Football and the Fiscal Cliff

Several weeks ago I watched my favorite NFL team grind out a game that ended in a tie at the end of regulation play.  The tie remained until close to the end of the sudden death overtime period.  This can’t be, I thought, NFL games don’t end in a tie—well hardly ever.  But it did; a tie went down in the record book.

       I then switched to a news channel where a debate on the “fiscal cliff” raged.   GOOD GRIEF, I thought.  Its football all over again—a struggle with all might on both sides for a no-compromise win.  There was the Red Team defending its goal of “no tax increase for the wealthy.”  Quarterback Obama of the Blue Team tries to penetrate that goal line.  The Blue Team defended its goal of “no cuts in government spending.”    Quarterback Boehner tries to lead his team across that goal line.

Here we are in the fourth quarter and there has been no scoring--not even a field goal.   In fact, neither team has made it into the red zone (the area between the 20-yard line and the goal line).  The big play of the Red Team was the Ryan budget plan, but Quarterback Boehner got sacked on that one.  The Blue Team thought they could score on Quarterback Obama’s proposal to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the middle class only.  But the Red Team stopped that play with no yardage gain..

       Will the scoreless tie remain until the end of regulation play on December 31?    We’ll watch and see if the game goes into overtime come next year.  Certainly, the partisan fans will be there, cheering loudly.   Me?  I would rather watch NFL football.  

TURKEYS AND THANKSGIVING

Each year as Thanksgiving approaches, I think briefly about a time long ago on the farm where I grew up.  Part of our meager income came from raising turkeys.  No—we did not sell them live.  At a rather young age, I was required to assist my father and others in butchering turkeys in the period nearing Thanksgiving.  It was not a pleasant job, but many jobs on the farm weren’t either.  It was necessary with no possibility of opting out. The unpleasantness of seeing creatures being put to death was somewhat assuaged by nature of turkeys—not very loveable.  Yes, I know that Benjamin Franklin wanted the turkey to be the national bird because he considered it more noble than the eagle.  But we—my siblings and I-- found domestic turkeys to be stupid and hapless.  Our butchering operation was as humane as we could have made it.  I’m sure if today’s animal rights people could have observed us, they would not have found anything abusive.  We didn’t abuse animals—they were too valuable to us.

Then it was Thanksgiving Day—a religious time, a time of being thankful and a spiritual time; perhaps the only national holiday that isn’t commercialized.  The gathering of our stoical Scandinavian family, not given to expressing much sentiment, was nevertheless spiritual in our closeness to each other.  The turkey at the center of our dinner table was more than a tasty treat, it was symbolic of that hard work that we all--young and old—had done to make this feast possible.  I’ve often wondered if there had been no turkey would there have been a Thanksgiving dinner.  Probably not.

Recently, news of a major turkey producing company abusing its birds disturbed me.  Why does this happen?  Does being such a large operation take away the affinity for all life that we had on a much smaller scale on our farm?  Assuring ethical treatment of the turkeys could not have made a noticeable difference in this company’s bottom line.  Let’s hope that those wrong doings will be corrected.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

THE LAME DUCKS

A dictionary definition of lame duck is “one who can’t keep up with the flock.”  It paints a pathetic picture of an individual frantically flapping its wings but falling farther behind.  Hold that thought.

An early use of the term was in the British Stock Exchange in the 18^th century.  There it meant someone who was bankrupt or in default on his debts.  The term came into use in United States Congress in the mid 19^th century.  It denoted  “a broken down politician” according to Wickopedia.  So far, not a very complementary expression.

The current definition of lame duck, having appeared somewhere in the 20^th century, means a congressperson, governor or the president defeated in the general election but holding the office until the newly elected person takes over.  It also refers to the Congress as a whole, since that congress ends at the end of the year when a new congress, consisting of new members and carry-overs, will be installed.   One might expect the outgoing congresspersons to have less zeal for accomplishments than earlier; also the carry-over members might be complacent waiting for the new members to be on board.

The post-2012 general election exemplifies the lame duck situation well.  A large agenda of needed congressional action accumulated during the election campaigns.   Time is short, Congress works only three days a week and its activities will be interrupted by the holidays.  Severe gridlock in Congress makes rapid resolution (or possibly any resolution) unlikely.  Yet the “fiscal cliff” looms as a punishment for inaction.  We fear it will happen if Congress fails to act on such items as extending Bush era tax cuts, expiring tax breaks and the Sequester (the mandatory reduction of Government expenditures in the absence of a budget agreement).   The result will be less money in circulation—about $500 billion--come January first and the possibility of negative economic growth thus resulting in a new recession. 

