When Coyotes Attack

I saw on the news that Coyotes have been attacking people. To be specific, there have been three recent attacks. This story makes the news because it involves wild animals attacking children-a sure attention grabber.

While the media seems to be trying to create the impression there is some sort of onslaught on mankind by coyotes, it is important to keep the matter in perspective.

From a statistical standpoint, your odds of being hurt by a coyote are extremely low. If you want to worry about being attacked by animals, you should worry most about other humans and dogs.  In the case of dogs, there are about 4.7 million people bitten by dogs each year in the US.  About 800,000 bites per year require medical attention.

Lest anyone think that I don’t like dogs, this is not the case. My family has always had dogs and Isis, my Siberian husky, is my best running buddy. I’m very fond of dogs. The purpose of comparing the coyote attacks to dog attacks is to put matters in perspective in regards to the dangers presented by coyotes. In short, there is little reason to be terrified about a coyote onslaught.

This is not to say that people should simply ignore the dangers presented by coyotes. If you live in an area where there are coyotes, then you should take the appropriate precautions for yourself, others and any pets you might have (coyotes will kill cats and dogs).

The main cause for the alleged “coyote problem” is, of course, us. We have expanded into the natural habitats of many creatures. In the case of coyotes, they are very good at adapting and have learned to fit into a new ecosystem-namely ours’. As the number of coyotes in urban areas continues to increase, we can expect more problems. Like us, they are just trying to survive. And, like many humans, they have found that the cities and towns offer a great deal.

In the past, people have tended to react with violence against intruding animals. Hopefully we can find a better solution for the coyote situation.

The Shoddy Treatment of Soldiers

The Bush administration talks about how important it is to support our troops and then fails to act on its own advice.

First, there were the problems with the medical treatment of wounded soldiers, especially in regards to the horrible conditions at Walter Reed. After the story made the rounds in the media, some action was taken.

Second, there is the matter of the GI Bill. This bill is best known for its role in helping WWII veterans go to college. This bill played a significant role in creating a highly educated work force and this helped America become a super power after the war. Now, as another generation of American soldiers go off to war, the GI Bill is not what it used to be. Part of the problem is that college tuitions are getting rather expensive. Part of the problem is that nothing is being done to help deal with this problem. President Bush actually opposes improving the Bill. His reason is that it would cost too much. He apparently has no problem with dumping billions into Iraq, but draws the line when it comes to actually doing something positive for the Americans who are fighting and bleeding for America. Shame on you, Mr. President.  Oddly enough, John McCain sides with Bush on this issue, thus making me question his integrity and judgment. Morally, we owe the soldiers a debt and helping them with their futures seems a reasonable way to repay them. Further, being purely practical about it, college educated people contribute more to the economy than those without such education. As such, it can be looked upon as a wise investment in America’s future. Of course, some people argue that if the GI bill is too good, people will not re-enlist. While this has a certain degree of practical merit, it does seem to be a morally dubious argument. In a sense, it seems to be arguing that we should rob the veterans of a hope for a better future so they will have no choice but to stay in and continue to fight Bush and Hillary’s war.

Third, there is the matter of the barracks. After a soldier’s father exposed the horrible conditions in certain barracks, steps were finally taken to fix the problem. Once again, this shows just how concerned this administration really is for our troops. Of course, they do worry about image-as soon as the media got on this, action was taken. It is a good thing that Americans like the soldier’s father still care about this country and have the initiative and the courage to take action. Without such people, such mistreatment of our soldiers would continue.

We have a collective moral debt to the people who serve our country. If someone is willing to risk his or her life in service to the nation, then that person should be treated with decency-at the very least. The military and civilian leadership needs to do a better job of ensuring that problems such as those described above are found and fixed. They should not wait until they are forced to take action by the bad publicity-they should take action because it is the right thing to do.

Future Archaeologists Are Screwed (Somewhat)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was once the editor of the Low-End User eZine and there are plans to post the old issues on the web. In order to do this, the old files must be converted to html. This proved surprisingly challenging.

As noted before, I had kept the original files on floppy disks. Back in those ancient days, that was about the only removable medium I could afford. There were other types of removable storage devices such as those made by Syquest and at the end of the LEU’s life, Iomega got into the game with its famous Zip Drive.

