Debunking the debunked

Though not strictly political in nature, global climate change is of immense interest to me. Understanding its fundamental components and encouraging dialogue (or polylogue?) with regard to its implications is an important step in accurately addressing the challenge it represents to human civilization and indeed life on Earth. The following is a brief comment I wrote with regard to an article posted on Yahoo news. The article suggested that planting trees in non-tropical latitudes could have a counter-intuitively negative effect on mitigating climate change. I disagreed, suggesting that that analysis was overly simplistic.

The concern cited in the article about trees actually raising temperatures near the earth's surface, is misleading and overly simplistic. 1) Global warming is an effect associated with heat not being able to radiate back into space (because it's trapped in the atmosphere). While a dark forest canopy will indeed raise surface temperatures, the carbon sequestered in the trees will reduce the over-all carbon content of the atmosphere, thus reducing the green house effect. 2) climate change is more than just about temperature. Species, plants, and animals will be greatly affected, particularly because they don't have air conditioners, and sunscreen to protect them from the changing ecosystem. Planting trees and forests is a very, very good thing because it improves the soil and air quality, it filters toxins in the environment and water supply, it provides shelter for many plant and animal species, some of which humans may depend on for our survival. Making our environment more robust is essential in preparing for the harsh effects of global warming and global climate change (a more accurate term). It would be nice if your articles in the future could address these complexities.

With Regard to the Economic Recovery Plan

This was first written on 09/29/08 (right after the first economic recovery plan was voted down in Congress)

First, economics can be counter-intuitive and misleading. For example, most people agree that a trade deficit is a bad? Surpluses are better than deficits, right? Well... (according to my admittedly limited economics studies) a trade deficit is not NECESSARILY a bad thing. In fact, another name for a trade deficit is a "Net Capital Inflow". Our trade deficit with China is their Capital Outflow. Suddenly, it doesn't sound quite so bad. What makes in inflow or outflow good or bad is how the capital or goods are invested (ie, the U.S. had a huge trade deficit when building the railroads, but the railroads energized our economy for decades).

What this suggests is that we are letting our PERCEPTION about matters influence our decisions. We (the U.S. citizen) are making an emotional decision (angry about bailing out rich CEOs) rather than a logical decision (banks are not lending to each other so we need to recapitalize them). One perspective is that we're not just bailing rich CEOs out, we're bailing ourselves out!

Finally, the the citizenry and representatives seem to be viewing this crisis from a victim perspective rather than a parent perspective. We are considering ourselves the victim of an unfair bailout rather than as the responsible parent whose job it is to take responsibility for a child's misdeeds, scold the child, make sure it doesn't happen again, and move on. We should scold the child (investment banks and those in Congress (primarily Republicans) who excessively pushed for deregulation and blocked attempts to regulate)(now we gotta regulate), but ultimately act responsibly, pay for the broken window, and pull the family together because in the end it's not just rich CEOs that depend on it - the American economy depends on it.

Update on 10/03/08: it subsequently became apparent that the world economy depends on it as well.

Continued update: 10/10/08: the economic crisis, now global in nature, is clearly beyond my ability to analyze accurately (from my computer arm chair.)

Introduction and Welcome

Though I have long had disdain for blogs and most other internet-based news and punditry sources (due to their high degree of anonymity, paucity of source referencing, high degree of opinion, and propensity for low density, highly dispersed readership), I have never-the-less arrived at the conclusion, that the over-all aggregate effect of blogs, particularly with the advent of enhanced search and key-word indexing advanced by Google that (breath), it may in fact be worth my time, as a concerned American citizen to add a voice of reasonable reason to the cacophony of bloggatry indicative of the democratic plurality which is the hallmark of this nation (and indeed globally, as it is the internet).

Furthermore, the lack of poignant and unapologetically objective analysis which is altogether lacking in the vast majority of American news outlets, has necessitated this outlet. While non “meanstream” media sources are often cited as being biased or slanted toward one political perspective, or they take great pains to be balanced (at the cost of having perspective), I should note that the views discussed in this blog are the product of rational, cogent thought, devoid of intentional alienation or strident advocacy. Political parties are symbols, non-tangible entities toward which our loyalty must not be blindly given if we truly value our freedom of thought. Rather, it is ideas, independent of the organization or person which espouses them, which should be the relevant basis of political discourse for the betterment of us all. (I should inject humor at this point).

To that extent, I welcome you (you who probably decided to stop reading after the second run-on sentence) to The Sandcastle Political Observer, an irregularly syndicated non-entity in the so-called journalistic sport of blogosphering. Why not blogocube, or blogocylinder? I’m not sure either. In any case, as our introduction has now concluded, our revels can begin.