Français/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Português/Portuguese Español/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Welcome!

I, God, welcome you to my blog!

The good book says only God is good, so it seems to me somebody needs to step up.

I hope you enjoy reading this, the Jesse Journal, as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Please feel free to subscribe, write me an email, request that I write about any particular topic you may want my perspective on, send a prayer, click on the charity link, or donate money to my bicycle fund! Have fun!

Your pal, Jess
I'm a straight, virgo/boar INTJ (age 54) who enjoys books, getting out into nature, music, and daily exercise.

(my email is JesseGod@live.com)

F.Y.I. There are about 2500 posts..

Here's a quote from Fyodor Dostoevsky to start things off right: Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love.

Monday, December 15, 2008

God's Blogs by Lanny Donoho

You know, I had to get it.

My mother-in-law bought it for me, after much effort. She read it, too, and thought it was "hilarious" in the tone of voice appropriate for one who had suffered through so much to acquire it.

Anyway,
I'm not sure why he called it a blog, or blogs (plural), but maybe I should cash in, too. It's subtitled, Insights from HIS site, but it was written in '05, before I even wrote this, although, to be fair, some other Gods had written blogs then, but I don't see any excerpts from their blogs in his BOOK, either. Oh well, and O my God. Actually, now that I look at the cover, the God's Blogs is preceded by an "imagine...", so I, God, apparently am a fiction of Larry Donoho's imagination, lol.

I anticipated links and excerpts from actual blogs, such as the blogs listed on this site (at the sidebar). Whatever, though. I enjoyed Lanny's book. His picture is right where it says "I enjoyed an exhilarating glimpse of God." Which is what I've been saying all along (although I admit this blog does not include a picture of me, due to reasons amidst the heavenly choir).

In the last page of his Thankyou's, at the end of the book, He says he wrote his blog for his 3 sons, Landon, Andrew, and Evan, so this book is all about God the Father, you might say. In his profile on page one of his "blog," he says "Oh...and I really like how I made you. You are different and wonderfully unique, and I created you that way in your mother's belly. I consider each of you My masterpiece." So that's pretty much the alpha and omega of it.

Unless you consider the "happy ever afterlife" part, which I thought was cute. I was thinking about virtual reality today, and I thought to myself, "self" I said, "If physicists today are talking about 11 dimensions and the cusp of a theory of everything and even theorizing about the making of a universe, where will we be in a million years?"

With this in mind, it might not take that long to create a universe (identical to?) ours, in which we can live forever, happily (i.e., heaven). I dunno, but I think it would have lots of planets, where all kinds of alternate realities can actualize, and a painless, continually interesting, eternity can be had by all. Just a thought. The Secret says "Thoughts become things." We'll see.
(Then again, heaven may already exist!)

Of course, my own god-blogging might say about me that I really, really want to be a dad. That's true. We'll see about that, too.

Lanny is going to post (excerpts from? the entirety of?) his blog (God's blogs, he calls it) online at some point. I'll post the link to it when it becomes available. I've already posted the link to his book for purchase.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

SWBP: Population, Migration

SWBP (Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems),
a 2007 book, edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Commission,
Ch. 23, Population: Migration, by Michael J. Greenwood, U of Chicago, Final Chapter (!), pp. 425-438, yeah, baby.
Book Report/ Commentary and Summary, by Jesse L. Teshara
(you can call me Jess)

People moving about

This chapter is a bit theoretical, heady, and uses economist jargon like elasticity and the slope of supply schedules/curves in quantifying various scenarios for transfers and redistributions, blah blah blah.

Don't be fooled, the topic of this chapter is migration/immigration, and not about population per se, such as everybody's favorite topic, population and supposed overpopulation.

The current debate about U.S. illegal immigration colors the discussion.

Okay, data:
International migration appears to be at or near historically high levels (2005), and the illegal component is probably the part that has increased most in recent years. The numbers of illegals are difficult to obtain, so substantive discussion is mooted.

Problems with illegals include:
-stress on social programs and educational institutions in receiving nations, and the monetary transfers involved
-culture clash and ethnic tensions
-difficulty assimilating, higher costs for providing bi-lingual education
-disenfranchisement, lack of citizenship availability, long waits.
-they tend to be poor, less-educated, young, and less-skilled...so they displace the lowest income indigenous residents, while putting downward pressure on the wages of those who remain employed.

Benefit
"Because the individual (migrant) typically has a higher marginal product in the destination, which is reflected in a higher wage there, he has a potential incentive to move and his movement improves the global distribution of labor resources." Therefore, the migrant usually gives contribution that raises the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the destination country.

The question lurking behind this chapter is, should we adopt a nationalist or a global perspective? Internationally, the migrants gain. But maybe nationally, there are some unhappy (and perhaps vocal) losers.

In analyzing who enjoys benefits, and who suffers losses, the right data has to be collected to make informed policy decisions (describing elasticities and slopes). Some circumstances create gains to the economy that outweigh (ji.e., more than compensate for) the losses to native workers, so migrants could be taxed and compensatory payments made to the "losers," while in other circumstances, natives are rightly wary of migrants.

The author makes the point that taxing gainers, and compensating losers -redistributing- never happens. Taxing relatively poor migrants is not popular, of course. So Mr. Greenwood has some suggestions:

1. Allow individuals to "buy" their way in. Illegals are said to pay an estimated 3-4k to "coyotes" to help them across the border. If each of the presumed 12M illegal aliens in the USA were to have paid $1,000 to gain legal entry, that would be $12B in the coffer of the US Treasury.
-labor turnover would allow more migrants to come, legally

2. Employers could pay a one-time, or perhaps annual, fee (to hire specific migrants they wish to employ.)
-Border control could perhaps be relaxed, with additional savings.

3. Maybe we can be clear on the supply and demand curves for low-wage workers, and thus set the equilibrium price for a permit to work here, thus creating a more market-oriented approach to immigration.

4. (as a refinement on 3) Migrants could post a bond upon entering the country, and if they return to their origin country at a specified time, it will be retured in full, but if not, they would forfeit the bond (possibly as a rising percentage related to time overdue).

I say the whole world should simply open all it's borders, come what may.
I'd like to know what the "experts" think would happen, if that were to actualize.

SWBP: Unsafe Water and Lack of Sanitation

SWBP is Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,
a 2007 book I'm reading, edited by Bjorn Lomborg,
Ch. 22, pp. 405-422, by Guy Hutton (from Development Solutions International),
Book Report / Commentary and Summary, by me, god :-)

Cough! Yuck..

The Problem
In 2002, it was reported that 1.1B people drink unsafe water (the words used are "lacked access to improved drinking water sources"), and 2.6B people lacked proper sanitation (again, the words used are "lacked access to improved sanitation.")

More than 90% of these live in Asia and Africa.
70% of the 1.1B, and 78% of the 2.6B live in just 11 countries:
(India, China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan).

In some regions, the percentage without proper sanitation is "disturbingly high," or as I would rather put it, the potential for improvement is excitingly vast (seriously, when you're cleaning a house, isn't dusting the dirtiest spots the most satisfying? Come on guys, help me out. I'm trying to implement the Secret, here.)

This is an obviously central element of a basic human need, right?
(I don't see why I should have to think about ranking it according to CBA).
Anyway, in recognition of it's importance:
-WS&S (water safety and sanitation) Improvement is MDG (UN Millennium Development Goal) 7. Specifically, to halve by 2015 the % of poor souls without sustainable access to safe water and basic sanitation.
-It is, of course, (like everything else), tied up with improvement in other areas and goals like health and nutrition, environmental sustainability, gender equality, primary school attendance, and overall poverty rates.
-The UN has declared 2005-2015 the International Decade for Action: Water for Life.

SOLUTION
The Solution is, well, Universal Access (you don't have to make that an acronym, kay?) Um, the MDG is good, of course, but the overall objective is still not half, but everybody, healthy and happy, with clean water and sanitation.

This means "flush toilets, VIP latrines, and simple pit latrines, with properly treated and disposed of sewage, and adequate water quantity and quality." (I don't know what a VIP latrine is..)

Specifically, there are 4 areas for intervention:
1. Hygiene (hand washing, education)
2. Sanitation (sanitary pit latrine, septic tank, household sewer connection)
3. Water Supply (new water supply or improved distribution, piped household water suppy)
4. Water Quality (treatment at community source, treatment at water plant for household piped water supply, treatment at point of use [chemical, pasteurization, filter, boiling, or solar disinfection techniques], combined with safe storage).

Adequate water quantity prevents water-washed disease transmission, such as scabies and trachoma. Adequate water quality prevents waterborne diseases like diarrhea, dysentary, and typhoid.

The author says that meeting the MDG-7 (WS&S) would cost $83B USD. This is a must do. Humanity would be inhuman not to. I don't know if this means the other half would cost the same, less, or more.

-For those 11 countries in dire need, the BCR's (Benefit-cost ratios) range from 4.4 to 31.6.
-The majority (>75%) of deaths averted would be in the 0-4 age group.
-Some groups would end up paying less than what they already pay for bad water for improved water...due to payments for water vendors, bottled water, purification materials and energy expenses, collection and waiting time, sewage removal.

