HinesSight

Scientists agree: global climate change is real

It's been an unusually warm and dry November here in Oregon -- and the Pacific Northwest. Naturally this doesn't prove global warming is happening, but it's one more experiential piece of evidence.

Yet just as there still are people around who deny the Holocaust, global climate change skeptics continue to spout their anti-reality rhetoric.

Periodically I get comments from them on one of my climate change posts, such as "Global warming doubters deserve to be scorned."

Now, I appreciate the time and effort put in by the most recent commenter. And I dutifully took a look at the links he shared. However, I'm not impressed by what a few scientists say when their opinions go against the grain of the general scientific consensus.

This quotation from an article by Michael Shermer in Skeptic magazine is germane to my point:

Within all these fallacies of thinking about both evolution and the Holocaust, there is an assumption by the creationists and the revisionists that if they can just find one tiny crack in the structure the entire edifice will come tumbling down.

This is the fundamental flaw in their reasoning. The Holocaust was not a single event. The Holocaust was 10,000 events in 10,000 places, and is proved by 10,000 bits of data that converge to one conclusion.

Ditto with anthropogenic (human caused) global climate change.

On conservative talk radio I regularly hear blather from scientifically illiterate hosts about how it's been the coldest winter in some place since whenever, or how this or that glacier is growing rather than receding.

Big deal. This doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists agree that the Earth is warming, and humans have a lot to do with it.

Check out "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" in the highly-respected journal, Science.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

The above-mentioned commenter sent along a link to a ridiculous petition project. It claims that 31,072 American scientists have signed the climate-change denying petition, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds.

Whoopee.

So a bunch of people who aren't experts in climatology disagree with the real experts. I'm sure it'd be possible to find an equal number of Ph.Ds who don't believe in evolution. Further, the qualifications for signing the petition are pretty darn loose.

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

So a B.S. in chemistry earns you the right to spread your B.S. about a subject you know next to nothing about. Most appropriate.

If you've got doubts about whether anthropogenic global climate change is happening, get the facts from genuine experts. Like those who run the RealClimate web site, whose tag line is "climate science from climate scientists."

Look over some of the posts, such as "Mind the gap." You'll learn about the complexities of climate change science, which get glossed over by the simplistic global warming deniers.

I was amused by the lead paragraph in one of the It isn't happening! web sites.

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Oh, poor things. They can't get their pseudo-science through the peer-review standards that guard against garbage being published in reputable scientific journals.

This makes my point for me. Real climate change scientists agree that global warming is happening. Fake ones have a different opinion.

Hmmmmm. Should I go with real or fake? I choose real, because reality is preferable to illusion.

Dagwood's Blondie is a hottie

I don't know what this says about me, but I've just spent quite a bit of time burrowing through the Blondie comic strip archive looking for the hottest images of her.

For quite a while I've had a thing for Blondie. She's the most curvaceous chick on the mainstream comic pages.

She may have had breast implants, given her otherwise svelte shape, but who cares? And I'd prefer that she wear high heels around the house, but her tight skirts help make up for that fantasy lack.

I figured that if I Googled "Blondie comic hottie" I'd find lots of other guys who shared my passion for a comic strip character. Disturbingly, I didn't.

This told me that either I'm more atypically deranged than I thought, or I need to take the lead in showing my fellow Blondie-lusters that it's OK to come out of the closet.

Being an exhibitionist blogger (is there any other kind?), naturally I liked the second option.

One guy, at least, is in my corner. He wants to see Blondie naked.

"Rereading some old Blondie cartoons I remember how I was deeply in love with her for years. And how I at some point in my teenage years wanted to see her naked.

Still do I think. Although her neighbor, the brunette, is sexier. I wanna see both of them naked. Now!"

I assume he means Tootsie Woodley. Sorry, dude, I don't see her as sexier. No way. However, I'll admit to a preference for blondes (especially since my wife may read this post).

I agree with him, though, about the Blondie naked part.

It's doubtful that we'll ever see this in the newspaper. However, I managed to find someone who's gone part way toward fulfilling that guy's wish. Here's his before and after images.

Cool. I'm so jealous of Dagwood.

He doesn't deserve such a fine woman. He spends a lot of his at-home time napping, watching TV, taking baths, and scheming about how to get out and play golf.

Dagwood does do the dishes sometimes, though. Albeit with an ulterior motive.

I don't know what Blondie sees in him, but she can give Dagwood some good loving.

[Update: Dagwood, I apologize. I'd forgotten, or maybe never knew, that you were the son of a billionaire tycoon who gave up his inheritance to marry Blondie against your father's wishes. That's beautiful.]

I assume this was just a prelude.

Well, I suppose there are worse things for a 60 year old man to do than ogle a comic strip character.

Like, ogle Blondie's daughter. She's hot too.

Happiness is a warm MacBook laptop

Well, correct that title: a room temperature MacBook. Because so far as I can tell, my beloved new laptop never gets hot on me, as the bottom of my old IBM ThinkPad did.

She keeps her cool, and I don't know how. No fan noise. No ventilation slots. Just elegant, sweet, no-fuss, fun computing all day long.

Yes, I'm in love, as I explained here and here, and even agonized a bit about here.

Today, obsessive possessive romantic fool that I am, I fired up my MacBook's camera with the marvelous iMovie software and defended her honor.

I'd been called an "idiot" by a commenter on my first YouTube video. He semi-appropriately criticized me for comparing a new MacBook with a several year old ThinkPad.

After that I made another video comparing my beauty with a 2008 Lenovo IdeaPad. Naturally she also surpassed her younger competition.

