The Intersection of Politics and Science

I've been trying not to blog about Al Gore and the peace prize as it's old news at this point, but today the following story crossed the newswires, and once again he was on my mind:

Al Gore Joins Venture Capital Firm To Focus On Clean Tech

SAN FRANCISCO (AP)--Nobel Peace Prize winner and former vice president Al Gore announced Monday he is joining a Silicon Valley venture capital firm to guide investments that help combat global warming.
Gore will join Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as it and dozens of other venture firms headquartered in Silicon Valley expand beyond software, computer hardware, the Internet and biotechnology to so-called "clean-tech" investments worldwide.
Gore is expected to be a high-profile, active partner at Kleiner Perkins. He is already a senior adviser to Google Inc. (GOOG) and a member of the board at Apple Inc. (AAPL). Alliance for Climate Protection, the advocacy group he co-founded, is based in Palo Alto.
Also Monday, Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr announced he's joining the advisory board of Generation Investment Management, the $1 billion investment firm that Gore founded with David Blood, who previously managed $325 billion in assets out of Goldman Sachs' (GS) London office.
Gore said in a statement that he'll donate 100% of his salary as a Kleiner Perkins partner to the Alliance for Climate Protection, which focuses on accelerating policy solutions to the climate crisis.

To his many disciples, the fact that Al Gore recently won half of the Nobel Peace Prize only serves to reinforce and legitimize what they already knew and have been endlessly bleating about: "The end is nigh! Curb your CO2 emissions or suffer the wrath of Gaia!"

Or something to that effect.

The first thing that cynically occurred to me upon hearing the news of his big win was that the Nobel committee must have been fresh out of science prizes. Man-made global warming is supposed to be all about science after all, isn't it? So why would he win the peace price?

It may be worth recalling that the 5 member committee that chooses the winner of the peace prize is itself nominated by the Norwegian parliament. This means that the peace prize winner is selected in a purely political process. That's all fine and well, but when science and politics mix, you can bet the farm which will trump the other (hint: it ain't science that comes out on top).

The following press release is from the Nobel prize website:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Nowhere is a delineation drawn between what is man-made and what is naturally occurring. That is because it is impossible to do. I have not waded through all of the IPCC report, but I understand it is not as one-sided to Gore's bias as global warming fear-mongers would have us believe. We're celebrating their courage in laying the foundations to counteract change. Counteracting an unquantifiable amount of change on this scale seems like an exercise in futility to me, especially when change is as natural as life and evolution itself.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Notice how many times the word "may" is used in that paragraph. Of course, the opposite of may is may not; as in many of these apocalyptic forebodings may not happen at all. Justification for taking action now against an unknown quantity is defended by citing the precautionary principle, which is defined as:"...a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."

Without acknowledging that science does not need consensus, the whole global warming debate is so hopelessly politicized that there will never be a scientific consensus. Since there's no consensus, those that advocate taking action against global warming are burdened with proving it's real, and that it poses an imminent danger. That explains the junk science used to justify acting now. But how many times have we heard from Al Gore himself that the debate is over, and there is in fact a scientific consensus concerning global warming?

I've got news for the Nobel Committee--wars for resources have been happening since, forever.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

As I already stated, real science has no need for consensus. Either something is verifiable using the scientific method, or it is not. In fact, If the science is so convincing, why are we talking about the peace prize right now?

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

In the preceding paragraph we're told that the 1990's produced firmer evidence to support man-made global warming. Al Gore was Vice President of the United States of America for 8 of those years. Does anybody recall anything he did during those years to combat this imminent threat--aside from make a symbolic attempt to get the U.S. to sign on to the Kyoto Accord in 1997--a treaty that our Congress said they'd not sign?

He in fact may be the single individual who has done the most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that "need" to be adapted to combat man-made global warming. If true, he's achieved this feat largely by using dishonest fear-mongering scare tactics. That's nothing to be proud of. For this he's earned the peace prize.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.


Oslo, 12 October 2007

Protect the world's future climate--like it's a spotted owl or some other endangered species. The last sentence is my favorite; it reveals the underlying hubris that motivates the man-made global warming agenda pushers.

Back to the big news, Mr. Gore joining Kleiner Perkins.

I am wondering what Kleiner Perkins stands to gain from making Mr. Gore a partner? They're wildly successful in their own right, after all. His name certainly has billboard appeal, but the VC world exists mainly in the fine print of the business page, so cache is generally not part of their charter. I am sure they'd be able to spot the next big thing in green energy without him, since they're very good at what they do. If campaign donations are any indication--and they are--Wall St. and "big business" in general are betting heavily that the Democrats will take the White House next year. I'll be waiting to hear the deafening silence from our good left-leaning citizens who make big business-bashing part of their daily routine, when it's big business funding their side of the aisle.

