America's Richest Small Towns - Yahoo! Real Estate: "
Articles like these make great geography fodder.
Where are the most expensive small towns in America?
Most are found in New York state, followed by a small number in California. Following the money trail. Where do the leaders of business live and work? New York, close to New York City, and not that far from the likes of Boston, MA, and a few hours from Washington, D.C.
Then, we have California. From San Francisco and the Napa Valley to San Diego near the border with Mexico, the state is dotted with many small but expensive towns.
In the interior of the United State, Belle Meade, TN, just outside Nashville, is the ritzy oasis between the coasts.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Fiat reintroduces itself to U.S. with 500 model - USATODAY.com
Fiat reintroduces itself to U.S. with 500 model - USATODAY.com: "
I completely understand why Americans are so reticent to divest themselves of large cars and trucks. Our country has been built on individuality, on attempting to keep governments in check, individual freedoms, being able to set our own course. How dare anyone come and interfere with my Life, we say.
Selfish, yes, and to make ourselves feel better about our own selfish nature we donate money. Some of us actually do have a benevolent nature, altruistic, and good-hearted.
Americans do not really look around the world to see how others are living. They (we) give lip service, suggesting that we do understand, but by-and-large, we don't. Americans do not travel abroad as much as we should, not when compared to other people, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans.
Our natural barriers, called the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, have historically provided an impediment to travel. Not only a barrier for travel, but also a barrier for attack. The United States has not had any significant foreign-based assault upon its borders in its history, chiefly as a result of the great distances any invading force would have to cross to get here.
We have become spoiled and ignorant, and soft.
We now do not want small fuel-efficient cars or trucks. We do not want our government telling us, or encouraging us, to better use natural resources. We, meaning consumers, will not make choices that use natural resources in efficient ways. Therefore, the Federal Government has to step in and help us change our ways.
And to help us change our ways, Fiat gets to sell cars in the United States, through Chrysler (who is being run by Fiat.)
The Fiat 500 is already popular in Europe. United States highway mileage comes in at 38mpg, and starts for about $17,000. That price point puts it a little higher than that of its rivals that already have a market presence in the United States, the Honda Fit, the Chevy Aveo, the Toyota Yaris, or the Volkswagon Beetle.
Automakers have to make adjustments to cars sold in the U.S. market. We like to have large beverages at hand, so drink holders large enough to hold a Super Big Gulp are necessary. We need larger gas tanks because we drive long distances. We get more insulation to buffer against noise, and a softer suspension.
American carmakers often have issues in foreign markets. Our carmakers tend not to make adjustments to their cars. Europeans like to have stiffer suspensions; they handle more like sport cars. The British want steering wheels on the opposite side of the dash. The Europeans like different color schemes, and smaller cars. Parking space is tight in most European countries.
Hopefully, though, Fiat will have a better time of selling vehicles than their previous efforts of three decades ago. While Fiat is an Italian carmaker, the engines for the Fiat 500 are made in the United States, and the car is assembled in Mexico.
I completely understand why Americans are so reticent to divest themselves of large cars and trucks. Our country has been built on individuality, on attempting to keep governments in check, individual freedoms, being able to set our own course. How dare anyone come and interfere with my Life, we say.
Selfish, yes, and to make ourselves feel better about our own selfish nature we donate money. Some of us actually do have a benevolent nature, altruistic, and good-hearted.
Americans do not really look around the world to see how others are living. They (we) give lip service, suggesting that we do understand, but by-and-large, we don't. Americans do not travel abroad as much as we should, not when compared to other people, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans.
Our natural barriers, called the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, have historically provided an impediment to travel. Not only a barrier for travel, but also a barrier for attack. The United States has not had any significant foreign-based assault upon its borders in its history, chiefly as a result of the great distances any invading force would have to cross to get here.
We have become spoiled and ignorant, and soft.
We now do not want small fuel-efficient cars or trucks. We do not want our government telling us, or encouraging us, to better use natural resources. We, meaning consumers, will not make choices that use natural resources in efficient ways. Therefore, the Federal Government has to step in and help us change our ways.
And to help us change our ways, Fiat gets to sell cars in the United States, through Chrysler (who is being run by Fiat.)
The Fiat 500 is already popular in Europe. United States highway mileage comes in at 38mpg, and starts for about $17,000. That price point puts it a little higher than that of its rivals that already have a market presence in the United States, the Honda Fit, the Chevy Aveo, the Toyota Yaris, or the Volkswagon Beetle.
Automakers have to make adjustments to cars sold in the U.S. market. We like to have large beverages at hand, so drink holders large enough to hold a Super Big Gulp are necessary. We need larger gas tanks because we drive long distances. We get more insulation to buffer against noise, and a softer suspension.
American carmakers often have issues in foreign markets. Our carmakers tend not to make adjustments to their cars. Europeans like to have stiffer suspensions; they handle more like sport cars. The British want steering wheels on the opposite side of the dash. The Europeans like different color schemes, and smaller cars. Parking space is tight in most European countries.
Hopefully, though, Fiat will have a better time of selling vehicles than their previous efforts of three decades ago. While Fiat is an Italian carmaker, the engines for the Fiat 500 are made in the United States, and the car is assembled in Mexico.
The Parable of The Social Network
Early this morning, I watched, "The Social Network." Beside being a great movie, the dialogue, to those really paying attention, offers viewers some clues as to why striving to achieve more is imperative. For those that have seen the movie, remember near the beginning, when Mark Z. is talking with his girlfriend about the number of "highly intelligent people in China?" Mark says something to the effect, "Did you know that China has more highly intelligent people than we [U.S.] have people doing anything else?"
While that may be a slight exaggeration - though, probably not, they simply have more people after all - there is a degree of truth in that statement.
CNNMoney, in July 2010, ran an editorial by Jeff Colvin, warning about the lack of emphasis on learning and education in the United States, versus China. I would also add to that India, too.
According to Colvin, in 2009 China graduated 10,000 Engineering Ph.Ds. The United State graduated about 8,000 Engineering Ph.Ds. Not bad, you say? Two-thirds of our 8,000 (5,300) were not U.S. citizens thereby taking that new-found knowledge back to their home countries. U.S. immigration policy actually encourages smart, non-native people to leave.
Furthermore, while American enrollment in the sciences is falling, the fastest growing majors are "Park & Recreation," "Leisure," and "Fitness." Not there is anything inherently wrong with any of those pursuits, and, hopefully, you can see where I am going with this. Americans are not actively pursuing hard sciences, those sciences that are required and necessary for a healthy and robust economy that helps provide our standard-of-living. Then, those people that actually are pursuing hard science degrees are leaving the United States to go work elsewhere. Some do manage to engage the bureaucracy long enough to enter into the United States.
