Defenestrating Thoughts from the Bivouac

(Source: Dilbert.com)

I’ve written before how Environmentalism is basically becoming a religious dogma where logical thinking or reasoning is not allowed. I firmly believe that there is already significant intrinsic motivation to be a good steward and take care of the environment, but the Environmentalist Dogma is relying on simplistic slogans and dogmatic behavior, which causes more harm than good. Michael Crichton gave a great talk on this a few years ago, which I strongly recommend reading.

Today we’re very worried about global warming; but did you know that 30 years ago we were terrified of global cooling?

Citing ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, the magazine warned of an impending drastic decline in food production. Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect just about every nation on earth. (Source)

Part of the problem is that this sort of dogmatic attitude leads to people blindly simple ideas like “more gas mileage is good”. This, in turn, leads to legislative proposals like tax breaks if you crush your old car in favor of buying a new car with better gas mileage:

[O]wners of older cars would get vouchers worth thousands of dollars toward the purchase of newer, more fuel-efficient vehicle… To qualify for a voucher, a car buyer would have to trade in a vehicle with EPA-rated fuel economy lower than 18 miles per gallon… For the customer to get that cash, the car dealer would have to certify that the trade-in was getting scrapped and not resold…

…

Crushing the old car has two benefits. First, it ensures that the consumer’s purchase of a more efficient vehicle actually has a net environmental benefit.

Really? It has an net environmental benefit? Sure, you have less gas consumed, but what about the manufacturing costs of making the car? Building a car has a lot of environmental impact. And this proposal subsidizes the destruction of working cars in order to replace them with a new one.

This actually has a worse environmental impact than driving the car until no longer runs. Using goods for the longest time possible (barring game-changing technological advancement) is conservation which is what we’re supposed to do. Instead, this proposal claims that unnecessary destruction and resource-intensive production of replacements is going to produce a net gain.

Which is clearly ludicrous.

Another case where this gets interesting is with wildfires and logging. We’re told “logging is always bad”. During the deadly Australian wildfires a few weeks ago, environmentalists were quick to point to “Climate Change” as the cause. But in this area of Austrialia, they have a yearly “wildfire season”. Normally, residents can allowed to clear out underbrush and maintain the land so the fires can be controlled, but no longer:

Angry residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

[Residents] criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council’s help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you d—heads won’t cut trees down,” he said. (Source)

In fact, one family went ahead and maintained their land. Though they had to pay significant fines, they feel they did the right thing: “We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two-kilometre area (source).”

Now, finally, after people have died, the policy makers said, “changes were likely to be made about the council’s policy surrounding native vegetation.” If they had only thought through the consequences of their decisions in the first place instead of making snap judgements based on dogma, those people may not have died.

A friend of mine has an annoying co-worker who is trying to be “green” by turning off lights in every room that is unoccupied. As my friend is frequently in and out of his office, he comes back to find the light out many times a day. After all, “turning off the lights is good”. Finally my friend had to post this note:

Please do not turn off these lamps

These lamps use a fluorescent bulb with an integrated ballast. This bulb is no longer manufactured.

Turning the bulb on and off frequently accelerates ballast failure in fluorescent lights.

Once the ballast fails, the bulb and the entire lamp (as bulbs are no longer available) must be disposed. The company will then need to replace the lamps and bulbs at a cost of approximately $100 per lamp. Turning the light on and off will accelerate the replacement; accordingly, turning the lamps on and off is not a cost savings.

Additionally, the carbon footprint of a new lamp, manufactured in and shipped from China where in excess of 66% energy is from coal sources, is arguably higher than that of the additional electricity consumed by leaving the lights on in this region where energy is in excess of 40% from hydroelectric sources.

Lastly, the hype and “sky is falling” mentality is causing psychological problems for people:

Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of “climate change delusion.”

Robert Salo, the psychiatrist who runs the inpatient unit where the boy was treated, has now seen several more patients with psychosis or anxiety disorders focused on climate change, as well as children who are having nightmares about global-warming-related natural disasters. (Source)

Remember, I firmly believe that there is a significant intrinsic motivation to be a good steward and take good care of the environment. This attitude needs to be fostered through logic and reason, not through propaganda and mindless slogans. Dogma of any kind is very harmful to a society, as it dumbs down the populace and makes them susceptible to more dogmatic propaganda moving forward.

As I mentioned last week, Crissy and I bought an elliptical machine and put in the family room in front of the TV, so we have absolutely no reason not to exercise.

So far, I’ve worked out everyday since we got the machine (11 days in a row! woohoo!) and I’ve been noticing some great changes already. For starters, I’m sleeping a lot better and while I’m a little more physically tired during the day, I’m much more mentally alert. Also, I’m slowly getting over the initial hump, as each successive workout now is getting a little easier.

I’m planning to tighten up my diet very soon and I’m hoping the pounds start rolling off. Specifically, I’m going to reduce high fat foods and increase lean proteins. And most importantly, I’m going to observe Lent this year and give up desserts completely.