But it still bothered me that some out in YouTube land didn't appreciate Ms. MacBook as much as they should. Hence, today's in-your-face (or rather, my-face) video.

I've answered a deep philosophical question: Can material things make you happy?

Yes. Even more...yes, yes, yes.

Ballroom Tango taking the lead from Argentine Tango

Only for Laurel and me, I have to say right off -- before the title of this post sends Argentine Tango aficionados into a frenzy. Many of those who dance the Argentine version of Tango are really into it, which is great.

What the world needs now, as always, is more dancing fools.

When the economic times are bad, troubles are easily forgotten when the music starts up and two bodies begin to move in harmony (or, in our case, semi-harmony).

We've just taken another turn on our dancing path.

After some West Coast Swing classes we jumped into Argentine Tango lessons for the better part of a year. Then we flipped to American Tango, the ballroom counterpoint to the greater closeness and smaller moves of Argentine Tango.

On my urging, we gave Argentine another try via some lessons offered by the Tango4Salem group that's started up in town. After making it through a beginner series, we moved on to the intermediate class.

I've learned a lot, as has Laurel. The basics of partner dancing, such as leading and following, apply to every style. The instructor, Elizabeth, pointed out that I'd been leading too much from the lower half of my body rather as a whole-person movement.

This went a long way toward explaining why our feet would get tangled at times. My legs would start moving before Laurel got the message from my chest where we were heading.

But insights like that had to be balanced against another fact: Argentine Tango is damn difficult. There's a reason we kept being told in our first exposure to the dance, "Argentine Tango is the Ph.D. of partner dancing."

It is, in our admittedly shallow exposure to some ballroom styles: Waltz, Foxtrot, Nightclub Two-Step, Swing, Salsa, and, of course, American Tango.

Like I said before:

I'm no ballroom dance expert, that's for sure. However, I can say from personal experience that if you've tried Argentine Tango and found it too difficult, given American Tango a try. There's more structure, as most patterns we've been taught hold to the eight counts in the basic movement.

Quick (Q) is one count. Slow (S) is two counts. The basic pattern is S, S, Q, Q, S (eight counts). A rock step also is S, S, Q, Q, S. But a box turn is Q, Q, S, Q, Q, S. Also eight counts, with a different beat.

I'm not at all musical; I'm a bit more mathematical. So my male brain resonates with the eight count patterns in beginning/intermediate American Tango. I can dance along softly muttering to myself, "quick, quick, slow, quick, quick, slow."

With Argentine Tango, I often was muttering also. However, it was more like "what the heck…now what?...oops, that didn't work…" Lora tells us that we'll eventually be able to throw Argentine moves into our American Tango. So all that earlier muttering won't be wasted.

Here's another description of the difference between Ballroom and Argentine Tango by someone who knows a lot more about dancing than I do. He makes some of the same points, though.

We're going to return to concentrating on American Tango and other ballroom dances now. It'll be possible to meld some of the Argentine Tango techniques we've learned into the ballroom style. Maybe someday we'll return to get our Ph.D., but for now elementary school feels more fun.

Tonight we finished up a four-week Basic Swing class at the RJ Dance Studio. It's been a kick (so to speak).

What I'm always struck by, when we learn a new dance, is how the first class or two is the most flowingly enjoyable. All I know is a few moves, so there isn't much decision-making for me as the leader. Option A, B, or C. That's about it.

With Argentine Tango, there's always a multitude of possibilities. It doesn't follow a defined rhythm, nor specified steps. Improvisation is the primary rule (or non-rule).

Dancing in this fashion is marvelous, when it works. However, it takes a lot more skill and experience than dancing rhythmically to mostly patterned moves.

Laurel and I enjoyed our final swing class tonight. Per usual, I did best when I did the least. We had the most trouble with what I think is called an "overhead slide." You've seen it -- looks way cool when it works, which much of the time it didn't for us.

Timing is sort of tough. Especially when you think about each move. "Let's see, slow, slow, quick, quick; raise both arms on second slow, step out on first quick, slide arms on second quick; or was it...?"

Then the clock hit 9:00. Quitting time. Swing music was still playing. I grabbed Laurel and gave it one more try, not thinking much about it.

"Hey, that felt good!" she exclaimed. "You do the best when you just do it."

Yes. Such is the never-ending lesson of dance. And of life.

Legislature should ignore Big Look Task Force

It's apparent that Oregon's Big Look Task Force shouldn't have much attention paid to its recommendations in the 2009 legislative session.

This group was supposed to step back and take, well, a big look at Oregon's land use system.

The notion was that Oregonians in Action and 1000 Friends of Oregon, the yin and yang of land use advocacy groups, would find common ground in reasonable changes that balanced individual property rights and communal environmental protection.

Didn't happen. Today's Salem Statesman Journal had a front page story on the Big Look recommendations, "Plan boosts local input on land use." 1000 Friends of Oregon doesn't like that notion. Neither do I.

You can read 1000 Friends' reasons here. They make good sense.

First and most important, where's the problem local control is supposed to solve? The Task Force has come up with a solution in search of a problem.

As the Oregon League of Conservation Voters says:

A widely-spread misconception repeated in today's Oregonian is that somehow our statewide land use system, which has state standards that guide local plans, is "one size fits all."

Our laws have different requirements for different types of farmland and forestland, different requirements for lands in the Willamette Valley and outside of it, different requirements for different size cities, and so forth. Five our 19 land use goals only apply to certain areas of the state.

