Author: dulovo85

Friend Laurence Sweeney collects Homonyms of a type he calls Homographic Diphonics (same spelling, different pronunciation ).
See if you can find two meanings in each of these:

address             dingy              object                   sewer

axes                   do                    perfect               shower

bow                   does                 present                sow

buffet                dove                 progress             stingy

close                  entrance         project                subject

conduct             house               read                   tarry

convert              invalid             record                tear

convict              lead                   recreate             use

desert                live                     refuse               wind

digest                 minute              row                  wound

This  word buff also points out a duplication in some words:

Why say preventative? Isn’t preventive the same?

Why say representative? Isn’t representive the same?

 

 

 

I’ve got a hankering lately to have a dome. Not just for me, but for several cities and maybe even for a country or two.  What I want is not like the Duomo in Florence nor the Dome of St. Peter’s. I want a dome like the Obama administration gave to Israel, like what was once considered as a possibility for South Korea.

It is well known that Obama did not get along especially well with Netanyahu. Less well known is that he was quite generous to Israel. There was the gift of $ 3.8 Billion over ten years and there was the wonderful defensive weapon of the dome.

An electronic dome sheltered Israel from incoming rockets with almost one hundred percent success. Early estimates of casualties in the 84 day war with Palestine listed  thousands of  Palestinians dead, and 61 Israelis.  That included 57 soldiers who died in the tunnels, the three young yeshiva scholars who were killed on their way home through a dangerous neighborhood–not really during the war but before the war. (Those three deaths sparked the beginning of the war.)  The last of the deaths was said to be a child who had strayed  too close to the edge of the protected area. A more recent estimate said 74 Israeli died. The reason for the change is uncertain, but the more recent estimate may include deaths from injuries sustained earlier by soldiers in the tunnels. The figures are startling.   Fatalities among civilians were close to zero. While Israelis took to the bomb shelters when rocket attacks began (as any of us would, just to be sure), they were actually safer than they would have been on a California highway on a Sunday afternoon. The dome was quite  successful.

Where am I going with this?

Kim Jung In in North Korea has developed rocketry that is capable of hitting Japan and the western United States. If a dome could protect us, I would want our cities to be protected by a defensive weapon rather than by a war involving two continents.

If  North Korea threatens a nuclear attack, my little dome plan may not be sufficient The earlier dome plan defended against conventional weapons. If Kim or anyone starts hurling nukes, then all holds are on, all hell breaks loose and my yearning for a dome is actually a yearning for the old world of conventional warfare. Can you imagine being nostalgic for a thing like that? As one commentator said, things could be “Apocalyptic.”

We must hope that both leaders, Kim in North Korea and Trump in North America know what they are doing and realize that no one is safe in an all out nuclear war. Even non-combatant countries would suffer a Nuclear Winter.  It’s nothing to posture about.

Congress is considering updates of our anti-ballistic defense system. So far the system has been about 50% successful, as compared with the 100% success rate in the system given to Israel.  The difference is that warheads coming from North Korea would be traveling through space, at much longer range than  missiles in the Palestinian attacks on Israel. The latter were within earth’s atmosphere. We in the U.S. need a system that can destroy missiles at higher altitudes, in space.

Opponents say a better system is too expensive.

The Wall Street Journal  (June 16, 2017) has wisely urged updating and integrating our system, in spite of the expense.  We can do better than 50% and even if we had to settle for that rate, 50% could have a deterrent effect.  The WSJ argues that congress should be able to find the money to “save Seattle from annihilation,” while still preparing troops for conventional warfare. Of course, it mentions Seattle only as an example.  All of our cities are threatened, on the West Coast, the East Coast and in between. As we talk and try diplomacy, we should be assuring the safety of our cities.

We have the Aegis system, based at sea, The GMD or Ground based Missile Defense and the Thaad or Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. Of these, the GMD is at present the most powerful. Congress and the Defense Department are reviewing all three. We wish them Godspeed.

