Atmospheric CO2 Hits New Level

It seems to me…

“Ground Control to Major Tom
Commencing countdown, engines on
Check ignition and may God’s love be with you.”  ~ Major Tom[i] – 1969, (David Bowie).

Last week, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) was measured at over 400 parts per million (ppm) at the monitoring station in Hawaii which sets the global benchmark. The last time worldwide carbon levels probably were that high was at least 2 million years ago[ii].

In other supposedly unrelated news last week, it was announced by the nonprofit organization Mars One that over 78,000 people have applied to become Red Planet colonists since their application process opened on April 22[iii].  Maybe those applicants have considered the probable results of continued global warming and think their possibilities seem better somewhere other than on Earth.

While 400ppm only has significance as a convenient round number, had been anticipated, and will not result in any obvious environmental impact, it still marks a milestone indicating global warming continues to increase out of control.  Emissions have exceeded the point at which the Earth’s natural systems are able to absorb them.

There are natural fluctuations of greenhouse gas from volcanoes and decomposing plants and animals.  Over the last 800,000 years, CO₂ levels have been between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods.  Scientists say it may even have been 10 million years ago since atmosphere carbon dioxide was last this high.  To put this in perspective, the first modern humans appeared in Africa only about 200,000 years ago.

The last time atmospheric CO₂ levels exceeded 400 ppm, there were camels and forests in the Arctic, the tropics were locked in a near constant el Nino (the pattern that typically floods the western U.S.), and large expanses of the U.S. East Coast, Florida, and the Gulf States were underwater since sea levels were around 100 feet higher than they are today.

Simulation models predicting exactly how long will be required for sufficient ice to melt to raise global sea levels to those levels are still being refined[iv].  What is known is that CO₂ levels higher that 400 ppm will result in increased heat waves, deep droughts, torrential rains, and a generally less-predictable world of weather-related events of which melting Arctic sea ice and rising sea level are only some of the obvious examples of what can be expected.

While current CO₂ levels are highly problematic, the primary concern is that today’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase following the end of the last ice age.  If carbon dioxide levels go up 100 parts per million over thousands or millions of years, plants and animals can adapt but are unable to do so at current rates.

What already can be attributed to rising global temperatures is increased average global precipitation (rain and snowfall), the melting of mountain glaciers and ice sheets covering West Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic, and the reduction in numbers of polar bears and Adélie penguins (from 32,000 to 11,000 breeding pairs in 30 years).  Some species of butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.  Spruce bark beetles have chewed up 4 million acres of Alaskan spruce trees.

Unless these trends are reversed, sea levels can be expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, stronger hurricanes and other storms, and both floods and droughts to become more common.  Ecosystem changes will result in some species moving farther north or become more successful while others unable to move becoming extinct.  Diseases such as mosquito-borne malaria will spread northward.  Some dependent species will become unsynchronized, such as plants blooming earlier than when their pollinating insects become active or the spring arrival of migratory birds arriving later than the emergence of destructive insects.

An ocean surface level increase of 3 feet would submerge considerable sections of low-lying or coastal communities and facilities along the U.S. eastern seaboard necessitating expensive relocation of power stations, refineries, hospitals, homes, etc.  As warmer air holds more water vapor, inland areas can anticipate increased rainfall and flooding.

Melting ice caps, composed of fresh water, will unbalance the global ecosystem.  Gulf current desalinization impact could disrupt global currents cooling Northeast America and Western Europe.

Rising oceans temperatures increase the probability of extreme weather including devastating storms.  The destructive power of hurricanes has increased by 50 percent in the last 30 years.

Ocean warming has reduced phytoplankton, the tiny plants that are an integral food source for ocean life and responsible for around half of the world’s photosynthetic activity.  Phytoplankton are the lowest level of the oceanic food chain so any reduction affects the entire food chain – particularly predators at the top.  Ocean acidification and warmer surface temperatures increase the dangers to many aquatic animals, particularly crustaceans, mollusks, and coral reefs.

Conversely, while some areas of the planet can anticipated higher levels of precipitation, other less humid areas currently susceptible to wildfires can expect them to become more prevalent and destructive.  Increased evapotranspiration and the accompanying decrease in rainfall in already semi-arid and sub-humid areas would result in desertification negatively affecting biodiversity and have a major impact on local human culture and wildlife.  Droughts and heat waves could threaten food supplies.