The Oregonian article says that 1000 Friends of Oregon called the local control proposal "a very bad idea." So much for bringing opposing groups together. The Big Look Task Force has been casting its gaze mainly in one direction: more development on irreplaceable farm and forest lands.

Which its very own survey found is opposed by a clear majority of Oregonians. When asked, "Would you support using public money to permanently protect farm and forest lands from urban development?" almost twice as many (48%) said Yes rather than No (27%).

Those who attended Big Look Task Force meetings or filled out an online survey were even more enthusiastic about protecting resource lands: 60% to 29%.

Yet somehow the Task Force concluded that what Oregon needs now is more paving over of farm and forest land. Crazy.

As the 1000 Friends critique points out, remapping these resource lands is the wrong thing to do:

This proposal destabilizes Oregon’s outstanding agriculture economy at exactly the wrong time.  Agriculture is an ever-increasing economic engine, topping almost $5 billion in gross farm income in 2007.  Agriculture is responsible for over 10% of Oregon’s jobs and is the second largest traded-sector part of the economy.  And it has been amazingly stable and strong – growing almost every year for the past three decades, and in a variety of crops located in every part of the state:  wheat, nurseries products, livestock production, fruits & vegetables, orchard fruits and nuts, and more.

Oregon agriculture, unlike other sectors of the economy, is strong and will not abandon the state by moving operations overseas.  We should be thanking Oregon’s farmers, not putting their family businesses at risk by sweeping the deck clean of past experience with the planning tools the Task Force earlier determined work well.  Remapping is expensive, controversial, and will create years of unneeded turmoil and uncertainty in our rural communities.  We urge you to drop this concept.

Oregon agriculture has been changing with the times. Our neighborhood is fighting a proposed 217 acre Measure 37 subdivision that wants to "plant" 43 homes on high-value farmland.

Grass seed and Christmas trees used to be grown on properties like this one in the south Salem hills. Now vineyards dot the countryside along Liberty Road between our house and the Salem city limits. This shows that farmland needs to be protected, not remapped, because new and better uses for Oregon's agricultural lands keep being found.

The Big Look Task Force is bent on loosening Oregon's pioneering, and hugely successful, land use policies. My wife found that out when she tried to testify at a Big Look meeting and was disrespected.

If the Task Force truly was interested in reflecting the views of Oregonians, it would listen to them. Instead, it has produced proposed legislation that makes me wonder, "Who the heck ordered that up?"

The 2009 Legislature will have lots of serious problems to deal with. Land use isn't one of them. The Institute of Natural Resources at Oregon State University prepared a report for the Big Look Task Force that concluded, "Oregon's land use system is sound."

Every governmental task force likes to say, "Our report won't sit on a shelf and gather dust." Well, in this case that's just what should happen.

I'll end with a piece by Mitch Rohse, an experienced and respected land use planner. He explains more cogently than I have why the Big Look Task Force is on the wrong track.

Financial fear reflected in kitchen cupboard

Here's another unsettling leading indicator for the stock market: a large 50.8 oz. bottle of organic, extra virgin, first cold pressed olive oil that I managed to cram into our cupboard with about 1/8 inch to spare.

I usually buy another brand. In a smaller bottle.

But yesterday, on my weekly natural food store shopping expedition, I noticed that Napa Valley Naturals was on sale. I figured I could save almost ten dollars by buying super-sized olive oil.

This isn't like me. Not to that extent.

Laurel is picky about the taste of olive oil. We'd settled on Spectrum as a brand we liked. When I brought home the Napa Valley Naturals bottle, she said "Maybe it won't taste as good."

"But we saved ten bucks," I told her.

All over the country, I'm sure, people are acting similarly. I've always looked for a good deal, but never before have I felt so anxious about preserving our money -- because the stock market and housing bust has taken away such a big chunk of our net worth.

When I go to Starbucks now, usually I ask for a grande Pike Place cup of coffee rather than a venti skinny vanilla latte, my habitual drink. I'm saving $1.50 or so every time I feel a need for a caffeine fix.

That doesn't make a huge difference in our household budget, but it gives me a sense (illusory though it may be) of having some control over our financial future when I read headlines like today's "Markets dive in last hour, carving new lows."

Checking the New York Times web site a few hours later, I saw that the story had been replaced with "Stocks drop sharply and credit markets seize up."

Oh, thanks for the news. I was under the impression that the $700 billion bail-out was doing something to reassure the credit markets. Guess not.

As a new bout of fear gripped the financial markets, stocks fell sharply again on Thursday, continuing a months-long plunge that has wiped out the gains of the last decade.

The credit markets seized up as confidence in the nation’s financial system ebbed and people rushed to put money in Treasuries, the safest of investments. Some markets are now back to where they were before Congress approved the $700 billion financial rescue in October.

Not to depress the spirits of the auto industry further, but I'm rethinking our car purchase plans.

A three-year lease on our Toyota Highlander Hybrid is up in January. We'd envisioned turning the car in and either leasing or buying a 2009 model, maybe the spiffier Limited version this time.

However, now I'm not sure that even 0% financing (which isn't available on Toyota hybrids, but is on other models) would entice us to get a new car.

The financial meltdown is just too damn scary. I feel like circling the household budget wagons, not going out on any unnecessary limb.

Our current car is fine, just not ideal.

"Fine" is sounding, well, just fine -- compared to forking out the bigger bucks that it would take to do anything other than keep our present vehicle. Multiply us by millions of other scared shitless consumers, and you've got the makings of a dismal selling season.

I've been investing, seriously and semi-seriously, for over twenty-five years. I've never felt so uneasy about our portfolio -- and we're not major risk takers.

