The Inevitability of Mining Pebble

On 7 October, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner published a column entitled, "Seductive 'silver': Pebble project is ethically and environmentally indefensible."  I think the title conveys that Eric Forrer, the author, is against the Pebble Mine project like many, if not most, Alaskans.  I know very little about the specifics of Pebble.  There were concerns about the seismic stability of the tailings impoundment, acid mine drainage, and the general despoiling of nearly pristine wilderness.  Complicating all of that, the deposit sits in the headwaters of one of the last great salmon fisheries in the world.

My intention is not to counter these arguments, as many of them are valid questions.  Most of them are also out of my area of expertise on the subject.  All that said, I think it is interesting that most of the opposing arguments are not actually about mining.  Salmon fisheries were destroyed in the North Atlantic because of fishing.  Similar mismanagement of fishing destroyed the salmon runs of the Pacific Northwest (in both the US and Canada).  Damns, logging, and other industries also had a severe effect on the fish, but mining is not the culprit in the destruction of any salmon fisheries.  Yet, the fishing companies are a major opponent of the mine to protect the fish.  If fishing is judged by the same rubric as mining, than I can see no way to argue that fishing is not also what Forrer calls an "environmental Armageddon."

The problem with mining is not the environmental catastrophes that it has caused, it is that people recognize a mine, and blame mining for the environmental problems they see.  In the Appalachians, for example, the historic mines remain, but the old growth forests do not.  Logging caused as much, if not more water contamination that killed streams, but since the trees are gone, it is hard for people to even imagine that from the east coast to Minnesota was once covered with endless forests of ancient trees, teeming with game.

Extractive industries are not the only ones that have horrific histories.  It should not be forgotten that farming was once carried out largely by slaves in this country.  That Henry Ford's plants were a model for union busting, corrupt police, corporate evil, and, lest we forget, antisemitism.  Every industry has skeletons in the closet.  The Cuyahoga River has caught fire 13 times, not owing to mining.  Love Canal, perhaps on of the most important environmental contamination cases for creating both environmental law, and precedence in dealing with liability law, was the dump site of 21,000 tons of toxic waste by a chemical company, not mining.  Perhaps the most important mining environmental disaster was Summitville, CO.

Summitville Mine has a long history of environmental issues.  Modern discovery of gold at Summitville happened in the late 19th century, but mining in the district had been undertaken by the Spanish, and, if memory serves, during pre-Columbian times.  By the middle of the 20th century, mining had largely exhausted the resource until technological improvements gave mining heap leaching and inexpensive haulage. Colorado issued a permit that, based on the geology, arguably should never have been issued.  The company was mismanaged, the mining was done poorly, and ultimately the result was an environmental catastrophe that should have been prevented by state and federal mining regulations and permitting bodies (too lax regulations do not help mining).

The point of this digression is that mining is judged by the failings of the past, yet most other industries are forgiven their trespasses.  In 2005 the Lisbon Valley Mine became the first copper mine to open in the US in 10 years, and to my knowledge, no copper mine has opened since then.  Which means in the last 17 years, there is but one mine using the newest technology.  Much has changed in those 17 years, and the technologies present in a mine that opened today would be as different as the technologies found in the American home over the last two decades.  It does not make mining without risk, but it does question the validity of an argument in opposition to mining based on technologies from 20 to 150 years ago.

Mining then, is no more environmentally indefensible than any other industry.  I went to the Banff Mountain Film Festival World Tour last night in Duluth, and one of the films featured several long time-elapse photography scenes of reservoirs in the Canadian Rockies.  The impact of dams on the natural environment are just as bad, if not worse than mining, yet they were being featured as things of beauty, and I assume that I was fairly alone in the audience cursing the Canadians (and an American filmmaker) for selling Hetch Hetchy-like projects as natural wonders.  I imagine that even Eric Forrer would not argue so strongly against the dams of the US and Canada as he does against the Pebble Mine.

The trouble I see for Mr. Forrer when it comes to Pebble is that it is likely the world's second largest copper deposit.  Beyond that, world class deposits do not occur alone.  Along the Alaska Peninsula there are undoubtedly numerous enormous deposits, much like those found in Chile.  This copper district, including the Pebble Mine, could be done properly, mined in Alaska, under strict EPA and state regulation.  This could provide wealth to the Alaska, that if used wisely, could develop infrastructure that would have long lasting, environmentally positive effects on the state.

The first part of this is strict regulation.  As an undergraduate, I toured a molybdenum mine.  One of the mine engineers admitted to the class that the Sierra Club actually helps them mine better.  He said that the Sierra Club sends engineers and lawyers, experts in the field, to review their plans, and point out things where mining could be done better.  He contrasted this against Greenpeace, who, according to him, simply looked for ways to be obstreperous.  I cannot help but see most of the Alaskans (and non-Alaskans) who are seeking to block the Pebble Mine as being like Greenpeace, looking to stop the project, rather than make regulations logical, strict, well-enforced, and, like the Alaska Constitution, a model of how good government works to protect the best interests of its people.

The second part of this is that mining Pebble has to be worth the risk, and loss of wilderness to society.  The revenue should be taxed, and that money should not go into further tax breaks for the oil industry, nor should it go into the permanent fund dividend, but it should go into schools, hospitals, roads, railroads, communications, air traffic control infrastructure, and alternative energy technologies.  Alaska could not only be a model for responsible, green mining, but also for what a state can look like when people collaborate, and create a place that is nice to live in now, and for generations to come.

I think it is unlikely that Alaskans have it in them to do this though.  Based on the results of the recent election in Alaska, most of the people who oppose Pebble Mine on the basis of environmental concerns support the Republican Party's mission to weaken environmental regulation.  The same people who would rather have a multi-billion dollar investment nationalized for environmental reasons argue against taxes, and for "small" government.  Because of this attitude, I think that the potential of what the Pebble Mine could be will be lost.
Though it will not be lost to a wilderness preserve, because Pebble will be mined.

The entire Alaska Peninsula could be turned into a National Park, or every gun-wielding Alaska could fortify the region and fire upon geologists.  It does not matter what type of action the people of Alaska or the United States take against Pebble Mine, one day, it will be mined because it is thought to be the second largest copper deposit in the world.

Pebble contains an estimated 55 billion pounds of copper, along with billions of pounds and millions of ounces of other elements including molybdenum, gold, silver, rhenium, and palladium.  This is a resource that society simply cannot leave in the ground.  Society is hungry for these resources.  The Minerals Information Institute publishes the MII Baby every year, which estimates the amount of mined natural resources an American will use over their lifetime.  The 2.92 million pounds of "minerals, metals, and fuels" that will be used by a Yankee includes 969 pounds of copper.  The 2008 Census predicted a population of over 400 million people in 2050, and the trend of most resources on the MII baby has been up or stable, every year I have looked at it.  Calling it 1,000 pounds of copper per person, and today's population, the US needs 310 billion pounds of copper for its population, or about six Pebble Mines!  Recall that Pebble is the second biggest in the world, and in production it would account for only one sixth of the copper America needs to preserve the status quo for the current population.  In 2050 the US will need eight Pebble Mines (for current consumption), and in the last 17 years the US has opened one small copper mine.

Opponents of mining will argue for recycling, but the problem with recycling is that it, at 100% efficiency, produces only the amount of materials we currently have.  Using worldwide production of automobiles, the problem with recycling becomes quickly evident.  In 1997 about 54 million automobiles were manufactured. In 2010 it was up to nearly 78 million, or almost a 50% increase.  For recycling to provide these automobiles, every car would need to be 50% smaller today than in 1997, but can cars shrink by 50% every 15 years in perpetuity?  Computers require a slew of mined minerals, the plug-in Toyota Prius requires on the order of 50 pounds of rare earth elements (more than non-hybrid automobiles), and wind turbines, cell phones, and just about every other new gadget is hungry for rare earths as well, all of which needs to be mined, not just recycled, to meet current demands.

