Update on freakishly big succulent flower

This is actually from a couple of days ago, but it hasn't changed that much--Saturday's windstorm did little damage. Joanne isn't there for perspective but we estimate it's about 10' tall and it seems to have stopped growing. Not that I went into a lot of detail the first time, but this is the first time in the almost 4 years we've had the house that it's done something like this.

In other news, I'll try and get back on track to my announced schedule...

DST causes global warming

True Story!

There's a fine line between clever and stupid. I'm leaning to the latter on this one...

Natural growth

So when we were doing some work in the backyard over the weekend, I noticed there was a big flowering unit that we hadn't seen ever seen this particular plant make before. It was at least 2 feet shorter on Sunday. Four days, 2 feet--that's a growth spurt! Kind of odd though that we didn't notice it until it reached almost five feet.

Vandalay Industries

One thing that's a pain to shop for is a bed. 20 minutes in a store is supposed to do it? Not really. Pillow top, feathertop, no flip, which "S"?, no consistency of model names from store to store means looking for reviews is pointless... it's a pain.

But there is hope if you are willing to try non-spring mattresses, which i think is for the best, since once the springs go, a box mattress is bad, and there's no simple way to determine the quality of the spring or how likely the manufacturer is to resolve problems.

So in the springless realm, there are three main choices: air, memory foam and latex. By the title you might guess which one we have. Yes, I want to be your latex salesman!

I'm not going to touch air mattresses, instead focusing on the the two foams. Memory foam is a topper (3" or so) meant to go over some other foundation (spring, polyeurathane foam, other). it is conforming and supportive but can suffer from being excessively hot (bad in Phoenix) and there are a lot of manufacturers, the most famous being Tempur-pedic, so more due diligence is necessary on quality, and that leads to greater variance in cost.

We ended up going with latex. The convenient thing about latex is that the best type, talalay, has one US manufacturer. Multiple middlemen though, but all selling the same product (best prices are $300-350 per 3" queen layer). Latex, like memory foam, is conforming, but there is no impression to roll out of. It is cooler (though still warmer than an innerspring), hypoallergenic and is available in layers. The nice part of the layers is you can flip around the different densities to get what works best for you. Online shipping is generally cheap, so the internet purchase is also simple or you can check out local (Phoenix) retailers The Mattress Company or local supply house Central Plastic (may not have a showroom, and only sells one density, but is cost competitive). Joanne & I got our 2 3" layers from memoryfoam.com, and will at some point get around to getting a third layer.

While it may seem unwise to purchase a bed untested, going the route we did (a medium density and firm density), we could theoretically test a number of different ways to "build" our mattress by folding over one of the layers we do have (MMF, MFM, FMM, FFM, FMF, MFF). Some of the online retailers also have liberal return/exchange policies so you can experiment until you find what works best for you.

We also went the latex pillow route. Walmart has some Simmons pillows for about $20 that are nice. The pillows, like the mattress, naturally maintains its shape, so no need to fluff. I would mind if mine was a touch firmer, but it's a consistent, comfortable pillow.

Now, if only I slept more...

It's warm in here

I had baseball practice back in 122°F on June 26, 1990. That was a warm day. Will there be more warm days in the future?

Newsweek has a piece by MIT professor Richard Lindzen arguing that the threat of global warming is overplayed:

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Greg Easterbrook in the September 2006 Atlantic, pointed out environmental issues have generally been dealt with without the foreboding costs expected (smog, CFCs, acid rain):

Americans love challenges, and preventing artificial climate change is just the sort of technological and economic challenge at which this nation excels. It only remains for the right politician to recast the challenge in practical, optimistic tones. Gore seldom has, and Bush seems to have no interest in trying. But cheap and fast improvement is not a pipe dream; it is the pattern of previous efforts against air pollution. The only reason runaway global warming seems unstoppable is that we have not yet tried to stop it.

One sentiment that gets underplayed is an increase in CO2 should necessarily mean an increase in the quality/quantity of vegetation, ie the backbone of our existence, food. Not necessarily the best source (or maybe it is), JunkScience has this:

Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population... If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit.