Many heavily populated places throughout the world could become uninhabitable due to heat or other factors displacing millions of people.  Resource reductions will lead to migration and population relocations resulting in social and economic impact as countries and factions seek to control valuable and dwindling resources to provide safety and shelter for their own people.  Unwelcome refugees might be forced into semi-permanent camps[v].

Along with vehicular fumes, ground-level ozone, airborne industrial pollution, and stagnant hot air associated with warmer temperatures, smog represents an immediate and chronic health threat to those living in developed urban areas resulting in an increase in smog-related deaths of about 4.5 percent from the 1990s to the 2050s[vi].  Temperature increases also aggravate pre-existing respiratory system health conditions such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma and in general impedes the immune system’s ability to fight against infection and disease.

A so-called “Deadly Dozen” group of diseases including Avian Flu, Cholera, Plague, Ebola, and Tuberculosis are likely to spread due to global warming.  Other sources of serious illnesses are aggravated by the effects of pollution and release of CFCs that harm the ozone layer.  Since disease-bearing insects such as mosquitoes multiply more rapidly as temperature increases, diseases like Malaria, West Nile virus, and Dengue fever also are expected to spread.  Increases in affected populations could potentially overwhelm public health services especially in poor or unprepared countries.

While it already is too late to escape much of the anticipated impact of global warming, if we hope to limit global warming to moderate or tolerable amounts, the entire world must act quickly to reduce these emissions.  Otherwise all of us might consider applying to be colonists on Mars.

That’s what I think, what about you?

---

[i] Wikipedia, Major Tom, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Tom.

[ii] Tans, Pieter. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[iii] 78,000 apply for private Mars colony project, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57583424/78000-apply-for-private-mars-colony-project-in-two-weeks/.

[iv] With the ice caps gone, global warming could accelerate more than rapidly than predicted.  Ice caps, being white, reflect sunlight back into space cooling Earth.  If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the darker colored ocean that absorbs sunlight further warming Earth.

[v] It is estimated that the population of Mumbai will increased by an additional 7 million people by the year 2050 as global warming renders villages and hamlets uninhabitable or unprofitable, either through flooding or drought.  Increased pollution would inevitable result from changes in habitation and available resources.

[vi] Result of studies undertaken by Columbia and Johns Hopkins universities.

The Cost Of Education

It seems to me…

“Our labor force is too expensive and poorly educated for today’s market place.”  ~ Bill Gross, PIMCO CEO.

The U.S. education system has become an embarrassing disaster.  In the span of one generation, our educational system reportedly has dropped in comparison with other advanced nations from first to ninth in the percentage of young people earning college degrees.  Not only does this directly affect our international standing, there also is a strong correlation between academic achievement and poverty.

Overall, our educational system currently ranks 26^th in the world according to the World Economic Forum.  Education is a determining factor in employment.  During the recent recession, 25 percent of high school dropouts were unemployed, 14 percent that had completed high school, but only 4 percent of those with a college degree.  Our country must accept that we have to make a choice between improving our educational system and accepting a lower standard of living.

It seems difficult for either our elected politicians or much of the general public to understand the seriousness of these trends.  Change is difficult while it still is generally perceived that our position at the top of the mountain remains unchallenged.  Unfortunately, it will take fifteen to twenty years to produce the next generation of skilled educated innovators we need.  We cannot afford to wait that long to make necessary changes.

There essentially are three tiers of universities in the U.S.  The top tier — the Stanfords, MITs, Harvards… — not only provide a general background in a field but a base upon which the student will be able to learn and develop in the future.  The second tier — the majority of universities — provide a more basic but still rounded education.  The third tier — the DeVrys — essentially are trade schools where students are trained in specific subjects for available positions.

All educators would prefer more extensive and rounded study programs but accept the necessity of compromise.  Accreditation boards in most fields specify what subject matter must be taken to qualify for a degree in that subject.  Subject deficiencies are generally acknowledged but it already is difficult for most students to complete the required course material within four years.  What we have is far from what we might like but accept that, in general, it would be difficult to do much better given system constraints.  Extending the time required to complete undergraduate programs only places greater financial stress on the student (and their families).  Adding additional course material would only increase the time, and consequently the expenses, required for students to complete their studies.