As most people have noticed, the majority of modern PCs and all Macs are devoid of floppy disk drives. Fortunately, I still have some old Macs (a Beige Tower G3 and a PowerBook 5300cs) that have floppy drives. So, I was able to get the files onto the Beige G3. Once I got the files there, there was the problem of getting the files into a usable format. Using ResEdit, I was able to determine that some of the files had been compressed with Disk Doubler. I no longer had that software and the newest version of Stuffit did not recognize the file format. Fortunately, I had an old version of the software that did work. Some of the files were in DocMaker format, others in eDoc format and some in Macintosh Wordperfect 3.5 format. Some were even in MacWrite II format-truly an ancient program. Eventually I was able to get most of the files opened and converted.

I was watching the History Channel while doing this and started thinking about the matter from an historical perspective. In my case, I was working with technology I was familiar with as well as old software I had once used.  Yet, it was still a challenge to recover the information. I was even left with one file I simply could not open.

Now, imagine the plight of archeologists in th e future. Most of our information is now kept in electronic form or stored on media that requires a specific sort of machine to read it (such as a Blu-Ray drive).  This presents various problems for those who will be trying to sort out the history of our time.

First, there is the problem of the media surviving. Clay tablets, which are very low tech, can survive hundreds, perhaps thousands of years buried in a tomb. Stone carvings can endure for as long as the rock lasts-quite some time indeed. In contrast, CDs, hard drives and USB keys will not last very long. As such, future archeologists might find little more than worthless plastic and metal. As such, if we want to create records that last, we will need to find a new (or old) way to preserve them.

Second, there is the problem of reading the media. Just a short while ago, the 5.25 floppy disk was standard. These days, it would be all but impossible to find a way to get a modern computer to read such a disk. The 3.5 inch floppy disk is still around, but it is difficult to find a modern computer that has a built in drive for such disks.  Imagine how much technology will change over the next century, two centuries and so on.  If it is difficult finding a way to read media that was standard just a few years ago, imagine how hard it will be in the future. Perhaps future archeologists will build their own custom machines to read such media-assuming they will be able to find out how to do so. As such, this is also a problem we’ll need to deal with to ensure that we can pass on an historical record.

Third, there is the problem of file compatibility.  I have files in a variety of formats that are now long obsolete. For example, I still have MacWrite and MacPaint files. People often complain that the current version of their software cannot open the files created by the previous version. Just imagine what it will be like a century or two from now. Even if the media survives and even if the hardware can be found to read the media, there is still the problem of being able to open the files.

Perhaps, as so often happens in sci-fi, there will be amazing technology that can read any media and translate any file format. For example, on StarGate Atlantis, people are able to plug their laptops into the Ancient systems and just make them work. As another example, aliens on Star Trek were often able to just scan human ships and read all the data in the computer records.

More likely, this won’t happen. As such, we will need to take steps to ensure that our important information is preserved in a format that will be comprehensible and in a media that will survive.  Stone tablets seem to be the ideal medium.

LEU Flashback: Computers, Freedom, and Molotov Cocktails

Back in 1993 a group of intrepid Mac users started the Low-End User eZine (LEU).  The eZine was created to serve the needs of low-end Mac users. These were people who couldn’t (or didn’t want to) buy the latest and greatest computers and were often ignored by the major publishers. The LEU also included articles that were somewhat philosophical and addressed some of the moral and political issues relating to technology.

I was the editor of the publication. It lasted a few years and even was mentioned in MacWorld, but then faded away. Recently, Dan Knight (of Low End Mac fame) emailed me about the LEU and asked about putting up some of the old articles on the site. I hadn’t thought about the LEU in years, and went searching for the old disks. Modern Macs, like my iBook G4, don’t have floppy disk drives. I do have a USB floppy drive, but it won’t read 800K (DD) floppy disks. Fortunately, I have an old PowerBook 5300cs with the old style Apple drive, so I was able to transfer the files from the 800K disks to the 1.44MB disks and then to my iBook. All in all, it was a suitably low-end adventure.

I enjoyed being the editor of the LEU and, looking back, I miss the innocent enthusiasm I had in those long ago days.

In honor of the LEU, here is an article I wrote 14 years ago. Interestingly, while the technology has changed, the fundamental issues raised by this essay are still important today.