A more complex economic analysis for policy makers to use would include not only the financial considerations, but the health considerations, and the economy of time saved and household production opportunities. The authors seem to think it's all about plugging in the right data into a computer with an econometric model, it seems, but I think it might be equal part art. Something as important as this deserves some personal time to meditate upon and have simmer.

The author finishes with pointing out that resources, both financial and water itself, are constrained in those 11 countries, which have low gvt. spending and income per capita., weak institutions to oversee water supply expansion, and large populations. Personally, I think all those people want WS&S more than he does, and can be mobilized to improve their lives, so it's very doable. Is the glass half full of clean water?

Certain impacts can be had at low cost: The mobilization of the health sector to improve household water purification at the point of use or in the community, hygiene education in the community, health promotion and latrine building in schools and health centers, and extending micro-credit to households to allow them to invest in water and sanitation improvement.

Also, Improved advocacy could be done by studies, country-level and sub-national, that help convince (obstinately idiotic?) governmental departments, as well as the population, that water and sanitation are worth investing in.


Micro-loan link; kiva.org

Help American Idol GIVE BACK again!!

The "American Idol Gives Back" feature of the show is planned to be cancelled, with the show's reformatting.

The money raised goes to the Charity Projects Entertainment Fund.
The Charity Projects Entertainment Fund distributes the money raised to Save the Children, America's Second Harvest, Boys & Girls Clubs of America and Children’s Health Fund to help disadvantaged children in the United States. Also, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria, Malaria No More, Nothing But Nets, Save the Children, and the U.S. Fund for UNICEF will receive money to fund programs in Africa.

We shouldn't let this happen, if we can change it, I think.
Click on this LINK to get the email/phone/address of FOX, so you can lobby for this beneficial aspect of the show to be reinstated.  "idolpr@fox.com" seems to be the relevant email address.

(It raised X dollars over 2 episodes). So what if we're in a recession? It still helps!

Jesus said, "the poor will always be with us." Then again, Jesus lied.
So, there's hope.

Here's the stats I found:
-"British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged a staggering $200 million. Last year, "Idol Gives Back" raised $76 million."

-"Last April's broadcast raised more than $64 million"

-Well, I don't know the total take, but when it comes to those listed charities, every bit (and bite) helps! The truth, I believe, is that the AI audience would probably not give as much to charitable causes without this particular feature of the show, I think. Help make FOX see the light, and be angelic, not beastly, lol.

Friday, December 12, 2008

SWBP: Hunger and Malnutrition

SWBP is Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,
a 2007 book I'm reading, Ch.22: Hunger&Malnutrition,
by Jere R. Behrman (U of Pa), Harrold Alderman (World Bank),
and John Hoddinott (Int'l Food Policy Research Institute)
My book report/ Commentary and Summary
pp. 390-403

Brother, can you spare a dime (I haven't eaten today)?

Almost a billion people, of all ages, are chronically malnourished.
160M of these are children of pre-school age.
Each year, 12M babies are born underweight due to maternal malnourishment.

Improved nutrition and reductions in hunger create LARGE productivity gains in poorly nourished populations (as if all we care about is productivity...actually, we kind of do). Also, nutritiously fed/unhungry populations have less costs associated with infectious diseases and premature mortality, money from which is then freed up for other purposes.

Hunger, defined, is when people lack the basic food intake to provide the energy and nutrients to live fully productive lives. It is measured according to varying requirements for each individual (defined by age, sex, and activities).

Malnutrition, defined, is (I guess) hunger plus other factors, including the person's health state, which describes a person's "nutritional status."

In any case, 90% of the world's hungry are in 2 regions:
Asia and the Pacific, and
sub-Saharan Africa

In 2003, Asia had 505M and Africa had 198M undernourished.

Regarding low birth-weight, IUGR (intra-uterine growth retardation) is significantly caused by mother's long run nutritional status, her weight and micro-nutrient status prior to conception, and her weight gain during pregnancy. Also, infections and parasites play a role, such as malaria, where endemic.

Besides LBW (low birth weight), other factors contributing to poor childhood nutritional status are: limited periods of exclusive breastfeeding, poor diets, and infections (primarily gastrointestinal). Most malnutrition occurs in the first 2 years of life, and it often leads to deficits in cognitive development.

-30% of S. Asian babies are born with Low Birth Weight, and
-The 162M malnourished children are STUNTED (about 1/3 of all children). Stunting link.
-In sub-Saharan Africa, prevalence of stunting has remained unchanged, and numbers have increased (2004).

Micro-nutrients, as they are called, deserve special mention. These are Iodine, Vitamin A, and Iron. So anemia (iron-deficiency) is tied into this. The chapter says "more than 40% of children aged 0-4 in developing countries suffer from anemia." Anyway, Iodine prevents iodine deficiency (um, yeah), which adversely affects development of the Central Nervous System (e.g. the brain) and results, on average, in lower IQ's. Adequate Iron is also necessary for brain development. Vitamin A deficiencies are associated with increased risk of infant and child mortality.

To do the BCR thing, this book describes how it is a somewhat vague and fuzzy process, albeit informative nonetheless. Life-expectancy tables, such as those used by life-insurance companies, are a part of this. Depending on what figures you use for benefits and costs, your priorities can be re-arranged all over the place. But I seriously think the world needs to find the leadership and the heart (the leadership within ourselves) to do it all. Basically, everything listed in this book is a good investment. Some investments are described as better than others, and we should obviously do those. But the world MUST have the WILL to ACT (and SPEND) to solve it's major quality of life problems. Personally, I think every problem can be solved. I'm just that way. And certainly, every problem in this book can be addressed simultaneously, in a coherent framework. I'm pulling for you, Barack (in tandem with the UN).

Anyway, the solutions listed in the tables in this chapter (with various associated figures I won't give you) are: 1. Reducing low birthweight for pregnancies with a high probability of LBW (particularly in S. Asia), 2. Improving infant and child nutrition in populations with high prevalence of child malnutrition., and 3. Reducing micro-nutrient deficiencies in populations in which they are prevalent.

Specifically, for 1., this means: treatments for women with asymptomatic bacterial infections, treatment for women with presumptive STD, and drugs for women with poor obstetric histories.

Specically, for 2., this means: breastfeeding promotion in hospitals in which the norm was promotion of infant formula, and integrated childcare programs (adding improved home child care practices).

Specifically, for 3., this means: Iodine (per woman of childbearing age), Vitamin A (per child under 6), and Iron (per pregnant woman, and then over the lifecycle of the child(ren)).

I have to give this BCR example, just to show you how easy it is to do something immensely good and important: (iron) A cost of $19 yields a benefit of $12,821 (at a 3% discount rate).

Another one (breastfeeding) is a cost of $599 yields a benefit of $159,401 (!) (also, 3%).

In the summary, the authors mention how health and productivity gains aren't the only benefits to reducing health and malnutrition. There's obviously significant spillover into everything else, like women's education and status, infectious disease, improving infrastructure to reduce possibilities of famine or chronic hunger, improving water and sanitation, reducing international trade barriers, lessening conflicts, and improving governance.

They also mention that there are probably many other solutions, such as improving agricultural technology or lessening zinc deficiencies, that didn't lend themselves as well to analysis for the BCR format of this book.

And finally, why the hell haven't these awesome opportunities already been taken?? For example, Do the children and infants just have too little a political voice? And, Do marginal costs rapidly increase if interventions are scaled up?

Whatever, just do it. Git'r done.
I don't know if I want to say inaction is the equivalent of murder, but there's definitely a wide world of opportunity for happiness, on the other hand.

Colbert talks to ME?

lol

-Am I really so incomprehensible? Sorry.
-Btw, I'm not a cannibal. (Actually, I chewed a piece of skin I had hanging off my finger, once).
-Also, bad things happen to good people, because bad things happen to everyone. And nobody's perfect. Bad things happen to me all the time. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is perfection. If you want to draw a karmic connection between "imperfection" and bad things, you can, but I don't. It's a mad, mad, world. Some of hell is paved with good intentions. First, do no harm. That's pretty much it. Everybody's god, and if you want a better world, don't blame God (as other), but be positive and take action yourself as an empowered being (with as much power as you want to give yourself) to make as better a world as you can.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

SWBP: Living Conditions of Women

an ongoing series of book reports (just like grammar school, lol)
Ch. 20, Living Conditions of Women, by Brinda Viswanathan,
of the Madras school of economics. (only 3 posts to go..)
SWBP is Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems,
edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Commission.
Summary and Commentary

Women take back the night (and the day, too)! If women ruled the world...

Compared to men, women have benefited less around the world during various courses of economic development. Women have a lowered status within the house, in the workplace, and in the community. This status differential has been proven to NOT be due to their biological or physiological differences, but rather is due to society and culture. Women have been kept down.

As this book, (and the chapter's author), have an economic emphasis, 2 examples of improving women's living conditions that profitably reduce the gender gap are:
(1) Reducing the gap between male and female education, especially at the primary level
and
(2) Providing childcare facilities to allow more women to participate more effectively in the labor market.

Other measures to improve women's living conditions that are harder to quantify cost:benefit ratios for are: reductions in sex trafficking and domestic violence, improved access to reproductive healthcare, and a less clear-cut definition of gender roles and the consequent overburdening of women with things like carrying firewood and water and agricultural labor like hoeing the fields or whatever, while men spend a proportionally larger time with leisure activities. The deeply-rooted gender biases cause women with similar education levels to be paid less than men, and not advance as high (the glass ceiling).