While some universities provide a more extensive background than others in science or humanities, with the exception of some schools in the third tier, they attempt to provide the type of background generally advocated by curriculum committees at the undergraduate level.  Graduate level curriculums, in general, are specific to the field of study (though as a graduate student, I did take a couple social science classes on technology and society and assume most other students do also).

The cost[i] of attending college has increased well beyond what most students can reasonably afford.  The average student debt for educational loans has increased 8 percent since 2010 to $27,300 (adding in loans parents have taken bring this to $34,300); a 30 percent inflation adjusted increase since 2000[ii].  The cost for an undergraduate degree has increased 538 percent in the last 30 years.  Is it any question that 41 percent of recipients of student loans that started repayment since 2005 are either delinquent or have defaulted?  Student loans cannot be eliminated through a declaration of bankruptcy – the government can garnish up to 15 percent of someone’s take-home pay, dock disability benefits, and deny a security clearance.

Given the high costs associated with attending college, most students already experience difficulty paying for their higher education and frequently are left with extremely high debts that take quite a few years to pay off.  Addressing what needs to be done to reduce these costs is another subject but given conservative opposition to funding of public education, costs probably will continue to increase.

Until we finish high school, education and employment are separate entities connected only through summer vacations.  Afterwards, education remains a background part of our remaining lives while employment defines who and what we are.

That’s what I think, what about you?

---

[i] College Spending Trends Show Students Bearing a Growing Share of the Costs, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 14, 2011, http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=771244446&ids=0Sd3gQd38NdPsIcPkUejkNcjsTb3kUcP0Odz4TdOMTczoQe3oVdzsIdPgMej0OcPgT&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=eml-tod-b-ttle-68&ut=3SIc7UqP_qHQU1

[ii] Dell, Kristina.  I Owe U, Time, 31 October 2011, p 42.

Weapon Legislation Failure

It seems to me…

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  ~ Wayne LaPierre, NRA Vice-President.

Congress had an opportunity to act responsibly and pass limited gun-related legislation – and I was prepared to compliment them for having acted in the greater public interest.  Instead, legislation that seemed to have majority approval was defeated as a result of  concerted gun-lobby opposition.  I am appalled by Congressional insensitivity in their recent rejection of increased weapon restrictions.  The very concept of arming additional people as espoused by the NRA and gun-rights advocates is the complete oppose of civilization’s historical advancement.

Violence has steadily declined throughout the world as civilization spread to primitive areas where the rule of law has largely replaced the concept of individual responsibility.  Emergence of a strong government/authority with a monopoly on violence, the interconnectivity of cultures through the need for trade; increased literacy, urbanization, mobility and access to mass media – all of which have exposed different cultures to each other – and the spread of democracy[i]have steadily resulted in reduced violence in society.  Now, various elements within our society are attempting to turn back social advances and encourage individuals to assume their own responsibility for what they perceive to be either personal threat or social affront.  They advocate that the solution to any problem is to get a gun and blast away.

Here are the horrific statistics.  31,672 people, about 86 a day, were killed by guns in the U.S. in 2010 (the most recent year for which I have statistics).  In addition to the 31,672 people killed by guns in 2010, an additional 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds.  Suicide accounted for 19,392 (61 percent) of those gun-related deaths.  There were 11,078 homicides with firearms, 606 deaths by accidental shootings, and 596 with other or undetermined cause[ii].  The majority of homicides were committed by people that knew one another rather than by strangers or related to criminal activity.

337,960 nonfatal crimes were committed with guns.  Guns have been used in about seven out of 10 murders in the U.S. according to FBI statistics.  Guns are the weapon of choice in 68 percent of incidents; knives, 13 percent; fists or feet, 6 percent; other, 6 percent; and unknown, 7 percent[iii].

54 percent of the 1,082 women and 267 men were killed by their intimate partners using guns.  (Guns accounted for a greater number of intimate partner homicides than all other causes combined over the last 25 years.)  It has been shown that gun related homicides of intimate female partners have been reduced by 25 percent in states that prohibit gun ownership by men who have received a domestic violence restraining order.

A gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt, or a homicide than it is for self-defense[iv].  Every time a gun in the home was used in self-defense or in a legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides[v].  Self-defense never can realistically be used as justification for gun possession.

Refusal to limit weapon possession or to restrict who is able to possess weapons is essentially an attempt to reject social advances and turn back the clock to when social conflict resolution was handled in a manner characteristic of primitive societies where dispute resolution was conducted directly between the disputing parties rather than by the state.  A prime concern of effective state government is to guarantee or at least significantly improve public safety by preventing the state’s citizens from using force against each other.  The overriding goal of state justice is to maintain society’s stability by providing a mandatory alternative to do‑it‑yourself justice.  All other goals of state justice are secondary to that primary goal[vi].

It is impossible to consider Congressional rejection of what in actuality were minimal weapon control proposals as anything other than irresponsibility.  Statements by the NRA and weapon advocates either were totally mendacious or, minimally, intentionally misleading.  Regardless, for Congress to have failed to act responsibly regarding this issue is yet still another disgraceful example of its failure to represent the interests of the citizens of our nation.

It is time for Congress to act responsibly and stand up to weapon-advocate Neanderthals.  The progress of civilization is one of those inevitable forces that steadily advance over time and while temporarily delayed, the lesson of history is that Congressional approval eventual will happen.  Those standing in opposition are on the wrong side of history; the imposition of the Rule of Law and decline of violence ultimately will prevail.

Everyone is entitled to live with freedom from fear and while the measures considered did not provide the comprehensive legislation needed, it was a small step in that direction.

That’s what I think, what about you?

---

[i] Pinker, Steven.  The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Viking, 2011.

[ii] Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  2010 Mortality Multiple Cause Micro-data Files, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf.

[iii] Dedman, Bill.  Guns in America: The weapon of choice for criminals, but also a deterrent?, NBC News, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/statistics,10 Feb 2013.

[iv] Shermer, Michael.  Gun Science, Scientific American, May 2013, p83 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gun-science-proves-arming-untrained-citizens-bad-idea).

[v] Kellermann, Arthur L. MD, MPH; Somes, Grant PhD; Rivara, Frederick P. MD, MPH; Lee, Roberta K. RN, PhD; Banton, Joyce G. MS.  Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/1998/08000/Injuries_and_Deaths_Due_to_Firearms_in_the_Home.10.aspx, August 1998.

[vi] Diamond, Jared.  The World Until Yesterday, Viking, New York, 2012.

Document Publishing

It seems to me…

“There are three rules for writing a novel.  Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.”  ~ W. Somerset Maugham.

I recently began “attempting” to publish another book.  It has been a number of years since my last book and it is interesting to reflect how the print industry has changed over the years.

My initial experience with printing was back in the early 1960s while an undergraduate, first as a writer, then as Assistant Editor of my college’s newspaper[i].  Pay was by the line/inch so I rapidly developed an ability to pad my articles (a trait readers most likely will agree still evident in my writing).  Our compensation was doubled if we also helped with the actual printing and proofreading of the paper.  Since I was working my way through college, this seemed like a goldmine to me.

I knew how to type (and take shorthand), not a common ability at that time – especially for men – which was a definite asset.  Articles were typed, reviewed, and revised until approved by the faculty advisor.

Article text then was typed on a linotype machine.  The hot-metal typeset from the machine then was placed in a wood frame.  I not only learned what “leading” was, I spent hours actually adjusting material with a wood hammer to fit tightly in the frame so it not only looked correct but also would not shift during printing.  Next was to run a proof, make any corrections, proof again, and repeat the process until the paper was acceptable and put to bed.

The printer then took over and bundles of printed papers appeared on campus the following day ready for distribution.

Ten years later, following graduate school and several years doing system development, I accepted a temporary position as a technical writer at a large (at that time) computer manufacturer to prepare user application material consisting of reference manuals, user guides, etc. for a software system I had designed and implemented.  Following completion of those documents, I then wrote the documentation for a number of other applications.