The fact that he's donating his salary to a favorite enviro-hippie charity should not be treated as evidence of his selfless nature. VCs don't make most of their money off their salaries, they make their fortunes instead on "carried interest" -- a share in the profits from their investments -- and management fees. Recently there's been chatter about changing the tax code to treat hedge fund and VC gains in the same manner as corporate earnings are treated. So far, Charles Schumer, the other Democratic Senator from New York, has successfully blocked this legislation at the behest of the HF/VC industry.

I am betting that making Mr. Gore a partner is a business hedge. John Doerr, a PK partner, has been and remains a big supporter of the Democrats, so it makes sense. Mr. Gore can surely provide a hefty amount of influence on Capitol Hill.

Tom Perkins recently designed and built the largest and most expensive sailing vessel in the world, the Maltese Falcon. To say that it is an impressive sail boat is a wild understatement. Maybe Mr. Gore is finally going to swear off private jet travel--for the sake of the environment--and traipse the globe aboard the Maltese Falcon.

Three things need to happen before I take seriously the proclamations of the man-made global warming crowd:

1) Politicians and movie stars need to stop traveling in private jets, helicopters and large limousines and instead fly coach (OK they can fly first class) and take the bus like they advocate for the rest of us.

2) Barbara Streisand surrenders her Malibu home to the rising tide; and the price of beach front property worldwide needs to plummet in general.

3) Self-proclaimed environmentalists need to present solutions to problems that don't conform to their preconceived biases.

I've been of the mind that conservation and developing alternative energy sources are good ideas long before Mr. Gore made it fashionable; and I believe the solutions to our energy problems will come about not from punishing people for the way they live, but from innovation germinated and nurtured in places like Silicon Valley. So from that perspective, I am happy to hear that Mr. Gore is joining the VC world. Perhaps it is his first step away from his fantasy world of misleading bar charts and killer powerpoint presentations.

Now, if he'll just shut up.

UPDATE 11/20/07: The Wall Street Journal has an editorial piece today that more eloquently captures the gist of my post.

X-Con

I don't know why, but today is the second time in a week that Douglas Coupland's 1991 book, Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture, has come to my attention. I first read it 16(!) years ago; and though I do not remember many of the specifics of the novel, I do remember later thinking that it captured the zeitgeist of the age rather well.

My politics do not fit any specific mold: fiscally conservative (you want it you pay for it), socially liberal (marry a goat and a sheep while dressed up like Harry Potter as long as it's consensual, just be good to them both), and a foreign policy hawk (act in your national self interests or else you'll be a slave to a nation that does).

I'd consider myself a Republican if they had not abandoned fiscal responsibility; I might consider myself a Democrat if they ever did anything other than whine and chip away at the foundation of our nation (so never mind about ever being a democrat); I'd consider myself a Libertarian if they weren't so isolationist.

I don't even know how I found this particular blog, but today there's an excellent post titled, X-Cons: The Conservative Mind of Generation X

X-CON!

A Generation X Conservative...Perhaps I've found my niche...Let's dissect each paragraph:

Talk radio has had the most profound impact in shaping their political sensibilities. Just as William F. Buckley, Jr. shaped conservatism in the 1950s, Rush Limbaugh shaped the conservatism of X-Cons in the '80s and ‘90s. Limbaugh provided not only the content but the style in which these conservatives would engage in political discourse – assured, confrontational, snarky. Talk radio taught the X-Cons to appreciate confirmation of one's own political views. Arguments needn't be persuasive if you know not only that you are right and your opponent is wrong but also that you are right and they are wrong-headed.

With confirmation came a sense of (virtual) community and a realization that a PhD in Political Science wasn't required in order to express a valid opinion on politics. Imbued with a sense of confidence from a young age, X-Cons grew comfortable expressing themselves—calling into radio shows (or simply talking back to the radio) and later in written forms, such as blogs.

I've probably listened to Rush Limbaugh, and talk radio in general, a total of 2 min and 30 seconds over the course of my life, so I can't really say that it's been a factor in shaping my political sensibilities. However, there's NPR which I listen to regularly, but that's only because I find great sport in identifying their snarky liberal bias disguised as informed intellectual opinion; and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer is good. I'll agree that blogs are a great way to express oneself.

