Birds Flaming-Up in Flight Over California – What?!

I never thought I would read the following headline in a non-tabloid publication: “Why birds are igniting in midair over Calif.”!!! But it clearly appears on yesterday’s USA Today Nation News webpage (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/newser-birds-energy-solar-calif/14282915/).  I doubt I could have even made up such a bizarre, true headline!

I strongly believe that anything that further diminishes the bird population of our country to a significant degree needs to be checked out with the goal of stopping it! For years I’ve had the disturbing thought that I was seeing fewer and fewer birds; as I heard rumors about my observation reflecting a true and sad reality.  

According to the National Audubon Society bird webpage “All 20 birds on the national Common Birds in Decline list lost at least half their populations in just four decades… The findings point to growing impact from the many environmental challenges our birds face, from habitat loss from development, deforestation, and conversion of land to agriculture, to climate change. Only citizen action can make a difference for the birds and the state of our future.” (http://birds.audubon.org/common-birds-decline) 

But this doesn’t specifically explain why some birds are apparently flaming up and out over CA! However USA Today News Staff writer Elizabeth Armstrong Moore lays the blame at the feet of a solar technology installation in the Mojave Desert of California: “Wildlife officials say they've counted one bird being scorched to death every two minutes by intensely focused rays of light at the BrightSource Energy plant, considered the largest solar thermal power plant of its kind in the world... Wildlife experts say that at least 1,000 and as many as 28,000 birds…” will be killed per year.  I hope different “Wildlife experts” don’t have political agendas that might wrongly alter their estimates… surely not...  But why such wide range? Even half of the higher number would mean the horrible loss of 14,000 birds year after year. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/newser-birds-energy-solar-calif/14282915/) 

It’s no surprise that yesterday The San Diego NBC affiliate also published an online article by Ellen Knickmeyer and John Locher.  I want to share a quote from this article that really stuck in my craw:

“Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant's concentrated sun rays – ‘streamers,’ for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair… Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one ‘streamer’ every two minutes…”(http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Solar-Plants-in-Mojave-Desert-Scorch-Birds-271886891.html#ixzz3AsOhTTNM).” 

Fortunately the “Federal wildlife investigators” who visited the site last year are now opposing an application to build a second, similar solar plant. The Federal Wildlife Commission is calling for a halt to this type of solar installation until extensive environmental impact studies can be completed.

The existing BrightSource Mojave Solar Energy installation has: “More than 300,000 mirrors, each the size of a garage door, reflect solar rays onto three boiler towers each looming up to 40 stories high.” Although it appears the proposed plant might only have one 75 story tower, some members of the “commission staff estimate(s) the proposed new tower would be almost four times as dangerous to birds as…” as the current towers.

The article also says The Chairman of the California Energy Commission said… “the toll on the birds has been surprising.” It indicates the Commission didn’t foresee this deadly outcome. However, they no longer have this excuse as they consider the application to build a similar solar plant with “mirror field and 75-story tower that would reach above the sand dunes and creek washes between Joshua Tree National Park and the California-Arizona Border…”

The birds that would likely be impacted by the proposed plant is on a flight path for birds between the Colorado River and California's largest lake, the Salton Sea -- an area experts say is populated with “protected golden eagles and peregrine falcons and more than 100 other species of birds recorded there.” The article also notes that wind generated power results in the death of some wildlife, including a wide variety of birds, and that the Federal Wildlife Commission is allowing this.

Source: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Solar-Plants-in-Mojave-Desert-Scorch-Birds-271886891.html#ixzz3AwlcYBVq

Obviously more trustworthy environmental impact data is needed to make more informed conclusions.  I can only assume that the FWC realizes the importance of weighing the need for an adequate national power supply against the likelihood that any current, feasible means of providing it is going to be fatal one way or another to some kind(s) of wildlife, to one degree or another. Yet, is it too idealistic to hope that over the next four decades our country will not see a decline in common birds equal to or even greater than the past four decades? 

Who Is Wealthiest Per State & Why?

Recently Kevin Short of The Huffington Post published a fun article about the richest persons in each of the 50 US States (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/richest-person-in-each-state_n_5617993.html). It strikes me as good clean fun and flirting, as well as relatively interesting and newsworthy!

