Corny Schemes

The cover of Time Magazine shows an ear of corn sheathed with dollar bills instead of leaves. See: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975-1,00.html

Some seem to be finally willing to write about, what some of us engineers and scientists have been saying, since ethanol biofuels were first proposed. It won't save anything. It will cause inflation and world famine. It will increase the carbon in the atmosphere. Now the bandwagon may be impossible to stop or the ethanol financial bubble will burst. The cover of Time may be an early warning. Hopefully that's the case. Reverberations from the collapse may not be too drastic. There are big bucks and big egos invested in this concept that will fight to preserve this bad idea. Fortunately, President Bush has hopped on the ethanol bandwagon, thereby making it a fair target for the media.

The philosophical question is why does this happen? We know that individuals make bad decisions because of bad information, bad models, bad motivation, bad execution, etc. One would imagine that a large group of people could somehow average out their defects and come up with fewer failed decisions. It doesn't seem to work that way. Why?

As you know, I prefer anecdotal evidence over statistical evidence. I believe most of all (not exclusively) what I personally experience. I testified once before the Hawaii Senate Committee on something or other. I testified that the Senate needed to do a better job finding disinterested parties to make recommendations concerning technical proposals before it. Most proposers were only interested in funding dollars not actual progress on solving a problem. I cited ocean thermal conversion and hydrogen energy as examples of a waste of time and tax payer money and gave my reasons. The senator from the Big Island angrily cut me off with some nonsense about "we would never have half the progress that we have in this world if people listened to nay-saying scientists and engineers." I found out later from a friend in the senate that the Big Island resort owners who the senator represents, were benefiting from the world hydrogen conference held each year in Kona.

That's a long way of saying that I think we make bad decisions in part. because of corruption and because people just don't want to hear that something won't solve their problem. Nobody likes nay-sayers and thereby short circuit the critical judgment capacity of human beings that normally (?) saves us from walking off cliffs. With respect -Joel

[09 April 2008 - Edited by Ira to add image and make link clickable]

Writing a Novel

They say everyone has the makings of a novel in themselves.

What better way or day to introduce my science-based, near-future novel to the world than here and now!

2052 - The Hawking Plan is my free online novel. Please read it and pass it on!

Stephanie Goldenrod strives to save human life and civilization for an infinite future. Amorality, amore and deep ethical and philosophical issues.

What will life, liberty and technology be like several decades in the future?

• A peaceful world where large-scale military conflict is absent.
• A political economy dominated and effectively ruled by transnational corporations.
• A civilization where reason is trusted and faith is suspect.
• A "positive ID" regime where religion-based terrorism has been suppressed, along with virtually all anonymity and privacy.
• A society where most people, including ministers, priests and rabbis are not literal believers.
• A post global warming world where humanity has been decimated by genetic engineering disasters.
• A population served by Intelligent Robotic Agents, certified intelligent at the average human level.

A brilliant plan to spread human life and civilization far and wide into space as insurance against further disasters here on Earth. 2052 - The Hawking Plan

Ira Glickstein

L/C Good Vibes vs Good Deeds

Do liberals earn less money that conservatives? Nope - liberal's family income averages 6 percent MORE than conservative families.

Do conservatives give less of their income to charity than liberals? Nope again - on average, conservative headed households give 30% MORE!

This surprising (to me) statistic throws new light on our ongoing L/C discussion. For the details, see Washington Post columnist George Will's recent column at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html

Perhaps "compasionate conservative" is not an oxymoron? Perhaps liberals like to talk about helping the poor and downtrodden, but when they take action it is by taking higher taxes from the rich and giving it to the poor while keeping a bit for themselves in the form of bigger government with more social services jobs for them and more votes "bought" with government help programs paid for by us taxpayers?

The data in Will's column are from a Syracuse University professor's book and include the following:

• Conservatives give more blood and donate more time.
• Do you REJECT the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality"? If so, you belong to a group that give FOUR times more than those who accept that statement!
• People who live in the reddest states give nearly twice the percentage of income to charity as those in the bluest states.

Also mentioned is the strong correlation of altruism with being associated with an organized religion. Perhaps religious belief is the "The God Delusion" (Dawkins) http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2008/03/god-delusion.html and "god is not GREAT" (Hitchens) http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2007/12/god-is-not-great.html, but that type of faith leads to actual, personal giving while the opposite leads to talking about it and getting "good vibes."