From "The Social Network," we can also examine the characters of the Winklevoss Brothers. Did they have their idea stolen from Mark Z.? Something happened because in court, the brothers received $65,000,000 as a settlement. Scrutinize the attitudes of the Winklevoss Brothers, though. They were advised to move on, invent something else, develop a new idea - that is what Harvard is about, as stated by the Harvard President. They didn't. They wanted to play the victim. Sure, they got $65,000,000, but they contributed nothing. In my mind, they should have gotten $1. One dollar is typically the damages given to simply say, yes, I agree, Mark Z. lied to, misrepresented himself, but you contributed no money, no brain effort, and your idea versus his idea are simply to far apart for me to consider that he stole it.
In China and India, Education is literally the difference between Life and Death. When I hear students poking fun of Chinese students studying in the library, or International students in the library, those American students do not understand that those Chinese or Korean or whoever, will one day - to speak metaphorically - be growing our lunch, designing our lunch, building our lunch, eating our lunch, and then telling us how great our lunch tasted. In the meantime, American students rank their education somewhere between binge drinking and XBox/Wii/Lady Gaga.
Then, Americans, playing the role of the Winklevoss Brothers, will whine and complain about how they feel robbed, somehow oblivious to the fact that they had it within their power to do something different, to change, to brainstorm, to invent, to imagine.
Now, to say that Mark Z. stabbed his only friend, Eduardo Saverin, in the back is like saying Abraham Lincoln died of lead poisoning. People can act in ethical and moral ways. For some reason we can only guess at, Mark Z. trashed his friendship with Eduardo. I can only say that this points towards Mark Z.'s youth and immaturity.
In closing, I'm using "The Social Network" as a parable for our U.S. society and our approach to Education. That is my intent, anyway. Your education is your way of investing in your future. Do not invest in attitudes such as those exhibited by the Winklevoss Brothers (Epic Fail), and being vindictive, vengeful, ruthless, or whatever Mark Z. exhibited is not necessary, either.
While that may be a slight exaggeration - though, probably not, they simply have more people after all - there is a degree of truth in that statement.
CNNMoney, in July 2010, ran an editorial by Jeff Colvin, warning about the lack of emphasis on learning and education in the United States, versus China. I would also add to that India, too.
According to Colvin, in 2009 China graduated 10,000 Engineering Ph.Ds. The United State graduated about 8,000 Engineering Ph.Ds. Not bad, you say? Two-thirds of our 8,000 (5,300) were not U.S. citizens thereby taking that new-found knowledge back to their home countries. U.S. immigration policy actually encourages smart, non-native people to leave.
Furthermore, while American enrollment in the sciences is falling, the fastest growing majors are "Park & Recreation," "Leisure," and "Fitness." Not there is anything inherently wrong with any of those pursuits, and, hopefully, you can see where I am going with this. Americans are not actively pursuing hard sciences, those sciences that are required and necessary for a healthy and robust economy that helps provide our standard-of-living. Then, those people that actually are pursuing hard science degrees are leaving the United States to go work elsewhere. Some do manage to engage the bureaucracy long enough to enter into the United States.
From "The Social Network," we can also examine the characters of the Winklevoss Brothers. Did they have their idea stolen from Mark Z.? Something happened because in court, the brothers received $65,000,000 as a settlement. Scrutinize the attitudes of the Winklevoss Brothers, though. They were advised to move on, invent something else, develop a new idea - that is what Harvard is about, as stated by the Harvard President. They didn't. They wanted to play the victim. Sure, they got $65,000,000, but they contributed nothing. In my mind, they should have gotten $1. One dollar is typically the damages given to simply say, yes, I agree, Mark Z. lied to, misrepresented himself, but you contributed no money, no brain effort, and your idea versus his idea are simply to far apart for me to consider that he stole it.
In China and India, Education is literally the difference between Life and Death. When I hear students poking fun of Chinese students studying in the library, or International students in the library, those American students do not understand that those Chinese or Korean or whoever, will one day - to speak metaphorically - be growing our lunch, designing our lunch, building our lunch, eating our lunch, and then telling us how great our lunch tasted. In the meantime, American students rank their education somewhere between binge drinking and XBox/Wii/Lady Gaga.
Then, Americans, playing the role of the Winklevoss Brothers, will whine and complain about how they feel robbed, somehow oblivious to the fact that they had it within their power to do something different, to change, to brainstorm, to invent, to imagine.
Now, to say that Mark Z. stabbed his only friend, Eduardo Saverin, in the back is like saying Abraham Lincoln died of lead poisoning. People can act in ethical and moral ways. For some reason we can only guess at, Mark Z. trashed his friendship with Eduardo. I can only say that this points towards Mark Z.'s youth and immaturity.
In closing, I'm using "The Social Network" as a parable for our U.S. society and our approach to Education. That is my intent, anyway. Your education is your way of investing in your future. Do not invest in attitudes such as those exhibited by the Winklevoss Brothers (Epic Fail), and being vindictive, vengeful, ruthless, or whatever Mark Z. exhibited is not necessary, either.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
China's lock on market for rare earth elements: Why it matters - CSMonitor.com
China's lock on market for rare earth elements: Why it matters - CSMonitor.com: "
This article is from October 2010, Christian Science Monitor.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) also has a good, albiet not-free, article on rare earth metals.
See, nearly everything fun and good in the world, from your iPod, iPhone, iPad, laptop, Droid smartphone, those cool nighttime lights that line your walkway and are powered by solar cells, have some kind of rare earth metal involved in the product.
And most of those important rare earth metals are in China.
Or, conveniently enough, along the Congo River. Another great, easily accessible place, with no trace of corrupt governments or dangerous paramilitary groups for miles.
Sarcasm is hard to broadcast in a blog.
China currently has a lock on these materials. Can turn their supply on/off like tap water. Or, can manipulate their supply, and thus their cost, on a whim.
Therefore, finding alternate resources for these rare earth metals is crucial to future technologies.
This article is from October 2010, Christian Science Monitor.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) also has a good, albiet not-free, article on rare earth metals.
See, nearly everything fun and good in the world, from your iPod, iPhone, iPad, laptop, Droid smartphone, those cool nighttime lights that line your walkway and are powered by solar cells, have some kind of rare earth metal involved in the product.
And most of those important rare earth metals are in China.
Or, conveniently enough, along the Congo River. Another great, easily accessible place, with no trace of corrupt governments or dangerous paramilitary groups for miles.
Sarcasm is hard to broadcast in a blog.
China currently has a lock on these materials. Can turn their supply on/off like tap water. Or, can manipulate their supply, and thus their cost, on a whim.
Therefore, finding alternate resources for these rare earth metals is crucial to future technologies.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Can A Person Be a Patriot, Yet Also Act in Their Own Best Interest?
We all do this in our own best interest. We go to school, study subjects like Animal Health, Business, Chemistry. We study subjects we either like and think we can make a living at, simply like, or subjects we may not like much but know we are pretty good at because we know we can make a living at doing.