 

 

I don’t mind sending a letter to the FCC, Congress, etc., but if I’m giving my real name and snail-mail address, I don’t want my phone # and/or my email address to be included. Yes I know all kinds of agencies, corporations, etc. are constantly copying my information from my computer (which I consider a fundamental invasion of privacy if without my permission) but voluntarily giving this information without judicious discrimination designed to optimize the protection of our civil liberties is violating the trust of every participating citizen to act responsibly to protect tour First Amendment (free speech, privacy, freedom  of association, etc.) in every action we take.  Without this constant vigilance in action we lead ourselves, our culture, into blindness creating sheep heading for the cliff like lemmings to the sea.

Well, that’s a hell of a paragraph, but I think you get the idea.

In everyday interaction between most people I know, everyone is very careful about who they give their email address to. Why then, would I casually over the internet send a letter to my government with my personal identifying information generally required to have impact give them my email address?

Perhaps something like Drop Box (not sure how that works) to properly petition my government by sending a missive over the internet but disconnecting my internet identity should be allowed.

Hmmm, now that I’ve written the above I am aware how this can be abused as our governments and corporations have grossly abused our privacy since the internet’s commercialization in the mid-1990’s when we gave up the internet’s nonprofit status–an action which I strongly resisted at the time, but could not overcome the (greedy) little entrepreneurs chomping at the bit to make a buck–just could not help ourselves.

So, identifying ourselves with our snail-mail address and name while petitioning our government over the internet while at the same  time trying to protect our privacy while using the internet which is a land which uses our concept of privacy to take advantage of our privacy   in order to make profit at the expense of privacy . IF we block our email address  in that petition it would NOT BE CONSIDERED PROPER. What a joke.

If reading this comment has given you a headache or made you dizzy, that should be a clear indication we are in a deep swamp barely keeping our heads above water.

Well, I am not sure the approach here is of much help on this July 12, 2017 day of action to petition our government to protect net neutrality, but at last I have caused myself and hopefully others to confront the chaos confronting direct democracy in these times (the human race and life facing  extinction, etc., little things like that)

“Houston, we have a problem.”

From a letter, Anonymous of course.

The new Chair of the EPA Pruitt proposes to eliminate restrictions on smog and factory emissions.  The effects on children with asthma are likely to be painful, because there is a strong correlation between pollution and increased asthma attacks.

Parents and grandparents, already busy  coping with asthma attacks would do well to squeeze in time for  phone calls to their representatives in Washington. Let your state Senators and your Congressman know that  a child in your household has asthma and needs those protections that the EPA is trying to eliminate.

The jet stream is one of those things in the weather report that we pay little attention to . Will it rain? Will it be warm?–That we care about.  Pressure fronts and the jet stream?–We shrug our shoulders. The trouble is, those things are terribly, terribly important.

Recent reports tell us that human activity seems to be changing the jet stream. The study is done by Drs. Jennifer Francis and Steven Vavrus., and it needs to be validated as all scientific studies are, but the news is ominous. The current report comes from “multiple lines of evidence.” The report deserves to be taken very seriously because it fits into what we already know like the missing link.  Because it explains other phenomena, it carries extra weight.

Scientist have been concerned about a major unexpected  result from warming,– extreme weather events.  This outcome was unforeseen.  Now we see that changes in the jet stream, the major determiner of weather in the Northern Hemisphere.is a mechanism that explains the results that we see.  Warming of the Arctic, greater than warming at the equator, causes changes to the jet stream, which in turn causes weather events to “stick.”  Droughts last longer.  Atmospheric rivers of rain last longer., Cold spells and blizzards last longer.

Yes, we will wait for further validation intellectually, but should not wait to follow the Precautionary Principle. The principle says this:  Just in case climate change is on the level, we need to change behavior.  We have nothing to lose and a better, healthier life to gain. To ignore it is to recklessly endanger  human wellbeing.

 

Many parents concerned about autism and other disorders in children have objected to  the thimerisol in vaccines because it contains mercury. However, it is possible to opt out of mercury-containing injections by making a request.