1. Educating away "gender inequality"
I heard a Grateful Dead song this morning with a refrain about women being smarter than men. That very well might be true, I don't know (I'm a man, lol).

The benefits of education are 1) a higher return on human capital investment (the cost of education, I assume vs. the cost of being less/un-educated), and the consequently higher rates of economic growth, 2) sexual knowledge, i.e. refusal tactics and recognizing dangers involved in risky behavior (with consequently less HIV infections and sexual exploitation and unwanted pregnancies), 3) better health, 4) increased ability to bargain / participation, in household decisions as well as the public sphere, 5) better employment opportunities and a lesser chance of workplace discrimination, 6) improved nutrition and health status of children, and 7) eliminating discrimination between boys and girls in the household.

Here's number 8, a macro-level result:
"Gender inequality in education acounts for a sizable portion of the empirically observed growth differences between countries and regions."

and
2. Childcare Facilities
Specifically, improving the access to, and affordability of, them.
This gives women a choice of if they want to work or not, and then whether part-time or full-time. Childcare-provision also reduces absenteeism and improves the chances of retaining jobs.

I have tables that show CBR's (cost benefit ratios) for South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Rep. of Korea, and Argentina, for both solutions. Whatever, you get the idea. Just do it. There is so much opportunity for insanely helpful, and rewarding, investment in the human condition, it's maddening to not be living in a virtually perfect world. Please stop, everyone, with the wasteful selfish expenditure, that's all I have to say right now. You're not sinners in the hands of an angry God, and I have no plans at this time to smite everyone (at least not all at once). I come from a place called Hope, lol.

You know, the culture could be reversed, with women having more power, and men staying home taking care of the kids. Who knows, right?

Relationship of Health to Wealth (& vice versa)

In progress

(please submit ideas and links)

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Facts and Figures, Preventable Death

Preventable Death is bad, mmkay?
Facts and Figures

world human population: According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the World, projected to 12/07/08 at 05:21 GMT (EST+5) is
6,741,782,584. Right now?: Link.

total number of humans who have ever lived? estimates range from 45B to 125B. (the margin of error for the total number of humans who have ever lived should be in the billions, or even tens of billions of people, due partially to discrepancy in defining the start of humanity, early population size ambiguity, and lack of accurate census data until the late 18th Century). So the number of humans alive today range from 14.98% to 5.39% of the total of historical humanity.

video of human population size history...link
series of pictures illustrating geographic population spread, link

world population age distribution graph/histogram ("population pyramid") now; link (ugh, I couldn't find one. Here's the link for population pyramids of individual countries. I figure if they can do it for each and all countries individually, they can aggregate, but nooooo. We're just not statistically being treated as one world yet). So, this is what I got:
-U.S.A., 24.4% population aged 0-18.
-According to the CIA World Factbook, around 27% of the world's population is below 15 years of age (1,820,281,000).
Specifically, 0-14 years: 27.3% (male 944,665,142/female 887,471,328) 15-64 years: 65.1%, and 65 years and over: 7.6% (male 222,808,372/female 284,647,297) (2008 est.)

AHA! Here's what I was looking for:
1. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html
2.http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/aging99/a99cht.htm (world pyramid for 1999)

number of births, worldwide, 2007: 134M, link
number of deaths, worldwide, 2006: 62M, link

causes of death; link. ("Numerous factors can cause death: senescence (time), disease, accident, homicide/conflict/war, suicide, malnutrition, poor diet/exercise/smoking, etc., predation, habitat destruction).

percentage of deaths that are preventable
worldwide, 23%, men & 32%, women
in the U.S.A., link, 36.1 to 46.7% of deaths

more preventable death links (5)
-(of all cancers, 40%, link)
-(culture/policy: france-best [41,509] vs. USA-worst [333,295], read this one, I like it: link)
-(graph of preventable third world death, link)
-(cyclone Nargis consequences of a stupid gvt., link)
-(smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse; link)

how it should be calculated?
So, if total male death was v, and total female death was w (in year x -the article [in the 2nd link, above] doesn't say what year the study was done), the number of total world preventable deaths was y).

-But the cia factbook says the deathrate was 0.823%, and I did the math*, and that's 15,258,339 annual worldwide preventable deaths. HIV killed 1.8-2.3M last year. This 15.2M doesn't include abortions. That's another 46 million, worldwide. So, I'd say 61.2M people, thereabouts. Dude, people, that sucks, alright? I'm not talking about vacuum curettage, necessarily, so no pun intended.

*I used a 27.5% preventable death rate (adding 23+32/2). on world deaths (calculated by population x 0.823% deathrate).

poverty kills:
it is said that poverty breeds ill health, and ill health keeps people poor. BUT...I suspect that, with good policy in place, good health can be got cheaply.

economic breakdown: inequality graphs, link (1993, world),
[curious aside: link (rich countries' inequality, 2008, economist), and this, too],
"we're all born equal, but some are more equal than others." -my adaptation of the Pig's proclamation from George Orwell's Animal Farm.
-2001 graph collection, book (I haven't read it).
-world gdp density map; link
-U.S. death map (oh, oops, only from environmental hazards like hot/cold, waves); link, anyway.
-"intelligence is defined by being able to hold multiple ideas in one's head simultaneously" -one of my econ professors (Gustafson).

-relation of health to poverty: america, link; scientific paper, link.
I'll do a separate blogpost on this topic.

aside
-I think graphs should be connected to other graphs, creating an interlocking coordinated system of easily navigable data. A theory of everything (like the price of tea in China question, for example) needs maximum cross-referencing. Wouldn't it be cool to ask a computer (voice-interface) in the future, what's the price of tea in China's relation to the frequency of my blog posting (and have it answer!).

fun facts
-the world is now thought to be about 4.55 billion years old, just about one-third of the 13.7-billion-year age estimated for the universe. The genus homo is about 2.5M years old, while homo sapiens (wo)man) is around 250,000 years old, and civilization began @8k y.a. with Sumeria, i.e. the settlement of Eridu in the Ubaid period (late 6th millennium BC). I'm 37, lol.

-Cool link (worldometers)
A comment on it said, "So as I'm speaking there are people dying. Wow!!! that's either amazing or sad." Every time someone cries out, "People are dying!" I think of this odometer, now (I actually have a voice in my head that infuriatingly says this repeatedly).

-Did you know there are 101 males for every 100 females, worldwide? :-)

-Happiness, link
"In Catholicism, the ultimate end of human existence consists in felicity." I hope that doesn't mean Jesus was happy on the cross... Gawd.

And the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing...so go be happy!!!!

SWBP: Living Conditions of Children

Chapter 19. SWBP is Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems, a 2007 book I'm reading, edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus. This chapter written by Harry Anthony Patrinos (Can I just call him Harry Patr?), of the World Bank (views are his). Summary and Commentary, by Jesse L. Teshara.

Children are our Future
and "The child is the father of the man"

This is a BIG problem. They didn't title this book the world's BIGGEST problems for nothing. Forget your garden and a new Porsche, folks. Make a nice pretty rock garden or something, and buy a Smart car. This is where suffering can be met head on, and some real personal joy can be had, in my opinion.

Half a billion children under 14 live on less than a dollar a day.

Everyone seems to just think that there is a sea of human suffering, and it's not worth doing anything (or much) about, but we should concentrate on ourselves and our children, ROW (rest of world) be damned, because that's what really matters. I disagree. Eventually, humanity will go extinct. So you and your family aren't as all-important as you think they are. I seriously doubt humanity will survive, forever. Oingo Boingo sings no one lives forever. What's true for an individual, is probably true for anything else. Matter has a half-life. Stars go extinct. They say the universe will eventually go black. We'll surely evolve, and probably are evolving, in process, right now. In fact, yeah, now that I think about it, as long as the environment is interacting with genes, then the human genome, in addition to the change with each generation from the variability in partnering and particular sperm and eggs, is being selected upon by the environment. Even if humanity evolves into something completely foreign looking or technological or whatever, I imagine there's surely an end. Then again, maybe your baby will change the course of history and/or even evolution. Still, one second or a trillion years, things seem likely to be ephemeral. Being selfish is one's prerogative. But if we are to see ourselves as good, if we are to entertain hope of a "heavenly reward: i.e. being saved, i.e. having our 'soul' or consciousness live on after death (such as in a virtual world, with your personality and lifetime data saved on some form of a computer), then maybe we should take the road of compassion and seek to reduce the suffering, increase the peace, maximize the happiness of everyone else, too. The possibility of however improbable an eternal reward (paired with the possibility of however an improbably eternal punishment), is the carrot and stick that in many religions attempts to induce good behavior. But experience and commonsense tell us to be good, too. Everyone knows mean people suck. And karma can bite you on your ass. Maybe not always, and perhaps not necessarily. I happen to believe Hitler got the same (or better) fate as Jesus. But everyone appreciates a needed kind smile or helping hand. We're a human family, we're all in this together, and unless you're maximizing happiness (the right mix of selfish and altruistic activity) you're doing everyone a disservice, I think. I also think people have the wrong ideas about how to do this, and neglect the real sources of true happiness all around them. People really do live lives of quiet desperation. People live deluded, confused, angry, sad, hungry, unhealthy, neglected, and needy lives. And for me, at least, making others happy is what makes me happy, and I subscribe to the basic philosophy that if everyone met their basic clothing/ shelter/ dietary/ relationship needs, and gave all their other effort to helping others meet theirs, instead of constantly seeking selfish gain, then the world would be a much friendlier place.

