt Reynolds’ fake mustache (scotch tape was eventually selected, but it came off every time he smiled). Once our collective blood-alcohol had climbed sufficiently, we decided to make the 20-minute trek to the real party.

Off we went, strutting through downtown Guanajuato under the full moon, eating up all the shouts and horn honks sent our way by shocked and amused Guanajuatensis. Among the nine of us were two trolls, their hair dyed green and styled to stick straight up in a wavy, fluffy, flame-like ordeal; one cat; one Aristotles, wrapped in a golden sheet, laurel crown fashioned from pieces of a Christmas wreath; one Spanish missionary, long beige poncho draped over his shoulders, a crucifix dangling from his neck; one oddly-dressed white boy (me); and, of course, a giant Burt Reynolds, popping his collar and winking or pointing two parallel index fingers at each gawking passerby.

The walk was really surreal. I kept thinking of certain scenes from "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," when Johnny Depp's character (Hunter Thompson) walks through public places on all kinds of drugs, constantly convinced that people are watching him as he stares back at them with wide, wild eyes, careening dangerously through large crowds. The difference is that we were largely in control, but people really were staring at us with their jaws hanging slack. I got the sense that if we had been on acid, or mescaline, or whatever other crazy hallucinogens Thompson ingested in that story, we might have dreamed ourselves up and been really terrified - for good reason, mind you. Instead, we were the hallucination, and every innocent, sober convenience store patron, pedestrian, and bus passenger got to trip out for a couple minutes, whether they wanted to or not.

Truth be told, we felt sort of untouchable, like partiers cruising through town on a parade float, separated from the masses by a layer of absurdity.

* * *

I’m not sure what it is about dressing strangely that changes the way people act, but parties with alcohol and costumes always have a distinctly different feel from normal gatherings. It could be that I’m just a little bit insecure when I wear regular, this-is-who-I-am clothing, and that costumes allow me to feel like the things I do aren’t really of consequence. I don’t act completely crazy, but I get the sense that I’m more comfortable being outgoing and that I’m more creative when it comes to striking up conversations. I don’t think I’m alone on this, either. I bet lots of people feel a little more open, more free, and more relaxed when they throw on a stupid costume (as long as everyone else looks stupid, too). Costumes serve as sort of an equalizer for people who otherwise feel uncool, unattractive, or just generally awkward in social situations, and they were working their magic last night at the party. Everyone, as far as I could tell, was having a fantastic time, and we didn’t stop partying until well after five AM.

So here’s my suggestion: let’s make costumes a more regular part of normal life. Let’s do what we can to make truly outrageous, disarming, asshole-ish clothing more accepted. You wanna go to work as Batman today? Go right ahead! UPS man, you wanna deliver packages in drag? Just make sure the packages get there on time. Going shopping today? Throw on a dress, paint your face teal, hike up some striped socks, spike your hair, lace up your basketball shoes, and hit the town!

I could be mistaken, but I don’t see insecurities going away any time soon. With that in mind, let's advocate more lunacy and fun ... even if it just means more costume parties.

More from Discover

This article is pretty sweet. It doesn't strike me as entirely out of the realm of possible occurrences that humans will figure out a way to stop the aging process entirely sometime in the next few centuries, which in some ways would be great. In a lot of other ways, I think it might suck.

Regardless, this article should have been called "How long would the elves in Lord of the Rings really Live?" or maybe "If you were Super Mario, and you ate one of those flower things, how long could you go without falling in a hole or getting crushed by huge pillars of stone?"

Día Acción de Gracias

I spent most of today really, really wishing I could fly north for some of Ma and Pa Gelbs' delicious cooking. Instead, I'm here in Mexico, where celebrating Thanksgiving would be sort of like us gringos taking the day off from work and preparing feasts in honor of the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors in the 16th century. I dunno if that analogy works perfectly, but you get the idea. It would be weird.

Lucky for me, though, the program I'm with - which is entirely run by Mexicans - decided to throw a little party, complete with traditional Turkey Day fixin's. We ate in the dining hall of one of the host-moms' houses, which I assume is more of a mansion, though I didn't see the whole thing (our 10 tables, each of which could seat 10 people, fit easily. I don't know anyone in the US with a dining room this big).

There was decent beer, good food, and a few program directors and students made little speeches, thanking everyone (how appropriate!) for their contributions throughout the semester. The wait staff (!) even walked around with pretty little pewter vessels in one hand ("Mas gravy, señor?"). The first course was a big plate of tide-bottle-orange spaghetti, which threw me off a little, but everything else was pretty much spot-on, right down to the pumpkin pie dessert. The whole thing went off without a hitch, and I really couldn't have asked for a better way to spend my first Thanksgiving away from my family.

I'm thankful for my family, my friends, my health, and all the other wonderful things going on in my life right now. Thanks to everyone who's taken a few minutes out of their day to read this blog. I'm having a blast doing the writing, and I hope I've provided some insights that made the trip to this address worthwhile.

Hope everyone had a fantastic Thursday. Take 'er easy.