It is easy to want mining to be conducted in remote China, rather than remote Alaska, when you are an Alaskan.  China is where most of the world's rare earth elements come from.  China has already acknowledged that their production is not sustainable, and in as soon as 2014, China's demand for these elements will exceed their production.  The United States will need to begin mining these deposits, or choose to stay married to coal power, and give up our cell phones and TVs.  Why not reinvent American mining to be responsible, even green, rather than await the inevitable?

Forrer, in his column, even acknowledges the inevitability of the Pebble Mine.  He thinks that Pebble will go into development when there is a favorable political climate at the federal level (which given the Obama Administration's track record on increased oil and gas production is arguably now), and he has a sad resignation about how the evil corporation will eventually triumph accordingly.  In this triumph of evil, he sees only an emotional loss, and that is the biggest loss of all.  Therein lies the biggest loss to society.  Mr. Forrer and the Pebble opponents cite more emotion than logic.  The pro-mining groups prey on the fears of people who need work.  The TV commercials show either leaping salmon or poverty stricken families, and no one seems to be interested in the science and engineering that can make the Pebble Mine a success for everyone.

Development of the Pebble Mine is inevitable, as is development of the countless other major deposits that are certainly hosted in the Alaska Peninsula.  The world needs commodities, and Pebble is simply too good to not mine.  The question that faces Alaskans, like all questions of the inevitable, is not whether or not, but how.

No Taxes: The Soviets Win.

Fifty-five years ago, Sputnik became the first artificial satellite in Earth orbit.  Four years later, Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space.  In 1965, Alexey Leonov would become more under-appreciated than Yuri Gagarin as the first human to perform a space walk.  While Sputnik is a fairly household name, Gagarin and Leonov are relegated to space nerds, Star Trek, and postage stamps in countries other than the US.  Americans would rather celebrate two-thirds of the Apollo 11 crew, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, for being the first humans on the moon.

Pop culture would have Americans think that post-Apollo, the US dominated the space race.  However, the Russians were the first to put up a space station, and led the way with space stations until the International Space Station replaced Mir.  It is true that the US is the only country that successfully used a reusable launch vehicle (the Space Shuttle), but the Soviets had the Buran in response to the payload capacity of the Space Shuttle.  Additionally, to this day, Roscosmos has plans to replace the Soyuz spacecraft.

Historically, with both sides claiming significant victories, it is difficult to say who won in space.  In many ways, everyone won.  Present day, it is clear who has won.  Without a shadow of doubt, the Russians have won the space race.  Roscosmos and the Chinese Space Agency are the only two national space agencies that currently can launch people into space.  While the Chinese have the ability, unlike the US, the Russians are the only country currently actively engaged in human spaceflight.  What would have Americans thought of this in 1969?

First, I do not think very many Americans in 1969 would have thought for a moment that the Chinese would exceed the ability of the US to launch people and satellites into space, ever.  That would have been unfathomable.  More interestingly, to suggest that Russia would surpass and maintain a space agency that would replace NASA as the world's premiere human spaceflight program would have been unpatriotic!

Now though, with an Apollo 40th anniversary sticker on my clipboard, I am a nerd, and the exception.  Many Americans, including many who would have called one a traitor for implying the Russians would win the space race, now tout their patriotism when they demand that funding to NASA be slashed in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy.  I, the space nerd, am actually accused of being unpatriotic in 21st Century America for thinking that the US should have the best space program in the world.  Frankly, that is sad.

I think it is a tragedy that science has become a partisan issue, NASA is considered pork worth cutting, that education is expendable, that infrastructure is allowed to crumble, that veterans do not get benefits, that the US military spends more on contracts to giant corporations for defense systems that do not work, than they do on soldiers, and that the environment is something to exploit.  I see two things that have made these changes.  First, many people who claim to be patriots would rather line the pockets of the rich, than keep the US great.  Second, these (generally) same people demand to be told both sides of every issue.

On the topic of taxes, what can I say?  In my world view it is my patriotic and civic duty, as well as in my best interest, to pay taxes.  I think that taxes should be based on what you earn (I earn more than lots of folk, and I should pay a higher tax rate than they do).  I accept that governments will waste some money.  I will pay my taxes, knowing some of it will be wasted, to know that people my age and younger will be able to retire, and get medical care.  To know that veterans are healed and thanked.  To know that the US is a leader of nations.    In all honesty though, I do not think taxes are the real issue.  The TEA Party talks a lot of taxes, but that is the wealthy preying on the ignorant.  Average Americans do not think that kids should go without education, healthcare, or food.  Thus, while they do not understand government, they want the services that taxes bring, and therefore, actually do want taxes.  The problem, in fact, lies in the second issue.

It sounds so innocent on the surface.  In fact, it sounds like good common sense, to be told both sides of an issue.  In most cases, it is.  Without free media, only the state's side of an issue is told to the people.  Yet, if you have a free media, and there is consensus on an issue, could this demand be used to actually damage factual information?  Exactly, and it is no accident that this is what is happening.  One of NASA's major (remaining) missions is to monitor the changes in the Earth.  Years ago, this mission was referred to something silly like "Spaceship Earth."  I will stick with this name.  The idea behind Spaceship Earth was that humanity is more or less limited to this one place.  One place in all the vastness of space, with finite resources and growing populations.  The idea was that the "spaceship" we call Earth must stay habitable for humans to survive.

Spaceship Earth (and many other researchers) found out lots of interesting things, and generated lots of great data.  The thing about data is that data are.  One can interpret data in various ways, but at the end of the day, the data still are.  They are what they were at the beginning of the day, and they are what they will be at the end of the next day.  Sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes data are misinterpreted.  In general, peer-reviewed science, is pretty good.  When Spaceship Earth type studies found that climate was changing owing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, only companies with a vested interest in generating carbon dioxide were concerned, much like the discovery of the ozone hole (unrelated to climate change).  Since there was pretty solid consensus, few people thought of arguing.

We have consensus on many social issues, and some consensus is waning.  There was a time in the US when consensus was that drugs like THC (found in marijuana) should be illegal, but those feelings are changing.  There was also a time in the US when consensus was that slavery is good, now consensus is that slavery is bad.  It takes brave dissidents to change the way we think about social issues we have consensus on.  That is why it is important to hear "both sides."  It seems to me that powerful and influential people and corporations noticed that consensus can be swayed by public opinion in social issues, and they ventured that most people did not understand the difference between a debate about whether prostitution should be legal, and scientific findings, like plate tectonics.

"What if," these people wondered to themselves, "people could be convinced that the plate tectonics proponents were keeping down a competing hypothesis"?  They then went about instilling doubt, but it was not about plate tectonics.  Few people doubt that today.  Nor was it about things like the existence of electricity.  See, these things make life better and more comfortable.  But global climate change and evolution make life more difficult.  If evolution exists, then people have to learn about biology.  If global climate change is real then the environment cannot be systematically raped for profit.  What better way to instill doubt than by offering alternatives that are more comfortable?

That is exactly what they did.  People like the Koch brothers convinced Americans that 750,000 years of climate data did not actually tell us about climate on Earth.  That the study of Spaceship Earth was a moot point, because Spaceship Earth was actually unchanging, no matter what the data said.  When the data were so overwhelming that this argument was abandoned, the public had doubt, and were ready to take on the new tagline that "it doesn't matter"!  So the Kochs convinced people that no matter what the scientific consensus was, there was "another side."  That the billionaires were being mistreated by the academics.  That you could choose your own interpretation in science.

I will admit, these people have come up with some interesting arguments.  Though each argument they come up with is disproved.  That is the real strength to the side of doubt.  Understanding and knowledge takes time, data, and study.  Doubt takes a plausible idea dreamed up in the basement of some think tank.  After years of hearing nonsense about volcanoes releasing more carbon dioxide than humans, science has proven that, in fact, all of the volcanoes of the world combined do not release as much carbon dioxide as humans.  I will repeat that for effect.  All of the volcanoes of the world, blasting fantastic displays of power into the atmosphere, release less carbon dioxide than people turning on lights and driving cars.