When we shop, most of us try to save money. Wal-mart makes a profit every year because people shop there expecting to find good values for their money, to stretch their dollars. Terms like, "Black Friday," and "Cyber Monday," have become commonplace because consumers know that they can get some awesome bargains during the Christmas season on those days.
Economically, we work to our best advantage. If Target has a Sony HDTV on sale for $450, and Wal-mart has the very same HDTV for sale for $425, and its not too much trouble to adjust your driving, chances are, you will visit Wal-mart and save the $25 bucks.
At both Target and Wal-mart, sitting right beside that Sony HDTV, is the RWB (red, white, & blue) brand of HDTV, made right here in the United States, with American labor. The RWB HDTV has everything that the Sony model has; they are identical in all technical regards. The RWB HDTV does not cost $425, or $450. The RWB HDTV costs closer to $1,000.
Why does it cost almost 100% more than the Sony? you ask.
Because it was made here, in the United States, with United States labor costs.
The question is, Would you buy that HDTV to keep an American employed? In other words, would your sense of Patriotism go so far as to sacrifice an additional $500 to keep a job in America?
People, Americans, voted with their family budgets, with their disposable incomes, opting for the less expensive foreign-made cars, trucks, vans, TVs, stereos, etc.
This is precisely what happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s. While our U.S.-made TVs and other devices were comparable in quality to foreign makes, they were not competitive in price. Prices differences were highly correlated with labor costs. Foreign countries had access to larger groups of people willing to work for much less money than American workers. And, Americans were glad to oblige these new brands, like Sony, Hitachi, Sanyo.
People, the ignorant, actually, say, Well, let's stop buying those products! Let's bring those jobs back to the United States! Let's put our people back to work! Let's put an import tax on those HDTVs from Malaysia!
This is what strikes me as odd. People adamantly oppose Socialism, but cry-out to the U.S. Government to protect American jobs. Worker protection is a fundamental Socialist ideology. Therefore, when people call for more protection for American jobs, they are actually advocating for Socialism. And, they do not see that, since most Americans seem ignorant of market forces, and knowledge of how the Free Market works.
Most any attempt to tariff, tax, or somehow impose a restrictive policy on products entering a country to protect workers is, by definition, Socialism. The government steps in to adjust prices away from market forces that maintain job security, employment, wages, essentially artificially raising prices, and keeping workers employed and factories open that would close, if market forces were able to work normally.
But, it's not fair, you say, those foreign people work for next to nothing! We can't compete against people that work for $10 a day!
No one said Life is fair. Is it fair that you live in the United States and have tremendous opportunities available, and they live in Viet Nam, or Cambodia, under Communist, or corrupt governments? That these people live nearly hand-to-mouth everyday?
If the Free Market determines that workers will migrate to employment for $1 an hour, then that is the price of labor. Do not expect to get paid $10 an hour for something that others will work a $1 an hour.
Agriculture in the United States discovered this, back in the 1950s. Few Americans wanted to collect tomatoes, lettuce, or tobacco. They consider such work too hard, too demeaning, or not worth the effort. Hence, America uses migrant farm workers to harvest. Migrant workers are trainable, willing to work for lesser wages, dependable, trust-worthy, and work hard.
Back to my point.
Acting in our own best interest protects our family, protects our finances, helps us budget our money, helps us stretch our money.
By acting in own best financial interest, I posit, we do not act in very Patriotic ways. Or, I might restate the argument this way: we do not act in the interest of our country very well. We are not willing to pay the true costs of products should they be produced in the United States, with a few exceptions, like large appliances, and automobiles.
I don't think people are as Patriotic as they would like to think they are. Furthermore, they have for more socialist tendencies than they would like to think.
When we shop, most of us try to save money. Wal-mart makes a profit every year because people shop there expecting to find good values for their money, to stretch their dollars. Terms like, "Black Friday," and "Cyber Monday," have become commonplace because consumers know that they can get some awesome bargains during the Christmas season on those days.
Economically, we work to our best advantage. If Target has a Sony HDTV on sale for $450, and Wal-mart has the very same HDTV for sale for $425, and its not too much trouble to adjust your driving, chances are, you will visit Wal-mart and save the $25 bucks.
Now, let's advance this scenario another way.
At both Target and Wal-mart, sitting right beside that Sony HDTV, is the RWB (red, white, & blue) brand of HDTV, made right here in the United States, with American labor. The RWB HDTV has everything that the Sony model has; they are identical in all technical regards. The RWB HDTV does not cost $425, or $450. The RWB HDTV costs closer to $1,000.
Why does it cost almost 100% more than the Sony? you ask.
Because it was made here, in the United States, with United States labor costs.
The question is, Would you buy that HDTV to keep an American employed? In other words, would your sense of Patriotism go so far as to sacrifice an additional $500 to keep a job in America?
We already know the answer to that, actually. And the answer is a resounding, No.
People, Americans, voted with their family budgets, with their disposable incomes, opting for the less expensive foreign-made cars, trucks, vans, TVs, stereos, etc.
This is precisely what happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s. While our U.S.-made TVs and other devices were comparable in quality to foreign makes, they were not competitive in price. Prices differences were highly correlated with labor costs. Foreign countries had access to larger groups of people willing to work for much less money than American workers. And, Americans were glad to oblige these new brands, like Sony, Hitachi, Sanyo.
People, the ignorant, actually, say, Well, let's stop buying those products! Let's bring those jobs back to the United States! Let's put our people back to work! Let's put an import tax on those HDTVs from Malaysia!
This is what strikes me as odd. People adamantly oppose Socialism, but cry-out to the U.S. Government to protect American jobs. Worker protection is a fundamental Socialist ideology. Therefore, when people call for more protection for American jobs, they are actually advocating for Socialism. And, they do not see that, since most Americans seem ignorant of market forces, and knowledge of how the Free Market works.
Most any attempt to tariff, tax, or somehow impose a restrictive policy on products entering a country to protect workers is, by definition, Socialism. The government steps in to adjust prices away from market forces that maintain job security, employment, wages, essentially artificially raising prices, and keeping workers employed and factories open that would close, if market forces were able to work normally.
But, it's not fair, you say, those foreign people work for next to nothing! We can't compete against people that work for $10 a day!
No one said Life is fair. Is it fair that you live in the United States and have tremendous opportunities available, and they live in Viet Nam, or Cambodia, under Communist, or corrupt governments? That these people live nearly hand-to-mouth everyday?
If the Free Market determines that workers will migrate to employment for $1 an hour, then that is the price of labor. Do not expect to get paid $10 an hour for something that others will work a $1 an hour.
Agriculture in the United States discovered this, back in the 1950s. Few Americans wanted to collect tomatoes, lettuce, or tobacco. They consider such work too hard, too demeaning, or not worth the effort. Hence, America uses migrant farm workers to harvest. Migrant workers are trainable, willing to work for lesser wages, dependable, trust-worthy, and work hard.
