Lift Up Your Hearts!

I wrote a long comment to Mark Shiffman's Front Porch Republic article, Why we do not own a Television; not being one to waste an item on a single use if it can be recycled, I reproduce it here.  You'll have to follow the link to see the context (and other readers' comments), but I think what I wrote is pretty clear on its own.

To my total surprise and (almost) mortification, I write in defense of television.  I agree with some of the comments that DVD is the only way to go, but most if not all of the content I find valuable on DVD originated in the TV and movie media, so despising them completely would be a bit hypocritical on my part.

It was Marie Winn's The Plug-In Drug that first alerted me to the dangers of the beast, and when our first-born, at age two, asked to watch Sesame Street at a time when the television was off, I said, "That's it.  No more."  Had the decision been mine alone, I think I would have discarded the television set altogether, and certainly that would have been the easiest course.  What we did instead—because my husband was not quite ready to give it up himself—was to make it less convenient.  At first we moved the TV to a room away from the main traffic of the household; later we put it on a shelf with doors that remained closed most of the time.  Out of sight, out of mind.  We also never had cable, and reception was not that great, and the TV screen was small.

Our first concern was for the effect of watching television on our growing children, so we instituted some pretty strict non-watching rules.  This was not difficult for the children, since we started when they were young enough not to have developed an addiction.  At this stage it's much harder on mom than on the kids, because anesthetizing lively preschoolers with an "educational" television program sounds like a guilt-free way to grab a precious half-hour of peace.  I'm standing here today to tell you that removing that option—and thus forcing yourself to help your children develop the ability to entertain themselves—is one of the greatest gifts you can give to your future self.

And your kids?  The benefits of growing up free from a television addiction far outweigh any social harm that comes from not having TV as a conversation-starter.  (Our children became quite adept at picking up enough information about TV shows from their friends' conversations to be able to hold their own without ever seeing the shows themselves.)  Even long ago when our children were young there were one or two high-quality shows available, but we soon discovered that even a half hour a day of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood was better filled with real-life activities.

It's also important to point out that, when it comes to creating or avoiding a TV addiction in children, it matters little whether the show is broadcast, cable/satellite, VCR/DVD, or online.  We do our children no favors by calling them "TV free" yet popping in a movie every afternoon so we can fix dinner without interruption.

And yet...and yet....  If the only way to avoid the ravages of the beast were to destroy it altogether, I would do so.  Taming the beast, however, may have greater benefits.  Our youngest's lifelong love of opera began when she was 10 years old and we let her stay up—wide-eyed and astonished—to watch the four-day PBS presentation of Wagner's entire Ring Cycle.  Performances were meant to be watched, and if they remain true to the original, television and movie productions give us cultural opportunities often out of our reach in real life.  (My definition of "true to the original" is admittedly hazy.  I'd call Kenneth Branagh's Henry V a great, accessible version for neophytes, even if it omits parts of the play.  But the movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings fails miserably to capture the book, perhaps because the book was not meant to be performed in the first place.)

Television is also great, as was mentioned, at providing an entryway to books and further investigation of a subject.  Ken Burns' treatment of the Civil War succeeded where friends, family, and all my history teachers failed, overcoming my lack of the Y chromosome that seems to give interest to studies of war.  "Educational TV" may be somewhat of an oxymoron, but a little, at the right time, can be invaluable.

I could go on—discussing the value of armchair travel as preparation for the real thing, for example—but the point is made.  Television and its cohorts (movies, DVDs, computers, video games) I dare to say, are the hot peppers of life:  In small amounts they enhance the experience; in greater amounts, they wash out all other flavors; overused, they destroy the senses and wreak havoc on the whole system.

More random tidbits found while sweeping the corners of the Internet.

Professor John Stackhouse gives a cheer, a half a cheer, and a hiss to Charles Darwin in honor of his birthday:

[W]e can all cheer Darwin's work in bringing microevolution—the phenomenon of small-scale changes happening within species as they adapt to their environment—into focus. Even "creation science" proponents grant the reality of evolution on this scale.

