Republican Congressional Members Practice What They Preach: Find Out How Many Children They Actually Have

Greetings From Almost 200 Romneys

Hello to all and thanks for checking in.

I am psyched about today's post. Did you know that amongst the 8 (major, did not count Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson) GOP nominees, they have 35 children combined? I kid you not. The breakdown is as follows: Bachmann 5, Cain 2, Gingrich 2 (1st wife), the other 2 wives didn't have to have any baby Newts, Huntsmann 7, Paul 5, Perry 2, Romney 5, and Santorum 7. On top of all that, the Bachmanns have upped the ante and have taken care of 23 foster children over the years.

Blog Favorite: Marcus Bachmann

What the hell is going on here? I had 5 immediate thoughts:

Thought 1: There's no way Marcus Bachmann has had sex at least 5 times with Michele (there are no twins or triplets in their litter) See GOP Debate Preview, Part I, for more thoughts on the Bachmanns.

Thought 2: Somewhere along the lines, in the Republican party, patriotism got merged with fertility in some weird way. They do sell themselves as the "family values" party. With all these kids, you have a permanent and constant photo-op and it possibly helps to push that "family first" meme. It's either that or they're all having a world of trouble counting the days with the Rhythm Method.

Thought 3: They are creating an army of Republican offspring, to dumb down another generation in this country. And, if that's the case, just know that I'm onto your plan.

Thought 4: They are attempting to nearly single-handedly slow the course of future US demographics. By the year 2050, the United States will be a majority-minority country. Check out the (somewhat creepy) picture of the Romney extended family and you can see what I'm getting at. There are enough Romneys for a full soccer match.

Thought 5: They are REALLY not into contraception!

With all this being said, I wondered how the number of children of (current) GOP Congressional members compared to the rest of the general population. I want to preface what I'm going to say next, by saying that I'm a well-adjusted, social, happily married man, and not a hermit. To find my answer, I literally counted the number of children from each member of the 112th Congress. I couldn't find my answer anywhere on the net, so I figured I'd do it myself. To top it off, a friend suggested that I do it for the Democrats as well, to draw a further contrast. I then compared all that data to 2000 & 2010 Census data, to compare the average from our ruling elites, to the rest of us. Again, I'm not a hermit. I swear. And, by the way, at the end of the post I will be giving out what I'm calling the "Family Picture Award." It will be awarded to the Congressional members (one each for the GOP and Dems) with the most combined kids, grandkids, and great-grandchildren.

A couple of quick notes: I started to research this near the end of December and had to take a bit of creative license with the data. So, I only counted only the current members of Congress, not those sworn in at the beginning of the 112th Congress. For instance, Anthony Weiner's and John Ensign's info is not taken into account, since they stepped down prior to my research. However, their replacements are counted. And, I counted Bernie Sanders as a Democrat and Joe Lieberman as a Republican (since they caucus with those respective parties). And, I also counted Ben Nelson as a Republican. Just kidding on that one. I can not stand Conserva-Dems. And, I'm still upset about the "Cornhusker Kickback." Now, if you get that reference, you might be too into politics (like me) and there's a prize waiting for you at the end of the post.

I obtained all the information from either the member's bio page on their personal websites or a wonderful site call CongressMerge. They do a great job of aggregating info on our Congressional members and made this research much faster than it will seem. Give them a look, if you're doing any research on our Congress. Ok, let's get to it.

There are 290 Republican House and Senate members combined. 242 in the House and 48 in the Senate (again counting Lieberman). Those 290 members have a whopping 802 children combined, giving you an average of 2.76 kids per member. But, when you mine the data a bit further, I learned that only 28 members don't have any children. When you take those members out of the calculation (which is also done in our Census), the average goes up to 3.18 kids per member with a child. Consider that. Just under 90% of Republican members of Congress have at least one child. The national average is just under 50%. We have over 71 million families in this country and 34.5 million families have at least one child (as of the 2000 Census). The equivalent data was tough to find for the 2010 Census. However, I was able to find that the average family size did drop in the 2010 Census. So, that 50 % ratio should have held in 2010 or maybe even lowered. We have finally found an issue where conservatives actually practice what they preach.

The Democrats are beating the national averages as well, but are behind the Republicans. There are 244 Democratic members in the 112th Congress (192 in the House, 52 in the Senate). Those 244 members have only (?) 518 children, for an average of 2.12. However, there are 41 members without children. When you take them out of the equation, the average jumps up to 2.55. The number of Dems with at least one child is right at 84%. Again, behind the Republicans, but way ahead of the national average.

Ladies Man: Roscoe Bartlett

Onto the awards! The winner of the 1st Family Picture Award on the Republican side is Roscoe Bartlett of the 6th District in Maryland. He has 10 children of his own and 17 grandchildren (no mention of great-grandchildren on CongressMerge). I'm sure Mr. Bartlett is busy around the holidays. Honorable Mention goes to Sue Myrick of the 9th District of North Carolina. She has 5 children, 12 grandchildren, and 7 great-grandchildren.

On the Democratic side, it was not as close. The Family Picture Award goes to Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii. He has 5 children, 15 grandchildren, and 13 great-grandchildren. I would need nametags to keep track of that many kids. Anyway, Honorable Mention goes to Senator (and Majority Leader) Harry Reid of Nevada. He has 5 children and 16 grandchildren.

Separated At Birth

By how much are our elected officials beating the national average? In the 2000 Census, data showed that there was 0.90 children per family and 1.86 children per family with a child. Republicans are beating that "family with a child" number by a full 1.3 children. Dems are beating the national average by nearly 0.70. And, I also learned that power is a greater aphrodisiac than anyone could imagine. Human-tortoise hybrid, Mitch McConnell even has 3 children.

I'll leave it there for today, thanks again for checking in.

See you next time,

James

Message to NBA Fans: Parity is Overrated

Hey everybody,

Today is a big day. I'm going to pretend like I know exactly what is going on in the NBA these days. Because I don't really pay attention anymore, I only get whiffs what is actually going on. I know there was a lockout and games start-up on or around Christmas. I see trending topics on Twitter, Yahoo headlines, and the like. So, I know what's going on without KNOWING what's going on. That being said, not knowing all the facts never stopped me from having a strong opinion. Wow, I just felt like a Republican voter just then. Bam! You might have thought you were free of political talk today, but Republican bashing takes no break!

On Thursday, a trade involving Chris Paul going to the Lakers was agreed upon. It nearly caused the explosion of the Twitter-verse. The trade was negated by the league commissioner the next day. But from what I saw of the initial reaction, there was a bunch of hand-wringing over "super teams" and people worried about the competitive balance in the league. Well, this is something I do know about. I can tell you, with certainty (in soccer, but we'll get to the other sports), that competitive balance does not matter to fans, in any measurable way. This research is not from me, I'm passing on information gathered in a book called "Soccernomics." To sum it up, the book is as if someone put together a version of "Moneyball" for soccer. And, yes I realize there are people who won't know either of those references. It's why I supply the links.

The authors found that soccer's top-heavy, exclusive, glass-ceiling type structure does not harm them in any tangible way. For those that do not know, European soccer leagues do not employ any salary caps, luxury taxes, or any punitive revenue sharing. Our domestic league, Major League Soccer does. And, some think the parity holds the league back. Thanks to the setup overseas, European soccer matches can have a 1% vs. 99% feel (yeah, got my occupy reference in for the day! I'm trying to fill a personal quota).

