Sunday, May 8, 2022

If the weather report is all the "news" you need, is it any more "accurate" than regular news?

 

There is a line in a Simon & Garfunkel song that goes “I can gather all the news I need on the weather report,” and I suppose for some occupations it is, like airline pilot or farmer. Because I don’t have a car and walk around outside a lot, I have to pay attention to the possibility of rainfall—and Seattle is supposedly one of the wettest cities in the country. But despite this reputation, it just seems that way because of constant cloud cover.

Seattle averages about 308 days a year of cloud cover, in which 226 are defined as “heavy” cloud cover; an average of about 150 days a year sees actual rainfall, but the rain is rarely heavy. While Miami averages 67 inches of rain a year, and New York City about 50 inches, Seattle’s updated yearly average is now 39.5 inches.

In NOAA’s October to September calendar—which at least in Washington correlates with the beginning of the official “rainy season” which lasts from October through March—we have seen the “official” precipitation level at 40.43 inches, which is already an inch above normal with a little less than five months till September 30. But that “official” climate data for Seattle is actually recorded further south, at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which is about 14 miles from downtown. Just how accurate is it in regard to what is happening in Seattle?

Let’s compare the precipitation numbers recorded at Sea-Tac with those recorded at King County International-Boeing Field, which is 10 miles down the road from Sea-Tac and four miles from downtown Seattle. First Sea-Tac:

 


Now Boeing Field:

 


Sea-Tac recorded 1.02 inches, while Boeing recorded .51, exactly half the amount. But it gets more interesting if we see what was recorded the previous day. First Sea-Tac:

 


And now Boeing:

 


Sea-Tac recorded .44 inches, while Boeing Field—which is technically within the Seattle city limits—recorded just .07 inches. Remember that these two locations are only 10 miles apart, and there are no significant geographical variables to explain it, just urban sprawl, and their locations adjacent Puget Sound’s Central Basin no different:

 


 

Being near a large body of water doesn’t necessarily mean there is more water to create rain through evaporation. Southern California is next to the Pacific Ocean, but sees little or no rainfall most of the year because persistent high pressure ridges keep precipitation that soaks the Pacific Northwest from moving south. It was another matter when I was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, where it almost never rained, but when it did it was so torrential that "rain raid" alarms went off to warn people to seek immediate shelter. In Western Washington, coastal areas and the Olympic Peninsula can see up to 200 inches a year; I recall that the first six weeks I was stationed at Fort Lewis, which is located just outside the peninsula, it “drizzled” 24 hours a day non-stop. Yet locations like Port Angeles in the northern coast of the peninsula averages less rain a year than Seattle, caused by the “rain shadow” effect of the mountains in the Olympic National Park.

It’s still not “easy” to explain the differences in precipitation in two locations virtually right next to each other. Seattle supposedly is in the middle of a major convergence zone, with differing weather patterns from different directions effecting the weather, so that may explain how Sea-Tac and Boeing Field can have vastly different readings; in fact the latter can at times have precipitation readings while none are recorded at Sea-Tac at all—and this is certainly true even in Kent, which is 12 miles from Sea-Tac, and can see seemingly heavy rain but little or none is recorded at Sea-Tac, and vice-versa.

So if there is such a difference in precipitation amounts—and temperature, since “hot” air generated on the runways can blow toward the weather reading devices and record incorrect air temperatures by a few degrees--why is Sea-Tac still the "official" weather-reading station in the area (sure looks "high-tech," doesn't it)?:

 


 

We are informed that it is not important what the numbers coming from Sea-Tac Airport are as they relate to the region as a whole; they will continue to be the “official” numbers for Western Washington because its data has been recorded for a longer period than other weather reporting stations (over 75 years), and thus it is more useful for meteorologists to gauge climate changes over the years.

