Vice Wars: Supply supports demand. Why do we continue to ineffectually attack supply rather than demand?

     Vices — desires that are considered unacceptable by society (or parts of society). Such vices include drugs (alcohol, opioids, tobacco, …) and personal interactions (prostitution, gambling, …)

     A basis of capitalism is the idea of supply and demand. Although the United States is an extremely strong proponent of capitalism (and, at present, unrestrained capitalism) this reality seems to be easily forgotten.

     As long as demand exists, people will find ways to meet it with supplies. As soon as the Eighteenth Amendment was passed in 2019 (and, later, with additional enforcement provided by the Volstead Act), groups and individuals started determining ways to continue to meet the demand for alcohol. Alas, there is a difference between illegal commerce and legal commerce. By definition, meeting the demand for something illegal is a criminal activity and, thus, requires weakening of, and removal of, any obstructions that might impede the delivery of supplies for that demand.

     In that period, the continued demand built up the strength of organized crime and filled their coffers. It also created holes in government and enforcement via corruption and, as often possible with humans and their weaknesses, blackmail and extortion. All in all, the period of Prohibition was one of the strongest supports of organized crime within the US (and, to an indirect degree, the rest of the world) in history. Yet it was all following the principles of capitalism.

     When the Twenty-First Amendment was passed in 1931, it was done as a reluctant admission that Prohibition not only didn’t work but was a huge impetus for crime and corruption. The “temperance” movement continued to exist (and still does to some extent) but the majority said “no more”.

• So, with that flagrant example of the inability to both support capitalism and, at the same time, fight against capitalism (but only in areas defined as unwanted — without removing the demand), the United States would surely have learned its lessons?

• It would admit that supply and demand can be manipulated but not eliminated?

• It would observe that making the supply illegal does not affect demand but only hurts the surrounding infrastructure by continuing the supply outside, and through, the law?

     No. It is rare for groups of humans to adequately remember, and learn, from history. We see that over and over and over.

     And now we see the consequences of the continued folly of this fight against capitalistic principles, Rather than increase efforts, and support, to REDUCE demand (which immediately reduces supply, prices, and competition) — we continue to fight the supply side. Although we have yet to see any evidence that current attacks are even associated with the supply-side of fentanyl trade, we know that it will not work against any potential fentanyl problems.

So, why does it continue? Attacking the supply side, in itself, increases profits.

• By making it more difficult to bring supply to the demand, the price goes up and the profits go up for the suppliers.

• It adds jobs to the economy — to attempt suppression of the supply.

• With the increased profits received by the suppliers, they can give back money to politicians and enforcement officials to keep anti-vice laws in effect and to create the supply line holes which are useful for their business. Also known as corruption and misdirection.

• The actions of “attacking the supply side” can be used as camouflage, or distractions, for other political, or economic, purposes. Such as the current attacks on (totally unproven) “fentanyl supply” from Venezuela.

• It can give the appearance that something is being done to reduce the amount of the vice (whatever vice it may be).

     Attacking the supply side creates great profits (and jobs within both enforcement and criminal production). The fact that these profits are counter-productive to reducing demand, and support corruption and crime, is “beside the point”.

To reduce vices, reduce demand. So simple, so hard.

[ NOTE: In cases where unwilling people are involved, there are laws about kidnapping, extortion, rape, blackmail, theft, battery, assault, and so forth ]

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The math of gerrymandering -- how, why, and where

     Lots of news articles on the topic of gerrymandering of late -- mostly about political bias and court decisions. But just what is gerrymandering and how does it work? The word was created as a merging of the name of Governor Gerry of Massachusetts and the word salamander -- due to an artist's perception of the way the electoral districts were created (from Wikipedia).