I’ll start with my home state Indiana:  Gayle Cook. Of course all Hoosiers have heard of this Bloomington, IN native who is worth 6.1 Billion.  Fortunately, she’s only the 241^st richest person in the world so she has room to grow. She and her husband, the late Bill Cook, founded a medical device supply company in their Bloomington apartment in 1963. Suffice it to say, the company has done well – worldwide.  While it’s not likely that Ms. Cook’s entire net worth is liquid, I doubt that she has any serious personal money woes or significant unmet needs which can be satisfied with cash or collateral. At 80 years of age I further suspect she is “quite well off” at least in money matters, though she is surely not without overall difficulties (http://www.forbes.com/profile/gayle-cook/). 

While Ms. Cook’s name didn’t automatically tip me off to the source of her wealth, some of the names of the richest people of other states are rather self-explanatory! For example, Washington; that would be the nation’s current number one, a guy named Bill Gates. I’ll consider it common knowledge that Mr. Gates’ picked up his pocket money from Microsoft Corp. one way or another. 

But I want to move to other states with interesting wealthiest-resident-names…

How about Wyoming and Christy Walton at 37.9 B? She appears to be doing better than Ms. Cook, but woefully worse than Mr. Gates of Washington. Still, I wonder if she shops at the family store, WAL-MART  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christy_Walton)? Wait, Ms. Walton appears to have a stepson, Jim Walton, who ranks number one in Arkansas at a mere 35.7 B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walton). And alas, Ms. Walton may well also have a stepdaughter, Alice Walton, who appears to have the top spot in nearby Texas at just 35.3 B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Walton)... Isn’t there often controversy in the news about the Wal-Mart Corp and employee benefits? Just pondering… flirting. Must be complicated?

Now guess at cash sources for the number one net-worth-folks in a few other states: Hank & Doug Meijer have MI with a combined 7.9 B. Meanwhile; next door in WI John Menard is holding honors at just 7.5 B; a Warren Buffett is leading Nebraska at an admirable sum of 63.1 B; Jacqueline Mars of Virginia must really like chocolate at 20 B. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Mars) I had to check my guess…

Now, I invite you to go to the Huffington Post link and see if any other number ones ring a bell with you. In the meantime, let us all pull for Robert Gillum, number one in Alaska at 700 M., to make his first Bill… Does all this effect the way you feel about our country/economy etc.?

(Unless otherwise noted, all factual content is drawn from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/richest-person-in-each-state_n_5617993.htm>l) 

Ironic Downside to Better Gas Mileage!

Matthew Philips has written an article for Businessweek that zeroes in on one more current Congressional/National dilemma.  You may be aware that, ironically, getting better gas mileage as a nation has caused a steady drop in the funds available for road repair and building from both the Federal and State Governments. This is kind of funny, perhaps; but certainly not LOL funny… (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-17/gas-tax-cant-fill-up-federal-highway-trust-fund).

Philips spells out how this is another case of how the Federal Government gridlock is actually going to starting to hit us harder – right where we live and drive! He notes that although this problem was seen coming down the pike at quite a distance, Congress just got around to passing a helpful bill in the House on July 15. It might pass through the senate soon; however it’s only a very temporary, stopgap measure at best…

What can we do to move beyond a Congress, or for that matter an entire Federal Government, that is mostly doing makeshift work on issues that are of utmost importance? Philips further explains:  “By early August the account (Federal Highway Trust Fund) will be so low on funds that the Department of Transportation will have to start cutting back on the billions of dollars it gives states for road and bridge construction projects. By the end of the month, the balance will be zero” . This might not cut down on road work zones as much as creating abandoned ones:  incomplete “Projects/Bridges to Nowhere.” (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-17/gas-tax-cant-fill-up-federal-highway-trust-fund)

But worry not! Philips also reports that the House Bill calls for rescuing the Fund by “tapping tax receipts from corporate pension plans and diverting money meant to fix leaky underground storage tanks at old gas stations…” Feel better? I do, but not much.  Plus, what are the chances Congress will be able to agree anytime soon on a long-term way to deal with this problem?

