I got really frustrated with my classmates after September 11, 2001. Couldn't they do basic arithmetic? That fall, I was still studying electronics engineering, a math-intensive program. I'd just gotten over the shock of realizing I was actually pretty good at algebra.

When I heard my classmates start saying how afraid they were to travel, I really couldn't believe it. I kept thinking, What a bunch of cowards! Less than a month after 9/11, I flew to Denver and spent ten glorious days in the Rockies. The worst problem I had during the whole trip was mild altitude sickness (and I got that on foot). Not long after, I flew to Newark. Still no problems—and no fear. I'm not an exceptionally tough guy. Far from it.

I'd done the arithmetic.

At the time of the attacks, there were about 10,000 planes in the air worldwide. Terrorists hijacked 4 of them. Odds: 1 in 2500.

8 million people in Manhattan. 3000 fatalities. Odds: 1 in 2666. Even for the people in the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks—about 40,000—the likelihood of getting out alive was about 92.5%. Obviously, on most days, the odds are much, much better.

This is not to diminish the horror of the attacks, or to disrespect the terrible loss suffered by the families of the victims. I grieved for those people. I felt shock, anger, then sadness.

But I didn't—and don't—feel a bunch of fear. Maybe I didn't watch enough TV that day, or maybe I don't watch enough TV in general. What I do see, I don't take all that seriously.

Maybe I've always trusted the numbers too much. But to me, the numbers represent facts, reality. TV news hype represents a hyper-sensationalized worst-case scenario that's not likely to happen to you or me. Ever.

Recently, I saw Bowling for Columbine and found it to be right on target (no pun intended). In Canada, a nation of 30 million, there are about 7 million guns and about 165 gun murders each year (according to the film). That's about 1 gun for every 4 people, about 1 gun murder for every 180,000 people. In the USA, we have 280 million people, 200 million guns, and about 10,000 gun murders. 1 gun murder for every 28,000 people. That's over 6 times worse than Canada—in fact, it's the worst gun murder rate in the industrialized world—but still, it's extremely unlikely you or I will be gunned down. Despite these realities, Americans are afraid, so they keep buying more guns and ammo; ironically, that keeps making our society a more dangerous place to live. Which makes us more afraid.

Why are we all so afraid? What do we fear?

According to Michael Moore, we fear the Other. We are xenophobic to the core; we have been from the beginning. We especially fear black people, but also red people, yellow people, brown people... Which is dumb.

Young black males (18-24) commit about 30% of the murders in the US. Which means about 73,999 of every 74,000 people won't be gunned down by a young black male this year. Pretty good odds, I'd say.

We'd improve the odds if we stopped displaying so much fear and started working—together, with all the peoples in our society— towards social justice and equality.

Then maybe we'd realize that, statistically, the most dangerous killer in our society is laziness: the top 3 causes of death can all be largely prevented by proper diet and regular exercise. But still you sit there eating a cheeseburger. Aren't you terrified? Heart disease, cancer and stroke kill more than half the people that die each year. Logically, those should be scary. The color of someone's skin shouldn't be.

FDR was right: fear itself is the scariest thing of all. Just do the math.

Posted by Me at 13:51 link

Tired of hearing that? Then get involved! Because, like a giant toothache, the current situation isn't going to get any better until we do something about it. Here's something any US resident can do.

From Union of Concerned Scientists:

Our environment faces many risks, but few as large in scale as global warming. Global warming is caused when we emit gases—primarily CO₂ from burning fossil fuels-that blanket the earth and trap heat. The latest climate models anticipate 2.5 to 10.4 degrees warming this century, and the warming in the U.S. could be as much as 50 percent more than this average. That means that during our grandchildren's lifetime Chicago will feel like Texas, and Boston like Atlanta. Extreme heat, coastal erosion, increased storms and flooding, and longer droughts will all potentially wreak havoc on our lives. With only one degree warming to date, we have already begun to see many indicators. Responsible action is needed today to avoid dramatic climate change.

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) recently announced a historic global warming bill, the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA), that is a good first step in addressing this human-made problem. The bill places mandatory, but modest, limits on the largest emitters of heat-trapping gases, such as power plants and oil refineries. It also allows for 'market-based' methods that help industry achieve reductions at the lowest cost.