Ira Glickstein

Voting and Notions of Fairness

In our continuing discussion of L/C (Liberal/Conservative) mindset differences, let us consider the relative importance attributed to fairness versus effectiveness. It is my belief that conservatives tend to rate effectiveness more highly than do liberals, and the reverse applies to fairness.

The current controversy over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Presidential party conventions is what got me thinking about this issue. (I do not intend to stray into partisan politics that favors Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama or the Republicans or the Democrats. Please try to keep any comments clearly on the issue of fairness and effectiveness and L/C differences.)

Both political parties made an attempt this year to discourage states from "jumping the gun" and holding their primaries prior to February 5th. Exceptions were made for the traditionally-first New Hampshire primary and caucuses in Iowa and a few other states. As a result, some 26 states complied and scheduled their primaries or caucuses for February 5th, named "Super Tuesday," and most other states scheduled for after Super Tuesday.

1) Fairness of Penalty for "Jumping the Gun"

To discourage states from going before Super Tuesday, both parties imposed penalties. This provides us with the first example of notions of fairness.

The Republican C-minded penalty was loss of half the delegates. The Democratic L-minded penalty was far more strict. Any offending state would lose all their convention delegates. Any candidate campaigning in those states would lose all party funding.

At first glance, The Democratic Party penalties seem more fair. We would be appalled if a rule-breaking racer was given half credit for winning the race! Imagine if the "halfies" rule was applied to criminals - the robber who was caught would be allowed to keep half the haul!

On the other hand, Florida and Michigan are important states when it comes to winning the general election in November. Any political party that upsets the voters in those states risks losing them. In that light, the "fair" penalty seems harsh. Indeed, the Democratic Party is scrambling to give Florida and Michigan some kind of representation at their convention. Schemes for a re-vote seem to have failed (see next item).

On second thought, the less fair C-minded "halfies" penalty seems more effective and less divisive than the more fair L-minded strict penalty.

2) Fairness of a "Do-Over"

Clinton, who won both Florida and Michigan, would like the Democratic Party to recind the penalty, or, failing that, allow a "do-over" primary in June.

A revote would cost tens of millions of dollars that would have to come from the state or national Democratic Party coffers since the taxpayers of Florida and Michigan have already paid for one primary. A less-costly mail-in primary was considered in Florida but had to be dropped because five counties are under legal restrictions against changing voting rules due to previous racial discrimination. Here is another case where fairness (preventing future racial discrimination) runs into effectiveness (re-doing the primary at reasonable cost). The Michigan legislature seems to have failed in their attempts to schedule a "do-over".

So, why not simply recind the penalties and give Clinton and Obama the delegates they won in the original primary? Clinton would love that because she won Florida. Obama removed his name from the ballot in Michigan and Clinton also won there. Quite understandably, Obama, who leads in elected delegates, opposes that plan. Why not just split the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama? Quite understandably, Clinton objects.

Once again, it appears that L-minded fairness (representation of the Democratic primary voters in Florida and Michigan) will take a back seat to the C-minded idea of not changing the rules in the middle of the game.

3) Fairness Schemes for Scheduling Primaries

Fairness advocates favor some national rule for scheduling primaries. One idea is to schedule a primary in a different geographic region each month. To make that fair, the order of regions would be random each election so no one region would go first each time.

The traditional early-primary states object to that idea. It would also be hard to get the various interest groups to agree on how the regions would be designated.

On second thought it seems this L-minded fairness idea is dead on arrival.

4) Proportional vs Winner-Take-All

In winner-take-all primaries, the candidate who gets, say, 51% of the popular vote gets 100% of the convention delegates. That seems unfair to the candidate who got 49%. L-minded fairness advocates are rightly concerned about this and favor a proportional system where convention delegates are awarded by county or proportionately by state.

Nearly all Democratic primaries and caucuses are run on a proportional system, confirming their generally L-minded attitudes. The reverse is true of most Republican primaries.

As a result, the Republicans settled on a presumptive candidate in February. This is quite effective but it seems unfair to deprive the late-primary states of any voice in the selection process.

It appears the Democrats will be going at it until June or perhaps even at their convention. The candidates will continue spending heavily and attacking each other. This seems less effective, but it does give a voice to Democratic voters in late-primary states.

