Happy 4th of July

Should there be a law against furring the flag?

Snowpack

I wrote a short post the other day about our late wet season this year. As some of you know I have this tendency to follow single facts down the rabbit hole that is the internet. I like research, I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on the topic. Yes, the snowpack interested me, so I looked a bit deeper as it were.

Yesterday and today it was been wet and grey outside my windows and I read an article by a water management district representative who said that we should not be worried about flooding just yet because this "usually wet late season storm would keep the temperatures cold in the mountains." He went on to say that this system was also going to add even more snow to the already above average snowpack, so the flood watch would continue much later than usual, probably until the end of July.

Off I went looking for data on average snowpack and runoff. The first good source I found was a chart based on the average snowpack as of April 1st. It seems that is an excellent date to measure from because late March and early April is statistically the height of the snowpack throughout California. The melt begins around then followed by the streams and rivers beginning to rise.

First stat I found was that as of June 1st we were at 109% of the average April 1st snowpack up here in northern California. Not a worrisome total at all, but you gotta be careful with statistics. If we are at 109% of normal that would be one thing, but the numbers say we are at 109% of normal for April 1st that arbitrary measured date. So I had to ask: On June 1st, how are we compared to average for June 1st? I mean shouldn't we already have had about two months of melting?

It took some searching but I found the numbers. Before this big storm came through, the one I am looking at outside my window right now; before this drenching we were at 559% of normal snowpack for June 1st. No typo there - Over five times normal. Its a double whammy of a big snow season and a wet spring that has delayed the spring melt.

Donner Summit at the top of the pass between Sacramento and Reno has seen a staggering 740 inches of snow this winter/spring (so far). Only four years since 1900 have seen snowfall in excess of 700 inches. The average is just over 400 inches. In 1982-83, Donner got 880 inches of snow; that summer in many higher elevations the snowpack did not completely melt, not until the following spring after a more normal winter in 83-84.

What does this all mean for the 2011 fire season and for potential flooding? Well short term predictions are generally unpredictable. But as far as global warming or climate change as is the current PC label - this year's wet winter adds nearly nothing to that conversation. Annual or decade long variations do not preclude the scientific evidence on the long term effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The only piece of evidence I can verify is that it is very wet outside at that moment and snowing up in the Sierras.

Meanwhile, could someone please locate two wolverines and a pair of pythons.

Dichotomy

One might say that the definition of dichotomy presents a dichotomy. The simpliest definition says that it is the division into two parts or a subdivision into pairs or halves. But you can sense that this is not how we use the term. Looking further we find additional constraints - the division into two mutually exclusive, opposed even contradictory groups. Such as a dichotomy between motion and stillness.

One definition suggests an original whole which is cut in two; the other a divide that can never be a whole and never was. Still something is missing.

Our use of the term dichotomy is heavily influenced by the notion of a false dichotomy. Also known as black & white thinking, a false dichotomy draws a bipolar comparison that is not necessarily true. For example:

We had a lot of rain this spring. The crime rate was higher this spring. Rain is conducive to crime.

or

Guns and hammers are made of metal and both can be used to harm someone. It makes no sense to regulate the sale of hammers, so it makes no sense to regulate gun sales either.

There is something in the examples of the false dichotomy that creeps into our understanding and use of dichotomy. The oppositional definition seems to be dominant.

There is something to be extrapolated about separate but equal logic mixed in here somewhere, but sometimes my brain hurts and nothing will do but another cat picture.

You might have wondered at some point - where do the ideas for a blog post originate? Well this one came from a picture. No, not the kittens. The photograph below of an art work titled: Dichotomy by Eric Franklin.

I didn't say I understood it.

It's All Your Fault!

The student section at Yost Hockey Arena in Ann Arbor is a raucous, some might say rude bunch. One of their favorite cheers comes after the Michigan squad scores a goal. They all stand and point at the visitor's goalie and chant:

"It's all your fault. It's all your fault. It's all your fault."