Retirees that we are, we're about 50-50 in equities and fixed income, with a healthy percentage of index funds in each category. So however much the stock market has dropped, our investments are down only about half as much (bonds and Treasury bills are increasing in value, as investors snap them up).

"Only," though, is still a hell of a lot.

Amazingly, I read in the first NY Times story about the market decline:

And a new report that jobless claims had crested to their highest levels in 16 years reminded investors that the frail economy continues to weaken.

“We think it’s going to continue to go lower,” said Ryan Detrick of Schaeffer’s Investment Research. “We don’t think people are scared enough. They’re just not showing enough fear. People are numb to this, they’re almost immune to it.”

Well, I beg to differ.

It's more that people know they can't do anything about it, so when I learned that yesterday the market was at its lowest point in six years, and today it's down to the 1997 level (below earlier bear market lows), I was as much resigned as fearful.

What will be, will be. And whatever happens, I can buy cheaper bottles of olive oil and less expensive coffee, plus hold onto our car instead of getting a new one.

I just wish that somebody competent was handling the federal government's response to this crisis, instead of the Bush administration bunglers.

Where is George, by the way? Has he headed off to his ranch early? He sure isn't doing anything to reassure people that the economy won't be completely melted down by the time Obama takes office.

Which can't come soon enough for me. And, I suspect, for the stock market.

Gum graft goes fine (relax, if you need one)

Here's another in what I hope won't be a lengthy series of "don't worry" blog posts about scary sounding health procedures. (See "Root Canal is nothing to fear.")

I had a gum graft this morning. The worst thing about it was facing the fact that I'm old enough to need one, though I realize that people of all ages get gum grafts.

My dentist referred me to a Salem periodontist because he was worried that the beautiful bridge work he'd just redone, which had cost me more than a VW bug went for new back in the '60s, could be threatened by a receding gumline.

So he cheerily said, "I'd giving you a referral for a gum graft evaluation." That sounded ominous. So naturally I fired up Google as soon as I got home from the dentist's office.

I learned that its formal name is a gingival graft.

The usual approach is to chop out borrow some tissue from the roof of your mouth. That is sutured on the gum line, where hopefully it finds a happy new home.

Now, on the Internet I've found that most stories people share about medical procedures have an overarching theme: When Things Go Wrong. So at the moment, the #3 Google search result for "gum graft" is titled "The Procedure From Hell."

The same was true when I researched root canals, and mine went fine. It seems that few patients are motivated to write about their experience when the message is, "No problems, mate."

I talked about this with the periodontist at my evaluation appointment. He said that a balance has to be struck between educating yourself online (good) and scaring yourself half to death (bad).

Speaking of death, one of my first questions to him was whether he did grafts using Alloderm, which I'd read about on the Internet. I liked the idea of not having tissue cut out of the roof of my mouth, and I thought that Alloderm was some sort of artificial material.

But I was told, "It comes from cadavers."

My instant reaction was that I didn't like the idea of having part of my gum be made from a dead person. Plus, my periodontist said that a graft is much more likely to "take" when a person's own tissue is used.

Thus at 9:30 this morning I found myself back in his office, getting ready to be injected with several shots of Novocaine.

Reassuringly, after he was done I heard, "That's the toughest part." And it was true.

I was out the door, my VISA card $840 poorer, in almost exactly an hour. I felt less pain than from a filling or crown work. Afterwards I popped some Ibuprofen that they'd given me, but haven't felt any need to fill a Vicodin prescription.

Everybody's different, of course. Your results may differ. For what it's worth, though, here's some tips and observations.

-- I kept my eyes open throughout the gum graft. Given how much it was costing me, I wanted to absorb every moment of the experience. Such as the drops of red on the gloves of the periodontist and his assistant. Be prepared to see some of your own blood, since there's cutting going on inside your mouth. No big deal -- the bleeding stopped soon.

-- Periodontists must make good fly fishermen, who tie their own lures. I was impressed with the dexterity it took to put in the sutures. Of course, I had an extreme close-up view, since the guy's hands were just a few inches away from my eyes.

-- I was fitted for a roof of the mouth retainer at my evaluation visit. Good move. It protects the site where tissue was removed. I'm barely aware of it now, after wearing it for about 11 hours. I was told that it can come off tomorrow, if I want to remove it. There hasn't been any discomfort at all from the roof of my mouth, probably partly because of this protective device.

-- Don't get home and figure that you can eat whatever you want, even if you're feeling no pain. After I took my first bite of spaghetti with semi-tangy sauce, I did feel some pain at the graft site. Bland food has been my watchword today. Tofu and rice. Macaroni and cheese. Coffee (not too hot), for a mood elevator. Mushrooms. Wine went down fine also.

-- I was given some PerioGard mouth rinse to use. Another good move, as that saved me from trying my usual Listerine mouthwash tonight. I suspect the alcohol in it would create another "ouch" moment, but I could be wrong.

-- Five hours after I had the gum graft, I was out mowing the grass. I read some gum graft stories on the Internet where people said they stayed in bed for days afterward. That may be necessary in some cases. But I wasn't told to do anything but live a normal life, which I've been doing all day (aside from trying to elicit some sympathy from my wife so I don't have to wash the dishes or empty the dishwasher).

I'll add my own comments to this post as my recovery period proceeds. If my brain falls out through the roof of my mouth, I'll let you know -- assuming I have enough gray matter left to type coherently.

For now, here's my bottom line: this was another example where my worries about what would happen turned out to be more of a problem than what actually happened.

