The Man, The Boy, The Donkey, and The Controversial War

Once upon a time, an old man and young boy were traveling with a donkey. As they walked alongside the donkey, who was carrying their possessions on its back people remarked, "What a pair of fools. They are walking when they have a perfectly good donkey to ride!" So the old man lifted the little boy upon the donkey to ride and after a while people commented at the sight, "How can that lazy boy be riding on the donkey while making that old man walk." So the boy got off the donkey and let the old man ride, but again people commented, "How can that lazy man ride the donkey while letting that poor child walk." So both the old man and the boy got on the animal and rode together. But the remarks did not stop, "Look at those two. Both of them riding on that poor donkey and having it carry all their possessions at the same time. How cruel!!"

So now the old man and the boy didn't know what to do. After a while, they cut down a pole, tied the donkey's feet to it, and each carried one end of the pole on their shoulders, carrying the donkey as they went. By then people were really laughing at them. When they crossed over a bridge, the donkey loosed one of its feet and kicked the boy. The boy dropped his end of the pole and the donkey fell into a the river. And with his feet tied drowned before they could rescue him. They had lost their donkey and most of their possessions. So the old man said to the boy, "You know son, I guess sometimes if you try to please everybody you please nobody. So you just have decide what is right."

Why am I telling one of Aesop's Fables on this blog?

Because I think it is a relevant message to anyone who has ever taken or considered taking a stand on a controversial issue.

In particular when you decide to openly oppose a war in any society charges of a lack of patriotisim, of undermining your country, and harming the troops are predictable reactions from some members of society. In many societies, sadly including our own since the Vietnam War, the idea that protesters somehow stabbed the troops in the back and caused the war to be lost is very deeply woven into the culture.

Whatever position you take on a war some folks aren't going to be happy with it. And the people who dislike what you say can include civilians, members of the miltary, veterans of that war, veterans of another war, people who lost family member, immigrants who just moved to the US, and so on. This is unavoidable regardless of whether your position on the war is for or against. Indeed among Iraq Veterans there are already both anti-war organizations such as Iraq Vets Against the War, and the pro war Vets For Freedom. This was also true of the Vietnam War. So the common imperative to "Support the Troops" cannot provide any answer as to what you should do.

Either way you aren't going to please everyone. And if you think you can avoid that simply by keeping quiet think again. If the war is badly remember by history, as the Iraq War probably will, then people who might have had their doubts but kept quiet might find that younger generations may wonder why they didn't say something during the war. When it mattered.

Furthermore, I'm afraid Bush, Cheney, and Rove planned to blame you for Iraq regardless of what position you take. It was in the cards from the beginning.

So a controversial war is by nature a situation where you CAN'T please everyone no matter what you do.

But you can do what your conscience dictates. You can and must think for yourself. Do you homework. Learn as much as you can. Come to your own conclusions. Make your own decision about what is right and don't be afraid to say it openly-if politely!!. A democracy asks nothing less of its citizens.

Say Goodnight Readers!!

Water Saving Tip #3: Fight Global Warming

Hello Everyone!

A lot of people have argued for years that water issues are fundamentally local issues. But there are many reasons why this isn't true. Certainly there are local issues such as local climate, rainfall, population, politics, affordable solutions and such. But yes, water issues are also a part of the global big picture.

Not the least because of global warming, which is among other things of phenomena with potential hydrological consequences of massive proportions-enough to scare an Old Testament scholar.

Perhaps the most notorious aquatic consequence of global warming is sea level rising. Which in addition to displacing people, in some cases whole island nations, could mean that sea water could get into some aquifers and make the water too saline for drinking, farming, or other key uses. Receding mountain glaciers and snowpacks are bad news not just as an indicator of global warming but because mountain glaciers have been refered to as "water towers of the world" in the sense that they continually melt slowly throughout much of the year and "feed" rivers, lakes, ecosystems, farms and so on. In the Pacific Northwest glacier fed rivers are key to both the population and to the famous salmon runs. The Himalayn glaciers feed the Indus, Gang-Brahmaputra, Yellow, Yangtze, and Mekong rivers. In South America the Andean glaciers are extremely importand. And so are many smaller glacier systems locally.