Success breeds more success in European soccer. Top league finishers get into lucrative continental tournaments, clubs get TV money for being in these tournaments, and you invariably sell more merchandise thanks to the exposure. You can purchase and pay better players thanks to added revenue, thus getting you back into said lucrative tournaments. Then you rinse, lather, and repeat. It becomes a cycle that is nearly impossible to break. The end result is a glass ceiling for teams not at the top. Soccernomics even found that there is a 90% correlation with money spent on salary and where you finish in the league. In short, if you spend the most money on salaries, you have a 90% chance of winning the league. If you spend the 2nd most amount of money on salary, there's a 90% chance you'll be in 2nd place, and so on.

I know what you're thinking, "All of that sounds very boring for the fans." You would think so and I thought the same. The data they found is that, as the money has grown in soccer (namely the last 10-15 years), and the places in those lucrative tournaments have gone to mostly the same teams, attendance and TV ratings have not suffered. Conversely, most European soccer teams and leagues have seen growth in these areas. The book argued that the "David vs Goliath" aspect of some of the matches keeps fans interested week to week. Club branding, familiar faces and matches involving 2 "super clubs" keep people invested long-term.

This line of thought can be applied to US sports as well. Think for a moment, in Major League Baseball ratings are always better when the Yankees are involved, regardless of who they were playing. It was the same with Notre Dame's college football team during the glory years, Michael Jordan's Bulls, the Dallas Cowboys, Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics, the NCAA men's basketball tournament, and the list goes on. But, if you look at our sports, and their most popular times, it coincides with a really dominant team. Hell, the NBA took off in popularity thanks to Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Their teams played each other 3 out of 4 years for the NBA title. We think we want to see parity because it sounds good and it feels fair. But, in truth, you want to see the most famous teams, at a high level. For empirical proof, here are the ratings from the last few Finals (courtesy of Wikipedia's page for NBA television ratings, with a quick synopsis of the match-up)

Their teams played each other 3 out of 4 years for the NBA title. We think we want to see parity because it sounds good and it feels fair. But, in truth, you want to see the most famous teams, at a high level. For empirical proof, here are the ratings from the last few Finals (courtesy of Wikipedia's page for NBA television ratings, with a quick synopsis of the match-up)

2008 NBA Finals 

The 2008 NBA Finals featured the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics renewing their historic rivalry with their first meeting since 1987. With this, the ratings had great improvement from the previous year's Finals. The six-game series garnered a 9.3 rating and an average of 14.9 million viewers, a 50% increase from 2007 and the highest Finals numbers since 2004. The series-clinching Game 6 finished with a 10.7 rating and drew 16.9 million viewers.

 2010 NBA Finals

The 2010 NBA Finals featured a rematch of 2008 with a renewal of the classic rivalry between the Lakers and Celtics and proved to be a smash hit in the ratings. With the historic rivalry between the two most successful teams in the league being the marquee matchup once again and the Finals going seven games for the first time since 2005, the series achieved a 10.6 rating and an average of 18.1 million viewers, the highest numbers since 2004. This was a 26% increase from 2009 and a 14% increase from 2008, the last time the Lakers and the Celtics met.The deciding Game 7 garnered an 15.6 rating and a tally of 28.2 million viewers, making it the most-watched NBA game since Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals, which had a 22.3 rating and drew 72 million viewers.In addition, the seventh game bested the previous Game 7 in 2005 by 31%. Game 7 is as of now the most-watched NBA game in ABC's current eight-season run with the league.

(Me again) You would think the 2010 ratings would be lower since it was a rematch of teams the public just saw. But, the numbers simply don't align itself with what parity would bring.

2011 NBA Finals

The 2011 NBA Finals, a rematch of 2006, featured, arguably, pro sports' most scrutinized team -- the 2011 Miami Heat -- against the Dallas Mavericks. The six-game series, which had better ratings for games 1, 3, and 5 (as compared to 2010), would drop slightly from that Final, with a 10.2 rating. The highest-ranked game, Game 6, registered a 13.3 rating and is now the third-most watched game in modern NBA on ABC history. The series is the second consecutive Finals to reach double-digits, and the third in the ABC era to do so.

(Me again) To tie this argument into a neat little bow, the lowest ratings in recent Finals history was 2003 (San Antonio vs. New Jersey) and 2005 (Detroit vs. San Antonio). Yay! Parity!

Bringing this back to Chris Paul, he would have brought me back to the NBA for Laker games. I, as a casual fan, would have liked to see him play with Kobe Bryant. Every Laker game would have been appointment TV. We have a recent example of this with the Miami Heat just last year. Fans tuned in, in great numbers, to hate the Heat last year. I watched each game of the Finals last year, just to cheer for Dallas to beat them. But, if the preceding series went differently, the NBA Finals would have been the Chicago Bulls vs. Oklahoma City. We know that match-up would have drawn less viewers.
In truth, you simply need a team to wear the "black hat" when you're watching sports. You need a villain and you need antipathy for one of the teams. With parity, there are less villains, less great teams, less big rivalries, and eventually less interest from the casual fan. The talent is spread around more evenly, but there are fewer teams you HAVE to see.

So, put in me the camp with people who are sad Chris Paul didn't go to Lakers. The way it looked on Twitter, it's a small camp. From what I saw, he may still get to go to an already good team (perhaps the Celtics). I hope he does. If he doesn't, I guess I'll just cheer against the Heat again this year and probably for not much else.

(Footnote from today, 1/27)

- The Chris Paul saga turned out pretty well for neutrals like me. He ended up going to the Clippers and gave a shot in the arm to the Clippers-Lakers rivalry. Just two nights ago, there was a fiery match-up (for a regular season NBA game) involving the 2 teams. (Game details are listed here, pic from the game shown above)

Why We Can't Wait For The Rematch

- To further prove my point, I think the whole world knows the Giants and Patriots have a Super Bowl rematch next weekend. How much more excited are you about it, compared to a 49ers-Ravens matchup? People are so excited, they are willingly going to Indianapolis in February (just kidding Hoosiers). But, I think that is more proof that parity is overrated.

See you soon,

James

Week In Review, Topics Incl: NDAA, Occupy Homes, Rick Perry's Brokeback Mountain Fashion, Fox News Confuses Countries

Hello and thanks for checking in.

We have another huge week to review. Simply put, there is too much going on in the world and I'm paying attention to too much of it. Between all that's going on and my constant wrestling with what's going on in my head, it's tough to get everything into the blog. That being said, I will push on. The topics are again diverse. Most are very important items and we finish up with two of the blog's regular pinatas, Fox News and the GOP. Let's start with the bad news and we'll get progressively lighter throughout the post.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): Oh boy, where to start with this one? Usually the NDAA specifies budgets and expenditures for the coming fiscal year. This year however, the NDAA includes a provision that would allow for "indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens." Without getting too wonky on this bill, the Obama administration has claimed to want to veto it, if certain language isn't changed. But, from all I've seen, the Administration is looking for stronger language. This (as was the last link) is from OpenCongress.Org.