Computers, Freedom, and Molotov Cocktails (1994)

Although I do not watch all that much television (I have a low tolerance for badness), I have noticed a definite surge in media focus on computers. Some of this focus is highly positive, if not downright over-hyped. However, some of it is negative in character. Some of these negative reports are warranted, while others are actually ominous. One trend that I have noticed is the increase in stories about (or even advocating) placing restrictions on what might be called “electronic freedoms.” The basic idea behind electronic freedoms is that we retain the same rights in the context of the electronic “reality” (such as online services) that we possess in the “real” world (such as freedom speech). Before getting into the issues, I will briefly discuss two groups that seem to be leading the attack.

One group (using the term loosely) that seems enamored of restricting electronic freedom consists of politicians. The Clipper Chip, which was discussed in great detail in an earlier issue) is a prime example of this. Recently, I have observed various politicians express their desire to impose restrictions on the flow of information in the “electronic world.” This desire is hardly surprising, since most politicians are primarily interested in power. Secrecy and control are keys to power, so it is no wonder that an unrestricted exchange of information (such as the Internet) would strike fear into their hearts. However, it should not be assumed that everyone involved in the government is opposed to freedom. Some worthy individuals are clearly advocates of liberty. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer people like this these days.

The second group seems to be as vehement in its attacks, but the identity of this group is a bit of a surprise. This group consists of certain aspects of the mass media. In a recent news show (which will remain anonymous) I observed a reporter who made it quite clear what she (or perhaps her employer) thought about the unrestricted exchange of information via electronic means. In this particular case, the reporter did her best to convince the audience that the unrestricted exchange of information on the computer networks was almost entirely responsible for a series of juvenile crimes. Of course, it might be the case that certain media elements do not have anything against the computer networks as such and that they are simply going along with the “pass the blame” policy that seems to have become enshrined. For example, in the news “report” in question, the reporter was doing all she could to place the blame for the actions of the juveniles (they were building and using bombs) on the BBSs where they acquired the information to construct explosives and the people who uploaded or posted the files. At no point was it even suggested that the juveniles might have been responsible for their own actions.

In one sense, it is surprising that some elements of the media are supporting the position that the flow of information should be restricted. After all, the whole point (in theory) of the media is to provide a free flow of information. Perhaps they fear competition from the nets or perhaps they have simply fallen prey to a poorly considered ideology. But, for whatever reason, it is clear that there is some support for the restriction of freedom among the media elements. Fortunately, there are also clear advocates of electronic  freedom in the media (most notably in the computer press, of course).

The main concern is whether restrictions should be placed on electronic means of communication, such as the Internet, BBSs, email, and so forth. Those who support placing restrictions on the flow of information do have arguments in support of their position. One argument is that since other means of communication (such as phones, television, speech, and print) have restrictions on them, then so should computer based communication. For example, television shows are forced to conform to certain rules, phones can be taped, and there are some limits as to what can be printed and distributed with impunity. Since restrictions exist in these areas, they should also be placed on other means of electronic communication, such as BBSs and such. This argument isn’t particularly good. After all, if you don’t believe that the current restrictions are acceptable, you are certainly not going to accept their extension to new areas.

The best argument that those who wish to place restriction have is a moral one. The argument is this: the unrestricted means of communication allow information to be transmitted that can result in harm. The specific arguments tend to center around the potential harms to children. Two prominent concerns are that children can and have acquired information about how to build explosives (such as pipe bombs and Molotov Cocktails) from BBSs and that children can get access to sexually explicit material via BBSs. Clearly, it is not a good thing for children to have access to this sort of information. For example, some of the children who learned how to make explosives used them to blow up mailboxes and others were seriously injured when they had an accident while trying to produce bombs.

This argument, which I shall call the “harm argument”, is a reasonable one. After all, if it could be shown that the unrestricted exchange of information via electronic means results in clear harm to children, then we should advocate such restrictions.  However, the harm argument is flawed.

In the United States there is an established legal and moral basis for the free exchange of information. The best known legal basis for certain exchanges of information is in the Constitution. The importance of the free exchange of information has been well argued in the past and is an essential part of a  free society. I shall assume that the United States is (in principle, if not in actuality) a free society and that the burden of proof rests on those who intend to restrict freedoms. In order to meet the burden of proof, those who support the harm argument must show that restricting the free exchange of information via electronic means will prevent the perceived harms without creating worse harms. It is my contention that this cannot be done.