By then we had alphanumeric computer terminals.  Software applications were still primitive and limited to entry and revision of upper/lower case single font and point-size characters – no bold, italic, color, underline, etc.  Any final print characteristics were indicated to the printers using handwritten editing marks and margin notations.

Still, fairly extensive documents were routinely produced comparable to any now available.  Additionally, we freely intermixed portrait and landscape pages and pages of various sizes: tables or other material frequently would be printed on legal (8½×11 in.) or double (11×17 in.) foldout pages embedded at various locations throughout the document.

My PhD dissertation was a struggle.  Not only was the research spread over two years, it needed to be rewritten three times prior to receiving approval by the review committee.  Turning a dissertation into a book is relatively common and several interested publishers approached me but after all the writing and rewriting, I was burned out (and never have reread it since).

In the early 1980s I was responsible for a monthly column in a major technical journal.  While by then I had been on the Internet for several years, it primarily was used for e-mail and file transfer.  We did not yet have the ability to send formatted document text.  Consequently, each column necessitated several express mail exchanges every month between my home in what now is commonly known as Silicon Valley and the association’s office in New York City for corrections, editing, and formatting.

Document preparation had significantly improved in the 1970s though most of us did not become familiar with those developments until almost ten years later.  Unix supported document markup with nroff (troff was essentially the same program but originally produced output for a phototypesetter).  Nroff featured commands to designate fonts, spacing, paragraphs, margins, footnotes and more.  Unlike many other text formatters, it could arbitrarily position characters anywhere on a page, even overlapping them.

Availability of WYSIWYG (What‑You‑See‑Is‑What‑You‑Get) displays pioneered by Apple on personal computers along with documentation software such as WordStar and WordPerfect allowed writers to actually format a document’s appearance similar to its actual appearance after final printing.

Perhaps the single most important improvement was development of ΤΕΧ by Donald Knuth, which for the first time provided a firm mathematical understanding of document formatting.  While no longer commonly used (other than on highly technical material) since it required embedded mark-ups, ΤΕΧ produces a document appearance superior to documents printed using any other system (though effort level is correspondingly greater).

As a system engineer and consultant, and then as a college professor, I had complete control of the entire document production process from initial writing to final printing.

Today, document preparation applications continue to improve.  Word, InDesign, and other applications provide support for the entire process of document preparation and final layout.  There also is improved access to document publishing and distribution.

Until relatively recently, other than for documents intended only for limited distribution, after writing a book or document, it was necessary to persuade a book publisher to print and distribute your book.  This involved a lengthy process of submitting manuscripts to prospective publishers and waiting hopefully for acceptance until after a lengthy wait you received their rejection letter and the process began again with a different publisher.  This process was repeated until either your document was accepted or you gave up.

Today, a number of self-publishing companies actively solicit material from hopeful writers.  The publication process now is open to anyone regardless of material quality.  If you write it and are willing to pay to have it published, someone will do it – for a price.  Instead of being paid when a publisher accepts your material, you now have to pay the publisher and hope your book or publication sells a sufficient number of copies so you can recover your investment.

Walk into any bookstore and sample some of the material and it will be apparent that much of the available material is the result of vanity publishing by an author who was willing to pay to have his/her name appear on a book jacket.  While much more material is now available, much of it is poorly written and of questionable quality.

Publishers, in many ways now provide more limited support for some document options than was available in the past.  While authors essentially have total control over their document’s appearance, it no longer is possible to insert various size pages or mix portrait and landscape printing.  For a writer of novels, this represents very little difficulty but for someone who primarily writes technical material with numerous tables (for example – me), it results in significantly greater effort.

Other alternatives are now also available for those writers either not necessarily interested in paper-based publishing or who have given up on having their material accepted.  The Internet has enabled everyone to be a writer.  Google estimates there are over 1 trillion unique URLs (documents) currently on the Web and that the number of new Web pages is increasing by several billion pages every day.  Many of these pages are duplicates or hardly qualify as what we normally consider a document but it does considerably redefine what and who is a “writer”.

That’s what I think, what about you?

---

[i] While the Assistant Editor normally became the next Editor, I was elected Student Body President and it was considered a conflict of interest to hold both positions.