[M]ost of us will cheer Darwin's work in helping us understand macroevolution, a comprehensive theory of how all species have arisen in the complex history of life on Earth....To be sure, Darwin's theory is not complete in its details. Confirmed Darwinists argue over how life emerged from non-life, how single-celled organisms could have evolved into multi-celled organisms, how various complex organs of this or that organism (most notably the eye) originated and so on. Darwinists also dispute whether the man's own allegiance to "gradualism" was misplaced (as his advocate T. H. Huxley warned him it was). Some wonder whether another understanding of evolution's timetable (such as the idea of rapid evolution in outlying populations—Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge's theory of "punctuated equilibria") would be better.

Where we theists get off, however, is at the third level of Darwinism, the level of "myth." It's one thing to believe in microevolution and macroevolution. Both of those levels, to be clear, are zones of scientific investigation and disputation. But at the third level—where Darwinism becomes "The Theory of Everything"—we leave the realm of science entirely. Darwinism now functions as a religion, as an all-encompassing worldview and as a "myth" in the anthropological sense—the governing story of a people. It is no longer a scientific theory....Darwinism as myth...makes no room for God or the supernatural. The physical cosmos is all there is—everything important can be explained in terms of physical phenomena. And human behaviour, in particular, is simply a result of the evolutionary imperative to reproduce oneself as prolifically as possible....The world is reduced to a grim arena of competitive reproduction. No more science pursued "to think God's thoughts after him," as the great astronomer Johannes Kepler put it. No more "art for art's sake." No more altruism or heroism or honour.

[H]ere's a cheer for Darwin celebrating the glorious adaptability of species. Here's another for the great sketch of the world as an ever-changing kaleidoscope of variation, improvisation and wonder....But only a sad shake of the head instead for Darwin's dark world, shrunken down to mere sex and violence. There's nothing we can celebrate there.

One of my favorite of Stackhouse's articles appeared in the February 2009 issue of Christianity Today:  Memo to Worship Bands:  Five Sound Reasons to Lower the Volume.  I've become inured to, if not happy about, the necessity of carrying earplugs with me at all times.  I never know when my hearing will be assaulted, though I can pretty much guarantee it at theme parks, movie theaters, skating rinks, and—sadly—church.  I fail to see why volume levels above the threshold of pain are attractive.  "Feeling the music" should be an emotional sensation, not a physical one:  with the exception of some very low bass tones, if the music registers on any part of my body less delicate than my eardrums, it's too loud.

But I'm just an old curmudgeon, so I'm delighted to have a bone fide, rocking, electric guitar-playing lover of loud music, who has no doubt already damaged his hearing, stand up and shout—not rudely, but in order to be heard—"TURN IT DOWN!"

I am not 110 years old, friends. I grew up in the 1970s with fuzz boxes, stacks of Marshall amplifiers, and heavy metal bands loud enough to take on Boeing 747s and win. I have played in worship bands for more than 30 years, and like lots of juice running through my Roland keyboard or Fender bass or Godin guitar. Furthermore, I'm a middle-aged man and my hearing is supposed to be fading. But even I find almost every worship band in every church I visit to be too loud—not just a little bit loud, but uncomfortably, even painfully, loud.  So here are five reasons for everyone to turn it down a notch—or maybe three or four.

1. I know it's breaking the performer's code to say so...but cranking up the volume is just a cheap trick to add energy to a room....Do not compensate for mediocrity by amping it up to MEDIOCRITY.
2. [W]hen your intonation is not very good—and let's face it, most singers and instrumentalists are not anywhere close to being in perfect tune—turning it up only makes it hurt worse.
3. [T]he speakers in most church PA systems cannot take that much energy through their small, old magnets and cones, especially from piano, bass, and kick drum. So we are being pounded with high-powered fluffing and sputtering—which do not induce praise.
4. [C]onsider that you might be marginalizing older people, most of whom probably do not like Guns N' Roses volumes at church. And if you suspect older congregants may be secretly delighted behind their tight smiles, ask them. I dare you.
5. [L]et me drop some church history and theology on you. By the time church music matured...in the 16th century, it had become too demanding and ornate for ordinary singers. So Christians went to church to listen to a priest and a choir.  The Protestant Reformation yanked musical worship away from the professionals and put it back in the pews....The problem today, to be sure, is rarely elaborate music. We could use a little more artistry, in fact, than we usually get with the simplistic and repetitive musical figures of many contemporary worship songs.  No, the contrast with the Reformation is the modern-day insistence that a few people at the front be the center of attention. We do it by making six band members louder than a room full of people. But a church service isn't a concert at which an audience sings along with the real performers. Musicians—every one of them, including the singers—are accompanists to the congregation's praise. They should be mixed loudly enough only to do their job of leading and supporting the congregation.