     Gerrymandering is the process of creating boundaries such that one group has the advantage over another group. It is particularly used if the process gives a minority group control over the majority group.
     Districting occurs to divide up larger areas into smaller areas. For federal government in the U.S., it is a result of the Constitution and the periodic census. For the House of Representatives, the number of representatives per state shifts depending on population as reflected by the census. Within that state, districts are created that have approximately the same number of people within each district so that each person can have an "equal representation" compared to others in the state. For state and local districting, the rules can vary from that although the principle of "equal representation" is a common ground rule.
     Note that the representation of the Senate in the U.S. does not follow this general formula. With a fixed number of Senators per state, less populous states have greater representation per person. This was done deliberately to make sure that states had equal say in certain legislation. It carries over into the Electoral College of the U.S., with less populous states having a greater proportional say than the more populous states (although the total numbers are still greater for the more populous states).
     How does it work? Let's say that we have a state divided into 100 districts (I think of it as a 10 by 10 grid). Each box/district has 100 people in it. Thus, there are a total of 10,000 people in the state (10 x 10 x 100).
     Assume that group A makes up 65% (6,500 people) within the state. Group B makes up 35% (3,500 people, there may well be more than two groups but let's keep it simple).
     One method of districting would put 65 people from group A and 35 people from group B in each district. If this is done then, within each district, group A has democratic control (assuming equal voting by each group -- not often the case in real life). Group B has very little direct control.
     Another method would put 100 people from group A in each of 65 districts and 100 people from group B in each of the remaining 35 districts. This allows for proportional representation within the state or federal level but, locally, each group would have a monopoly within its district.
     However, if we put 100 people of group A in each of 35 districts (3,500 people -- leaving 3,000 people) and distribute the rest of group A equally among the remaining 65 districts, we would have approximately (not quite exactly) 46 (3000 / 65) people from group A in each of those 65 districts. Group B would have about 54% of the population in each of those 65 districts. Thus, group A would control 35 districts (35% of the state/federal vote) and group B would control 65 districts (65% of the state/federal vote). The power of the minority is flipped with that of the majority. This is the situation that is often the focus of the term gerrymandering.
     Sometimes, as in the case of Maryland, the term gerrymander is used in shifting of the voters -- according to percentage of registered voters, Party B should have 3 out of 10 representatives; it has 1.
     There is a limit beyond which gerrymandering is not possible. For example, if 90% of the state were in group A, it would still be possible to keep the 90% representation by putting all of group A in 90 districts but it would be impossible to distribute them such that group B would take over control.
     Often, the controlling group determines how the districts are divided. Thus, once gerrymandering has occurred, it is easy to maintain control by the controlling group (even if they are the minority group) unless the total percentage of group A grows enough to preclude gerrymandering by group B (they can try, but it won't work). This is the situation that has been, and probably will continue to be, presented before the higher courts.
     It is fairly easy to determine if the minority is overriding the majority but fair districting is difficult to do to allow proportional state/federal representation and still have local (within the district) non-monopolies of the dominant group in that district.
     One solution would be to dissolve artificial grouping (George Washington hated the concept of political parties) but that is not very likely to happen.
     Although it is usually not called gerrymandering, the same process occurs in the division of a metropolitan area into school districts. The school districts COULD be created such that each district has the same tax revenue base -- ensuring that the schools within each district have the same amount of money to spend per student as in other districts. That is not often the case and the result is school districts with a higher amount per student and other districts with a lower amount per student. This could be avoided by spreading the revenue distribution over the entire metropolitan area rather than per district -- but that is often considered "unfair" by those in wealthier districts.