I mean, my fretting about how painful the gum graft might be caused me more pain than the procedure itself. Sure, the anxiety was psychological rather than physical, but it was pain nonetheless.

So relax, if you're told you need a gum graft. If yours goes as smoothly as mine has so far, there's no need to worry about it.

Surprise! Republicans make sense...on auto bailout

The first coming of Obama is near. Praise the One!

For he is bringing miracles to pass: I watched "Meet the Press" this morning and agreed much more with Sen. Richard Shelby, a dyed-in-the-right Alabama Republican, than with Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat.

Maybe this is a sign that the country is getting past red state vs. blue state stuff. When the policy rubber hits the road, what matters much more is whether something makes sense.

And Shelby had the edge here. Why should taxpayers fork out $25 billion or more to give to the clueless Detroit auto industry?

First of all, I think that we would have to see conditions that would fundamentally change the way Detroit does business.  They're not building the right products.  They did at one time.  They've got good workers.  But I don't believe they've got good management.  They don't innovate.  They're a dinosaur, in a sense, and I hate to see this because I would like to see them become lean and, and hungry and innovative.  And if they did and put out the right product, they could survive.  But I don't believe the $25 billion they're talking about will, will make them survive.  It's just postponing the inevitable.

Amen to that. I haven't owned an American car since the 1970s, when some insane impulse led me to buy a crappy Ford Fairmont. After that, never again.

We're a happy two-Toyota family at the moment, both of them hybrids (a Prius and a Highlander). Detroit chose to keep on making giant SUVs and pickups because they were more profitable than smaller cars. Until people stopped buying them.

And now the Big Three, who have shrunk a lot, want the federal government to reward them for making bad business decisions.

Not surprisingly, Rust Belt Democrats like Levin are on board with that. Republicans like Shelby aren't. This is one of those rather rare times I tilt toward the "R's" rather than the "D's."

In an LA Times opinion piece, "Earn the bailout, Detroit," Douglas Olin explains why lavishing cash on the auto industry won't work without getting a lot in return.

Maybe it's time for America to buy some broad-based social benefits in return for public investment in these companies. If the U.S. government -- on behalf of the people -- is going to spend considerable sums of public money and incur public debt to keep these institutions alive, let's insist on returns that benefit society as a whole, not merely Big Three shareholders, management and employees.

What might these public benefits be? Well, for one, isn't it time for Detroit to turn out a car that gets at least 100 miles per gallon -- and to do it in three years? Couldn't we demand, in return for public money, that management deliver dramatic new fuel economy standards, with appropriate rewards for success and sanctions for failure?

Since transportation (mostly autos) generates one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, can't we demand auto fleets that systematically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the 30% by 2016 proposed by California?

The Vice Chairman of General Motors in charge of product development has called global warming a "crock." Yet this know-nothing expects taxpayers to ignore his astounding ignorance about a fundamental factor affecting car design and sales, and throw billions down a GM black hole.

I'm confident that Obama won't fall for this, though he'll face pressure from auto industry-friendly Democrats like Levin to write the Big Three a blank check. He's said that he won't do that.

And these statements sound pretty good to me.

Allowing the U.S. auto industry to fail is not an option, President-elect Barack Obama said in an interview on CBS' 60 Minutes that aired Sunday night.

"For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment," Obama said. "So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all of the stakeholders coming together with a plan — what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like?"

Not like it does now, that's for sure.

Federal judge complicates Oregon land use policies

Just when it seemed that with the passage of Measure 49 last year, some clarity had emerged about Oregon land use policies, now a federal district judge has ruled that Measure 37 waivers are still alive in Jackson County.

Measure 49 markedly rolled back the excesses of Measure 37. In November 2007 sixty-two percent of Oregonians voted to preserve irreplaceable farm, forest, and groundwater limited land from excessive development.

Measure 37, passed in 2004, allowed property owners to get waivers from land use regulations passed after they acquired their property. This created a privileged class based on when someone came to own a piece of land.

Most laws don't act that way. If the speed limit changes on a freeway, you have to obey it, no matter when you got your car -- even if it's a Porsche that you bought so you could drive fast.

Measure 49 restored fairness to Oregon's land use system.

It allowed Measure 37 claimants to have three home sites on their property (up to ten if they could prove a loss of value from land use regulation). But subdivisions and commercial uses, such as gravel pits, were banned from farm and forest land.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court challenging Jackson County's right to follow Measure 49 and roll back development under Measure 37. Judge Owen Panner ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. You can read his decision here.
Download 111208_decision_cfcf_v_jackson_co.pdf

Not being an attorney, I'm not competent to comment on Panner's reasoning.

The only two things I'm pretty certain about is that (1) this decision complicates the implementation of Measure 49, and (2) it will be challenged.

A follow-up story in today's Oregonian points out some of the problems with this federal intervention into Oregon law.

Meanwhile, Jackson County Commissioner Dennis C.W. Smith said the ruling didn't specify how the county should remedy the situation, but direction should be coming from the judge soon. The county hasn't decided whether it will appeal the decision to the next step up the legal ladder: the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The state court says do it one way, the federal court says do it another -- I feel like a yo-yo," Smith said. "Nothing in relation to land use catches me by surprise."

What Commissioner Smith probably is referring to is a decision in May 2008 by the Oregon Supreme Court, Corey v. DLCD, that affirmed Measure 49. The Supreme Court said:

In the end, we hold only that plaintiffs' contention that Measure 49 does not affect the rights of persons who already have obtained Measure 37 waivers is incorrect. In fact, Measure 49 by its terms deprives Measure 37 waivers -- and all orders disposing of Measure 37 claims -- of any continuing viability, with a single exception that does not apply to plaintiffs' claim.

