Maybe the recession is lessening, here are two quick, informal and unofficial indicators.
I live in West Hollywood, "Beverly Hills Adjacent" (some Real Estate Marketer's Dream).
Experienced two similar incidents today...
INCIDENT ONE: Filled up the car with gas at Olympic and Robertson.
(BTW, this is a really cool looking gas station with fairly inexpensive gas. It is all stainless steel sculptural pillars and roof, keeping the Sun shaded over the highest tech pumps imaginable. They even dispense moist towels and "plantable postcards" (for free) next to the pumps!).
Finished gassing up, I pull onto Robertson, and waited at the red light, facing north. A very large foreign model rather new SUV pulls up along side, and a 30 something woman with designer sunglasses, well quaffed hair and make up, lowered her window and asked: "Where are the shops on Robertson?"
I could see a rather intent heavy set and mustachioed husband driving, and a 5-7 year old daughter in the back...the car dwarfed all of them and I had to look up to speak with her.
I asked, since there are shops all along Robertson after all, "You mean the fancy ones?".
She said, "Yes, the fancy ones!", in a heavy Middle Eastern accent.
"Just about a mile or less ahead" redundantly pointing in the appropriate direction.
She thanked me, the window rose to contain the cool air inside, and they proceeded north when the light changed...I watched the two females disembark a few moments later at the appropriate portion of Robertson...Dad obviously assigned the mission to park the Urban Assault Vehicle.
INCIDENT TWO:
Later in the day, taking my "frisbee walk" (I use Beverly Hills as my Frisbee golf course), I was asked, by two young tourists in a small beat up car, "Where is Rodeo Dr.?"
I let them know it was 5 or so blocks straight ahead, again pointing redundantly in the appropriate direction, and added, "Take a left to get into the craziness".
The male driver laughed out loud, and his female passenger sat back, without a smile.
Got the feeling the visit to Rodeo (that's Row Day Oh, not Row Dee Oh...an entirely different street about 3 miles away, near a Target not a Tiffany's (LOL)) was more her idea than his, and they gave the appearance that they'd have trouble paying for the parking meter on Rodeo, but hey, I felt just like the Boy Scout (without the "god-fearing homophobia") that I am!
It never ceases to astound that strangers are quite comfortable asking me things...regardless of where I am in the world.
I didn't start talking until many months after what was deemed "normal" at the time.
I was also being raised by my six-years older sister. I'm sure she did her share of translating my oral and physical communication, so I had less motivation to have my vocalizations be generally recognizable.
At around age 3, when I did start talking, I spoke in complete sentences, and, I started with:
"I want to be the first boy on the moon" (Circa early 1958)
Any vocal deficiencies I appeared to suffer from have given way to my capability to share a truly exquisite aural experience.
One of my weirdest first dates was with a woman who confided, during a sushi dinner, that she was into "kink".
Not to seem put off, surprised, or otherwise intimidated, and, knowing there are many types of "kink", I asked if she was into "Plush" (by which I meant "Furry", as portrayed in the comic attached), which I would consider kinky but harmless...
No, she assured me her interest in me was that I was much bigger than she was and therefore could definitely inflict pain.
Here's the literal "bottom line" from an AP story on Y!ahoo
"An Indian official told Clinton that India won't accept limits on its greenhouse gases."
"We have met the enemy and he is us" - all respect and credit to Walt Kelly for "Pogo's Observation".
From nearer the top of the article:
"The G-8 summit members in Italy agreed to limit the planet's average temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above levels recorded 150 years ago."
They neglected to suggest how this could, or would be done, however.
Top UN climate expert faults G-8 goal without deed
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer – Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:00 pm ET (about 6.5 hrs ago, sorry I am not more current...)
My review, above, "turns the story on it's head" if you will. Frish
"Nonsense." "Ridiculous." "Fantastic" "Absurd" "Bosh," they chorused again and continued. "We're not interested in making sense; it's not our job," scolded the first.
"Besides," explained the second, "one word is as good as another, so why not use them all?"
"Then you don't have to choose which one is right," advised the third.
"Besides," sighed the fourth, "if one is right, then ten are ten times right."