Sens. McCain and Lieberman plan to offer the CSA as an amendment to the energy bill currently under debate in the U.S. Senate. A vote on this amendment could come as early as June 2. Because energy use accounts for 85% of U.S. emissions of CO₂ and the other heat-trapping gases, it is irresponsible to pass energy legislation that ignores this problem.

While the CSA is not expected to prevail in this vote, a good showing would accomplish several important goals: First, it would strongly position the CSA for rapid progress in the future. Second, it would forever eliminate the widely touted but inaccurate notion that the Senate is unanimously opposed to setting limits on heat-trapping gas emissions. Finally, it would directly challenge the Bush administration's "too little, too late" policy of waiting until 2012, when this administration is out of office, to consider moving beyond voluntary-only action on global warming. In short, a strong showing for the CSA in the upcoming vote will dramatically improve the climate debate within the Congress.

To justify its opposition to mandatory emissions reductions, the Bush administration claims they would be too costly. The administration's economic arguments fail to account for global warming costs such as rising sea levels, extreme weather, and loss of biodiversity. They also ignore our responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren with a healthy environment.

Please take action to curb global warming by urging your Senators to vote to add the Climate Stewardship Act to the energy bill.

Note: the phrase "global warming" can be misleading. Due to complex, insufficiently-understood feedback mechanisms in the earth's oceans and atmosphere, we really can't predict the ultimate effects of increased atmospheric CO₂ levels. Some folks love hot weather. Global warming? Fun in the sun all year long? Bring it on! Scientists at Wood's Hole have some sobering news for these people. Yikes!

Here's more sobering news:

An examination of Earth's "vital signs" reveals alarming trends of poverty, disease and environmental decline that threaten global stability, according to the Worldwatch Institute's annual report on trends shaping the world's future. <Read the full article>.

We must always act to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity for our citizens and for citizens throughout the world.

Here's another bad joke (too bad it's true): Congress just approved an increased tax incentive to encourage SUV purchases. Bush supports the measure.

Howard Dean, on the other hand, takes a strong stand in favor of working with other countries—now—to address global climate change; he also offers practical solutions to a host of other environmental problems.

Alternative energy is very important; wind and solar and so forth. Two things we ought to do immediately: if you had 10% ethanol in everybody's gas tank in this country, you would reduce oil use by 5%. That's an enormous amount. If you applied an SUV mileage standard same as the rest of the fleet, in a single year you would save the entire amount of oil that is purported to be in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Conservation matters because it changes our relationships in the Middle East; it allows us to defend ourselves and obviously reduces the price of oil, which is a huge drag on the economy. Certainly, better SUV mileage standards could be put in place by next year. Next year three companies—Ford, Lexus, and Toyota—are going to have hybrid SUVs that will meet mileage standards and exceed them. So you could easily do this in a short period of time.

--Howard Dean, Iowa Public Television appearance, 3/14/03

Get involved! I promise I'll quit bitching—as soon as the problems are solved.

Posted by Me at 22:18 link

For about two years, my only motorized transport was a motorcycle, a 1981 Honda CB750F Super Sport. What a sweet bike! I used to feel very smug about my environmental savvy—the bike got 40 miles to the gallon. I felt very self-satisfied until a friend pointed out that I was getting 40 miles per gallon per person, while two people riding in her Acura Integra (30 mpg) would get 60 miles per gallon per person.

Consider the implications.

Even a rotten gas hog like the Ford Excursion can be relatively environmentally friendly—if all nine possible passengers (including driver) are packed into it. The fuel economy for the passengers in this beast would then be a respectable 90 miles per gallon per person.

But as this excellent review of the Excursion points out, "who transports eight passengers on a regular basis besides airport shuttles and couples doing their part to overpopulate the earth?" Besides, seven of those passengers would fit a lot more comfortably into a Honda Odyssey, where they'd get over 140 miles per gallon per person.¹

Reality is that most vehicles on the American road—whether motorcycles, compact cars, mid-sized cars, luxury cars, minivans, trucks or SUVs—contain one or two passengers. For one or two people to drive regularly in a vehicle that gets 10 mpg is, in my view, immoral.²

Why?

Cars pollute. Consider only carbon dioxide. Every gallon of gasoline burned puts a staggering 20 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The average car, which gets 27.5 mpg and travels 15,000 miles annually, pumps over 10,000 pounds of CO₂ into the air. Multiply that 10,000 pounds by the number of cars on the road in the US—about 100 million—and you get 500 million tons of CO₂.