I wonder how the wing-flapping ducks will treat the concern for avoiding the fiscal cliff.  Pundits suggest that there are three possibilities:  1)  Workable solutions will be agreed upon by December 31 and we will begin the new year with a growing economy,  2) There will be no action and we will really fall off the cliff and require a new period—maybe years—of economic recovery, or 3) A “band aid” solution which avoids the cliff, but resolves nothing and permits the bickering between parties and gridlock to continue, perhaps indefinitely.

The third outcome seems likely.  Makes me wonder if anything will ever change the super partisanship.  Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum in their book, That Used to be Us, suggest a “shock therapy” caused by a viable third party as a means getting compromise between the warring factions.  Third parties don’t win the presidential elections and rarely win congressional seats.  But they can raise holy hell with the entrenched positions of the two parties.  (Read about Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party in 1912, the George Wallace campaign in 1968 and the Ross Perot campaign of 1992).  

Okay, so it’s a far-fetched solution, but I will try to remain optimistic that eventually thoughtful compromise will prevail and the ducks will fly!.

Buying Locally

A recent experience reinforced my belief that one should buy goods and services as close to home as possible.  Joan’s computer became infected with a virus that left it unable to connect to the internet as well as having some other problems.

I first contacted our internet service provider’s technical support, and after a long wait I was connected to a “boiler room” where a man with an accent that was hard for me to understand, took me through steps trying to isolate the problem.  Each step was followed by a long pause where perhaps the technician was studying his service manual for the next step.  After about an hour of this agonizing process, he told me that there was nothing he could do and suggested that I call either the anti-virus software company or the computer manufacturer.

My next step was to call tech support of the anti virus software that I use.  Surely they should be able to fix the problem.  Right?  That’s their business.  So after a long delay…(why I wondered; I know that signals whether on land lines or in the ether travels at 300 km per microsecond.)   I was finally connected to a technician with a foreign accent.  Again, he went through laborious test steps for about an hour (he assumed, for example, that I didn’t have the brains to do the test of turning off my modem for 30 seconds and turning it back on).  Finally he declared that he couldn’t fix the problem and that it was probably in the hardware.

In a mood of frustration and despair, I called the computer manufacturer hoping that they could find me a solution.  I was whisked away again by the magic of modern communications to a faraway country where another hard-to-understand technician took me through most of the test steps that I had now become familiar with.  After the usual hour, he arrived at the conclusions that I had heard previously, “I can’t help you; it seems to be a hardware problem.”

Had my options run out, requiring me to take the computer to its final reward at electronics recycling?   Fortunately a thread of reality surfaced in my troubled brain.  I should call a local computer shop.  This I did and the next day I had the computer back in good condition and at a modest cost.  And there was no hardware problem!

Is there a lesson here?  Of course there is; it’s look first close to home, be it computer repair, appliance repair, car repair, etc.    It might not always be the answer but frequently is.  And when it is, there is satisfaction of contributing to the livelihood of a neighbor.

It goes beyond services—consider food.  Why should we buy avocados raised in foreign countries when we have such abundant crops grown in Summerland and Goleta?   Restaurants that feature local foods remind us that we have a wealth of good vegetables, meat, dairy products and seafood locally.   The people who produce it are  members of our civic organizations, parents of children in our schools, members of our churches and people we meet on the streets of our towns.  We want them to prosper as we want to proper ourselves.

I will buy locally wherever I can.

THE FIVE PERCENT

Reviewing statistics of 32 presidential preference poll results starting June I, 2012, I find an average of 46.9 % for President Obama and 44.3% for Governor Romney.  Considering error margins, this is a dead heat.  But an intriguing number is the 8.8 percent that is not committed to either candidate.  Part of that, of course, is those who would vote for one of the minor candidates, but another part is the undecided vote.  For talking purposes, let’s assume five percent. 

Who are these undecided voters?  Are they trembling, confused willy-nillies, incapable of making any decisions?  Or are they the thinkers, not bound by entrenched thoughts inherited from family, friends or the media, but rather bent on evaluating the changing challenges and the best means of meeting them?  Are they not the ones who recognize how feeble the partisan proposals of both sides are for meeting the challenges of unemployment, deficit and all the others?