From: beijingbabe Subject: hi Sent Date: 5/21/2009 7:11:59 PM
how are you !You look good !I am interested in you,I hope to know you. I am a single Chinese girl without child, i am serious finding a soul hasband sothat build together a marriage . I am a very upright , kindhearted , honest ,warm-hearted, understanding, easy-going, open-minded kind, considerate, compasionate, affectionate lady. I would be happy to get acquainted with you ,I hope to hear from you .wish you a pleasant day! Sincerely, Pine
Seeking women 18 and up who possess extremely well developed and muscular calves, whether it be from dance, athletics, or just genetics. this is for a parts/physique modeling shoot in Los Angeles on Venice cross National. Pay is $40/hour. If we shoot again, it goes up. I usually like to shoot several times with a model i like working with. Feel free to send photos of calves in tiptoe to muscularcalves@live.com No nudity/ no experience and a lot of fun!
Location: West LA
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
There was a typo in the first copy of Rat Experiments that I sent. "P"ver population instead of over population. This file corrects it. I need new glasses. -- Bill
Yes, but will the pigs eat it? Build a better mousetrap and you still may fail...in a way he holds out hope for "democacy" over "commercial" in terms of whose interests are served.
"The GM food safety debate seems to have been initiated by the commercialization of GM crops and has since become more heated. This debate has important implications for the development of this new technology, which is viewed as a major approach in the fight against global hunger. Also, it is widely recognized that consumer acceptance will ultimately determine whether GM foods can survive and expand in the marketplace, and will conclude this debate to some extent, at least with regard to policymaking."
Zhong F., Marchant, M.A., Ding, Y., & Lu, K. (2002). GM foods: A Nanjing case study of Chinese consumers' awareness and potential attitudes. AgBioForum, 5(4), 136-144. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org
We have a new brochure we are looking into. Right now we are looking at four different options. You may want to stop by so I can review the prototypes with me.
Your old pal Frish has been attacked by posters on a completely different blog, where he was explaining his Volunteer status.
Another poster, Chuck A, posted this most marvelous explanation of what is seen by some on that blog (it is of by and for atheists) to be my very own "irrational" or "hypocritical" stance, of living on with my life while denying life to any offspring, and espousing the view that humanity is doomed, regardless of any solution (that has yet to be) offered:
To weigh down a comment Frish made (excerpted below) with even more verbiage...
Humans aren't just individuals, we are highly social animals.
What we choose to define as either good or evil are - primarily, but not exclusively - both the product and the means by which we interact with our fellow humans.
Out of this ever-changing and never-ending struggle to balance our individual needs and desires with our need to remain a functional part of our social milieu(s), we develop ethics, morals, our sense of right and wrong.
Many societies have chosen over the millennia to ascribe their "codes" of right and wrong to the will of some sort of deity or deities. This (it is widely believed) lends greater weight to the value of the social code, and helps to regulate behavior and impose sanctions for violations of the code.
Atheists have - I would assume - realized that all such moral codes are in reality created by humans such as themselves, and no deities need apply for sponsorship of the values of their own as well as any other society on this planet, past, present or future.
To fully realize that WE have created our own codes of ethics and morality is NOT to negate the individual or group need for such codes. It is to realize that the responsibility for all such codes has always and will always be the responsibility of every individual, acting both individually and in concert with others.
In other words, WE all know that we have to act both for our own personal betterment and for the betterment of society. This need and this realization is "built into" us by some 3 million years of natural selection working on us to mould us into highly social, symbol creating/using par excellance, animals.
So it should not surprise anyone that someone who feels that humanity, en masse, is currently making so many behavioral mistakes that it will soon drive itself into extinction, will simultaneously feel the need to modify and control his own behavior so as to cause the least harm to others and to other life forms on the planet. After all, he could be wrong: humanity might survive despite the bad odds our moral individual beholds, and he wants humanity and/or the other earthly life forms to have the best possible chance for success.
Only an amoral person - or more accurately, a sociopath - which nearly all theists believe that all atheists truly are (whatever either group claims to "believe"), would use this pessimistic (or grimly realistic) vision for the future as personal license to do anything he wants to anyone/anything he wants, anytime he wants. Thoughtful atheists know they don't need the imaginary club of eternal damnation to behave in a socially responsible manner.
As someone recently paid to advertise on city buses (in England, I believe), "Just be good for goodness sake." That's what it really boils down to.
yours, Chuck A
At 07:58 PM 2/23/2009, frish wrote:
Because, dear Dima, we are moral creatures and almost all of us act morally (within our cultural teachings) almost all of the time. God isn't necessary for that, and I, within what I know to be moral, won't act as you suggest either.