Back to my point.
Acting in our own best interest protects our family, protects our finances, helps us budget our money, helps us stretch our money.
By acting in own best financial interest, I posit, we do not act in very Patriotic ways. Or, I might restate the argument this way: we do not act in the interest of our country very well. We are not willing to pay the true costs of products should they be produced in the United States, with a few exceptions, like large appliances, and automobiles.
I don't think people are as Patriotic as they would like to think they are. Furthermore, they have for more socialist tendencies than they would like to think.
How Republicans, the Tea Party, and some Democrats Advocate for Anarchy
Frustration at the nearsightedness of the Republican Party and the Tea Party has pushed me into a literary corner, and writing about the not-so-obvious flaws in their respective platforms is the only way out of the corner.
Republicans and Tea Party supporters are fond of announcing that they are against "Big Government," and "over-regulation," and "over-taxation." What is Big Government? What is Over-Regulation?
First, what do I mean by Anarchy?
Anarchy is defined as the "lack of or freedom from government." Some sources also state that anarchy is "lawlessness and disorder due to the lack of authority." I personally make a distinction between "chaos" and "anarchy." They are not the same thing. With anarchy, rule by small groups can exist and thereby compensate for the lawlessness or disorder that many seem to equivocate for anarchy. Chaos, on the other hand, is clearly defined by lawlessness and disorder, with no element of organization.
Government needs to exist. A Federal Government needs to exist. Furthermore, a strong Federal Government needs to exist. But, Why? You might ask. I do not want the Federal Government in my business. Why should I be in favor of a Strong, or Big, Federal Government.
The Economic Traits of the Global Marketplace are not the same as those present in the 1950s. Yet, many in government, and many in everyday society carry on as if the year is 1951, and not 2011. The United States is no longer a Manufacturing Center of the World. In fact, many of the economic strengths enjoyed by the United States in the 1950s and 1960s have altered considerably.
The problem is, the United States has become entrenched in self-love and in doing so, has succumbed to a flaw suffered by many regimes, Historical Inertia.
Historical Inertia, put simply, is moving in the same cultural direction without affecting any change, or, not moving at all. No ability or flexibility to re-direct course, or move, for that matter. The Automobile Industry in the United States is perhaps the best example of Historical Inertia, and the episodes of mismanagement that permeates that industry.
Another egregious example is that of our Educational system. We test students, yet not the administration, or teachers. The American Federation of Teachers, as with other unions, protect ineffective teachers, protest against merit pay, and almost seem to work against producing an effective learning environment.
Government, in its best form, helps chart a future course for the betterment of the lives under its jurisdiction. The Government should pay attention to changes economically, politically, academically, and culturally, with a global perspective. The Government should research and analyze trends and develops to assist in the planning of effective policies and programs that ultimately lead to benefits for the people under their jurisdiction.
Individuals are simply not capable of doing that. You, me, the family next door - that is outside of our ability to contemplate and factor into our lives.
To keep our country abreast of changes, educated, knowledgeable, and employed, we need a Government that has the ability to research and promote effective policies that help the country maintain a healthy, robust, and competitive environment.
That Republicans and Tea Party supporters seem to favor "small government" and, especially the Tea Party, which seems to support greater powers for states and communities, is not only contrary to good national policy, but is potentially extremely injurious to the future of the United States.
For the United States to continue as a viable geopolitical power in the face of growing economic influence from China and India, our American society needs a plan. We need to have a singular vision. We need to be organized. We need goals, and be goal-oriented.
Republicans and the Tea Party, from their rhetoric, such as the Tea Party platform for the dissolution of the Department of Education, in essence advocate for the fragmentation of our Federal Government, and some of its powers, into state and local chunks, i.e. Anarchy. Education decisions should be made at the local level, the Tea Party platform supports.
Republicans balk at any mention of Federal Government involvement in technology, high-speed rails, or alternate fuel exploration.
Together, the two parties work against the development of a national vision, national goals, and a national drive to recover, sustain, and augment the work and efforts of those people from the 50s and 60s who helped make the United State what our country is today.
Republicans and Tea Parties, rather than work towards national goals, for education, technology, industry, and energy, want to hold onto the traditional views based on poor economic policy, and ignorance of the Constitution.
Their basic tenets, should any of the come to pass, may make people feel good as individuals. Individual U.S. citizens should they be availed to the changes that the Republicans would like to make, might feel more empowered, as local communities would have more power to implement change.
And, then, China and India will rule the world.
China and India will drive the world because people at the local level are nearly powerless to study events abroad, and to identify strengths and weaknesses of those international programs.
That fragmentation, this anarchy that I describe, reduces or would completely eliminate any competitive effort budding in the United States. And, we would never see the Chinese coming. Or India. Or any other global change for that matter. Moreover, we would be in no position to implement change on any level but local levels. After all, if we do away with Federal Government policy making bodies, like the Department of Education, and decisions are then made at state or local levels, then, at minimum, we could have 50 different education programs, rules, or policies. Each state could implement different policies to accommodate local diversity and local needs. Again, anarchy.
In the meantime, China is pushing more students through high schools and colleges, educating engineers, chemists, physicists, etc., using policies and procedures developed at the top, and pass down to colleges, universities, high schools, etc. Those students are already spend almost 2x more time in school K-12 than our kids do. Have more discipline. Earn higher grades.
And, I believe, both the Republican Party, and the Tea Party, have lost sight of the global big picture because they are pandering for votes and support.
Democrats, too, error on the other side of legislation. Democrats want to limit or restrict freedoms that have nothing to with national geopolitical goals, such as handgun ownership, and the levying of taxes that are simply nothing more than income redistribution, pandering towards the "poor," and providing crutches that allow able-bodied people to misuse taxpayer dollars.
Both sides, perspectives, are motivated completely out of self-interest, or some flawed sense of social honor, or a flawed sense of social justice.
Republicans and Tea Party supporters are fond of announcing that they are against "Big Government," and "over-regulation," and "over-taxation." What is Big Government? What is Over-Regulation?
First, what do I mean by Anarchy?
Anarchy is defined as the "lack of or freedom from government." Some sources also state that anarchy is "lawlessness and disorder due to the lack of authority." I personally make a distinction between "chaos" and "anarchy." They are not the same thing. With anarchy, rule by small groups can exist and thereby compensate for the lawlessness or disorder that many seem to equivocate for anarchy. Chaos, on the other hand, is clearly defined by lawlessness and disorder, with no element of organization.
Government needs to exist. A Federal Government needs to exist. Furthermore, a strong Federal Government needs to exist. But, Why? You might ask. I do not want the Federal Government in my business. Why should I be in favor of a Strong, or Big, Federal Government.