Civil Criticism

It seems to me…

“I accuse the U.S. weapons industry of (responsibility for) the deaths of thousands of people that are occurring in Mexico.”[i][ii][iii]  ~ Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico.

While it has become impossible to respond to most of the comments I receive related to my postings, I try to reply to those comments that either raise an interesting issue or civilly disagree with something I have stated.  I also try to provide references to where facts or additional information can be found so anyone can check my sources.  That said, please excuse me for taking umbrage to a recent comment and to rant just a bit on this topic.

Several days ago, a response to a posting I made well over a year ago took exception to a single sentence within a relatively lengthy post[iv] where I stated that “at least 70 percent of the weapons used in Mexico come from the U.S. (the origin of most of the remaining weapons could not be determined)”[v][vi].  I normally prefer to respond directly to the person submitting a comment rather reply in a public format such as this.  The problem is that he chose to state that what I had written was “full of errors or just straight lies”.  Then, following some very creative math to justify his conclusions, he said I “should delete and start over because you look like an idiot liar”.

Fairly harsh words.  Why should I care about one person’s criticism?  Anyone that writes expects differences in opinions and some I have received were stated more strongly than this.  The difference in this case is the word “lie” – credibility is the only thing a writer has and while this comment will be trashed, I felt it worth stating my opinion.  If he had been civil, his comments would have been welcomed and approved for everyone to see,

While the commenter possibly would be more correct if he had stated that 90 percent of the guns submitted for tracing by Mexican authorities were then traced to the U.S.[vii]  The actual percentage of recovered guns originating in the U.S. is unknown since all the weapons recovered are not submitted for tracing.  (President Obama incorrectly stated that 90 percent of the weapons used in Mexico came from the U.S.[viii].)  Traced to the U.S. does not necessarily imply the weapons originally were manufactured in the U.S. as many of them were imported into the U.S. and then sold here.

I was unable to locate the source of the 12 percent figure used by the commenter so suspect it was fabricated to support his opinion.  The closest figures I found were from a Fox News report[ix], titled “The Myth of 90 Percent” claiming only “17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.”  Figures similar to those also have been stated by NRA spokespersons but the 17 percent figure has been shown to be a myth.  Both Fox and the NRA are well-known for their distortion of facts so any statements from either source must necessarily be discounted.

While the actual percentage of weapons that find their way into Mexico from the U.S. might be difficult to determine, a higher approximation would be possible if manufacturers were required to registers all weapons produced.  Every firearm leaves a set of unique marks not only on the bullet but also on the case enabling police to track bullets and their casings the same way investigators run fingerprint checks.  Firearm fingerprinting would be an invaluable tool to law enforcement since it can link together crimes that otherwise would be pursued as separate cases.  An automated tracing system was created (Integrated Ballistics Identification System[x][xi]) to implement this identification.  This would permit cradle-to-grave weapon ownership traceability of all sales of registered weapons.

Both ballistic fingerprinting and firearm microstamping[xii] are admittedly not totally accurate at this time (tests were conclusive in only 40 – 70 percent of the trials) and considered highly inconclusive at this time.  Additional research is required to improve the technology but this should not be considered as sufficient justification to totally reject what could provide important information on this problem.

Given the opposition to even simple universal background checks, the possibility of actually implementing such a system nationally seems highly improbable at this time.  Unfortunately, without being able to trace the ownership history of weapons, the U.S. contributes not only to the continued carnage in this country but seems intent to export its violence to its neighbors.

I am not always correct in what I write – I make mistakes like everyone else – but am willing to make changes when necessary.  As for advice to the commenter, do not rush to judge when the facts do not support your beliefs.

That’s what I think, what about you?

---

[i] Adam Clark Estes.  Mexican Violence Fueled by American Guns, The Atlantic Wire, http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/06/mexican-violence-fueled-american-guns/38798/, 14 June 2011,

[ii] Bryan Preston.  The Hill: ’70 Percent of Guns Found in Mexico Are From the US’, PJ Media, http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/04/27/the-hill-70-percent-of-guns-found-in-mexico-are-from-the-us/, 27 April 2012.

[iii] Seventy Percent of Guns Used in Mexican Violence Came From America, The Atlantic,http://theonlyplfrmat.tumblr.com/post/6545793071/seventy-percent-of-guns-used-in-mexican-violence-came, 15 June 2011.