I have not seen 'An Inconvenient Truth', nor I have I done any deep reading/research. Even if I had/do, I concede that my ability to make sense of actual data would be limited. Or more correctly, my ability to determine the validity of the scientific inquiry would be limited. As would most people's. So one's opinion is shaped by what they are predisposed to wanting to believe. I'm overly centrist, so I'm willing to take some personal steps to be be environmentally friendly, but not so much as to disrupt my life. My skepticism stems from remembering the threat of CFCs and awareness of the Population Bomb. To reach me as an audience, there needs to less "may cause [huge problem/number]" because that makes a nuanced, complicated issue too simplistic/obvious.

To close, I do find it odd that the Science page at Climatecrisis.net doesn't link to any actual science...

How do you read AJU?

Just curious... Do you have a feed service you use, have the site bookmarked, other?
And do you look at the "On topic" feeds (those are shared links from my google reader subscriptions that I find interesting or related to past topics)?

I added an analytics feature last week that does counting and what not. The day of the Iraq post had a huge increase in hits, and over the next day included page views from places in which I don't think I know people (China, India, Fort Wayne, etc), but that might be some funky IP addresses, and increased the search hits. One other curiosity in the report from last week--I got a redirect from dineshrao.blogspot.com (not the india hit though), which is odd for two reasons (or one and a half). As you might know I/we (those who do know) went to high school with a Dinesh Rao, but this dinesh is a different dinesh. That's random...

Political Segmentation

Today's WSJ had an article about Hillary's political machine, and the article mentioned the likelihood of the nomination being all but settled in February because of the number of states that have moved up their primaries.

Anyway, this sparked a thought about when/how/if politics will become more segmented like the media industries. I know this is very prevalent in regard to lobbyist groups and what not, but not so much in terms of candidate support.

If candidates are continually anointed (big donors, political machines, etc), rather than earning their place, what effect will that have on electoral politics? Will political apathy increase, leaving greater power to those with more vested interests? Or will a "revolt" of sorts take place resulting in the breakdown of the two party system?

What got me thinking about this is how come we only get two choices? Yes, there are occasionally a third, but even that is limited number of options, particularly if party unity uber alles is what matters once in office.

Action groups exist for single or thematic issues. But most of those are all subsumed to be either Democratic or Republic issues. Will the trend of personalization in other areas of life ever lend itself to the candidates? Will the desire to have representatives with qualities from column D and some from column R lend itself to the breakdown of the party system?

This would be a big systemic change, obviously, with its own set of problems (voted in with a plurality, rather than majority; perhaps an increase in pork to achieve a majority in office, etc). And this change probably wouldn't take place soon, but over the next 20-30 years, if at all.

For this to happen, though, would require a money, since that would remain a key factor to gaining support, unless name recognition from another venue can be leveraged.

I'm not sure if this is more of a demography issue or a political issue, since it's largely based on cultural/social norms that may or may not translate from one sphere of life to another.

I imagine a big tipping point would be increasing the amount of open primaries, but even that will require change. Of the states that do have open primaries, most require you to, at some point, choose a party to vote for--it's just a matter of when you make that election. Oregon has the best and most likely approach: a direct runoff in the primaries in which people can vote for their preferred candidate with top finishers moving to the general election.

So my new conclusion/point after thinking out loud is less political segmentation and more direct representation, with politicians more beholden to their constituents than their party.

That would be nice, wouldn't it?

Who's money is it?

Americans love their tax refunds:

"when asked if they'd prefer to owe taxes, get a refund or break even, none said 'owe,' according to the USA TODAY-Gallup Poll. Fifty percent hope they break even, and 45 percent hope they get a 'bigger' refund this year than last. They're in luck: The average tax refund is up 3.2 percent from 2006, according to the IRS."