Half a billion.
I'll just leave it at that.

SWBP: Lack of People of Working Age

SWBP is Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems, a 2007 book I'm reading, edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus. Chapter 18, Lack of People of Working Age, by Robert E Wright and Katerina Lisenkova, both U of Strathclyde, Summary and Commentary

A monster of a problem for Monster.com?

At first glance, this seems like a ridiculous problem, knowing that the average age of humanity (the median age of the world human population) is 28. And I would be right. The best, and most economical, solution, it turns out, is simply letting the younger populations of foreign countries into the states where the working population is graying out.

The problem, to be precise, is that 95% of the employed population in industrialized countries (namely N. America, Europe, Russia, Japan, Australia, and NZ) are aged between 20 and 65, a cohort whose size will plummet if current demographic trends continue: specifically, 80 million employees over the next 4-5 decades.

The chain of causation, without a policy remedy, runs from an implied upward pressure on wages, to less domestic and international competitiveness, lower economic growth, lower tax revenues to fund services for an ageing electorate, possibly raised taxes, and then even lower rates of economic growth.

In industrializing countries, however, the 20-65 age group (the 'traditional labor force'; I'll call it tlf) will be growing by over 1.5 billion (about 60%) between 2005-2050. So a transfer from excess supply of workers to excess demand seems called for.

This chapter also points out that not only will the number of the tlf be diminishing, but the distribution of those still in the workforce will be ageing, as well. Without fresh supply, this increase in older worker supply and decrease in younger worker supply means 1) wages for younger workers will increase, while wages for older workers will decrease, and 2) if labor markets don't adjust, then population ageing will generate unemployment, potentially for older and younger workers alike, resulting in lower economic growth.

Actually, the labor force, according to recent UN population projections, will be growing in industrialized countries until 2010, when a steady and substantial decline will occur over the next 40 years, so that by 2050 100 million people, or 10% of the labor force, will leave work. Using a U of Strathclyde econometric model, this 10% decrease is associated with a 5.6% lower level of output, which, using a 2010 tlf baseline, 40 year time-horizon, and 3 and 6 percent discount rates, would mean a dollar value loss of 19 trillion or 8 trillion, respectively.

That's a fair amount of cheddar.

Solutions
1. We could ask our populations to make more babies. But most industrialized countries have experienced below replacement level fertility for at least 3 decades, and it seems unlikely to exceed replacement level anytime soon. Without migration, the population structure will stabilize, i.e. the share of the population across different age groups will be virtually constant.

2. So another solution is to 'ride out the storm.' It's a temporary phenomenon. They say this is a 'policy' not currently advocated by any government, as it would be politically dangerous in countries with democracy (because?) It is argued that low rates of economic growth are needed to generate improvements in standard of living, with a stabilized populaton structure (I can't say I understand, exactly -why wouldn't that be true for an "unstable" population structure? And can't you improve your happiness, your standard of living, on less income...living more frugally? For example, I know I enjoyed a blackout, myself, because we went outside and talked to neighbors, and almost started a campfire. If we really hashed out the minimum amount of money to live healthy and happy lives, we'd rock. Still, the authors seem to think it isn't practical).

3. With fewer workers supporting an increasing number of those not in work, labor productivity must increase. Human capital investment, as it is called (or education and training), across all ages (lifelong learning), to produce skill-intensive production, is required, they say.

4. Increase the tlf participation rate. For example, employment and labor force participation (what's the difference?) rates for women with pre-school and school-age children are still low. A shortage of affordable day-care and other child services makes it financially irrational for them to work. A cultural shift to one like in the Scandinavian countries, where 'family-friendly' policies enable parents (particularly mothers) to combine child-rearing and employment, would be beneficial.

5. Finally, immigration. An immigration system can be devised that matches people to jobs. And return migration can be significantly reduced through payments. Even giving each migrant $100,000 has a benefit-cost ratio of 4.1 or 3.3, at 3 and 6% discount rates, respectively. I hope we wouldn't create a future problem, though, in which we have demographic difficulties pushed further down the line.

6. Okay, I lied. Penultimately, labor market reforms. "In many industrialized countriesm labor markets are regulated, and adjustment is at best slow and hampered. In such countries, reforms (regardless of their political unpopularity) aimed at 'freeing up' the labor market would be desirable.'

7. Now, finally: Increase the age of retirement. With increasing life expectancy (and vigor around retirement age), the age of retirement at 65 is often seen as too low. This would have massive political ramifications, they say (although I'm not clear on what these would be). Wages might perhaps be considerably lower, and some people would be forced to work to an older age, to receive a pension, while some would welcome the opportunity to work longer, for a variety of reasons.

Conclusion
An increase in pensioners, and decrease in workers, is a recipe in need of a solution, probably a mix of the above ingredients. Increasing immigration seems the most likely, as it clearly has the lowest direct cost to taxpayers.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Wharf Rat

I've been listening to the Grateful Dead alot lately, on Sirius satellite (via the tv/Dish network), Pandora.com, and Grooveshark.com.

Wharf Rat is so sad. It evokes one of the last books I've read, Nausea, by Sartre, I think, in that things can be so dismal.

Here's the lyrics:

Old man down, way down down, down by the docks of the city.Blind and dirty, asked me for a dime, a dime for a cup of coffee.I got no dime but I got some time to hear his story.My name is August West, and I love my Pearly Baker best more than my wine.More than my wine - more than my maker, though he's no friend of mine.Everyone said, I'd come to no good, I knew I would Pearly, believe them.Half of my life, I spent doin' time for some other fucker's crime,The other half found me stumbling 'round drunk on Burgundy wine.But I'll get back on my feet again someday,The good Lord willin', if He says I may.I know that the life i'm livin's no good,I'll get a new start, live the life I should.I'll get up and fly away, I'll get up and fly away, fly away.Pearly's been true, true to me, true to my dyin' day he said,I said to him, I said to him, "I'm sure she's been."I said to him, "I'm sure she's been tru to you."Got up and wandered, wandered downtown, nowhere to go but just hang around.I've got a girl, named Bonnie Lee, I know that girl's been true to me.I know she's been, I'm sure she's been true to me.

I read that the Wharf Rats is a group of Deadheads who set up tables at every concert for drug and alcohol addicts and those in need of support.

I thought I'd include it in my blog because I went fishing with my grandfather, Mr. T, when I was a boy, at Fisherman's wharf, in San Francisco. 'Teshara' anagrams to 'he's a rat'. He's Dead (but is he Grateful? -that's the question. He's the same guy that put me toward the Dead Milkmen). Anyway, I caught a female flatfish, that was giving birth to baby fish on the line. Kind of trippy, if you're looking for meaning, I guess. Plus, re: "he's no friend of mine" (I don't know my birthfather, my "maker", never met him).

Anyway, I've got my headphones on, and I'm listening to the song as I write this right now.
Worf, stardate captain's log, out. There's some Data.

Ugh. Half one's life unjustly prisoned, half one's life drunk, a pessimistic outlook, abject poverty, and the truth of human nature, in all it's ugliness, that leads to people using each other as cheap sex objects, leaving people wondering if their partner has been true to them, with the sadness of denial and maybe the shattering of the only thing holding a sad life together.

I have to update this post: The Dead are fairly trippy to me, and I'm not even on drugs (well, I mean the illegal kind); Maybe it's because jews, I think, occasionally write out God as G-D (I saw that at the Hillel center at UCD, next door to where I lived). I was born in '71 to a hippy, so I suppose it's in my blood. G-D, well I declare. Anyway, besides wharf rat, my mom's name is Peggy (Peggy-O), her sister's name is Rose (Ramble on Rose), and her brother's name is Jim (Row Jimmy). I went to St. Stephen's grammar school (St. Stephen), I get head shocks and feel other people's faces -often expressions of people I've seen and know- enter mine (the steal-your-face logo), and I'm just crazy enough to think there might be some relevance to Tennessee Jed... I also have known a Cassidy and Mona, and I definitely know Pain in my Heart and New Potato Caboose. My wife's initials are SB, which reminds me of her when I hear Scarlet Begonias and Stella Blue. The first Deadhead I met (who painted the names of all our rowboats at camp the names of different song titles, like Bertha...) is named John, so it's kind of Uncle John's Band, to boot. And that's just the song titles, not the lyrics (which I'm only now starting to register). Who needs acid when you're God, lol? So I know (Weirdness), also too as well.

Here's a list of Grateful Dead songs...LINK.

Here's a story about a real old man down.

I had this on the sideboard, but I thought I'd move it to this post, only (a lot of the song titles are referential to my life in one way or another):

Damn...

Bride to be, on proposal rock, swept out to sea...
Omg.

Can you imagine? LINK.
shit happens, they say, but....