The Economic Traits of the Global Marketplace are not the same as those present in the 1950s. Yet, many in government, and many in everyday society carry on as if the year is 1951, and not 2011. The United States is no longer a Manufacturing Center of the World. In fact, many of the economic strengths enjoyed by the United States in the 1950s and 1960s have altered considerably.
The problem is, the United States has become entrenched in self-love and in doing so, has succumbed to a flaw suffered by many regimes, Historical Inertia.
Historical Inertia, put simply, is moving in the same cultural direction without affecting any change, or, not moving at all. No ability or flexibility to re-direct course, or move, for that matter. The Automobile Industry in the United States is perhaps the best example of Historical Inertia, and the episodes of mismanagement that permeates that industry.
Another egregious example is that of our Educational system. We test students, yet not the administration, or teachers. The American Federation of Teachers, as with other unions, protect ineffective teachers, protest against merit pay, and almost seem to work against producing an effective learning environment.
Government, in its best form, helps chart a future course for the betterment of the lives under its jurisdiction. The Government should pay attention to changes economically, politically, academically, and culturally, with a global perspective. The Government should research and analyze trends and develops to assist in the planning of effective policies and programs that ultimately lead to benefits for the people under their jurisdiction.
Individuals are simply not capable of doing that. You, me, the family next door - that is outside of our ability to contemplate and factor into our lives.
To keep our country abreast of changes, educated, knowledgeable, and employed, we need a Government that has the ability to research and promote effective policies that help the country maintain a healthy, robust, and competitive environment.
That Republicans and Tea Party supporters seem to favor "small government" and, especially the Tea Party, which seems to support greater powers for states and communities, is not only contrary to good national policy, but is potentially extremely injurious to the future of the United States.
For the United States to continue as a viable geopolitical power in the face of growing economic influence from China and India, our American society needs a plan. We need to have a singular vision. We need to be organized. We need goals, and be goal-oriented.
Republicans and the Tea Party, from their rhetoric, such as the Tea Party platform for the dissolution of the Department of Education, in essence advocate for the fragmentation of our Federal Government, and some of its powers, into state and local chunks, i.e. Anarchy. Education decisions should be made at the local level, the Tea Party platform supports.
Republicans balk at any mention of Federal Government involvement in technology, high-speed rails, or alternate fuel exploration.
Together, the two parties work against the development of a national vision, national goals, and a national drive to recover, sustain, and augment the work and efforts of those people from the 50s and 60s who helped make the United State what our country is today.
Republicans and Tea Parties, rather than work towards national goals, for education, technology, industry, and energy, want to hold onto the traditional views based on poor economic policy, and ignorance of the Constitution.
Their basic tenets, should any of the come to pass, may make people feel good as individuals. Individual U.S. citizens should they be availed to the changes that the Republicans would like to make, might feel more empowered, as local communities would have more power to implement change.
And, then, China and India will rule the world.
China and India will drive the world because people at the local level are nearly powerless to study events abroad, and to identify strengths and weaknesses of those international programs.
That fragmentation, this anarchy that I describe, reduces or would completely eliminate any competitive effort budding in the United States. And, we would never see the Chinese coming. Or India. Or any other global change for that matter. Moreover, we would be in no position to implement change on any level but local levels. After all, if we do away with Federal Government policy making bodies, like the Department of Education, and decisions are then made at state or local levels, then, at minimum, we could have 50 different education programs, rules, or policies. Each state could implement different policies to accommodate local diversity and local needs. Again, anarchy.
In the meantime, China is pushing more students through high schools and colleges, educating engineers, chemists, physicists, etc., using policies and procedures developed at the top, and pass down to colleges, universities, high schools, etc. Those students are already spend almost 2x more time in school K-12 than our kids do. Have more discipline. Earn higher grades.
And, I believe, both the Republican Party, and the Tea Party, have lost sight of the global big picture because they are pandering for votes and support.
Democrats, too, error on the other side of legislation. Democrats want to limit or restrict freedoms that have nothing to with national geopolitical goals, such as handgun ownership, and the levying of taxes that are simply nothing more than income redistribution, pandering towards the "poor," and providing crutches that allow able-bodied people to misuse taxpayer dollars.
Both sides, perspectives, are motivated completely out of self-interest, or some flawed sense of social honor, or a flawed sense of social justice.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
New Chinese Fighter Jet May Erase U.S. Air Invincibility - Newsweek
New Chinese Fighter Jet May Erase U.S. Air Invincibility - Newsweek
Let me ask you a question: how do you blow up a large boat, like an aircraft carrier?
"That is an inappropriate question," you might reply. The reality is, those questions have to be asked in order to anticipate the future. So, I'll ask that question again. "How do you blow up a large boat, like an aircraft carrier?"
There are a few ways. Have a bigger boat. Have more boats. Use jets.
Ships are expensive and vulnerable. Making more ships is also expensive. Jets are also very expensive. All require human interaction and human crews.
Many countries, most in fact, do not spend very much on their military. Not these days, any way. Not like the United States. Add up the military budgets of all countries in the world, and they will nearly equal what the United States spends on our military. Afghanistan and Iraq are not added into the general military budget. When those two actions are included, the United States spends about $750 billion on the military. In comparison, the United States federal government spends about 1/10th that amount on Education.
If China, or North Korea, or Iran wants to counter-act United States military supremacy, how best to do it? When a country's budget is best spent doing other things, how can a country develop a response to the United States military?
First, analysis of the opponent's inventory is mandatory. The U.S. has the world's most powerful navy, no doubt. Ships are vulnerable to two delivery systems. Shore or jet-launched missiles that hug the water are extremely hard to defend against. A missile, similar to a cruise missile, like the French Exocet missile used by the Argentinian navy against the British, are being developed and tested by the Chinese. The Chinese realize that they lack ship-v-ship superiority. A way to balance that score is by using missiles to disable or destroy aircraft carriers and support ships. This method is not news to our Navy and the Chinese conventional missile technology worries the DoD.
Small boats have the potential of disabling our ships, as seen in the Scorpion-v-USS Cole in Yemen. In a war game, the Millennium Challenge 2002, commission by our own DoD, changed the rules mid-contest, when a "significant" portion of the Blue Team (U.S. forces) were sunk by the Red Team (Middle East foes, probably Iran). Commanded by Marine Lt. General Van Riper, missiles coordinated with assaults by small fast boats, were able to decimate U.S. naval forces. The tactics used, called "swarming," were able to take advantage of fast small boats, missiles, and low-tech communication, to coordinate and attack a larger and technologically superior naval force, and wreck havoc.
The rules of engagement were changed by the war game oversight committee, as they did not think these swarming tactics were realistic. This decision made in spite of Iranian and Somali evidence to the contrary.
Back to the question. Use small fast boats. They are cheap. May not show up as a threat on radar. Can be disguised as tourists, "friendly" or non-combat units, or commercial. Add a missile capability. Or, as it Yemen, load them with explosives and radio-control them. China could develop thousands of these boats, give them a stealthy profile, and change the entire Pacific Theatre.