"They’ll (the Obama Administration) take it (the bill) and recommend that Congress passes clarifying legislation in the future, which, of course, will never happen. What they oppose is the provision that would mandate that power be used for all terrorism suspects besides U.S. citizens. From the same statement:

"The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects."

Within that legalese is simply this, the Obama Administration DOES NOT want a special exclusion for U.S. citizens. They would like all terrorism suspects treated the same. So, basically any of us could be Gitmo'ed. The possibility of being plucked off the streets and held without seeing a lawyer is certainly possible if this passes. Consider this in a post-Occupy world. Could any of these protesters fall under one of these vague statutes. This bill deserves it's own posting. I just wanted to let some of you know it's out there and give you the broad strokes. The link from OpenCongress.Org is really helpful, if you wanted to know more. And, there are loads of other sites on top of this one.

You're probably thinking, "Hey, I'm not a terrorist." The problem is that the language is so broad, anyone can be considered one. Here is Rand Paul (video, below) talking about the bill and some things that may make you look like a terrorist. It's worth a look. One of the characteristics of someone being labeled a possible terrorist, is missing fingers. If this bill passes, clumsy butchers may end up under surveillance.

And, adding to what Paul says, many people involved in the animal liberation and ecological activism movements have been branded as terrorists already. Theoretically, they could be detained as well. Last thing before moving on. I know I make fun of the GOP all the time. In this case, the NDAA is a bi-partisan screw job. It passed the Senate 93-7 and 406-17 in the House of Representatives. Who says Democrats and Republicans can't work together! Yay! Meh.

 This next item is not that much easier to take. In a past post, "The Endless Reach of Inequality," I talked about the findings in a book called "The Spirit Level." If you missed that post, definitely give it a look. In short, "Spirit Level" argues that large income inequality is the root cause for nearly all of society's ills. They did extensive work, some of their findings are quoted in that post. The problems they studied range from higher suicide rates, depression, gun deaths, mental illness, obesity, higher incarceration rates, etc. The list is extensive.

With all that in mind, I give you a story that is sadly redolent of the findings in the "Spirit Level." On Tuesday in Texas, after a 7hr stand-off, a mother of two shot her two children and killed herself, after being denied food stamps. One child was a 10 year old boy, the other a 12 year old girl. Both children later died from their injuries. At its core, this is the book's argument. This story ticks most of the boxes: income inequality, poverty, stories have suggested she was mentally ill, and she of course had access to a gun. She left an eerie message on her Facebook page before going to the social services office. It said quite concisely, "May die today." This is a haunting story and illustrates the need for a strong social safety net, more help for the mentally ill and better gun control.

Staying in the area of inequality, the 99% of the U.S. population, take home a smaller percentage of the country's income (compared to other industrialized countries). The full study can be seen here. From this chart, you can see that we are even behind that model of equality, ex-apartheid state, South Africa. (and yes that was sarcasm) And, how badly do you all want to move to Scandinavia now? Look at Denmark and Sweden! They have better income equality, blond chicks, fjords, Northern lights, ice hotels, and probably really good fish (just guessing on that last one)...It all sounds great though.

Alright, we made it! Now for the good/ uplifting news:

Washington DC is seeing major protests this week, another is happening as I type this actually. But, they have used really creative ways to disrupt the way things run in DC. Here are pictures from Tuesday, day 2 of this protest. They waited outside members of Congressional offices, for their representative. Over 60 were arrested for blocking K Street (the main home of large lobbying firms). Loads of videos are out there, just You Tube search "Occupy K Street", if you wanted to see the scene. And, as I write this post (Thursday night), some have crashed the Chamber of Commerce holiday party and made a human red carpet. Quick aside: I love all this. I'm ready to burn 2012 vacation days to get to some of this stuff. I just think it's amazing.

This has been the best part of the Occupy movement for me. They have shown a great ability to shift and change tactics. The authorities have no idea where they will pop up. The irony is, it was simpler before these idiot mayors kicked them out of the parks. You at least knew where they were. And, that leads me into the next story.

December 6 saw different tactics, compared to the happenings in DC. They morphed into a group called "Occupy Homes." Occupy Homes literally broke into an East New York foreclosed home, that had been vacant for three years, and made it livable for a homeless family. They checked with neighbors and local lawmakers to get their support. There was a large march prior to arriving at the house. And, it all commenced with a large block party to welcome the family. This type of direct action will force the banks to take some kind of action with these homes, either taking a big loss on principal to make it attractive to resell or rent to these families. This house in particular, is valued at 378K, but Bank of America want 600K for it. As of posting, some occupiers are staying with the family in case of police raid and others, including new neighbors are on call to push back against any police response. Pretty badass. And, just search "Occupy Homes" on YouTube, if you wanted to see other vids. Tuesday was a nationwide day of action. I just happened to follow this one closely. Meet the family!

A couple more quick things and I'll let you go. I mentioned at the start, that Fox is one of the blog's pinatas. If I'm honest, they are any liberal's punching bag. This week they got caught using video from riots in Greece and tried to pass them off as Russian unrest. The video they used is complete with palm trees and at one point you see Greek lettering on a building. The building was the National Bank of Greece. You can't make this stuff up. You'd think someone would recognize it. I guess "Fox News" is officially an oxymoron now. I feel bad for any Fox viewer that now travels to Moscow looking for a beach.

- Rick Perry did an amazingly desperate campaign ad where he has come out against gays in the military. I guess he's forgotten that the country doesn't care anymore. Someone on the 'net, noticed he's wearing the same jacket as the "Brokeback Mountain" guy and produced this photo mash-up. I LOVE THE GOP. You can't script this kind of idiocy.

See you next time,

James

The Case Against The US World Cup Bid, The Case For...Part II

....Qatar!

Hello to all,

(Quick note, this was written prior to the Arab Spring and the widespread unrest in the region. You can read Part I here, if you missed it.)

I would love to see the 2018 World Cup go to England. They have everything needed to make it an enjoyable and memorable World Cup. All of the stadiums are located near rail service and close to city centers. And, no two bidding cities are more than 250 miles apart. They also boast a great football culture and passionate fans. You're probably thinking that the choice of England is nothing to get worked up about. My choice for 2022 may surprise you though. I'm hoping it goes to Qatar. You're probably thinking, "Where the hell is Qatar?" and "Why would I want to go there?"
I admit that it may be a long odds for the Qatari bid. But, if the votes go their way, it promises to be a totally re-imagined World Cup, unlike one we have seen before. First the stadiums, they possess state-of-the-art technology simply not yet available in the U.S.. Please take a look at the first video, and you truly will be blown away. You probably noticed a few terms that were not fully explained. The "modular upper-tier seating" is truly revolutionary. Since, the stadiums will not need to host large World Cup-like crowds after the tourney, this modular seating allows for the upper tier to be taken apart. The parts will then be donated to developing nations.

The weather is also a big issue in Qatar, with temps getting well into the triple digits in the summer months. These stadiums also employ cooling technology that will allow that temperature in the stadium to drop by up to 70 degrees (Fahrenheit), all with creative uses of natural air flows. This technology will be given to other nations with hot climates, so they will be able to host large events like this. For those of us worried about the environment, these stadiums are carbon neutral as well. They use solar panels for power during the games. When the games are not going on, the energy captured is then moved to the local power grid.

