Wind, Fires and Water

Numerous stories have bombarded all news media recently dealing with weather. Funny how such a huge subject is rarely featured in the news unless there is either a hidden agenda or something profound takes place in a major television market. I am sorry to be cynical, but I have studied weather and enjoyed making amateur forecasts for years. Weather is not something that fills the gap between news and sports for some of us.

There ARE some absolutely huge weather related situations going on and I feel it necessary to balance the hype with some sobering truths. If "global warming" or "climate change" were taken out of all the stories floating around, and just the facts regarding the situations were presented; there would still be plenty of news to get good ratings. But, the current trend is to somehow tie every single weird weather event into the global warming debate. This is not fair nor can the facts sustain doing this.

Many years ago I lived in California for two years. The first year (1976-77) there was "the worst drought in the history of the state". The news featured stories of dried up reservoirs and mountains with no snow. Restaurants could only serve water if requested and all the lush green lawns were brown due to watering restrictions. This was not last week, this was thirty years ago.

The second year (1977-78) ended up being one of the wettest and snowiest on record. I shall never forget driving down to California from Oregon and seeing a huge reservoir that was woefully low one year earlier filled to capacity because of all the precipitation. One year the ski resorts were crying they were about to go out of business, and the next year they had so much snow people couldn't drive up to ski. The winter of 1977-78 nationwide was one of the worst winters in history. The headlines everywhere warned of the coming "ice age".

I do not wish to belittle the horrible tragedy that happened in San Diego and other southern California locations with the wildfires. But, there have been Santa Ana winds for ages. After dry winters, there have been major fires when there were intense Santa Ana winds. Certain things are just to be expected if one chooses to live in the California "paradise"; fires, earthquakes, mudslides, droughts, floods and an occasional Santa Ana windstorm.

In 1970 the population of San Diego was 696,769 and for the county it was 1,357,854. In just 30 years, by the year 2000; the city of San Diego's population had doubled to 1,256,951 and the county had more than doubled to 2,813,833. When an area undergoes this kind of rapid population growth, there are bound to be environmental problems. Without a doubt, the biggest problem comes in moving more and more people farther and farther out into areas that had been "wilderness" previously. When asphalt and cement replace dirt and vegetation, there is bound to be some problems come up.

In an average year, the coastal portion of San Diego receives about 10 inches of rain. The coastal mountains to the east of the city usually receive substantially more rain in an average year. Last year (2006-2007), San Diego received 3.85 inches of rain which was only 36% of normal. What is worse, the mountains did not receive much more than the city.

The additional factor causing the fire situation to be so critical was the humidity levels at or below 10%. When there is no humidity, vegetation is dried out, winds barrel in approaching 100 miles per hour; all it takes is one smoldering cigarette butt or a careless spark from a welder and the inferno begins. There is no stopping, or even slowing down, a fire with plenty of dry fuel and winds of hurricane velocity.

Earlier this summer fires burned out of control in Idaho and Montana for weeks. The same scenario resulted in the same results. The big difference was the lack of population and the corresponding lack of property damage. The fires in southern California will end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Amazingly, this is about the same amount as if a category 2 hurricane hit the area. Seeing images of burned homes is heartbreaking, but it is no different than seeing images of homes destroyed by tornados, hurricanes or earthquakes. A destroyed home is a disaster no matter how it happened.

People who insist upon living in areas prone to natural disasters MUST accept the responsibility of potential loss. Anyone living next to the ocean cannot expect someone else to pay to rebuild their home after a huge storm or tsunami. Anyone living on a fault line cannot expect someone else to pay to rebuild their destroyed home when it is finally ruined by the "big one". People who want to live in high risk areas need to have insurance to cover potential losses; no matter how much it costs. It is not fair to expect the government or private charities to always rebuild after a major disaster.

Southern California is a high risk area, especially parts near what's left of the forested mountains. People who want to live in areas prone to fires (and later mudslides) should have to use materials in building that are fire retardant and do things to set up natural firebreaks around their homes. Our society is not very good at taking personal responsibility for much of anything, especially where homes are built and how they are built.

