Is Digital As Green As We Think?

This article that Nicole put together for our company’s intranet gives a great example of how we often assume something to be true without giving it a second thought:

“Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.”
“Sign up for paperless billing, help the environment and save trees.”

In the ongoing quest to be green, these types of phrases are seen daily. And as a publisher of various print publications, McMurry deals with clients everyday looking to go digital, not just to save money, but to improve their image with the community as an environmentally conscientious organization.

However, a recent article on MediaShift, a PBS website dedicated to the “digital media revolution” shows a very different point of view on the paperless topic and asks the question, “is it possible that digital media could be more destructive to the environment and a greater threat to trees, bees, rivers and forests in the United States than paper-making or printing?”

Before screaming out an emphatic, “No way!” the article is definitely worth a read. The author, Don Carli, is not out to deter the reader from using digital media as may first be suspected or assumed. What he is suggesting is that consumers should be more aware and informed about the energy sources for both digital and print, rather than making assumptions and uneducated decisions.

The article goes on to show how the energy used by digital media technologies can be as destructive in its creation as cutting down trees for paper. In the article, Carli points out that in the U.S. alone, electricity consumption by data centers has doubled from 2000 to 2006 and will likely double again by 2011. With coal mining and coal-fired power plants still being a major source of electrical power in the U.S., digital media and its ever-increasing use of that electrical power are thus, substantial contributors to deforestation, loss of wildlife and pollution in the U.S.

In fact, while print media has been in the spotlight for “killing trees” for years, leading printer and paper manufacturers to initiate sustainable forestry, renewable energy projects and environmental performance certification, digital media and the energy consumed to manufacture and use it has gone virtually unchecked.

So, check out the article and become more informed about what going paperless and using digital products more frequently may mean for the environment.

Story submitted by McMurry Senior Production Manager Nicole Dean.

Netflix: Run Fast and Stay Focused

A year ago, my household decided to eliminate cable television.

There were several reasons for this: One, if we kept it, we would feel obligated to watch it or else we would feel like we were wasting money. Two, eliminating it would remove clutter and unnecessary noise, allowing us to read more. Three, although we would miss access to certain channels, we wouldn’t miss 95%+ of them. Four, we decided to explore experiencing life more. TV is an opiate. It’s influence needed to be reduced. Five, much of what is on -- news, dark-themed shows, political talking heads, etcetera -- has negative psychological effects and little positive return. And six, it would save us some money.

It wasn’t easy. Although we can obviously still get the local channels, we miss the plethora of college football on Saturdays and the total baseball coverage during the summer. Luckily, we have some great sports bars within walking distance of our house and not having cable creates a great excuse to visit them. (Of course, that eliminates cost savings as one of our goals.)

The elimination of cable doesn’t mean we gave up on TV as an entertainment medium. With Internet, we still have access to things like Hulu and programing direct from networks’ sites. We also have Netflix.

Oh, the beauty of Netflix. Although they claim to be a secondary source for entertainment, we are finding they have become our primary source. While we constantly have the dvd-by-mail thing going on, we have found there is more than enough instant access to streaming content, all for the same nine dollar a month fee.

They are big and are only getting bigger. Check out this incredible breakdown of how Netflix sees their business model evolving. They have totally wiped out Blockbuster -- and, contrary to their claim of not wanting to become the primary source provider -- may end up being just that for people like us who don’t feel the need to be plugged into the ‘great opiate’.

At some point, we found it redundant to have cell phones AND a home phone. The home phone went away. In the same way, we have now accidentally stumbled upon the unnecessary duplication of our entertainment suppliers. By avoiding the pay-per-view model and ad supported content, we have discovered Netflix’s simple low-cost strategy fits our needs just fine.

Bye-bye cable, hello Netflix.

Protecting Cyberspace

Freedom sucks. Let’s get rid of it.

...and let’s start with the Internet.

According to an article on the PC Magazine website this week, The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously approved the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 (S. 3480) which now moves to the Senate floor for a full vote. The article states: “The bill is an over-arching cyber-security measure, which would, among other things, create an office of cyberspace policy within the White House, which would be led by a Senate-appointed director. It would also create a new center within the Homeland Security Department, which would implement cyber-security policies.”

Hooray! A Cybersace Czar! Now we are safe! (BTW - How many Czars do we have now? Isn’t it ironic that “Czar” is synonymous with totalitarian authority borrowed from our Russian comrades, and that we now have more “Czars” in our government today than the Russians ever did in their entire history?) Only the government would come up with the idea of a top-down authority figure to oversee a system that beautifully evolved around no centralized structure.