Early evidence indicates that, besides contributing to global climate change, increased CO₂ levels are directly harmful to ecosystems.

Until we develop viable alternatives to fossil fuels, such as hydrogen, conservation is vital. Beyond the 100 million cars in the United States, developing countries look to the US as a model for their development. If China and India had the same cars per capita ratio as the US, and the same average fuel economy, these two nations would pump an unsustainable 4 billion tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere each year (remember, too, that car exhaust contains a host of other pollutants). US fuel economy has actually declined over the past 10 years, as increasing numbers of consumers chose SUVs. If we offer this model to developing nations, the problem will be that much worse.

Tuesday I made the following statement about SUVs:

Here's more evidence that SUVs are for idiots only. Seriously, if you have one, sell it. Better yet, recycle it! Anyone who still regards them as status symbols needs a major values adjustment. A lot of us seethe with rage every time we see one of the damned things.

• SUVs generally get terrible gas mileage. As outlined above, fuel economy has tremendous implications for the planet's environment. Each of us has a responsibility to the rest of us. Even if you actually need to transport several people around most of the time, the moral decision is to purchase the most efficient vehicle possible.

• Safety is one of the main reasons people want SUVs. The truth is that SUVs are unsafe for their own occupants, and even more so for the occupants of other vehicles. Many mid-sized cars—and even some small cars—are safer than the safest SUV. The safest cars of all time are, in fact, all cars.

• SUVs are driving up insurance rates for everyone.

• Beyond these objective reasons, I believe SUVs make our society less friendly and more confrontational. I have no facts or figures to support this, beyond my personal experience. Driving 50,000+ miles a year for a living the past several years, I've observed SUV drivers consistently behaving more aggressively and less considerately than other drivers.

It was also pointed out to me that selling one's SUV would not reduce the numbers of SUVs on the road. True. It would be better to recycle it, but no one's going to "recycle" a $10,000 asset. Selling it could still make a positive difference, though. If someone buys your used SUV instead of buying a new one, that's better because it's not stimulating new production.

However, the point is not to buy one in the first place. Perhaps I should have said, "if you're thinking of buying an SUV, think again!" Think a little smarter this time around. Think a little kinder.

I still want my bike back...

² Immoral? People often seem confused about what I could possibly mean by that. My basis for determining whether an action is moral or immmoral is whether the action in question causes benefit or harm to other living beings, especially to humans. Acts that cause benefit are moral; acts that cause harm are immoral. That's the core belief on which my whole value system is based. Please let me know if you find fault with it. <back>

Posted by Me at 21:54 link

Science fiction writer Ted Sturgeon postulated that "90% of everything is crap". I've always found it to be true when it comes to songs, movies and books. When it comes to people, though, I believe that everyone has a spark of the divine in them; I believe that most people try to do the right thing most of the time.

Still, given the chance, many people will take the easy way out. Web loggers illustrate this beautifully! Many bloggers, instead of generating original content, which would be hard, instead spin a web of links to other people's work, spicing the web of links with comments to create an illusion of originality. Mea culpa! Even the best do it on occasion. Some do it all the time.

But to dismiss all web loggers as leeching hacks would be terribly unfair to the growing number of excellent writers using the medium. People should be judged as individuals, each person for their own strengths and failings.

To judge black folks or affirmative action for the actions of Jayson Blair would be as wrong—and as dumb—as to judge white folks, or the system of privilege and influence they enjoy, for the actions of the large number of well-known white plagiarists, such as Stephen Glass and Stephen Ambrose and Patricia Smith and Jacob Epstein and Ruth Shalit...

Would it make sense to judge the system of white privilege for failure of Blair's editors to check his facts, or to judge Blair's readers for believing what they read in the newspaper? Surely the case highlights the gullibility of all races—and the basic fact that people believe what they want to believe.

What bothers me most about the Jayson Blair case, is that, knowing that people believe what they want to believe, it appears what people want to believe is that minorities are gaming affirmative action and diversity initiatives at the expense of white folks, and that any minority who needs affirmative action to succeed today is inferior.

Many have been saying for years that affirmative action and other such measures have outlived their usefulness. The reality is that 35 years of affirmative action have not leveled the playing field. Inequality and discrimination were institutionalized for hundreds of years and the effects are still potent today.