I was reminded of this recently when a friend had a fender bender. An expensive event when you carry a $1,000 deductible in a society where no auto repair is less than a grand. What was unnerving was listening to her on the phone with her insurance agent admitting it was her fault. Unfortunately she had said exactly those words to the other driver at the scene of the accident. Even in the description of the incident I overheard, I had doubts about her culpability. But, of course, the moral of the story is not that you should never admit guilt; nay, the object lesson is the mindset in life that it's all your fault.

My friend is one of those guilt-ridden personalities. You know those people who do guilt so well, so often and so quickly that there really is no room for anyone else to shoulder any part of the burden. I will not mention her heritage here, you are allowed to speculate. I will, however, say that upbringing is the key; with the true guilt focused directly on the parents.

Guilt is instilled at an early age, most personality traits are. What one has to wonder is why of all the gifts to give a child, a parent would select this one? The answer, of course, is that the adult is compensating for their own feelings by projecting them on their child. Some parents are wise enough to compensate by giving their child the opposite or positive referent to their own tortured soul. Others - not so much.

Moral of the story - At least 50% of the time, it really isn't your fault. Ponder that possibility and we'll work on lowering the number next session.

Who Do You Think You Are?

An unlikely source led to this recommendation. I just do not keep up with contemporary music, haven't in many years. Yes, I am stuck in the 60's & 70's. Then I get a musical suggestion from a friend who I never would have expected to be so current - except that his job has him hanging out with high school kids, so I guess the music would seep into him by proximity osmosis.

Anyway, for those who like me are not in synch with modern music, that's Christina Perri in the photograph. I have been sampling a wide range of her work and I strongly recommend the her video Jar of Hearts, not only do I like her voice but the lyrics are evocative and the imagery is wonderful. Watch carefully for the incremental theft of her soul and the final recovery.

Who do you think you are

Running round leaving scars

Collecting your jar of hearts

and tearing love apart

You're gonna catch a cold

from the ice inside your soul

Don't come back for me

Don't come back at all

Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

A very interesting NYTimes article from a couple of months back reported on potential liberal bias in social science research. It seems that the organization - The Society for Personality and Social Psychology is made up of over 80% liberals. The article touches on the generalized 'fact' that academia in general is more liberal than the society as a whole. What makes this more interesting is that the SPSP focuses research on areas of gender, racial, ethnic and other forms of social prejudice but when it comes close to home, the article suggests, the professors are unable to see their own bias - liberalism.

The counter arguments ("80% of cops are conservative," "conservatives are X or liberals are Y") play out quite effectively in the comments section attached to the article. And while I do recommend both the article and the follow-up debate, I am more interested in what the article implies about the liberal mindset. 

You see Barack Obama has announced his intentions to seek a second term and my liberal friends are beginning to line up in one of two muttering masses of thought.  

Pro-Obama - "He remains the bright shining light of hope." "Have you listened to the Tea Party!" "Of the two choices..."

Not-So-Much-Anymore - "He hasn't kept any of the promises I heard in '08." "What about Gitmo?" "How can our guy bomb Libya and keep us in Iraq and Afghanistan.."

So yes, this is the opening salvo of my 2012 advocacy of third party candidates but with a twist. It has become more and more apparent to me that liberals including many of my liberal friends are engaged in really weak-willed self delusion. Conservatives don't listen to your old worn arguments, they reject them as 'heard it all before.' Conservatives know what they believe and they often know they are right in those beliefs. Liberals or Progressives, on the other hand, tend to hang out with the antiquated notion that every position deserves equal time and contemplation again and again and again. Stop! Stand up for what you belief. Be willing to say that others are wrong, entitled to their opinion yes, but wrong is still wrong.

There is a huge difference between being co-opted by local prejudice of your self-selected tribe and simply but vocally declaring that some truths are self-evident and not subject to interpretation or political spin. Some truths are etched in stone and conscious, do you know which of your beliefs rise to that level of truth? And perhaps even more importantly to a civil debate, which of your beliefs are not actually up to the label of truth and therefore are capable of compromise.

Detroit Redux

I was surprised after my series on the ruin of Detroit that I did not hear from the few friends I still have there. I did hear a lot from many; family, friends and strangers. The comments were from both sides of the Detroit Decline. Some felt I was too harsh, others agreed and most of those had lived there and since moved away. But no one still fighting the good fight has turned up to defend the soot-covered Motor City.