Thus, after December 6, 2007 (the effective date of Measure 49), the final order at issue in the present case had no legal effect. It follows that resolution of the issue that the Court of Appeals decided in Corey and as to which we allowed review -- whether the Court of Appeals or the circuit court has jurisdiction to review DLCD's final order respecting plaintiffs' Measure 37 claim -- can have no practical effect upon the parties: If the order at issue has no continuing legal effect, then neither party can gain anything from review in either forum. The case is moot.

So a federal judge says one thing; the Oregon Supreme Court says another thing. Let the lawsuits continue.

Our nation is ruled by law. I've got no problem with this issue being played out in the courts. I'm confident that a sound decision will be arrived at in the end.

I just hope that the conservatives who are applauding Judge Tanner's ruling appreciate the irony of this situation, because most of these folks are fond of railing on about "activist judges" who "overturn the will of the people."

Well, that's what happened here. A single judge has said that his opinion counts more than 62% of Oregon voters (although Tanner didn't rule that Measure 49 was unconstitutional).

And there's nothing wrong with that. Again, we're a nation of laws, not of unfettered majority rule. 

Let's just be consistent, right-wingers, and not froth at the mouth the next time a court affirms the right of gays to marry, or blocks the Ten Commandments from being displayed in a government building.

More reasons why I love my Mac more than my PC

My first YouTube video and blog post on this subject -- why Macs rule and PCs drool -- received some deserved criticism.

So I'll man-up and admit that comparing the start-up time of a brand new MacBook to a several year old IBM ThinkPad isn't entirely fair.

The PC runs slower and has a bunch more start-up programs installed that, no big surprise, need to start-up before my ThinkPad is ready to go.

Fortunately, I had an almost hot-off-the-Chinese-shelf Lenovo IdeaPad Y510 sitting around. I got this Windows Vista computer in January of this year, but haven't used it much. Mainly, because I didn't have time back then to transfer all the crap (emails, documents, etc.) that I use every day.

Also, because I wasn't as wowed by Vista as I thought I'd be. In some ways it seemed better than the XP Pro operating systems I've been using; in other ways, not as good.

At any rate, a couple of days ago I set the Lenovo next to my MacBook and did some comparison tests. In the new video below you'll see that the start-up times were just about equal. But I show some other areas where the MacBook beats the PC.

In the end, though, my preference (really, love) for the Mac can't be easily tied down by saying it's because of this or that.

The whole Macintosh experience, from how the keys feel, to the look of the screen, to how program menus pop up, to how error messages are handled, to how easily unfamiliar programs can be learned -- this whole shebang flows together into a much more pleasant computing day, every day I've had my MacBook.

Back to the criticism, and a bit of defense now: someone said that my ThinkPad looked like it was sluggish.

Well, yes. That comes with the Windows territory -- the need to have all kinds of extra programs and utilities to keep your PC functioning halfway reliably.

On my ThinkPad I have:

-- a virus checker, firewall, and other utilities included with SystemSuite (a nice program), because the Windows firewall sucks, and you need virus protection on a PC.
-- a real-time spyware scanner, to supplement the spyware protection in SystemSuite
-- Google Desktop, because it's hard to find files and emails using the crappy search feature in Windows
-- various other programs, such as a registry fixer-upper, that help keep Windows XP functioning
-- a back-up program that uses an external USB hard disk, because you never know when the blue screen of death might appear

Much of this stuff slows down my PC. All of it adds to its complexity.

But this is part of the Windows world for people, like me, who have learned over the years that you have to supplement Microsoft's operating system offering if you want to have a healthy computer.

It's refreshing to not have to worry about installing all of these extras on my MacBook. I've added a better password protector than Apple's web browser (Safari) offers. On the whole, though, my Mac simply works.

And that's the biggest reason I like it more than my PCs.

Can I love my MacBook too much?

I hope my wife understands. Why, of course, she will. She's a retired psychotherapist. Laurel knows what happens when a man falls head over heels in love -- all the crazy things he'll do, how his life revolves around her.

My new Macintosh laptop is a girl. That's obvious.

She's thin, sleek, responsive, and oh-so-sexy. Plus, she almost always does just what I want her to. No back talk, like the B.S. I had to put up with from a string of Windows PCs that I've had mercurial relationships with.

After a couple of weeks with my electronic sweetie I've got just one worry: that my infatuation is going over the top.

Some warning signs have popped up.

Yesterday I ran into a Tai Chi class acquaintance in the snacking room of Salem's foremost (and only) natural food store. We chatted about this and that, then somehow the conversation turned to Ms. MacBook.

I heard myself going on and on about how beautiful she was, how she'd changed my life so much for the better, how the first thing I do when I get up in the morning is turn her on and see what fresh pleasure she has to give me.

Then, when I had to take a breath and my friend was able to get a word in -- "I haven't seen the new MacBook yet" -- I excitedly exclaimed "Wait! It'll just take a second! I'll introduce her to you!"

Oh, yeah. She was in the car, waiting for me.

I grabbed my backpack and rushed back inside. For the next ten minutes I put her through her paces, letting my friend stroke her stylish touchpad and admire her glossy screen.

Eventually I realized that maybe, just maybe, I was telling her, a male acquaintance, and her mother (who'd popped up in time to see the end of my isn't-she-lovely? gabfest) more than they wanted to know about a frigging laptop.