Furthermore even small differences in temperature can cause reservoirs and irrigation water to evaporate more rapidly. The Western US is likely to experience water shortages due to increased evaporation of the Colorado River. However in the United States the ability to mitigate such situations is relatively high. Sub-saharan Africa is likely to have fewer resources to cope with the increase in mega-droughts that som geo-scientists fear may come with climate change.

But perhaps the scariest effect of global warming is out and out desertification and the remobilization of sand dunes.

If you put all of these problems together it becomes increasingly easy to worry about how the world is going to supply not only water but also food to a human populaton that may also be suffering from an increase in natural disasters and displacement. And how various ecosystems might cope with pressure from both human shortages of water, and rising temperatures.

So yes, a more severe, perhaps drastically more severe, global water crisis is yet another potential consequence of global warming.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Water Saving Tip #2: Energy Usage, Choices, and Policies Matter

Hello Everyone!!

There's been a lot of talk lately about energy choices and even embodied energy for the impact of energy sources on global climate change, but so far there isn't nearly enough talk about the impact of energy choices on water. In particular this is an important factor in which biofuels are likely to be viable in the long run.

While corn ethanol and nuclear power have often been touted as the most technological ready and "practical" alternatives to coal and oil, they also among the most water water intensive sources of energy. Very often the discussion surrounding nuclear power focuses on the ability to control risks associated with radiation and nuclear weapons. But guess what? It takes a lot of water to both safely run nuclear reactions (Overheating and coolant failure caused the Chernobyl disaster.), but to also use the heat to run a turbine and produce electricity. Of course all forms of electric production that depend on a hot steam turbines require water, and this includes coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, and even large scale solar thermal electric plants. The thing about nuclear reactions is that they produce so much heat that two out of three units of heat produced by a typical nuclear plant are released into the environment, much of it using cooling water. This is why nuclear plants are almost always situation near a large river! Coal plants despite their contributions to global warming, use as little as half as much water per MW-hour (this varies from plant to plant). Natural gas uses less water per MW-hour still.

Solar thermal and geothermal plants can also be water hogs because they also use steam to run a generator, although some engineers are looking at plans to reduce their water consumption by using closed loop waters systems and air cooling systems. More radical ideas involve using liquids other than water to run closed loop turbines. According to some proponents most of these alternatives have a lower evaporating point and can therefore generate power at a lower temperature. The same concepts are being looked into for coal and natural gas plants. But as of now expense and engineering "bugs" have kept them from widespread use.

For electricity, photovoltaics and wind have by far the lowest water consumption, because they don't involve steam turbines. Both have a significant aquatic footprint in their construction, neither continue to require water in order to run.

With biomass for fuel you not only have the water involved in growing the plants but also the water involved in converting them into usable fuel or electricity. Corn grain ethanol is a big offender not only because corn is a relatively thirsty crop, but also because of the large amounts of water involved in malting the corn into sugars and starches and fermenting them into alcohol. As anyone who has ever seen a whiskey still could tell you the amount of water that has to be removed for even a small amount of alcohol is significant. (This is one reason why both beer and liquor factories like nuclear power plants have historically been located near rivers.)
Fortunately not all biomass alternatives are equally "thirsty". One biotech company known as Virent Energy Systems, claims the processes they are developing to transform agricultural waste materials (which don't require the land, energy, or water involved in dedicating a whole crop for fuel) into high qualities fuels are in fact water positive, or produce more freshwater than they consume. Furthermore oils or sugars produced from algae could be produced using saline water or wastewater instead of fresh water. In the latter case side benefits could potentially include cleaning the water and producing fertilizers and/or animal feed as well as fuels.

So the bottom line is that conserving energy is not only a survival strategy in the face of climate change, but also in the face of the global water crisis. Similarly it is not only important to develop and promote energy sources that emit fewer or no greenhouse gases, but also require less water.

That's all for today.

Say Goodnight Readers!