Transportation should not be a problem either. The bid committee has contracted Deutsche Bahn, to handle their rail system. These are the same folks that run Germany's system, so it should not be a problem. If you wanted to take a different method of transport to the game, you have the option to take a water taxi, along the Arabian Gulf to the game (shown in the stadium video). Kinda beats that bus ride to the outskirts of Washington D.C., Boston, Phoenix, or to the swamps of New Jersey. Yup, U.S. soccer calls the bid city "New York/ New Jersey", but you'll be going out to the swamps of North Jersey for the game.

The biggest obstacle for the Qatari bid is the stadium capacity and how much of a hit FIFA is willing to take on tickets sold. Out of the 5 stadiums completed, 1 holds about 70,000 people, the other 4 are in the 40-45,000 range. The U.S. is light years ahead in this regard. All of the stadiums in the U.S. bid fall between in 80-95,000 in maximum capacity. The World Cup hosted by the U.S remains the highest in overall attendance, because of the sheer size of the arenas. The wildcard is Sepp Blatter (FIFA president), he pushed to get a World Cup to the African continent and has backed the idea of a one in the Middle East. The decision day is 176 days away, we shall see.

I looked again at the travel a Brazil fan have had to do for the 1994 World Cup. Remember, Brazil hopped from Stanford, to Detroit, back to Stanford, onto Dallas, and back to Pasadena for the final. I nerdedout last night and checked just how many miles (approximately) a Brazil fan and the team would have traveled. A few assumptions: I assumed the fan would have traveled to the States from SaoPaulo (Brazil's largest city). The closest airports to two of the game sites are Los Angeles (for the Pasadena game) and San Francisco (for the games at Stanford). And, I had to assume direct flights.
I hope you're sitting down, the miles traveled kinda shocked me:

Sao Paulo to San Francisco: 6500 miles
San Francisco to Detroit: 2050 miles
Detroit to San Francisco: 2050 miles
San Francisco to Dallas: 1750 miles
Dallas to Los Angeles: 1250 miles
Los Angeles back home to SaoPaulo: 6150 miles

Miles traveled: 19750 in a month, yikes! If you traveled 24,901 miles, you could have gone completely around the equator of the Earth. So, you can follow Brazil at a U.S. hosted World Cup or travel literally around the world, your choice.
And, a couple of other notes on Qatar:

- In regards to Qatar size, all of the stadiums will be less than an hour from each other. Allowing fans to see more than one game in a day. And, the country of Qatar is only 4400 sq miles in size. If you remember my mini-rant on Houston, you know that Houston covers 600 sq miles by itself. So, the country is just 7 times as large as the city of Houston.

- The time difference between Eastern Standard Time and Qatar is only 7 hours. I initially thought it was much more than that, figuring it was much further to the East. To put that into some kind of context, there is a 6 hour time difference between us and most points in Western Europe and the S. African towns hosting this year's matches. So, the kickoff times will be just one hour earlier than past tournaments: Euro 2008 (hosted by Austria/Switzerland), World Cup '06 (Germany) as well as this year's Cup. Isn't it better to skip out of work for these games, than to watch them after a long day?
So, there's the case for Qatar. A World Cup would certainly go off without a hitch here in the States and it would be fine, but what else would it be? A World Cup in Qatar would give us new technology to emulate, help grow football in developing nations through their donations, and shine a light on a country/culture that most know little about.

My brother did remind me of one thing, that Qatar is an Islamic nation (can't believe I forgot that angle). After doing some research, I found a number of different countries and schools with travel advisories. All of these mentioned the same thing, visitors should be sensitive to Islamic culture and customs. This includes, of course, how you dress. So, a tournament in Qatar will not give us scenes like this or this. But, I say its a small price to pay, for a game changing World Cup. These women will be back in 2026. Hope you enjoyed the post, had some laughs, and learned some stuff along the way.

See you next time,

James

The Case Against The US World Cup Bid, The Case For...

Hello again,

Thanks so much for coming back for this 2nd post. I'm glad I didn't scare anyone away with the thought of Anti-American rhetoric. That being said, I do want to explain one thing I said at the end of the inaugural post. I said that I would "de-sell" you on the idea of the United States landing the World Cup. We all know that the U.S. would do a wonderful job hosting and most of the infrastructure needed to effectively host a World Cup already exists (I'll explain in a bit).

For me, there are a few ingredients essential to properly hosting a World Cup. And, I mean for all parties (fans, media and players). First off, it should be hosted in a smaller country, in relation to the U.S. but with many large cities. Also, I think the hosting cities should all be accessible from each another, via train. It is also ideal to have the stadiums pretty close to the city centers. Germany 2006 was a great success in this regard. If you were a fan, you did not have to board a plane to follow your country. If you did happen to board a plane, your flight would not have been more than 1-1.5 hours. The stadiums were also walking distance from rail lines. The USA bid cities leave much to be desired. You'll notice that Houston is on the list. And, if you have visited there (sadly I have), you know its equal to the 5th level of hell . Its a sprawling city, impossible to navigate and is spread across a whopping 600 square miles. To top it off, there is only a light rail service to get you to the proposed stadium. Many of the other cities don't have an underground rail network and some of the stadiums are far from the center of town. They include Boston/ Foxborough (stadium is 28 miles from town) and Washington, DC. (stadium is in Landover, Md, 12 miles away in a different state!!). Fed Ex Field has only been around since 1997, and it sucks so bad they already want a new one. I've actually been there for an NFL Throwball game, and it is pretty horrible. My experience here could be a separate post in and of itself. Some cities are places you want to be: New York/ NJ, Miami, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. There are some others you can do without: Baltimore, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay. If you're lucky, you'll make it to one World Cup in your life. Could you imagine if your country played their games in Indianapolis or Kansas City? Not much fun. Phoenix is also on the list, and the US Soccer folks have no problem telling you that the stadium will be serviced by just one bus line. So, I think you get my point. The U.S. is almost too big to host a World Cup AND make it truly enjoyable for the fans. You have bid cities on each coast to complicate things as well.

Since the U.S. hosted World Cup 1994, I took a look back and pretended I was a Brazil fan (winners that year) and attended every game. In 1994, a Brazil fan would have watched the first 2 games in Stanford, CA, flown to Detroit for the final group stage game, flown back to Stanford for the next round, then to Dallas, and back to Pasadena for the final. It was a little better, if you followed the second place team that year, Italy. An Italy supporter would have started in New Jersey, gone to Washington D.C., then to Boston (for 2 games in a row), back to New Jersey, then to Pasadena. This also takes it toll on the players who are doing all this traveling, hopping time zones, and could ultimately affect the quality of the games. The same could happen with the cities chosen for 2018.
A smaller issue is the culture factor. In other countries, football in general, and especially a World Cup is simply ubiquitous. Its just everywhere. Everyone is talking about it, goofy songs are made just for the event, World Cup signs and billboards are literally everywhere. The billboard in that last link is not a fake. In our lifetimes, football may top out and become the fourth most popular sport in the States.

Which brings me to last Saturday, I have World Cup fever just like anyone else that may be reading this. So, I decided to pick up a jersey to wear out to bars for the month. My wife asked a older gentleman, working at an unnamed sporting goods store (I won't even plug them to my 3 followers!) if they had "jerseys for the World Cup nations?" He looks at her quizzically and says, "World Cup?". After some uncomfortable silence, my wife translates it to Yankee talk and says, "soccer jerseys?" The guy points to a section of the store and says, "anything we have is over there." Hey, it was only 6 days away from the biggest sporting event in the world, about 1 billion people will watch the final and the guy works in a sporting goods store. Why should he know what the World Cup is?