First, in order to justify such restrictions, it must be shown that restricting electronic means of communication will significantly curtail such exchanges. After all, if we assume that the exchange of information was harmful, it would still be irrational to waste time, energy and resources trying to restrict a means of exchange when that restriction would have little or no impact. Anyone who is familiar with the way information is exchanged on computers knows that the main virtue of such means is their speed and convenience (in most cases). However, it is also well known that the information exchanged can be acquired via other means. In certain areas, such as scientists exchanging information, the speed and convenience is vital and restricting it would create a significant impact. Now, what about information that is considered potentialy harmful, such as information about bombs? Could the government significantly curtail the flow of such information by restrictions in the realm of computers? Clearly not, because  there are so many alternatives. There are books, movies, television shows, pamphlets, as well as speech. When I was growing up, there were no personal computers, BBSs, modems, or email. However, during that time kids had more than enough information to do all sorts of harmful activities. Unless things have really changed, children probably get most of their information (and misinformation)  from  non computer sources. Thus, the only way to significantly curtail the exchange of such information is to severely restrict all forms of communication. Not only would this be infeasible, it would also run afoul of the nature of a free and open society. Also, if it were the case that computers were a significant source of  harmful information for children, then there would be a clear correlation between computer access and the degree of harmful activities a child engages in. However, it does not appear that this is the case. Hence, it is very unlikely that such restrictions would reduce the flow of information, given these considerations.

Second, to justify such restrictions it must be shown that it is the information that leads to the harm. To be more specific, it must be shown that the information that is considered to be harmful actually has a relevant causal role in bringing about the  perceived harms. To make the discussion more concrete, I will use the example of the bombs. However, this argument can easily be generalized to other situations. It would be foolish to argue that information about bombs does not play a role in the construction and use of bombs. After all, children who know nothing about bombs do not build them. Thus, those who create and distribute such information do have a degree of responsibility for their actions. However, this responsibility is extremely difficult to define. For example, suppose someone posts a warning about a product that turns into a poison gas when exposed to a common household chemical. Now suppose some children kill another child using that chemical. Is that person responsible for the death of that child? If so, he should be punished. However, it would be odd to send him to jail for posting a warning that was misused. Now, suppose he posted it as a fact, without the desire to protect others. In this case, it would still be strange to punish him, since it is not his fault someone misused the information. Now, suppose he advocated that people use this gas to kill others. In this case, he would be encouraging immoral behavior, which would be wrong. Is this individual responsible for those who follow his suggestions? To some degree, but not completely. After all, few people are such robots that they automatically obey every suggestion. People (yes, children are people) have the capacity to make decisions about what they will and will not do. A person who does not have the capacity to make decisions requires someone else to watch out for them. In the case of children, if they are incapable of making decisions properly, then their parents or guardians must assume responsibility for their actions. Thus, if a child is capable of making decisions, her actions are her responsibility. If a child is incapable of making decisions (such that they are mere putty in the hands of others), then the parent must assume full responsibility. So, in the bomb case, if a child makes a bomb, then either it is his responsibility or his parents. If he uses the bomb to harm himself or others, then he or his parents are to blame. If it is his responsibility, then he has failed himself and others and must pay the price. If it is his parents’ responsibility, they have failed the child, themselves, and others. Mere information does not make a person take an action anymore than the mere existence of a gun makes a person a murderer. Without the decision to act, there can be no action. Information does not make decisions or take actions. People do, so people have to take the responsibility for their own actions.

Third, to justify such restrictions, it must be shown that such restrictions will prevent more harm than they create. What harm can be done by imposing restriction on electronic means of communication? In itself, a rule forbidding the posting  and exchange of information about explosives via electronic means might not be particularly harmful. After all, anyone who has a legitimate need for information about explosives can simply get the information from thousands of other sources. The same is true about any other type of information. However, such a restriction would set a dangerous precedent. I will not claim that such a restriction would lead to the death of freedom or some such nonsense. After all, that would be a slippery slope fallacy (an “argument” in which something extreme and often terrible is claimed to inevitably  follow from a first step without any argument for that inevitability). I do argue that such a restriction sets a dangerous precedent. Once a restriction is set on the exchange of information because somebody believes that such a restriction will prevent a possible harm, it becomes increasingly easier to place further restrictions based on whatever political or moral ideology happens to be fashionable at the time. I simply do not have enough faith in the reasoning abilities of those in power to be willing to allow them such control. What might well happen, as has happened in other media, is the gradual erosion of freedom. What is even worse is that such activities also result in an increase in the power over the medium by those who simply do not understand it. It is a dangerous thing to allow the politicians into this electronic realm. After all, look at what they have done to the real world. Should we let them get a foothold in the virtual world?