***

X-Cons tend to be vehemently pro-Israel and warm toward the Jewish people. Oddly, they also have very limited actual knowledge about Jewish culture or modern Israel. Their ideas about the Jewish people are mostly based on what they've read in the Bible or seen in documentaries about the Holocaust.

"Vehemently" might be too strong a word, but I am certainly pro-Israel inasmuch as it has a right to exist as a nation. I probably know more about Jewish culture than the average non-Jew; I lived in NYC and Boca Raton for a while afterall and count a handful of Jews as close friends today. I even dated a few Jewish girls in college, but I digress...

***

Having either grown-up in a broken home or had friends who did, X-Cons recognize the value of traditional family structures. They may not always be successful in building permanent relationships themselves, but they value the bonds of family more than the previous generation.

Broken home, I know all about that. Statistically I should probably have 8 illegitimate children and a rap sheet as long as my leg. Fortunately I am smarter than that, and I recognize the value of the traditional family structure in a way that only somebody who did not grow up in one can.

***

Irony is one of the most pervasive traits in Gen X culture. Not surprisingly, this has affected the outlook of X-Cons. For example, they tend to be ambivalent about heroes. While they have an intuitive understanding of the need for virtue and heroism, they are too realistic and/or sarcastic to put their trust in politicians or statesmen. Instead, they prefer to champion ideas themselves rather than relying on fallible leaders.

I think "hero" is an overused word. Heroic acts occur every day, and most go unnoticed. I've never made the mistake of calling a politician a hero, and I have little faith in the power of politicians beyond furthering their self-interests. Sometimes they happen to align with their constituency, and they come out looking like "heroes"; though one should not be considered a "hero" when one merely does one's job.

***

In theory, X-Cons have a preference for federalism and state's rights. In actuality, they prefer to focus on the national level rather than on local and state politics.

Disagree. All politics are local. What works at the national level does not always work at the local level, but I agree with the Framers' intent that the states should be the laboratories for federal legislation.

***

X-Cons are often apathetic about flag-burning and displays of the Ten Commandments. They also don't remember when prayer was in schools and never paid much attention to the words “under God” in the pledge. Although they express an ironic detachment from the standard symbols of civil religion, they remain fiercely patriotic. Curiously, though they don't get goosebumps upon hearing the Star Spangled Banner, they are often stirred by patriotic kitsch such as Lee Greenwood's “God Bless the USA.”

I agree, but I wouldn't say I'm apathetic about flag-burning. While it's within a citizen's rights to burn the flag, I would feel completely justified in exercising my right to bludgeon them with a flag pole afterwards.

***

Unlike previous generations, X-Cons do not associate conservatism with the East Coast preppie-class Republicanism. WFB, Jr. and George Will may still command respect, but they are considered eccentric curiosities rather than the exemplars of conservative intelligentsia. X-Cons associate such elitism with liberalism and consider the GOP, rather than the Democrats, to be the party of the “little guy.”

Yup, this is especially true in San Francisco, where the GOP really is the party of the "little guy." By little I mean in the minority.

***

X-Cons are extremely religious in a “mere Christianity” sort of way. Their political views are shaped by their theology but they are willing to cross theological lines when it comes to political alliances. They tend to be either Catholic-friendly evangelicals or evangelical-influenced Catholics.

Disagree. Though I grew up in an evangelical home, I could hardly be labeled as "extremely religious" today. I respect people's right to worship an ice cube if they want; as long as it doesn't interfere with my right not to. I believe religion is best kept a private affair between you and God.

***

They have an ambivalent attitude toward pop culture. They recognize the corrosive impact that race-to-the-bottom media can have on society. Yet they are as likely to listen consume media as the rest of society. They may rail against the worst of it; but they will be intimately familiar with what they are criticizing.

Agreed. There's nothing good to come from seeing Britney's bald beaver grimacing while she climbs out of a sports car; and its certainly not something I wish to be intimately familiar with.

***

X-Cons consider it axiomatic that that “mainstream media” has a liberal bias and that it must be subverted rather than reformed.

Outside of sports and weather, I think it should be mostly ignored rather than subverted.

***

On matters of economics, X-Cons believe they stand on an indubitable foundation. They grew up in an era when socialism and communism where discredited as economic models, leading them to believe that free-market capitalism is not just preferred but the only route to freedom and prosperity. X-Cons believe that if liberals would only take a class on economics that they would see the light and repent of their collectivist ways.

I most certainly agree. The fact that many liberals know nothing about economics, and even take certain pride in their ignorance, rarely stops them from spouting off about all things economic.

