#14 October 15 2014. The dodo has company. Part of our planet is missing—and we humans seem to be the reason. According to a new report from the World Wildlife Fund, a staggering 52% of the world’s mammals, reptiles, birds, fish and amphibians disappeared between 1970 and 2010.

THE ONLY EARTH WE HAVE

AND WE ARE DESTROYING IT

“What's the use of a fine house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?”
Henry David Thoreau, Familiar Letters

“To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”
Theodore Roosevelt

“People would rather believe than know.”
Edward O. Wilson

---

THE TAR SANDS

IMMEDIATE BENEFIT? CERTAINLY

LONGER TERM IMPACT? THE SNAG IS THAT WE ARE DOING THIS SORT OF THING TO THE ONLY EARTH WE’VE GOT ALL OVER THE GLOBE—AND, WITHOUT QUESTION, IT IS HAVING AN IMPACT. THE ISSUE ISN’T JUST GLOBAL WARMING. IT’S MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN THAT.

Last I checked, we had only on Earth so why are wrecking it at such a pace defeats me. I confess I was shaken to the core by the figures in the headline “52% of the world’s mammals, reptiles, birds, fish and amphibians disappeared between 1970 and 2010.”

More than half gone in only 40 years!

That is worse than my most extreme environmental nightmares. And I’m sure if we knew all the figures relating to the consequences of our pollution of the U.S. alone, we’d be stunned. Or maybe we wouldn’t. People seem remarkably unconcerned by the most egregious destruction of our environment and our pollution of the air we breathe, the water we drink,  and the soil where we grow our food.

The following piece was written by Thomm Hartman. His link is at the end.

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.
Well, this is exactly what’s happening to the web of life on Planet Earth right now. Like the human body, our planet is a living organism, and like the organs in the body, all of our planet’s species are interconnected. They form the web of life. And, just like the human body can survive with just one kidney or one eye, our planet and the web of life can survive without a few species here and there.
But, like with the loss of organs in the body, there’s eventually a point at which the biological systems of Planet Earth that support human life will just stop functioning if it loses too many species and thus too badly frays the web of life. And that point could be coming a lot sooner than most people thought.
According to a new report from the World Wildlife Fund, a staggering 52% of the world’s mammals, reptiles, birds, fish and amphibians disappeared between 1970 and 2010. We’re not talking about just a few species here and there. After all, species extinctions are normal. They’re part of the web of life, too. But, losing 52% of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians in just 40 years is not normal.
It’s a sign of the devastating toll that human activity is having on our planet and its many ecosystems. And, that 52% statistic doesn’t paint the full picture of what’s really going on here, because every time a species dies off, the web of life unravels just a little more and loses more of its balance.
For example, coyotes and hawks help keep the rabbit population in check. But what if these predators disappeared? Rabbit populations would skyrocket, and that growth would strip the earth bare of green things.
Another great example of balance and interconnectedness in the web of life was laid out by famed biologist Stuart Pimm. Pimm once told a story about how forests in the Pacific Northwest were lacking iodide in their soil, a chemical that’s necessary to keep the trees of those forests alive. Suddenly the forests began to come back, as more and more iodide was being discovered in the forest soil. What had happened?
No one could figure out why this was happening, until a connection was made with none other than bear poop. Basically, some of the dams on the rivers had been torn out, so the bears in the woods were eating the salmon from nearby rivers. Fish are great sources of iodide, as they absorb it from the ocean. The iodide was then transferred from the bears to the forests via bear poop, which helped to fertilize the forests and promote growth.
This is the kind of interconnectedness that drives our planet and the web of life. But, as more and more species continue to die off, our planet is losing this interconnectedness and balance, and the web of life is becoming badly unraveled. Fortunately, there’s still time for us to prevent a complete disaster.
As the World Wildlife Fund report points out, 7.1% of the species losses between 1970 and 2010 were because of climate change. And as climate change continues to rear its ugly head, our planet will lose more and more species.
So, if we want to save our planet and take the web of life off life support, now is the time to get serious about fighting back against the greatest threat our planet and the human race have ever faced. If we put a price on carbon, it will help save an ecosystem that can support human life. Check out www.greenworldrising.org for more information... - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/09/why-web-life-dying#sthash.Y4vBKz3R.dpuf

964 words (old format)

---

#13 October 14 2014. Aeromobil flying car to be unveiled October 29 2014

AVIATION

FLYING CARS

Flying cars have been a particular interest of mine since Bob Fulton and I became friends in the Nineties. I met Robert Edison Fulton while doing research for my third book, THE DEVIL’S FOOTPRINT, and I will list him in my memoirs as not only a great friend, and a thoroughly delightful human being, but one of the most unusual men I have ever met. He was married to a rather beautiful French woman, Anne, who I was equally fond of. Sadly, both are now dead.