The "neo-bigots" and "yuppie racists" who have been so quick to denounce affirmative action because of Blair would strongly deny that they're bigots or racists. Many of them probably wouldn't even mind if their child brought home a black date—provided of course, that the date was from a wealthy family and didn't act too black. A nice young fellow like Bryant Gumbel or Colin Powell or Tiger Woods.

These days overt bigotry is confined to the lower classes. In the American North, this means the teeming hordes of Howard Stern fans, in the South, the "trailer trash" element. Even the confederate flag wavers claim not to be racists. But a case like Blair's shows the truth: some white folks are in serious denial about the state of racial inequality in this country. Today, that denial may well be the most dangerous form of racism in our society.

Jayson Blair is a young man with problems. That he got away with inventing so much "news" reflects badly on him, on his editors, and on the system of fact-checking used at the New York Times. If, however, it makes us more skeptical about what we read, I say that's a good thing.

Hey, 90% of the stuff in the newspaper that isn't made up is still crap.

Posted by Me at 22:22 link

Far too much happened today, so I'll just hit a few highlights:

Billionaire investor and activist George Soros was all over the news today, proving that you don't automatically lose your conscience if you become wealthy. Get 'em!

• George Soros sells his greenbacks.

• Soros and Buffett speak out against Bush tax cut.

• Soros speaks out for better Iraq administration.

Here's more evidence that SUVs are for idiots only. Seriously, if you have one, sell it. Better yet, recycle it! Anyone who still regards them as status symbols needs a major values adjustment. A lot of us seethe with rage every time we see one of the damned things.

US House of Representatives passed an awful forests bill. Bush's deceptively-named "Healthy Forests Initiative" purports to protect homeowners against forest fires by thinning brush-clogged forests. In reality, the thinning would take place deep in the backcountry, far from people's homes, and would remove at least as many big, old trees as it would remove young trees and undergrowth. This bill is an ecological disaster — not the first or the last such disaster from this administration. Most alarmingly, the bill would stifle public comment and curtail reviews of logging plans. Click here to learn more. The Senate will consider this bill soon; I'll provide a link for you (US residents) to contact your Senators when the time comes.

Here's another example of bad environmental policy: cutting back oil platform inspections.

The administration's misguided money policy is strangling the US economy. Here's more evidence: enormous and growing budget deficits. How much worse does it have to get before people see the light?

Speaking of worse, it turns out the ridiculous tax cut will cost more than expected.

Perhaps worst of all, the Senate voted to allow the study of creating new nuclear weapons, "little bitty" ones that might be small enough to be politically "useable".

Some of today's news was good. Chocolate may extend your life. I speak from experience when I say that a life without chocolate would definitely seem longer.

A group of college students from Vermont are touring the country in a bus powered by vegetable oil. Check it out!

Howard Dean's coming on strong. Dean's growing popularity is easy to understand: he stands up proudly for what he believes in. Simple as that. That speaks to me, and to a lot of others who are disgusted with Democratic candidates who care more about getting elected than about doing what's right for America. Click here to join the Dean campaign, or just to learn more about Howard Dean.

Saturday, we drove up to Harriman State Park, about an hour north in New York State. A beautiful, semi-wild place, lots of woods and hills. Great trails, miles and miles and miles of trails. We walked a loop of about 7 miles. We'd planned a walk of about 5 miles, but managed to take a wrong turn in the confusing (to a Harriman newbie) network of crisscrossing paths.

We started from Elk Pen trailhead on the easy-to-follow, white-blazed Appalachian Trail. We slogged steeply uphill to a lake, too full from our Italian lunch to enjoy ourselves. The bugs (black flies, gnats, mosquitos) bugged us a little. We deliberately focused on our breathing and the beauty and it got better. After hanging out a bit at the lake, we walked a gentler ascent, past the infamous "Lemon Squeeze" to a rock scrambling passage (if it were rock climbing, I'd rate it 5.5 / 5.6, but it's more like a short bouldering exercise).

Here we turned back, then turned south on the red-blazed trail just like the map said. After a few minutes and some confusion ("Hey! Why are there green blazes, too?"), we met an Asian family, a young couple and their two kids; the man asked if I'd just come from a yellow-blazed trail. Nope. I pointed to the map — "I think we're here". He pointed to a different spot, alarmingly far from my guess: "No. We are here". I'm still not sure if he was right, but I'm now sure I was definitely wrong.