Hats off to the undecided five percent who will decide the outcome of the election.  Let us hope that their holdout position will force the candidates to make bold plans and commitments needed to move our country forward.

Does it sound like I’m patting myself on the back for being undecided at this point?  I’m not—I’m undergoing a frustrating search for more understanding.  I recognize that growth of the economy and job creation represent the major issue.  (Not to minimize the deficit as a major challenge, but if we achieve economic growth, the deficit will be easier to deal with).   How can the Government deal with the sluggish economy with its high unemployment? 

In the Great Depression many thing were tried—government spending, austerity and increased taxes.  But the unemployment remained gigantic and the spirits remained low.  Then the war with its behemoth government spending saw the unemployment go from 25 per cent to zero—and we won the war!  And at the end, people had money in their pockets and hope in their hearts.  And thence began a nearly constant period of economic growth for over 50 years until the crash of 2008.

We seem to be back in the Great Depression and looking for a way out.  We tried government spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), aka the “stimulus bill,” and it was considered by many to have failed.  Perhaps our president should have recognized that there were no “shovel ready jobs.”  Lengthy environmental impact studies were necessary before the first shovelfull could be turned and by that time the funding window had expired.  Also the ARRA contained some $300M of small business tax relief.  Again, our president should have recognized that business people can’t afford to hire someone just to save some payroll taxes.

Now we are hearing tax cuts lauded as a means of stimulating the economy.  Sounds good on the surface, but…  Will the wealthy really invest their tax savings in starting or expanding business?   I understand that’s what the financial community (banks, private equity and venture capital) does.  And there seems to be no shortage of that kind of capital available just waiting until the consumer demand picks up and creates investor opportunities.  Will tax savings for the middle class be spent on goods and services made by our workers or on things imported from overseas?

The issues are complex and I’m annoyed by superficial solutions.  My only hope is that whichever candidate wins will have the leadership to get the two parties working together and evaluating solutions in depth.  Then seeing a government working toward solutions will give us hope for the future.

More on Global Warmiing

Professor Richard Muller of UCal Berkely made worldwide headlines recently when he announced that in spite of his previous skepticism on global warming, he has now determined that warming has happened for the past 250 years, and at a higher rate in the last 50 years.  Also, he concluded that no explanation other than man’s activities can account for this rise.  His findings are based on a study by the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project which he founded.  Ironically, $150,000 of the funding for this project came from the Koch Brothers, foundation, well known for their denial of climate change.  Prof Muller’s op-ed in the New York Times on August 28 explains his results in layman terms.

How can this be—a tenured professor at one of the nation’s most respected universities flip-flopping?  Being upset about this revelation, I attempted to find some of Professor Muller’s earlier works.  I didn’t buy one of his books, self-proclaimed to his students as vital (at $49), but I read a couple of his earlier blog posts.  If I interpret correctly, he was not arguing about the existence of global warming, but was skeptical about the methodology other scientists used to process the millions of points in the temperature data sets to arrive at a conclusion.  So his “conversion” appears to be less spectacular than some reports in the media would indicate. 

As could be expected, Prof Muller has received criticism for his report.  (Seems that there is more hubris than humility in academia).  He has been criticized for not having subjected his analysis results to peer review.  One of his critics is Prof Judith Curry, a fellow member of the BEST project.  She claims that he has hidden the decline in warming measured in the past few years.  He counters saying these are not statistically significant data points.

What can we make of this controversy?  We would like to see scientific findings be truthful and separated from political pressures (from both sides).  When scientists disagree, we lay people are at their mercy.  We can only sort out as much as we can read or hear and make our best judgment.  Based on mountains of data and anecdotal observations, only the most obtuse could deny the existence of global warming.  But the future and what we can do to mitigate or adapt has scientific uncertainty.

A final thought:  If more people in 1999 had believed strongly in the validity of global warming, perhaps Al Gore would have won the election and Saddam Hussein would still be controlling Iraq.

Beneath the Sea

A couple of months ago, while sailing, we experienced a whale encounter.  About 50 feet from us, a whale surfaced and blew.  Seconds later it was gone to depths, leaving the characteristic footprint on the surface.  In this brief viewing, we saw a second body between us and the first.  Clearly, we had seen a mother gray whale and her calf on their 7000-mile migration from the lagoons of Baja California to the nutrient-rich waters of the Bering Sea where they would spend their summer.