(Dima had suggested, that, if I'm right and we're all doomed, why not just ignore our carbon footprint and do whatever we wish. I'm no hermit, but I also know that having no offspring is the best I can do for the rest of life, and it reduces the numbers who will suffer when the biosphere no longer supports our species. That's my moral stance, as Chuck A has so beautifully amplified. Frish)
ELKTON, Md. – The Cecil County Sheriff's Office said a deputy about to take a bathroom break at a gas station smelled crack cocaine and made a quick arrest. Police spokesman Lt. Bernard Chiominto said Deputy John Lines was waiting to use the bathroom Friday at a Wawa convenience store when he smelled crack cocaine from outside the bathroom.
Lines then saw a 27-year-old man come out of the bathroom. Chiominto said Lines went in the bathroom, saw drug paraphernalia and arrested the man, who police said had glassy eyes and dilated pupils.
Police said the man resisted arrest and was subdued using pepper spray. He was charged with assault, resisting arrest and possession of drug paraphernalia after police found drug paraphernalia in his pockets.
There comes a time when campaigners lose potential support from fence-sitters, doubters or sceptics because they go too far. We've seen it with people like John Minto and Father Gerry Burns. Well-intentioned ... More
William, thanks for sharing, cheaper than a therapist, glad I could be of service.
I wrote a nice much LONGER response and the system managed to delete it.
Please think about the following...it is simply our worldviews that are divergent, while we are both atheists (and are right to be so!), being right about humanities future doesn't really buy me much!
First, please note, it is a voluntary thing. Not Genocide. I simply am voluntarily not having offspring to reduce the numbers of humans who will inevitably be going extinct in the not very distant (150 years or less) future.
This isn't what I WANT to happen, (nothing self hating about it!) just what I foresee happening, given every trajectory for every unsustainable human practice...medical, energy production, agriculture, fishing, forestry, etc. etc. etc.
I said that VHEMT is far more repugnant to far more people than Atheism. Your note is prime evidence I was right about that!
Whether or not I'm an asshole is a matter of debate, one which I'd probably lose.
However, the output of my asshole and yours is killing estuaries and the ocean's nurseries all over the world, thanks for pointing out another non-sustainable practice (too much fertilizer) that is contributing to our demise.
I VEHEMENTLY disagree with your contention that causing "our environment to be adapted to us...is neither a good thing or a bad thing". I understand the point you are trying to make, that many technologies can be used for good (explosives build roads and kill people, etc.) however, turns out this aspect of human nature is an unequivocal BAD THING and will lead directly to our demise.
Live long and die off.
Frish, who is not very frightening at all.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:06 PM, William <walgaru@gmail.com> wrote:
Honestly, you VHEMT people scare the shit out of me. Self-hating self-fulfilling genocide prophecies aside, any ideology which banks on denying the fundamental substance of human nature is not to be trusted. We are creatures who use tools. We are creatures who rather than adapting to our environment, cause our environment to be adapted to us. This is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it's powerful, and like all powerful things can either cause great good or great harm. We have to find the wisdom to use our adaptation to our benefit, which probably will look a lot like benefitting the earth ecosystem as a whole.
Regardless, I hope you assholes don't ever suggest this nonsense is synonymous with atheism, or you'll bring back the fun times of burning atheists at the stake.
Chuck, thanks for the question about carrying capacity of Humans on Earth. I'll attempt to answer, and to suggest why Atheists ought to care! And, thanks for being a volunteer (if you have no children) or a supporter (if you have children but support the idea of VHEMT!).
Les Knight, the founder of the VHEMT movement and I agree that due to our very HUMAN NATURE, we are not going to stay within whatever artificial limit placed on our population.
Therefore, zero is the carrying capacity LONG TERM, per your question.
You may know that we're all, everyone of us, related to 200 or fewer individual humans who lived about 70,000 years ago, in East Africa. That what the geneticists have found...
Therefore, even after a really big die-off, figure way less than 70,000 years and we're back to where we are today, since not everything we now know about leveraging technology to support human life (and destroy the rest of the biosphere) can be expected to be unlearned, regardless of how brutal it may be for many many years for those who survive.
There are numerous "carbon footprint" websites that suggest several millions of us (as many as 2 billion by one estimate) could live "in harmony" with the environment, if we were, as you suggest, careful.
Here are my results, I'm not proud...just glad to be childfree.
Your footprint is 1.20 tonnes, (per month) which equates to 13.38 tonnes per year
The average footprint for people in United States is 20.40 tonnes
The average for the industrial nations is about 11 tonnes
The average worldwide carbon footprint is about 4 tonnes
The worldwide target to combat climate change is 2 tonn
I maintain that our reliance on technology (HUMAN CULTURE with a capital C) precludes any governor on our destructiveness, and it is part of our human nature, and therefore not easily changed without draconian measures, which are no more sustainable than our current "western" lifestyles...that's why the VOLUNTARY in the VHEMT is such a crucial element!