I encourage you to check out Philips complete article at the above link. For one thing, you will find that currently there is an 18.5 cent Federal gas tax per gallon. The article shows the amount of tax each state adds per gallon. For example, where I live (IN) it is 56.5 cents. But I do have the option of moving to Alaska were the state only adds on 26.4 cents per gallon… However I’m guessing that most parts of Alaska have other factors that might have an adverse effect on the price per gallon.

Mr. Philip’s fine article also features a nifty U.S. Department of Transportation graph that indicates that from 1960 to 2012 the miles driven in our nation has risen nearly every year. No surprise given the population increase, though by 2012 it does show some signs of leveling off. But (here’s the “big butt”) the “Average fuel efficiency” of our cars continues to rise faster than miles driven. Although it’s slowing down it doesn't appear to show signs of leveling off. In fact are not new laws attempting to give the pace of the rise in average fuel efficiency a kick in the pants? Is this shooting the Federal Highway Trust Fund in the foot? No, I don’t mind mixing metaphors; but how can we help find a solution that might allow us to further save our air quality and still maintain our roads and maybe build a new one or two?

In some ways this leads us to the edge of the issue of climate change. But since there’s little controversy here; we don’t need to go there. So instead let’s try to somehow help congress to find a comprehensive solution that the majority will vote for… in our lifetimes…

To further excite matters, six states are currently looking at funding road projects based on a tax linked to how many miles a person actually drives. Hybrid and electric car owners should take note. While this sounds interesting and I want to know more about it, I still feel a little bumpy about the future funding for our roads or the “cost” of gasoline. (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-17/gas-tax-cant-fill-up-federal-highway-trust-fund)

PS: FYI – I just phoned a clerk at an Eskimos Inc. gas station in Barrow, Alaska. She politely told me their pumps currently list regular, unleaded gas at $7.00 a gallon. But she further explained that it’s up a little right now and that they have a hard time just getting it. But don’t let this keep you from considering relocating to Borrow… I don’t want them to be angry at me… If you doubt my phone call, I understand. But I encourage you to start Googling and hope you too are able to talk to the same clerk with whom I chatted!

PPS: I didn't flirt with her; just the price per gallon! 

A Revised Look at the Declaration of Independence - Surprises!

On the day after another July 4^th, Independence Day (US), I still find the discussion on Thursdays NPR’s Diane Rehm Show to be a fascinating subject for a blog post! From Ms. Rehm's guest, Danielle Allen, I learned a number of significant, new things about The Document behind our three-day weekend celebration (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-07-03/danielle-allen-our-declaration).

In her recent book, Our Declaration, Danielle Allen presents more interesting stuff than I can possibly properly flirt with here! But I want to toy with a few things I think you’ll find interesting.

The Rehm Show link cited above says Our Declaration “makes the case for a new interpretation of the document – as a living, relevant text with an argument for equality at its core.” Personally, I think one needs to find a plain font copy of the Declaration of Independence before it seems like a “living, relevant text.” Maybe you can get more meaning out of reading the handwritten reproduction of the Declaration, but I tend to get to distracted by the fancy hand writing of the day… even if the ink well/quill combo is rather artistic.

Anyway, I have always mistakenly thought that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration. While he did write the final rough draft (and a darn good one) a small group in the Continental Congress, including Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, and eventually the entire Congress changed it in some relatively significant ways before it was officially adopted. So as Allen points out it went through a process not entirely unlike our current Congressional process, albeit apparently it was a faster, simpler and perhaps less combative...

According to Allen we have documents showing the path of some changes in the Declaration. For example, Jefferson’s final rough draft just said we were “endowed” with certain “rights.” It was Franklin and John Adams who led the in adding “by their Creator.” This may go hand in glove with what we now know about Jefferson’s personal pocket-Bible which is on display at the Smithsonian Nation Museum of American History. I would strongly encourage you to check out the link below; notice it says “how-thomas-jefferson-created-his-own-bible!” This is just the tip of the iceberg of another very interesting, true story! (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-thomas-jefferson-created-his-own-bible-5659505/?no-ist)

But I digress… I want to toy with one more thing as I understood Allen on the NPR Show. She made the point that she believes that where the Declaration says “all men are created equal…” they were likely including women and children. She concludes this from the section of the Declaration that talks about slavery and simply talks about “men” when in context it appears to her to also include women and even children that were caught up in horrors of slavery.