This is a circuitous route back to NASA, but one may be wondering why it would pay to instill doubt in an entire country?  The answer is back to taxes.  If I make more than you, than I pay more taxes, which I already stated, I like.  If you make more than me, you pay a higher tax rate than I do (maybe).  This means that billionaires should be paying a lot more than everyone else.  (Keep in mind, if a billionaire makes 1% interest on their money, they can do nothing and make $10,000,000 (that is 10 million dollars) per year.  That is for doing nothing!)  Conversely, if they lower their tax rate by a little bit, they save a lot of money.  (If that billionaire lowers their tax rate by 1%, they save what two average American families make in a year combined.)  To keep with the Koch Brothers, they each have about $25 billion.  This means that you multiple those numbers by 25 for each of them (50 for both).  Thus, if they lower their tax rate by 1%, in a year that they did nothing, and earned only 1% interest on their money they would each save what fifty average American families make in a year combined!  How much do you save by lowering your tax rate by 1%?  The average household would save about $500.

Back to NASA.  NASA is now bailing, like so many US agencies, from international, national and local programs that help every citizen of the US.  An example of this is the ExoMars program.  NASA will likely bow out of this program, and in its stead, the Russians will likely be taking up the slack.  Now, Roscosmos will lead the US not only in human spaceflight, but also in Mars exploration.  The Chinese have lunar ambitions.  Iran is even putting more living things into space than the US!  I find it shocking and embarrassing that people who watched the moon landing would even, for a moment, consider underfunding NASA and science in the US.  These are the people who are leading the US down a path away from science, and arguing for a new US.

Because when you think about the magnitude of the difference between the savings of the rich versus the savings of the average American with a 1% tax rate reduction, it is not about saving money for you and I.  Arguing for tax cuts is arguing for a widening of the gap between rich and poor.  It is arguing against healthy, educated kids.  It is arguing against NASA.  It is, in fact, arguing that the Soviets should win.

Making a Difference

My mom, along with group of other award winning teachers each wrote an essay about making a difference in the lives of children. Their book is entitled Today I Made a Difference, and the cover art is a rather pretentious perfect red apple. As far as content goes, it is the stuff of Chicken Soup for the Soul, which (sorry mom) I am a bit too pragmatic to truly enjoy. Yet, the idea of making a difference intrigues me, and it is something that I frequently find missing in my life (maybe coming from a family of public educators makes you feel like you have to help people). Thus, when sitting on my couch, I find that I have stare downs with that pretentious apple, wondering, “did I make a difference”?

This is, of course, a question not often asked by geologists and engineers. I think it is often because they are compensated at a rate that they do not need to validate their career choice with intangible returns. These affirmations are the realm of teachers, librarians, police officers, paramedics, firefighters, soldiers, and, oddly, physicians (unlike the rest of this group, they are well paid). Nothing I say here is meant to detract from the noble professions listed above. I am glad that people recognize that these people make a difference in the lives of others. I appreciate the contributions of these professions, even when I disagree with the policies they are working towards (e.g. the dedication, valor and contribution of a police officer enforcing an unjust law, or a soldier fighting an unjust war is no less than those celebrated in bronze in capital cities).

I watched Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy last night where the mole says something like, “I am a man who has made his mark.” While powerful traitors are remembered in history, e.g. Benedict Arnold, most people in the clandestine services, of all sides, are not generally thanked for making a difference. Yet, they are celebrated in pop culture with the likes of James Bond and NBC's Chuck. Soldiers and emergency responders are also glamorized in films like Saving Private Ryan and Ladder 49. When one watches these films, one cannot help but want to make a difference in the way that these heroes do. Everyone has to die, and why not die in a dramatic flourish, saving the public from a burning industrial complex, asking the chief on the radio to tell your family you love them, then be celebrated with a parade of bag pipes?

Physicians are perhaps the most celebrated of the professions that “make a difference.” They are well paid (compare the education of an MS or a PhD to the MD, then argue that they “deserve” that paycheck), they are regarded as sexy and “real” doctors (again, compare the educations), and they are celebrated in pop culture! Imagine the drama that could be made out of the difficulties encountered in the classroom (e.g. Precious), while these dramas exist, they pale in comparison to the following of ER, House, or MASH. It is the disparity between the glamor of these other professions and teachers that spawn the creation of books like Today I Made a Difference, and the award that brought those teachers together, the DisneyHAND Teacher of the Year (which only makes Wikipedia in Joe Underwood's potentially self-made Wikipedia page).

Yet, with all due respect, I doubt that these professions actually make more of difference than any other profession. Politicians make a difference. Scientists and engineers make a difference. Artists, athletes and musicians make a difference. Marketers, corporate executives, spoiled rich kids, and royalty make a difference. Further, gardeners, custodians, maids, maintenance workers, and trades people make a difference. The school or public hospital would not get built without politicians. Without engineers and scientists the buildings could not be designed, the procedures would not be invented, and the knowledge would not have be created. Marketers, corporate executives, and the rich guide public opinion, and supply the materials that go into the public works. Artists and athletes provide the first role models. Trades people actually build the buildings, and gardeners, maintenance workers and custodians keep the buildings going. Without all of these other people making their difference the teachers and physicians would be impotent to make a difference. Even the tax payers who pay (the absolute minimum) for for everything from materials to salaries are making a difference!

It does not seem to stop with legal profession. Do drug dealers and prostitutes not make a difference?  In modern society we see these as negatives, but like traitors, negatives can make a heck of a difference as well. If I ignore the negative societal view, drug dealers provide the same service as pharmacists, they just are not regulated so more mistakes are made. Prostitution is even more interesting to me in this regard. In Frank Hebert's Dune it is asserted that the concubines are the true lovers of the royalty, and are therefore the ones with actual power, as they have the power of love over the rulers. A modern prostitute is a far cry from a science fiction royal concubine, or is it? Are they not being provided money for essentially the same services? Could we learn to respect the “difference” that these people make in society even if we do not respect how they accomplish that difference, or what that difference is?

I have spent much of my adult life in some way connected to the mining industry. Arguably, the father of all engineering and science. Were the first humans to note the properties of certain stones, where they occur, and how to extract them from the earth proto-geologists and proto-miners? Did these earliest earth scientists not create the stone age? As our understanding of rocks, minerals, extraction and mineral processing increased, we entered the Chalcolithic (Copper Age). The metallurgists then really step up to the plate and combine tin and copper to launch civilization into the Bronze Age. The ability to smelt iron ore revolutionized civilization again. Then came coal. The Industrial Revolution is really the “Coal Age,” (a term I am certain I am not the first to coin) an age we are still very much in. Nearly every accomplishment civilization has made can be in some way tied to the earth sciences, and like every field, geology has early heroes.

Like Leibniz and Newton for calculus, geology has the founding fathers. Without surprise, the Greeks and Romans are often celebrated in the West, with the baton passed straight to Christian Europeans, but it was the Muslim world that really started modern geology. Early Muslim geologists like Abual-Rayhan al-Biruni and IbnSina rarely get any love in geology textbooks, and truthfully, I had to look up these names in Wikipedia, though Pliny the Elder sticks in my mind for his idea that amber was ancient tree sap. Skipping the Chinese, and everyone between these earliest geologists and NicolasSteno's 17^th Century ideas about stratigraphic relationships and superposition. A century later William Smith was born into a world that needed geologic maps. Then, in 1785, James Hutton became the first (widely regarded) modern geologist (Wikipedia), launching a scientific field for the inquisitive who are afraid of math. Any discussion of the founders of geology must include Lyell, whose uniformitarianism has been both incredibly insightful, and one of the biggest hindrances to geology conceivable. The thing about the differences these people made is that they did not simply make a difference in geology.

Back when Steno was wandering around Europe anyone with insight, curiosity and resourcefulness could make a hell of a difference. Stratigraphic relationships are obvious, and not to take away from Steno's greatness, but was it really that groundbreaking to argue that the heart is indeed a muscle? Well, yes it was, but it took someone who made observations, then hypotheses, then tested them, which is the basis of the scientific method. Steno made a huge difference simply by making observations in a logical, methodical way! Today, no one makes differences this big and this broad. These big names were part of a golden age of knowledge. Modern scientific heroes are more plentiful, and less celebrated (e.g. the nearly forgotten Jonas Salk, John Bardeen, or most Nobel Laureates). They are also more focused, so they only get to make one big difference (Marie Curie won the Nobel for physics, then again for chemistry, and Bardeen won twice for physics, so while there are a few of these people, there are not many (Wikipedia)).