The frightening part of this whole discussion lies in the potential for identical fires in the future. Many of the areas hit hardest this week in the Malibu area were just devastated by major fires a few weeks ago. Many areas that were burned a few weeks ago were just starting to recover from serious fires only a few years ago. Unfortunately, these same areas will continue to face fire dangers every year after a dry winter. It just goes with the territory, literally.

The bigger issue in all this lies in the upcoming water crisis. That subject is far too involved to get into at this time, but I will address it soon. I think if people understood how serious the water situation is, they would quit being so afraid of many other doomsday scenarios. There is only so much fresh water available and when it is gone, it is gone until the next big rainstorm. Water has been squandered more than any other natural resource, and very soon humanity will pay dearly for wasting one of the two things needed for life. Without air and water people cannot live. Both of these things have been polluted and squandered mercilessly.

I sincerely hope and pray that people who know little about the weather don't get distracted from the real issues environmentally, which are pollution and inexcusable wasting of natural resources. Whether the climate is changing as radically as many are saying now, cannot be proven conclusively by anyone. What can be proven is that there has been a rash of strange weather events in the past year. Something is causing the weather to "misbehave", and that much is for certain. Whether the root cause is global warming, natural earth cycles or solar issues; something is causing the weather to change in a radical fashion.

Rather than make weather a political toy, people should be seeking answers on how to preserve and steward what we have left. This is the issue that needs to be debated and publicized, not just scaring people with wild projections which are based on computer models and speculation. Instead of worrying about melting icecaps, why not figure out how to capture the water and store it for the future. Instead of pointing fingers at everyone else concerning emissions and other minor things; why not be working feverishly to harness the sun's power, desalt the oceans and figure out how to fit the billions of people on this earth into the parts of this planet capable of sustaining life. We can help this earth if we will not turn the entire subject into just another political football.

Financial Ethics

There was a time when honesty ruled financial matters. Evidently that time has long since disappeared. Not a day goes by where there is not a story decrying the obnoxious and repulsive greediness that rules the western world. I am left with one overriding question; when is enough ever going to be enough? At every turn the rules of sanity have been turned upside down to where what is totally absurd is considered normal and what should be the norm is looked upon as crazy.

A bike has handlebars. Can we all agree on that? It does not have a steering wheel, it has handle bars. A brand new bike has handle bars that are squarely in alignment with the bike. If a person sits on the seat of the bike, the handle bars form a U or a V directly in front of the rider. This is the correct (and logical) way to position handle bars on a bike. If a person rode the bike with handle bars in this position, they would have no problems steering.

But, take that bike and turn the handle bars to one side and tighten them. Now the U or the V of the bars is pointed to one side or the other. If an experienced bike rider got on the bike and tried to ride, he would immediately wreck the bike. It would not be possible to drive with handle bars turned sideways. But, if a person who never rode a bike before was taught how to ride using the sideways bars, guess what? They could learn to ride and steer with no problem.

Now, put the person who learned to ride with sideways bars on a normal bike. The result would be an immediate crash. That person would have the same problems adjusting to what is "normal" as the previous rider would have adjusting to the abnormal. The question then becomes; what are we going to establish as normal and what is going to be askew? Once the norm is set up, then everyone should abide by the norm. Everyone should have handle bars that face forward and not to the side.

In England cars are driven on the opposite side of the road than in the United States. Is one country right and the other wrong? Of course not, it is a matter of the established norm. People from the United States must conform to the English norm when driving in England and vice a versa. No one takes offence at this agreement. In fact, St. Ambrose is credited with stating: "When in Rome, do as the Romans". Whether dealing with situational conduct or driving etiquette, few wiser words have ever been spoken.

The age old conundrum in all this is; what if Rome is wrong? Is one to still "do as the Romans" even if doing it is not ethically right? Let us say I visit someone's home and they have a household rule that everyone in the house must slap the person next to them every hour on the hour. As a guest, not wanting to offend the host, am I to start slapping people on the hour? If I refuse, I will be escorted out and miss the fellowship. If I "do as the Romans", I compromise my own principles and betray myself.

