Posts

A brief review of recent political history of Russia (according to me)

So in the early 90s something happened in Russia - the USSR fell and the country rejected the ideal of communism. Pretty much "organically" - there was never any allegation that this was somehow prompted by or orchestrated by anyone outside of Russia. The people of Russia have had enough and Gorbachev cracked the door open through which Yeltsin stepped to be the first democratically elected President of Russia. He was a popular President elected with outright majority of 58% of votes, 4 times that of the next candidate. During Yeltsin years there were 3 loci of power - the government, business broadly speaking which went on to become the "oligarchs" and organized crime, broadly speaking. It was the Wild East in which state assets were grabbed at throwaway prices by businessmen and criminals fought openly in the streets for control of parts of territory or segment of criminal activity. It was at times hard to tell where one of those stopped and others began, the 3 g…

In 1977 President Carter made a call to America to use more coal for energy

Image
It is always good to have a sense of perspective and without it we may repeat mistakes of the past.
Below is the link to an address to the nation by President Carter in 1977. A Democrat and some would say progressive at that. And a genuinely good person as evidenced by his life path after presidency. So he is by no means evil or a shill for corporate interests.
And in his 1977 address to the nation he calls for significant increase in use of coal for America's energy needs. He also says that by the end of 1980s, the world is going to run out of oil and gas in the sense that from that point on annual production is going to be on decline. He predicts solar and wind will become significant sources of energy for the US in the medium term.
So I repeat - he was not an evil person - this was the best information available to the President of United States at the time and certainly consensus of 97% of scientists too.
And yet, it was massively wrong. Nobody "predicted" the US sh…

Carbon-based life

As the sunset of fossil fuel era approaches perhaps we should give those (Fossil Fuels) their due and put things in perspective about Carbon.

With all the negative connotations around how "CO2 is bad, bad, bad" and that there should be a "tax on Carbon" (which I support), it seems that we have put aside the fundamental fact of life which is that carbon IS life. We are all carbon based lifeforms and until that first sentient computer emerges or we have a confirmed encounter with extraterrestrial intelligence (and if that life is not carbon-based), carbon means life. Without carbon, life would not exist.

And because we are carbon based lifeforms all, the formerly existing carbon lifeforms have given us, the current lifeforms, a gift of their own bodies concentrated into what we call oil and gas as energy resources. There is a beautiful Circle of Life at work here if you chose to see it.

We should appreciate this circle of life rather than wring our hands over how we hav…

We live in The Guilt Era

Everything seems to be about assigning guilt these days. Guilt must be seen as a motivating force or why else would it be held up so much as something that will presumably foster change? All these folks who traffic in guilt must think that this is effective.

If you are human, you are guilty already.

You are destroying the planet, causing other species to become extinct faster than ever. If you eat meat you are very guilty and even if you don't, plants apparently "know" that they are being eaten and besides, your agricultural practices are just causing permanent damage to things that you don't actually consume.

If you are older, you are certainly guilty for a whole lot of things - first of all, having lived for a while, you have accumulated a lot of guilt simply by virtue of being a human being and being destructive in that way. But also you are guilty of a lack of forethought in how you wasted resources and ruined the planet for generations to come. If you are over 50 y…

Taking your "emotional temperature" (or "emotional vital signs")

One of the most important "life skills" which nobody teaches us but is enormously helpful is to be able to take our own "emotional temperature". Or to assess our own "emotional vital signs".

How am I feeling exactly - am I anxious, afraid, tired, angry, content, disappointed, lonely, elated, frustrated.

The parallel to our physical health is pretty direct - in order to know "what is wrong" with us physically, the first thing everybody does is check your vital signs. Temperature, blood pressure, pulse, respirations. Just by doing a quick scan of those we can zero in on or eliminate a whole bunch of areas to look at.

Our emotional states are no different but we don't really approach them that way. We just go along when angry without doing anything about it or even realizing that it is the state that we are in. If you had high blood pressure would you go and do things to make it worse until the point where you collapse? Well if you don't me…

I have an idea how to save $50 Billion annually on healthcare - ban pharmaceutical advertising and "marketing"

There is no reason for us to be inundated with happy looking people in ads telling us how wonderful Invokana or Cymbalta are (followed by fine print of horrible potential side effects). There is no reason why I should have to know what Invokana does and does not do - this is not about being an "informed consumer". If I need Invokana, there is a professional whose job it is to tell me that and to understand precisely how and why Invokana is for me - that would be my Doctor.

Pharmaceutical advertising is nothing but an arms race - companies spend Billions for something that is completely unnecessary if only from one point in time everyone had to play under different rules. Tobacco company profits did not go down when cigarette advertising was banned - they went up because they saved on all that advertising expense. Pharma companies would not have less money to invest in R & D if they were not allowed to advertise - arguably they would have more.

At the same time the entire p…

Rich people do not "care about money" more than poor (or not wealthy) people do

Recent political developments revived debates of inequality and how "the rich are getting richer" and in those discussions a fundamental point of difference has been completely missed which is that rich people do not care about money more than people who have less of it.

Or to put it differently, once one achieves a certain level of wealth, the concerns of money in terms of making more of it become a much lesser relative concern than they were when they had little and had to "put food on the table".

This makes so much sense and yet it is widely accepted that the opposite is true - that a Billionaire will be focused on money more so than somebody who is short rent money this month. And where it gets really off the rails is in the implication that somehow, in terms of their behaviour, wealthy people will be willing to compromise morals, ethics and even the law in order to "get more money" and do so more readily than poor people.

The unexamined and unspoken …