Btw, omg also stands for outlaw motorcycle gang.
Btw also stands for behind the wheel (a depeche mode song).
Okay, sorry. Sorry is a game. Game is an album by Perfume, or an upcoming 2009 film starring Gerard Butler. Okay, whatever. Whatever is 15 things. Here's thing. I can't stop. Stop.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Cleanliness is next to...

Sorry y'all for not writing in awhile. I've kept myself busy. Busy, busy. Business is busy-ness. Happy Thanksgiving. Here's a prayer I'll share that was said at the service I attended for it:

15 thank-you's:
1. I want to thank you, God, for what you have done for me. I'm not going to wait to see the results I want or to receive rewards I'd like. I'm thanking you right now.
2. I'm not going to wait until I feel better or until things look better. I'm thanking you right now.
3. I'm not going to wait until people say they are sorry or until they stop doing what they're doing. I'm thanking you right now.
4. I'm not going to wait until the pain in my body disappears. ITYRN.
5.I'm not waiting until my financial situation is better. ITYRN.
6. I'm not going to wait until my world is quiet and peaceful. ITYRN.
7. I'm not going to wait until I get the job I want or the promotion I'd like. ITYRN.
8. I'm not going to wait until I understand every situation and experience in my life that has caused me pain or grief. ITYRN.
9. I'm not going to wait until the journey gets easier or challenges are removed. ITYRN.
10. I'm thanking you because I'm alive.
11. I'm thanking you because I made it through another day.
12. I'm thanking you because I have walked around difficult obstacles.
13. I'm thanking you because I have the ability and the opportunity to do more and to do better.
14. I'm thanking you because you have not given up on me.
15. God is so good- in so many ways- all the time.

Anyway, to the titular point. I really enjoyed this article from today's (Dec. 3, '08) Christian Science Monitor. If you like natural beauty, and live in an urban area, you might find it inspiring.

LINK.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Compassionate Conservative?

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
a book by Vincent Bugliosi

Read an excerpt; LINK.

It's pretty sad.
I know we want to be bipartisan and reach across the aisle, but geez.
Hopefully people can separate party identity from personal criminality.
I don't think the "incompetent" excuse should hold up for Bush.
I read that he doesn't read. Well, he's the president. Ignorance is no excuse, either.
They say lies are legal, but when they lead to war? That should definitely be illegal, if it isn't already. In fact, just as I think lying during campaigns ought to be illegal, I think lying while in office should be off limits, as well. Public officials hold a public trust.
As I read this, I'm saying to myself, am I somehow against free speech? Maybe, when it comes to policy making, where lives are at stake, policy makers' speech should be constrained to the truth, in good-faith, as if they were under oath, or talking to the American people as if they were law enforcement officers.
I'm going to buy this book.

a comment
Lying is illegal only when done under oath (perjury) or to a law enforcement officer (obstruction of justice). Bush and co. are very careful not to do either. Usually by invoking "executive privilege". The lies that were told resulted in a "Congressional Authorization" to use force. This makes the military action and subsequent deaths of 4000 Americans and uncounted Iraqis legal in U.S. courts.

Is this true?
Another article on the book; LINK.
Question: If Bush gives a speech to an audience that includes peace officers, can they enforce obstruction of justice?

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Congrats, Barack

Lots to do!

I plan on sending Michelle a pair of American flag earrings, from Main Element in Calistoga. That would be cool, to see her wearing them.

Anyway,
my plan for Iraq is to build lots of health clubs, and boxing clubs, for Iraqis to get healthy in, and channel their aggressions through, so they can box each other instead of shooting each other up. This applies anywhere, I think. I know, it's simplistic, but that and martial arts like Aikido (the way of peace) might really make a better world. There should be a whole array of solutions like this. Whatever works, you know? Use the ideas of the internet, from the whole world.

He should make a more public deal, in my opinion, of having been a smoker and having quit, and how he works out and plays basketball. So much of America and the world is overweight or in need of lifestyle change, that should be modelled on the President's Council for Fitness. Happiness? Cure to misery? Action, Exercise.....ENDORPHINS!

I think the world wants to know more about the real Obama, like - can he dunk? or, what kind of dog did the kids get and what is it's name? What music is on his playlist, and what are some of his favorite movies? I'm happy I'm on his email list, and can be a part, in whatever way, of his administration. I have a recommendation: he should talk to Bill Gates and get the white house outfitted with all the cool bleep that Bill has in his model home. Not too crazy, though. Sober and practical, with less emphasis on the infinite entertainment America is so obsessed with distracting itself with.

Stick to the basics: cost-benefit analysis of all the solutions out there to get moving on the ones that will work for the best reward, to govern effectively, really crunching the numbers. I cried on election day...but not what you think. I woke up early, and there was a slideshow on our new Dish network on the UC station by a photographer who had covered Congo (and Somalia). Really crazy sad stuff. The rapes, the absolute poverty and suffering, the machete hacking of limbs, the lack of almost any healthcare (it's too dangerous for doctor's without borders), cannibalism, child soldiers, the ruination of what could be a really successful country with it's resources by a government that has consolidated it's power through tyrannical killing, it's really sickening. I hope he doesn't just get dry facts from his intelligence professionals, but movies and slideshows that really reveal the faces of what's happening in the world. I hope there are fireside chats that really inspire people to make a difference, as they say, that relay what his thought process is, with some transparency. In a word, cold calculations and number-crunching, and warmhearted and passionate kindness and considerations, for the most needy, in the US, and throughout the entire world, where really it's pretty damned bad in some places. The president is in an exceptionally good position to relieve suffering.

I also think it would be cool if he could relay to the people some information that he might be privy to about aliens, if that's even possible.

As for security, he can respond to Russia and Afghanistan with maybe unilaterally eliminating our nuclear arsenal (but not our capability, just like how Japan could make nukes in a short time, despite not having a military), to show that we won't continue to be the hypocritical country that builds more of them while not allowing others (sovereign states, I might add) to not have them, because we think we're so morally superior. Seriously, I don't think anyone in their right mind wants the threat of nuclear detonation, so let's work together internationally to really eliminate the damned things. Yes we can! Also, our military simply has to stop killing civilians. I assume we don't want to, already, but we shouldn't deny it, or call it "collateral damage" or depersonalize the injustice, that really puts America at risk, I would imagine.

100,000 Iraqis I heard have been killed. CNN always puts up the American casualty numbers on their ticker on the bottom of the screen, with nary a mention of the Iraqi devastation/slaughter. That isn't right. Let's please consider ourselves humans over Americans, and really try to inspire each other that national interest is really the worldwide interest, embodied in each individual, who more or less want the same things, like opportunity (read: wealth, comfort), hope (read: real progress, change, improvement, development), peace (read: security, absence of war, presence of things like peace corps, doctors without borders, understanding, relationships between people of different countries and cultures), health (thriving, not just survival), and of course, an environment that doesn't threaten to collapse on us. Smile, cuz YES WE CAN.

As for the economy, well it's pretty psychological and crazy, so we have to pull whatever levers and push whatever buttons to keep things humming along, I guess. Theoretically, what if there were no money, though? Could it even be conceivable that people would all work hard to make life good for themselves and others without it? Economics was never my subject, and I always think a purchaser of anything should just have the money and make the transaction, without all this paying money for money stuff. Savings need to be emphasized, in my opinion. What do I know, though. I'm crazy. Isn't the stock market like gambling? Isn't the profit motive somewhat inhuman? Aren't there crazy amounts of externalities, that markets just don't account for? The winner is not he who dies with the most toys...it's whoever relieves the most suffering and makes the most happiness. Toys are overrated in the happiness game.

Okay, signing out,
God (lol)

p.s. I think the "America is the best country in the world" is fine and all, but I had a thought today that that's like saying "Jews are god's people" or "Republicans are the true patriots": it's exclusionary and a bit ridiculous.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The economist says to save nature, y'all

"Common birds are in decline across the world. Almost one in four species of mammals is in danger of extinction. If current trends continue until 2050, fisheries will be exhausted. As it is, deforestation costs the world more each year than the current financial crisis has cost in total, one economist argued."

I think we should play it safe, when it comes to nature, because we don't understand how much we depend on it, entirely. Conservationism shouldn't be a liberal or conservative issue. Fresh air and clean water and respecting the critters, including future food and medicine and who knows what else, is an absolute necessity, unless you really think that because meat tastes good that makes you a mean s.o.b. who doesn't care about animals, including humans. Which I don't. And I'm God.

Anyway, the economist goes on to say:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is studying global warming for the UN, said 20-30% of species could die out if global average temperatures rise by more than 2°C or so. What does the loss of other species cost humans?"

“Ecosystem services”: natural processes that benefit people, such as the pollination of crops, the purification of water in wetlands and the sequestration of carbon in soil and forests, have value. A study released this year said the world was losing $68 billion in ecosystem services each year because of damage to nature." (I bet it's actually more; possibly in terms of future generations)

"A virtuous circle might happen if we take action (write your congressman): climate change could be slowed, biodiversity saved and poverty alleviated if forests were included in carbon markets. Deforestation is responsible for so many emissions that allowing countries to claim carbon credits for reducing the pace at which they cut down their forests could cut the cost of halving global carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 by 50%. And, in the process, deforestation rates would be reduced by 75% by 2030. But this would cost the rich world money: $4 billion over the next five years, and a further $11-19 billion a year by 2020.