How do we keep our freedom? The key seems to be responsibility. If we are responsible in our actions as members of an electronic society, we will not give the politicians any excuse to intrude to “protect” us. As creators and distributors of information, we should take responsibility for that information. If you must write about bombs, take the responsibility of warning people about the dangers. If you have to distribute the information about bombs, make sure people know what they (or their kids) are getting into. As receivers of information, we must take responsibility for the actions we take using that information. If you simply must build a bomb, be careful. If you think you simply must blow up your neighbor’s mailbox, get help. If we are responsible for others, such as children, we must take the time to know what they are doing. If you are a parent or a guardian, and your child has access to a computer, take the time to learn about what they are doing. Whether they have access to computers or not, be a responsible parent. If we cannot assume responsibility for our actions, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves when we lose our freedom.

The Brain & Videogames

Philosophers and others have debated the harmful and beneficial effects of art since at least the time of Plato. One of Plato’s arguments has been used, in various forms, throughout history. The gist of the argument is that certain content in art can have a corrupting influence on people. Since such corruption is harmful, such art should be banned. For example, he argued that watching tragedies can cause people to give in to sorrow and thus act in ways that are not fit and proper. As another example, he warned against the harmful influence of comedy: seeing fools on the stage could lead one to play the fool at home. These days, people tend to be far less concerned about the effects of tragedy and comedy. The main concerns today are with sex and violence.

The concern about art has been applied to each new art form. When movies appeared, people worried about them. The same for TV and now the same is true for video games.

Naturally, people tend to be most concerned about video games that are supposed to be harmful. I’ve written about this subject in my book, so I won’t say more about my views on this matter here other than to urge everyone to buy multiple copies for themselves, friends, enemies and pets.

While Plato did argue for censorship, he did leave a way for poetry to be allowed back in the ideal city of the Republic. To generalize the argument, if it can be shown that a work of art is beneficial (or that it is at least harmless) then it should be allowed.

Interestingly enough, there is evidence that certain video games are beneficial. Recently Carmen Russoniello of East Carolina University conducted an experiment to assess the impact of non-violent video games.

In his experiment, the participants had four possible computer activities: 1) search the web for articles, 2) play Bejeweled 2, 3) play Bookworm Adventures, or play Peggle. These games are published by PopCap. PopCap also sponsored the research-but Russoniello claims that the company had no role in the design of his experiment or his analysis of the data.

The experiment found that these games seemed to be beneficial to the players-at least relative to searching the web for articles. Naturally, it is important to keep this fact in mind.

Bejeweled 2 was found to be less stressful that searching for articles (as measured by heart rate). All three games were credited with making the players feel better. To specific, the players reported feeling less angry, less fatigued, less depressed, and less tension.

As with many studies about video games, the subjects’ brains were tested. According to the EEG results, Peggle increased the brain activity that is supposed to be linked with “wanting to engage with life” ( Sharon Begley, “This is Your Brain on a Video Game”Newsweek May 5, 2008 page 12). Bejweled 2 apparently has the power to quell the brain activity associated with “avoiding and withdrawing” (Begley). Bookworm seems to have the ability to sync brain waves which is a “state associated with relaxation” (Begley).

These results do, intuitively, make sense. These games are non-violent and involve the player in activities that generally do not cause anxiety or stress. Further, these games are similar in many ways to traditional (that is, non-computer) games that people play to relax. For example, Bookworm is somewhat like Boogle and Peggle is somewhat like Pachinko.

One question that the experiment did not address is the duration of the positive effects. Some mental activities, such as meditation, actually change the way the brain (or mind) works in positive and lasting ways. Of course, this matter can also be studied and the question answered.

As always, there is also the question of whether the games are better than “real world” alternatives, such as reading, sports, playing “physical” games (like a “real” game of Boggle with friends), and so on. There is a tendency for people to think that electronic entertainment is inferior to “real” entertainment. In some cases, there is merit to such concerns. Passively watching bad TV, for example, is inferior to being active in the actual world. However, people should be careful to avoid letting this possible bias sway their judgment in regards to all electronic entertainment. Perhaps some video games are quite good for people.

This Book Will Change Your Life*

There are many books, but buying this book will truly change your life.*

*In that that you will 1) have less money and 2) have the book.