Each of us can decide to do the moral thing, and not breed.
Here's a neat synopsis of Earth Carrying Capacity, that does and doesn't answer your question!
"With a democratically determined population control policy that respects basic individual rights, with sound resource use policies, plus the support of science and technology to enhance energy supplies and protect the integrity of the environment, an optimum population of 2 billion for the Earthcan be achieved.With a concerted effort, fundamental obligations to ensure the well-being of future generations can be attained within the 21st century.Individuals will then be free from poverty and starvation and live in an environment capable of sustaining human life with dignity.We must avoid letting humans numbers continue to increase to the limit of the Earth's natural resources and forcing natural forces to control our numbers by disease, malnutrition, and violent conflicts over resources."
If you think that sounds plausible, you may be the only one who does! The whole point of VHMET is that the final sentence is impossible to achieve, and, the limits of Earth's resources are being reached, way sooner than anyone suspects, and, "natural forces" will do what they do and we won't be around REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO TO TRY TO DELAY OR DENY IT.
Technology has always "bailed us out" in the past. Now Human Technology is not just overcoming natural boundaries, it is overwhelming natural systems. So, those who maintain that more technology is the answer have a grand tradition behind them and NO FUTURE at all!
Therefore, don't have kids, so that fewer suffer at the end!
The reason I submit this to this Atheist thread is that RELIGIOUSITY will attempt to thwart efforts to control population, as seen in the recent Economic Stimulus discussion of condoms...the "moral majority" are neither moral, nor the majority, but...they do control things way beyond their numbers or rationality would suggest they ought.
It is just as immoral as the position: "Let's fight them there, so we won't fight them here!" Since when is commiting war on someone else's territory (without provocation and by our own choice) moral in any way shape or form?
Oh well, humans aren't particularly rational, as this group certainly knows in spades!
Frish, That was a very interesting website. I guess I was a VHEMT without ever having heard of them. www.vhemt.org
I didn't read every word on the site, but I looked around, read about half of it, and am still left with no answer to a question I've had for a long time. Perhaps you have come across some answer(s) to this.
The question is: What is the long-term carrying capacity for humans on this planet? Assume that long term is a million years or longer, and that we were immediately reduced to this number, and stayed within 1% of this number "forever". My guess is perhaps a billion or less, but I really don't have any evidence to back up that guess.
What do you think (or know) about this? yours, Chuck A
At 10:49 PM 2/15/2009, frish wrote:
How droll. Is it fair that we pay taxes to kill people in Iraq, in an illegal war? there are plenty of things we ought not subsidize but we do, and birth control, contraception, abortion are in the public interest, and so should be subsidized.
Condoms ought to be free with every happy meal.
Abortion has been shown (Freakonomics) to reduce crime. Condoms are even cheaper.
Libertarians ought to realize (but won't) that VOLUNTARY Human Extinction is the only MORAL choice since it is the best way to reduce our population in the face of the coming "Armageddon" (sorry for the biblical reference, but it applies, in spades).
I am just sorry that any tax incentives still exist to support procreation. Like tax credits for kids. Like tax credits for big suvs that subsidize big families.
It is DEFINITELY in the government's interest (if we still have government by,of,for people) to subsidize birth control, abortion, sex ed and anything else that will reduce population.
But, my view is definitely far less "popular" than atheism. And, I'm a "libertarian" too!
There is no "biological clock" only social forces and ignorance that keeps people procreating.
Oh well. Live long and die off!
Dima, there are people starving right here in America.
But that's not the point. The future is filled with starvation and a biosphere that CANNOT support human life, regardless of the "technology" we throw at it. Our momentum and human nature will preclude solutions to the situation, and, we'll be extinct regardless of what we throw at the problem. Oh well.
I don't suspect/expect any of you agree. VHEMT is far less acceptable than atheism.
Frish, who is pleased every day that he's a volunteer!
Take a minute and read, it is a serious site...we're Vehement!
Perhaps, some well placed "webcams" could turn increase awareness/consciousness...
Then, we have insane proposals that appear plausible on their face, but introduce myriad untold consequences as the video says: "What do we do with the gas that's captured?".
250,000 machines, probably as large as battleships, only to have millions of tons of "captured" CO2 sitting around, just like the nuclear waste from a power plant!