Ugh. No one wants to owe? Well, I guess to be honest, I'd rather be closer to breaking even, but that's more because Joanne & I have occasionally been close to being penalized for underpayment, as I didn't make a point of structuring our withholding to estimate what we'd owe. The IRS, though, does have a calculator to estimate the proper withholding, which is handy. Actually, on second thought, I would rather owe the fed (but not too much) because the way our withholding has worked out for Arizona, we always (i think) get a refund there. So it balances out.

But going back to the poll, not quite sure where the missing 5% is, but 45% want more of a refund? Joanne & I are fortunate with our jobs and spending habits that we don't live paycheck to paycheck, but you'd think the notion of have more money in each paycheck would appeal to taxpayers, rather than a lump sump. But maybe that lump (say $1000) in the future is better than a bump ($40 every two weeks). At the very least, though, it's a good way to practice forced savings to pay for those "big ticket" items that refunds get directed to as well as stopping the practice of giving a free loan to someone (Uncle Sam). Or does he deserve it?

The other implication of that poll is that the knowledge/understanding of finances is fairly low. When I interned at the Goldwater Institute, we had a post work happy hour where a handful of the analysts and staff were talking about the finances and debt and the comments of a couple shocked me in their lack of understanding (example, the failure to realize that credit card debt is very bad) of what I thought were simple issues. And these were, whatever you think of the Institute ideologically, intelligent people.

The question is the best way to increase the level of personal financial literacy. The largest audience is in the high schools. But can you nationally require a course that includes this kind of content? Or maybe it already exists--a week or two slice of high school economics that I may even have received but don't recall. But that opens up a broader issue of education in the schools and if it offers enough life skills.

I think I've gone tangentially far enough. Are you accustomed to the refund, or do you like holding on to you money as long as possible? If you like the refund, what do you end up doing with it?

Flock of Sheep

So new tools means a change of plans, strategy. With BlogThis! capability and email posts, that will open up things, and now I better understand how some blogs get so many posts in a day.

Why the Hype Just Keeps on Coming
Increased scrutiny of advertisers' claims for their products is unlikely to do much to temper their overheated pitches

In 2005, a federal judge ruled as false and misleading a Listerine mouthwash ad campaign by Pfizer. The ad claimed that Listerine was as effective as flossing in fighting tooth and gum decay. The judge in that suit ruled that the claim even poses a public health risk.

I admit, I fell for this one. Or at least took solace in my use of Listerine making up for questionable flossing habits (TMI, i know). It didn't occur to why I heard this for a bit, and then not again.

Anyway, it's easy to dismiss claims that are outlandish or are in something that we feel we know something about. It's when we're out of our element or accede to the power of authority (whether justified or not), that we can be taken advantage of. It's not just advertising, but government proclamations, "scientific" studies, accepting the "common wisdom", and so on. So who do you trust?

This ties in, somewhat, to another entry idea I had about the two biggest concepts I learned in college related to critical thinking: "correlation is not causation" and "advocacy is not analysis".

The latter stemmed from a professor's reaction to my initial approach to my thesis, and that sticks with me. Advocates are good at making things black and white, or at least have skill (the good ones) in minimizing negatives and staying on message about the positives. But that doesn't make them right! Analysis shouldn't be predisposed to an outcome, but that seems to be more of an ideal today than a common standard.

This ties in nicely with "correlation is not causation", as arguments can be made using spurious data points and faulty reasoning because of coincidental outcomes. Recognizing the importance of sample size is also imperative...

What's my point again?

Clarity of purpose

Some more news and notes...

I think I've decided on a general approach. I'm going to shoot for 3 posts a week. If I'm feeling particularly ambitious, I'll either do another or make an entry better. General approach will be one thought/discussion piece, an informational entry and the last random notes (such as this one). But I'll be adding links to the "on topic!" section most days.

Tim points out a reminder on an Arizona tax credit that I was vaguely aware and qualified for but, to this point, hadn't utilized yet. That would be the Credit for Contributions to Charities That Provide Assistance to the Working Poor (Form 321 and instructions). Basically, if you give more that you did in some past defined year (your baseline), you qualify for a credit if you give to approved Arizona-based charities. It is capped at $400 for married following jointly, and the charity must be on provide assistance to the working poor (although that appears to be a loose definition). So more questionable tax policy to benefit you.

