Head for the Hills

Although I'm trying to cut back on random internet searches (to moderate success) I've allowed myself internet news, blogs, and my crossword puzzle.

Recently I went to Huffington Post and saw an article on the environment. The article basically summed up the UK MET office's findings that, without radical change in CO2 output, there's only a 50/50 chance that we can prevent global catastrophe by 2100. Now, we can argue about what catastrophe is, when it will hit, if it will hit, why it will hit, but overall my take on environmental concern is that we NEED TO DO SOMETHING.

The article avers that if the upcoming revision to the Koyoto Treaty does not ensure a worldwide reduction in CO2 output by 3% annually (and we're currently operating witha 3% increase in CO2) temperatures will certainly rise above 2C, the limit for healthy production of crops world wide. The article continues to predict degrees of temperature from 2.6C to 7C by 2100 depending on a timeline for CO2 reduction. What it failed to demonstrate, however, is the expected year that CO2 will increase to 2C if efforts to reduce the affects of global climate change are not implemented.

Do I believe the U.S. should decide to cut CO2, absolutely. I believe we should have a carbon tax for companies and individuals. Yes, our economy is struggling, but it's the perfect opportunity to reboot the system. But expecting businesses to make the change and then individuals seems a bit counterintuitive to me. All effective changes in U.S. policy have come from grassroots movements that drive large scale policy change.

According to the Earth Policy Institute and another organization I can't remember the name of (but know a scientest working there personally), to reduce enough CO2 necessary to produce a significant effect on global climate change, the U.S. actually needs to reduce CO2 emmisions by 80%. While individuals can only change a small portion of that percent, a movement of people could have a lasting impact.

If you can't imagine giving up 80% of your current use of energy combined (heating, cooking, showering, washing clothes, lighting the house, driving, buying boxed or canned goods, or taking vacations) it's not surprizing. Our entire way of life is dependant on energy. Even if we try to make changes that decrease energy consumption we end up using energy. Replacing a gas guzzler? Think of the energy used to create a new hybrid. Energy Star appliances, new windows? All good, but also have a production cost.

There is no way on God's green earth that we're going to be able to reduce CO2 by 80% by 2015 or by 2025 or 2035 for that matter. Pessimistic? I tend to think it's actually a case of realism.

What will happen is eventual famine due to the desertification of key areas of food production land. One article I read suggested that even with a reduction in CO2 the areas that we live in will feel more like areas 350 miles south of their current locations. Without change it will be more like 600 miles south. That would make Indiana's temperature (where I spent my high school years driving through corn fields) the same as in Mexico. While crops can and will grow in these conditions, fewer crops will grow and types of foods will need to change. The area in Mexico, however, will likely see increases in temperatures that will severely restrict crop growth. Food prices will increase with demand causing even those living in food giving areas to struggle financially.

My answer is food activism. Sure there are a lot of ways we could go with this problem, but I believe that changing where we get food has the largest single influence on CO2 emissions. If you buy locally produced foods, especially foods that are not processed or packaged and that are in season, not only are you eating healtier, but you're saving transportation costs, production costs, storage costs, and all the costs involved in recycling or moving garbage.

Changing our own demands for energy will hopefully affect the organizations that produce energy or energy using products. Need less, gain more. The only problem with that is fitting that all into the American Dream.

In the news

So, Chrysler is going to try to make good on production by introducing a MINI competitor. I'd like the idea if it wasn't that they're introducing a FIAT.

A Fiat?

My father had a Fiat when I was 5. It's actually one of my earliest memories. I remember him driving down the road to our house with the engine on fire. Literally driving while the car was in flames.

My mother says the car always was a tin can. My father says it ran while on fire.

Just in case..

Just in case you thought I was a comply lazy fart reading my last post I thought I'd mention that I did manage to stay busy.

- I cleaned my room down to re-organizing my drawers.

- I planted bulbs in the pots on our deck. I'd forgotten to do it on time and the earth was finally warm enough to dig into

- I went shopping and bought all the odds and ends we've been needing but I've been delaying buying (like cat litter, light bulbs, and dental floss).

Today I've managed to go to church, view a few open houses (no we're not buying yet, but I love open houses) and paid my bills.

I'm still bored.

What I don't want to do.

I can't exactly figure out what I want to do. There are tons of things I should do, and know I'd enjoy doing, but I can't get myself to want to do anything right now.

I don't want to clean my house. It's mostly tidy, but there's room for improvement. I really should tidy my desk and mop the downstairs.

I don't want to go skiing. Usually I like skiing, but this hacking cough won't go away, and I just don't feel like intentionally going out and getting cold.

I don't feel like shopping. I should go pick up some bread and milk, but I would need to walk to the store. It's actually a beautiful day outside, so I shouldn't mind the walk. I don't really want to spend money. Since I don't have a job I'm trying to be especially frugal.