 

Saturday, May 7, 2022

Some thoughts about what passes for poetry for people who don't like poetry (like me)

Today I found something interesting in my pile of quarters out of the laundromat change machine, and it looked like this:

 


Before I get into what this coin signifies, let me start off by saying that over the past twenty years I have been collecting the U.S Mint’s quarter series, first of the states and territories, and then of a national park or monument selected from each. The last of the parks series was Alabama’s contribution, the first new quarter released in 2021. The next quarter released a few months later was of George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware…

 


 

…which suggested that the next series would be of historical events, which I thought would be pretty “cool” and useful for people who know little of American history. However, if that was the plan it apparently was shelved, probably because it would be too “male-centric”—which we can deduce the Mint decided, because the next series will be “Prominent American Women.” This means, of course, that the Mint apparently gave in to pressure to tell “herstory.” Well, fine, that just means I won’t feel any “pressure” to rummage through my laundry quarters for the next five years.

Anyways, the first to be so honored is the recently deceased Maya Angelou, who some people call a poet, but more accurately defined as a racial and gender activist who uses the poetry medium to express her self-obsessions. I admit I am not a fan of poetry, and for those who find little value in it, Angelou will suffice as exhibit number one. Angelou has been the subject of a lot of controversy about whether her poetry qualifies as “great” or merely “mediocre.” Some of the poems that Angelou is best known for, like “Phenomenal Woman,” which I first encountered pasted on the wall of someone’s office and took an immediate dislike to because of its obsession with self, and “Still I Rise,” which again sounds more about the author’s personal conceits than a “poem.”

The U.S. Postal Service actually had to provide a tortured explanation for the 2015 stamp commemorating Angelou when it used a poetry line that has been attributed to her, but in fact she did not write at all. Her most famous (I guess) poem—which is insinuated by the bird on the quarter—“I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings,” is accused of being a rewrite of poems written by Paul Dunbar and Joan Anglund, the latter who apparently was the actual author of the alleged Angelou poetry line used on the stamp. On Quora, people suggest that her “cliché-ridden” poems were more “performance art,” closer to song lyrics or advertisement slogans. Another likens them to McDonald’s cheeseburgers; they sell a lot because they “taste” good, high on fat content, less so in protein.

While there are many legitimately great black poets, like Langston Hughes and Elizabeth Bishop, they don’t attract as much attention as Angelou because she “speaks” to a  base that is as self-absorbed as she was. Another problem for me is that on the level of “pure” poetry, Angelou is about as phony as they come. Her “poetry” can easily be broken down to its lowest common denominator: just write out some random thoughts or something that’s bugging you, then break it down into random lines or phrases without any particular rhyme or reason—and voila! you have written a poem! Take for example the following from “Caged Bird”:

The free bird leaps on the back of the wind, and floats downstream till the current ends, and dips his wings in the orange sun rays and dares to claim the sky. But a bird that stalks down his narrow cage can seldom see through his bars of rage, his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing. The caged bird sings with fearful trill of the things unknown, but longed for still, and his tune is heard on the distant hill, for the caged bird sings of freedom.

As long as we remember that Angelou “borrowed” the ideas for this poem from others, even I admit that this is one her least offensive to non-political sensibilities. But this is supposed to be a “poem,” and this is the completely arbitrary and nonsensical way she broke it down to turn it into a “poem.”


The free bird leaps
on the back of the wind
and floats downstream
till the current ends
and dips his wings
in the orange sun rays
and dares to claim the sky.

But a bird that stalks
down his narrow cage
can seldom see through
his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and
his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings
with fearful trill
of the things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom

Still, I admit that I’m not a fan of poetry, so how can I be a proper “judge” of it. But there is that odd bit of poetry that does sticks in my mind as worthwhile that isn’t a pop song lyric, such as this excerpt from Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass:

 

I think I could turn and live with animals,

they are so placid and self-contained,

I stand and look at them long and long.

 

They do not sweat and whine about their condition,

They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,

They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,

Not one is dissatisfied,

Not one is demented with the mania of owning things,

Not one kneels to another,

Nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,

Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.

 

Man, ain’t that the truth—and unlike Angelou’s fake poetry, each line actually has an independent meaning, and is not just a fragment from a complete sentence.