Exciting?  Yes, and while watching in vain for a reappearance, we pondered how exciting it might have been.  Mother whales (not fathers) are extremely protective of their young who are vulnerable to attacks by sharks and Orcas.  There are recorded incidents of a whale attacking a boat that came between a mother and her calf.  My 30-foot boat would have come out second best in such a skirmish.  Fortunately, we were not seen as a threat.  And why not, we wondered.

That raised questions about the cognitive powers housed in those huge brains.  How did she decide that we were not a threat?  Does she have a reasoning process that sorts boat hulls from Killer Whales and sharks?  A clue is in the observation that the gray whales spending their winters in the Baja lagoons have become quite approachable by humans since the end of whaling near the West Coast.  People frequently go alongside a whale in a small boat and pet it.  Perhaps there is learning and memory as in human brains.  When I wrote my novel Encounters in Paradise, I had my characters debate the thought processes of a whale.  Could a whale reading the name on a boat recognize it as the namesake of a whaler that had caused much agony to its fellows during the whaling period?  A bit far-fetched perhaps, but the idea was to open thinking beyond our preconceived ideas.  Certainly there is a challenge to understand more about these magnificent creatures and their part in the order of life underseas.

The learning challenges include both the biological and physical aspects of the world beneath the sea’s surface.  The Nautilus project, in which scientists are resident in an underwater laboratory off the coast of Florida, has produced a wealth of scientific discoveries.  Unfortunately, it faces closure because of budget cuts.  A shame, when there is so much more to be learned that could be vital to the world’s economies and the health of the planet.  For example, what will be the effect of global climate change on the ocean, its geography and its inhabitants?  What can the nations do to adapt to these changes?  When we consider the wealth lying beneath the sea and the part that the oceans play in the ecology of the planet, we see the need to continue and accelerate oceanographic research.

The Presidential Race--2012

I am tuning out all political messages until the conventions are over and we see more serious campaigning.  What we see now, on both sides, is negative and mostly mindless rhetoric.  It is based on appeal to followers, not anyone who wishes to think independently.  Major national challenges are met, not with specific ways of meeting them, but with burning criticism of the other party or candidate.  So why should I make my election decisions based on the way each side bashes the other?

Yes, I’m judgmental, but I think I have a glimmer of understanding.  The issues are complex.  To research a single issue, e.g. job creation, is laborious.  We can look at the Great Depression and everything that was done, without immediate results, to get the economy back on its feet—soft money, hard money, stimulus.  Is there a politician alive who has all of the answers?  Then add all the important issues, and it is a staggering task to understand them all.  The questions are so deep that it is easier to pick our favorite and follow him or her—just as we do with our favorite sports team.  Democracy places a great burden on its citizens—much greater than what was conceived by our founders, I think.

Why do I think that the conventions will change the politicking?  First, each side will establish its platform—a set of its principles and priorities.  This should force specifics on how the candidate will approach the challenges.  But more important, there will be the debates.  Let’s hope that the moderators will direct the debates to intelligent, open and truthful discussion that will help all voters to make enlightened decisions regardless of party attachment.

After the debates, the pundits will go on endlessly about who won.  Again, time to turn off.

  

A Robotic Car ?

Google recently demonstrated a self-driving car and reported having driven its fleet of such cars 20,000 miles without an accident.  The operator sits in the driver’s seat, but the car operates, navigates, avoids other vehicles, avoids pedestrians and parks by itself.  Nevada has issued the first license for a robotic car.  The California Senate has passed legislation establishing safety standards for self-driving cars, a first step in licensing.  Is this a curiosity or a thing of the future?

I, the eternal skeptic, ask why such a car?  What good is it?  Who would want it?  But then, I’m the guy, a while back, who thought there would never be a reason for a computer in every home.  So what do I know?  Best to keep an open mind to this new thing.

Safety is a major advantage.  Electronic sensors and decision-making algorithms when properly developed can be much faster and more reliable than a human’s reaction.  But, you ask, what about the idiots (sorry—other drivers who are tailgating, lane switching, inebriated, sleepy, or distracted) in non-robotic cars?  Well, the idea is to protect number 1 from being one of the 30,000 annual highway fatalities.  And the more self-driven cars on the road the safer it should be for all.

 

The morning commute is a time when it would be good to have the car drive itself while you have that second cup of coffee, read the newspaper, make notes on the day’s plans at work, apply make-up or make those important phone calls.  Yes, I know, there are people doing that now.  But since their cars don’t really drive themselves, they create a safety hazard.