I don't feel like sewing. I have a quilt I've been working on for about a year and the time to do it. When I think about pulling out the sewing machine all I think about is the fabric all over the place.

I don't feel like cooking. Yesterday I went on a cooking rampage and made biscuits and an experimental soup (that turned out more like a tomato based version of mac and cheese). I made homemade ice cream and waffles. I'd like to make homemade bread but so far I've failed all previous attempts and don't really feel like failing again right now.

I don't feel like reading. I have three books I'm in the middle of reading and not one of them appeals right now.

I don't feel like exercising. I know I need to, and I even enjoy a good workout, but I have no drive to go put on workout clothes and go to the gym, or do something at home.

I don't feel like applying for more jobs right now. I spent almost all day yesterday updating my resume and forwarding it on to different school districts. Each district has a different online application system, so I spent hours updating the same fields for different jobs...

Even though it's nice outside, I just want it to be spring, and warm enough for me to work in my garden or ride a bike. But since that's not an option, shouldn't I feel like doing something?! I have all these options, and the time to do them, but I'm just apathetic today. What the heck is wrong with me?! When I have a job all I want is time to do all of the things I've just listed. In addition, I don't want to sleep, eat, watch TV, play games, or go to the library. I've tried to think of ANYTHING that would tweak my interest, and I can't.

Getting By

Conservatives say I'm liberal. Liberals say I'm conservative. I don't know what I am, but I do know I don't like what's going on with the economy.

The idea of bail-outs. Do they really help the people who need help?

I read an article on MSN that followed the economic difficulties faced by three families earning $32,000, $60,000 and $400,000. While I feel bad for their situations, I can see some decisions that obviously led them to the position they're currently in. Although honestly, I don't know if I could have done any better than the single mother earning $32,000.

$32,000 woman got into trouble with the increase in gas and food prices in 2005. Her gas prices more than doubled each week and food also got more expensive. She had been saving up to buy a house, but wasn't able to save too much even when everything was going well. She had a car loan that ate into her budget at about $200/month.

While that's the American way, I can't help but wonder if Gerd is right that we should never get car loans. Save up, buy a car that's functional, keep saving and eventually buy a nicer, newer car I guess. The problem with that is reliability...do you really want an unreliable car when you have 3 children? I think not. I'd probably have done the same thing. BUT, since she was saving...paying off her car might have been a better budget goal for her. If she'd been able to pay the car off before the gas prices skyrocketted she could have been better off.

In the end, she came out alright, she did rack up about $1000 in credit card bills. Now that gas prices have gone down, she's reduced her debt to $600. She's still struggling to save however, because interest payments take a chunk of her extra money. Again, I think credit cards are evil. It sounds like the stimulus plal would be a great thing for her. She just needs a little extra money to get over the hump.

$400,000 couple actually has my sympathy. Now that I live in a city center I understand their decisions. Me, I would have moved to a different part of town at least, but I could see the argument not to... There priorities are: live in the city, eat organic healthy food, educate kids. Living in the city is a way of life. When Gerd lived in Back Bay I thought the house prices were outrageous and was glad we found a place in the south end. I can't publish the amount because he's sensitive about how much it is, but it's still a lot. A lot a lot. Anyway, we can walk to everything we need and take the T pretty much anywhere else. The only thing sweeter would be a job for him in the city.

So these people living in New York are not much different than the woman who earns $32,000/year. They could choose to make different priorities, which is the biggest difference, but due to their geographic location those choices would have extreme costs (two hours commuting each day is just one of them). BUT, they could move to the lower east side, or chelsea, or one of the other less expensive areas in Manhattan. They're holding out for their neighborhood. After leaving Back Bay (and realizing how nice that location really way) I can understand the hold out, but my bets are that they give in if the prices don't drop lower anytime soon. After all, places like the South End have their charm too (AND we have a very nice roof deck).

$60,000 couple I have NO sympathy for. They bought their house in 2001 for $135,000 (in California...how? I thought it was an expensive place to live?) and could afford payments (I'm guessing around $1200/month). The mother was pregnant with her 3rd child WHILE they were buying the house and they aparently did not calculate into their budget the cost of child care. Humm. Okay, so not the end of the world, maybe that was their wiggle room (I think they said it was $400/month).

Because they had 3 children, they decided to buy an SUV. That's right a gas guzzling SUV during 2003. Payments for this SUV were $400/month and gas prices went up an additional $150/month. Now we're looking at something like $950 more per month than what they had originally qualified for on their original loan. So, what did they do? They refinanced. Their payments went up to $1600. As they continued to struggle and rack up credit card debt they decided to refinance again. This time their payment went up to $2000/month, which was about half of their income. That means that $2950 of $4000 was slotted for bills before food, electricity, or anything else.

Throughout the article the family continues to say that the value of the house declined past the mortgage amount. What that means is that they couldn't bail on the house. Once their expenses were too great, they couldn't get out of it. Well, they could have taken a more responsible path and not needed to bail on the house. As far as I'm concerned, this family did it to themselves.