While Allen maybe right in some ways, it appears to me that the men who drafted the Declaration weren’t in favor of allowing women to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the same way they could? Not to mention, though I am, the lesser rights of children at the time. And even then, did it include “all men” or just the slice of that population the Founding Fathers had in mind which seems to be those essentially just a lot like them?

So does all this make any difference? I think so. However and whomever might be endowed with the right “to life liberty and pursuit of happiness” is, as Allen argues, indeed a “living” and extremely relevant issue in continuing to understand and apply the Declaration. What do you think? Allen read it on the radio show and I heard it with “fresh ears.” You might want to read it with “fresh eyes,” over this holiday weekend! 

"Journalism diplomas feature typos"

The msn.com Home Page features a four-word click/lead line that contains three "punchlines:" "Journalism diplomas feature typos" - low hanging fruit for a blog like this (http://www.msn.com/). Upon first reading I chuckled at "diplomas" having "typos." Upon second reading, I chuckled because ironically they are "Journalism" diplomas...

The third "punchline" actually comes to light after going to the link for the line; to me it read like each diploma featured more than one typo, plural. When you read the linked article however, you fined out that a number of diplomas (plural) featured only one typo each... and on top of that, only some of the Journalism Diplomas featured even the singular typo - not all of them... Such inconsistency in Journalism... (www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/school-makes-typo-journalism-graduates-diplomas-n138131)

I think this story pretty much flirts/toys with itself and needs no further attention from me :).

Unintended Consequences, Mostly LOL Stuff

A Wikipedia article wisely proclaims that the concept of Unintended Consequences  "...is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic (sic) belief that humans can fully control the world around them..." LOL... For example: We likely can't cause others to fly away, unaided! Besides, being able to do so would perhaps have unintended consequences! (http://enn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences#History)   

For other examples, I want to look at Unintended Consequences from a humorous news article and a funny-in-hindsight personal story that struck me right where I was standing at the moment. 

First, former Park Ranger turned writer Jim Burnett notes in a recent submission to the National Park System Newsletter concerning Unintended Consequences: "Throughout the National Park System, and other public lands across the nation... are... comfort stations... (T)he same guideline applies to them all—please keep the outside door closed. Failing to do so can lead to some classic examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences (nationalparkstraveler.com)."

Burnett had me hooked at the phrase "please keep the outside door closed," after seeing it in the same text with Unintended Consequences  and "Comfort Station Doors." That's correct: "Comfort Station Doors." I rushed on in search of a good laugh. Burnett didn't disappoint! But first, let me be clear, if needed (?) that he's talking about the NPS's rustic, park outhouses...

Early one morning Burnett heard a panic-launched scream as he saw a gentleman burst through a previously-blocked-open-overnight door of a nearby Comfort Station. He goes on to note that the poor man's hasty departure was hampered by having been caught with his pants down and having not yet corrected this stage of undress. 

Other than now being a in public area with his pants down, Burnett explains that he couldn't see any obvious reason for the man's very obvious disrepair! As a trained Ranger he went to the man and quickly inquired, "Can I help you. Sir?", and received a quaking, singular reply: "Rattlesnake!" In a great piece of writing Burnett explains that as the man "calmed down and explained that he had gone into the stall... and was preparing to take his position on the appropriate plumbing fixture, ... he... spotted the reptile coiled up... in the corner of the stall  (http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2014/06/comfort-station-doors-and-law-unintended-consequences25162).

The unintended consequence of another, well-meaning, park visitor who had propped the door open just a little to allow for overnight airing turned out eventually to be humorous, if not outright funny, only because the surprised visitor didn't have a heart-attack or get bit squarely in his hindquarters or elsewhere... I encourage you to go to the above link to enjoy Jim Burnett's entire submission and body of work.