A person with impairments that preclude normal drivers’ licensing--vision, limb malfunction, etc--would find a great boost to quality of life to be able to get around independently.  Those or us not so impaired have difficulty fully comprehending this freedom.

Traveling in a self-driving car on a road trip with friends or family would allow all to enjoy the scenery and communicate without the need for intense road concentration.  (Of course, the kids might still  be zombies with their video games and smart phones, but we can always hope.)

Who knows whether any of these scenarios will create the impetus for bringing robotic cars into production and the market?  But it might be like in the movie Field of Dreams which has the famous line, “build it and they will come.”  Or in this case, “build it and they will use it.”

The gamblers

Are they still doing it?  Is JPMorgan Chase’s 2 billion plus loss from playing Las Vegas games with derivatives a warning that the big banks could come to the taxpayers again looking for a bailout?  Granted JPM’s loss, even combined with the 16 or 17 billion stock decline in the first few days, is not large in terms of their capitalization; nevertheless it is disturbing to see the reckless investing carefully hidden from stockholders.  Wasn’t that what caused the financial meltdown in 2008? 

In 2008 when the banks were taking the economy into the sewer with their foolish gambling, we were told that they were “too big to fail” and therefore the taxpayers must bail them out.  That was welfare—what else could we call it?  Well, maybe socialism.  And isn’t it ironic that when welfare reform was enacted in the 90’s, it didn’t apply to corporations—just individuals?

Since 2008, the banks, particularly JPM, have grown.  If they were too big to fail then, surely they still are.  It’s too bad that when they came to us for a bailout, we couldn’t have forced a breakup into smaller entities, not so internationally intertwined.  Then the free market would be doing the policing—if the banks did dumb things, they could face bankruptcy, not welfare.

OwensValley--Its Shame and Fame

I recently visited the Owens Valley on the eastern slope of the Sierras to put myself in this area of conflicts of the past and attempt to get a feeling for its history. Geographically, the Owens Valley lies between the Sierras and White mountains starting at Olancha just south of Owens Lake and continuing northward for 100 miles. The valley has the stark beauty of the high desert, combined with vistas of the snow-capped Sierra Nevada. Its history could cover volumes, but a few highlights became obvious from my visit there combined with some reading.

The Indian Wars     The Paiutes and other Native American tribes had occupied this desert area for countless ages when Americans settlers began moving there in the 1860’s. The Americans brought their cattle that grazed on the native vegetation. (Looking at it today makes me wonder how good the grazing was.) While the two groups coexisted peacefully for a time, the Americans’ incursion on the land caused problems for the natives. The settlers’ cattle ate the plants that the natives depended on for food. A flood in the winter of 1861-62 resulted in game being driven away and other hardships for the natives. Reports tell of starving natives stealing the settlers’ cattle leading to armed conflict between the two groups. In 1863 the U.S. Army sent forces into the area and drove the Native Americans out of the valley. Hardly a proud event in our history!

The Los Angeles Water Wars    In the late 1890’s the growth of Los Angeles was clearly limited by availability of water. Mayor Fred Eaton and his Chief of the Department of Water and Power, William Mulholland, planned to bring water from the Owens River, 220 miles to the north of dry Los Angeles. These two methodically acquired major land and water rights, some by normal land purchases and some, as reports state, by subterfuge and coercion. Farmers in the Owens Valley protested, but in the end Los Angeles won. The California Aqueduct was built and began operation in 1913.

Dry-up of the Owens Valley     The flow of water to Los Angeles soon dried up the agricultural areas where crops had been grown with a abundance of sun and a shallow water table. Farmers attempted to sabotage the Aqueduct repeatedly but were suppressed. Owens Lake, once covering 100 square miles and as much as 50 feet deep, became a dry alkaline sink. As I stood there looking over this expanse of white powder, I tried to picture the turn of the last century when steamships carried silver and other ores across this lake from the Cerro Gordo mines to the town of Cartago where it was loaded on wagons for transport to Los Angeles.

Father Crowley    Against the despair that overcame the farmers who lost their livelihood when the water disappeared, a voice rang out with hope. This “desert priest” traveled the length of the Owens Valley encouraging the farmers to adapt to the situation and develop tourism to take the place of the lost farming. The area began to develop its potential for hunting, fishing, skiing, hiking, camping and mountain climbing. A memorable event was his celebration of mass on the summit of Mount Whitney. Truly he was a hero in a time of need. Crowley Lake on the eastern edge of the Sierra and Father Crowley Point in Death Valley were named in his honor.