***

Like others from their generation, X-Cons are not “joiners” in the typical sense. They are often more motivated to align in opposition than join in agreement. X-Cons vote for Republicans not because they agree with the GOP's platform (a document they've never read) but because they have a deep disdain for the views of Democrats.

Again, I agree. I would not be so disdainful of Democrats if: a) they learned the difference between loyal opposition and active subversion; b) They did not preempt everything they do with, "let's donkey-punch Bush." Childish, not to mention dangerous.

***

X-Cons are often “Goldwater conservatives”, holding views that are more individualistic than historical conservatism. They also tend to be "cafeteria libertarians", picking and choosing certain areas without fully embracing the libertarian ideology. They may, for example, be in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana while opposing the legalization of prostitution.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's a shame that the GOP seems to be Republican in Name Only (RINO) these days. They mostly resemble Democrats if the enlargement of government over the past 7 years is any indication; and the first party that successfully does away with our ridiculous, wasteful "war on drugs" will be the one I support.

***

And lastly...

X-Cons are pragmatic idealists. They have strong faith in religion, small government, and the free market. Yet they are not Utopian and have no illusions that politics will make life much better (though they believe government can make it much worse).

I agree, except for the strong faith in religion part, though it must be remembered that the name of the blog I am quoting from is called, "The Evangelical Outpost". I do believe that faith--in anything really--is an important part of the human condition. Without it, we're reduced to nihilism. But please people, keep your faith to yourself, and I'll do the same.

Care for a shag?

Globally Men Average 13 Sexual Partners, Women Seven

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Following are the results of a
survey of 26,028 people on sexual practices conducted by
Harris Interactive on behalf of Durex.

Men have had more sexual partners than women in every
country surveyed with the exception of New Zealand, where
women average 20 partners compared to 17 for men. The
following results are for heterosexuals only:

Country	Men		Women			Difference
Austria	29		17			12
Russia	28		17			11
Greece	28		10			18
Brazil	27		11			16
Australia	25		10			15
Switzerland	24		14			10
Canada	23		10			13
Spain	21		8			13
Italy	19		7			12
South Africa	18		7			11
New Zealand	17		20			-3
Germany	17		9			8
France	17		7			10
UK	16		10			6
Netherlands	14		8			6
Japan	14		8			6
Mexico	14		6			8
Hong Kong	14		4			10
USA	13		9			4
Poland	12		5			7
Thailand	12		2			10
Nigeria	9		3			6
Malaysia	9		2			7
Singapore	8		3			5
India	6		2			4
China	4		2			2
Global average	13		7

NOTE: The survey was conducted from Aug. to Sept. 2006.

On average worldwide:
Heterosexual men have had 13 female partners.
Heterosexual women have had 7 male partners.
Homosexual men have had 108 male partners.
Homosexual women have had 11 female partners.
Bisexual men have had 21 male and 14 female partners.
Bisexual women have had 13 male and 3 female partners.

I don't know about you, but I wonder if the fact that New Zealand has more sheep than people has anything to do with the fact that the women there have more sexual partners than the men? If only the sheep could talk....

The data on homosexuality is interesting. It's been widely publicized that men think about sex on average every six minutes, so it should come as no surprise that homosexual men have far more partners than heterosexual men. Also interesting is that bisexual men prefer men, and bisexual women also prefer men. It would seem that ya just can't beat a good ol' fashion rogering.

Something worth considering when looking at this data is the conventional wisdom that says men generally overstate the number of partners they've had by a factor of three, and women understate the number of partners they've had by the same factor. Ah you promiscuous hussies--we love you!

In case you were wondering who has sex the most often, wonder no longer:

Greeks Have the Most Sex, Japanese the Least

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- Greeks have the most active sex
lives while Japanese are the least active, according to a
survey conducted by Durex.
The survey found that 87 percent of respondents in Greece
have sex weekly while only 34 percent of those in Japan
reported having sex weekly. Greece has one of the lowest
birth rates in the world according to World Bank data.
The survey questioned 26,028 people, of which 22,040 were
non virgins, in 26 countries. Following is a table based upon
the latest report:

Country	% of respondent having sex weekly	Birth rate per 1,000
Greece	87%	9
Brazil	82%	20
Russia	80%	11
China	78%	12
Poland	76%	9
Italy	76%	10
Malaysia	74%	22
Spain	72%	11
Switzerland	72%	10
Mexico	71%	19
South Africa	71%	24
Austria	70%	10
France	70%	13
India	68%	24
Germany	68%	9
Thailand	65%	16
Netherlands	63%	12
New Zealand	63%	14
Hong Kong	62%	7
Singapore	62%	10
Australia	60%	13
Canada	59%	10
UK	55%	12
Nigeria	53%	41
USA	53%	14
Japan	34%	9

Interestingly, the Greeks have the most sex and one of the lowest birthrates. Either they take their contraceptives very seriously, or there's a kernel of truth to the old joke, "how do you separate the Greek men from the boys?" (answer: with a crowbar)

Let's look at China for a moment shall we? The survey says the average man has 4 partners and the average women 2, yet the second dataset puts them near the top in frequency of sex per week at 78%. Sounds like the ladies might be getting a better work out than they're telling us.