Summer 1967

The New York Times did a silver-lining piece on Detroit. How some residents are attempting to hold on to selected portions of the city. How even the new mayor has stated that saving the whole city is folly, while encouraging residents to concentrate themselves in salvageable corridors. Neighbors are doing citizen patrols and paying private companies for services the city can no longer provide.

I would like to find some reason to jump on the Save Detroit bandwagon, but the logic of saving certain neighborhoods necessarily means abandoning others. It is indeed a triage situation, which when extended to the country as a whole would mean saving certain cities and letting others go.  Detroit is going to be on everyone's list to let go.

R.I.P Motor City, let the wild flowers bloom, let the grasses cover over the scars of what once was.

Random Whys ? ? ?

You know those amazingly efficient people who swarm into a kitchen, skim away the invisible construction dust, put down shelf paper and manage to put the glasses in the "correct cupboard" the first time? Those people who would rather you stay out of the way and just schlep the empty boxes and packing material out to the trash.

Why didn't I marry one of those people?

How did it get to be so late that the sun is still up long after 7 o'clock. I know there was that spring forward thing and I recognize that evenings up in Shasta were often obscured by grey clouds and snow showers but this feels like I have either fallen forward several months. 

Oh wait!

Why I have this panoramic view again, looking out on the bridges and cities of San Francisco Bay and the great wide Pacific beyond. Why that's the answer, nevermind.

Why are there so many flats roofs in rainy climates? From my 8th story perch, all the houses have slanted roofs. All the apartments roofs are flat. I can see the pools of rainwater as they build on those roofs, but two and only two of the maybe twenty flat roofs are pitched. The big apartment building just to the north actually has waves in its roof lake. Wouldn't just slightly pitched but enough to they shed the rain? Does this not seem like a construction no-brainer? All that sheathing, the super membranes, the sealant, caulking, flanges and tar; why not just a slight pitch?

Why not cant, I ask?

Robert Kennedy Jr. has said that using 3% of the state of Arizona for modern, high-intensity solar power would power the entire country. Now distribution is not addressed in that scenario but add the wind tunnel that is the entire midwest, the undersea turbines for nearly every coastal state and government subsidies being redirected from oil and coal to wind, sun and biomass and we have a clean solution to a very dirty problem.

And we don't have to wait ten years, a single bill in congress could turn the entire energy dependence issue around in our favor. A simple, elegant solution that benefits the American people, the environment and creates literally millions of jobs.

Why not? is the question. I think you know the "not" answer.

Imported From Detroit (IV)

Isn't that a great skyline, those gold-speckled black towers right on the edge of a beautiful blue river. It's stunning, it's beautiful, it's Detroit and it's an illusion. Detroit is never going to be a thriving urban center again. 

Never.

Yes, it's time for my commentary on the city of my birth. There is one word I have to say about Detroit -- downsize. Stop this insane belief that the city will ever regain the prominence and population it once had. Ain't gonna happen. I don't care how many fine young millennials say they are 'up on the city,' 'high on the potential,' or simply 'pro-Detroit.'

The industrial based is destroyed. The skilled workforce is gone. There is a worldwide recession and if you subscribe to the rhetoric from my last Detroit post, the American Empire is decaying from within. There are far too many other pressing needs to spend billions on saving the rusted hulk that was Detroit. Too many other urban areas need help and they can be salvaged, cut your losses when it comes to the Motor City.

Go small -- downsize. Go Green and local. Try the whole urban farm thing, why not? Make those massive boulevards and highways bicycle friendly. Urban park, urban forest but no more towers. The industrial north is over, hell big industry in the US might well be over and if we are going to be an information age workforce, would you really pick Detroit as the placed you wanted to be plugged in? I've been there, I know what it's like -- move on.

Urban renaissance is not going to happen. Urban conversion or retroversion sure; whatever that looks like. There are a lot of creative people with multitudes of ideas for what Detroit could be, but the one to reject and forever bury is a Detroit like it was in the good old days. Those days are long gone and for quite some time the days and nights haven't been anywhere near good. Don't listen to those people who talk about the decline of the last decade or how twenty years of neglect did this or that to the city. 