Manzanar    This area north of Lone Pine was irrigated in the latter part of the 19th century for growing apples. The land produced good crops of apples until the irrigation water was diverted to the California Aqueduct. It then returned to its desert nature. Then at the beginning of World War II,the U.S. Government took people of Japanese descent, immigrants and U.S. citizens, from their homes and placed them in “relocation camps.” Manzanar was selected as one of the camps and eventually was “home” to 10,000 persons. I studied the pictures, memorabilia and writings in the Eastern California Museum in Independence and was overcome by a feeling of sadness that such a thing happened in our country. Later, I drove through Manzanar and saw the markers for the streets on which barracks were hastily built. It was a sobering experience. A video depicting life in the camp can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqd-Kh_zpdA

Against the shame that was Manzanar, a form of heroism prevailed. The people confined there kept the camp orderly, raised vegetables and provided a school for their children. The baseball games played by the young men was a source of inspiration to young and old. Above all, the people maintained a sense of dignity.

Restoration Begins    Driving along Owens Lake toward Lone Pine, I thought I saw dark veins throughout the white powder. I looked again. Water? Could it be? I later learned that in 2007, the courts ordered Los Angeles Water and Power Division to partially re-fill the lake by diverting water from the aqueduct. The reason was to control the dust that blew from the lake bottom and polluted a large area. The project is still in progress, but some ecological benefits have been realized, including a return of several bird species.

Is there a lesson to be learned from the Owens Valley experience? I think it is a paraphrasing of Winston Churchill’s statement: We must understand the mistakes of the past in order to avoid making them again.

Income tax blues

Just finished paying my income tax. Ugh! What a chunk of money that I would have rather used to buy stuff for me. Shall I join the army of tax grumblers who resent “their money taken from them” by the government? Shall I grumble about the purported 50 per cent of the U.S. population that pays no income tax?
What? Fifty per cent--how can that be? I don’t think that it’s just those who “forgot” to pay their taxes like Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle and possibly many thousands like them still under the radar screen. Face it, that 50 percent must be made up of millions of very low income citizens.
We can easily do the numbers. One is required to pay income tax if his/her income exceeds the standard deduction plus personal exemption. Looking at the 2011 tax tables, this would mean that a single person starts paying taxes on an annual income of $9400; a family of four would start paying taxes on an income of $26,400—barely above the poverty level defined as $22,314. Some large families might be more exempted from paying income tax due to the Earned Income Credit, but they are still not living in luxury.
Think about those numbers. How can a family of four earning under $26,400 provide for the health care needs, college education and retirement of the parents in addition to the other costs of living? Or how can a single man or woman earning under $9400 afford to acquire the skills needed to upgrade his or her earning power? If we really have half of our population living below those incomes, are we not a banana republic?
Aside from compassion that we might have for low income people, the effect on the economy of that many low income people is detrimental. If this segment of the population could have more income, it could spend more for goods and services made by our economy. This would create jobs and make the economy prosper and grow.
Considering all this,I won’t grumble; I keep quite a bit of my income, around 91 per cent. (Which, by the way, is income I might not have earned if I didn’t live in a country with such a dynamic and balanced economy). Furthermore, if the Government relied on our taxes to pay for its expenses, my tax bill would be a lot higher; but 35 per cent of Government’s expenses are paid for by borrowing and passed down to my descendents to repay. Shame!

The Tale of a Dog

This is the story of a lost dog and questions about human behavior. It began when, walking our dog Petey, a little Jack Russell followed us. Approaching home, this dog followed us up the walk. Concerned about street traffic, I decided to invite her in and try to find her home. The way that she accepted my invitation and food and water made us think that here is the world’s cleverest moocher or a truly lost dog. Although a little frightened at first, she showed signs of having come from a home of love and care. She had no collar or license. We posted “Found Dog” posters around town but there was no owner response.

People in town told us that quite obviously people from out of town come here and drop off cats and dogs that they don’t want to keep any longer, hoping that someone would take them in. This made me furious and prompted me to write this letter to the editorial pages of the local newspapers.

***

“Recently we have observed a rash of stray dogs and cats showing up in Los Alamos. (It probably happens in other communities as well.) It appears that people drive in from surrounding communities to “dump” their pets that they no longer want to care for. For anyone who has done that, we have a question: What were you thinking?