[iv] Bornmann, Lew.  Crime and Punishment, http://lewbornmann.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/crime-and-punishment/, 28 February 2012.

[v] Mexico Drug War: 70 Percent Of Guns Seized Originate In U.S., Huffington Post, World, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/mexico-drug-war-seized-guns_n_876653.html, 12April 2013.

[vi] Zoha Arshad.  U.S. Guns Bring Mexican Casualties, Upside Down World, http://upsidedownworld.org/main/mexico-archives-79/3861-us-guns-bring-mexican-casualties, 12 April 2013.

[vii] Counting Mexico’s Guns, FactCheck, http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html, 17 April 2009.

[viii]PolitiFact.  Obama claims 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico come from U.S., Tampa Bay Times, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/16/barack-obama/Obama-claims-90-percent-guns-used-Mexico/, 16 April 2009.

[ix]Mexico’s President Cites Debunked Claim That Most Guns in Mexico Come From U.S., Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/mexicos-president-cites-debunked-claim-guns-mexico-come/, 15 April 2009.

[x] Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS).  Program Profile, Office of Justice Programs, http://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=164.

[xi] Integrated Ballistics Identification Network (NIBIN).  http://www.nibin.gov/.

[xii] Firearm microstamping, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping.

Citius, Atius, Fortius

It seems to me…

“For me, by far, the Olympics is the biggest sporting event in the world.”  ~ Andy Murray.

I will admit to being an Olympic junkie.  Every two years, from the week prior to their start until the closing ceremony, I would willingly camp in front of the TV twenty-four hours a day watching minor sports competitions in which I normally have absolutely no interest.  How did synchronized swimming become an Olympic sport and does anyone REALLY care about it?  I would not walk across the street from home to watch a major luge competition but let it be part of the Olympics and everything is different.

Olympic athletes represent the current pinnacle of development and training.  They, for the most part, are young and physically attractive.  The Olympic motto of Citius, Atius, Fortius (Swifter, Higher, Stronger) always is realized as demonstrated by the setting of new records.  The standard of excellence constantly is being pushed – what would have been victorious in a previous Olympics no longer is adequate.  At least 117 Olympic records and 44 world records were set at the London 2012 Olympics[i].

In spite of all those records officially recorded in the books, there apparently are some equally impressive records set by the athletes outside the competitive arena.  Ten thousand athletes reside in the Olympic Village for up to three weeks.  During those three weeks, game organizers in London handed out about 150,000 condoms[ii].  It has been estimated that about 70-75 percent of the athletes hook up during the games.  You can do the math…

The obvious conclusion is that some of those athletes keep extremely busy and establish some very impressive personal records that never are officially recorded.  While only one person can be declared the winner in any event, other “competitors” run up some very impressive scores.

Immediately following the closing ceremony, I go into withdrawal and try to get caught up on sleep and everything else I ignored while glued to the screen knowing there only are two more years to wait until the next games.

Despite this personal fascination with what is nothing more than a large entertainment event, I also am very much aware of the negatives associated with it.  Cities, and even entire nations, are encouraged to spend vast sums of money to host the events that could be better spent in other areas.  Russia is expecting to pay over $52 million just for the opening ceremony to the 2014 Olympics in Socchi.

The host city rarely is able to recover the cost of the event and facilities specially constructed for the event frequently remain unused and fall into disrepair when the cities cannot afford to maintain them[iii].  Most of the venues built specifically for the 2004 games in Athens remain decaying abandoned monuments after plans to convert the Olympic Village into a community and funding to convert the athletic facilities for local use never was approved.

Even the anticipated prestige and publicity for the area hosting the games, an argument frequently used to rationalize the large expenditures required to hold the games, has been shown to rarely provide any substantial benefit for the investment.  During the games, other parts of the country normally experience reduction in normal tourism and visitor rates along with substantial reductions in productivity.

The primary beneficiaries of these events are a core group of construction firms, labor unions, and architects that profit from civic projects requiring the construction of massive facilities and infrastructure improvements capable of housing, feeding, transporting, protecting, and communicating with the fans and media that flood into the area for the event.