Detroit has not been thriving for over fifty years. Half a century of clear and constant indicators have made it clear that this city was not going to survive, yet the politicians, the corporations, even the citizens kept the feeding tube connected despite all the obvious signs and cultural near death signposts. Time to pull the plug and turn our attention to what can be saved, call it urban triage.

Godwin's Law

I wrote about Godwin's Law way back in January of '07, soon after I had started this here blog. Well it clearly has been too long because I have run into several discussions recently where a good dose of Mr. Godwin's logic would have served all parties well.

Here goes:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an early principle of Internet dialog or it damn well should be. This sanguine postulation was formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law makes the trenchant observation that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis, Fascists or Hitler approaches one." 


Or to state it less mathematically: some lame ass who can't really think for himself is going to call the other guy a Nazi or a Fascist or even Adolf himself. Sooner or later as the discussion heats up and the flaming begins, someone will pull out this universally overused analogy. Generally the user cannot spell analogy nor pronounce fascist.


Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion, electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms and more recently blog comment talk pages. To this I would add any and all group discussions particularly one that involves the potential consumption of large amounts of wine. [Oops, did I give too much away there. Will they know I am writing about them?]

Circulation of Elites

An academic friend tells the story of being asked about the 'revolution' in Egypt and replying: "It's not a revolution, they aren't changing the government only the names on the masthead." That basically describes the principle known as the Circulation of Elites. Vilfredo Pareto is credited with postulating this theory in the late 1800s. He suggested that political and therefore governmental change is nearly always the result of one elite replacing another. And despite the images on television and the internet it is not clear that Egypt was a popular uprising or simply a popular following of the new elite.

Most of the talk about democracy comes from outside Egypt. It appears what most Egyptians wanted was the removal of a tyrant who had ruled for three decades. Time will tell if any actual governmental or political change will result from the departure of the most recent elite. 

Revolutions, on the other hand, sweep the old regime from power and replace it with a new government. Not always a new form of government and not always a better one for those who were actually in the streets doing the revolting. You could use Cuba as an example to prove either point of view here. But one might better look to the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989, where actually governmental change (communist to democratic) did take place and then either did or did not sustain itself depending on your political point of view.

There are those who would argue that bloodless revolution is an oxymoron. Others might look to the old adage 'revolution is the result of a nation pregnant with itself.' Both good solid political arguments, which may or may not speak to what is actually happening in the backrooms throughout the region. What remains to be seen is what actually did happen in Egypt. Was it a revolution? Probably not. Was it a change of elites? Most likely. What will be the eventual outcome? Ah, well there lies the piece for the historians. 

Now what about Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Libya and . . .


[It has been pointed out to me by the aforementioned "academic friend" that Ibn Khaldun back in 1377 proposed the theory of the "oscillation of elites," which may be an even more explanatory model as it suggests that elites not only supplant each other but they also recycle (oscillate) and recirculate through the corridors of political power.]

--

art - Clay Bennett in The Christian Science Monitor

A Bit of History

I came across a piece of history recently, a certificate from the U.S. War Department dated 6 August 1945 and signed by the Secretary of War Henry Stimson. Here is the text:

United States of America

War Department

~

Army Services Forces 

Corps of Engineers

~

Manhattan District

This is to Certify that

[name redacted]

has participated in work essential to the production

of the Atomic Bomb, thereby contributing to the successful conclusion of World War II. This certificate is awarded in appreciation of the effective service.

Hiroshima 11 August 1945

That's all I got today.

Why Oh Why?

"Baby mice fathered by mice receiving a donation of spermatogonial stem cells from mice expressing green fluorescent protein." 


Only half the baby mice show the green color. This is because each spermatogonial stem cell has only one copy of the gene for green fluorescent protein. When the spermatogonial cell divides, only half the cells that result from it have the gene for green fluorescent protein.

Brought to you by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.


Sometimes I just wonder why.


On another why? If you have wondered why the Middle East has been blowing up, I would direct you to a wonderful blog post about Tunisia and its place in the simmering region. I do mean simmering since the post is mostly about food... or is it? 


Sometimes the response to a "why?" is just not something you would ever conjure from the depths of your own experience.

. . .being of an older generation.