We live in an age where laws are made to be broken and many people deliberately strive to "push the envelope" as far as possible, to get away with as much as possible. Is the longstanding defense of; "everyone else does it" grounds to do whatever one wants to do whenever wanted? Is it allowable to do whatever one feels like doing regardless of the harm it may cause others? These questions define ethics and ethical questions hold few definitive answers.

People become very defensive when ethics are brought up in the context of financial compensation. Capitalism is a very controversial subject when ethics are brought into the equation. Just how much profit should one person be allowed to make off a transaction with another person? Capitalism, or free market theory, would suggest the answer is; "as much as the other person allows him to make". This idea sounds legitimate except that it breeds dishonesty and opens the door wide to those whose character is shady and whose "sales skills" are slick and well sharpened.

I used to sell used cars many years ago. I hated every minute it. The whole business is built on lying to people. The determination of the value of a trade-in is one of the most devious tactics ever devised by anyone to "rip people off". So what if a blue or yellow or black book says a vehicle is worth so much in such and such condition. It is all objective. It is impossible to be subjective in this situation. There are a few truly honest vehicle dealers, but there are far more dishonest ones lurking as vultures waiting to pounce on a gullible naïve person who doesn't know or forgot how to "play the game".

I recently had a van break down while away from home. There had been many problems before, so I decided to see if I could find a replacement vehicle instead of trying to fix the broken one again. I succeeded in negotiating what I thought was a fair deal on a five year old Dodge pickup that had less than 100,000 miles on it. I had told the salesperson I was willing to let the dealership make $500 if they would just be fair with me. He came back beaming for the manager agreed to the arrangement. After a long day I drove home thinking I had made a fair and honest deal.

The next morning I started the truck and the "check engine light" came on. Driving to the nearest auto shop, I found out the truck needed $1,500 of work just to get the light to go out! I was furious and called the manager where I had purchased the vehicle. He proceeded to yell at me over the phone saying: "You bought the vehicle AS IS so it is your problem". When I threatened legal action I was cussed at and hung up on. This was coming from the used car manager at the biggest Chevrolet dealership in all of central Missouri.

Ethically who was right and who was wrong in this situation. Was I wrong because I trusted a car dealer to tell me the truth? You bet I was wrong, and I paid dearly for my stupidity. Was the used car manager at the dealership wrong for lying to me and yelling at me and refusing to fix a problem he knew existed prior to the sale? In his mind he was not at fault, for in his business, lying is allowable and acceptable because "everyone does it".

I took the truck to a Dodge dealer where it was established that a "quick fix" had caused the "check engine light" to not be lit up when I first drove the truck, but came back on after a day. In other words, the dealership knew there were problems, covered them up, stuck an "As Is" sticker on the window and placed the truck on the lot. I don't know if this is legal, but I do know it is NOT ethical.

I traded the truck in the next day to a "Five Star" dealership who upon hearing what had happened wanted to do things right. They showed me the paperwork for the van I wanted. They brought in the used vehicle broker who showed me exactly what the truck I had purchased was really worth to a dealership. They were willing to make a deal if they could make a profit of $250 with no tricks. I agreed and have been happy with the van ever since. Oh, by the way, they figured the previous dealership made around $2,500 profit on the transaction I was told was a $500 deal.

When dealing with those who smile and tell you "trust me" but all the while are lying through their teeth, what can you do? If the adage of doing what they do in Rome holds true, then I guess you should lie right back at them. When I first was taught how to sell cars back in 1986, I was told it was allowable to lie to the customers because they always lied to the salesperson. How is that for a new slant on; "when in Rome…"?

Is it possible to be an honest salesperson? Of course it is and there are plenty of them out there. But, in our greed driven society there is no profession more prone to dishonesty than sales where deals must be negotiated, especially with "trade ins". Is it right to "rip someone's head off" if they allow you too? Is it right for me to make a huge profit at your expense if I lied to you? These are ethical questions that need to be addressed in our selfish, "it's all about me" culture. There is still a need for defining what is right and what is wrong, especially when your hard earned money is at stake.