GIGO: Garbage In and Garbage Out

     In the world of computer science, where a lot of acronyms were created (and still are), there was a term GIGO. GIGO is an acronym for "Garbage In, Garbage Out". This is a shortened version of saying that if what goes into a system (a computer, as one example) is not legitimate then it cannot be processed into an appropriate output. For example, a cruise control system takes into account current gear ratio, axle speed, tachometer reading, and so forth. If the cruise control believes that the car is moving at 100 miles per hour (60 kph) then it will do inappropriate things to the brakes and accelerator if, in reality, the wheels are spinning freely on a patch of ice and the car is not making any forward progress.
     If a data entry person (who are almost always touch typists -- not looking at the keys) had their hands at the wrong point on the keyboard as they entered data into a system, then things are not going to go well. You may get a $1,000 refund or you may get a bill for $10,000. In the first example, there is an assumption -- that the speed of the axles is a reliable indication of the speed of the car. In the second example, there is a lack of verification that the correct data are being entered.
     Data can also be wrong if the input instrument fails. If your thermostat breaks, then it cannot give proper information back to the processor that controls the oven temperature. You find out when the turkey comes out raw from the oven or the bread starts burning and catching on fire.
     Unfortunately, we are not always able to know, or immediately be able to be certain, that a problem has occurred. We may come up with a result that is completely false -- but we do not know that. This is why it is so important to have secondary, or backup, systems and studies to make sure that results are consistent. In the case of scientific studies, one study may be interesting and have results that may entice OTHER researchers to try to duplicate the study or try a different approach, but the results of the one study cannot, and should not, be relied upon on their own.
    In the past decade, the term GIGO has expanded a bit. It now is sometimes used for a situation where any type of inappropriate incoming conditions results in bad outgoing conditions. Eating "junk foods" is an example of this in the area of nutrition. If you eat foods that do not supply the appropriate "building blocks" (see my earlier blogs on nutrition) then it is difficult to build, and maintain, a healthy body. Another situation might be a building that is created with bad materials (inferior steel, poorly mixed concrete, lack of specified reinforcements, ...) and it collapses when a problem (perhaps an earthquake for which it was SUPPOSED to have been adequate) occurs.
     Another situation is more human-directed. That is falsification of data. In other words, people can (and do) sometimes lie. This may be for many different reasons -- they want different results to be true or they think that other results will bring them more attention (and funding) or they trust that no one will bother to cross-check the results.Two instances (I'm sure there have been more) of this have happened in the past decade -- one dealing with autism and vaccines and the other having to do with climate change. While it is difficult to be certain of the motivations, the results were considerable -- a loss of trust in vaccinations (and a rise in preventable illnesses and deaths) and possible delays in addressing environmental problems.
      In the area of politics, of course, this happens all of the time. A politician will say something and reactions and decisions are made based on what they say. If what they say is truthful, then those reactions and decisions have a better chance to be good ones. If what they say is not truthful, then it is unlikely the results will be good ones. Unfortunately, the rules of scientific studies are rarely followed in politics -- the facts may be researched but the results of those fact-verifications are either not seen, ignored, or misbelieved based on what the recipients want to have happen.
     A situation that lies between the two is the matter of data gathering for political purposes. Polls are used to reflect, and to influence, people's attitudes. However, a poll may gather data that is not representative and, thus, the results are not accurate. For example, if a poll only calls people on "landline" phones then the people who have only cell (mobile) phones will be excluded. It turns out that certain groups of people are more likely to have only cell phones -- thus the poll will be skewed away from the cell phone group and not be accurate. Or the poll could call people only in the evening hours -- and certain groups not present during the evening hours will not be represented. Or some people will filter out calls based on incoming numbers and so only those who do NOT filter their calls are represented in the poll results. It is more difficult than ever to get an appropriate poll base.
     Finally, a situation that combines computer science, politics, polling data, and cross-checking -- voting. There are two types of fraud that can exist in elections. One is voting fraud -- where someone who is not entitled to vote (or who is entitled to vote once but votes more than once) is able to vote. This situation sounds scary but actually does not happen a lot. The other is election fraud. This is where people who should be able to vote are prevented from voting, or their vote is changed such that the person/cause for which they are voting does not get credit (possibly giving it to the opposing situation). This happens much more often than voter fraud and appears to be increasing in volume. Both voter fraud and election fraud are instances of GIGO in the political arena. They are addressed in the same ways -- simplification (fewer systems or people between the voter and the recording of the vote) and cross-checking (paper trails for electronic voting systems, receipts for voting records, duplication of systems and verifying that both results are the same, ...). Unfortunately, people often decide to make things "easy" and "fast" which tends to increase the opportunities for election fraud.
     In what areas of life do you see the principle of GIGO operating? How do you, or would you, make sure that the information, on which you make your decisions, is correct?

Labels and marketing: what's in a name?

     This blog is about marketing -- and marketing is about politics (and politics is about marketing). Most people think of politics as about politicians and other elected officials. Most people think of marketing as being for/against commercial products and other types of physical objects that can be transferred. Yet, we talk about marketing a candidate and politics are basically a matter of forming/creating, and expressing, views on various subjects. They are inseparable.

     So, this is a warning. If you don't want to read a blog about politics then don't read this blog. Some examples will be about commercial products and other examples will be about current events and, admittedly subjective, aspects of current society.

     Sometimes marketing is used as a short term for marketing media which is about HOW the marketing materials are distributed -- television, pamphlets, advertising within other social media (movies, plays, ...), and so forth. This is different from the marketing content and I won't be talking about marketing media (at least, not in this blog). Marketing is also closely related to sales -- and I won't be talking directly about sales. This blog is about marketing and labels -- the words that contain the concepts that you want to have others absorb.

     As mentioned above, marketing is basically a matter of creating/forming views on various subjects. The person, or group, that is doing the marketing will have an object view -- what she, or he, wants you to have as the final thought about the item being marketed. Candidate X is the best. Product Y makes your clothes cleaner. Legislation G will make you safer.

     The following bullet items are concerned with categories of methods used to make labels more effective -- more likely to achieve the desires of the people creating the labels. It is meant to include the more important methods but certainly will not contain all of them. Please note that, although examples are taken from the U.S, examples abound from around the world -- in my research, I have found items from Canada, France, the U.K., and Germany.