In case you're worried about what's going to become of the younger generation, it's going to grow up and start worrying about the younger generation. -- Roger Allen

Recently I've been thinking a bit about being a member of an "older" generation. Then semi-suddenly two incidents brought it all home and gave me sufficient fodder for a blog post. 

First came a friend's fascination with the TV sit-com Two and a Half Men in which Charlie Sheen plays an alcoholic whore monger. Yes, I know the show is technically about two brothers sharing a house with a ten year old son; but all of the storylines and dialog have to do with Charlie Sheen being an alcoholic whore monger while mirth and merriment ensue all around.

Now you have got to know that this show has caused screams of protest from those who find its content unfit for broadcast television. The rebuttal to those cries of moral degeneracy has been steady top ten ratings for the show since it began. So I watched half a dozen episodes. OK, I laughed a lot more than I cringed, but then I don't have any kids who might see it. Clearly lots of young, unknown wanna be starlets are getting much needed guest shots and showing as much skin as prime time allows. When I did feel a bit uncomfortable about the content, it was the writing not the visuals but then again I am still a guy, which means hot, young bimbos playing hot, young bimbos are at least visually satisfying. With each verbal indelicacy I reminded myself that I am of an "older" generation and I remembered what our elders thought of us during the 60s & 70s. Besides I did laugh. 

Then last week Charlie was big news for going into rehab again, bigger news it seems than a conflagration in Egypt and adjoining parts of the middle east. Charlie in rehab again, the show on hiatus again, the show about an alcoholic whore monger, and you thought South Park was irreverent. Well enough of banal television, I will not be watching future episodes once Charlie is dried out, but do allow your kids to watch the boob tube without restrictions, after all it's better than finding out the local meth dealer peddles his wares in the public library; but that's another story.

Part two of this story comes to us via facebook. I saw a post from a old high school friend about the death of another high school classmate' again the theme of being part of a older generation. I dropped her a note, the old friend not the dead old friend, and reminded her of an incident we were involved in back now 46 years ago. She responded and told me a few details which I had not known and then she added: "It just seems life is not fair to everyone, I find it hard to believe Deborah has been gone nearly 20 years."

What? Gone twenty years? Deborah was my high school girlfriend, most of my adolescent 'firsts' involved her but wait, she has been dead for nearly two decades? My mind just didn't wrap itself around that one, my brain just kept spitting out that factoid - it simply did not compute. I hadn't seen her in over 40 years, heard not a word of news but still - "gone twenty years" . . .

I need a break, maybe catch The Big Chill on the oldies network before I head out to the seniors discount buffet at the local tribal casino, then maybe a few rousing rounds of bingo.

Chinese Year of the Metal Rabbit

Rabbit Years are fourth in the Chinese calendar, following Tiger Years. The Chinese new year usually falls on the second new moon after the winter solistice. This year the date is today: February 3, 2011. 

The characteristics of the Rabbit (both those born under the sign of the Rabbit and the actual year itself) are influenced by the five Chinese elements: Metal, Water, Fire, Wood and Earth. So there is a sixty year cycle that overlays the 12 year cycle of the Chinese calendar. This is the year of the Metal Rabbit.

                                     THE METAL RABBIT 1951 AND 2011

Metal gives Rabbits a more resilient demeanor than the other more quiet Rabbit. These Rabbits are very ambitious and can be quite crafty in their dealings with others. They throw themselves and their emotions into everything they do, making them intense lovers, but not outwardly affectionate lovers. Their determination can affect their work as well, whether through personal relationships with colleagues or with the work itself, a Rabbit can be known to immerse himself in his projects…business and personal.

Methinks, I myself shall opt for intense immersion this year.

--

art: Beth Cavener Stitchter

The Girl Who Played with the Dragon's Nest

Have you read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? If yes, then have you read the sequel - The Girl Who Played with Fire? and, of course, having read two you must have gotten to the final book - The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest. All three remain in the top 30 on Amazon nearly three years after Dragon Tattoo (english version) was released. 


So I have a question - why? 


The writing is not brilliant nor is the mystery unique. A New Yorker article attempted to answer the question: Why Do People Love Stieg Larsson novels? An interesting article that poses even more question than I have and informs us that Larsson may have planned a series of 10 novels with these characters but he died having completely only these three.