The Homeland Security put out their own propaganda combating the notion that this bill would give the President a “kill switch”, going so far as claiming: “Rather than granting a “kill switch,” S. 3480 would make it far less likely for a President to use the broad authority he already has in current law to take over communications networks.”

Really? They are claiming this bill would “restrict” the President’s authority? That would be a first. The President already has "broad authority...in current law"? Why create a bill then?

And what in the world would ever give them the idea that government bureaucrats could administer directions in an emergency better than the private sector that actually created those systems?

In fact, in the previously mentioned propaganda piece, the government even admits: “For too long, the federal government has failed to adequately account for security when procuring information technology products and services. S. 3480 would require the government to develop a strategy to consider security risks in information technology procurements. It would be similar to efforts already under way at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.”

The bill would “would require the government to develop a strategy to consider security risks”? They haven’t already been doing that?

They openly admit they have been inept at securing their own systems and their solution to that is to have more control over security in the private sector?

Look, risks do exist. That is the inherent “problem” with freedom. Unfortunately, as usual, our government uses fear to create yet another all-encompassing knee-jerk reaction that does more to destroy the very liberties it claims to protect.

Government already has the authority to protect assets already under it’s own control. Maybe it should work on taking care of them first before it starts giving itself any more authority.

Protect the power grid. Protect federal sites. But hands off the private sector in the name of protecting us. Protecting the free flow of information by controlling it is not freedom.

Venture Capitalism Made Easy

Once in awhile, I like to follow up on the Kiva project I have been working on since 2007. The non-profit site Kiva.org has made it easy for me to fund entrepreneurs from around the world, twenty-five dollars at a time.

I loan them money. They pay me back. I re-invest it to others.


I am currently on pace to fund my 70th venture by the end of this year. Although this really is charity considering I don’t get any interest in return for my backing, I do have the option of pulling my funds out rather than reinvesting them. I don’t see myself ever doing that, though.

Yes, I may be a dirty rotten capitalist pig, but it is just too much fun seeing the poorest people in this world pulling themselves up by their own hard labor. It is even more fun knowing I am playing some small role in it.

For more info on how you can help change the world one person at a time, go to Kiva.org.

Monsters of Folk

A week or two ago, I asked a friend when I could expect to see another My Morning Jacket album. She said it will be awhile since the lead singer Jim James is busy with his other project, Monsters of Folk.

After giving their album a listen, Wow!, what a project it is. Although there is “folk” in their name, iTunes classifies it as “country” and allmusic.com claims it is “squarely in the “classic rock” camp.” In other words, there is some cross-over likability here.

I will have a tough time picking just one song of this solid album for my year-end favorites mix come December .“Whole Lotta Losin” comes on like a Traveling Wilburys mover. “Sandman, The Brakeman And Me” is a bit slower, but down-right perfect. With the production and James on lead vocals, “Losin Yo Head” has a MMJ feel to it -- just what I have been missing. “The Right Place” has the country-twinge of 70’s rock. And “His Master’s Voice” reminds me why I was so captivated by the power of simplicity captured on The Cowboy Junkies’ breakthrough album The Trinity Sessions so many years ago.

Most of the stuff I like and listen to does not have the wide appeal this does. In other words, get it. You won’t be disappointed.

Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson

The lesson of Henry Hazlitt’s book Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics is based on the premise of unintended consequences, or more precisely, that “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” In other words, economic policies are driven by a desire to “help” one group while ignoring the effects those actions have on all other groups.

The first chapter explains the lesson. The remaining chapters apply them to potential policies.

In this age of economic uncertainty, this 60-plus year old book remains relevant. Take, for instance, this snippet. It is impossible to do so without thinking about the trillions of tax dollars our government has dumped into poorly run businesses like GM and AIG and squandered "stimulating" industries in general:

“It follows that it is just as essential for the health of a dynamic economy that dying industries should be allowed to die as that growing industries should be allowed to grow. For the dying industries absorb labor and capital that should be released for the growing industries. It is only the much vilified price system that solves the enormously complicated problem of deciding precisely how much of tens of thousands of different commodities and services should be produced in relation to each other. These otherwise bewildering equations are solved quasi-automatically by the system of prices, profits and costs. They are solved by this system incomparably better than any group of bureaucrats could solve them. For they are solved by a system under which each consumer makes his own demand and casts a fresh vote, or a dozen fresh votes, every day; whereas bureaucrats would try to solve it by having made for the consumers, not what the consumers themselves wanted, but what the bureaucrats decided was good for them.”