In conjunction with the manufacture of small fast boats, develop some prototype stealth fighters. As the article states, these jets will not be operational for about a decade. In 10 years, we will still be using F-22s, no doubt about that. Continued research is on-going in the U.S., for sure. Prototype to product takes years, though, and the next generation of jets could be 20 years away. What will that future be like? Unmanned fighters? Drone fighters? Swarm fighters? Only the future will tell.
One thing is for sure. The balance of power is shifting, little by little, in the Pacific.
Let me ask you a question: how do you blow up a large boat, like an aircraft carrier?
"That is an inappropriate question," you might reply. The reality is, those questions have to be asked in order to anticipate the future. So, I'll ask that question again. "How do you blow up a large boat, like an aircraft carrier?"
There are a few ways. Have a bigger boat. Have more boats. Use jets.
Ships are expensive and vulnerable. Making more ships is also expensive. Jets are also very expensive. All require human interaction and human crews.
Many countries, most in fact, do not spend very much on their military. Not these days, any way. Not like the United States. Add up the military budgets of all countries in the world, and they will nearly equal what the United States spends on our military. Afghanistan and Iraq are not added into the general military budget. When those two actions are included, the United States spends about $750 billion on the military. In comparison, the United States federal government spends about 1/10th that amount on Education.
If China, or North Korea, or Iran wants to counter-act United States military supremacy, how best to do it? When a country's budget is best spent doing other things, how can a country develop a response to the United States military?
First, analysis of the opponent's inventory is mandatory. The U.S. has the world's most powerful navy, no doubt. Ships are vulnerable to two delivery systems. Shore or jet-launched missiles that hug the water are extremely hard to defend against. A missile, similar to a cruise missile, like the French Exocet missile used by the Argentinian navy against the British, are being developed and tested by the Chinese. The Chinese realize that they lack ship-v-ship superiority. A way to balance that score is by using missiles to disable or destroy aircraft carriers and support ships. This method is not news to our Navy and the Chinese conventional missile technology worries the DoD.
Small boats have the potential of disabling our ships, as seen in the Scorpion-v-USS Cole in Yemen. In a war game, the Millennium Challenge 2002, commission by our own DoD, changed the rules mid-contest, when a "significant" portion of the Blue Team (U.S. forces) were sunk by the Red Team (Middle East foes, probably Iran). Commanded by Marine Lt. General Van Riper, missiles coordinated with assaults by small fast boats, were able to decimate U.S. naval forces. The tactics used, called "swarming," were able to take advantage of fast small boats, missiles, and low-tech communication, to coordinate and attack a larger and technologically superior naval force, and wreck havoc.
The rules of engagement were changed by the war game oversight committee, as they did not think these swarming tactics were realistic. This decision made in spite of Iranian and Somali evidence to the contrary.
Back to the question. Use small fast boats. They are cheap. May not show up as a threat on radar. Can be disguised as tourists, "friendly" or non-combat units, or commercial. Add a missile capability. Or, as it Yemen, load them with explosives and radio-control them. China could develop thousands of these boats, give them a stealthy profile, and change the entire Pacific Theatre.
In conjunction with the manufacture of small fast boats, develop some prototype stealth fighters. As the article states, these jets will not be operational for about a decade. In 10 years, we will still be using F-22s, no doubt about that. Continued research is on-going in the U.S., for sure. Prototype to product takes years, though, and the next generation of jets could be 20 years away. What will that future be like? Unmanned fighters? Drone fighters? Swarm fighters? Only the future will tell.
One thing is for sure. The balance of power is shifting, little by little, in the Pacific.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Privacy Concession: Facebook Agrees to Change 'Friend Finder' Feature - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
Privacy Concession: Facebook Agrees to Change 'Friend Finder' Feature - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International:
The world grows "smaller" and "flatter" in bits, small chunks, each and every day.
Take this article from der Spiegel International Edition. Facebook (FB) is a global social phenomenon. Myself, I have FB friends all over the world. Some of my FB friends find using FB convenient to stay in contact while abroad. Others find that using FB is not particularly reliable all of the time because some governments control access to the global social network.
Facebook, a U.S.A. company, is an international player within the telecommunication industry. Due to its international presence, Facebook is susceptible to legal and cultural forces around the globe. Users in Germany, for example, startled that Facebook would use their email accounts to encourage non-users to join, petitioned the German government to work on their behalf to encourage Facebook to alter the sharing of non-Facebook friends.
Perhaps in the interest of being a benevolent benefactor of social networking, Facebook modified its sharing procedures, due to influence in Germany.
In some ways, particularly privacy, Europe is more conservative than the United States. United States citizens tend to believe that European countries are more liberal, socialists, where everything is "grey" and there are no simple "black & white" issues.
Not true. Much of Europe is conservative, particularly when it comes to privacy. They express those conservative views in ways that are quiet, subdued, and respectful. For the most part. People mind their own business.
When a company comes along and violates that privacy, populations act accordingly, through the government, to institute change. Microsoft has complied in the past; Facebook is simply the latest technology company to listen to its user base.
The world grows "smaller" and "flatter" in bits, small chunks, each and every day.
Take this article from der Spiegel International Edition. Facebook (FB) is a global social phenomenon. Myself, I have FB friends all over the world. Some of my FB friends find using FB convenient to stay in contact while abroad. Others find that using FB is not particularly reliable all of the time because some governments control access to the global social network.
Facebook, a U.S.A. company, is an international player within the telecommunication industry. Due to its international presence, Facebook is susceptible to legal and cultural forces around the globe. Users in Germany, for example, startled that Facebook would use their email accounts to encourage non-users to join, petitioned the German government to work on their behalf to encourage Facebook to alter the sharing of non-Facebook friends.
Perhaps in the interest of being a benevolent benefactor of social networking, Facebook modified its sharing procedures, due to influence in Germany.
In some ways, particularly privacy, Europe is more conservative than the United States. United States citizens tend to believe that European countries are more liberal, socialists, where everything is "grey" and there are no simple "black & white" issues.
Not true. Much of Europe is conservative, particularly when it comes to privacy. They express those conservative views in ways that are quiet, subdued, and respectful. For the most part. People mind their own business.
When a company comes along and violates that privacy, populations act accordingly, through the government, to institute change. Microsoft has complied in the past; Facebook is simply the latest technology company to listen to its user base.
Low-tax states attract budget-conscious Americans | Reuters
Low-tax states attract budget-conscious Americans | Reuters
Interesting article.
Low-Tax states mentioned: Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Texas, and Michigan.
References: www.retirementliving.com & www.taxfoundation.com
The premise of the article is that one can save money by moving to another state and paying less in taxes. No doubt that can and does happen. But taxes are tricky economic tools, penalties - however you want to view them.