I think the answer has to come from the lead female character - Lisbeth Salander. With a Nazi monster for a father, victim of all sorts of abuse; childhood and contemporary, tough, smart, silent and a feminist of a very unique pedigree. The attraction to the books must be a strong affinity to the girl with the dragon tattoo.


For me the books were interesting beach reads, though I consumed them during this northern california winter. The setting in Sweden meant readers are exposed to a different corrupt government than Russia, China, U.S. or Vatican City; that was refreshing. You never get a really good dose of neo-Nazism at work in American novels.


But after the change of setting, the novels are not particularly well written politico-mysteries. No, it has to be the girl in the titles. Don't get me wrong, the stories are good, at times very good; but the delivery is weak. The New Yorker article summarizes all the controversy about who may have helped with the editing of Larsson's original drafts. There is much agreement that he had more than substantive editing revisions to get the books to their current condition.


But even with a gang of editors the books really are nothing unique. Not a single orc to be found, nor actual dragon to be slain or ridden.


Can someone explain this to me?

Literature on the Road

One perk of my semi-nomadic wanderings is that I get to sample the daily lifestyles of the friends and family I visit, including their choice in literature and periodicals. Right now, here in Lake Shastina, California the magazine selection includes two of my favorites: National Geographic and Discover. And while I will go home with a box of older editions, I thought I would share with you the January/February lead story in Discover - The Year in Science: 100 Top Stories of 2010.

To pick my favorite story I had to skip a couple of NASA tales, which I am very fond of, particularly those with photographs from the Hubble. There were also several fossil finds, which made us several tens of millions of years older and set the dinosaurs back nine digits in human years. There were solar planes and green cities; avian optical illusions and rocks in Death Valley that move.

But being the anthropocentric fool that I am, I had to go with a finding from neuroscience about another capacity of the human brain. We know we can measure the neural response in the human brain to nearly any stimuli. So a test was done to first notice the neural activity via fMRI when someone told a vivid memory from their life. Next a group of volunteers were scanned as they listened to a tape of that same memory. 

Two results were discovered. First, the more closely a listener paid attention to the story the more their own brain activity mirrored that of the original story teller. Attention was measured by a follow-up questionnaire. Even more interesting was the discovery that among the most attentive listeners, "key brain regions lit up before the words even came out." Listeners were able to anticipate the coming direction of the story just as the original speaker would foretell their own tale. The short conclusion:

"The more you anticipate someone, the more you're able to enter their space."

For those interested this article is #78 in the top 100, titled: Good Listeners Get Inside Your Head.

Whores of Convenience

Now that some of the noize around Wikileaks and Julian Assange has died down, I have a question of my many liberal friends and, of course, the liberal media. How is it that Julian Assange is some kind of hero, when he is charged with sex crimes against two women in Sweden? How does his leaking of governmental information obscure violence against women. Can't he be both your driveling hero in the great tradition of Ralph Nader and Daniel Ellsberg and still be a sexist and a criminal?

I would like to remind some of those same left leaning friends and all of the liberal press of how the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas sides were chosen. No one on the left gave Thomas one iota of potential of being innocent 19 years ago. He was a pervert and a near rapist because of what he allegedly did to Anita Hill and it had nothing at all to do with his reactionary politics.

Did it?

So how do Julian Assange and Clarence Thomas end up on opposite sides of the liberal fence?

Or perhaps a better question. How do Anita Hill and Julian Assange end up under the same blue tent?

Just how convenient are the politics of sexism?

Facebook Reality

Yes I have a facebook account. No you don't capitalize facebook. No facebook is not Big Brother, more like a big sister who is a fifteen year old gossip, an addicted texter and isn't bright enough to be on Jersey Shore.

But there are lessons to be learned from facebook or any other social networking site. First thing everyone needs to admit is that all of these websites are businesses. They are trying to turn a profit either by selling you stuff or selling your stuff. Your stuff being your personal information and internet preferences. If you equate capitalism with evil then they are indeed the spawn of satan. If you believe otherwise then you are a fool but facebook is no more evil than Bank of America or McDonalds.