This book is short -- only a couple of hundred pages -- and simple to understand. It should be required ready for every high school student. Nix that. It should be required reading for every American. In fact, the world would be a better place if every politician read this book before ever considering any legislation, economic or otherwise.

The Classical Liberal

One of the greatest tectonic shifts in my thinking occurred several years ago with the discovery of Nassim Nicholas Taleb ’s book The Black Swan. Indeed, it was actually one of the first things I posted about in this nearly three year old blog.

There were so many take-aways from the book, that it is impossible to list them all here. In fact, if you are interested in researching it, I recommend purchasing the audio version so you can continually revisit it. I am constantly reviewing it and pick up something new from it every time that I do.

One of Taleb’s greatest insights is the recognition that people tend to believe in what is convenient, not what is necessarily true. We adopt things that confirm our biases and ignore those that contradict them. People believe what they want to be true, trivializing and ignoring every fact that does not fit that paradigm. As humans, we have an incredible capacity to deceive ourselves. It is how we comfort ourselves from the very random and scary world in which we live. Likewise, we tend to argue to be right, not to discover truth.

Recognizing this has changed my entire world view. It has opened me up to constant change. I now recognize that I know much less than I think I do. It is very humbling. The evolution of my political beliefs are a great example.

Political labels are dangerous. Everyone tends to have a different definition for them. But by my own definitions, over the years I have gone from a hard-core left of left liberal (while in a political argument with my father during my college days, he once called me a “communist”), to a mainstream Democrat, to a paleo-conservative independent, to a Libertarian. But that is not where it ends. Last week, I recognized another evolution in my thinking.

Several months ago I ran into John Papola’s “Fear The Boom And Bust”, a rap video about John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century. Recognizing I had the same admiration for Hayek and Austrian Economics as Papola, so I started reading his blog, But What The Hell Do I Know...

I immediately recognized we have a similar thought process. (I may be a bit more light-hearted, though. I doubt you will ever find music reviews, guest blogs or favorite recipes on his blog.) As Papola states: “I’m blogging as a way to work out my thoughts and hopefully get useful criticism that will help me be a better thinker and a more open person. Much of my reading and writing is about economics, but I ultimately believe that ethics are the core of any social discussion. So this really is a philosophic and educational exercise.”

That brings me back to Taleb and my search for truth. Because I like to “engage” in discussion rather than “argue” politics, I am adopting Papola’s political “label”. Although I remain a registered Libertarian, I would now call myself a Classical Liberal. As Papola states: “I generally prefer “Classical Liberal” as a label since it provokes questions and lacks the baggage of “conservative” or even “libertarian” in some ways.... for now. I’m open to change as I learn and grow. I simply ask that you, the reader, not ascribe to me any ideas that I haven’t put out there directly. Guilt by association is lame hackery.”

So as I also continue to “work out my thoughts” on this blog, remember, if we are discussing politics, I am not here to “argue”. Engage me, but be prepared to carry out your thoughts to their logical conclusions. Also be prepared to recognize that the way you want the world to be may not be the way the world really works. I am here to learn and discover through inquiry and skepticism what truths I can stumble upon. In doing so, I am prepared to be wrong. I hope you are, too.

The Health Food Project

This week I had this fun project to assemble. One of my Art Directors needed an image with assorted fruit and vegetables for an article on eating healthy. After gathering assorted stock images, here were her instructions:

• Take out apple or apples to the left.
• Add peaches to replace apples. If some apples stay, and you just change their texture, I’ve provided you with an image of the top of a peach.
• Add to background on left (textured wood background).
• Add to carrot stalks. I’ve added a couple carrot images to the folder if that’s helpful.
• Add green beans. Please play with images to make them appear as natural as possible.
• Take out ultrasound image.

