Weblog

Tuesday, 13 May 2008

  • I promised a post . . . but it's been so long that I hardly remember what my direction was to be.

    My finals are done, my first online class is done, and my work hours are a bit shorter, so now I just have to reread all the materials to try to reconstruct all the implications of the collapse two months ago of the two financial houses on Wall Street.

    I don't expect it will be "worth the wait" but I do hope it's meaningful in some way.

    I'll give it my best shot.

Thursday, 17 April 2008

  • I promised a weblog on the social repercussions for the general public of the collapse of a couple of major finance houses.  I still intend to do that post, but we are approaching the end of the semester in grad school, so I have lots of work to complete and finals for which to prepare.  On top of that, I'm taking the online copywriting course, doing independent study on copywriting and website marketing, and working two jobs.

    I'm a bit short on time right at the moment, so I'm asking your forbearance until my schedule loosens up a bit.

    (It really isn't as bad as it sounds, but I'm not actually putting in the hours I should be on everything, so I'm behind on my goals.  I really need to make some progress, but that's not going to happen immediately, either.  Soon, though!)

Monday, 17 March 2008

  • "Everything is new if you are ignorant of history. That is why ideas that have failed repeatedly in centuries past reappear again, under the banner of ‘change,’ to dazzle people and sweep them off their feet." 

    ~Thomas Sowell

     

    An event of some significance was brought to my attention yesterday, with some ruminations about what it could mean for Americans.

    The runs on Bear_Stearns at the end of last week, combined with the teetering solvency of Lehman_Brothers, indicate that the reckless gambling of depositors' monies by these major financial houses is finally catching up with them.  Unfortunately, the depositors, who felt that a bank was a secure place for their funds, will likely lose their money because of irresponsible decisions by bankers. 

    The failure of one of these major financial institutions sets a precedent; the failure of two institutions, to be sold for pennies on the dollar, defines a trend.  And a trend in this direction is very dangerous indeed.

    Should several of these major financial houses collapse, the American economy could be strongly impacted in a negative way.  It seems likely that, should that happen, the Federal Reserve would dump more currency into circulation to "buy out" these debts, thus rapidly driving up inflation.  For those of you who remember double-digit inflation during the Carter Administration, you know that it can be only a small step from inflationary recession to major economic depression.

    Rapidly rising inflation reduces the buying power of wages and savings.  Those on fixed incomes (pensions or Social Security), those who draw government checks (welfare and disability, for example), and those who earn the minimum wage, will all lose buying power, effectively putting them at or near the poverty level.  Minimum wage is not a living wage now--imagine how one would be affected if prices were significantly higher than their current levels.

    Rising inflation also brings about layoffs.  Increased labor costs, increased prices for materials, and less market demand means more employers will be unable to make a profit, or so much as break even.  That means rising unemployment, rising welfare and unemployment applications, and rising income taxes on those still employed.

    Not everyone will be completely adversely affected, of course.  Those people with fixed-rate mortgages who keep their jobs will come out ahead when wages eventually catch up to the newly inflated price of goods, because their mortgage payments won't increase much, but their wages eventually will increase, and the dollars they owe on their home mortgages will be worth less than those dollars were worth when they bought their homes--so they work fewer hours for the same mortgage payment.

    I'm not an economist, and I really don't care to speculate too much on the economic implications of these events. 

    The social implications of economic instability are sobering, and I hope to explore a few of those in my next post.

     

Monday, 18 February 2008

  • Change

    Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats.
      -
    Howard Aiken

    * * * * * * *

    This little gem, from "Quote of the Day", has more than just a kernel of truth.  Original  ideas repulse most people when first they hear of them; when an idea is trendy and getting press, you can be sure it's an older idea dressed in new togs.  A brief look at the topics of the current political candidates is proof enough of this concept.

    Politics continually offers examples of recycled ideas (though I'm not convinced that ideas have ever been so in danger of overuse in this arena that recycling them should be necessary); however, presidential campaign promises and the candidates who ignore them are not the topic of this post.

    The realm of science, with its standards of duplicatable experiments, peer-reviewed journal articles, and scientific method, with researchers and specialists of every ilk, should be the last place one finds a blatant example of the quote above.  What's even worse is that the reticence to which the quote refers to consider new ideas characterizes the academic research arm of the sciences.

    For example, for decades doctors agreed that stomach and duodenal ulcers were caused by cigarettes, alcohol, stress, an "ulcer personality", fried or spicy foods, excess stomach acid, and/or coffee.

    In 1982, Australian researchers  Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were able to show that many stomach and duodenal ulcers were caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori.  The accepted "causes" could be shown in some cases to increase patients' vulnerability and susceptibility to the bacterium and its effects, but they could in no way be shown to cause the ulcers.