As I say I don’t read poetry, and I couldn’t write any even if I wanted to. However, when I was in college I read The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, which I found an amusing read, not just for the anecdotes but the style and the way certain words were (or were not) capitalized. I also found the story of the demise of Thomas Paine rather interesting, so one day I decided to amuse myself and wrote out the following verse satirizing the "style" of the time: 

 

I, Thomas Paine, here do solemnly submit to the american People

who owe a great Debt to my person for their Freedom 

a humble request to remember their dear Brother

to embark on a Mission to recover his poor Bones

and return them to their proper resting Place.

 

Tis’ a sad Tale of public Forgetfulness,

Whilst the People drool over sporting Heroes and thieving Merchants

the memories of defenders of Liberty fly from the avaricious Mind.

 

‘Whilst the perpetrators of Tyranny

display their deceased Despots in open Forum

 for the oppressed masses to cast fearful Glances upon,

this poor Foghorn for the public Welfare

hast his poor Remains interred in some Moldering Box

in an english Attic in a part Unknown.

 

Reviled and scorned I was by the american People

when I advanced to carry my Ax and rent a Path

through the Jungle of religious Superstition,

for declaiming the odious enslavement of the black Race

and the plain Murder of the Native Race.

 

Perjured by the beneficiaries of my Labors,

abandoned by my Friends,

and at last departing from the living Penniless and Forgotten.

Refused proper burial in a Cemetery,

my unhappy Body was interred on a weed-run Farm

my gravestone Profaned by the rabble of Liberty.

 

For ten years Common Sense wept bitter Tears

when an englishman perceived the errors of my countrymen,

and endeavored to restore my Repute to good Standing.

 

Unhappily, William Cobbett, as he was known,

Though animated by a great oversupply of Idolatry,

stole away my troubled Bones and sailed forth to england.

Greatly distressed by my Removal from my beloved Land of Liberty,

further indignities awaited me

as my poor Bones were deposited in a wooden Box,

ogled upon by the Gross eyes of Freakish nature.

 

Mister Cobbett, who displayed such great Devotion for my life work,

soon tired of my Bones.

But yet desirous of constructing a Monument in my Honor,

removed locks of Hair from my poor Skull

to sell to souvenir Leaches

and thus raise funds for this Project.

This Enterprise was for naught, however

asking for too low a Price for my Locks.

 

For well nigh sixteen Years my bones languished in London Town,

until Mister Cobbett received his just Desserts and expired.

His son sought to auction away my Bones,

but the auctioneer Refused,

since not all englishmen are lacking in Humanity.

 

Consequently my remains were left to idle Forgotten within this attic,

its precise location obscured by the passage of the many Years.

 

In light of all of these various and sundry Outrages,

I call upon you the ungrateful Heirs of Liberty

to remove yourselves from your tired Fundaments

and refrain from empty Exalting and endeavor

to conduct a Search for the Humble T. Paine’s Bones

and bring them hither to the land he did Create.

 

But in the event that my Bones are now but Dust,

let it be remembered that my curse upon the Conscience of Malfeasants

will not be so easily cast aside.

 

Let the Woe of my present Disposition,

serve as a warning to you as to the fate of misemployed Liberty

that it too may crumble beneath the weight of countless lies and misdeeds

that pass without heed beneath the fog of Apathy.

 

If this be in truth the ultimate disposition of both my remains and my legacy

at the hands of daylight Heroes who twitter upon the sound

of ‘worn’ Honor and ‘jaded’ Principles,

then indeed these are Times that try a dead man’s Soul.”

 

At least this got a chuckle from the history professor I showed it to.