Think about an abandoned pet, frightened and confused, darting back and forth trying to find its way home. Later, hunger adds to the fear and confusion. And eventually this pet may have an excruciating death under the wheels of a car or be torn apart by coyotes. This was your pet, your friend, the one who thinks you are the most wonderful being in the world. How could you?

There may be reasons why someone can’t care for a pet—financial and other. In such cases, please…please take the pet to the county animal shelter where it will be fed and safe and have a good chance of finding a new home with caring people.”

***

Of course the letter wasn’t expected to help find the little Jack Russell a home, but it was a release for my anger. In the meantime, our guest, now known as Lady, made herself at home and showed us a lot of friendship and signs of having been well trained and cared for.

We contacted the animal shelters and the volunteer dog rescue societies. It was a learning process. The volunteer societies promise not to euthanize their animals, but were all filled. The County shelters will “make every possible effort” to find a good home for the pets. But one cannot be blind to the whole picture. No pet lover wants to think about a healthy pet being put down. But not all dogs are as adoptable as “those cute puppies.” Yes, the puppies adopted so eagerly and often returned when an inexperienced owner learns everything that is required in having a dog.

The shelter was not to be the next chapter in Lady’s life although we took her there to be evaluated, get rabies shots and a health certificate. But we didn’t want to take on the responsibility of another dog. So she now resides with us as we patiently look for that good home that she deserves.

The Growing Software Monster--or Genie?

About 30 years ago, I managed a program for development of a military system with an embedded microprocessor. I asked the engineers when the software which controls the system would be ready. A senior staff scientist told me, “software is never complete.” My reaction was somewhere between annoyance and disbelief. How could I explain this to the management to which I reported?

As time went on, I came to realize the truth of that remark. There may be problems in the initial release of the software (“bugs” we used to call them) that require rewriting a portion of the code. Sometimes there are several shortcomings requiring a new version. And frequently the designers discover new things that can be done with the software and prepare a major program upgrade. I suspect that some upgrades are mostly cosmetic where the suppliers have found this a means of increasing revenue. But in most cases, it would be difficult to find a point in time where the software is fully mature and not changeable.

The expanding use of computer control is another phenomena. Almost any product more complex than a can opener might be software controlled. (Whoops, I’m not sure that there aren’t software-controlled can openers). Airplanes fly and monitor their vitals with software; electricity flows on the grid under software control; the list is endless. A statement was made recently that a Honda Civic has more computing power than the Mercury spacecraft that made the first orbit of the earth in 1962 had. But that’s a “ho-hum” compared with some of the software capabilities at the consumer level. For example, the Highlight app can tell you on your tiny hand held device when a person selected as your friend is near by. (Not a critical thing in my mind, but I might be behind the times).

From all of this, there is bad news and good news. The bad news is that we frequently must buy new software to replace obsolescence in the amazing things that our computers, tablets, communicators, etc do. The good news—from the standpoint of the economy—is the growing number of job opportunities. Among these are the high-skill jobs such as system designers, which require unique creativity, independent thinking and often multi-discipline knowledge. These high skill individuals are vital because they create the product and market which results in new jobs at all levels.

In spite of mass unemployment, industry leaders complain about the lack of applicants for high-skill job openings such as software system designers. This raises the question of where these highly skilled persons will come from. Will our schools provide the inspiration to the young people of our citizenry to acquire the top skills needed for economy advancement? Will the foreign students, often driven by hunger, be able to remain here and contribute to our economy when they finish their studies? These are questions to ponder.

PACs and Super PACs

Vast sums of money will flow in the 2012 election through political action committees (PACs) and super PACs. The Christian Science Monitor (2/7/2012) estimates that each of the two major parties will raise and spend a half a billion dollars during the 2012 election year in super PACs, in addition to the direct campaign contribution which are limited to $2500 per donor. A 2010 Supreme Court decision makes it possible to bypass the $2500 per person donation limit in a Super PAC which has no limit but prohibits the Super PAC from coordinating directly with the candidate. WHAT?

The logic of this decision is hard to understand, but I guess it was based on Constitution-granted freedom of speech. The decision further granted the same rights of free speech to organizations and corporations as to individuals.

One might ask what these donors will get for their bucks. Is it the satisfaction of making a noble sacrifice to assure we have the best possible government? Or do the donors expect to buy something to their advantage with that money? I leave that question as rhetorical.