Wikipedia rightly describes him as follows:

Robert Edison Fulton, Jr. (April 15, 1909 – May 7, 2004) was an American inventor and adventurer. He is known for having traveled around the world on a motorcycle, and for several aviation-related inventions among his 70 patents. Fulton was also a professional photographer.^[1]

BOB FULTON AS I KNEW HIM

Among his other claims to fame, Bob invented the first flying car that was CAA certified. In fact, not only was his Airphibian officially certified, but he received several orders for the vehicle/aircraft from the CAA itself. Sadly, his backers pulled out so Bob moved onto other things. But the Airphibian is in the Smithsonian.

In now seem likely that flying cars will finally happen. Bob was only 60 plus years ahead of his time—very typical of the man.

BOB’S AIRPHIBIAN—THE FIRST FLYING CAR CERTIFIED BY THE CAA – SHORTLY AFTER WW II

From The Guardian

Organisers of Vienna’s Pioneers Festival, an annual conference for future technology and digital entrepreneurship, announced on Thursday that they would unveil the prototype of “the world’s most advanced flying car” on 29 October.

An earlier prototype of the Flying Roadster by Slovakian company AeroMobil reportedly took its first test flight in October last year. The latest version will be tested a day before its premiere, on 28 October.

Company co-founder Juraj Vaculik said that AeroMobil had sped up the prototyping process after having seen “enthusiastic reactions of the global engineering and design community”.

Weighing 450 kg, with carbon-fibre wings that fold behind the cabin and a flight top speed of 124mph, the two-seater promises to be more of a flying sports car than a flying family car.

368 words

---

#12 October 13 2014. Preventable deaths—we are systematically undermining the effectiveness of antibiotics through overuse—and significant numbers of people are already dying as a result. It is going to get much worse—fast.

OUR FOOD IS KILLING US

AGRIBUSINESS/BIG FOOD TERRORISM – A SUITABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT

Talk show host Bill Maher regularly comments that we are poisoning ourselves through our food system—and there is increasing evidence that what he says is correct. We are not being poisoned in that we consume and then drop dead within minutes. The process, where our food is concerned, is more insidious.

We live sicker and die sooner than is necessary. Already it is noteworthy that the citizens of most other developed nations live three years longer than Americans—a fact that is rarely mentioned. Even our neighbors, the Canadians, live years longer. There is clearly something very wrong with our way of life. We already know some of the reasons.

• Lack of exercise.
• Lousy diet—with Fast Food in particular being a cause for concern, but with food, as a whole—even where not processed—being suspect. Apart from industry overuse of sugar, salt, and fats, there is antibiotic overuse..
• A polluted environment.
• Stressful working conditions—or, even worse, unemployment,
• A deeply flawed and expensive healthcare system.

Our current practice of adding antibiotics to the food of the animals we raise for food—as a preventative measure to counter disease—is particularly egregious. It contaminates not only the meat itself, but also fruits, vegetables and other crops. How so? Because the manure from the animals is used to fertilize the land. You can be a zealous vegan and still become resistant to antibiotics.

The Center for Disease Control has articulated the antibiotic problem but has only issued entirely inadequate voluntary guidelines.

Let me quote from mercola.com (a consistent source of excellent health information).

• According to CDC statistics,⁸ two million Americans are infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria each year, and at least 23,000 of them die as a result of those infections.

  One organism alone—methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)—already kills more Americans each year than the combined total of emphysema, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease, and homicide.⁹

• Use of antibiotics in healthy livestock (and farmed fish) account for about 80 percent of all antibiotic use in the US,¹⁰ making it the primary driver of this modern scourge. According to a 2009 FDA report,¹¹ factory farms used 29 million pounds of antibiotics that year alone.

  A 2013 paper by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) titled "Antibiotic Resistance in Foodborne Pathogens,"¹² report that between 1973 and 2011, there were 55 antibiotic-resistant foodborne outbreaks in the US. More than half of these outbreaks involved pathogens resistant to five or moreantibiotics.

• Resistance to multiple drugs appears to be an inevitability of continued misuse of antibiotics. For example, some penicillin-resistant bacteria have also developed resistance to cephalosporins¹³ — broad-spectrum antibiotics that are very important for the treatment of human infections.

  One in 25 patients now end up with a hospital-acquired infection, and many of these infections are drug resistant. By continuing using antibiotics in agriculture, we allow simple infections to turn lethal, and make even minor routine surgeries very risky indeed.