I believe it's worth it. Let's Do it.
We're waging war on nature. It could fight back, like in The Happening (Sara and I just saw it). In any case, we could get bit by our own pigheaded headlong rush into oblivion. Sorry, pigs. We might even be inadvertently waging war on ourselves. To continue my talking to myself, yeah, because we're a part of the ecosystem. We tweak it and manipulate for our benefit -and also our detriment. Letting humans, a part of nature, work through regulating nature naturally might not be the best thing for Nature, us included, lol.

Axis of Evil

Okay, so who is the Axis of Good? Or is it the Allies of Good?
Are there Allies of Evil?

the economist quote:
IT WAS one of George Bush’s catchier turns of phrase—the “axis of evil” consisting of North Korea, Iran and Iraq. How evil, or even menacing, they really were is debatable. And it was not much of an axis: Iran and Iraq hated each other. North Korea exported nuclear know-how, but probably no more than other countries such as Pakistan, a supposed American ally.

In any case, good and evil is subjective, and by anyone's definition, probably, resides in all of us in varying proportions. There's the phrase, "it's all good", and there's even brain chemistry that explains altruism and cruelty. Bible interpretation says everything is toward the furtherance of God's plan. There's the law of unintended consequences, and Jesus said 'they know not what they do," which parallels with the quote, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Maybe things aren't so cut and dry, black and white.

Maybe George W. Bush needs to listen to some lullabies.
Here's a collection of lullabies from the Axis of Evil.
Was Satan ever a baby? Ha.

God agrees with the economist

Don't make the poor pay for the mistakes of the greedy rich

from the economist:
"This credit crunch will be grim, but most emerging markets can avoid catastrophe. The biggest ones are in relatively good shape. The more vulnerable ones can (and should) be helped. In the short-term at least, the most vulnerable countries are all smaller ones."

"There will be pain as tighter credit forces adjustments. But sensible, speedy international assistance would make a big difference. Several emerging countries have asked America’s Federal Reserve for liquidity support; some hope that China will bail them out. A better route is surely the IMF, which has huge expertise and some $250 billion to lend. Sadly, borrowing from the fund carries a stigma. That needs to change. The IMF should develop quicker, more flexible financial instruments and minimise the conditions it attaches to loans. Over the past month deft policymaking saw off calamity in the rich world. Now it is time for something similar in the emerging world."

Why does borrowing from the IMF carry a stigma?
Jesus himself had stigmata...
If Jesus carries us (from 'Footprints'), then we can carry a stigma.
But if the stigma can be removed, then that, too.
Okay, I'm being weird.
Seriously, though, if money is needed, get it where you can, right?

Crazy Music

I've got a crazy idea. How bout a mashup of all the crazy songs? CRAZINESS!!

(from Wikipedia)
Crazy by Julio Iglesias
Crazy (calypsonian), a calypso singer from Trinidad and Tobago
"Crazy" (Willie Nelson song) (1961), popularized by Patsy Cline
"Crazy" (Five Star song) (1984)
"Crazy" (Kenny Rogers song) (1985)
"Crazy" (Icehouse (band) song) (1987)
"Crazy" (The Boys song) (1990)
"Crazy" (Seal song) (1991), later covered by Alanis Morissette
"Crazy" (Barenaked Ladies song) (1992)
"Crazy" (Aerosmith song) (1994)
"Crazy" (Eternal song) (1994)
"Crazy" (Alana Davis song) (1998)
"Crazy" (Leah Haywood song) (2000)
"Crazy" (K-Ci and JoJo song) (2001)
"Crazy" (Dream song) (2003)
"Crazy" (Simple Plan song) (2004)
"Crazy" (Gnarls Barkley song) (2006)
"Crazy" (Kevin Federline song) (2006)
"Crazy" (Snoop Dogg song) (2006)
"Crazy" (Expatriate song) (2007)
"Crazy" (Lumidee song) (2007)
"(You Drive Me) Crazy" (1999), a song by Britney Spears
"Crazy" (Pylon song) (1981)

If there's any audio of Einstein saying what crazy is, that could be a coool overlay.
With different definitions....
At the MIC (mad insane crazy).
Remember, all progress is made by unreasonable men...
(is progress unreasonable? or is being unreasonable reasonable?)

espanol
loco en la cabeza
faltarle un tornillo
Estar zafado de la chaveta.
Estar chiflado.
Estar zafado.
Perderse el seso
quebrarle el mente

1.Lelo, fatuo, simple, loco; acometido de enajenación mental (mad, foolish).
2. Quebrantado, decrépito, cascado, caduco.

Clean Green!

Greener Cleaners
from a CSMonitor article about Women's Voices for the Earth.
6 small paragraphs, 3 recipes, and a link.

WVE put out a report in 2007 called Household Hazards in which they examined more than 200 chemical ingredients in commercial cleaners. The report found that many of those chemicals were harmful to the environment as well as “linked with asthma, infertility, birth defects and reproductive harm."

Some of the chemicals of concern in the WVE study, commonly found in laundry detergents, all-purpose sprays, and disinfectants, include: alkyl phenol ethoxylates (found to harm aquatic animal and plant life), monoethanolamine, ammonium quaternary compounds (both linked to asthma), glycol ethers and phthalates (linked to fertility and reproductive problems).

Greg van Buskirk has been a Clorox scientist since 1980. “I do believe that misinformation is causing people more concern than is justified by the actual data,” he says. Clorox rigorously tests all its products, says Dr. van Buskirk, so “the risk of people getting something like cancer or birth defects is zero.” Also, “there’s “no significant impact on the environment due to bleach usage,” he says.

WVE, however, thinks Buskirk is being slimy:
But these commercial cleaner studies only look at single household use, says Ann Blake, an environmental and public health consultant. The chemical ingredients are cumulatively dangerous, she says. “What the fish and wildlife are getting is a constant dose of [chemicals] at low levels,” says Dr. Blake. “And that’s what’s causing the environmental disruption.”

I agree. He's probably being slimy, to look through my scanner darkly.

Plus, store-bought natural cleaners are costly. “Home­­made all-purpose cleaner is 38 cents, and store brand costs $4 to $8,” party guest Melissa reads from a WVE pricing comparison. That’s another reason to make your own cleaners.

-reason for the sliminess? money, of course.

I believe WVE over Clorox:
Clorox’s Zerrudo cautions that because there are no chemical preservatives, the formula might not stay stable over time and could “grow bugs or bacteria.” WVE’s recipes claim that essential oils, distilled vinegar, and vegetable glycerin are natural preservatives, but recommend refrigerating cleaners made with lemon juice.

These are from the Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) party.

All-purpose cleaner (for countertops, windows, mirrors, kitchen floors):
2 cups white distilled vinegar (other vinegars will stain surfaces)
2 cups water
Optional: 20 to 30 drops essential oil (orange, peppermint, etc., for scent)
Mix in a spray bottle, apply to surface, and wipe off. WVE recommends using an industrial-strength spray bottle (a clean, empty Windex bottle, for example), as vinegar degrades ordinary plastic bottles.

Creamy soft-scrub (for bathrooms, stoves, countertops):
2 cups baking soda
1/2 cup liquid castile soap (Dr. Bronner’s, for example)
4 teaspoons vegetable glycerin (a preservative)
Optional: 5 or more drops essential oil
Mix together in bowl, store in sealed glass jar (shelf life: two years). For cleaning, apply some soft-scrub on sponge or rag, scrub and rinse.

Clogged drains:
1/2 cup baking soda
1/2 cup vinegar
Pot of boiling water
Pour baking soda into drain, then vinegar. Cover and let sit for at least 30 minutes. Flush with boiling water.

For more recipes and information on how to host or attend a green-cleaning party, go to: womenandenvironment.org.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

SWBP: Disease Control

SWBP: Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems
Chapter 17, Disease Control, by Dean T. Jamison,
of Harvard and UCSF.
Summary and Commentary
Future D.C. policy from D.C.?

The chapter emphasizes opportunities in S. Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, and builds on results of a project (the DCCP) that engaged over 350 authors and estimated the cost-effectiveness of 315 interventions, some of which are more attractive, others which are clearly lower priority. Addressing multiple problems with constrained budgets will require hard choices, he says.
He summarizes with 7 interventions that range from 30:1 to 10:1 in their cost-benefit ratios.

There has been great progress in recent history, but challenges remain. Progress has been uneven. Microbial threats evolve; and HIV is still a big deal.

Specifically, life-expectancy for low and middle-income countries averaged 44 years in 1960, whereas in 2002 it was 65. Not too shabby (progress). Mortality is a key emphasis in this chapter. And keeping people alive should be the highest policy priority. Some countries have lagged on this score. "There are continued high levels of inequality in health conditions within and between countries." But I would also add that quality of life, and what has been called gross national happiness, are the vital component. If people are happy, they'll be more motivated to keep others alive. More hopeful about the human condition, if we feel good about ourselves. I would surmise that every country has room for improvement, and there is a role for all of us in making an alive, healthy, happy world. Good nutrition and fitness and a positive attitude, with healthy relationships, including maybe pets, seems to be the basic prescription. Maybe every individual has their own recipe.