 

Thursday, May 5, 2022

You don't need a lot of "cash" to be "super-rich" in this country

According to Forbes “real time” billionaire tracker, Elon Musk is currently the world’s richest man at $244 billion, and that has probably changed from the last time I checked it a few minutes ago. So what is a measly $44 billion to him? He will still top the richest list even if he dumps all that money into a dumpster. But according to Bloomberg, the deal to purchase Twitter requires Musk pay nearly half the amount in equity financing; which means, basically, hard cash. The rest can be paid through debt financing, which basically means borrowing the money. To raise the cash, Musk has sold $8.5 billion of his Tesla stock, and convinced various investment groups to throw in another $7.1 billion.

Musk is about $6 billion short, and although Bloomberg observes that the deal could still fall apart, as “it seems Musk is struggling to get the money he needs to make this Twitter deal a reality,” but “Of course, this is Elon Musk we’re talking about, and he could surprise us all and announce the remaining funding before you finish reading this newsletter.” It is another question as to why Musk wants to “own” Twitter at all, since its potential for profit is somewhat on the low side compared to other social media platforms. Advertisers, notes The Economic Times last week, see “The fleeting nature of tweets has meant that marketing messages in posts may not spend much time in the spotlight for Twitter users to see.”

Well, “so what” you say; this is just another super-rich guy with too much time and money on his hands. He’s got so much “cash” that he doesn’t know what to do with it. But the fact Musk is having trouble raising “cash”—even if the amount seems “manageable” relative to what the rest of us are used to—points to certain realities; not all the “super-rich” have  $100 million in cash in the checking account like we are told makes up 25 percent of Tucker Carlson’s wealth, since Fox News pays him $35 million a year (presumably in cash), and what to do with all that money when he can live off the interest from the inheritance that his father (and ex-mother) left him?

Actually, the super-rich have very little of their wealth in cash or liquid assets that can be quickly converted to cash to “live” on. Spare cash laying around doesn’t “work,” so it must be put to use. If need be, interest payment from stocks or selling a few stocks should be sufficient to pay for daily expenses, and if something “big” needs paying for, selling more stock or taking out a loan always works.

The following graph shows us the vast difference in how wealth is distributed in this country, even if the super-rich seem to have “less” cash compared to poorer people relative to their total assets. 

 


The graph is instructive of how even during a pandemic where many people lose their jobs and sink into poverty, others can still get even richer: what it tells us is that the poorer you are, the more your “wealth” is tied up in two basic assets: your house and your car. Of course if you don’t have a house or a car, your “assets” are basically what you have in your in bank account, or if you are fortunate, a retirement fund you invested money in. It isn’t until you reach the $1 million in assets stage where this equation starts to change; you may own a business, own real estate, have large investments in stock, own government bonds that pay out a “fixed” interest rate, or have money invested in mutual funds—which are “managed” investments involving the money of many individual investors

This is income inequality in action. If you are an entrepreneur who started a business and it was successful—Jeff Bezos literally began Amazon working out of his garage—most of your money is in “the business.” But if you are in the “middle rich” pack, the major part of excess asset accumulation is in investments, including those earmarked for retirement. That means that people with excess cash laying around can use it to accumulate wealth by investing in various money-making schemes. In the last 20 years stock prices have tripled,  but if you had money to invest on March 6, 2009—the lowest point in the Great Recession, when the Stock Market hit bottom at 6,469 points—you probably would have benefited handsomely since as the Dow Jones average is now five times that amount.

Of course if you live from paycheck to paycheck, investing in the markets isn’t really an option. Your principle assets are as likely to depreciate in value as increase, so it is easy to see that all things being “equal,” people with money have far greater opportunities to expand their wealth over time. Even if that wealth is subject to the vagaries of stock prices—see how Elizabeth Holmes went from multi-billions to nothing seemingly overnight—the game is still heavily in favor of those who have excess money with nothing to do but be gambled with.

And of course if you are Tucker Carlson, you don’t even have to be “creative” to build anything constructive to rake in undeserved wealth; you can just say the things that corporate America wants you to say while still claiming to be a “populist” fighting for “working people,” when in fact your “job”—even if you are too hypocritical to come out and admit it—is to insure that working people barely making ends meet have their attention drawn into “culture wars” and racial scapegoating while the income disparities in this country grow wider and wider.