Here is another heretical thought. Instead of calculating world-wide averages of biomass growth, we may prefer to look at the problem locally. Consider a possible future, with China continuing to develop an industrial economy based largely on the burning of coal, and the United States deciding to absorb the resulting carbon dioxide by increasing the biomass in our topsoil. The quantity of biomass that can be accumulated in living plants and trees is limited, but there is no limit to the quantity that can be stored in topsoil. To grow topsoil on a massive scale may or may not be practical, depending on the economics of farming and forestry. It is at least a possibility to be seriously considered, that China could become rich by burning coal, while the United States could become environmentally virtuous by accumulating topsoil, with transport of carbon from mine in China to soil in America provided free of charge by the atmosphere, and the inventory of carbon in the atmosphere remaining constant. We should take such possibilities into account when we listen to predictions about climate change and fossil fuels. If biotechnology takes over the planet in the next fifty years, as computer technology has taken it over in the last fifty years, the rules of the climate game will be radically changed.
When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.
It has been a regular debate in my mind the past month as to whether or not to renew my subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I love the paper, but hardly get a chance to read it daily, and usually only skim what I can before someone calls my name and I'm off to save the world yet again. Plus, with money being the necessity to feed and clothe my son (I still say kids should just be wrapped in towels until they get to school age) those things might take precedence over my reading tidbits of one of the last good news sources in the United States.
Now since reading and watching Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp's buyout of Dow Jones and, most importantly, its newspaper division. While I am sure it was a tough decision for the Bancroft family that owns the majority of Dow Jones, I think it will be an even tougher decision for the millions of Journal readers whether or not to renew. It is for me now, and I get a huge discount.
A big question about the Bancrofts is 'do they really need that much more money?' It was already a profitable business, albeit not in the realm of billions upon billions, but quite securely profitable by any measure. It is a bit of a sad testament that every person has their price, and with my family to provide for, my morals might be a little loosened as well.
Another is, did they sell out journalistic integrity? The Wall Street Journal, arguably, is one of the last great maintays of American news reporting. With its specific business and politics scope, people assume it does not really apply to them, but it touches everyone's lives, even my little one up here in the north. Really, what part of an American's life isn't touched by either government actions or business plans? Disney and Wal-Mart matter to us all.
But being an island of a business among the massive conglomerates of the world made the Journal special, and made it free. Free to act and report as it sees fit, and really, its free enterprise has served it well. Even when the world is turning away from print and even television media, Dow Jones is still turning a profit on its own. It had to follow no other greater business plan beyond its very own.
That freedom is something it should not lose. Having clean sources of news in the wireless world is a rare and valuable commodity. And I will miss the Journal when it gets absorbed into whatever viewpoint sells.
Mark my words, my dear readers (both of you), that the Wall Street Journal will someday, most likely sooner than later, be tainted by Rupert Murdoch's grimy hands. It will be slow and imperceptible at first, but in the coming years, it will be hard to find that which doesn't follow his views on each page. Hopefully the terms that the Bancroft family insisted upon will at least keep it from looking like the crazy of Fox News. I dread Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter printed in the Journal. Those maniacs and their ilk need to be as far from authority and clout as oil and water. That awful scenario might be more slick than one would think. Since the opinions and editorials tend to have a more conservative tilt than the rest of the paper, that is where it would start slipping in.
Worst of all, I fear that this great newspaper will become another one of Mr Murdoch's whores. What all his tabloid papers and cable channels really do is pander. That's all giant conglomerates do. Put out garbage that looks nice enough initially to buy into. Some would argue that news and journalism work alongside all other forms of media and entertainment that it makes them just another choice. But that is a rather dim view of the importance news and press have in maintaining a free society.
There is a very good reason that freedom of the press is in the very first of our Bill of Rights. We citizens need a free press to help us keep an eye on the government (not necessarily be the 'fourth branch') so we may participate or even revolt if necessary. If the press is not so different from watching videos on YouTube or voting for American Idol, then we do not even deserve our freedoms.
I still hold out a small hope that the Bancroft family will realize what they sold and renege on the deal. I have a feeling that is why Mr Murdoch offered so much far and beyond the current stock value: so no one could buy it away. I have hope, but then, I am a fool for hope.
Worst, though, I see Aldous Huxley and George Orwell in a great intellectual clash right now. It is a battle in which there is no victor.
They fought for over three months to advance merely five miles. A third of a million Allied forces killed over five miles of mud. The population of a large city, composed mostly of British soldiers, died. Let's not forget the quarter of a million German soldiers killed on the other side.
A small note of perspective for those who have not crossed the pond or find numbers difficult to grasp: the combined losses of that Battle of Passchendaele are roughly the same as the total combined number of losses in our Civil War.
Mr Patch, a moving 109 years old, probably has one of the most important voices in the world right now. He was a 19 year old boy when he fought that battle in 1917. He and millions of other young men were lost to the world for naught.
There is a reason that so many war monuments I came across in England were surprisingly (at the time) devoted to World War I, the Great War. When first glancing, I would often wrongly assume they were a tribute to the fallen of World War II. But it then hit me: the Second World War was a fight for their survival, their entire existence depended on them fighting back against a rapidly conquering evil. Before the Americans entered Europe, Great Britain was the only remaining democracy on the continent. Bless the English Channel, no?
World War I, however, was the greatest of tragedies. An entire generation was lost for absolutely nothing. All the memorials devoted to those soldiers lost at the opening of the 20th Century are not to idolize champions of a great victory. They are to mourn and remember the pointlessness of that war. I do not even think they are really a gesture of gratitude toward these lost men. Those statues and long lists of names engraved in stones everywhere in the country are part of what ultimately is an apology.
I know my blogging has been infrequent, and I hope to cure it soon. Hopefully, this little ditty on utter nonsense can grease the wheels again...
Toaster ovens are superior to standard slot toasters.
This thesis popped into my head this afternoon while making lunch. Some time ago, when my wife wasn't feeling well, I did my best to make something that would sit okay in her stomach. Looking around at the meager items that occupy my kitchen, I did a little experimenting. I sliced a slightly stale croissant in half and proceeded to fill it with deli meat and sliced cheddar cheese. It wasn't anything profound or special (although the croissants from Costco are by far the best I've had on this side of the Atlantic), merely a croissant sandwich.
But then the great moment came. I have long been a fan of hot sandwiches. Hot food is more filling, melted cheese is a beautiful thing, and frankly I just don't care for the cold condiments when actual meat and cheese juices can be had. So I left the croissant sandwich open, cheese on one half, meat on the other half, and broiled the sucker for a bit in my toaster oven. Lo and behold, the croissant became its natural, flavorful, flaky pastry self to be the bread component of a warm, tummy-filling sandwich. My ill wife devoured it quickly, and I went ahead and believed my small experiment was a success (as I usually do for myself.)
This great achievement was only through the fact we own a toaster oven rather than a regular pop-up toaster. I recreated my delectable delight today to the point of recalling its origins. I can heat sandwiches, cook up fish sticks, and bake personal pizzas without using the big oven or the microwave. It is a grand life that I lead, all thanks to my toaster oven.
Quite a cool project and often funny project. This would be something grand to do with the photography students and even animation students at my school. I love photography that plays with perspectives.
Also for students, I should pick up this woman's book on grammar. I think kids would give a much greater hoot about the language they supposedly speak if it was actually about what they really spoke.