What's going on with the Japanese? I have a feeling they're not quite telling the whole truth. My wife (then girlfriend) and I traveled to Japan about 8 years ago, and based on the number of "love" hotels where you could rent virtually any kind of fetish room imaginable by the quarter hour, I'd have guessed that sex was on the menu for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Whether or not Mrs. Myagi was involved is another question altogether, and may be why the number is so low. Conversely, the answer may have been found in those creepy vending machines where you could buy teenage girl's used underwear, but this practice was unfortunately outlawed some time ago; or maybe it was just forced underground. Either way, I imagine putting a pair of pre-owned "hello kitty" thong undies over your head and breathing deeply in between sake bombs would go a long way towards dulling the urge to "service" Mrs. Myagi after an 18 hour day at the office.

Conspicuously absent from the survey are any Scandinavian countries; specifically Sweden. Everybody knows the Swedes screw like we shake hands. I'll wager they were too busy getting "busy" to answer a silly survey.

The Study of War

War has been apart of humanity since man first delineated an "us" which in turn created a "them." Despite the yearnings of pacifists and those that feel we should by now be able to transcend war and all live together on a higher plane of harmonious consciousness, war remains as real as its ever been. Unfortunately, most people's understanding is limited to images on CNN or sensationalized stories read in the newspaper. In other words, it doesn't go very deep. It's not a pleasant subject, so one can be forgiven for not wanting to think too much about it. Because ours is an all-volunteer military, it is not even necessary for the average citizen to acknowledge a change in their lifestyle or make any sort of day to day sacrifice when war rears its ugly head.

Victor Davis Hanson has an outstanding piece in the City Journal this month titled, "Why Study War?"

It’s no surprise that civilian Americans tend to lack a basic understanding of military matters. Even when I was a graduate student, 30-some years ago, military history—understood broadly as the investigation of why one side wins and another loses a war, and encompassing reflections on magisterial or foolish generalship, technological stagnation or breakthrough, and the roles of discipline, bravery, national will, and culture in determining a conflict’s outcome and its consequences—had already become unfashionable on campus. Today, universities are even less receptive to the subject.

This state of affairs is profoundly troubling, for democratic citizenship requires knowledge of war—and now, in the age of weapons of mass annihilation, more than ever.

It's a shame that more people do not take an interest in military history. It goes a long way towards explaining the present. Recently it occurred to me that the leftist group think that paralyzes many fine academic institutions takes great pride in its general ignorance of all things military. Of course, that does not stop the hard left from vociferously speaking out as though they were experts.

VDH seems to agree:

The academic neglect of war is even more acute today. Military history as a discipline has atrophied, with very few professorships, journal articles, or degree programs. In 2004, Edward Coffman, a retired military history professor who taught at the University of Wisconsin, reviewed the faculties of the top 25 history departments, as ranked by U.S. News and World Report. He found that of over 1,000 professors, only 21 identified war as a specialty. When war does show up on university syllabi, it’s often about the race, class, and gender of combatants and wartime civilians. So a class on the Civil War will focus on the Underground Railroad and Reconstruction, not on Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. One on World War II might emphasize Japanese internment, Rosie the Riveter, and the horror of Hiroshima, not Guadalcanal and Midway. A survey of the Vietnam War will devote lots of time to the inequities of the draft, media coverage, and the antiwar movement at home, and scant the air and artillery barrages at Khe Sanh.

Winston Churchill said, "If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future".

Unfortunately, this is what I feel happens every time I hear Iraq compared to Vietnam by people who frame all of history as though it started in the 1960's.

Book Review: The Omnivore's Dilemma

Going to the grocery store can be downright confusing. For a long time now I've felt that there is such a thing as too many choices, especially when it comes to the supermarket. When Michael Pollan touched on the same subject in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma, I was glad to see that I was not alone with this feeling.