A far larger source of mercury is the output of unregulated coal-fired plants. The mercury from such factories is ingested by breathing and far more difficult to avoid.  The new leadership of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, intends to deregulate emissions, leaving the public with far less protection.

There are some facts that have been validated by science over and over. Coal-powered factories emit mercury, which is a hazard to health in many ways. It is particularly of concern as a causative agent in autism.  For this reason, President Trump’s efforts to revive the coal industry, by remove regulations, and by weakening the EPA should be of concern to parents of children with autism and indeed to all parents.  As the new administration moves to enforce its program, anyone interested in issues pertaining to autism should speak up and see that children are not put at greater risk.

This is an issue worth following and worth fighting for. Remember that the word “regulation” really stands for consumer protection, protection for children and pregnant women.

Some time back, experts in economics were  asked a hypothetical question.  If you had $75 billion dollars to spend on making the human race happier or better or ending misery, how would you  spend it?

The results were surprising. Nutrition ranked high on the list. Micronutrients were rated very important.Top contender was to spend the money on vitamin A for health care in underdeveloped nations, because Vitamin A deficiency is a leading cause of blindness. Other answers were iodine treatments to prevent retardation in the unborn and the very young, and iron for the iron deficient. The top four answers were for trace minerals and one  vitamin. Each suggestion was evaluated by economists for cost and effectiveness. It was and still is astounding to realize how much of human misery can be prevented or alleviated for comparatively little.

Then an unfortunate thing happened. Along the way, a few scientists commenting on climate change began to say the cost of fixing our climate was too expensive. It would be better to spend the money alleviating suffering for the poor. Bjorn Lomborg included climate change among some of the causes that deserved attention, but  some colleagues of Robert Socolow, then at Princeton thought money should be spent on alleviating present problems instead of combatting climate change.  It’s a foolish way to view the challenge. No nation that I know of has the same budget line for health care and for energy fixes.  In the United States, health care funds spent abroad would be under the State Department or in the budget for the U.N. Much of the money comes from charities. It is hoped that climate change, on the other hand,  can be done by energy regulations, and by creating new jobs in the energy sector. Socolow estimates that we can do much with existing technology if we will only use several fixes at the same time, rather than thinking there is one fix-all solution. Whoever came up with the $75 Bllion Dollar challenge never meant for it to be an excuse for doing nothing on all fronts.-the present misery, which we should certainly try to alleviate, and the future harm that hangs over us.

To read more, see the Huffington Post on the “$75 Billion Dollar Question.”  You will be inspired to think of the good that can be done fairly cheaply, and disappointed that we are doing so little. But remember that the expenditures suggested  need to be renewed annually. Preventive measures on climate change can hopefully resolve difficulties for once and for all. And climate change is already causing great human suffering and promises more.

When Princeton Professor Robert Socolow came out with his theory of Wedges to combat climate change, I loved it for a very silly reason.  He proposed attacking the problem with a combination of existing technologies. Of nine available to us, any combination of seven would do the trick.  Why did I get such a kick out of this? There was a character on Starship Enterprise, a Borg, called Seven of Nine.

I admit that’s terribly silly, but it was a good way to remember the plan.

Socolow’s theory has not gotten the attention it deserved.  Because the technology for mitigation exists, costs of his proposal are lower than  predicted for other plans  and changes could start immediately..  What is most pertinent, and needs consideration, Socolow recommended a multi-pronged approach. Instead, the pressure to bring improvement has focused on one measure only–carbon taxing– which seems to be possible because it works within the framework of business thinking. Need it be said,  that one goal of taxing carbon emissions has not been widely adopted. So the business and governmental forces supposedly working on this have chosen one pathway and then stalled on implementing that.

Time is important in dealing with climate change, and the sooner the better. Some time ago, the concerned community stopped talking about halting global warming and began instead to speak of accommodation.  They are saying we are  Al Gore’s frog in the boiling pot, just getting used to the heat.

I am hoping it is not so.  I would like to see the community affected by environmental issues (that’s everyone) and its representatives take a good look at Socolow’s work. See Carbon Mitigation Initiative  and the Stabilization Wedge Game.