• Obfuscation -- this is a $20 word for making things less clear. Clarity is sometimes desired within marketing and, at other times, it is strongly not desired. In general, if there is one side then there is the opposite. Gas-conserving versus gas-guzzling. But "gas-guzzling" isn't appealing so that might get ignored and "powerful" would be used instead.
  
  For a controversial social/religious area, the sides should be "pro-choice" versus "anti-choice" or "anti-life" versus "pro-life". But, even though it is accurate, "anti-choice" isn't something that is marketable. The people opposing the "pro-life" people are strongly supportive of all phases of life, including the post-birth lives of the woman and fully-developed child -- so "anti-life" is not at all accurate.
  
  In most cases, obfuscation can only occur when the media allow it to happen. Many times, the media will actually assign the labels and they often do so based on "catchiness" rather than attempted accuracy.
• Conciseness versus Self-explanatory and perspective. Shorter descriptions are more easily remembered. "Jingles" are short phrases that are easy to remember (and, often, sung) and get associated with a product. Hashtags are now used to give a short, compact, indication of the subject matter. A difference of perspective can mean that a concise term does not have sufficient information to be self-explanatory.
  
  The term #BlackLivesMatter was created based on the reality that, currently, the lives of black people, poor people, Hispanic people, and First Nation ("Indian", Native, indigenous, ...) people do not matter very much to the U.S. justice system. Their deaths are under-investigated and legal matters are not treated with equal importance. They are also profiled and subjected to laws that are directed specifically towards their communities. They are over-represented in the for-profit prison system.
  
  (What do for-profit systems try to do? Increase demand -- which, in this case, means to increase the numbers of people imprisoned and it is much easier to do that with less-powerful segments of the population.)
  
  People who are not in these groups assume that the groups of people are treated in a similar way to the way that they are treated -- thus they respond that #AllLivesMatter which, unfortunately, is not accurate. It is true that #AllLivesSHOULDMatter. If the original hashtag had been #BlackLivesAlsoMatter would that have headed off some of the arguments? A concise label may be accurate but, without appropriate history and perception, may not be sufficiently clear.
• Inferences -- drawing on history and associations. The Patriot Act (and the Patriot missile) have no direct connection to anything "patriotic". By associating the name to the legislation and product, the associations that people have with the word can be connected, in people's thoughts, to the product. Local company names that have their local city, or neighborhood, as part of their name tend to attract more business.
• Avoidance of "hot words" by redirection. Some words are associated with negative things by the majority of a population. In the U.S., such hot words include "socialism" and "welfare". So, if you are going to promote a new taxpayer-funded airport, you do NOT use the word "socialism" (which it is) -- instead you use the less direct "subsidized". If a new factory needs special utility lines (electricity) and water lines that are taxpayer-funded, they are "expanding infrastructure" even if it is specifically for use by the company which does not pay for it. "Welfare" is a bad word when used for helping individuals -- so the word is not used when corporations are subsidized.
• Newspeak -- the way of using language for redirecting thoughts. This is closely related to obfuscation but is more deliberate. Newspeak was described in the book 1984 by George Orwell. A more complete list can be found in the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words.
  
  "Right to Work" laws actually reduce the wages, and freedom, to work for a living. The phrase "Anti-Union" is much more accurate but not as easily sold. The "Internet Freedom" act moves the control of the Internet to large corporations -- thus actually reducing the freedoms of the consumers.
  
  Much of the transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% has been done under Newspeak titled Legislation labels. Who has time to read a 2,000 page bill when the extremely inaccurate and misleading title "Help out the Middle Class Act" (not the actual name of a bill, as far as I know) says it all?
  
  Newspeak also deals with the re-writing of history. Don't like what actually happened 50 years ago? Change the history books to indicate something different. Does a book written 100 years ago use language that is no longer acceptable? Rewrite the book to be currently acceptable. This is related to labeling as it is possible, with effective marketing, to change the current meaning of a word. For example, the word "gay" is no longer used in the U.S. to indicate happy and joyous. The label has changed because the underlying meaning has been diverted.
• Irrelevant but popular associations. A carbonated beverage (soda, pop, soda pop, sparkling drink -- regional names) can be marketed as "gluten-free". Carbonated beverages almost never have gluten but, since many people now consider gluten to be bad, a marketing method can include saying what "bad" things are NOT included. "This soda is gluten-free, cyanide-free, lead-free, and contains all the vitamins that start with the letter B".