Fortunately, we soon came to a rock with "Times Square" helpfully painted on it. With a little map-consulting, compass-fiddling and conferring, we formulated a plan of action and headed up a trail. Oops. After less than a hundred yards, the compass told us that was exactly the wrong direction, so we about-faced and headed back past Times Square, up a ridge into an area cleared by fire only a couple of years before, now a mix of sparse brush, burned trees and bare rock. We saw chipmunks, a number of Turkey Vultures in one high spot, a not-too-shy doe. And what looked to be bear poop (but no bears).

We followed our plan of action, eventually turning onto a different trail and then, using basic point-to-point map & compass navigation, cutting off-trail to rejoin our original route. My friend stepped in a small hole — right next to a tree-hollow snakepit! Many blacksnakes, surprised to see us, too! Treading a little more carefully, we soon met our trail and headed car-ward.

We followed the well-marked trail past several junctions, up a bit, then down a very steep hill, running just a little (because it's fun!). All too soon, we reached Elk Pen. We drove back to Jersey for some delicious Mexican food, then home.

After a leisurely next morning and a good portion of the afternoon, I reluctantly drove back here to North Carolina. The dogs were glad to see me and that was mutual! Summer classes started today. (Sigh).

Posted by Me at 23:52 link

Psst. Hey — want to hear a secret? New Jersey is actually a nice place to live.

While 72 percent of New Jersey residents described their home state as "excellent" or "good" place to live, just 38 percent of those living elsewhere agreed.

I just spent another pleasant week in the Garden State, not all of it stuck in traffic.

Last Sunday, we went to Island Beach State Park, my favorite part (so far) of the Jersey shore. 10 miles of undeveloped barrier island. It would be perfect — if only they didn't allow cars on the beach! But driving on the beach is a "tradition" there, meaning the baby boomers' parents did it when they were kids, so the cars are here to stay until we get a clue. I'm not holding my breath.

Even with the 4wds and "Minnie" Winnebagos, it was wonderful to spend a foggy afternoon slogging through soft sand. We parked at the end of the paved road, then walked the 2 miles down to the south end of the island. Lots of people, locals mostly, fish right outside their cars; they set a number of lines, rest the long fishing rods in PVC pipe holders driven into the sand, then sit and wait for a bite. We saw one man, by himself, haul in about a 10-pounder. He didn't seem that happy.

We saw only a couple of other people walking. We had to watch out for traffic; there don't seem to be any traffic rules, but we stuck close to the parked cars and had no problems. At the south end we peered across the inlet, but the thick fog hid the picturesque lighthouse we knew to be just a few hundred yards away. We heard a fog horn, but later decided (by its direction) that it had to be coming from a boat in the ocean. A couple of small boats motored by quietly in the inlet, heading out to sea. We traipsed along the jetty for a bit (more carefully after I fell), then headed back up the beach.

We found fewer cars beyond where we'd entered the beach, just the loud, hypnotic roar of the high-tide surf. We still saw fisherman watching their lines beside their pickups, jeeps, RVs and SUVs, but fewer than we'd seen on the south end. The beach streched on for miles, straight as a ruler, roaring ocean on the right, plant-studded dunes on the left, soft beige sand in between. Swish, swish. Sort of like walking in snowshoes. Dreamy in the thick fog.

Finally, we decided to head back. We took a path over the dunes to the paved road. Took off our shoes and drained the sand. Lots of sand! Had the floaty feeling like after skating, or skiing. The hard ashphalt was less pleasant, less dreamy, but faster. The dunes muted the ocean's rhythmic roar, making conversation much easier. Too soon we were back to the car and off to a tasty Chinese lunch, then home.

I spent a lot of the week relaxing, i.e. doing next to nothing. Lots of web surfing and reading. Walked / ran in nearby Roosevelt Park. Watched a bunch of movies at home: Dr. Strangelove, Koyaanisqatsi, The Hudsucker Proxy, The Pink Panther Strikes Again. Saw the outstanding Bend It Like Beckham at the theater. Ate some fine food: Indian, Italian, Mexican, Malaysian, Thai.

To be continued...

Posted by Me at 14:16 link