Anyway, that is my case against the U.S. I had more I could have written, but I want you all to come back. That being said, the title of this blog post is, "The Case Against the U.S bid, The Case For....". If you're still reading, you're probably wondering who I want to land the next 2 World Cups (both will be awarded at the end of the year). Check back for my next posting for my choices for 2018 and 2022.

Back soon with Part II,

James

Week In Review, Topics Include: NDAA, Gingrich Tax Plan, West Port Shutdown On & The Icelandic Recovery

Hello to all and thanks for checking in.

We had another big week and there is so much to get to. We had yet another GOP Debate. Unbelievable right? When I saw it on, I thought it was a re-run. I think there are more GOP Debates this year than total episodes of "Seinfeld." It ended at 11pm last night (Thursday). So, if anything crazy happened, I may post some of my tweets from the night, by midday Friday. We also had what may be the end of one of our base Constitutional rights, multiple port shutdowns and slowdowns on the West Coast, my point on the climate change debate was illustrated, the Year in Review from Google, and how Newt Gingrich wants to give all the money in the country (maybe even the world), to the top 0.1% of the population. Let's get to it.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) : 

I mentioned the NDAA in last week's post. In short, it gives the government the right to indefinitely detain Americans without trial or due process, if they are suspected of terrorist activities. So, Guantanamo Bay is now open to Americans. I mentioned in last week's "Week In Review" that the White House was threatening to veto the bill. However, like everything else with Obama, he backed off that original stance. As I mentioned in that last post, the veto threat was in place if there was a special carve-out or distinction for U.S Citizens. The wording of the bill was changed to remove that stipulation, so now US citizens can be treated the same as anyone else who is deemed a terrorist. The Guardian (from the UK) did a great job with this. Check out their piece on the NDAA here. And, if you have not heard of this until now, don't blame yourself. There has been what amounts to a media blackout on this topic. It seems that you have to leave the US, to find out what is happening here. I've been using independent/overseas sources to keep up with this story. At the time of posting, the bill awaits Obama's signature. Here's hoping that there will be enough pressure from the outside to force a veto. There are marches planned for the next couple of days to the White House. Many petitions have been circulated online as well. Fingers crossed on this one, but I'm not hopeful.

Don't Forget To Pack Your Earplugs:

The manufacturer of the Long Range Acoustic Device or LRAD has record sales this past fiscal year, it was up 57% from last year. Seems like police departments are loading up. So, if you make your way to a large protest bring earmuffs, ear plugs, cotton balls, BOSE noise canceling headphones and be on the lookout. Silver linings on the US becoming a police state? This company is based in San Diego. So, purchasing LRADs create American jobs!! Hopefully, we can keep protesting our way out of this recession. As an aside, did you know that tear gas is made in Jamestown, Pennsylvania? As I find more of these, I'll pass them on. But, it seems like, you can get any item needed to brutally crush protesters within our borders. USA! USA! USA!

Climate News:

Just on Tuesday, I posted something I written on what I felt was missing from the climate discussion. Check it out here, if you haven't seen it. I'm really proud of it. My main point was that spreading the message to somewhat curtail meat-eating (I know the whole world won't go vegetarian) is seldom mentioned. Just yesterday, an article was published that talked about the dangers of Arctic methane being released in our atmosphere. The article states that thanks to permafrost melting in the Arctic, forecasts of climate change could be 2.5 times worse than the already released estimates. Going back to the meat-eating point, worldwide livestock population causes the emission of 80 million metric tons per year. With that said, it remains absent, as one of the potential solutions, from nearly all the climate change articles I see. I mentioned in Tuesday's post, that methane is 70 times worse than CO2 over a 25 year period. Excluding this fact from the discussion simply makes no sense to me.

How To Come Out Of A Crisis, Nordic Style:

Kudos to Iceland. They are coming out of their banking crisis the way you should. A couple of weeks ago (I just found this out), they arrested the CEO of one of their banks. Imagine that? In the US, about 5,000 people have been arrested for protesting said banks. And, 2 more quick things on Iceland. They deserve a book written about them, not just a post. After their banking collapse, they let the banks fail and expanded their social safety net. The Icelandic economy is showing growth that outpaces the rest of the world. They also have re-written their own constitution. The people of Iceland were able to make massive demands of their government, force resignations, new elections, etc. Since Iceland doesn't have an army, the citizens couldn't be brutalized like here or in Middle Eastern nations. That is the VERY short version of the Iceland story. Give them a look when you have a chance. They even used social media to crowd-source their new constitution, during the drafting process. Amazing stuff.

Port Shutdown Round-Up: 

December 12th saw an attempted shutdown of West Coast shipping ports. The aim was to shine a light on the plight of truck drivers connected with the shipping companies and dock workers working on these ports. Apparently, Goldman Sachs has gotten their hands into the import market as well. The ports are called "Wall Street On The Water." Through deregulation and union bashing, these workers lead a very tough existence. I did not know this, prior to the protest. But, many don't have health insurance. The truck drivers are not employees of the shipping companies. They are technically "independent contractors." Because of that, they pay for their own fuel for the trucks, there is no workman's compensation, very little time off, and other cruel working conditions. The success of the protest was hit and miss up and down the coast. I can tell you they did succeed in raising awareness. I had no idea of any of this prior to the shutdown attempt. Most posts did experience slowdowns. Oakland's port was shutdown for the better part of 24 hours. Seattle's port had long delays and clashes with the cops. Here's a video from the local Seattle news and they look in on a couple of other ports, in this clip.

Republicans Are Coming For It All: 

During the week, Newt Gingrich released his tax plan and, spoiler alert, it proportionately benefits wealthy citizens. I'm still at a loss why anyone votes Republican. Maybe it's an aspirational vote. Maybe they inwardly say, "If I win the lottery tomorrow, this is how I want to be treated." Other than that, I'm stumped. His plan was a complete joke. There are approximately 130,000 people in the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers in the US. With the Gingrich plan, they would have a tax cut of 1.9 million dollars per year. If you assume the Bush tax cuts continue, and add the Gingrich cut, their taxes are lowered by 2.3 million per year. Anyone making $40,000-1,000,000 would pay a higher tax rate than someone with an INCOME (not wealth) of over 1 million dollars per year.

Google's Year In Review:

A fitting way to finish, the Year In Review, just released yesterday from Google. I'm not ashamed to say there were a few tears here at Hub Headquarters. Year in Reviews are my Kryptonite, they always get me. Enjoy and keep the Kleenex nearby.

 See you next time,

James

Crisis Of Capitalism: Thoughts From The Royal Society Of The Arts and Economist Richard Wolff

Hello and thanks for checking in.

Today, we have another relatively short post. This comes from David Harvey, at one of my favorite think tanks (yup, I have favorite think tanks), the Royal Society of the Arts (RSA). In 11 minutes, he succinctly identifies the problems in our current system. Amazingly, he gets to globalization, wage suppression, home ownership, credit card usage, and labor unions in quick fashion. But, he gets to the point that capitalism never really fixes the root problems. It moves the problem around the globe. It also works around established rules. He talks about how more billionaires were created during the financial crisis as the world economy weakened. It's incredibly interesting. Give it a look, it's worth you're 10 minutes. I will also post other videos from RSA, because I just love their work.