     Labels are a way of marketing products and ideas. As an aspect of language, they make use of -- and form -- the ways that we think about those subjects. If we are aware of what we are doing when we create labels, they can be more effective -- and, if we are aware of what others are doing when they create labels, we can make it less easy to be misled.

    Are you aware of other methods that labels can be used, or misused, within the world in which you live? How much do labels affect the way you think about things?

What is Critical about Mass: having enough to sustain a process

    There is a phrase used from time to time -- "critical mass". This phrase was initially used in regards to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. In order for a nuclear device to be able to start a fission (splitting atoms) reaction, there must be enough material that each splitting of an atom creates enough energy to allow for the splitting of additional (at least one more) atoms. So, the critical mass is enough radioactive material to allow for the process to continue once it is started.

   This concept is central to the creation of weapons because a bomb is created such that two, or more, amounts that are less than critical mass are kept close together -- when it is desired to detonate, the smaller amounts are pushed together to create the critical mass and the reaction can take place. A bomb is "clean" if it has the opportunity to split most of its radioactive material before spreading apart and "dirty" if it ends up spreading the radioactive material (not fissioned) into the surrounding area.

   This concept is also important with the design of nuclear power plants -- rather what NOT to do when designing a plant. A properly designed plant will maintain control of how much radioactive material is allowed to be near each other (with the addition of materials called "damping" rods which absorb excess energy). This is important not only for safety but also for the economic operation of the plant. If a plant is not designed this way then it is just a one-time-use bomb. Thus, nuclear power plants (though there may be other dangers) are almost impossible to cause nuclear explosions.

   One more term that is very important to this topic is the "tipping point". This is the very small range that exists between NOT having a critical mass and the amount reaching a critical mass. Just a bit more and it becomes critical. Remove just a bit and it becomes inoperative. Before the tipping point is reached, the process requires continued external energy to maintain progress towards the critical mass.

   All that is just a preamble to this blog [smile]. The concept of critical mass enters into many areas of our society -- political, economic, sociological, and so forth.

   One area of present interest and, which is entering the region of the tipping point, is that of electric cars. Electric cars have been around for quite a while (according to the Net, 1834). However, we do not see electric cars everywhere -- it is mostly internal combustion (gas or diesel) engine cars. Cars, by definition, are used for movement. This means that the source of their energy must be carried along with them. In the case of gasoline engine cars, this means tanks of gas. In the case of electric cars (actually, electric engine powered cars), this means batteries (or an awfully long electrical cord [smile]).

   Batteries have traditionally not been very powerful or very efficient. This continues to change and, although not specifically a critical mass, they are now reaching the point of efficiency to be able to be used more practically. (Note that the same idea is involved with the efficiency of solar cells for solar power.)

   Even with more efficient batteries, they still must be charged on a regular basis and the means to charge them must be close enough together (driving range) such that an electric car can go from one charging station to another. Additionally, the time needed to charge the battery must be relatively short or timed such that the charging can reliably be done at "non-use" times (such as night).

   So, the technology needed to have practical electrical cars on the roads requires three things: sufficiently efficient batteries to provide workable range, charging stations within that range, and technology sufficient to compete with other alternatives. This is now beginning to happen. We are close to the tipping point. The external energy causing us to reach this point has come from the dedication of various people who want the end result. Note that the same process happened to make the internal combustion car practical in the early 1900s.

   Another area of critical mass is concerned with political, or social, matters. Let us take the matter of the ability to vote, within the United States, for women. Within the democratic process, one group cannot grant themselves additional authority, privileges, or rights. They must be granted such by the people who already have that power. This means a process of change of thoughts and attitudes. The energy to achieve that came from dedicated people who worked towards that goal. They achieved critical mass when enough of the existing authorized voters were convinced that women should be granted the right to vote.

   There are many areas where the ideas of a tipping point, and critical mass, are important. They are both involved in areas of change. The change may be a chemical, or physical, process. The change may be a social process. The change may be a political process. But they each have stages and move from one to another by approaching the tipping point, reaching critical mass, and effecting the change.

    What areas of critical mass do you see approaching and which ones do you see from the past?

The media is what lies between you and the information

    The dictionary tells us that the root origins of the word media is the plural of medium and is from the latin word for middle. The plural word media has been taken over to indicate a particular type of medium -- associated with mass media (television, radio, printed or texted material). Thus, within this context, there may be a plural of the plural -- medias.