On second thought, it appears L-minded fairness may lead the Democrats to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." (Advocates of eliminating the Electoral College process or requiring all states to award Electoral College votes proportionately might want to rethink their positions based on this example.)

6) "Superdelegates"

This is an ironic example of where the Democratic Party has taken what I consider a more C-minded approach than the Republicans! The voice of the people as expresssed in primaries and caususes counts for 80% of the delegates to the Democratic convention, while the remaining 20% are seated automatically on the basis of the offices they hold. This system was put in place in 1982 after some convention disasters to assure that people with demonstrated knowledge and experience would help select the party's Presidential nominee. (The Republicans have a similar system, but with far less power.)

It appears the superdelegates are Sen. Clinton's only hope to reverse her deficit in elected delegates. She is trying to convince them she is the more experienced and safest candidate with the best chance to win. Most superdelegates will probably follow the will of their constituencies, but it will only take a hundred or so to flip the Presidential candidate selection to Clinton.

I generally favor a system where the raw vote "voice of the people" is tempered by something like the old "smoke-filled room" expertise of political pros.

7) "Open" vs "Closed" Primaries

Many states and counties are so "Blue" or "Red' that whoever wins the primary of the dominant party is virtually assured of election. For example, most inner-city counties are Blue and many suburban counties are Red.

L-minded fairness advocates are rightly concerned that members of the minority party, and independents, have no say in the election of their representatives. Therefore, many primaries are "open" - allowing independents and members of the opposite party to change their party affiliation at the last moment or vote in whichever party primary they choose.

Most Republican-dominated states have closed primaries. Of course, anyone can register in either party and some members of the minority party do register in the majority party to get a voice in the primaries. However, the decision to switch party affilliation must be done well before the primary date.

L-minded independents and Democrats generally favor open primaries. Ironically, some conservative talk show hosts have exploited the open primary system and asked their listeners to switch parties and vote for Sen. Clinton to increase the chaos and extend the Democratic primary contest.

I generally favor closed primaries. I don't like the idea of people flipping parties at the last minute. However, if I lived in a jurisdiction where the other party was dominant, I would change my party affilliation to that party to get a voice in their primary.

I'd be interested in your opinions on these issues. Please don't be partisan. Try to stick to the philosophical issues of fairness vs effectiveness.

Ira Glickstein

Toffee, RIP

Today it was my sad duty to take our devoted golden retriever, Toffee, for his last visit to the veterinarian. Over the past year he's lost strength in his hips, a common malady for dogs of his size, breed and age. He was 13, over 84 in human-equivalent years.


Despite shots, special food and medication he got to the point where he could not get up by himself and, once up, could not walk very well or more than ten or twenty feet without lying down. The NSAID medication necessary to keep the inflamation under control caused him to lose his appetite which is what convinced me to do the compationate thing.


Toffee was (at least in our opinions) the world's best and nicest dog. We went through obedience training, tracking, and agility together.


He knew lots of tricks. In the morning he would fetch his collar, my pool shoes, and the newspaper. He would follow hand signals or voice signals and stay, come, sit, roll over, and so on.


One of his best tricks was balancing a dog biscuit (or four, see photo) on his nose until you snapped your fingers.







I wrote to our daughter that "Toffee was so smart he must be partly Jewish!" She wrote back that she thought Toffee was telling his dog friends that his master "Ira was so smart he must be partly golden retriever."



Our granddaughters loved him and called him "uncle Toffee". Vi made him a food dish with that appellation. We were "mommy" and "daddy" to him.

Although I am not a literal believer, I have no doubt Toffee is now in a beautiful park just outside of Heaven, restored to his youthful vigor and playing with all the other dogs.


Every once in a while, one of the dogs stops playing, sniffs the air and perks up his ears ... and then runs to greet his master. Together, they cross the crystal bridge into Heaven.

God be with you Tof - See you on the other side

Ira Glickstein

Only Sadness

Although I am on the other side politically, had I still lived in New York when he ran for governor, I would have voted for Eliot Spitzer because I thought he was a genuine latter-day "untouchable" Eliot Ness. Perhaps he is and was incorruptable in the ordinary sense of that word. Why must our heros have feet of clay?