The "omnivore's dilemma" revolves around the age old question of, "what's for dinner?" Since we humans have the capacity of memory and speech, we are able to pass along the vast body of accumulated knowledge regarding what tastes good and is healthy, and what tastes bad and can kill us. Koalas, for example, do not have this problem because they know what's on their menu every day for every meal: eucalyptus leaves. Mr. Pollan's thesis is that we've arrived back at the point in time when we are at a loss to know what to eat because we have so many choices, many of which aren't really choices at all, but rather clever re-packaging of the same products. Walking down the supermarket aisle trying to decide what is good and what is bad reasserts the omnivore's dilemma.

When I picked up this book I was skeptical. I did not want to waste my time reading a diatribe against the corporate food structure, the sins of animal protein and the virtues of veganism. For some, eating food is a supremely political act, and these people seem to get published in spades. For me, eating food is just lunch most of the time--unless it's breakfast or dinner. Ultimately though, I believe in eating locally; I prefer to BBQ the flesh of a happily raised, drug-free animal, and I like to know where my food comes from.

Mr. Pollan follows four meals from production to the plate. The first part of the book is devoted to corn, and how it permeates virtually every corner of the supermarket (and beyond) in some form or another. He visits a farmer in Iowa and delves deeply into how subsidies motivate farmers to grow an ever increasing corn yield even when it makes no economic sense. He also highlights exactly how entrenched the military-industrial complex is in our food chain, and the tremendous amounts of toxic waste created from field runoff and industrial scale feedlots. Not much about industrial corn crops and farm subsidies was new to me; and having driven past "Cow-schwitz" on interstate 5 in the Central Valley numerous times, I was familiar with the stench and the layout of a cattle feedlot. The meal derived from this exercise turns out to be lunch from McDonald's for his family eaten in their car while traveling down the highway.

More informative was the section where he shops at his local Whole Foods Market for an organic/free-range meal. After interviewing and visiting a handful of 70's hippies-turned-capitalists farmers, he determines that the whole "organic" craze is basically a clever way of marketing to guilt-ridden mothers trying to do the right thing. Turns out the massive organic farms that cater to Whole Foods are virtually as industrial as "industrial" farms--they just don't use chemical pesticides which brings into play a whole host of other problems; and "free range" hardly lives up to the images the term inspires in the mind's eye.

Mr. Pollan then visits Polyface Farm and spends a week working with the owner, Joe Salatin. Polyface Farm is "beyond organic". It is a perfect example of zero-waste and low impact farming; the way farming used to be. Everything produced is part of a self-perpetuating cycle. Mr. Salatin thinks of himself as a great conductor, orchestrating the natural rhythms of his farm. He believes, correctly, that an animal is happiest when it is free to do its animal "thing". All of his cows, pigs, rabbits and chickens are allowed to live this way before they are slaughtered. Clearly, Polyface farm is the antitheses of industrial farming.

Being an amateur mycologist myself, the last part of the book is what resonated most deeply with me as it was devoted to a "hunter and gatherer" meal. He learned to hunt, shot a wild boar, foraged for morel and chantrelle mushrooms, picked fruit from around his neighborhood, and prepared a wonderful meal from scratch for all the people that assisted him in his quest.

I found the entire book well written, well researched, informative and often humorous, but it is the following paragraph that really stuck with me for some reason:

The fact that you cannot come out of hunting feeling unambiguously good about it is perhaps what should commend the practice to us. You certainly don't come out of it eager to protest your innocence. If I've learned anything about hunting and eating meat, it's that it's even messier than the moralist thinks. Having killed a pig and looked at myself in that picture and now looking forward (if that's the word) to eating that pig, I have to say there is a part of me that envies the moral clarity of the vegetarian, the blamelessness of the tofu eater. Yet part of me pities him too. Dreams of innocence are just that; they usually depend on a denial of reality that can be its own form of hubris. Ortega suggests that there is an immorality in failing to look clearly at reality, or in believing the force of human will can somehow overcome it. "The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when the respect for what is has been exhausted."

Those last two lines are brilliant; and unfortunate examples of this state of mind can be found far outside the pages of this book.

I'm a foodie at heart and I've always had more than a passing interest in nutrition. If it were not my job to babysit rich people's money every day and I was looking for an alternate career, I might choose to be a nutritionist. Back in my culinary school days, nutrition classes were my favorite, and "you are what you eat" has always resonated with me because it is important to know what you are putting into your body every time you sit down to a meal. None of this is to say I treat my body like a temple, but most of the time I eat right; at least what I view as right. Milk is for cows, processed food is the devil, you cannot eat too many leafy green vegetables, there's no reason to drink soda unless there's bourbon in it, too much fatty meat will clog your arteries, fast food always smells better than it tastes. Those are my general guidelines, but above all I enjoy tasty, well prepared, quality, food; and like the French I believe it's bad manners to not eat "this" or abstain from "that" when in social settings.