487 words

---

#11 October 12 2014. “The essence of the novel: accessing the mind of another human being in a way that combines freedom with intimacy” Joe Fassler

WRITING

I have been focused on writing itself —trying to write to a certain standard (and then raising the bar) for so long that I have mostly neglected to stand back and think enough about the meaning of writing itself. What gives its its astonishing power and enduring appeal? Why is it such an extraordinarily exciting, satisfying, and pleasurable activity? What is the secret of its magic (as if such a secret could ever be revealed!)?

Blogging has encouraged me to stand back and ponder the meaning of writing. Fortunately, I don’t have to depend on my own insights alone—though I would like to think I have a few. But I am both awed and delighted at the quality of the writing about writing that already exists.

The following extract is from a piece by Joe Fassler which appears in theatlantic.com of October 8 2014. It’s well worth reading in full.

To me as a reader, this greatest thing about the novel—I start sentences this way all time, but I always say a different thing—is that it gives access to the mind of the writer. Our Mutual Friend is a perfect example of this: You have access to the mind of this guy, Charles Dickens. Prolonged access, 880 pages of access. There is no intermediary between you and this guy’s mind. There are no actors, there’s no stage production. To read a book is an act of humanity. It’s an act of connection. And it’s also an act of freedom—at any point, I could say, I’m done with Our Mutual Friend, I’m moving on to Anthony Trollope. As long as you’re reading, you’re there voluntarily. To me, that’s the essence of the novel: accessing the mind of another human being in a way that combines freedom with intimacy. This is a rare thing. You don’t get it through an interview, you don’t get that through relationships—other people can always withhold information from you. You don’t get this kind of access in any other art—poetry, maybe, but the contact isn’t as prolonged. I find it perennially alluring. I’ve been at this for years and years and yet, and yet this voluntary act of connection still fascinates me in my reading and my writing.

355 words

---

#10 October 11 2014. Degrading ISIS from the air will keep allied casualties down, but will give ISIS plenty of time to adapt—something they seem very good at. I doubt it will be enough. But there are weaknesses in our own situation we could prevent.

TERRORISM

I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that.

Donald Rumsfeld

I hope I'm wrong, but I am afraid that Iraq is going to turn out to be the greatest disaster in American foreign policy - worse than Vietnam, not in the number who died, but in terms of its unintended consequences and its reverberation throughout the region.

Madeleine Albright

---

ISIS STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

I wrote this a few weeks ago before ISIS started attacking Kobani—based upon very little information. Still, I thought it might be a useful exercise. Then I forgot to post it because my blog software only shows the last nine titles—so if I write more they vanish. The software is Windows Live Writer—which I love—but the fact that you can’t see all your work is ridiculous. Worse is the fact that Microsoft has not remedied this blatant defect. But, let me not digress. though Microsoft has a great deal to answer for (Windows has certainly terrorized enough computer users), the issue at hand is ISIS.

STRENGTHS

• Well lead
• Well motivated
• Fanatical
• High morale
• Well financed
• Adaptive
• Appealing to religious extremists
• Maneuver oriented
• Firepower oriented
• Equipped with surprisingly heavy weapons for a force of this kind—most of which they seem to have captured. They have heavy artillery, mortars and some armor.
• Skilled at propaganda
• Fear inducing.
• Decisive 
• Fast
• Mobile
• Aggressive
• Determined
• Tenacious

LIMITATIONS

• Brutal
• Extreme
• Intolerant
• Fanatical
• Polarizing
• Unappealing to religious moderates
• Deluded
• Relatively lightly armed by conventional standards
• No air cover
• Vulnerable to airpower
• Vulnerable to surveillance
• Limited armor
• Limited artillery
• Overstretched
• Outnumbered
• Logistically challenged
• Surrounded.
• Not completely homogenous. Some evidence that ISIS is made up of different group with differing agendas—though ISIS would have us believe otherwise. This is particularly interesting.

THOUGHTS

As we enter this fight with ISIS, we are suffering from several preventable weaknesses:

• We have demonized ISIS.
• We are failing to either understand or admit our own responsibility for the actions which have given rise to ISIL and Islamic fundamentalism generally.
• We are being too predictable militarily.
• We are not up-arming the Kurds adequately.
• Yet again, we seem to be underestimating the value of speed in gaining psychological dominance.

The situation calls out for a sudden and significant defeat of ISIL in a specific area to shatter their current aura of invincibility. Such a raid –or series of actions—should ideally inflict serious casualties case them to lose serious territory—crush their confidence It should shake ISIS to the core.

Are the Iraqis equipped to do this? I doubt it. The Kurds seem to have the right fighting qualities, but lack the training and equipment. That leaves the Turks—who are well capable of the task—or us. But we seem to denying ourselves that option. The end result will, of course, actually be a coalition but it should be centered around military strength.