Challenges
1.Uneven progress
by place: in Africa, China, and with indigenous communities:
by age: under 5, adult
by disease: some problems are cheaper to solve than others

AIDS in Africa
But because of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, life-expectancies there, which were 40 in 1960, and 60 in 1990, went back down to 46 in 2002 (There's either a typo or a misunderstanding on pg. 297 (sub-Saharan Africa either lost 4 years or 14)).

Other regions, like Sierra Leone remain far behind, and the interior provinces of China lag behind the more advantaged coastal regions.

Indigenous populations, generally speaking, everywhere, have not joined the party, as well, so to speak. Technology diffusion, and education levels of the population are important factors in improved health, while income growth much less so.

Good News
Policies, he says, make a huge difference, and "today's tools for improving health are so powerful and inexpensive that health conditions can be reasonably good even in countries with low incomes." Cool.

Although health conditions in many countries remain unacceptably -and unnecessarily- poor, the outlook is good. Grief and misery could be said to be on the decline. Global inequality in health is declining faster than income inequality. That is to say, the world is becoming more equal, as regards health, toward the upper-end of life-expectancy. Highly effective and low-cost interventions financed by the public sector can improve welfare health and population health where the needs are greatest. (FYI: The average income is 7,880 dollars (2002) and the average human life expectancy at birth is 66.12 (2008 est.)).

I want to say, The graph of income distribution for humanity is here, and the graph of life expectancy for humanity is here. Health influences income, and income influences health; it's a virtuous spiral, and It can also be a vicious downward one, and the relationships can be mathematically defined, or maybe painted in broad strokes...But basically, the chapter just says Income growth is neither necessary nor sufficient for sustained improvements in health. Which is good, and a lot simpler for me :-)

To meet the MDG-4 (reducing under-5 mortality by 2015), treatments for diarrhea, pneumonia, TB, and malaria, in addition to immunizations, to reduce stillbirths and neonatal deaths, are all highly cost-effective. TB treatment stands out as the most cost-effective investments, for all ages, because of it's C:B (cost-benefit ratio) of 30:1. It is also has a "high level of financial risk protection," moderate systemic requirements, and a large size disease burden potentially averted. For an annual cost of 1B$, 1M adult deaths would be averted per year. Many countries need to get their butts in gear on the millenium development goals. Besides official national policy, I think every doctor should be a member of MSF (Doctors without borders), too. Any doctor that doesn't have his hands full already, I mean, which I imagine is probably a rarity. What is the global demand for doctors? Anyway, if the people lead, the leaders will follow. We should lead by example. But we should also lobby for effective policy. 23 countries had their under-5 mortality rates remain stagnant or increase between 1990-2001, while another 53 countries were less than half-speed to be on track to meet the goal (including China).

Some categories of progress:
Causes of childhood mortality
There's a table of 11 causes of under-5 mortality, with the numbers of neonatal (0-27 days) and 0-4 deaths. The causes are HIV/AIDS, diarrheal disease, measles, tetanus, malaria, respiratory infection and sepsis, low birth weight, birth asphyxia and trauma, congenital anomalies, injuries, and other. The total, worldwide, for 2001, was 13,874,000 (est., by the GBD [initialism for?]). Only 0.9% occurred in high-income countries. Half of under-5 deaths occur within the first 28 days of life, adding stillbirths to neonatal deaths. Email me if you want the specifics from the book (or on anything I write, anywhere, if you like).

So various categories are used to parse medical problems into: a) for each country, b) by age, c) by each disease/cause of death. I think the stats should be all online in a really accessible format. I bet they are.

Anyway,
There's a table in the book that lists the causes of death (age 5 and older, in low and middle-income countries), giving deaths in millions, and percentage of total, broken into 3 categories: injuries, noncommunicable diseases, and (communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional conditions).

Injuries are 4.4M (11.6%), ncd's are 25.2M (66.7%), and the last one is 8.2M (21.7%). There were 37.8M deaths in 2001. Injuries are broken into road traffic accidents, suicides, and other (1.0, 0.7, and 2.7M, respectively). NCD's are cancers (4.9M/13%), diabetes (0.7M/1.9%), Ischaemic and hypertensive heart disease (6.5M/17.2%), Stroke (4.6, 12.2), COPD (2.4, 6.3), Other (6.1, 16.1). And then Communicables, etc. are broken into TB (1.5, 4.0), AIDS (2.2, 5.8), Respiratory Infections (1.5, 4.0), Maternal conditions (0.5, 1.3), and Other (2.5, 6.6).

This is really about reducing grief and misery while creating the conditions for happiness (survival and health). Unhealth and SID vicious (Sickness, Illness, Disease) also sustain poverty, and brake economic growth, to use more dour terminology. Like Kaiser says, Thrive! Like your car says, do Preventive Maintenance. Like my old high school said, Be a man for others. Like Spiderman says, Action is his reward. Anyway..

The chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyramethamine (SP)-resistant malaria parasite is rapidly spreading, and the loss of these inexpensive, highly-effective, widely available drugs is leading to a rise of malaria mortality and morbidity in Africa. A high priority, the book says, is creating the rapid transition to effective new treatments like ACTs (artemisinin combination therapies). Also, insecticide treated bed nets, expanded use of intermittent preventive treatment for pregnant women, and indoor residual DDT sprayings are called for.

Also, for kids,
-immunizations need to be expanded,
-diarrhea and pneumonia treatments (simple, low-cost, highly-effective) need to be expanded, along with treatment for all childhood illness,
-ensured distribution of key micronutrients,
-and expansion of the use of packages of measures to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

2. Epidemiological transition
Dr. Jamison relates that the trend, the transition, is from the traditional scourges of infectious diseases and undernutrition to the major noncommunicable diseases (ncd's) and injury, as a consequence of fertility decline and population aging (I'm not sure I see the relation, exactly). The major ncd's are circulatory system diseases/cvd, cancers, and major psychiatric disorders. Road-traffic injuries are increasing, and replacing "traditional forms of injury" (like a fiddler falling off a roof?). Noncommunicable diseases account for 2/3 of all deaths in low and middle income countries. 22% of deaths, though, are still from infection, undernutrition, and maternal conditions. This is called a "dual burden." The challenge is to respond to them with constrained resources (has the overall health burden become more expensive?).

A good chart with the numbers for all causes of disease, by country income, is in the chapter.

Here's a salient fact:
The public health research and policy community has been surprisingly silent about the epidemics of CVD (cardiovascular disease), cancers, psychiatric disorders, and automobile-related injuries, despite their killing over twice as many people in 2001 as AIDS, malaria, and TB combined (in low and middle-income countries).

Smoking is a risk factor for multiple NCDs. See my article on smoking.
-CVD results in over a quarter of low/middle-income country deaths (about 13M deaths/yr).

The risk factors for CVD collectively account for 78% of these countries' deaths. These risk factors are high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking, obesity, excessive alcohol use, physical inactivity, and low fruit and vegetable intake. Efforts to change most of these, at the population level, have had little success. (What works, though? Let's do that ).

But the tobacco front has seen favorable development. Many promising approaches remain to be tried, the author says, which will require systematic efforts to evaluate. Developing other ones might be important, too. All the risk factors need aggressive experimentation, and dynamic policy measures/effort. Systematic efforts are required to acquire hard knowledge about which approaches work and which do not, so that unsuccessful efforts will be discontinued, and successful ones expanded.

The world spends x dollars/year on tobacco products. Think what that could do if spent on health, like food or cookbooks or cleats or jumpropes or dumbells or gym memberships or even bicycles.

Individuals at high risk of a heart attack or stroke, such as those who have already experienced a cardiovascular event, have the option of taking cost-effective pharmaceutical interventions for hypertension and high cholesterol which can reduce CVD risks by 50% or more (even in the absence of behavior changes).

Aside:
Healthcare personnel and systems, in addition, can use improvement, in low/middle-income countries. Well, in high-income countries, too, but the author adopts the approach for developing countries, the focus of the chapter, of the model of strengthening systems by creating specific capacity to deliver priority services in volume and with high quality, in which capacity strength spreads to other areas from high-performing initial nodes. Love of life, respect for life, the desire to be healthy, a culture that encourages healthy living, is the prerequisite. Then, good hospitals for when the preventive maintenance, etc. isn't enough.

3. HIV
Successes and control efforts have been real, but with few exceptions limited to upper middle-income and high-income countries. Poorer countries have been mostly screwed, and remain in dire straits (The sultan of swing wants his mtv). AIDS deaths are often associated with excruciating pain. And by the numbers, with the possible exceptions of the use of nuclear weapons in densely populated areas or a devastating global episode like the 1917-18 influenza pandemic, HIV-AIDS devastation is the greatest threat to development for dozens of countries around the world, including several of the most populous. Thailand and Uganda are examples of success in countries with fewer financial resources, against more established epidemics. Of upper middle-income countries, Brazil and Mexico successfully forestalled potentially serious epidemics. Mexico, in particular, is singled out for responding early and forcefully. Although unfortunately development assistance was slow in coming, the Global Fund (to fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria) had initial years of substantial success. R&D, both public and private, made rapid progress, however, although a vaccine or cure has not been found (this 2007 book says. Is there one yet? I guess I would know, probably).