Ultimately, good nutrition boils down to the timeless wisdom of grandpa: "moderation is the key". A healthy state of mind is a big component of good overall health. Eat what makes you feel good, just don't eat too much of it and don't eat it everyday. That way, when you choose to eat a chili dog topped with a fried egg, sausage and cheese, know that you should probably forget the regular coke and wash it all down with a diet coke instead.

Burning Man 2007

Third time's a charm they say; I can't argue with that. Now that I've attended Burning Man 3 times the playa seems familiar to me. The taste of alkaline dust, the angle of the sun, the direction of the breeze, the dry, hot air, the cool of the dawn and the freaks that surround me--all strangely familiar; all strangely warm and comforting. It amazes me how so many are quick to judge the event; so quick to put this or that label on it. I alluded to this fact the first time I posted about my Black Rock City experience in 2005. Burning Man is this, Burning Man is that, blah blah blah. Here's what Burning Man is--it's exactly what you make it.




This year I did not purchase tickets early when they are the cheapest due to the fact I did not think we would be attending since we now have a 7 month old daughter at home. I am not opposed to taking a child to the playa, in fact I think it's a great place for a kid of the right age under the right circumstances. However, I am of the opinion that it is no place for a 7 month old. If you're too young to verbalize what is making you uncomfortable, you're too young for the playa. What I did not expect was how bad my wife wanted to attend this year after sitting out last year due to her pregnancy.




As the event drew near, I could see she was serious, so I started to make plans. The first order of business was securing a motorhome. It's perfectly fine to camp on the playa--most people do--but I know enough to know that a comfortable wife means a happy husband; and the only place where comfort is guaranteed on the playa--for happily married people at least--is the inside of their own motorhome. Though I've never been a particular fan of RV living, being new parents, I could see the benefits of owning a motorhome beyond the comfort it would ensure while at Burning Man. As luck would have it, our friends Mark and Shannon who live outside of Sacramento and also have a young daughter decided they were in the market for an RV as well, so we thought it wise to pool our resources and partner in the purchase of one. We certainly did not want to buy a brand new model as they depreciate quicker than an automobile, so we figured a well maintained used RV would be our target. It did not take us long to find what we were looking for, which turned out to be a 1993 31 ft class "A" Bounder. It was a little bigger than what we had idealized, but the price was right and the features and floor plan exceeded our expectations. Burning Man would be "Thumper's" maiden voyage, and I would be the captain.



Labor day weekend being what it is, we already had plans to be in Mexico for a big 40th birthday party, so the time we could be on the playa was limited to a few days at the front end of the week. Fortunately a few members of our camp had planned on arriving even earlier than us, so we pulled into an already constructed camp just before dawn on Monday morning. Sunrise on the playa is by far my favorite time, so we quickly unloaded our bicycles, greeted our camp mates who were in various stages of sleep and headed out to say good morning to the "work week."



One of the more striking differences between the first and last days of Burning Man is the relative tranquility at the beginning. In my mind the playa resembled a meadow just after a fresh snowfall: unsullied and serene. Much of the art remained in various stages of completion, and the prevailing mood of the people I met seemed to be relaxed and rested, sort of like the mood of most cities early in the week.




We decided to call our camp the Garden of Heathens, and it was our best camp to date. Pretty much from the day Burning Man ended last year up to the commencement of this year's event, my friend from high school Steve had been planning for our camp, and he did not disappoint. His contribution included a military surplus desert tent that acted as our living room, a bar and bar stools; he even put a beer tap on the outside of his small RV that was connected to a keg (6 actually!) chilling in the closet inside. Pure genius. Dave, in what has become his custom and trademark, provided the "mini-mog" sound system and hours of full spectrum beats. Banyra, in a demonstration of dream-into-action, built a carnival wheel that morphed into the "Wheel of Miss Fortune" and became the centerpiece of our bar. That wheel took on a life of it's own. Games were created, rules were invented, and a naked barbie was eventually ritualistically nailed to the center. Mrs. Jrod and a random denizen of BlackRock City painted and decorated the bar. Goldie provided the "Garden of Heathens" banner. It's great to see the gang rise to the occasion.





Despite early reports of severe wind and dust storms, the weather while we were there was nothing short of perfect. We were even treated to a full lunar eclipse Monday night that turned the playa from a full moon playground to a dark and mischievous fun house in a matter of minutes.