Well, I couldn't help myself. Blame it on hormones, or whatever makes a man fall in lust with a single slab of polished aluminum packed with gorgeous electronics.

I felt a bit better about myself when I found out that I'm not alone. This clever web page documents, bluntly, the giddiness Mac owners feel toward their computers.

Ever notice how most Mac users are skinny? It's because of all the calories they burn because they can't shut the fuck up about how great their Macs are. What is it about Apple that makes its users unable to shut their mouths? Everywhere I go, there's another asshole with a Mac preaching about how much better Macs are than PCs.

OK. You nailed me.

But I won't be quiet. There's more love stories to tell. And I can use my lover to share them! Marvelous...

Why I love my MacBook more than my PC

A few weeks ago I dived back into the Macintosh world, after a long dry spell wandering in the Windows wilderness. I started with Apple back in the way old II+ days, but got tired of not being in the computer mainstream.

My new MacBook makes me wonder, "Why did I stick with PCs for so long?" I just made a You Tube video that implies an answer: "Because I didn't know what I was missing, fool that I was."

Below the video I'll expand upon my reasons for loving MacBook more than ThinkPad, and clarify some remarks I made in my unrehearsed (a.k.a. "semi-coherent") computer comparison.

This is the biggest change I found with moving to a Mac: now your computer is a friend, rather than a challenge.

From the moment I turned on the MacBook for the first time, I felt like it was trying to anticipate my needs and make whatever I wanted to do go as smoothly as possible. With a PC, no matter what version of Windows you use (I'm very familiar with XP and mildly acquainted with Vista), it's like handling a stick of dynamite.

Useful stuff, but always capable of unexpectedly blowing up.

About a year ago I seriously thought of getting a Mac. I didn't, because I felt that I'd worked out ways of dealing with the vagaries of Windows and was afraid of being thrown into a unknown operating system that wouldn't be compatible with what I needed to do everyday.

I knew that Macs were for creative types. But I wasn't planning to make an indie movie. I email; I surf the Internet; I blog; I write; I take photos and simple videos.

I've found out that my worry was unfounded. It didn't take long to be up and running on the MacBook, doing almost everything I did on my PC laptop. Here's a few tips for those thinking of making a similar switch:

-- Don't buy the Macintosh version of Office. The reviews on Amazon are terrible, and my Apple store salesman told me that people are unhappy with Word 08 for the Mac. I got the iWork package for $79. The word processor, Pages, meets my needs and reads PC Word files fine (most of the time).

-- If you're using Outlook on a PC, invest $10 in a terrific program from Little Machines that handles moving emails, contacts, and calendar entries to a Macintosh. You can try exporting the files on your own, but it seemed rather complex when I Googled the subject. This program worked like a charm.

-- One drawback of Apple's Safari web browser, which otherwise is terrific (better and faster than Firefox or Explorer in my opinion), is the lack of protection for saved passwords. I'd been using RoboForm on my PC and liked it a lot. A Mac program, 1Password, is just about as good.

And if you're using a Flip Video camera and find that it won't work with the marvelous iMovie program that comes with your Mac, check out these tips from the Flip folks. I had problems at first, but managed to use iMovie to edit and upload my You Tube video.

Where I may have left some wrong impressions, which I'll clear up here.

(1) I really like the MacBook touchpad. It's the first one that I've felt comfortable using. But it takes some getting used to. You can do quite a few different things with your fingers, depending on how you use them: one, two, three, or four finger touch; direction you move your fingers; and such.

I had some trouble getting text size to change on web pages. Usually I don't. Video finger performance anxiety, I guess. Pressure on the key pad has to be just right to adjust the text size with a finger flick.

(2) I emphasized how much I like the quick start-up on my MacBook compared to my PC. I mentioned the many programs I had on the PC that were part of the reason it takes Windows ages to get going in the morning.

What I was referring to were the essential add-ons to keep a Windows PC running halfway smoothly. A virus checker. Anti-spyware program. Google Desktop to find stuff quickly. A better firewall than XP provides.

All of this starting up makes an already cumbersome Windows even more sluggish. Since the Macintosh operating system (Leopard) is much cleaner and more tightly integrated, it does things more quickly and smoothly (plus, the MacBook hardware is more powerful than my ThinkPad).

I could go on about how much happier I am with my Mac than I was with my PC. But that'll wait for another day.

Bottom line: you'll spend more for a Mac, but it's worth it. If you're a Windows user who's wondering why all the cool people (like me now!) use Macs, head on down to an Apple store and experience a soft sell.

My sales guy just pointed me toward the new MacBook and let me play with it for as long as I wanted. When he wandered back to me after a while, my main questions were "How much is it and when can I get one?"

Falling in love doesn't take long.

Be patriots, right-wingers: support Obama

Wow! The times really are a'changing. Obama has been president-elect for just two days, and already I've heard sentiments that I agree with on conservative talk radio.

Namely, that Obama-haters need to act like patriotic Americans and get behind their new president. (Not so they can push him off a cliff -- to support him.)

Way to go, Glenn Beck. Driving home this evening I heard your show on a Portland radio station. When I channel surf in your direction usually I tune you out quickly, because I can't stand your right-wing political views.

But today you gave it good to a guy, Joe, who called in and said that he couldn't accept Obama as his president. Beck told Joe that he was un-American if he didn't support Obama.

Barack Obama won. He is now our President. We do not sacrifice our values. We are not required to now become a socialist. We're now not required to stand up and fight for the things that he believes in if we disagree, but we understand that he is the President of the United States.