I confess that in the case of "toe-tapping" Larry Craig I found some thrill in his exposure, as I did in the cases of homo- and hetero-sexual politicos and defrocked televangelists who got their tail caught in a crack.

But I take no joy in Spitzer's forced resignation. He was and is different and all I feel is sadness. Not just for his wife and daughters - I was also sorry for Craig's wife and the wives of the others - but also for Spitzer the man.

I believe deeply in democracy and know that capitalism is the only economic system that provides independent centers of weath and influence and makes true representative democracy possible. (In other systems where the government absolutely controls all or most means of production and, therefore, everyone is dependent upon the government for their jobs and welfare, real democracy is all but impossible.) For capitalism to function well, the bad apples on Wall Street and in corporate board rooms must be exposed and convicted when they violate the law. Spitzer did that effectively. We will miss him.

Why am I giving Spitzer a partial free pass for his crimes? I hope it is not because he is Jewish. Is it less of a crime to obtain adulterous sex in a fair business transaction with a high-class professional hooker than it is to accept "voluntary" sex from a low-class underling in exchange for keeping a job or getting a promotion, or for the distinction of having a close relationship with a high-powered celebrity? In the former case, the bad actor is exposed to blackmail that could affect public policy, particularly since illicit sex operations are often controlled or allied with organized crime. In the latter case, there is a tremendous unbalance of power between the underling and the celebrity. I just don't know!

Ira Glickstein

Does Curbside Recycling Make Cents?

Curbside Recycling in New York

Curbside recycling started for us in the '90's in upstate New York when they gave everyone a tub. To encourage people to recycle, they started charging $2 per bag for regular garbage so it paid to recycle to the max, which we did.

Voluntary, Non-Curbside Recycling in Florida

I did not think much about the economics of curbside recycling until we moved down to Florida in 2003 and were surprised they did not have it. All they had was recycling of aluminum cans, newspapers, and plastic bags. We had to do most of the work involved in separating and transporting them.

Aluminum cans had to be dropped off at the postal facility where volunteers from the Lion's Club would collect them. That raised money for that charity, which proves that the aluminum is worth more than the recycling effort, but only if most of the work is done by end users and volunteers. Since I had to drive past the postal facility daily it did not cost me any extra gasoline or wear and tear on my car to participate.

Newspapers had to be dropped off at a local church or synagogue, and those charities made money, again proving that newsprint is worth more than the recycling effort, again only if most of the work is done by volunteers. There was no extra transport cost for end users because these religious facilities are centrally located and people drive by regularly.

The same is true of plastic bags, which end users drop off at grocery stores which most of us visit a couple times a week.

Recycling of glass, plastic containers, and cardboard was only available at a distant location. Few of us participated in that aspect of recycling. Apparently, those items were not worth the cost of recycling them. Since cost is closely related to energy usage, it is not economical to recycle glass, plastic containers and cardboard even if the end user does the separating and most of the transporting at the source end.

Apparently Wasteful Curbside Recycling in Florida

The economics of recycling changed this month when they started curbside recycling here in Central Florida. They raised our monthly garbage bill by $1.47 and required us to buy special clear plastic bags. It will cost me about $2.00 per month for the convenience of curbside recycling. That means the extra cost to the recycling company for the gasoline and manpower and wear and tear on their trucks and the plant for separating and processing the recycled materials is more than the value they will get when they sell the stuff for re-manufacture into something of value. Again, since cost is a good analog of energy usage, it appears curbside recycling wastes more energy than it yields.

The example of charities making money recycling aluminum cans and newsprint proves that that part of the recycle stream has real value and saves energy overall. Therefore, since the curbside recycler will make some money selling aluminum and newsprint, it is clear the other stuff (glass, plastic containers ...) and the extra energy expended in curbside pickup, will waste far more energy than it saves.

The whole point of recycling is to reduce our carbon footprint, yet, curbside recycling appears to waste far more energy than it saves. Please note, before curbside recycling, our garbage bill was paying the full cost of curbside pickup and sanitary landfill disposal of non-recycled garbage. Charities were making money from our aluminum and newsprint waste. It seems to me that curbside recycling is a sham when it comes to the ultimate goal of reduced energy consumption!

Does anyone have economic data to disprove my assertion? (And don't give me the old baloney that they lose money on every recycled item but make it up by the volume of recycling :^)

Ira Glickstein