"Air Capture is no silver bullet!"
No, but not having kids is!
I greatly enjoy the "technological" answers to the problems that our "technological" culture has introduced.
Let's keep doing what got us here in the first place (or is that the definition of insanity?) since it has worked so well for us so far!
Internet Source 1. ...Anthony "Tony Roach" Rampino, whose physical features led to his nickname... Internet Source 2. He was never inducted into the Mafia because of his heavy drug use. He reportedly earned the nickname 'The Roach' because he smoked every bit of a marijuana joint.
Frish says: A confederate of John Gotti's, Tony "The Roach" has served 10 years for for selling a Kilo of Heroin to an undercover cop, and may gain his freedom if the Judge decides he can go with time served. He's never been indicted for several suspected killings.
I believe source two as to his nickname but cannot confirm.
Quote in entirety permitted -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Earth supplied the NATURAL components needed to have life happen here.
2. Life is a GEOLOGIC process. Biology is a natural outcome of geology.
2a. Life uses energy and chemistry to process organic and inorganic chemicals. Life is most essentially digesting the planet Earth and the potential energy provided by Earth's chemistry.
3. That's Life.
4. Monkeys obey the golden rule. They are social primates. They do unto others (pick lice for one thing), as they would have others do unto them (pick lice for one thing). Monkeys (and humans) are social primates, DEPENDENT AND RELIANT on each other.
5. The GOLDEN RULE IS BUILT IN to human-kind. Any charlatan can claim it for his or her own, as it is built-in! This fact may be one more than can be contained in a "true-believer"'s head, but morality comes built into humans, almost all of us act "right" almost all the time.
6. Humans and our technology evolved to dig up oil which is just what is needed for the next stage of life's evolution on the planet.
7. Humans have served their function and will be recycled into the ever active treadmill of chemicals and geologic processes that fluxes upon the Earth at all times.
THE extraordinary rainstorms last June caused catastrophic soil erosion in the grain lands of Iowa, where there were gullies 200 feet wide. But even worse damage is done over the long term under normal rainfall — by the little rills and sheets of erosion on incompletely covered or denuded cropland, and by various degradations resulting from industrial procedures and technologies alien to both agriculture and nature.
Soil that is used and abused in this way is as nonrenewable as (and far more valuable than) oil. Unlike oil, it has no technological substitute — and no powerful friends in the halls of government.
Agriculture has too often involved an insupportable abuse and waste of soil, ever since the first farmers took away the soil-saving cover and roots of perennial plants. Civilizations have destroyed themselves by destroying their farmland. This irremediable loss, never enough noticed, has been made worse by the huge monocultures and continuous soil-exposure of the agriculture we now practice.
To the problem of soil loss, the industrialization of agriculture has added pollution by toxic chemicals, now universally present in our farmlands and streams. Some of this toxicity is associated with the widely acclaimed method of minimum tillage. We should not poison our soils to save them.
Industrial agricultural has made our food supply entirely dependent on fossil fuels and, by substituting technological "solutions" for human work and care, has virtually destroyed the cultures of husbandry (imperfect as they may have been) once indigenous to family farms and farming neighborhoods.
Clearly, our present ways of agriculture are not sustainable, and so our food supply is not sustainable. We must restore ecological health to our agricultural landscapes, as well as economic and cultural stability to our rural communities.
For 50 or 60 years, we have let ourselves believe that as long as we have money we will have food. That is a mistake. If we continue our offenses against the land and the labor by which we are fed, the food supply will decline, and we will have a problem far more complex than the failure of our paper economy. The government will bring forth no food by providing hundreds of billons of dollars to the agribusiness corporations.
Any restorations will require, above all else, a substantial increase in the acreages of perennial plants. The most immediately practicable way of doing this is to go back to crop rotations that include hay, pasture and grazing animals.
But a more radical response is necessary if we are to keep eating and preserve our land at the same time. In fact, research in Canada, Australia, China and the United States over the last 30 years suggests that perennialization of the major grain crops like wheat, rice, sorghum and sunflowers can be developed in the foreseeable future. By increasing the use of mixtures of grain-bearing perennials, we can better protect the soil and substantially reduce greenhouse gases, fossil-fuel use and toxic pollution.
Carbon sequestration would increase, and the husbandry of water and soil nutrients would become much more efficient. And with an increase in the use of perennial plants and grazing animals would come more employment opportunities in agriculture — provided, of course, that farmers would be paid justly for their work and their goods.