    Despite duplicatable (and duplicated) experiments, Marshall and Warren's work was soundly rejected by the scientific community, one journal editor commenting that "we have already reached a consensus about the cause of ulcers".

    Now, there are two problems with the scientific foundation for the editor's statement:  science should neither be democratic (one man, one vote) nor seeking a consensus rather than empirical data, and science should not reject new research simply because the new data differ from the accepted theory.

    This behavior is not new in the sciences--down through the centuries, new discoveries, rather than being heralded for their new perspectives, have been rejected by most of the leaders in the field because they challenge the existing paradigm.

    David Raup, paleontologist and author of the excellent bookThe Nemesis Affair  (W.W.Norton & Company, 1987, 1999), addresses this topic throughout his book, and makes a particularly insightful comment on page 196:  "The practical effect is that a new idea requires a truly compelling case--intellectual overkill--in order to displace the incumbent [idea]."

    Dr. Marshall faced this kind of negative reception by other scientists of his evidence that H. pylori caused stomach ulcers, so . . . he drank a tablespoon of H. pylori culture and gave himself an ulcer with it.  Desperate measures, to be sure, and not to be recommended, but he ultimately succeeded in proving the connection to a skeptical scientific community.

    Marshall's situation demonstrates that even members of the (self-proclaimed) forward-thinking, ever-questioning, open-minded scientific community were not actually open to new ideas, despite their claims to be so.  Like all humans, they needed to have a new idea rammed down their collective throats.

     

Wednesday, 30 January 2008

  • Back Under the Blankets

    After a brief and wonderful reprieve, we have been dumped back into the deep freeze.  Yesterday's high was 39° F--unseasonably warm for North Dakota in January--but tonight's low will be 26° F below zero, 65 degrees colder in less than 36 hours

    While the deep freeze represents the more normal conditions of a North Dakota winter, the wide and rapid temperature changes do not.  Generally we get cold--and we stay cold--and the only question is how windy it might be.

    North Dakota is capable of dishing out much worse than this weather, however.  Joe Btfsplk tells me that conditions in the northwest corner of the state get far more extreme than the more moderate climate here in the "valley".  (If you haven't heard about this, you should ask him sometime.) 

    For example, he tells me that one winter twenty-five years ago or thereabouts, the air temperature in his hometown dropped to 56° F below zero--without factoring in the wind!  Even more surprising is how things behave in cold such as that:

    • Gasoline won't vaporize, so cars parked outside won't start.  They can't.
    • Tires freeze stiff, and should the car be (driven into) and parked diagonally against a curb, the tire will crack open and break where it is forced to conform to the shape of the curb.
    • Bias Ply tires develop flat spots where they contact the road overnight... they cannot flex back as quickly as the car rolls, so the smoothest streets ride as rough as if they were gravel (as you tow it to a heated garage so that they can try to get it started!)
    • Vinyl breaks, having lost all its flexibility right along with the tires, leaving the stuffing in car seats exposed and dashes ruined.
    • Vehicle exhaust doesn't disperse at these temperatures when the air is still, so drivers can't see the vehicle in front of them at the busy intersections. This is not like temperatures just below freezing where you can see the moisture freezing as it exits the exhaust... the difference is that it just hangs there and doesn't "go away" like it should.
    • Skin, nasal passages and lung tissues freeze within seconds from exposure to the cold.

    Fifty-six degrees below zero is unusually cold even for North Dakota; nevertheless, it can and does happen.  The western side of the state, particularly in the north, gets much colder than the rest of the state. 

    I think the weather patterns that keep the Rapid City/Mount Rushmore area, from which it is almost due north, so warm in the winter, cause the frigid temps by diverting arctic air blowing south through Alberta and Saskatchewan into a southeasterly path directly toward northwestern North Dakota.

    Whatever the cause, northwestern North Dakota gets colder in the winters, and often hotter in the summers, than we do here.  As much as I hate to admit it, -26° F is not really that bad, comparatively. 

    Don't tell anyone I said that. 

    Update:  Northwestern North Dakota is at -35° F right now, with wind chills around -55° F, since there's merely a gentle breeze.  In winter we always seem to pine for summer, forgetting about the gazillion mosquitoes in the back yard and the 98° degree heat with 98 % humidity; in the summer we long for snow and cool breezes, forgetting about the life-threatening wind chills and insanely cold air.  Are we never content? 

    I wonder.

     

Top Tags - Weblog

[no tags]

Grey_Autumn_Rain

  • Visit Grey_Autumn_Rain's Xanga Site
    • Name: Rain, Grey
    • Gender: Female
    • Member Since: 1/10/2008

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.

About Me

  • I love natural perfumery essences, gourmet cooking, fresh herbs, faceting gemstones, music, books, flowers, the Minnesota northwoods, and my family.

Subscriptions

Blogrings

[no blogrings]