It Came From the Deep!!

Hello Everyone!

Usually I try not to base this blog on current events, but the recent sitings and beachings of Jumbo or Humboldt Squid on California's Southern Coast has created a stir worthy of comments.

The first thing I'd like to point out is the common choice of words used in the press, describing it as an "invasion" of squid. Very revealing choice of words don't you think?

At one level it makes it sound like D-Day. Like the squid are invading "our" territory. And sure many of those squid are dying on the beaches and getting eaten by birds. But it seems to reflect a mindset that any animal we aren't used to seeing is an "invader" rather than creatures we share the earth with and don't fully understand. At another level the idea of non-human creatures "invading" can carry the connotations of aliens from another planet. In the celluloid of the 1950's a scary invader could just as easily come from "the deep", "from outer space", or have been cooked up by "The Russians" (only in those days it was really the USSR.). Perhaps this was a tacit admission about how little we really know about the oceans of this planet.

One theme in events like these is human paranoia. When it comes to sea creatures-or even terrestrial wildlife-it doesn't take much to create a disproportionate fear. One fateful but little remembered event in the history of human-sea life relations comes to my mind when I hear the media talk about the jumbo squid. An event that would both change how Western culture views sharks completely in just one summer.

Throughout the 18th and 19th century, most sharks weren't viewed as particularly threatening. While sailors tales of giant sea monsters, ancient Nordic/Celtic beasts such as the Kraken or Coinchen and Biblical ones such as the Leviathan, and yes giant squids (which then and now have been found washed on beaches) terrified seafarers from assorted peasants in steerage to veteran captains, and calloused slave traders, and sharks didn't really stand out. At the time even whales far from their current status as admired for their intelligence and regarded as symbols of the ecology movement, were often misunderstood and regarded as viscous and violent beasts. A point well illustrated by novels like Moby Dick and the Biblical story of Jonah and the Whale. (Even in the 1940's cartoon such as Pinocchio retained this imagery.) While many of these sea monsters are easily laughed off by modern people the view of sharks was rather closer to the truth than modern perceptions. Indeed if I was in a pre-industrial sea vessel, I would be less alarmed by sharks than a large whale!!

But in the summer of 1916, all that was about to change. As The Great War (aka WWI) raged in Europe prior to US entry, as Turkey waged genocide against Armenia, as TE Lawrence worked in an office in Cairo hoping to see real action, just months after Ireland had seen it's last failed revolt against the British Empire, and less than a year before the last Tsar of Russia would be overthrown and killed along with his family, an immense amount of press in the United States would focus on a series of incidents on the New Jersey coast, that killed only four people.

Between July 1 and 12 five people would be attacked by sharks in New Jersey and only one of them would survive. As people took to swimming on the beaches in the summer sharks and humans would collide. Perhaps even more curiously, two of the fatal attacks occured not on the beach, but in Matawan Creek 16 miles inland. One interesting thing about those deaths from a modern point of view is that two of those people didn't die in the water, but on land. One man bled to death on the manager's desk of a hotel and another in a hospital, which is to say that with modern medicine and ambulance services they most likely would have survived.

At the time many, ichthyologists, marine biologists, and other members of the scientific community reacted with great skepticism that sharks would attack and kill a human being in temperate waters, and to this day point out accurately that the actual risk of shark attacks are quite small.

The general public however, needed much less convincing as "shark hysteria" went into full swing, and boated posses were launched to haunt and kill sharks. A year later after the US had entered WWI however briefly before it ended the shark incidents of the previous summer would look pretty puny by comparison. Yet a sea change (no pun intended) in the perception of sharks had been fully accomplished. And nearly 50 years later, a well known cult classic inspired by the events, would launch Stephen Spielberg's career. By that point the actual incidents were not widely remembered by the public, but the change in conscienceness was entirely taken for granted. However, in recent years even the Great White Shark has been granted a novel look by scientists.