Thoughtful farmers and consumers everywhere are already making many necessary changes in the production and marketing of food. But we also need a national agricultural policy that is based upon ecological principles. We need a 50-year farm bill that addresses forthrightly the problems of soil loss and degradation, toxic pollution, fossil-fuel dependency and the destruction of rural communities.
This is a political issue, certainly, but it far transcends the farm politics we are used to. It is an issue as close to every one of us as our own stomachs.
Wes Jackson is a plant geneticist and president of The Land Institute in Salina, Kan. Wendell Berry is a farmer and writer in Port Royal, Ky.
A version of this article appeared in print on January 5, 2009, on page A21 of the New York edition.
FRISH SAYS:
THE USA FOOD EXPORTED ABOUT 3 BILLION DOLLARS per month net IN 2008.
NOT A LOT OF ECONOMIC INCENTIVE FOR AGRIBUSINESS TO SLOW OR STOP ANY 'UNSUSTAINABLE' WAYS SINCE THEY ARE ENJOYING THE QUARTER BY QUARTER PROFITS.
CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT A WORTHWHILE 50 YEAR FARM PLAN WOULD BE ACCEPTED BY AGRIBUSINESS?
LOVED THAT LINE "perennialization of the major grain crops like wheat, rice, sorghum and sunflowers can be developed in the foreseeable future" WITHOUT ANY INDICATION THAT THEY WILL BE!
CONSIDER, IF THAT UPSETS PROFITS (SEEDS DON'T NEED TO BE SOLD EVERY YEAR FOR EXAMPLE!) WILL THEY EVER BE DEVELOPED??
NO MENTION OF HOW THOSE NEWLY PERENNIALIZED CROPS WOULD REDUCE THE RISK TO PESTS AND/OR DISEASE THAT MONOCULTURE AGRICULTURE ALREADY EXHIBITS!
NO MENTION THAT THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY HUMANS ON THE PLANET OF COURSE.
From Frish (thanks to friend Janet who Pointed This Out!): Obviously a little USA biased, but, nice thoughts regardless.
Union of Concerned Scientists' Top 10 New Year's Resolutions
1. Defend Americans from unsafe drugs, toys and other products by requiring that federal agency leaders protect employees who blow the whistle when science is misused.
2. Allow the public access to tremendous scientific resources by letting government scientists tell us what they know.
3. Protect the air we breathe by obeying the law and setting air pollution standards based on science.
4. Restore our faith in government by providing more information to the public about how science-based policy decisions are made.
5. Use science to conserve our natural heritage for future generations.
6. Collect enough information to give us flexibility to meet future challenges and keep tabs on current problems.
7. Hold your administration accountable to high scientific integrity standards.
8. Keep politics out of science by reining in the power of the White House to tamper with purely scientific analyses.
9. Safeguard our health by putting the Environmental Protection Agency back in charge of evaluating the potential dangers of chemicals without interference from other agencies.
10. Protect us by shining a bright light on all agency meetings held with special interests so we can understand their influence.
The box of crackers Debra Rogoff bought from the grocery store had some crackerjack in it — an envelope stuffed with $10,000.
Yet the Irvine woman was more curious than ecstatic about her daughter's find. After all, who would leave money in such a place?
"We just thought, 'This is someone's money,'" she said. "We would never feel good about spending it."
Rather than go on a shopping spree, the family called police and was initially told the money could be part of a drug drop.
Police later heard from store managers at Whole Foods in Tustin that an elderly woman had come in a few days earlier, hysterical because she had mistakenly returned a box of crackers with her life savings inside. In a mix-up the store restocked the box rather than composting it.
The Lake Forest woman, whose identity was not released, had lost faith in her bank and decided the box would be a safer place for the money.
Luckily for her, the box of Annie's Sour Cream and Onion Cheddar Bunny crackers were bought by the Rogoffs, who discovered the crisp $100 bills in an unmarked white envelope on Oct. 10.
The Rogoffs never heard from the woman and didn't receive a reward, but Rogoff did return to Whole Foods a couple weeks later.
"I asked them if I could have another box of crackers," she said with a laugh. The store obliged.
My cell phone rang with insistence EARLY this morning, the day after Christmas 2008, with a quite FRANTIC client, Marta, on the line. I almost sat up even, but in reality, rolled over, got the phone and continued being supine.
Our print manufacturing plant wasn't open today, partly because the pressman and the "feeder" (who loads the paper) had not had a day off in 21 days!
Marta, my client, found some of her shipment of 48 page fashion catalogs deficient, to say the least.