And, apropos to the wage suppression mentioned by David Harvey, here is a great piece from Professor Richard D. Wolff. In this piece, he gives you the hard numbers on poverty in this country. He fingers capitalism as the culprit. Wolff talks about the stock options and huge salaries (for execs) driving income gaps and poverty. He also mentions the relentless drive for profits (and the wage suppression/job cuts that are invariably linked to that). At the end, he also calls for a full rethink, to our current system. And, he supplies progressive alternatives, which David Harvey did not in the RSA video. I thought these two items, tied nicely together. In Wolff's piece he looks deeper into our last Census information. According to Census data, the poverty line in 2010 was $22,314 for a family of four. If you do the math, the Bureau's poverty line works out to only $15 per day per person for food, shelter, clothing yourself, transportation costs, etc. If you make above this $22k number, you are not considered to be living in poverty in this country. Under this amazingly low standard, there are still 46.2 million people living in poverty, about 15% of the population.

This goes further into the crisis of capitalism. It also features a movie called "Zeigeist" from Peter Joseph. Mr. Joseph has been working hard trying to find an alternative to capitalism and his "Zeitgeist" series explores that. Also something called the "Venus Project" is worth a look, if you get the chance. An alternative to our current system that is being worked on.

The tragedy, beyond these horrible numbers, is that about 1 in 4 people are close to falling into poverty. The reasons are plenty. As local, city, and state governments hemorrhage money with unbalanced budgets, many social services are cut. Those affected are usually on the low end of the income scale. Many will have divert more of their own income to make up for the difference, thus accelerating the slide into poverty. Should Medicare and Social Security benefits ever be cut, hundreds of thousands of people will be forced to aid their again parents. This can lead to an even bigger shift into poverty, as the Baby Boomers start to retire in an awful economy. Add to all this stagnant wages, pension cuts, and rising health care costs, the end result is these near depression-level poverty numbers.

I hope those were informative. I thought each gave thought provoking information. Hopefully, it will get the wheels turning on how to better our current system.

See you next time,

James

I Guess We Still Need America

This Guy Passes For "Good Music" In Germany

Hello to all,
 
I have spent this Christmas and New Year in Germany with my wife and in-laws. We were lucky enough to be in Berlin for the New Year's Eve festivities. Together, we braved the cold and stayed outside for about 6 hours waiting to ring in 2012. But, that is not really the point of this hub. During my time here (and especially in Berlin), I've noticed a few instances of America's influence on the world and where we are still sorely needed.

While on vacation, I have not kept as sharp an eye on the news as I usually do. However, I did notice that in the last few days, the US had a 3.5 billion dollar arms sale to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Those who followed the Arab Spring closely will know that the US shipped tear gas to Egypt. This tear gas was eventually used against protesters in Tahrir Square. If you follow world health and food issues, you would also know that Far East countries are experiencing large jumps in cases of diabetes. This has been attributed to the adoption of the Western diet. US diplomats even push dodgy, genetically modified foods (via diplomatic relations) onto other nations, for companies like Monsanto and DuPont.

While waiting to celebrate 2012 the other night, I even noticed that "Weight Watchers" had a large presence at the event. Their ads lined most of the area where people congregated. They sponsored/featured in their ads, a performer from the evening (Cassandra Steen). So, in the 6 hours standing in place, I feel as though I saw this ad about 1,000 times. You can see Cassandra Steen's performance from that night (below). But, tying this altogether, I came to the conclusion that the US's main exports are: war, obesity, Franken-foods, and obesity remedies. I thought the world didn't really need us. We screw up a lot of stuff for other nations. But, as 2011 ended, I realized one other export and it is where the world does truly need us. The US must remain as a global force, solely for our.......pop stars!!

Other than that, I feel as though the world would be better off without us. We have multiple wars and occupations going on. We're supplying the weapons for brutal crackdowns elsewhere. We can't get any tough laws regulating our banks or Wall Street as a whole. The list goes on. The US even stood in the way of a binding deal at a recent climate conference (COP 17). I wrote a post that talked about this conference, you can see it here if you wanted to know more about US obstruction on climate talks. But, some on the ground were calling the President, "George W. Obama." Because, his stance differed little from the past Administration.

Back to New Years Eve, needless to say, I was a bit underwhelmed by some of the popular acts here in Germany. The gentleman in the first picture, goes by the name of DJ Oetzi. His real name is Gerhard Friedle and he was born in Austria. According to my wife, the goofy white hat is a staple of his. Take 30 seconds to view a part of his New Years Eve performance and you'll see why the world still needs us. With all the acts, on the night, I felt as though I was watching a play, people acting how they thought pop stars would act. None of the acts seemed really genuine. It's that same feeling you get if you turn on Fox News. That, "...wait a minute, something isn't right here..." feeling. All of them seemed rigid and just pathetic on the whole. I'm not the biggest fan of today's pop music, but watching a rotund Austrian fella labor around the stage, made me long for the stage presence of Lady Gaga, Beyonce, or Katy Perry.

During the evening, the crowd also suffered through a performance from a man named Ben Jaimen. This guy was the most emotionless, plastic figure I may have ever seen on stage. Again, it looked as though he was playing the part of a pop star (but badly). With each song he performed, the crowd seemingly became more indifferent towards him. You can see one of the songs and the crowd's apathetic reaction. There was a rotating sign next to the stage, at points, that mentioned his album was on sale in stores. I joked that him being there was only hurting his sales. For his last song, he brought a number of children on stage (for a choir-type effect) and that could not even get a rise out of the crowd. After another round of hapless applause, he desperately says, "One more time...for the kids..." That didn't even help. For anyone who has seen "Coming to America", it was reminiscent of Sexual Chocolate dropping the mike and leaving the stage, only if hundreds of thousands of people were being quiet at the same time.

Last one, I promise. These guys have a special place in my heart. I reserve this place in my heart for extra dislike. They are called "The BossHoss." The band is originally from Berlin and are amazingly popular in Germany. From what I've worked out, they only cover popular songs, but in a Country/Western sound. So, I guess they save money by not having to hire songwriters. You can hear their version of "Hey Ya" from Outkast, if you're interested. I could not find their NYE performance. They've carved out this special niche where they are just a glorified cover band. But, they cover the songs in a singular sound. Maybe it's a goof on Country/Western bands from the States? Who the hell knows? You have a group of guys from Berlin in Stetsons and wife-beaters. You try to figure it out.

What can I say? It's confusing for my American brain. I have to say. I do love Germany. It's a dream place to live for a liberal like myself. Their citizens accept climate change, a good chunk of ours do not. All of their citizens have health care and have had in since 1883. They have high speed rail. Our trip from west Germany (near Hamburg) to Berlin only took 3.5 hours, and that was with 2 transfers.
 On the way back, it took right around 3 hours flat.