-The prevention record has been dismal. Little has been spent, and little achieved. Fewer than 1 in 5 high-risk people by even 2003 had access to even the most basic preventive services. There is plenty of blame, including for the US administration that discouraged condom use and stigmatized and alienated commercial sex workers.

-As the absence of STI's (sexually transmitted infections) greatly reduces transmission of HIV, treatment of them is a high priority, in addition to deserving treatment in their own right.

-Medically inappropriate restrictions on the use of inexpensive but powerful opiates for pain control continue to deny dignity and comfort to millions of patients with AIDS and cancer in their final months.

-Antiretroviral treatments, over a dozen of them, though originally costly, are feasible, at least in principle, for effective use in low-income settings now, due to scientific advances. Challenges to this are formidable, however. Substantial resources could be diverted from prevention or other healthcare high-payoff activities, and a false sense of complacency has led to increased risky behavior and increased HIV transmission. Interruption of drug supplies and low adherence are also problems. Systematic effort to study which approaches work or do not requires variation in approach and careful evaluation, to prevent needless deaths from not halting ineffective programs or giving resources to effective ones. Evaluate. Also, the cheapest possible drugs are often used, risking problems with toxicity and resistance. In Jamison's view, widespread adoption needs to be carefully sequenced, and only with a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1, because other highly attractive health investments exist.

So, for HIV/AIDS, the answers are a)condoms/needle exchange/other preventive services, b)std treatment, c)opiates, and d)ART (anti retroviral treatments), in ways that work, and with profitable b:c ratios, properly sequenced.

In Conclusion
The 7 big investments he recommends are
1.TB, appropriate case-finding and treatment..............B:C is 30:1
2.Heart attacks, acute mgmt. with low cost drugs........B:C is 25:1
3.Malaria, prevention and treatment............................20:1
4.Childhood diseases, expanded immunization coverage.......20:1
5.Cancer, heart disease, tobacco taxation......................20:1
6.HIV, prevention..............................................12:1
7.surgical capacity at district hospital (injury, difficult childbirth, other)...10:1

Monday, October 13, 2008

SWBP: Drugs

SWBP: Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems
Chapter 16, Drugs, by Jeffrey A. Miron
Summary and Commentary

Illicit drugs, that is.
Presumably prescription pharmaceuticals are A-okay.
Actually, he doesn't think illicit drugs are much of a problem. It's the criminalization, illegality, and prohibition that is.

Miron proposes this solution: To LEGALIZE the production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of all illicit drugs, worldwide. "What?" you say?
Not just Peter Tosh says "Legalize It"

Well, to be fair, any set of auxiliary policies would be acceptable so long as the market is not driven underground, such as the current alcohol and tobacco laws, dui laws, age restriction, sin taxes, subsidized treatment, advertising restrictions, etc.

Drugs, as we all know, can be bad. They can seriously reduce health, productivity, cause traffic accidents and industrial accidents, harm fetuses, and diminish the public purse under gvt. funded healthcare. For starters.

But drug prohibition laws have their own problems: black markets, violence, corruption, aiding terrorism, the increased spread of HIV, diminished respect for the law, enriching criminals, unnecessary restrictions on the use of drugs as medicine, and excessive restrictions on civil liberties. Also, the cost of enforcement.

The challenge is to balance the evils of both, and legalization is the solution. Here's why:
1. Prohibition does not eliminate the market for illicit drugs. It simply creates a black market. To what extent, though, does prohibition reduce drug use? (demand: a-d) a) To the extent society has respect for the law, drug use would be diminished. He argues, however, that violation of other weakly enforced laws is widespread, such as speeding, tax evasion, blue laws, and sodomy. b) the penalties are mild and rarely imposed. c) the price going up due to illegality, and therefore lowering demand, seems to be minimal. d) the "forbidden fruit" effect might make demand for drugs even higher. (supply: e) e) black market drug suppliers face increased costs of manufacturing, transporting, and distributing drugs under the threat of police detection/while operating in secret. However, this is partially offset by the low marginal costs of evading tax laws and regulatory policies.

So, while he admits prohibition probably reduces drug consumption, as theory would dictate, he suspects it's not by much. Alcohol prohibition, for example, didn't have a dramatic effect on consumption. Cross-country comparisons between nations with strongly and weakly imposed prohibition show little evidence of higher drug consumption under weak enforcement. And variation in strength of enforcement in the United States over time has not corresponded with substantial fluctuations in drug consumption levels. He admits drug use might increase by 25%, however (but not by orders of magnitude, as some have charged).

In his view, this possible effect is not as bad as the sum effect of drug prohibition, which is characterized by these 10 elements: increased crime, harm to drug users, reduced product quality, enriched criminals, increased spread of HIV, medicinal use restrictions, compromised civil liberties, aiding terrorism, diminished respect for the law, and the direct costs of enforcement.

To explain:
1. Increased crime
Participants in illegal markets cannot resort to courts and lawyers to resolve disputes, and therefore turn to guns, increasing violent crime. The ups and downs of the homicide rate in the US over the past century coincide with the ups and downs of drug prohibition enforcement. Other commodities like prostitution and gambling are associated with violence only when they are prohibited. During US alcohol Prohibition, violent crime went up markedly, and upon repeal, went down just as dramatically. The case is clear.

In addition to homicide, corruption and theft and prostitution are encouraged by illicit drug prohibition laws and enforcement. Corruption, because participants evade law enforcement authorities, or pay them to look the other way, and theft/prostitution, because prohibition increases the price of drugs. Also, because criminal justice resources are diverted to enforcement of drug laws, deterrence of other kinds of crime suffers.

The usual claim that drug use causes crime doesn't hold (much) water, in his view. "The evidence provides little indication that drug use promotes violence or other criminal behavior."

2. Harm to drug users
Higher prices, legal penalties, more time spent buying drugs, and having to deal with criminals in order to do so. Becoming a criminal, in fact. (Side note: All this while possibly self-medicating, as some manage to do. Not that heroin, for example, could ever really be medication, though, right? Or could it...)

3. Reduced product quality
In the face of an illegal/black market, product quality is lower and more uncertain. Accidental overdoses and poisonings are much more likely, with variable quality and purity. In a legal market, consumers can punish suppliers with liability claims, bad publicity, avoiding repeat purchase, or complaining to private or government watchdog groups. These mechanisms are unavailable or less effective under drug prohibition.

4. Enriched criminals
Legal markets are subject to taxation, with tax revenues accruing to the gvt. (of course). In a black market, these revenues become profits, enriching that segment of society most willing to evade the law. How much money are we talking? Hundreds of billions of dollars annually worldwide. Gvts. could collect tens of billions in additional revenue by legalizing and taxing currently illegal drugs.

5. HIV spread
Increased drug prices under prohibition result in restricted sale of syringes, and increased incentive to inject, for a bigger bang for the buck. Sharing dirty needles spreads HIV, hepatitis, and other blood-borne diseases.

6. Medicinal restrictions
Marijuana, for example, alleviates nausea, pain, migraine headaches, muscle spasms, symptoms of glaucoma, epilepsy, ms, AIDS, and others. Doctors fear legal sanctions for over-prescribing opiates and so under-treat pain in cancer patients and others with chronic conditions.

7. Compromised civil-liberties
Drug crimes involve voluntary exchange, as he puts it. Enforcement relies on asset seizures, aggressive search tactics, and racial profiling, which strain accepted notions of civil liberties and generate racial tension.

8. Aiding terrorism
Prohibition provides major cash for countries like Columbia and Afghanistan. Terrorist groups sell protection to drug traffickers. Legalization wouldn't eliminate these groups, but would eliminate most of the profits that help fund terrorism. Public resentment of governments who do things like crop eradication, and sympathy for insurgent groups, would no longer be a problem.

9. Respect for the law
"All experience to date indicates that, even with draconian enforcement, prohibition fails to deter a great many persons from supplying and consuming drugs. This fact signals that laws are for suckers, so prohibition undermines the spirit of voluntary compliance that is essential to law enforcement in a free society."

10. Enforcement's direct costs
Police, prosecutors, judges, and prisons are expensive. Many drug users, even heavy users of hard drugs, use drugs responsibly. Calm, pain relief, high, and stimulation are all considered benefits by the users. In his view, externalities that harm innocent third parties, like driving under the influence, foetal harm, or additional expenditure on healthcare can and should be addressed by policies dealing with those externalities rather than targeting all drug use.

The CBA shows that legalization would produce net benefits to the world of $130 billion dollars a year, with a ratio of 3.71 (a net benefit of 2.2T under a 6% discount rate, and a net benefit of 4.1T under a 3% discount rate). He admits, however, that the benefit is uncertain. On the other hand, legalization might generate all the benefits with few of the costs.

He concludes with this clincher argument: Legalization would provide consistency across policies regarding alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Most illicit drugs are no more harmful, if not substantially less harmful, than these legal substances, so consistency demands that these drugs be legal as well. (sidenote: I heard aspirin wouldn't be approved by the fda for otc use now, if it was a new drug, instead of a historically widespread-use pharmaceutical. Also, food, technically is a drug. McDonald's can be addictive, right?).

Here's an article that might put all this in perspective; link.
Here's an article on the effective USE of heroin; link.