Somehow, page 15 was followed by page 24 or some such, it was too early to actually write down or listen much!
She did admit that not all of them were like that, but she was going to have to check her entire shipment of 4000 and there was another batch of 6000 at the mailing house (not open today).
Part of the aftermath follows!
This first note is in response to Marta's lovely missive, enjoy!
From: Frish Date: Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Fixing the situation... To: Marta
Marta: I didn't say what we couldn't do, what I tried to make clear is that I (THAT IS ME PERSONALLY) can't make a commitment as to when you will receive your catalogs as of today right now.
We will do what we have to do to get them in your hands as expeditiously as we possibly can.
We are responsible and take our jobs just as seriously as you do.
Sorry to upset you further. That was not in any way my intention.
I am of the impression that you have 5000 usable catalogs as of today between your office and the mailing house.
So, as someone famous once said, things could be worse.
My abject apologies and my continuing commitment to make things right as soon as possible.
Frish
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Marta wrote:
Frish, This email, you have sent to me, is very upsetting!!!!!
Your company made a huge mistake which has affected my business, my staff and my family. I pulled 2 people off vacation and have taken the one day away from my daughter, who flew in to be with me over the weekend. Everyone worked overtime to get you the job so that we could have these in our customers hands by January 1st. You know how business is awful, and that we specifically timed this introduction to capture sale for the first week of January when all the retailers will be replacing inventory.
I don't know what stress you have in your job, but I have the financial well being of 12 of my employees on my back . And when you write me a note, casually telling me what you are not going to do for me... I am thinking of my company and the people in it and the safety of whether they are going to have jobs when they come back in the new year. I would think that you would be sending me a note telling me how you are going to get your employees back to work, fix the problem and get our catalogs to kesmail on Tuesday.
Does your company stand by your promises or not!!! Are you accepting that this is your fault and that you have greatly inconvenienced me and my company or not!!!! Are you going get this back on press Monday morning or not!!!!!
This email that you have sent me has only made my day worse.
I want to hear what you are going to do for me and my staff. This is all very upsetting~!!!!!!!!!! On 12/26/08 10:32 AM, "Frish" wrote:
Marta: I wish I could wave a wand...
I cannot and did not make any commitments on when we can replace the catalogs.
We will do what we can do.
In the meanwhile, use what you can.
Frish
THE BOTTOM LINE: BY MID-AFTERNOON SHE HAD FOUND 8 (EIGHT) BAD CATALOGS OUT OF THE 4000 (FOUR THOUSAND) AT HER LOCATION.
THAT'S 8 OUT OF 10,000 TOTAL. IN MY DISCUSSION WITH MY PRODUCTION MANAGER, WHO WAS UPSET ENOUGH BY THE NEWS TO ACTUALLY DRIVE TO WORK, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE MAILING HOUSE HAS ANY MISPRINTS.
IN HIS VIEW, SOME 'MAKE-READY' PIECES OF PAPER WERE MIXED INTO THE WORKFLOW SO IT WAS VERY FEW SHEETS ALTOGETHER.
CONSIDERING THAT DELIVERY OF OVER OR UNDER 10% OF THE ORDER IS INDUSTRY STANDARD, WE'RE WELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF ACCEPTABILITY.
To anyone reading this far, Happy New Year 2009
P.S. The other work related item today, as a nice bookend, an order for $5000 worth of printing.
From a Friend: Now, I found something goofy with my new wireless connexion -- I was 1st Asst. Director on this rock video about 14 years ago; with the wrestler --- I had lost it
(Frish has 2000 hours of paid Archaeological experience and a BA in the subject)
The subject, above, is misleading.
There is no lesson - only confirmation that vhemt is the moral answer to the future.
(Hi Louis, on this note I copied my blog and two yahoo groups related to www.vhemt.org.
Thanks for smiling, but we are not just serious, we're Vehement!)
VHEMT IMPLICATIONS OF THE ARTICLE BELOW, WHICH IS DENSE BUT IMPORTANT.
Abstract:
The effect to the climate as reflected in radio-carbon dating of forests post-epidemic human virus in pre-Columbian times.
Forests grew nicely at the same time decimated human populations recovered from a pandemic. The article is far too heavy on the "science" of the mechanics of the dating technique and far too light on the virus or condition of human activity during the same time period...the implication is that HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHAOS has been going on for a long time already.