It is too late for me to make a difference like this (more than likely), and the chances were never really in my favor, but making a difference is not necessarily measured in Nobel prizes.  The inability to quantify "difference made" leads me to stare at that damn apple after a day at work, and wonder, “did I make a difference today”?  Or, more likely, I just helped provide the electricity to let people sit at home, watching TV, not making a difference themselves? Is my difference actually the antidifference? Am I, as an exploration geologist, a traitor to human progress?

When I walk away from these evening sessions of self doubt, I am left with the feeling, that like so many of my kin in extractive industries and Chinese factories, my contribution to history will be far greater than that of the most honorable professions.  My contributions will be recorded in the size of our landfills, the destruction of our planet, and the pollution of our atmosphere, but I will die a man who has made his mark.

n+1 Revisions

I am constantly on the look out for my next bicycle.  At times, this seems ridiculous to those around me, and occasionally, I have to admit, it is a bit silly even to me.  I will long for a trials bike (Google Danny MacAskill if you are curious) when I want to play in the urban environment.  Lust after full suspension, carbon, cross-country mountain bikes.  Endurance road bikes catch my eye, and I have been known to dream of long, continental tours on a Long Haul Trucker (Surly's stout tourer).  It goes beyond that though.  I picture winter rides on the Pugsley, and was nearly overcome with the release of the Moonlander (Surly's "Omniterra" bikes whose 4 inch tires ride anywhere).  Better than touring might be touring on a tandem, off road, or chucking a folding bicycle or a Co-Motion tourer into a suitcase and busing or jet setting off to new riding adventures in new places.  Car-free though, the ability to carry more intrigues me.  Maybe a BOB, or a utility bike...

Thus, my next bicycle "plan" is often dependent more on my mood, than my need.  Yet, when a need for a new bicycle arises, I am quickly torn about what style of bike would best fill that need.  Of course, in all of this, price-point also matters.  Co-Motion bikes, no matter how wonderful they seem, are not in my near future.  Next off the list are the bikes with very specific uses.  A trials bike, while fun, would not be much added value in my current life, and the smooth, over-groomed bike tracks of New Zealand do not even warrant front suspension, let alone full (I have been riding rigid single-speed, much to the confusion of Kiwis). The process of elimination leaves me with final choices that are difficult to make.  Leaving me to struggle through a decision with too many variables to be able to decide based on reason, and not emotion.

The deliberation is currently between a utility bike, a disc-brake commuter, and a disc-tourer.  I have between one and two commuters (between one and three if you count Sarah's bike, the fluctuations are based on current state of repair, and gearing and tire size currently on my single-speed).  Thus, another commuter is not really what I most need, but it is probably the cheapest option (aside from soldiering on with what I have).  The disc-tourer would be great, but I would probably end up balking at the cost of the tourers I want, and get something that is more a commuter with racks than an Africa traversing beast.  Thus, the utility bike leads in the standing as an idyllic path to car-free bliss.

Enter the Xtra-cycle!  These amazing bicycle accessories let you carry a week's shopping at Costco and a friend.  The catch of this great device?  Notice the other two bikes had disc brakes.  Xtra-cycles are not disc brake compatible (though I could probably rig up some front disc-rear rim brake nonsense, it would be undesirable at best).  Kona makes the Ute, a rigid body utility bike with disc brakes for $1300 (or ~$1000 for last year's model).  Kona accomplishes the price by going with cheaper components, and skipping out on the wide range of Xtra-cycle accessories for their own design of inferior bags without accessories.  This, strikes me as undesirable (the closest Kona dealer being in New South Wales, Australia does not help either).  Leaving the clear leader in the current standings the Surly Big Dummy.  The Big Dummy is based on the rack system of the Xtra-cycle, meaning every Xtra-cycle accessory is a Big Dummy accessory.  The components are better than the Ute (at least one step up in every category), and there is an importer to New Zealand (though I do not know of any shops that carry Surly products).  So, why an Xtra-cycle?  I can take people to/from the Taupo Airport, I can buy enough groceries for a week (or longer), I can haul big items home when I have to purchase them, they turn heads, people who ride them are sexier than people who don't, and (the Ute and Big Dummy) have disc brakes.  Enough said, right?

Well, not necessarily.  I should not really need a bigger quiver of bikes.  The no new bike option is the most cost effective, and easiest.  I commute and mountain bike.  I run for fun.  I have been known to climb, and have started swimming.  I do not really need more activities, and I live close enough to the shops that I do not need to buy a week's worth of groceries.  The exciting force in all of this is that I want disc brakes, because disc brakes stop better in the rain.

In Taupo it rains so frequently that Noah would pray for a reprieve.  In December, someone from Vancouver or Ketchikan would find the weather enviable, but a Pacific Northwest dweller would not trade one day of their summer for the gloomy summer solstice that the South Pacific spits upon New Zealand.  In daily rain of this magnitude, bike brakes, like all brakes, need more stopping distance.  Yet, the coefficient of increased stopping distance is reduced with disc brakes, and a short stopping distance is key to a long life with these daffy bastards zooming about in their four-wheeled, metal coffins.

Calling cars metal coffins may seem extreme, but 369 people died last year driving in New Zealand.  That may seem like a paltry few, but this is a small country (i.e. few roads), with a small population.  The USA has a mortality rate in motor vehicles of 8.5 per one billion vehicle kilometers (Wikipedia).  New Zealand has a mortality rate of 9.1 per one billion vehicle kilometers (Wikipedia).  If the unit is tricky, just think of it like this, if you drive in New Zealand, you are about 7% more likely to be killed than if you drive in the United States, where 32 708 people died in motor vehicles in 2010 (Wikipedia).  Thus, strapping into a metal box, and grimacing at the weather for thirty minutes a day is just a dance with death, a dance I do not particularly enjoy.

Thus, I choose to bicycle commute.  This does not increase my odds of living, but it increases my enjoyment of the riskiest part of my day.  I can take measures to reduce the risk.  I can, for example, ride on the trails, which increases enjoyment, reduces risk, but adds significant time to commuting.  I can be a timid rider, and avoid roads in favor of paths that weave back and forth across the highway, and get splattered by one of the motorists who accelerate towards pedestrians crossing the street (motorists do not have to stop for pedestrians saving specially marked cross-walks found only near schools, making crossing streets like a real-life game of Frogger).  Or, like all of the other road users, I can accept that my employer decided that the value of their employee's lives is less than that of real estate near where they life, and ride my bike 10 miles, everyday.

My grumping about highway safety, and my current lust for disc brakes stems from a first experience I had the other day.  I, for the first time, was in a collision with a vehicle.  Some people may be smugly thinking, "Ah, I bet he'll be wearing hi-vis now."  But I won't be.  I was headed home, south, in the left lane (recall that they drive on the left here) of State Highway 1.  At intersections, Kiwis attempt to miss cyclists by mere inches to shave nanoseconds from their drive, hi-vis or no.  After several near misses, I have decided to take the lane in intersections.  This puts me in a place where a collision seems more likely, but it forces the drivers to treat me like another car, rather than a pole in a slalom course.  Usually, the driver waits their turn behind me, but not the driver of a blue Holden sedan on Friday.  This individual decided to pass me in the right lane (indicating that he clearly saw me), then make a left turn from the right lane in front of me.  This event would have been a bit rattling had everything gone smoothly, but it didn't go smoothly.

Unfortunately for me, there was a car in the roundabout, so rather than pull a douchey move, the Holden started to pull a douchey move, then came to a sudden stop mere feet in front of me.  I recall brake lights, swerving away from a trailer hitch, and braking hard, then my wheel hitting their bumper, and my chest hitting their trunk.