But back to those lessons to be learned. Here are several examples I have gleaned from facebook.

My nephew has finally taken heed to his father's and my comments that someday he would actually want to apply for a real job and what is out there on the internet with his name attached will be there for all of his potential employers to find and consider right along with his college transcript. My rather bright nephew has found a way to play at will on facebook without having all of those beers and babes attached to his name. I am not going to give away his secret, but I will say -- Well Done Mister!

Next, in the category of double-edged sword, you will be judged by the content you post on facebook. Be sure you are reflecting the real you. I had a couple of coffee dates with a very nice lady, life intervened and our only contact for awhile was what each of us revealed online. In my case there is this blog, in hers there was her facebook page. Bottom line, I liked the person I met face to face; I really didn't care for the facebook version and that soured any future relationship.

In a similar vein, I know of two examples of rejected lovers following their former partner on facebook and coming away with exactly the same impression: "How did I ever think it would work with him/her."

Now part of this disjuncture has to do with the superficiality that pervades facebook and all the other social networking sites. They do not exactly encourage depth or insight. But even those who attempt to deepen the context seem destined to failure. I know I have a friend, someone I thought was becoming a close friend, but after following her for several months I was simply bored by the thin content of what she reflected as her life.

Final example. If you have something important in your life, like a philosophy or a mission; be careful how you reflect that on the net. I actually was asked to engage in a "conversation of depth" with a three people I thought were substantial. But after reviewing their facebook posts over the last year it was clear that they are deeply into the most superficial new age gloss on reality.

You know you can hide someone's posts on facebook without unfriending them. It's a way to not say to their facebook face: "You're an idiot!"
--
Big Brother/Facebook poster from collegecandy.com

Leading Causes of "The End"

Well it is nearly All Hallows Eve and I have been working on a fairly dark section of my current book project, so I thought today I might ponder a bit about death. Specifically, what are the leading causes of death worldwide and then some specifics about death in the United States.

The best numbers on death worldwide come from the World Health Organization. They divide their data into low, medium and high income countries because the standard of living equates to better or worse access to health care. For that reason malaria appears in the low-income data but not middle or high-income nations. On the other side of the dark coin, Alzheimer's related deaths appear only in the high-income countries. A comprehensive global comparison would run far beyond the scope of a single blog post. So I focused on the U.S. numbers.

Divide the population into 10 segments by age:
<1,
1-4,
5-9,
10-14,
15-24,
25-34,
35-44,
45-54,
55-64,
65+.

First a couple of questions and then a big hint if you need one.

Question 1: Five age groups (1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-24, 25-34) share the same most common cause of death, what is it?
Question 2: What is the most common causes of death overall, it appears in the top ten of every category except infants under one year of age?

Here is your hint, which will answer question #2 and help you on question #1.

Top Ten Most Common Causes of Death in the U.S.
1. Heart Disease 616K
2. Malignant Neoplasms 562K
3. Cerebro-vascular 135K
4. Chronic Low Respiratory Disease 127K
5. Unintentional Injury 123K
6. Alzheimer's Disease 74K
7. Diabetes Melitus 71K
8. Influenza & Pneumonia 52K
9. Nepritis 46K
10. Septicemia 34K

Heart Disease remains the number #1 killer in the U.S. and from that list you probably also figured out that Unintentional Accident tops the list for those over 1 and under 45. And yes a big portion of that number is automobile accidents. Two more questions.

3. What cause of death not in the top ten ranks 2nd for 15-24 year olds, 3rd for 1-4, 10-14 & 25-34, 4th in the 5-9 age group and 6th among 35-44 year olds?
4. What cause of death also not in the top ten ranks 2nd for 25-34 years old, 3rd for 15-24, 4th for 10-14 & 35-44 and 5th for 45-54 and even 8th among 55-64 year olds?

Just a couple of other facts before I answer those two questions. Clearly the 65+ group has the highest numbers in all categories of the top ten. Deaths of those 65 and older account for nearly 70% of the total nationwide. This 70% of deaths number would be 80%+ if the answers to questions 3 & 4 did not exist.

Answer to question #3: Homicide
Answer to question #4: Suicide

If you would like to see this data as a graph.