All this might be true but I’ll readily admit that I’m already anxiously waiting for the start of the next games on 7 February 2014.

That’s what I think, what about you?

---

[i] London 2012 Olympics Close With Spectacular Ceremony, BBC, 13 August 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19236754.

[ii] Wyatt,  Ben .  Sex, Games and Olympic Village life, CNN, 12 August 2012, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/08/sport/olympics-village-sex-party-athletes/index.html.

[iii] Goldscheider, Eric.  Getting Torched?, On Wisconsin, Spring 2013, pp36-41.

The Long Wait

It seems to me…

“What the nation needs now is not the technology, for we possess that.  We have the machines, the people and the know-how to make this journey, to establish a permanent lunar base, and to reach out to Mars.”  ~ Rod Pyle.

Like many other boys in the early 1950s, I consumed every science fiction novel I saw:  Arthur C. Clark, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Fredrick Pohl, Robert Heinlein, Poul Anderson, and many others.  I firmly believed humanity was destined to venture into space.  Having been young during World War II, I was familiar with German advances in rocketry; I read about the work of R. H. Goddard…  One of the notes in my 1955 high school graduation yearbook was that I expected to walk on the moon.  It wasn’t a wish – it was a belief.

Being interested in science, I eagerly followed all the planning for the International Geophysical Year (IGY), an international scientific project stretching from 1 July 1957 to 31 December 1958.  Sixty-seven different countries participated in the IGY that encompassed eleven Earth sciences: aurora and airglow, cosmic rays, geomagnetism, gravity, ionospheric physics, longitude and latitude determinations (precision mapping), meteorology, oceanography, seismology, and solar activity[i].  The U.S. even planned to launch an artificial satellite (about which I read every available detail).

It was with considerable shock and disbelief when on 4 October 1957 I learned of the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik 1.  How could they beat the U.S.?  Of course subsequent repeated failures of U.S. attempts to launch their own satellite only further wounded my national pride.

Finally, while always following the Soviet lead, the U.S. launched its first manned orbital flight on 20 February 1962.  The U.S. finally regained the lead in the space race by landing its first of six manned missions on the Moon on 20 July 1969.  Now that the technology had been developed, I was confident a permanently manned lunar base would be established within at most ten years initiating what would become regular flights to and from the Moon.

Politicians obviously did not share by dream.  Mission accomplished.  Stop wasting money on unimportant things like scientific research.  Cancel the project.

Changes in space exploitation and exploration that should have occurred following the last moon expedition in 1972 finally seem to once again be possible: spaceflight is being opened to private commercial enterprise[ii].  While public-funding subsidizing privately-funded companies will be necessary until they are capable of profitable operation for the indefinite future, progress unnecessarily long stalled by politically motivated interests are poised to once again take flight.  It will take time to compensate for forty wasted years but there once again should be hope that mankind will take its place in space.  The difference this time is that politicians need to step aside and let privately-held companies take the lead.

Yes, space is the last frontier and it is time we got out there.  Science and knowledge is fundamental to all we do but we never should lose sight of the basic fact that the ultimate goal always is to once again take our place as an exploring species and that necessitates manned flights reaching ever farther from our home planet.

Over two dozen teams from around the world have indicated their intent to compete for the Google Lunar X PRIZE; $30 million in prizes to the first commercial robotic lunar landing mission to land a robot on the Moon that successfully travels more than 500 meters (1,640ft) and transmits back high definition images and video.

Private companies will provide significant cost reductions and increased access to space.  The next decade should result in greater advances in space than during the 1950-1960s.

When the U.S. once again returns to the Moon, they most likely will find the Chinese, who began their own manned orbital program on 15 October 2003, already there.  Several additional countries and space agencies also have announced and begun human spaceflight programs using their own technology, including India, Ecuador, Japan, Iran, and Malaysia.  Space might become very crowded…

While this resurgence of interest in space comes too late for my desired walk on the Moon, I only hope that option, though denied to me, will be available to my grandchildren.

That’s what I think, what about you?

---

[i] International Geophysical Year, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Geophysical_Year.

[ii] Stern, S. Alan.  One of the Most Vexing Problems In Space, Scientific American, April 2013, pp68-73.