There are cigarette taxes, property taxes, investment taxes, state and local taxes, fuel taxes, retirement income taxes - all sorts of taxes. Nevada was said to be a low-tax state, but, by what measure? Nevada has one of the highest sales tax rates (6.85%). Depending on occupation, salary, and county-of-resident, the taxes paid could still be an issue. Pay less property taxes in one state, but personal property taxes and sales tax will make up for the lower property taxes.
The formula for tax-savings could therefore become very complicated.
Proponents of a national "flat-tax" focus on one aspect of a very complicated system of taxation.
Proponents of "no taxation, period" who also sometimes voice, "no taxation without representation," and, who also voice such ideas that taxes are unconstitutional - I think that these folks tend to follow Tea Party notions - seem to think that because the Constitution does not specifically state the specific areas where taxation is acceptable that no taxation is allowable. They seem to miss the point that the Constitution is a "living document." While many facets of government are not directly mentioned that does not mean that they cannot exist. The Constitution provides a means for government to conduct business as the government sees fit. Our duly elected members of Congress then provide the representative body required to manage the business of government.
Moving to avoid taxation is as American as Apple Pie, right? Besides religious freedom, and freedom of open discourse, freedom from unnecessary taxation was one of the motivational forces that led to Europeans moving to the New World.
On the surface, smaller taxes in neighboring states might seem attractive. Why pay property taxes of 6.8% in one state if the neighboring state has property taxes of 5.7%? Saving money on property taxes looks good on paper. That savings might be hard to calculate when the sales tax in the home state is 6% and the sales tax in the neighboring state is 9.2%. Now, which state is cheaper to live in?
The other consideration glossed over in the article are the services, the "value" you receive from the use of those tax dollars. Roads are costed, so is bridge maintenance, fire, police, E-911, garbage collection, etc.
Quantification of savings based on property value assessment from one place to another is pretty simple. Quantification of savings from other taxable entities is much different
Superficial costs and benefits are easy to see. Hidden costs, by definition, are not easy to see. Saving $13,000 in annual taxes says a lot about family size, living standards, and employment. Another family, with another means, might not have the same amount of cost savings. And, additionally, what are the trade-offs, or sacrifices?
Interesting article.
Low-Tax states mentioned: Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Texas, and Michigan.
High-Tax states mentioned: New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut.
References: www.retirementliving.com & www.taxfoundation.com
The premise of the article is that one can save money by moving to another state and paying less in taxes. No doubt that can and does happen. But taxes are tricky economic tools, penalties - however you want to view them.
There are cigarette taxes, property taxes, investment taxes, state and local taxes, fuel taxes, retirement income taxes - all sorts of taxes. Nevada was said to be a low-tax state, but, by what measure? Nevada has one of the highest sales tax rates (6.85%). Depending on occupation, salary, and county-of-resident, the taxes paid could still be an issue. Pay less property taxes in one state, but personal property taxes and sales tax will make up for the lower property taxes.
The formula for tax-savings could therefore become very complicated.
Proponents of a national "flat-tax" focus on one aspect of a very complicated system of taxation.
Proponents of "no taxation, period" who also sometimes voice, "no taxation without representation," and, who also voice such ideas that taxes are unconstitutional - I think that these folks tend to follow Tea Party notions - seem to think that because the Constitution does not specifically state the specific areas where taxation is acceptable that no taxation is allowable. They seem to miss the point that the Constitution is a "living document." While many facets of government are not directly mentioned that does not mean that they cannot exist. The Constitution provides a means for government to conduct business as the government sees fit. Our duly elected members of Congress then provide the representative body required to manage the business of government.
Moving to avoid taxation is as American as Apple Pie, right? Besides religious freedom, and freedom of open discourse, freedom from unnecessary taxation was one of the motivational forces that led to Europeans moving to the New World.
On the surface, smaller taxes in neighboring states might seem attractive. Why pay property taxes of 6.8% in one state if the neighboring state has property taxes of 5.7%? Saving money on property taxes looks good on paper. That savings might be hard to calculate when the sales tax in the home state is 6% and the sales tax in the neighboring state is 9.2%. Now, which state is cheaper to live in?
The other consideration glossed over in the article are the services, the "value" you receive from the use of those tax dollars. Roads are costed, so is bridge maintenance, fire, police, E-911, garbage collection, etc.
Quantification of savings based on property value assessment from one place to another is pretty simple. Quantification of savings from other taxable entities is much different
Superficial costs and benefits are easy to see. Hidden costs, by definition, are not easy to see. Saving $13,000 in annual taxes says a lot about family size, living standards, and employment. Another family, with another means, might not have the same amount of cost savings. And, additionally, what are the trade-offs, or sacrifices?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior - WSJ.com
All I have to say is, Wow, this article is brilliant.
Of course, Americans probably will not think so. Thank God, the population of the United States is only about 5% of the world's population, and not any more than that. That would require far too much Kool-Aid to go around, and make it far too easy to brain-wash large populations. We've become too soft, in many ways, as it is.
Coddled.
We've become a country of coddlers.
After World War Two, the country felt collective guilt about all the harm that had been committed against current and former generations, from a family stand-point. World War I, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and World War II left enormous psychic scars on parents and grandparents. Collectively, they were like, 'no more,' and sought to buffer their offspring from the Horrors of Life.
Make things easier for our Western-born children, make them feel better about themselves, they thought. Give them money if they lose their job, give them money if they have babies, give, give, give. Whatever you do, don't tell them they are stupid, or "garbage," don't make them feel different, don't make them feel bad. Give them guitar lessons, tell them to have fun. Who cares if you don't go to college, right? Have fun! Be happy! Run! Play!
In the meantime, half-a-world-away Chinese mothers are telling their children, "you're worthless; you are garbage." Chinese kids bring home a B on their report card, and their families shun them, and send them out to eat snow for dinner. Not really, but Chinese parents don't pull punches. Many of my international acquaintances have told me similar stories about growing up. Chinese Moms telling their sons, "you're fat. How you going to get a wife like that?"
Do their parents really feel those things? No. Why do they say such things? Motivation. Encouragement. Their parents know that the world is a place where success is directly related to education. Make your life better but struggling now, cut no corners.
Does this parenting model damage a child's self-esteem? Apparently not. When the child realizes that they can, in fact, do what their parents require - not ask, mind you - but require, not only are the parent's satisfied and that visible satisfaction is part of the child's reward, but, and more importantly, the child has proven to himself/herself that they were completely competent and capable.
Rather than tell their child, "honey, a C is okay, maybe next time we can do a little better," as if we are raising a little princess or prince whose disposition is too delicate to handle the real knowledge that a C sucks, and is just another way of saying, "you're average, you are a nameless face in the crowd," Chinese mothers sit down with their child and drill math and music into their child's head, in essence saying, "I will not raise my child to be a nameless face in a crowd. They will know their true power."