...he is the President of the United States and if you believe in this system, then you are required, you are required to accept him as the President of the United States, period, and you support him in every way possible because we -- a house divided will not stand.

I especially liked it when Beck refused to listen to Joe's ridiculous claim that Obama isn't an American citizen. This birth certificate conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked, yet right-wing reality-deniers continue to obsess over it.

The wackos in the Republican Party don't appreciate Beck telling it like it is, calling him un-American for putting truth above Obama-bashing.

Yes, Obama's decisive victory has most conservative talk radio shows in a sky-is-falling frenzy. That's fine. Free speech is all-American.

But not standing behind your president and wishing him well -- this isn't the mark of a patriot. So now we'll see how deep the supposed red, white, and blue blood of right-wing talk radio runs.

If the hosts and listeners keep on trying to undermine the legitimacy of a freely elected President of the United States, we'll know their true colors.

Merkley vs. Smith: follow who's winning

In Oregon the biggest remaining election question mark is the U.S. Senator race between Jeff Merkley and Gordon Smith. Votes are still being counted.

Here's how to track them, in order of my political junkie preference:

(1) Over at Blue Oregon, Kari Chisholm is doing a great job analyzing which counties haven't fully reported yet, and what this means. He's updating this post regularly. Currently Smith is up by almost 8000 votes, but Kari is projecting a 32,000 vote Merkley win after Multnomah and other Merkley-leaning counties completely come in.

(2) The Daily Kos Electoral Scorecard features a map that's a lot of fun to play around with. Click on "Senate," then Oregon, and you can see how many precincts have reported in each county. There were some glitches in this AP-based map earlier (Multnomah was incorrectly shown as 100%), but hopefully they've been fixed.

(3) KGW is keeping track on how the Senate race is going. No analysis, but the numbers change frequently. It looks like they're using the AP figures in (2), so far as I can tell.

Update: Jack Bogdanski also is analyzing how the returns are going. He's not quite as optimistic as Kari, but still projects a Merkley win by around 15,000 votes.

Election jitters: my fate, and $84, hangs in balance

2:51 pm, West Left Coast time
Ooh! First polls close in less than ten minutes. I'll be watching CNN to see if they call it for Obama by 3:05. Sure hope so. I'd rather pay $84 than have a foreshortened life.

Yesterday I talked with a Macintosh consultant about coming over to get a wireless laser printer working with my MacBook. He said he could come at 4 today. I told him that I'd be obsessing over election results at that time. We made an appointment for Thursday morning.

"That way," I said, "I can save myself your $84 hourly fee if Obama loses, since I'll probably have committed suicide by then, not being able to face the prospect of seeing Palin play at being vice-president for four years."

Interesting note: he said that every Macintosh owner he knows is for Obama. Mac sales have been on the uptick recently, so hopefully this bodes well for an Obama-Biden victory. We'll know soon.

Updates on my mental health will follow after I get back from a dog walk and see what CNN has to tell me.

4:49 pm, Oregon time
Geez. Two lousy states called so far on CNN. Whoopee.

I want instant results! And gratification! Call the damn thing for Obama. I want to go to our Tango class at 7:30. If Obama isn't declared president by that time, I'll be seriously distracted.

Of course, if you remember "The Tango Lesson" (movie), there's a scene where an Argentine couple is talking about Tango. "It's about life," says the wife. "And death," adds the husband. "It's about love," she says. "And hate," he chimes in.

So I guess I can express my death and hate feelings through dance, if Obama is doing badly. I'd rather the hour be filled with life and love, though.

6:35 pm, irrelevant part of the country time
Ohio goes for Obama. Florida looks like it's in the "D" bag. I'm going to be dancing with joy soon. Literally. Only (mild) problem: once again the West Coast will be a presidential election afterthought.

I took a look at Fox News, just to relish how the unfair and unbalanced anchors were dealing with an Obama victory. I saw one of them talking with Karl Rove about how the only way McCain could win now would be if a solid blue state flipped.

They agreed that if Oregon somehow went for McCain, they wouldn't be able to report it, because they'd be passed out on the floor from shock. Yes, won't happen. Obama will win my state by double digits, I can almost guarantee.

CNN's John King just said that it would take a miracle for McCain to win. Likely there's a lot of Christian fundamentalists praying for that right now.

Won't happen.

We'll go to the Marion County Democrats election party after the Tango class. Now the fun will be to see how well the Dems do in Oregon. We need to get rid of Sen. Gordon Smith. It's embarassing that blue Oregon has the only Republican senator on the West Coast.

Fall walk takes mind off of political talk

What's real? What's not? Philosophers, mystics, and theologians have argued this question for millennia. I don't know the answer.

But a fall walk late this afternoon helped put the upcoming election into perspective. Both are real -- nature and politics. Yet only one calms the spirit.

Which I needed right now.
(click a photo to enlarge)

Here's a vine maple that Laurel planted on our property. This is its reddish year.

Another one, even more dramatic than its neighbor.

Find the dog in the photo. Tough to do. Her Shepherd coloring blends with Oregon's early November hue.

Having turned 60 this year, falling leaves have become a more meaningful metaphor for life's evanescence.

There's also simply what they are: damn pretty.

I started my walk too late in the day to get a lot of sun.

But what was left -- just fine.

A massive golden oak tree near the lake.

Trees on the other side of the Spring Lake dam.

The setting sun, doing its thing.

Spring Lake, asking, "So, tell me, what's wrong with the world?"

Hangers-on. Doing what they do.

The dock. Saying a lot. Wordlessly.

End with a sunset? Sure. I'm not afraid of a cliche. Especially a beautiful one.