[C]hurch musicians, if you want to perform a fine song that requires advanced musicianship, by all means do it. We will listen and pray and enjoy it to the glory of God.  But when you are leading us in singing, then lead us in singing. And turn it down so we are not listening to you—or, even worse, merely enduring you. I know that is not what you want to happen. But I am telling you that's what is happening.

I would expand the message to include all church musicians, not just worship bands.  We attend the most "traditional" of our church's four services, which has a choir, not a worship band, and sings primarily hymns.  But the "organ" is actually an electronic keyboard, and a recent change is philosophy has jacked the sound up to the point where I must wear my earplugs almost every time we sing.  It's not easy to sing with earplugs, and I have some concern about blend and pitch...but console myself with the thought that no one can hear me over the organ anyway.  But when the "old, deaf" people in your service complain that the music is too loud, maybe it's time to rethink.

Let me add one more reason to Stackhouse's list:

6.  The church, of all places, should be "safe," especially for children.  In all too many church services, however, babies and children who have no choice nor chance of escape are assailed by sound volumes that threaten to damage their hearing.  If we do not fear the wrath of God for injuring his little ones, let's at least fear the potential for crippling lawsuits.

Dr. Mark Gendreau offers some very reasonable advice, mostly about travel, for those who wish to avoid swine flu or any other airborne illness.  A combination of individual, corporate and governmental action could make a great difference.

[H]and hygiene is...the single most significant thing you can do to protect yourself and your family when you are traveling or out in public.  Study after study shows marked reductions in transmission in public spaces when hand hygiene is practiced, and a recent study found nearly undetectable influenza particle levels after hands contaminated with influenza were washed with either soap and water or an over-the-counter gel containing at least 50 percent alcohol.  Sanitize your hands before eating, drinking and after retrieving something from the overhead bin or returning from the restroom, and you have just cut your chances of getting infected by at least 40 percent. One of my disappointments with the airline industry is its lack of providing alcohol-based hand sanitizers to passengers. Such a service would go a long way in eliminating infection spread within aircraft.

Unlike antibacterial soaps, plain handwashing and alcohol-based hand cleaners have not been shown to promote the development of resistant strains of microbes.  I've always been in favor of handwashing (with plain soap), but it was the advice of a physician friend during the SARS crisis that led to the habit of carrying a pocket-sized bottle of hand sanitizer—particularly useful in restaurants and grocery stores, before the Eucharist at church, after changing diapers in public place, and before consuming airplane food.

Most commercial aircraft in service recirculate 50 percent of the air delivered to the passenger cabin....The recirculated air usually passes through high-efficiency particulate (HEPA) filters before delivery into the cabin.  HEPA filtering of recirculated cabin air to minimize exposure to infectious particles is established within scientific literature, practiced daily in health care facilities and is strongly endorsed by the medical community and cabin health experts.  However...the Federal Aviation Administration, its British counterpart, the Civil Aviation Authority, and Europe's Joint Aviation Authorities do not require the use of these filters on commercial airlines.  Efforts to improve international regulations regarding the certification, inspection and maintenance of aircraft environmental control systems are needed. To minimize the risk of disease spread by aircraft, regulations requiring HEPA filters for any aircraft that uses recirculated air should be seriously considered....In the meantime, you can improve the ventilation at your seat by turning on the overhead air vent to low and positioning the airflow to be slightly in front of your face. This may create enough air turbulence to push a viral particle from landing on your face and mucous membranes.