Am I being judgemental, yes. I got paid $24.90 for two hours of substitute work last week. I have no problem paying taxes, but I think some clear criteria should be designed for fiancial assistance. I'd give all $2.10 cents in taxes I made to the woman with 3 children, but not a dime to the family who decided they needed an SUV and then defaulted on their mortgage.

An Epidemic

Apparently I'm a part of an epidemic.

The flu that is currently going around the Boston area is the talk of the town...why...because everyone's got it. Lung congestion and sinus congestion that won't seem to go away.

Generally I try to avoid doctors. I'm not really sure they can help with anything other than perhaps broken bones. But, before I went to Iraq I was diagnosed with latent TB. Latent TB means that at some point I was exposed to Tuberculous and I fought it off. I do not have it, but TB only goes into remission and could come back at any time. Nobody can catch it if I'm in a remission state, but there's nothing to guarantee that's the way I'll stay (at least until I go through a year long treatment plan).

So after 5 days of hacking away with coughs so bad the neighbors can hear me through the walls I figured maybe I'd better get looked at. When I did go to the doctor she said there was nothing that made her believe I had anything other than the flu that's been going around. That's good news, but could she really tell that by listening to my breath? When I teach every year I have to go get a chest x-ray to show that my lungs are clear.

I wanted to hear if a) it was the flu b) if was possibly allergies (because I've had flu like reactions to allergens before) or c) it was TB. She said it was most likely the flu and prescribed allergy medicine. Why did she prescribe the allergy medicine? If it's a virus, why give me drugs?

At least I know I'm not alone. I wasn't aware there was a flu epidemic in the region. I don't work, so I don't have interaction with that many people. The snow has created snow days for schools, so no substitute jobs have come up, and while I do volunteer, only two people have been sick, and they're the type that are sick when it's convenient to be sick (usually).

What I'd really like to know is if there's anything I can do to get rid of this terrible cough. The student nurse practitioner was the only one to give me any realistic advice. Take Robitussin, she said. And I will. But I'm wondering if I should just head over to a naturopathic clinic to see what kind of alternatives they might have. It seems like it could hardly be any worse that what I've already been told. In the mean time I'm doing the same thing I've always been told to do when sick. Drink lots of water, get a good night's sleep, and take tylonol for any pain. I'm just looking forward to when that will actually work...

Should She Serve

Internet surfing, that I'm not supposed to be doing, has led me to the woman who reported for active duty with her children, and the comment trail that followed.

Some comments said she shouldn't serve, others said she should, some said she should serve stateside, and many said she should have planned to have children after her commitment was complete.

I say, it's a complex issue. In November, 2003 I had 5 more months to serve in the military. I scheduled my wedding for June 26, 2004, which was one month AFTER my enlistment was due to be completed. In January 2004 I got 18 month orders for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now, I can agree that I should have to serve from January to April (my final days in the military) but my time was extended beyond my contractual obligation.

If the army is going to go changing contracts around, they should have a bit of flexibility for people whose life circumstances change. When you sign up, it's an 8 YEAR commitment. Who the heck knows what will happen in 8 years! If you're 18 when you sign up I doubt you even consider what a parent would go through having to leave their child behind for a year spent at war. There's a big difference between 18 and 26.

We're supposed to have a volunteer army, which should be a good thing. The backdoor draft is no joke however. Stop Loss is a program that doesn't allow you to leave the military. You're too valuable to be let go. If you're not allowed out, how is that voluntary?

If the army can't get enough people interested in going to fight, then we shouldn't be fighting in the first place. Many reservists are on their 3 or 4th tour by now. Active duty is even worse. People have used this to justify keeping people in or pulling people back who have completed their obligations. Why shouldn't they share the workload?

Well, because if you want people to stay in and continue to serve you don't treat them like pieces of equipment. Actually, equipment gets more consideration than soldiers do. At least equipment is regularly examined to see if it's still serviceable or if any problems have developed.

I have little patience for people who are qualified to go downrange and who avoid deployment when they have no justified reason. One girl I worked with was extremely qualified to go but actively avoided deployment because she didn't want to be placed at risk. No children, still within her active 6 years of service, and she joined the Army AFTER we were already at war.

I think there's a failing on the part of the Army though. If people recognize that they don't belong in the Army they should be allowed out. I'm not saying leave a big loophole that allows you out of war if you're scared, but if you're personality is just not right for the military you should be medically boarded out.

If a woman gives birth after her active years of service and has the typical two years of inactive service left over I can see the argument that she should serve. Technically she's still in the army. The problem with that is that now she's leading a civilian life. Her life has changed and she's supposed to be called up only in case of national emergency.

At the very least there should be more stateside positions that can be taken over by soldiers in this predicament. There are people actively avoiding deployment and they should be ousted if they don't have a real reason for staying stateside.