Road Killers

While I was catching up on reading my magazines (one of the joys of summer break) I read an article about Vietnam. It was interesting, but contained  a rather disturbing statistic: 12,000 people were killed there in traffic accidents in 2006 (Smithsonian, March 2008 page 64). This number exceeds the yearly death toll on the famous Ho Chi Minh Trail during the Vietnam (or American) War. During the war, the United States did its best to close the road using a wide variety of means, such as bombing the hell out of it with B-52s. The United States managed to kill about 30,000 people on the Trail during the war.

In the United States, about 43,000 people are killed each year in automobile accidents. This exceeds the number of people killed on the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the entire war.

These numbers show a stark reality-automobiles kill a lot of people. What is especially scary is that drivers are, presumably, trying to avoid accidents and (unlike in war) not trying to kill people. This seems to indicate that automobiles are a dire threat to human life-far more so than some wars and definitely more so than terrorists.

If we are concerned about people dying, then we should really do something about all the blood staining the roads of the world. But, it is hard to imagine the government declaring a war on automobiles, though they make terrorists look like amateurs when it comes to racking up kills.

We can expect things to worsen around the world-as nations advance and gain wealth, the citizens almost always purchase cars. China, for example, has seen a significant increase in the number of cars on her streets and this number will climb. As to shall the number of traffic deaths.

In addition to direct metal on flesh killing, automobiles also harm the environment and use up resources. This merely adds to the danger presented to humanity by this monster of our own invention.

Since I’d rather not die in a traffic accident, I try to spend as little time on the road as possible and I take a very defensive approach. Of course, so much depends on others-I’ve lost track of the near accidents and the times I’ve almost been run down while running. I’ve been fairly lucky-I’ve only been hit once while running, once as a driver and only several times as a passenger.

I’ve often expressed my view of the automobile and its bloody price. But, the car is a large part of the economy and people love its convenience. Obviously, tens of thousands of deaths per year is a price people are willing to pay.

Last Name

I’ve long had trouble with collection agencies and state agencies looking for money. Yet, I always pay all my bills-not only on time, but early. I am almost a Platonic form of fiscal responsibility.

Despite that, my phone rings a few times each month with vaguely menacing calls from collection agencies, state tax agencies and other people looking for money owed. Here is how it often plays out:

Caller: “Hello, this is Jean from XYZ Collection/State Tax/Whatever Agency. Can I speak to (some first name other than “Mike”) La…LaBroo..LaBoo…”

Me: “LaBossiere?”

Caller: “Yes.”

Me: “No. I’m the only LaBossiere here and my first name is ‘Mike.’”

Caller: “Well, do you know where I can reach Shaquita/Elaine/Rosco/Fidel/Whatever?”

Me: “Sorry, no. We just have the same last name. But, I’m curious-why call me?”

Caller: “Thank you for your time.”

What I suspect is that the collection/tax/whatever agencies just use the internet and other sources to find the same last name and a phone number. Then they presumably just call all the numbers they find. I’ve gotten calls from state tax agencies from other states (Florida has no state tax), and collection agencies from around the country, all looking for someone who happens to have my last name.

I can understand their desire to get their money from these folks, but I would prefer it if they would do their research a bit better. It is rather annoying to have to talk to the collection folk. I also worry a bit that someday I’ll see a tow truck hauling away my pickup, all because “Shaquita”, “Rosco” or “Bill” didn’t make their car  payments and happened to have the same last name as me.

My last name is fairly uncommon, so perhaps this sort of thing doesn’t happen to most people. For example, I suspect that the collection folks don’t call every Smith in the country. Then again, maybe they do.

The Food Crisis

As if the increasing price of gas were not enough, we now face an increase in food prices. For Americans, this is mostly an inconvenience: we still have far too much food, but will need to pay more for it. Perhaps this might have a silver lining-the higher cost of food might help Americans shed some of that famous American fat.

For other parts of the world, the food problem is a matter of survival. While people are, sadly, always starving, there are even more people suffering with each day.

Part of the problem is linked to the cost of oil. Oil plays a huge role in food production and transportation. Hence, the increase in oil prices leads quickly to a rise in food prices. Also linked into oil is the fact that food crops, such as corn, are being foolishly used as fuel. The reason why it is foolish is because this merely serves to drive up the price of food and it is often not energy efficient. For example,  some experts claim that turning corn into biofuel results in a energy loss (it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce the fuel than the energy the fuel yields).