1. WE'RE RIGHT. THE REFORESTATION WILL BE TREMENDOUS WITH LESS/NO HUMAN ACTIVITY.
2. BEFORE IT ALL CEASES TO SUPPORT US, I EXPECT HUMANITY WILL UNDERSTAND ENOUGH ABOUT AI THAT WE CAN AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO HAVE INTELLECT/CONSCIOUSNESS PROCEED.
3. BUT, PERHAPS NOT.
4. AI IS A REALLY BIG PROBLEM AND THERE ISN'T MUCH TIME.
5. BESIDES, IS IT A GOOD IDEA?
6. THAT'S THE ONLY REAL QUESTION ACTUALLY, WHAT SHOULD OUR LEGACY TO THE UNIVERSE ACTUALLY BE?
This belongs to "The Future of City Living" keyword...
Public release date: 18-Dec-2008
Contact: Louis Bergeron
louisb3 @stanford .edu
Stanford University
New World post-pandemic reforestation helped start Little Ice Age, say Stanford scientists
The power of viruses is well documented in human history. Swarms of little viral Davids have repeatedly laid low the great Goliaths of human civilization, most famously in the devastating pandemics that swept the New World during European conquest and settlement.
In recent years, there has been growing evidence for the hypothesis that the effect of the pandemics in the Americas wasn't confined to killing indigenous peoples. Global climate appears to have been altered as well.
Stanford University researchers have conducted a comprehensive analysis of data detailing the amount of charcoal contained in soils and lake sediments at the sites of both pre-Columbian population centers in the Americas and in sparsely populated surrounding regions. They concluded that reforestation of agricultural lands-abandoned as the population collapsed-pulled so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it helped trigger a period of global cooling, at its most intense from approximately 1500 to 1750, known as the Little Ice Age.
"We estimate that the amount of carbon sequestered in the growing forests was about 10 to 50 percent of the total carbon that would have needed to come out of the atmosphere and oceans at that time to account for the observed changes in carbon dioxide concentrations," said Richard Nevle, visiting scholar in the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences at Stanford. Nevle and Dennis Bird, professor in geological and environmental sciences, presented their study at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on Dec. 17, 2008.
Nevle and Bird synthesized published data from charcoal records from 15 sediment cores extracted from lakes, soil samples from 17 population centers and 18 sites from the surrounding areas in Central and South America. They examined samples dating back 5,000 years.
What they found was a record of slowly increasing charcoal deposits, indicating increasing burning of forestland to convert it to cropland, as agricultural practices spread among the human population-until around 500 years ago: At that point, there was a precipitous drop in the amount of charcoal in the samples, coinciding with the precipitous drop in the human population in the Americas.
To verify their results, they checked their fire histories based on the charcoal data against records of carbon dioxide concentrations and carbon isotope ratios that were available.
"We looked at ice cores and tropical sponge records, which give us reliable proxies for the carbon isotope composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide. And it jumped out at us right away," Nevle said. "We saw a conspicuous increase in the isotope ratio of heavy carbon to light carbon. That gave us a sense that maybe we were looking at the right thing, because that is exactly what you would expect from reforestation."
During photosynthesis, plants prefer carbon dioxide containing the lighter isotope of carbon. Thus a massive reforestation event would not only decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but would also leave carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that was enriched in the heavy carbon isotope.
Other theories have been proposed to account for the cooling at the time of the Little Ice Age, as well as the anomalies in the concentration and carbon isotope ratios of atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with that period.
Variations in the amount of sunlight striking the Earth, caused by a drop in sunspot activity, could also be a factor in cooling down the globe, as could a flurry of volcanic activity in the late 16th century.
But the timing of these events doesn't fit with the observed onset of the carbon dioxide drop. These events don't begin until at least a century after carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began to decline and the ratio of heavy to light carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide begins to increase.
Nevle and Bird don't attribute all of the cooling during the Little Ice Age to reforestation in the Americas.
"There are other causes at play," Nevle said. "But reforestation is certainly a first-order contributor."
Dear Barbara, and those copied: Your heartfelt and legally binding well wishes can only be greeted with a wistful:
"Reason's Greetings"!
Have a safe and joyous winter solstice. Frish
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Barbara Ferrara <wrote:
Wanted to send out some sort of holiday greeting to you, but it is so difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone. I met with my solicitor yesterday and, on his advice, I wish to say the following: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Britain great (not to imply that Britain is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "Britain" in the western hemisphere) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Disclaimer: no trees were harmed in the sending of this message however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced. In other words, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Getting an Erection in Hot Nude Yoga: 
Paul? Or Paula?