I did not loose consciousness, I was not even hurt.  I have a cut on my hand, and a larger one on my right shin.  My legs were banged up a bit, and I took my saddle pretty hard to my bum, but nothing major.  There were noises of cars stopping, and I think a pedestrian might have yelled something.  These auxiliary details are unclear to me, not because of injury, but because of how fast it happened.  A car swerved in front of me, stopped, then inertia did its thing.  I got off my bike, and walked around their car.  The passenger rolled down their window, and the first thing I said was, "are you okay"?  They asked me the same, and I said yes, and that I did not think their car was damaged, but before I finished speaking they drove off.  It was over.  I pulled my bike to the side of the road, checked for damage and reset my chain as other motorists who witnessed the event drove past.

I have lived in this country four months.  I have had numerous near misses with cars, as has Sarah (who only comes to visit!).  I cannot change how Kiwis drive, and I am unwilling to change my lifestyle to other equally dangerous ones (two GNS staff members were medevaced following a motor vehicle crash commuting to work last year, they both lived).  I am keen to add to my quiver an urban/tarmac bike with quick stopping disc brakes, and maybe one or two other fun features, and hope that will decrease my stopping distance in the rain.  That seems like my best action following this incident.

Favorite

I like that the word partner is replacing gender specific spouse names (i.e. husband or wife).  Partner is gender and marriage neutral, which is a step in the correct direction, but I dislike the over-use of the word.  While partner is neutral in many ways, it is not commitment neutral.  Partner implies both emotional commitment and interdependence.

The emotional bond with a partner is one that implies the relationship has planned longevity.  Some relationships last a short time period, others have longevity with no vision, no plan.  Neither of these are partnerships.  A partner is someone you plan to emotionally commit to for a long period of time.  This applies to business partners as well as romantic partners (sexual partners, like lawn badminton partners would not fit this description).  In both cases, the people are bound by the belief that their relationship will be positive for their desired foreseeable future.  This is not to say that planning for something makes it happen.  Businesses and relationships often fail before the partners want them to fail, but partners are bound in the emotional belief that the relationship (or business) will last.  Some partners are more pragmatic, and may be bound in the thought that their relationship will work, but most people jump to belief, not wanting to logically analyze.

Next, partners are interdependent by free choice.  If two people are in a situation where their lives intertwine by situations out of their control, they may not be partners.  Those people may choose to become partners, but they are not necessarily partners.  Partners, choose to cohabitate, share bank accounts, or own cars or pets together.  These dependencies make undoing the partnership complex.  While a legal system may not be involved in the dissolution of a partnership, they often are.  Friendships are often strained or broken., and negotiations are always part of the end of a partnership.

Think about other uses of the word partner.  Police officers have partners.  I imagine that certain soldiers have partners (snipers and spotters?).  Even roommates who have planned to live together for long periods of time (forgive the reference, but were Joey and Chandler not partners?).  All of these people would probably not easily walk away from the relationship, and walking away may be complex owing the intricacies (interdependence) of the relationship.

When someone asks you about your partner, they are accepting that you may not be married, and they may even be accepting that you could be with someone of the same sex.  They are assuming (and expecting), however, that you meet a minimum level of commitment and interdependence.  When someone asks that not assuming a level of commitment, e.g. a plus one at a wedding, what they are really talking about is a significant other (SO).  A SO is anyone with a romantic interest (though I have known people who have taken platonic friends to weddings).  This spans the entire relationship spectrum from first date to elderly married couple.  SO applies to every type of relationship at every level of commitment, and every romantic situation.

For many people, this does not matter.  When I was with Heidi, we experimented a bit with partner, but found that it rarely helped elucidate the nature of our relationship for others (too soon maybe).  While I would correct people who assumed we were married, it never really bothered me.  With Corinne, our relationship followed a more regular trajectory, but it never bothered me (though I would usually correct) when our relationship status was incorrectly described.  Now though, as a divorcee, I find that it is all the more trying to describe my relationship status.

If, for example, Sarah is in town, and there is a work function open to partners, is Sarah welcome?  What if the function is open to partners, but not friends?  What if I had a business partner, or a very close (platonic) roommate, would they be welcome?  No, because these people actually probably mean romantic partner as spouse devoid of legal marital status.  People see "partner" used in this context, get lazy, and start using it as a synonym for SO.  Confusing their question by not using the proper terminology (i.e. SO).  If there was an invite where friends were welcome, Sarah would be welcome.  An invite where SOs were welcome, Sarah would be welcome.  More specific than this, and the situation gets confused.

Expanding beyond SO is tricky because post-divorce is also post-standard relationship.  Relationship status is a like a pyramid.  In a lifetime, one may have many girl/boyfriends, not many fiance-level relationships, and only one spouse.  At the pinnacle of my pyramid though is the foundation to another pyramid.  What do I call these people now?  Eventually they will be friend-level, and some of those may become partners.  However, I am not really looking to start a new pyramid, I am in a land of love beyond geometry.  Frankly, I like this new world better.  Had I begun my relationship life with this knowledge, it would have been better.  Alas, I have discovered this new world through experience.  The problem with the new world I have worked myself into is that it is complicated to tell people about it who have not themselves gotten here.

Often times, in situations where geometric relationship description fails, people describe their relationships as "it's complicated."  I do not really like describing those who are special to me as it's complicated.  Further, for many people I talk to, it's complicated does not make sense.  They continue to probe.  In fact, the only person that it's complicated really worked for was a coworker who, according to scuttlebutt, has a level of complication rarely achieved by humans. Everyone else wants a pigeon hole for every relationship status.

In my desire to clearly communicate my meaning with people I think I have thought of the ideal word to describe a new relationship status.  A relationship status beyond the elementary, traditional descriptions.  It is neutral in every aspect but preference.  It is also modifiable as needed.  I introduce to the world the relationship status of "Favorite" (capitalized for clarity).

Think of anything that is your favorite.  It could be a trail, an ice cream flavor, band, or song.  Literally anything that you have preference in, you probably have a favorite.  Think of that thing.  What is your relationship to that thing?  It is, your favorite.  It is not easy to describe why that thing is your favorite, it just is.  My favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate.  Chocolate ice cream can be improved by adding peanut butter cups.  Roger Clyne (for the sake of this argument) is my favorite musician.  I have gone months without listening to his music, but when I come back to one of his songs that I enjoy, or am emotionally invested in, my relationship resumes with that music as if there was never a lull.  At Bootleg Canyon, I had my favorite series of trails to ride.  Those trails were my favorite because of the varied aspects of the trails, maybe the personality of the trails.  Whatever favorite thing comes to mind, there are aspects that you like, and maybe those you do not.  Some favorites are what you always choose because they are all you want, and sometimes you have other things to better appreciate your favorite.  Your favorite may change over time, or it may stay with you for life.  Some people may even have multiple favorites (would a parent of two children be unlikely to claim that they have two favorite children?).

All of these things are true of your Favorite.  Favorite is marriage and gender neutral.  It is also free of expectations.  The only thing Favorite conveys is preference.  A spouse, partner, fiance, boyfriend or girlfriend is probably a Favorite.  Then again, a spouse may not be a Favorite, and we can avoid the emotional response to words like mistress.  In fact, Favorite even eliminates expectation of love and romance.  I have had friends who were definitely each other's Favorite, but they were simply friends.  Do we really care if our friends are sleeping with the people whose company they most prefer?  Do we need recently divorced people to fall in love to have companionship?  Do we need to deny people the pleasure of spending time with the person they most enjoy because they do not fit into an arbitrary relationship pigeonhole?  No.

Favorite is also easy to modify!  My friends whose favorites were friends will likely eventually fall in love.  Their friends may no longer be their Favorite, but will likely remain a Favorite friend (best friend).  People who deal with long distance relationships could have a local Favorite (which may or may not be romantic), and their favorite Favorite.  Favorite is so easy, so straightforward, and so elegant.  It can be modified, or not, as the user sees fit.  It conveys all the information that others need, and probing for more information is really just being nosy.  Nosy is of course fine, because people's lives are interesting.  However, sometimes it is best to take the polite approach, letting people live their private lives with their Favorite, whatever that means to them.