And mischievous it was. For the first time ever, the Man burned before his time. The most shocking thing about this is that it took this many years to happen. Though we'll never really know exactly how it happened, conventional wisdom holds that a fella by the name of Paul Addis decided to climb the Man just as all eyes were on the lunar eclipse and toss a molotov cocktail at him. Mr. Addis then jumped onto the green canopy underneath and slid down to the ground where he was apprehended by BRC rangers without incident.


At the time, I had been taking a "nap" after an initial 36 hours of being up and at 'em. Mrs. Jrod had just come back to camp to get me up for the eclipse--I definitely did not want to miss that. We were heading back out to the Opulent Temple to meet our friends. When we approached the playa, we heard the tremendous roar of a crowd--similiar to what one might hear at a baseball game. I though, "man, there must be something really good going on out there." As we got closer, we could see that the Burning Man Pavillion was surrounded by art cars and a sea of people. It looked and sounded just like it would on the Night of the Burn. It was then that I spotted what looked like two giant gossamer sheets of silk undulating hypnotically on either side of The Man--but something about the whole scene felt slightly out of place. As we got closer, we could see that several of the blinking lights were real live fire trucks. There may be any number of "fire trucks" on the playa at any given moment which makes it next to impossible to tell what's real and what's not, but clearly these were the real things. What I had mistaken for beautiful pieces of silk flapping in the breeze were actually two powerful streams of water, *gasp*, trained on The Man!


They were hosing down The Man.

The "man" was extinguishing The Man.

Chuck, they were Saving the Man.


The irony of this whole unscheduled event is self-evident, so this is the part where I fight the urge to wax philosophical...


As the full moon passed outside of the earth's shadow and dawn slowly crept over the horizon, the full extent of the damage was brought into plain view. The Man was singed badly, but not mortally wounded. Too bad He wasn't packed with a cocktail of explosives and fireworks yet, that would have been quite a sight to behold! The green canopy underneath was melted in certain places, but it was far from destroyed. All in all, it looked like the Man would survive; though that did not stop the "man" from removing him with a giant crane before the sun was high in the sky. Judging by the reaction of some, taking the Man down was akin to holding a magnet in front of their compass--they were utterly "lost." For me, I was just happy that our planned early departure didn't force me to miss the Burn like I thought it would.



The remaining day and a half we had left to enjoy BlackRock City was spent doing "more" of "the same." Silliness was witnessed, yuks were had, art was interacted, jams were kicked out, bikes were pedaled. I wish we could have stayed a few more days to have some fun with the rest of our campmates as they rolled into town, but we were fortunate to have even gone at all. Afterall, grandma can only take care of the daughter and the doggie for so long. I will say the Exodus on a Wednesday afternoon is incomparably better and more relaxing than it is at the end of the week. As usual, in retrospect it was another surreal experience. So fleeting physically, but the memories remain.



It will be interesting to see how Burning Man shapes up in the future--especially in the wake of Mr. Addis's decision to start the campfire a little early. It's getting really big, and for the first time I am beginning to see the point certain veteran burners have when they bemoan what it's become and pine for the "good ol' days" when it was small and there were no rules. I don't necessarily agree because I think Burning Man is dynamic above all else, but I can see a difference in just three years.




Annoyingly, this year's theme seemed to be politically motivated: "The Greening of the Man." The contradiction is obvious; how do you (or why should you) "green" a festival that celebrates fire?


Here's what a friend of mine had to say about his experience. He is a 6 year veteran who returned this year after a two year hiatus:

i LOVED the art.... some of the best i have ever seen... opulent was off the hook evry night i went .... better than prior years... personally had a really good time... NOT on par with a couple of my other burns, but that is solely because a couple of my closest friends in the world didnt make the trip this yr.... i missed em.... definitely saw some JV shit go on... i picked up cups and beer cans in a number of places which was disappointing... also witnessd one episode where some burningman volunteers were agro and nasty which was disappointing too.... but it still is undoubtedly the greatest show on earth.... this year was just BIGGER

Trash talking and trash tossing: two hallmarks of any city. For better or worse, it sounds like BlackRock City is experiencing growing pains. Unfortunately, when a community gets dissolved into the anonymity that a city affords, people often act like the twat-waffles they really are.



I'll reiterate what I said at the beginning of this post: Burning Man is exactly what you make it. The excitement and anticipation many people feel when talking about, planning and participating in it is genuine--and that cannot be discounted.

Nevertheless, I can't shake the feeling that the Man has become "the man."