To this day nobody knows why exactly this rash of shark attacks on humans happened in one place. Some claim that it was simply a stastical fluke-something anyone who has studied statistics has to admit is a reasonable possibility. Others couldn't help but speculate that it was related to the Naval Wafare raging in the Atlantic Ocean. Some people wondered if all the bodies dumped into the ocean or lost sailors who were never found, might have given the sharks a taste for human flesh. However, to my mind this view seems historically blind. After all, uncounted millions of men, women, and children were dumped dead or alive from the slavegoing ships of the Middle Passage alone, during the period when sharks were widely regarded as harmless. Perhaps this was because people didn't swim on the beaches as much, or because society lacked the media to widely publish shark attacks. Or perhaps as other suggested the sharks headed to the Western shores of the Atlantic to get away from the noise generated by Naval Battles. However, I've yet to see any convincing evidence of other naval warfare causing similar "outbreaks" of shark attacks.

The real truth is that we don't know what the cause was in 1916, and we don't really know what is causing the beaching of jumbo squid on the coast of California now. Some scientists say it's a turnover of the ocean currents, others point to earthquake. In this day and age, speculation about climate change is inevitable. Some biologists wonder if the squid aren't establishing a new population in the area, and that they come to the surface looking for food. Certainly not every shifting in ocean populations (or terrestrial animals, or plants) is the result of global warming, as any ecologist could tell you.

While some people will misuse any explanation other than climate change for the squid as an excuse to mock the whole issues, the truth remains that we know so little about the ocean. We know very little about how climate change and hundreds of other factors affect it. We know very little about so many of its inhabitants.

But one can hope that these squid beachings will inspire people not to fear ocean going squid, but to regard sea life with a certain amount of respect-even when it does warrant caution.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Water Saving Tip Number #1: Vote for Water

The first tip touches upon the fact that the government policy has an immense impact on water issues internationally, nationally, and locally. This includes not only direct issues such as water conservation, water pollution, farm policy, research on several related topics, but also indirect issues such as family planning, UNESCO policies, dealings with other nations and so on.

To anyone who has watched US politics long enough, it becomes very obvious that relatively few of them have made preventing water shortages a key priority. Even the most basic funding to the EPA is the product of long term government policy (as opposed to merely the current administration), and long term issues about allocating of government resources. And the US water crisis is influenced not only by the EPA, but also policies at the Bureau of Land Management, Department of Agriculture, NOAA, and Department of Energy, as well as US foreign policy can have a profound influence on the world's aquatic situation.

And for those of you who only vote for the President, Congressmen, and Governor, it's worth knowing that a lot of local water related decisions can be made by State Legislatures or even those annoying hard-to-read-the-fine-print initiatives can have a big influence. And not all of them are obvious.

For example one initiative in Oregon during election 2008, would have allowed landowners an to be exempt from any building codes or regulations, for any improvements on their properties worth less than $35,000 dollars. Most people would not equate something like that with water issues. However that price range could be used to construct things such as a small landfill, or a significant sized parking lot near the ocean, on top of a high water table, or near a river or lake. Also the initiative was very unpopular with firefighters. Fortunately, it didn't pass.

Other local policies could effect the ease with which a landowner or corporation can drill a new well in a certain area, and/or where they could place a toxic waste dump.
In the case of local initiatives it's also worth noticing that nearly every community has various political groups that will make a point of floating these initiatives in an odd numbered years and count on the lower political turnout and low awareness in order to win.

Finally there is no need to stop with voting. Other options include campaigning or becoming involved with local politics. By doing that you can influence how much of a priority water is going to be for your party.

Another tactic is to find communities in your area that are often targets of environmental injustice and set up voter registration drives in the area. Historically those who assume that they can get away with despoiling the environment by fobbing most of the consequences onto the more vulnerable, poorer, and more marginal members of society, have ALWAYS did so assuming that those people probably wouldn't vote in high numbers or become politically active. Prove them wrong.

So that's one idea for today!

Say Goodnight Readers!

Troubled Waters

Hello Everyone!