Whatever that means to them is the key to it all.  Friend, SO, partner, fiance, and spouse all have external meanings.  They all have meanings that others apply to the relationship.  Favorite, on the other had, has only what has been defined by the people in the relationship.  I would be unlikely to call one of my friends my Favorite.  That said, I definitely have had best friends, and have had friends that were, for periods of time, my Favorite.  Favorite is not meant to displace SO.  SO, partner, spouse and all other relationship terminology should be used correctly.  Failing to use them is lazy on the part of the speaker, and thus confusing for the listener.  Favorite is simply the easiest way for me to communicate with the world what my relationship status is.  I do not need to share messy details with anyone (everyone).  I do not need to describe the nature of my relationship with coworkers.  I do not need to do any of these things.  Why?  Because, I do not necessarily know the answers to their questions.  I know one thing.

I have a Favorite.

I Didn't Even See Them

I have not done any research into this, but I imagine a common statement made after a collision is, “I didn't even see them.” I was once backed into in a left turn lane at an intersection, the woman who backed into me said something like that. The statement also seems pretty obvious, presumably, if one sees something, they are unlikely to run into it. It seems cyclists have taken this idea, and endeavored to be hyper-visible.

Just under 10% of the employees at GNS bike to work. Of those who do, I am the only one who does not wear hi-viz safety gear. Road bikers here wear hi-viz vests and helmets here. Yet, the only commuting collision that has happened at GNS recently was when a trucker rear-ended a car turning into the access road. The trucker reported that he looked down to shift, and didn't even see them.

If, the root cause of motorists not seeing the things they run into is truly the visibility of the object, then black cars should be illegal, and we should all be driving around in vehicles that are bright orange with flashing lights (firetrucks?). But, we aren't. Cars have headlamps, taillights and reflectors, which is considered sufficient. Motorists do run into other cars, but if every car was hi-viz, it would loose its meaning. Wrapping vehicles in orange, chartreuse, reflectors and flashing lights is saved for vehicles that are not normally on the road.

Construction workers also wear hi-viz, but like the emergency vehicles, they are not part of normal driving. While construction and maintenance crews likely work on the roads most days, they are generally not part of most motorist's daily drive. In other words, they “do not belong” on the road from the viewpoint of the motorist. Cyclists, on the other hand, do.

The first issue with cyclists wearing hi-viz is that it implies to motorists that bikes do not belong. That bikes, like construction workers and emergency vehicles, are a special case. Motorists will never “see” cyclists as long as cyclists are not viewed as a legitimate part of traffic by motorists, lawmakers and police officers. As long as the consensus exists that cyclists are not part of normal traffic, and cyclists further the idea by wearing hi-viz, motorists will not respect cyclists.

The second, and probably larger issue of wearing hi-viz, is that it does not work. I have ridden with other cyclists who are wearing hi-viz, and two cyclists, one in hi-viz, one not, does not affect how close motorists come to you. I have watched cars pass me, then pass another cyclist wearing hi-viz, and they pass at the same distance. Motorists drive the way they drive, no matter what a cyclist wears. Close passers pass close, cell phone users text and talk, and drunk and drowsy drivers are drunk and drowsy. A piece of bright orange fabric does not change the person behind the wheel.  

You can read minds?

I seem to never be full. Should I eata big restaurant dinner and feel stuffed, by the time I walk home, Iam almost always cruising for a snack. My biggest weakness seems tobe sweets. As a joke a group of grad students at UNLV did put theremainder of a chocolate cake in front of me, just to see if it wastrue that I never stop eating chocolate. After plowing through it, Iwent home for a snack, of chocolate.

Obviously, if I am ever to have abslike Gerard Butler's (which starred in the movie 300, withGerard playing a supporting role), I must curb my insatiable sweettooth. The simple solution is to eat less, but finding moderation isnot easy for me (or anyone?). I was eating a lot of fruit, tohealthfully satiate the sweet tooth, but 1.5 kilos of oranges/dayleft me lusting after chocolate. Since gluttony in one food does notseem to address the issue, I tried to quit overeating cold turkey. This, as any diet expert will tell you, leads to binge eating, oressentially, no change.

I go through cycles of these attempts. In general, the most successful diet for me is carrots (yes, back tothe gluttony scheme). I have, in the name of controlling appetite,eaten up to 5 lbs of carrots a day. The average is about two poundswhen I am powering through carrots. Even with eating more carrotsthan a horse can dream of, the abs do not come, but I do eat lessother foods. As I write this I am looking at a demolished box ofcookies, wishing it was a bag of carrots that I had just eaten as a“snack.”

My inability to curb my eating hasgiven me a strange respect for anorexia. Yes, it is bad. Yes, it isan illness. Yes, yes, yes, but think of it in terms of will power! Imagine if you could apply that will power in a healthy, constructiveway. We would all have Gerard Butler's abs! Not necessarily be abad thing. The eating disorder I do not understand is bulimia.

I just ate a box of cookies. They weredelicious, actually they weren't. They were pretty crappy cookies,and if logic played a role in this I would have just saved them forwhen my pantry is bare. The cookies will probably be a big part of mydinner, and if not, then they will be a big part of my waistline. Either way, I get my money's worth. If, I were bulimic, and purgedthem, I could guiltlessly eat a more delicious food item. But! Idid not enjoy eating them, and I would probably not enjoy vomitingthem. I would thus double my dissatisfaction with the cookies, andnot be able to count them as usable calories. I would also have topay money for the new item, which probably would not make up for thevomiting and bad cookies, and I might overeat that food too, and haveto purge again. Bulimia just seems like flushing money down thetoilet, which I would classify as not a “disorder,” but crazy.

To deal with my physical fitness,having ruled out bulimia (I am not thatcrazy), anorexia (not enough will power), overeating “healthy”foods, and moderation, my only option now seems gluttony in exercise,which I suppose I am all for. My holdup is now inertia. I havesomething of a routine. I get up, get ready for work, ride my biketo work, work, ride my bike home, eat dinner, read, write, then go tobed. I would like to add a swim in the morning, a run in theevening, and yoga before bed. It is totally doable. The swimmingrequires a wet suit, so it will probably be a run in the morning, anda ride in the evening, a long yoga practice, or astrength/calisthenics session. Regardless, spending more timeexercising is reasonable, if I can change my routine to accommodateit.

Like building shinynew abs, getting into the new routine will take time, but it is agoal. It has been recommended that I should train for an event,maybe the Taupo Ironman, but I do not know if I need to enter a racejust to motivate. However, if I ever do an event, it might as wellbe a tri-, and if I enter a tri- it might as well be an Ironman. After all, if I swim a couple of miles, then ride 100 miles, it seemsthe best way to address an insatiable hunger, would be to run amarathon.

Spreadsheets and Climate Data

I enjoy creating spreadsheets. I likeseeing data organized, and I like to compare the numbers in ways thatgive me new understanding, or quantify what I may have felt like Ialready knew. I currently have two spreadsheets active “just forfun.” I will share one here, the other is a work in progress (I amconverting lights in my home to compact florescent lights to savepower, and I am quantifying how much power I am saving, this activityis limited by budget and availability). The spreadsheet I will shareis climate data for Taupo, Vancouver and Seattle.

The motivation for comparing climatedata for these three cities is that in the two months I have been inTaupo, it seems that the weather in Seattle and Vancouver isgenerally better than the weather I have experienced here. Thisobservation was met with a cacophony of arguments by my coworkersrejecting my sound observations of the weather. Some of theseco-workers have lived in Vancouver, or Cascadia. Some have onlyvisited, but they all agreed that Taupo has great weather, andSeattle and Vancouver have insufferable weather. The only thing thatcan be done in such situations is to get on Wikipedia, find someclimate data, and prove a large group of people wrong.