Here was the results:

Pancetta Stuffed Peppers

My girlfriend gave me a Pampered Chef 7” Santoku knife for my birthday, so I asked her to pick something for me to cook so I could do some chopping. She knows I like stuffed peppers, so she searched for some recipes online to “guide” me and I re-engineered them to come up with my own variation. Since it turned out better than most of my experiments, I figured I would share it here:

INGREDIENTS:
1/3 cup jasmine rice
2 tablespoons olive oil
1/4 cup minced carrots
1/4 cup celery
3 bell peppers (in my case: two green, one red)
1/4 pound ground beef
1/3 pound pancetta
3/4 cups marinara sauce (I include my home-made version here)
1/8 cup red wine
1/4 teaspoon red pepper flakes
1/4 cup whole milk
1/4 cup grated Parmesan cheese
3 slices American cheese

DIRECTIONS:
1. Prepare marinara sauce: Saute a quarter cup chopped onion and one large chopped clove of garlic. Add one cup of fresh peeled tomatoes slightly pureed, one quarter cup of fresh chopped basil, a pinch of parsley and simmer until it reduces down to a relatively thick sauce, about twenty minutes.
2. Cook rice. I use a rice cooker so I don’t have to baby sit it.
3. Then, get started on your stuffing mixture: Heat 1 tablespoon of oil in a large skillet over medium high heat. Saute carrots and celery. Add pancetta, then ground beef, cook until browned and crumbled; drain off any excess liquid, and return to heat. Add marinara sauce, wine, and red pepper flakes. Stir in rice. Add cream and half of the Parmesan cheese. Simmer a few minutes more, allowing for most of the liquid to reduce.
4. Preheat oven to 375 degrees F.
5. Par boil Peppers for two minutes. Remove and rinse in cool water to stop them from over-cooking. Place peppers in a shallow baking dish, and fill with stuffing mix.
6. Bake, uncovered, for 30 minutes in the preheated oven. Remove from oven at about 25 minutes and cover peppers with American cheese, sprinkling remaining Parmesan on top. Bake five more minutes or until cheese starts to brown.
7. Serve hot, preferably with a couple of cold Sierra Pale Ales.

Next time I think I will use Brother Jim’s suggestion and try grilling them...

Lies and American History

I love books that not only expand what I know but also challenge what I believe. Lies My Teacher Told Me does just that. I suspect my political and economical views differ greatly with the author’s, but in this great book, James W. Loewen presents a case against the textbooks currently used in our high schools that goes far beyond ideology.

As I discuss in this blog frequently, people tend to believe in what is convenient, not what is true. Well, as someone formally trained as a high school history teacher, I have to admit it seems we also teach that way as well.

Our collective-minded education system presents American history to our children as a mindless series of over-simplified white-washed myths conveniently excluding any information that seemingly denigrates or contradicts the larger-than-life propaganda that textbooks tend to perpetuate.

Amongst many other valid observations, Loewen explains that by presenting American history as a series of endlessly boring preordained facts, students don’t see the conflict of ideas, the evolution of thought or the alternatives that could have come into being.

For instance, one example the author uses is the treatment of Columbus. Columbus did not “discover” America. Obviously, Native Americans were here first, but evidence also points to the likelihood that Asians, Norse, Phoenicians and even West Africans set foot in the Western Hemisphere long before Columbus arrived. The author goes beyond pointing out the obvious ethnocentric influence of our education system. The notion that the “winners” write the history, after all, is nothing new.

Also contrary to popular myth, Columbus was not an altruist voyager looking to discover new worlds for the betterment of mankind. He was driven by the same thing we all are. He sought greater wealth. His search for gold made him an intolerant racist tyrant and he used his religious piety to justify raping, murdering and enslaving thousands of Native Americans.

The author points out that these facts do not condemn Columbus in their own-right. He was not the “original” slave-trader, after all. What complicates the story is that Native American and African cultures were already dealing in slaves themselves. Like all of us, Columbus was a product of the times he lived in. Rather than hero-ize him or vilify him, he should be presented with all the facts, allowing student to see him for who he really was, accomplishments, warts and all. Students -- and you and I -- should be allowed to make and discuss our own conclusions.

This is the whole point. History is complicated. It is not as clean and politically correct as our indoctrination machines would like it to be. While simplifying it and “cleaning” it up may be easier than dealing with it honestly, unfortunately, for most high school students this also makes it instinctively untrustworthy and unchallenging as well.

My main qualm with the book is it’s sub-title: “Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong”. While the premise of the book is right on, the book contains “examples” of inaccuracies. “Everything” would require an encyclopedia-sized collection of volumes in order to even begin scratching the surface. And although some readers may have problems with the author’s obvious liberal-bent, the facts he presents are undeniably eye-opening and discussion-worthy regardless of one’s own perspective.

This book provides a great starting point for a discussion of what and how we teach and learn American history.

What I Do For A Living