Through progressive taxation, strong unions, and amazing social services, Germany is among the world's most equal countries. CEO pay vs average worker pay is only 12 to 1 in Germany. It is 475 to 1 in the USA, I can go on and on about the services here. I haven't even touched on the low cost of education or generous maternity leave. In their current Parliament, there are 6 parties holding seats, giving voters an actual choice when voting. (I think we just have the illusion of choice in the US...story for another day) But, with all that being said, the one glaring hole in Germany's CV is in the area of pop-stars. How can a country, that has figured out health care in the 1880's, be listening to a portly Austrian bring in a new year? Questions like this boggle my little mind and it's why we still need America. USA! USA! USA!

See you next time,

James

Diego Maradona: Separated At Birth...

...And The Story Behind His Doppelganger

Abi Atici on the 12/19 episode of "Topfgeldjager"

I have to say, this post should be chalked up to the Gods of Serendipity. In my profile, I mention that I'm on a quest to learn German as a second language and that I'm a soccer fanatic. This hub is the intersection of those two interests. My wife is a German citizen. And, we hope to move back there one day, provided the Euro crisis doesn't blow up the German economy. As a part of teaching myself the language, I watch German TV and/or listen to German podcasts/radio shows.

Today, I watched a German cooking show, called "Topfgeldjager." Long story short, 2 teams have a set amount of time to cook an appetizer, main course, and dessert. The meals are then judged by another chef, and the winner gets a monetary prize and the option to come back for more money. Loser goes home. Imagine my surprise today, when one of the members of the men's team, was a dead ringer for Diego Maradona. He even wore a Maradona jersey for the show. He has tattoos matching those of Maradona. This is "Single White Female" to the ninth degree. I just hope he hasn't taken on Diego's issues with the nose candy, to help sell his gimmick. At first, I thought it was Diego. I thought maybe they were having him on as a special guest. Once the Maradona ringer spoke perfect German, I knew we had a doppelganger on our hands. I decided to investigate further.

The gentleman's name is Abi Atici. He is a Turkish-born German citizen and he has carved out quite the career as the soccer legend's look-a-like. From what I could work out from the show (again, my German is a little rough), he has done appearances as Maradona. He has gotten VIP treatment at clubs. Atici has tricked members of the press. He's even tricked ex-soccer players. Atici has tricked fans as well. When he arrives in different towns/countries, he willingly signs autographs, once he's mobbed by fans. Here he is at a Bayern Munich match taking pictures with unknowing fans. This appearance was synergistic. On the night, Bayern Munich was playing one of Diego's ex-clubs, Napoli. So, it would have made sense to the fans that he'd be in attendance.

Atici is not doing this without Maradona's knowledge or approval. On Atici's site, he is pictured with Maradona in Cuba (text is in German). If you have time, definitely take a look at that site. It even seems that he fluctuates his weight to match with that of Maradona. There's a picture of each of them shirtless as well, so you can see the matching tattoos. There's videos of him fooling the press as well.
All in all, just a strange story. I figured I'd share it with you all.

I only wanted to get a quick German lesson in today and learn some foods and new words. I stumble upon a Maradona look-a-like. What are the odds? I fear that the jig is up for Atici though. He was outed at the Bayern Munich-Napoli match a couple of weeks back. He goes on German TV this week. And, now I'm spreading the word to America. So, if you see someone who looks like Maradona, in some odd place, take a good look at the guy. Atici may be putting one over on you.

If you are German or can speak the language, you can see the show here for yourself. And, you have to watch this particular show (December 19th's). Fake Diego's team lost, so they will not be back. Hope you enjoyed this nugget of useless information. I got a kick out of it myself. I guess you just never know what you're going to run into on a given day.

See you next time,

James

 

Wal Mart: The (Incredibly) High Cost of Low Prices

Hello to all and thanks so much for checking in,

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Wow, that is a great title for a post!" And, you would be right. But, it's not mine. I borrowed almost all it from a 2005 documentary called "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices." (that mention should help me avoid a lawsuit)

The documentary was really well done, well received, and I suggest you check it out, if you haven't already. I watched it again recently and I noticed that if feels somewhat dated, considering what else is known about Wal-Mart now. So, this has inspired a broader question for me. I won't answer it completely here today and there are other corporations to look at about this. The question is,"Do they ( ___ corporation) serve any real good?" From what's coming up, you'll see that I feel that Wal-Mart doesn't serve a positive gain to the community/nation. But, admittedly, more work has to be done (or perhaps found by me).

Your first reaction might be to think of the sheer number of people they employ and that must serve some good. You'd be correct about the employment part. Wal-Mart employs 2.1 million employees. And, I understand that these employees go out and spend money, pay taxes, buy goods, etc. But, would you be surprised to find out that we taxpayers end up footing part of the bill for Wal-Mart's employees? Wal-Mart costs taxpayers $1,557,000,000,000 (this is 1.557 Trillion, I wanted you to see the the zeroes for effect) to support its employees, welfare and healthcare. That stat actually inspired me to do this post, because even I was shocked. This works out to an average of $943 per taxpayer, to pay for food stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance.

In Ohio alone, there are over 13K Wal-Mart employees that are currently on Medicaid. If you were to take at the state-by-state look (within the last link), many of the usual suspects appear nationwide (including McDonalds, Home Depot, Burger King, etc.) The average pay of a Wal-Mart worker is $8.81 per hour. Being completely fair, Wal-Mart does actually pay taxes, which is a rarity these days. In 2010, they paid 7.1 billion in taxes on 22.1 billion of profit.Even with that tax rate, they still have privatized 15 Billion in profits for shareholders and socialized over 1.5 trillion dollars in (what should be) their employee costs on to the rest of us, in only one year.

I mentioned at the beginning that there is so much more work to do on the effect of large corporations, and if they serve a net good. When you consider other effects of the way Wal-Mart does business, the question gets more muddied. Trying to factor in all the externalities is difficult at this time. There has been many studies, but it is tough to quantify if you want to extrapolate all the data a few steps further. I wanted to pose the question and maybe this will serve as Part I of a voluminous collection on Wal-Mart and other corporations. When thinking about externalities, consider the potential cost of these Wal-Mart facts:

- 3.5-3.9 million: approximate metric tons of CO2 emitted each year by Wal-Mart stores built-in the U.S. since 2006

- Under 2%: percentage of Wal-Mart's U.S. electricity consumption that currently comes from its solar projects and specially purchased wind energy

- 196,000: number of U.S. jobs lost from 2001 to 2006 as a result of Wal-Mart's imports from China

- 1,940: number of small retail firms (fewer than 20 employees) per 1 million population in the U.S. in 1992

- 1,455: number of small retail firms per 1 million population in the U.S. in 2007

That is just a sampling of some of the work that has been done. If you consider those items one by one, for instance, what is the public cost to that many tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere? If you consider air quality (and related illnesses & health issues when air quality is poor), climate change, etc, it may be impossible to accurately measure those costs.

But, what would be the positive ramifications of Wal-Mart becoming sustainable? What kind of boom would that cause? A large buyer like this could create an economy of scale for a supplier (especially a local one) of renewable items. That supplier hires US workers, those workers in turn buy goods, pay taxes, buy homes, pay property taxes, etc. The multiplier effect would be strong in a case like this. But, it is another hypothetical that I can't quantify just yet. Don't get me wrong. It's not Wal-Mart's responsibility to help the US's renewable industry. But, the effects could be massive if they chose to. It would be great for the environment, job force, manufacturing as a whole, and so many other downstream industries. In that case, they would most certainly be an overall good to the public.