I'm almost completely google-fied. Blogger is google, so is picasa (and the ease in posting from picasa to picasaweb.google.com is great). the docs tool is very handy for multiple person/point access (we used the spreadsheet for our fantasy baseball league and it went extraordinarily well). the blog counter is google as well. portfolio manager is google. rss feeder is reader. if i kept a calendar I'd probably use that too. and google checkout saved me about $90 over the holidays (or made me spend a lot more, can't tell which). but not email. don't really see the point of changing the primary.

Snippets of conversation betweens Joanne & I this week:

Me: I'm lame
Joanne: You're not lame
Me: Name someone lamer
Joanne: I don't know that many people...

Joanne: The closet light bulb is out again
Me: You know where the light bulbs are...
(I am not a smart person. And, as you might have guessed, I changed the light bulb.)

A riddle...
Why was Tigger watching 24?
He was looking for Pooh.
Ugh, this season is terrible. Hurry back Heroes, so i have something to enjoy on Monday nights! Last year's big twist was not believable, but still fun. This year's, just down right stupid.

That's all I have at the moment...

War and Peace

A loyal (?) reader suggested I write about Iraq and the war. I initially demurred, as I am generally disinclined to open my mouth and remove all doubt that I am, indeed a fool. But the response to that is that what I "think" is more interesting than what i know. Interesting concept.

Still, I am hesitant about this. Despite subscriptions to Foreign Affairs, the Economist and the Atlantic, I'm not as well versed in the ongoings as that reading list would indicate.

Before diving into the current situation, l much like Congress, was in favor of the invasion, based on the reported intelligence at the time. Preemptive action, in my mind, was allowable based on credible threat. Using 9/11 as a case in point, the government received criticism for having intelligence something might occur and not acting. How could it not act in this case, given the stated intelligence and what was deemed to be the probability of use/threat by Hussein?

Leaping forward to now, the debate is on more troops, less troops, withdrawal of troops, funding, etc, which I find to be oversimplified and overly political. Obviously it's a political issue, but to construct an opinion and justification for that, there needs to be less focus on the means and more on the ends.

The quaqmire that's been the last 3+ years is a sunk cost. The strategies and policies adopted/enacted now does not change what those outcomes were, but they can change what happens going forward. I believe current calls for an exit strategy or troop removal is in response to past events rather than what influence/role the US can/should have in the future.

This isn't necessarily meant to be a justification to maintain/increase the effort. Rather, the situation must be appraised now for what actions by the US are in its best interests.

Does US withdrawal make the situation worse or better? If worse, does the transfer of resources outweigh that? Is it a matter of strategy, or is the mere presence of the US that makes it a quagmire? What interests of the US are at stake? Are those interests best served by increasing, maintaining but changing approach, or decreasing troop levels? What is the desired outcome, and is that realistic?

I think the last question in many ways is the most important. The end vision is a stable, democratic Iraq. Is that feasible? That doesn't seem to be the case, but, again is it environmental (whatever the US does is doomed to failure) or tactical (better strategery=better results)?

My instinct is that a withdrawal of troops would further destabilize the Middle East and opens up additional threats with the US minimized as a factor because once we leave, there's a definite window in which we're not coming back. I can even see the scenario in which factions lay low after an announced US withdrawal strategy to gather and renew resources for when the US is not an impediment.

The US must play a role in securing some level of stability, but even when it does, it will still likely need to maintain some presence (think DMZ-like) as a posture of support. But this assumes a democratic Iraq government is pro-US. If not, what then?

That muddles the issue even more, so let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. In the end, I don't think the solution is "get out", but new strategies of support for the Iraqi government are needed. The divisiveness between the Dems and GOP and the effort to present the issue in black and white obscures the nuance and diplomacy needed (which have been lacking) to stabilize the region.

That's all.

...

That was illuminating, wasn't it?