Taupo has terrible weather. Were thisan academic paper, it would be entitled; “An analysis of climatedata for Vancouver, Canada, Seattle, USA, and Taupo, New Zealand toassess favorability for habitation and bicycle commuting.” Afterthe location maps, the first figure that showed climate data would bereferred to as something like this: “While Seattle, the Vancouverairport (YVR), and the Vancouver central business district (CBD) haverainier months than Taupo, climate data suggest that Seattle andVancouver have either comparable climates to Taupo, or better, i.e.Taupo has terrible weather (Fig. 1).” I would normally want toleave it at that, enough said, but in order to celebrate howfantastically correct I am, I'll continue to belabor the point.

Figure 1:  Taupo has terrible weather.

First, a bit on how I went about this,other than copying data from Wikipedia. The value I initially wantedwas the number of days that it rains in each city, but it seemswhoever compiled the climate data for Wikipedia for Taupo lacked thisinformation. In fact, they seem to have lacked a great deal ofinformation. Owing to the fact that I am lazy, or do not reallycare, or something along those lines, I have not attempted to findmore complete data. I decided that three numbers could capture theclimate, average daily high by month, average daily low by month, andaverage daily precipitation by month. Today it occurred to me thataverage wind speed (while riding straight into strong winds) would bea useful addition, oh well. Next, I reorganized the months by wintersolstice, whereby month 1 is January in the Northern Hemisphere, andJuly in the Southern Hemisphere, and month 12 is December in theNorthern Hemisphere and June in the Southern Hemisphere. Finally, Iplotted a scatter plot with all of the data. Then, the fun began(the “fun” being realizing how right I was, the traditional funstarted with opening Open Office Calc).

All three cities have a similar amountof seasonality when it comes to temperature. Taupo tends to have thehighest average daily high. The daily low is closer, but frequentlylower in Taupo. For the bicycle commuter, this is an importantnumber. I rarely commute during the hottest part of the day, thoughI do often commute to work before the sun has heated the air, and thenight's cold is still lingering in the gullies along my route. Thus,for the bicycle commuter, the lowest lows are not made up for by thehighest highs. Further, for favorability for habitation, I wouldargue that while an outside temperature of 72 is probably ideal, anarrow temperature range is also very important. Given two cities,one with a high of 87 and low of 57, and one with a high of 65 andlow of 55, I would take 65 and 55. A third city with high of 90 andlow of 80 would also be more favorable than the first city. Theaverage temperature in the first city is an ideal 72, but at almost90 during the heat of the day residents will want to be wearingshorts, running fans or air conditioners, and drinking a coolbeverage on a shady veranda at noon. In the mornings, evenings andnights the temperature drops below sixty, and the residents will wantto wear long pants and a jacket, running heaters in their homes, andcuddling under blankets at night. This means that they have to carrya change of clothes to be comfortable, and pay to both heat and cooltheir homes. In the second and third cities, the residents plan on atemperature, grab a jacket, or an ice water, and go about their day. In this way, both Seattle and Vancouver have nicer temperatures thanTaupo.

Perhaps the most important number isprecipitation. Rain can be dressed for, much like any other weather. It can feel oppressive, but like anything else, a little priorplanning, and you can be reasonably comfortable in the rain. Vancouverites have to deal with the most rain overall, andSeattleites the least. In both of those cities, residents can expectmonths 1, 10, 11 and 12 to be rainier than in Taupo. Vancouveriteshave to deal with the rainiest month 2 as well (Seattle and Taupo tiefor second). For these four/five months, it is much rainier. TheSeattleite and Vancouverite must plan for rain most days. They will,accordingly, adjust their attire to a winter wardrobe. The residentof Taupo must have the wet and dry wardrobe ready throughout theyear! During months 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (the majorityof the year) the Kiwi will endure more rain, and, like the other fivemonths, must have at the ready wet and dry weather clothing!

This post may comeacross as very negative, but it is not necessarily meant to be so. Idid not ever feel that the weather in Seattle or Vancouver was“terrible,” it was difficult to go from sun everyday, to cloudymany days, but it was not terrible. The use of the world terrible ismostly in response to my co-workers' indignant, “Vancouver (and/orSeattle) has terrible weather.” Thus, if the Pacific Northwest hasterrible weather, then it follows that Taupo has terrible weather,since it is worse here. Kiwis need not worry though, because theydefinitely have Ketchikan beat.

The Best Cars, or Some Good Ones Anyway

I have driven most of the vehicles atwork now, in addition to driving all of the personal, rental and workvehicles I have encountered in the past, and it seems that I canmakes some generalizations after years of driving. I could just laydown the generalizations, but that would not be much fun to write,and it certainly would not be much fun to read. I will start withthe oldest observation, I do not like Toyotas.

I know, I know, Toyota lovers areaghast with disbelief. I liked my parent's 1981 Toyota CorollaWagon. It had the loveable early '80s squariness, it was fuelefficient, it was utilitarian, and, though I have not confirmed theprice, it probably had a utilitarian price tag, which, along withquality, is one of the ways that the Japanese automakers surpassedthe Big Three. It is true that the quality thing seems to remain intoday's Toyota cars, which is a definite plus. However, new Toyotasare dripping with sleek lines, but they are not sleek. The interiorsare constructed of so much cheap ugly plastic that it feels like youcan start sympathizing with Barbie, waiting inside of disposablepackaging on your way to your destination. I do not like that Toyotahas linked off-road and towing capabilities with luxury fittings onthe inside (e.g. leather seats). I also do not like how the startermotors sound. That may be petty, but I do not like it. I dislikethe sound of Chevrolet starters even more, they kind of sound liketurning a running car over mixed with fingernails on a chalkboard. Lastly, I do not like the price tag that Toyota has inflated the costof their vehicles to. When I was last shopping for cars, a similarlyloaded Yaris and MINI Cooper were the same price. The Yaris might bea better car, but I simply cannot justify $20,000 on a Yaris.

It will come as no surprise that Idislike Chevrolet/GM/GMC/Pontiac. They all suffer from the GMstarter motor issue, but I take issue with their aesthetics too, allof them. I cannot think of a GM product that I have looked at andthought, “I like the looks of that car.” The new Camero isn'tbad, but the reverse lights are terrible. It is as if the architectsdrew up the plans, they got approved, the engineers started buildingthem, realized there were no reverse lights, and stuck in the middleof the bumper. Had they simply duct-taped a flashlight to the trunkit would have at least been unique, but they didn't.

Hondas are okay, but too expensive forwhat you get (if I was buying a new car tomorrow, I might test drivea Civic hatchback). The Suzuki Swift is super cute, and the SX4Crossover is a practical all-wheel drive, and good to look at. Nissans, I despise. The trucks suffer from tremendous body-roll, Iwould rather try to turn around a 14' raft with a teaspoon afterrealizing I was about to go over Niagra Falls, than make a U-turn ina Nissan on a busy street, they are designed with a face made forradio, and, like many of their fellow countrymen, they are expensive. What solidified my dislike of Nissans was the Nissan Pulsarfive-door hatch. The driver, owing to the position of the seat,steering wheel and pedals, sat at a 5 degree angle to the car. Terrible!

I like Ford trucks. I might argue thatFord is the only company (saving maybe the Land Rover Defender) stillmaking a work truck. Ford's cars are decent. I like the new Fiesta,but the branding is tragic (I would have a hard time buying aFiesta). They are not “greatcars,” but my Ford Ranger had less unscheduled maintenance in thefirst 100,000 miles than my parent's Subaru, so they might not be badcars either.

Subarumakes a great all-wheel drive system. Probably as good as Suzuki's,Ford's, and most other company's, but it is not as good as VW's. Sorry Subaru, I have driven a VW van that was more capable off-road,and as fun to drive as every Subaru I have been in. I will say thatthe VW van had as much road noise as the Subaru (deafening), but tobe fair to VW, it was a cargo van, and all of the sound dampeningmaterial had been removed behind the front seats.

I havea crush on small hatchbacks, and no one does them better than theEuropeans. I like the Fiat 500, BMW 1 series,Volkswagen's Rabbit (RIP, the nearly identical Golf just is not assweet) and GTI, and the Volvo C30 is beautiful. Seat, Renault andSkoda have some acceptable cars. Peugeot has the decent looking 308,and made a hatchback with a sliding door, which is beyond words, eventhough it was kind of ugly. The top of the list for European cars isthe MINI. It is not perfect. Sometimes sitting in a MINI I have anincredible urge to touch something made of a natural material, buttheir plastic is vaguely nicer than other plastic cars (if I were tobuy a MINI without budget constraints it would have a wooden steeringwheel, an option they may no longer offer, -tear-).