    No matter how you pull the word apart, it still indicates something that is between. Roots of the concept are really part of what is now called social media. This might be surprising to people who have grown up in the Internet era but not at all surprising to people who grew up in a small town. In medieval times, there was often an official person -- the town crier -- whose job it was to stand on a corner or before a building and call out information considered to be important by the person who paid the town crier. This was often a method of the government to tell people something. More important, both in medieval times as well as small towns, was the town gossip who was an individual through whom information passed from people and groups all over. I am certain that, even in cave dwelling times, there was always a particular person who found out information and passed it along.

    The primary difference between mass media and social media is that mass media is more of a one-to-many spread of information while social media is a many-to-many. One source of information is taken by an individual (or group of individuals) and passed along to a large number of people and that is mass media. Or many people provide information which is collected by one (or more) person that is passed along to as many people as who will listen. In today's world that collection point can be human or electronic.

    All of these are good methods of collecting and distributing information -- but they do not guarantee that it will be GOOD, or valid, information. We see this currently in discussions about existing events. We are often divided -- and very firmly divided -- because the information sources (and associated media) are very different and the people either do not have the time, energy, or desire to research the information themselves to determine.

    So, people decide who they trust and rely on that information. If the media are trustworthy, it works well. If not, they are the sources of the lies and rumors that damage, and sometimes cripple, people and societies.

    The moral of the story is -- make sure you can trust the sources of your information and verify for yourself when you can.

    What media types do you rely on for information and why do you trust them?

What's in a Name: the politics and reality of global climate change

   When scientists discovered that the average temperature of the oceans was increasing, it was picked up by the media as "global warming". While I don't know whether this name was embraced by the scientific community or not, it wasn't a bad name -- at a scientific level. A much better name would have been "global ocean warming" -- for reasons to follow.

   A name is a powerful thing -- attitudes, and historical associations, come along with names. If a highly anti-patriotic thing is NAMED something patriotic then it is easier to associate it with positive, patriotic, meanings. This is just how our brains work -- we associate names with other things connected with the names. Politicians, Public Relations people, and advertising agencies make use of this to a great degree.

   If the word "global warming" is used then it can be MIS-used. If there is a huge snowstorm, it can be used as "evidence" that it is "obviously" NOT warming all over the globe. The more precise, and accurate, the word that is chosen, the more difficult it is to skew the interpretation. As mentioned earlier, it would be more difficult to misinterpret "global ocean warming" -- since a snowstorm is not immediately connected to the ocean (although it is actually true that the ocean warming might directly help the snowstorm to happen).

   Of late, the dialog has mostly changed to that of "global climate change". This is associated with the effect of "global ocean warming" -- but it seems to have been easier to migrate to this phrase than to expand upon the "global warming" media phrase. It is a reasonable phrase and much more difficult to subvert by politicians as there IS (unfortunately) increasing indications of global changes in the climate.

   The other part of the "discussion" (actually more of a taking of sides) -- beyond whether or not global climate change is happening -- is whether it has been caused by human activities. It will be impossible to totally prove this as that would require comparing two parallel worlds -- one world where changes in energy use and other human activities took place in a timely manner and comparing that to our current world.

   When historical evidence is examined, it shows how, and when, such global changes in climate have occurred before. This evidence does give us some ideas as to how various components (Carbon Dioxide in atmosphere, Ozone levels, water levels, average temperature, etc.) work together to change the climate and it does indicate how ongoing, present, changes are likely to affect climate. Politicians are correct that climate change has occurred many times over history. However, the rate of change of factors that have been occurring over the past 100 years has only been found in association with large scale catastrophes (huge volcano eruptions, widespread biologic changes, and so forth).

   This rapid change is the most scary part of global climate change. Humans are very adaptable. In fact, a great name for the species would be homo adaptabilis. If a desert turned into a a wetland over a period of a couple hundred years, people would adapt. In fact, much of the Sahara desert was once a tropical forest at one time (but the change was much, much slower). If the coastline disappears under water an inch a year, people will adapt. That is our current goal -- to slow down the rate of global climate change to allow people to move from one place to another, to allow changes in basic crops grown in an area, to allow people to change housing and energy use, and so forth.

   But, all of this is still an exercise in the dangers of allowing the media to choose a phrase to describe something. Insist on precision in descriptions. Refuse to use labels that are obviously inaccurate -- reverse it by saying "the so-called xxxxxxx". When a debate arises where one side is labeled as "pro-AAAAA" then insist that the other side be called "anti-AAAAA" rather than "pro-BBBBB"

   What misuses of labels have been the most upsetting for you?