The way to deal with this problem is to find ways to produce the energy needed in a cheaper manner. There are many proposals and efforts on underway. Perhaps they might even work someday.

Another part of the problem is weather. Some people link this to global warming (which takes us back to oil and other fossil fuels again). In any case, the weather has not been ideal for producing food. Hence, this leads to more shortages.

If our actions are affecting the weather, then perhaps we can take steps to mitigate this. Further, we can continue to develop improved means of food production that will be less affected by the weather.

A third part of the problem is poor decision making. To take one example, Zimbabwe once was an exporter of food. However, the leader of the country, Mugabe, decided it would be a good idea to seize land from white farmers and turn the land over to veterans. He did this, presumably, in the hopes of maintaining his support and thus his power. Unfortunately for the people, the veterans who were given the stolen farms did not know how to raise food. Not surprisingly, food production plummeted and now starvation is a serious problem. The West, is, of course, expected to help out with the food crisis. But, the solution seems to be clear in this case-the land must be returned to those who can do a competent job.

Dealing with the human element is, as always, very challenging. In contrast, technical problems are much easier. I am sure that we will be able to develop effective alternative energy and better crops long before we can find a cure for such bad decision making.

Bush, Texas and Fences

America is, in theory, based on the rule of law and individual rights. While the Bush administration has long claimed to support American values, its actions have consistently violated these values. One excellent example of this is the situation involving the plan to put up a border fence in Brownsville, Texas. The purpose of the fence is to keep illegal immigrants out of the country. This will no doubt work as well as other such fences in history.

The rule of law is an important component of American democracy. Abiding by this principle means following the law. If the laws are regarded as flawed, then the proper step to take is to change the laws so as to rectify the problem. To simply ignore or waive laws in an unprincipled way is clearly a violation of the notion of the rule of law. The Bush administration has quite a record of violating the rule of law and their guiding philosophy seems, to borrow a phrase from Eric Cartman, is “I do what I want.” In the case of the Texas fence Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff decided to waive 36 laws. Among the laws he has elected to bypass are the  Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Naturally, it can be argued that laws sometimes have to be set aside in order to serve a greater good. For example, businesses are often granted exemptions so as to help the economy and emergencies can require that certain laws be suspended. However, from a moral standpoint this sort of thing should be done in a principled manner and only when doing so does, in fact, serve the greater good.

In the case of the fence, it seems unlike that it will work. Fences are easy to deal with-people can go around, through or over them with some effort. This is not to say that the US should leave its borders defenseless, but that putting up fences is not an effective way of keeping people out (or in). Further, the fence will waste resources that could be better used in other ways, such as more effective means of border defense and dealing with immigration.

Finally, a fence is not the sort of thing that is consistent with the American ideal: “Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

As noted above, America is founded on the concept of individual rights. Along with this is the notion that the state should not trample the citizens in a manner befitting a tyrant. In the case of the fence, many local residents oppose it. Some have refused to yield their land, their private property, to the will of the Bush administration. Naturally, the state simply plans to use eminent domain in order to take by force what it could not win with consent. This is, of course, typical. The Bush administration has shown little respect for the rights of most citizens and little respect for morality and decency.

It could be replied that the state needs to be able to act in this manner so as to serve the greater good. For example, the state might need to build a road through an area and it would not do if a single person could stand in the way of such development by refusing to yield her land.

Of course, this once again raises the question of whether doing this actually serves the general good. The evidence seems to be (as argued above) that it would not. The state should wield its power against its own only when there is no other choice and only when doing so serves a greater good. The fence does not meet these conditions. Hence, the Bush administration should take the same approach here that its has generally taken with corporations, namely keeping its hands off.

One other concern is the environmental impact of the fence. The fence will cut through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge and many experts believe that it will be rather bad for the environment (hence the need, as noted above, for numerous laws to be bypassed). Texas actually derives significant income from the environment via tourism. Hence, this fence will also harm the economy.

Finally, the fence seems to nicely illustrate the usual way the administration does things: by poor planning and in secrecy. Fish and Wildlife officials and local citizens have reported that they could not get consistent information about where the fence would be built and exactly what was planned. This is business as usual for this administration.

One good thing about the upcoming election is that the odds seem to be that no matter who gets elected, s/he cannot possibly be as bad as the current President and his fellows. Hopefully, the next President will fix the fence problem…and the multitude of other problems that will be dumped on his/her desk on day one.