I'm in a good mood so I've decided not to delve into entirely negative, not-at-all humorous Unintended Consequence news articles like when armies that were ordered into wars that, arguably, eventually left those in the invaded area much worse for the wear for years... Enough!

Second, a short personal story of some humor: Years ago I literally walked into an Unintended Consequences almost-news story while serving in a small hospital as their official Volunteer Chaplain of the Week. My Official patients-to-visit list, as given to me by the hospitals social services office, presented the name of a female patient that I ought to visit (Read on and you'll understand why I feel compelled to overuse the word "official!")

The patient's room door was wide open so I began the customary protocol; knocking on the door as I made one step in and began explaining who I was and why I was there. I don't recall how far I had gotten when I realized the female patient was lying nearby sans a sheet, a gown, any clothing or needed covering whatsoever!

With an embarrassing jerk I careened back into the hallway. Continuing to follow Official Protocol I found a nurse and explained. I told her if she could rectify the patient's situation I would be glad to go back and attempt to render chaplain-care (if it was still possible). She did and I returned to the room as everyone's faces returned to a lesser red glow. (Actually, I don't think the nurse blushed). Often in hospitals closed doors and/or signs directing visitors and unsuspecting Volunteer Chaplains to the nurses station prior to entry nicely curtail the unintended consequences of an open door that should have been closed.

In the nurse's defense, she did explain that this lady had a "situation" that was making it difficult for them to keep her unnaked; still, again, a closed door and/or a sign would have been nice... At least no one was injured or bitten or suffered a heart attack... Jim Burnett is right; some doors should remain, most often, closed...

Now, please take time to post an unintended consequence or two you've experienced. A humorous story would be good, but any that are not illegal or immoral as defined by the blog Officials are welcomed! 

A final note: Again please remember I was acting in an "official" capacity and not simply room-surfing... an unethical practice one should undertake only after considerable consideration and then deciding not to. 

Dangerous, Aggravating Road Signs!

The British Daily Mail published an article that reminds me of one of my pet-peeves! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285668/Car-crash-Blame-road-signs-Third-drivers-accident-near-miss-baffling-signs.html). They report that in the UK a "Third of drivers have had an accident or a near miss because of baffling signs."  

One of my pet-peeve is street "signs" painted on the road surface. They can be a little hard to see in the rain and/or at night or especially if they are covered by snow where winter happens hard nearly every year!

Have you ever had an accident or near miss because you or someone else was unable to see an arrow or word written on the payment in time or not at all? Geez, I have and apparently a fair number of others have also.

Plus in a time when many local governments lack funds for proper road/signage upkeep, painted-on-the-road messages can grow old and faded beyond effectiveness/sight. And again, with bad winter weather these signs can be even more easily erased by road conditions.

So I want to go on the record! Painted-on-the-road signs are often helpful but I believe there should also always be an additional, very-visible, regular standing sign! I'm especially tired of driving in unfamiliar areas and suddenly finding I am in a turn-only lane from a fading message on the road. I think such signs can also come too late in the traffic process to be able to safely make a lane adjustment.

This may seem like a small issue. However if a third of UK drivers have had a significant problem with signs that may well include some just painted on the roads, how many have a problem in the US and elsewhere?

I also have trouble with many road lines in similar ways. For example, there are regular intersections and complicated intersections. I've seen and experienced problems with both because of road line problems or some sort.

If several lanes are turning left in a several-road-intersection there are often dotted lines helping drivers stay in their lane on through the turn. I really appreciate this! But these line seem to be even harder to see under certain conditions and more subject to fading problems. I often go through a busy intersection where three roads come together. People like me who are familiar with the intersection have little trouble. But too often I've seen confused or "lane-trapped" drivers create potentially dangerous situations because the road-painted-on signage is just not as clear as it could be.

Of course, we must all take extra precautions even if we are just driving unfamiliar roads under the best conditions. But still it's difficult to avoid some potentially dangerous situations when the painted-on signs are not readily visible/readable. I know those who work in traffic management are constantly working to make all roads/intersections safer. So please join me in encouraging them to try to add an additional not painted-on sign whenever possible.