Terrorists are almost always vulnerable to conventional military forces in direct encounters—which is why terrorists use the tactics they do. However, short of an unacceptable level of brutality, they are near impossible to defeat if they have the support of the population. This is where their brutality may well be their undoing. The fact that they are Sunni won’t help them if they rule by terror—which seems to be their way. Moderate Sunnis will turn on them.

The weakness in our whole campaign against ISIS lies with the Shia who seem highly likely to continue to try and oppress the Sunni. Since this has been going on under Maliki for years, it reflects either a massive failure of intelligence or policy—or both—on our part.

We need to come up with some answers.

A loose federal structure for Iraq seems to be the best option—with the Kurds having de-facto independence (which they pretty much already have). Quite how to divide up the rest of Iraq to give some security to both Sunni and Shia seem likely to be more problematical. But, it can be done.

675 words (old format)

---

#9 October 10 2014. In marketing, positioning is more an art than a science. I guess in sex, it is too. And, in both cases, creativity is called for.

PERSONAL NEWS

The question editors like to ask when a book is finished is: “Does it work?’ It’s actually not a bad approach. It’s entirely pragmatic. Most really couldn’t give a damn whether an author writes well or not. They are much more concerned that he, or she, satisfies the market.

I tend to ask myself a similar question after I finish a blog, a book or a plan—or pretty much anything of that nature (omelets I eat)—although  I probably phrase it more like: “Does it feel right. Will it work?”

At the beginning of 2014, I begin to realize what was missing. I hadn’t given nearly enough thought to positioning. I was thinking of marketing books, and book covers, and and a website—all good, solid, very necessary stuff—whereas the real brand on the internet is the author.

Me, in this case. AAAAH!

Galloping goblins! How could I have missed this?

Positioning is all about matching image to market so that the products appeals to the maximum number of buyers. However, back in the days when I hunted dinosaurs, authors didn’t have much of an image—apart from celebrity authors like Normal Mailer or Truman Capote. The focus was on the book. Now, with the internet becoming increasingly important, the author is becoming the focal point (visually anyway).

But what was my image—and what did I want to project? And did I want to project myself at all?

Silly question. Today, whether you like it or not, your typical shy, introverted, and decidedly modest author has to find a telephone booth (not an easy task in itself any more) and reemerge as a self-promoting hustler—confident, charismatic, adventurous, dangerous—and sexy!

The latter words just emerged. Is my subconscious up to its tricks again?

Sexy? But, I’m 70, I thought. And I’m not Clark Gable.

Just as well. He died at 59.

Still, I was going to have to come up with something.

325 words

---

 

 

 

.

#8 October 9 2014. Illuminating the human condition is an interesting way of life—and it shows. A tribute to my fellow authors.

PERSONAL NEWS

The more I think about my fellow book authors, the more I appreciate what remarkable people so many are—and were. True, they may be committed to writing ahead of just about anything else (apart from the opposite sex, alcohol, and good company) but, virtually without exception, they are interesting, articulate people who live life to the full—and this despite the fact that they (we) spend a great deal of our working days alone. You would think that staring at a computer screen all day might kill the spirit, and make the person as dull as ditchwater, but, of course, the reality is that we are not alone—except physically—and we spend our days being intellectually stimulated. 

I wracked my brains to try and think did I know of any other group who were quite as impressive—and realized, with some surprise, that I didn’t. Businessmen—though there are exceptions—are rarely that interesting. Lawyers and accountants tend to be prisoners of their own dubious professions. Doctors—who should extremely interesting—are rarely so. The military, splendid fellows though they are, are anti-intellectual to a fault—and proud of it.In the end, I settled on movie directors and a certain type of academic as runners up.

Why are writers particularly interesting as a group—note that I didn’t say easy? Because they are intellectually curious, observant, thoughtful, frequently empathetic, largely driven by ideas rather than money, creative, generally speaking open-minded, experienced, and articulate. Many have an idealistic streak. Most, in my experience, are surprisingly supportive of their peers—and generous with their time.

Are all writers like this? I had a negative experience with the late Tom Clancy, for example—a man not renowned for his warmth. However, I can say it is true of the writers I know—across the board.

The silver haired writer in the photo below that of Henry Miller is Anthony Summers. Tony was a neighbor of mine when I lived in my thatched cottage in Ireland—and was the man responsible for my first big writing breakthrough. BBC trained and vastly experienced, he is a Best Selling Author—and probably best known for GODDESS, his definitive biography of Marylyn Monroe.

An easy man? Certainly not. A decent man? Very much so.

360 words.

---