Wish me luck! :-)

President Obama is very gifted at controlling the public’s and media’s perception of him. Though, as I’ve noted before, his real actions don’t match his rhetoric and it seems like the same cast of characters continues to have significant influence on what gets done.

Last week, we heard a lot about Obama’s plan to limit the salaries of any executives at companies that take taxpayer money. This plan got fantastic press coverage and reaction. People were very happy as this seemed to indicate a departure from “business as usual” and embody the “Change” we were promised.

The devil, however, is always in the details:

For companies getting massive assistance to prevent a wide collapse, the $500,000 cap on senior officer pay would be mandatory. So far the government has provided that kind of extraordinary aid to only a few companies, including American International Group, Citigroup and Bank of America.

Because the rules do not apply retroactively to any of the 359 banks that have received government aid, these three firms are not subject to the new restrictions. But administration officials said they expect the government will need to stage more such rescues as the financial system continues to deteriorate.

For the bulk of firms getting fresh government aid, the new limits would be voluntary. Companies could waive the restrictions by disclosing executive compensation publicly and, if requested, allow a shareholder resolution on the matter, though the results would not be binding. (Source)

The salary caps only apply to companies that receive “extraordinary” aid: AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America. And all of them are exempt because they were grandfathered in! So the billions of taxpayer money given to these firms continues to have no terms or even oversight on where the money went.

Furthermore, for the 356 remaining banks, the new limits are voluntary and salary disclosure requirements can be waived at the company’s discretion.

One of Obama’s first major acts is all smoke and mirrors. He pretends to lead us with great reform, when in reality it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s par for the course in Washington; where’s the change?

So when I hear that the students of a local high school want to rename the school to Barack Obama High, it just makes me sad.

Let’s wait until he actually does something before we deify him. If this is really the “change” he’s going to deliver, I think you may want to hold off on renaming the high school.

We finally got our Elliptical Machine delivered today, so I have no excuse to not work out and lose some weight. After a long search — these machines are pricey! — we settled on a Life Fitness X3 Advanced. It was one of the few machines I found with a nice stride and since it was last year’s model, we got a reasonable price.

It’s set up in the family room in front of the TV. And since it’s big and conspicuous, hopefully we’ll use it often and I’ll slowly transition from a nerdy, overweight Indian to just a nerdy Indian. :-P

As an added incentive I’m tracking weight, resting heart rate, calories burned, and a few other stats. In a few weeks, I’ll have enough data to make some graphs that hopefully trend in a healthy direction. And in a matter of months, I can make a Powerpoint presentation! (Don’t worry, I’m just kidding.)

As soon as it was delivered, I did a short 30 minute workout; I better workout tomorrow too — no excuses!

It amazes me that people still think that government is the answer to all our problems. The fundamental truth is that government cannot create jobs. At best the government can re-distribute capital and perhaps bring demand forward, which just delays the problem and makes it worse.

Without needlessly repeating myself, let’s think of it this way: if government can create lasting jobs, why is there ever unemployment anywhere in the world? (HT: Mish)

Furthermore, we saw record deficit spending under Bush and look at where we are. How is even more record deficit spending going to make it better?

Following up on my previous post on how lack of competition causes government schools to have no incentive to improve, we learn that Chicago Public Schools has a big problem with faculty abusing children and they have done next to nothing:

An exclusive CBS 2 investigation discovered Treveon Martin is one of at least 818 Chicago Public School students, since 2003, to allege being battered by a teacher or an aide, coach, security guard, or even a principal. In most of those cases – 568 of them – Chicago Public School investigators determined the children were telling the truth.

…

The 2 Investigators found reports of students beaten with broomsticks, whipped with belts, yard sticks, struck with staplers, choked, stomped on and pushed down stairs. One substitute teacher even fractured a student’s neck.

But even more alarming, in the vast majority of cases, teachers found guilty were only given a slap on the wrist.

…

Of the 568 verified cases, only 24 led to termination. Records show one teacher who quote “battered students for several years” was simply given a “warning” by the Board of Education.

And another student was given “100 licks with a belt.” The abuse was substantiated, but the records show the teacher was not terminated.

Arne Duncan was the Chief of Chicago Public Schools during this time period and when asked, he said, “Any founded allegation where an adult is hitting a child, hitting a student – they’re going to be gone.”

Duncan only managed to fire 24 of the 568 adults that beat students. In the real world, he would be fired. But instead President Obama promoted him to Secretary of Education where he plans “to take the lessons he learned in Chicago with him when he moves to Washington”.

Here’s the bottom line. In the real world, if a private school or day care was found to have staff beating children and knowingly doing nothing about it, the school would go out of business and the criminal teachers tossed in jail for child abuse.

In government schools, people who beat children get a “slap on the wrist”.

Of course there are lots of fine educators in government schools, but we’re looking at systemic problems with the institution as a whole. The incentives for improvement, let alone incentives to not beat children, don’t exist.

So if government schools institutionally don’t care when students are “beaten with broomsticks, whipped with belts, yard sticks, struck with staplers, choked, stomped on and pushed down stairs”, what makes you think they even care about educating?