But I can predict this: This money will bring us a cacophony of negative campaign ads which say little about the specifics of either party’s agenda. Why negative? It appears that most voters are quasi committed to party or candidate. Wresting their loyalty away is more readily done with negative rather than positive cajoling.

When the election is over and the winners decided, the PAC money will be spent or mostly so. The temporary jobs will be over and most of the media’s balance sheets will look better than the previous years’. The winning candidates will deny that PAC money was responsible for their win. Many of the losers will bemoan the larger funds that their opponents spent. And it may become known that social media—Facebook, Twitter, etc—will have been a more important factor in the election results than the conventional media. (Think Arab spring).

My thoughts to Sheldon Adelson, Charles and David Koch, George Soros and the dozens of secret big-bucks donors, isn’t there a better way to spend that money? Maybe it could be invested in some factory capital improvements to permit jobs to be brought back to the U.S. Or maybe it could provide venture capital for entrepreneurs with ideas for new products or services. Investment in the U.S. economy can bring profits to the investor and long term benefits to us all.

If these hills could speak...

….what stories they could tell.

Have you ever stood somewhere away from the urban area and looked around wondering about people whohad been there before? Twenty, 100 or 200 years ago? And then, maybe you looked
for signs of someone having been there—initials carved on a tree, a discarded bottle, or a lost button. And if lucky enough to see any clue, did you let your imagination paint a picture of someone who might have stood on this same spot?

The photograph on this page is a mark on the landscape that has remained for well over a century and is wrapped in a rich history. It is a railroad track bed and the opening for a bridge that was part of the Pacific Coast Railroad that operated from 1876 to 1933 and terminated in Los
Olivos. The bridge (trestle) is long gone but the roadbed has withstood nature’s erosion.

When I first learned what this landmark was, I was intrigued. I read everything I could find including The Pacific Coast Railroad by K. E. Wescott and C. H. Johnson. These good escriptions
piqued my interest in the people who traveled on and operated these trains. What might have been their reasons for travel? And what were their hopes, dreams, joys, sorrows? Some of
the secrets exist in recorded history, but most are sealed forever and can only be simulated by one’s imagination.

This railroad on California’s central coast mirrors hundreds of places throughout the country. For economy or other reasons, many rail lines were abandoned, but some track beds remain. Some are hiking, cross country skiing or snowmobile trails; others have been obliterated by urban development or eroded by forces of nature. The railroads opened the country to population and industry. The remaining traces of roadbeds are monuments to the development and growth of the country. The people traveling might have been immigrants from Europe eager to claim homestead land, wealthy people traveling to winter havens in their private cars, or hoboes (many who were sons of “respectable” parents) during the Great Depression looking for almost anything.

As a writer, I am motivated to learn as much as possible about these rail lines and let my imagination take me further into the secrets held in the land.

A new cold war?

Among the things for us to worry about this year are Iran and its antics—anti-west rhetoric, development of a nuclear arms capability, suppression of human rights and collusion with societies fostering terrorism. Debates over what to do embraces ideas ranging from sanctions to air strikes to ground warfare. I think we’re too war-weary for another ground war in the mid east, and air strikes are estimated to only set back the nuclear effort a few years.

The reality is that we are facing cold war 2. There are similarities to the cold war with the Soviet Union. Both presented a nuclear arms threat; both had economically destructive plans against us (the Soviets with their Berlin blockade and Iran with its threat to close the Hormus Strait.) Both strove for domination (the Soviets for world domination, Iran for Mideast domination). Another cold war is a frightening and gloomy prospect—or is it?

During the last cold war, our military and space technology sprang forward with spectacular results in our struggle to contain the Soviets. We were motivated. We developed capabilities such as surveillance from space and weapons delivery that outstripped the Soviets’ capability. Much of these advances depended on new technologies that eventually found their way into consumer products that improved our comfort, safety and enjoyment of life. The best example is large-scale integration of electronics—necessary for military and space programs but also a backbone of personal computers, mobile phones, cameras and a host of personal electronic devices. Much of the cold war saw high employment and a growing economy. It was also a period of rich scientific discovery and social advancement. Because of assured mutual destruction, there was no nuclear war. And the forty-year confrontation led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

One can wonder if Cold War 2 will be the stimulus to get us out of our national laziness and lethargy and get us innovating, investing and growing as we did during the earlier cold war.