If you look at the 3rd item, there were 196K jobs lost in a 5 year span. What are the costs of 196K being out of work for even a short time? It's another question that's tough to answer. 196,000 people collecting unemployment benefits, not paying payroll taxes, buying less goods, paying less sales taxes, etc, makes calculating the impact tougher to figure as well. The 196K number does not count smaller businesses closing up (and the subsequent job losses) when a Wal-Mart comes into a neighborhood (exhibited in the 4th and 5th facts).

The sad part about all this is that it seems that the consolidation at Wal-Mart is increasing. In 1988, Wal-Mart opened their first super-center that sold groceries. Today, they are responsible for 25% of all US grocery sales. And, in 29 metro areas, they capture more than half of all grocery spending in the region. They are set to open 200 more US stores in 2012. Their revenue is up over 100 billion (from 312-419 billion), from 2005-2010.

I guess the question is ultimately: Do the people Wal-Mart employ, taxes they (Wal-Mart & employees) pay, and economic growth they eventually drive outweigh the 1.557 Trillion we pay in social costs and the pollution and job loss they cause? I will try to find more on this. My hunch is that we'd be better off if they somehow didn't exist. But, my goal is to find out for sure.

I know I haven't answered my own question, but hopefully this was illuminating to you. Perhaps it will make you look at large companies more skeptically. Perhaps you will question politicians who bend over backwards to help these companies with tax breaks/subsidies, when we're paying about $950 each, for their employees. Maybe it will inspire you to shop more local, independent stores. Maybe it will even inspire to shop at Wal-Mart more, since you figure you're already about $950 in the hole each year, and you want to recoup that loss in savings there. The choice is yours. There will definitely be more to come on this subject. Stay tuned. I can say that this post gave me hope. I'm not the only one frustrated by WalMart's way of doing business.

See you next time,
James

What's Missing From The Climate Debate

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
- Albert Einstein

For those unaware, COP 17 is shorthand for the "Conference Of Parties." This past conference was the 17th of it's kind, bringing leaders from all nations together. This year's meetings took place in Durban, South Africa. The 2 week conference ended on the 11th of December. The COP's goal is to negotiate caps on the emissions of greenhouse gases. They are looking for stringent limits on the developed nations and bigger polluters (the usual suspects: EU nations, US, Canada, etc). Interestingly, there are waivers (on carbon caps) for what are deemed to be "developing nations."
I was surprised to find out that China and India fall under this umbrella. Groups of smaller nations band together, to strenghten their voices in these negotiations. Small island nations created their own group as did a number of African nations. Another goal of the COP 17 was to establish a fund that large countries will donate into. Donations would go to poorer nations to allow them to invest in green technology and initiatives. And, for those unaware, the Kyoto Protocol came out of the 1997 "Conference Of Parties."

Over the 2nd week of the talks, Democracy Now broadcasted from Durban. So, over the 2nd week, I took in 5 hours of coverage on the meetings. Democracy Now interviewed many scientists, activists, and bureaucrats. I learned that the situation is more dire than I originally thought. In short, massive reductions in carbon emissions is a must. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are saying a 50% reduction in emissions by 2015 is needed to fend off even more drastic climate changes than we experience now.

Journalists on the ground have said that the United States, and a few other nations, stood in the way of a strong, binding deal. COP17 ended with an agreement to meet again and negotiate a new deal by 2015, with complaince beginning in 2020. This the best that could be reached, even though IPCC is saying reductions in carbon emissions should be starting almost immediately. Those attending the talks are calling our President, "George W. Obama", because his stance is no different than that of the last administration. Take a look at this interview with a climate change denier from the US (1st video). He's not alone, there are many that do not believe the climate science. Here is a sample of the counter arguments.

So that is the background on COP and the US's stance, let me get to what I think is missing from the discussion. I decided to look at this, because I had a chat with a friend, who is a vegetarian and she was not aware of these facts. So, I figured others might not be aware. Did you know that everything that goes into the process of bringing meat (and chicken, pork, etc) to market causes more greenhouse emissions that all of our transportation sources combined? Consider that for a second, all of our transportation sources cause less pollution than what we eat. In 2006, the United Nations compiled a study called "Livestock's Long Shadow" which detailed meat eating's effect on total emissions. I had trouble believing it at first. However, consider that in bringing meat to market there is massive deforestation to clear space for livestock and for the food that will eventually feed them.

After the animals are slaughtered, they will have to be refrigerated for long stretches of time, while they can travel up to thousands of miles to be eventually sold. At the actual supermarkets, they will also have to refrigerated there as well. All together, this becomes a very energy intensive process. I think we all know that cows produce methane. I was not aware of just how much. They release about 280 liters of methane per day. And, there are 98 million heads of cattle in the US alone. 98 million (heads of cattle) x 280 liters = 27.440 billion liters of methane a day. This number shocked me. And, these numbers cover just the cows in the United States. It does not factor in any other animal type, any other nations, or the pollution caused from the massive amounts of manure produced.

 In addition to the sheer amount of methane put into the atmosphere, many people are not aware that methane is, in the long term (100 years), 30 times more damaging to the environment, than carbon dioxide (CO2). If measured over a 25 year period (a common timeframe, when looking at climate change forecasting), it is 70 times more damaging than CO2. During the 5 hours of coverage from Durban, only one person mentioned diet as a cause (or a part-solution). It turned out that the person that mentioned this was the Chair of the IPCC (see, below).

This is why it was the missing piece of the argument. There were so many people, from many nations all calling on governments to come up with a deal, while ignoring a large cause of the problem. You're omitting one of the greatest causal factors, while searching for a remedy. Its just irresponsible to not push that point. Being clear, I am aware that an incredible amount political will is needed to address this problem. But, to not talk about the dietary aspect of this problem is reckless. I can only come up with one reason for the omission. I believe if you tell people that they too are part of the problem, you immediately shift responsibility to them to change something. And, that scares people. On some level, it may be easier to battle against large governments and corporations than to change yourself or call on others to change. I am speculating a bit, as to what the people I saw from COP 17 coverage do in their own lives. They may lead vegetarian lifestyles. But, they certainly did not illuminate these facts within the climate equation. And, I do not believe this is common knowledge.

Where would be a better place than at a 2 week climate conference? If you don't talk about it publicly then, then when would you? This whole spectacle made me think of Al Gore. I'm pretty certain he is a meat eater. He would have a tough time telling folks to change daily habits, when he is not doing anything differently himself. Instead, he talks of a lack of leadership in government, and the need to change from there, while omitting this large causal factor. Being fair, in some of his less visible interviews, he will mention diet. But, not one word is uttered in more mainstream/visible appearances. In "The Inconvenient Truth" there is no mention of diet. In his recent project, "24 Hours of (Climate) Reality", Gore spoke for 1 hour at the end of this 24 hour look at climate change around the world and I waited patiently as nothing was said about meat eating. I watched this whole speech (yeah, I had nothing to do that night, ok). In a weird way, Gore is a microcosm of the climate fight. This battle is being fought without all our possible weapons or information.

I will revisit this, because there is just so much within this story. But, I do hope you found this informative.

Thanks for checking it out,
James