Just yesterday, I was looking at the current issue of "Good Magazine". Now for those of you who haven't *met* it, "Good" is basically a magazine for 20, 30, and 40 somethings who care about the fate of the world, but are too hip to admit it too earnestly. As it turns out the current issue deals with the world water crisis from many angles.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about that issue was the wide variety of points of view on water that were offered.

1) Sewage recycling technology-Thumbs ups!

2) Defense of high end bottled water: GRRR!

3) Ocean research-Thumbs up!

4) Conflict over water resources, including the fact that it could happen between two nuclear weapon owning countries: India and Pakistan.

5) Personal Water Conservation.

6) A recent crisis in Atlanta where the water supply nearly dried up, and the main action taken by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue was to hold prayer vigils on the steps of the Capitol. (They don't call it the Bible Belt for nothing.)

7) Why the stillsuits in Frank Herbert's science fiction classic "Dune" probably wouldn't work.

8) The fact that any alien life on other planets will likely depend on water, and may even seek it from water rich planets such as ours-Actually my first sense that water is nothing to take for granted came from a science fiction series based exactly on that premise. And if you know what it is you are probably from the 80's too.

While looking at this is occured to me how much confusion there is over water issues and the sheer complexity of the problem. However one thing that comes across is that people generally want to help. In fact, one reader actually e-mailed me asking why water isn't rationed in the American Southwest. So I've decided to start my own list on global water saving tips.

What I'm not going to do is reiterate any of the "usual" tips ones hears whether they are conventional things such as turning off the faucet and getting a law that can survive on local rain. Nor suggestions such as grey water systems, toilets that use bath/handwash water, compost toilets, rainwater harvesting or other more drastic suggestions. I'm also not going to bring up the common suggestions such as eating less beef.

No, what I'm going to talk about are large scale rather than personal scale ways to prevent the wasting of water. Keep in mind that I'm certainly not putting down personal level conservation measures, but I simply don't want to repeat information that can already be found in many different places.
Nor are all my water related posts going to involve these tips, because some issues are more complex and I will expect my readers to look at them and draw their own conclusions.

I would very much like to here feedback on the tips among other posts, but remember you have to

At any rate stay posted for some novel water saving tips.

Say Goodnight Readers!

The Real Norman Rockwell and the 50's that Time Forgot

Happy 4th of July Everyone!!

I thought today would be a good day to write the following post, because this is a day to reflect on things such as patriotism and on what America is about.

Many of us have certain images surrounding the idea of "Americana" or 1950's America, and one name that commonly comes up is that of painter Norman Rockwell. Of course, Rockwell was an extraordinarily prolific artists, but in recent years he has be somewhat sanitized and stripped of his political voice.

" Sanitized?" Some people may ask. "What was there to sanitize?". While others may be surprised that Rockwell had any political leanings other than "old school patriotism". As the pictures on this blog should make clear he did. Of course, it should be remember that while the Civil Rights movement was much more controversial at the time, than it is today. And the do unto others poster would have been controversial at the time for it's pictures of people who would have lived in Communist countries. Now it might be just as suspect with some people for images of people from non Judeo-Christian faiths. (After all in our post Cold War time people have been known to make inquiries into whether or not Baack Obama is Muslim, and even whether or not Al Gore was in a Buddhist Temple.)

Of course, a lot of people also forget that many movements that have been labeled as "60's" in nature such as Civil Rights, Feminism, The Ecology Movement, changing sexual mores, and others actually did start in the 50's. As has been pointed out before on this blog "the hippie thing" went back WAAY before even the beatniks. During the 50's certain movies such as "Salt of the Earth" and "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (the 2008 version is a rip off on the original), while shot in much the same manner as "Lassie" and "Leave it to Beaver" actually expressed views that would be derided by Fox News as "hating America" or as "anti-male" , "anti-family", or "anti-capitalism".

Also try to imagine the reaction if the 1955 cartoon "Good Will To Men", was made in today's environment. Of course, the point is not to lionize the 1950's or to argue that "old fahioned America" is what progressives should shoot for. The point is to avoid making simplistic assumptons about any era or any society.

Some thoughts for this 4th of July!

Say goodnight readers!!