Stories like this are great. Anecdotal stories of cultural differences are challenging. Highlights of cultural differences, such as this story of parenting differences between Eastern and Western cultures, provide insight as to how cultures are different, and go some distance into explaining why.
Of course, Americans probably will not think so. Thank God, the population of the United States is only about 5% of the world's population, and not any more than that. That would require far too much Kool-Aid to go around, and make it far too easy to brain-wash large populations. We've become too soft, in many ways, as it is.
Coddled.
We've become a country of coddlers.
After World War Two, the country felt collective guilt about all the harm that had been committed against current and former generations, from a family stand-point. World War I, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and World War II left enormous psychic scars on parents and grandparents. Collectively, they were like, 'no more,' and sought to buffer their offspring from the Horrors of Life.
Make things easier for our Western-born children, make them feel better about themselves, they thought. Give them money if they lose their job, give them money if they have babies, give, give, give. Whatever you do, don't tell them they are stupid, or "garbage," don't make them feel different, don't make them feel bad. Give them guitar lessons, tell them to have fun. Who cares if you don't go to college, right? Have fun! Be happy! Run! Play!
In the meantime, half-a-world-away Chinese mothers are telling their children, "you're worthless; you are garbage." Chinese kids bring home a B on their report card, and their families shun them, and send them out to eat snow for dinner. Not really, but Chinese parents don't pull punches. Many of my international acquaintances have told me similar stories about growing up. Chinese Moms telling their sons, "you're fat. How you going to get a wife like that?"
Do their parents really feel those things? No. Why do they say such things? Motivation. Encouragement. Their parents know that the world is a place where success is directly related to education. Make your life better but struggling now, cut no corners.
Does this parenting model damage a child's self-esteem? Apparently not. When the child realizes that they can, in fact, do what their parents require - not ask, mind you - but require, not only are the parent's satisfied and that visible satisfaction is part of the child's reward, but, and more importantly, the child has proven to himself/herself that they were completely competent and capable.
Rather than tell their child, "honey, a C is okay, maybe next time we can do a little better," as if we are raising a little princess or prince whose disposition is too delicate to handle the real knowledge that a C sucks, and is just another way of saying, "you're average, you are a nameless face in the crowd," Chinese mothers sit down with their child and drill math and music into their child's head, in essence saying, "I will not raise my child to be a nameless face in a crowd. They will know their true power."
Stories like this are great. Anecdotal stories of cultural differences are challenging. Highlights of cultural differences, such as this story of parenting differences between Eastern and Western cultures, provide insight as to how cultures are different, and go some distance into explaining why.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
India Through a Birder’s Eyes
India Through a Birder’s Eyes - NYTimes.com
I am not a fan of birds. Yes, many are pretty, and have interesting calls. Some are highly intelligent, crows, parrots, and mynas, for example. Falcons are very cool, as are eagles and owls. I’m not against all birds, or bird species.
However, birds are mostly filthy animals, especially their excrement. Blech. There are probably other animals in the Animal Kingdom whose excrements are toxic. I can’t think of any animal whose excrement could cause a spontaneous abortion or cause birth defects. Cats – pregnant women cannot clean a cats litter box. Cats and birds.
Some species of birds migrate, move from place to place according to the season, and according to their reproductive cycle. Most bird species do not migrate. Kestrils, partridges, many tropical birds, and ptarmigans, to name a few, do not migrate. Some birds do not move more than a few miles from their birth, such as the Mute Swan, and the British partridge.
Many people enjoy bird-watching. I have gone bird-watching in Land Between the Lakes (LBL), and I am especially fond of hummingbirds. Land Between the Lakes is also a good place for bald eagle viewing. For more bald eagle viewing, Highway 3, a scenic highway that runs along the Mississippi River in Illinois, is a great place to watch bald eagles.
People attend bird-viewing activities and keep logbooks recording the date, time, species, and location of each siting. People travel throughout the United State hoping to catch site of that rare and elusive bird, chasing after a species much like people collect stamps, rocks, and minerals.
By traveling the globe, bird aficionados can enhance their collections. In Costa Rica, viewers could add several species of tropical birds.
In India, ample supplies of water, warm weather, habitat combine to provide a unique environment for hundreds of different species of birds. City parks provide opportunities for birders to come face-to-face with hornbills, ducks, and herons. Some of these birds make India home; others are on their way to some place else, stopping to rest, eat, and drink. Like tourists.
Geography can help explain migratory patterns, why birds choose certain routes, or why they choose certain areas to roost, or to procreate. Certain places on the earth are conducive for certain bird species, other are not. A penguin would not last long in Egypt. Penguins are unique to the Southern Hemisphere. To my knowledge, no penguins exist north of the Equator, except for those in zoos. Falcons work well in Egypt and the Middle East, but would not last in Antartica, or the southern coast of Argentina or Chile.
I am not a fan of birds. Yes, many are pretty, and have interesting calls. Some are highly intelligent, crows, parrots, and mynas, for example. Falcons are very cool, as are eagles and owls. I’m not against all birds, or bird species.
However, birds are mostly filthy animals, especially their excrement. Blech. There are probably other animals in the Animal Kingdom whose excrements are toxic. I can’t think of any animal whose excrement could cause a spontaneous abortion or cause birth defects. Cats – pregnant women cannot clean a cats litter box. Cats and birds.
Some species of birds migrate, move from place to place according to the season, and according to their reproductive cycle. Most bird species do not migrate. Kestrils, partridges, many tropical birds, and ptarmigans, to name a few, do not migrate. Some birds do not move more than a few miles from their birth, such as the Mute Swan, and the British partridge.
Many people enjoy bird-watching. I have gone bird-watching in Land Between the Lakes (LBL), and I am especially fond of hummingbirds. Land Between the Lakes is also a good place for bald eagle viewing. For more bald eagle viewing, Highway 3, a scenic highway that runs along the Mississippi River in Illinois, is a great place to watch bald eagles.
People attend bird-viewing activities and keep logbooks recording the date, time, species, and location of each siting. People travel throughout the United State hoping to catch site of that rare and elusive bird, chasing after a species much like people collect stamps, rocks, and minerals.
By traveling the globe, bird aficionados can enhance their collections. In Costa Rica, viewers could add several species of tropical birds.
In India, ample supplies of water, warm weather, habitat combine to provide a unique environment for hundreds of different species of birds. City parks provide opportunities for birders to come face-to-face with hornbills, ducks, and herons. Some of these birds make India home; others are on their way to some place else, stopping to rest, eat, and drink. Like tourists.
Geography can help explain migratory patterns, why birds choose certain routes, or why they choose certain areas to roost, or to procreate. Certain places on the earth are conducive for certain bird species, other are not. A penguin would not last long in Egypt. Penguins are unique to the Southern Hemisphere. To my knowledge, no penguins exist north of the Equator, except for those in zoos. Falcons work well in Egypt and the Middle East, but would not last in Antartica, or the southern coast of Argentina or Chile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)