Koreancars remind me of the Toyota of the 1980s. Decent to look at, greatrunning, kind of crappy interiors, and a price tag fitting for thereliable, no frills vehicle they are selling to move a family orcommuter around for years to come. The Hyundai and Kia of old weretrash, but the new ones seem great. I challenge any Toyota (Subaru,Honda or Lexus) dedicated owner to get into a Hyundai of the sametrim level and make a compelling argument that their car was worththe extra money. It seems to me that the Koreans are doing to theJapanese what the Japanese did to the Big Three all those years ago.

Lotsof cars did not make the list, but here are the promisedgeneralizations. I like Ford Trucks. They are the best trucks, iffor no other reason than they make a work truck, and if your truck isnot for work, buy a station wagon. I like European cars, and do notlike Japanese cars. Everything else is somewhere in the middle. There are, of course, European cars I do not like, and American andAsian cars I do.

Theastute reader and lover of Japanese cars may be upset that Ispecifically mention liking Suzuki autos, but dislike Japanese cars. Here is the rub. When I sit in a Suzuki, it feels Korean, in thesense that it feels like a Japanese car in every way, except theprice tag was set at the value of the vehicle, not the value of thevehicle plus hefty advertising. Suzukis feel like Korean cars, andthat is a good thing...

But,the swift just isn't a MINI.

Ayurveda

I went to an Ayurveda workshop at Living Yoga last weekend.  I spent the money mostly to have an excuse to socialize.  I was not all that interested in the subject, and am amazed at the belief people put into such obvious nonsense (bloodletting is a detoxification method for the Pitta dosa).  It did, however, work to help me socialize.

Ayurveda was introduced by the instructor as the "science of life."  Science, in this use, would relate to the study of something, not necessarily to scientific study.  That is, science in the -logy sense, where geology is the science of Earth systems, cosmology is the science of the universe, and theology is the science of religion.  Obviously, science is not the best translation of the Greek root.  It should be, rather, the study of the Earth, universe or religion, in the previous examples.  The translation from Sanskrit for Ayurveda would probably be better not as the study of life, but as the knowledge of life.  The Wikipedia translation defines it as "the complete knowledge for long life."  (The Wikipedia page seems like (I have not read it) a good summary of Ayurveda, and can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda, as a discussion of what Ayurveda is functionally, is out of the scope of this post.)  Even if the ancient Indians called Ayurveda science, it would not be science today.  Unfortunately, most people lack the understanding of the difference between that which is science, and that which is not to appreciate the difference.

People have a difficult time defining science, and there is not, to my knowledge, a definitive definition of satisfactory quality published by a respectable body, for example, the National Academies of Science.  In this vacuum of fact there is an overabundance of opinion to which, I add my own.  Science is a method to study a system strictly using the scientific method.  The scientific method is observation, question, hypothesis, test, observation.  A "scientist," who observes glaciers, but does little hypothesizing is a naturalist.  It is a noble pursuit to be a naturalist, and in fact, science would be better if those incapable of original thought stuck with naturalism, rather than "inventing" social significance, hypotheses and such to validate their research as science, but I digress.  For this rant, I will use my definition of science, and I encourage people to think about those things that claim to be science (naturalism, engineering, creationism, etc.) in this light, and see if the world makes more sense.  I would be grateful for any comments about how to improve my definition without adding complication.

Pursuits that are not science are not bothered with all the steps of the scientific method.  In the geosciences, it is common to see naturalists skip the hypothesis and test steps (observation, question, observation).  In every "pseudo-science" it is the test step that is wont to be skipped.  In Creationism, the method is something like answer, question, observation, answer (a dogma cannot really be a hypothesis because one believes it).  In Ayurveda, the method is observation, question, hypothesis, observation.  It is notable to point out that in all of these examples scholarly people are pursuing explanations for the world, the question here is one of rhetoric (defining science), and belief.

Belief is a plague in society.  Belief has its place.  Religion is nothing without belief, but love, trust and happiness are probably nothing without belief too.  The problem is that people believe (or not) in nearly everything.  Common beliefs in society are about trivial things ("I believe the meeting is at 09:00"), the functionality of a treatment ("I do not believe in chiropractic care" or "I believe in Ayurveda") or any number of similar ideas where thought, not belief, belongs.  Does the co-worker believe the meeting is at a given time, or do they think the meeting is at 09:00 based on their memory of a memo?  Does the person actually not believe in chiropractic care, or do they not think that it is not a useful treatment?  Should the person believe in Ayurveda?  Of course not!  Here is the test for the use of believe; can you replace what you believe in (or do not believe in) with a common object?  If you can, then you should think not believe.  Here are some examples.

"I believe the meeting is at 09:00."
Replace the meeting time with something else, say telephones.  You now have the statement, "I believe in telephones."  There is plenty of evidence for the existence of telephones, and there is also plenty of evidence for the meeting times.  There are also ways to test both the existence of telephones, and the time of the meeting.  Therefore, telephones is an appropriate substitution for the meeting time.  Thus, the statement should be, "I think the meeting is at 09:00."

"I do not believe in chiropractic care."
Replace chiropractic care with red cars to get, "I do not believe in red cars."  Can you test for the existence of red cars?  Yes.  Can you test for the existence of chiropractic care?  Yes.  Can you test the effectiveness of chiropractic care?  Again yes.  Red cars can substitute for chiropractic care in this statement.  Thus, the well spoken, rational person says, "I do not think chiropractic care is useful."  (Personally, I think chiropractic care is an effective treatment for certain ailments, as a note.)

"I believe in God."
Replace God with dogs.  Is there a test for the existence of dogs?  Yes.  Is there a test for the existence of God?  No.  Thus, dogs cannot substitute for God in this statement.  It follows that one can believe in God, or have faith in God, or what have you.  This is not to say that you cannot think that God does or does not exist, it is simply to say that one can believe in God without being a complete idiot for doing so (e.g. the guy who does not believe in red cars is a complete idiot).  In the case of deities, belief just indicates that you are out of the discussion.  I, for example, do not think that God (or any other omnipotent being) exists.  I would find it most enjoyable to have a discussion about this with someone who thinks such a being exists.  I do not (generally) mind hearing the thoughts of those who believe/do not believe in God, but I gain little from this because I will be swayed by thought, not feelings, opinions or ancient texts.

Back to Ayurveda and science.  The beauty of all these methods of describing the world is that the observation step is common to everything!  Creationists observe a beautiful, complex world, and seek explanations.  Naturalists observe a beautiful, complex world and seek to record and categorize it.  Ayurvedics observe a beautiful and complex world, and seek a path through it.  Scientists observe a beautiful and complex world, and seek understanding.  To focus on Ayurveda, Vatta people are generally thin, active and cold.  To be comfortable in life, they should give themselves warmth and eat regularly.  Maybe this is because they are Vatta, or it could be that there is a physiologic reason for this.  Either way, the observation that thin, active people are generally cold, and need to eat small meals regularly holds solid.

As for my Ayurvedic experience, I am tri-dosic, meaning that I am Pitta, Vatta and Kapha in nearly equal proportions.  Finding balance in my life is difficult owing to this.  I suppose I might be all three dosas, or it could be that it is difficult to develop a system that answers all of the questions of the human body based on three types of people who are controlled by the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and ether), and thus some people fit multiple dosas.

I gained several things from the workshop.  Most important, were invitations to two dinner parties.  Of lesser importance, was the knowledge of my own dosas.  As for Ayurveda, six hours of sitting on the floor gave me an increased appreciation of the observations that people of all belief systems can contribute to the combined knowledge of humans.  This dovetailed nicely with finishing the book Lost Discoveries as the author of that book attributes scientific discovery to ancient peoples.  After the workshop, I think the discoveries of most ancient peoples are made through insight, not science