I haven't tried this portable air filter device, but frequent air travellers might want to consider it.  (Hat tip to Heather.)

Use a surgical mask when you are traveling to areas that have reported cases of swine flu and bring an additional one to give to anyone near you who forgot one or appears to be sick and is coughing or sneezing....A recent analysis of public health interventions used during the SARS epidemic suggests that the use of masks by the public was 68 percent effective in decreasing rates of infection, with simple face masks, and 91 percent effective for more sophisticated N95 face masks.

Okay, so it's very uncool to wear a face mask when ill, but it needn't be so.  "Sick masks" are common in Japan, even amongst the coolest high school students, who see them for what they are:  an invitation to sympathy, especially from teachers and pretty girls.

The only way to eliminate any risk of cross-infection in the aircraft cabin—or the rapid worldwide spread of an infectious agent—is to prevent would-be passengers who are either substantially exposed to or carrying transmissible infections from flying....This needs to come from education and promoting individual responsibility, since the systematic screening of passengers for contagious diseases is impractical. Although thermal scanners used in airports may detect travelers with symptoms, they are not effective since people exposed to an infectious disease could travel without any signs or symptoms and yet still be infectious.

May I suggest a change in the way airplane ticket refunds are handled?  When a family is about to embark on a long-planned vacation, and one of the children begins to sniffle or develops a low-grade fever, it's unlikely that any policy change will make them decide to stay home, as brief, inconsequential illnesses happen frequently to children.  However, many people with health issues are deterred from rescheduling their flights because of the financial consequences of cancelling a flight.  If the airlines had a standing policy of rebooking, at no additional charge, all the members of the sick person's party, I suspect we'd see a substantial increase in the number of people who were civic-minded enough to stay home when ill.  In a health emergency, during which flight cancellations could be expected to have a substantial impact on the airlines' financial situation, it would be appropriate for the federal government to bear some of the burden, much in the same way our local government lifts the tolls on major roads during a hurricane evacuation.

Be prudent, fear not, have fun, and stay safe, my friends.

(This is a follow-up to previous posts:   Options In Childbirth: A Personal Odyssey; The Trial; The Trial, Part II; and The Trial, Part III.)

I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea what Judy or her lawyer really think, but that doesn't stop me from pondering what happened in Judy's trial.  It has been an interesting look into our criminal justice system.  We know, personally, good policemen and excellent prosecutors who work hard for truth, fairness, and speedy justice, so any negative comments are not a blanket indictment, but food for thought.

• I can't help wondering if Heather and Jon were treated differently because they lived in the city, rather than in a wealthy suburb, where the police might be more likely to find themselves facing a lawsuit for interrogating a cold, naked, hungry, and exhausted woman immediately after a traumatic birth and in the midst of unimaginable grief.
• I learned that if you are accused of a crime the police can take away your computer, no matter how essential it is for your for your daily life and business, and no matter how much personal and irreplaceable data is on it.  Memo to self:  buy an "emergency" computer, make frequent backups of all data, and figure out a search-warrant-proof hiding place.  I'm not planning to get in trouble with the police—but who does?
• The proceedings were dragged out for seven years, prolonging the agony for Heather and Jon, leaving Judy and her family in limbo, and incurring great financial costs to both Judy and Allegheny County.  Why not, since there was little incentive for the powers that be to move it along?  The prosecution got what it wanted in the interim—Judy prohibited from doing her work—so why should they rush to judgement, and risk losing their case, as they did?  Delay increases lawyers' fees, and even ordinary civil servants go to work and go home and get paid, independent of whether any one particular trial takes seven years or seven days.  The only person with any incentive for speedy justice was Judy herself.  And in the cases where the defendent knows himself guilty, even his desire would probably be to delay the verdict.  No wonder our court system is overwhelmed.
• I learned something of how frustrating it is for those who know better to see false evidence enshrined as truth.  In this case, the medical examiner, who exhibited an obvious prejudice against all midwives, testified—and his word was taken as authoritative—that the injuries he found on Isaac were due to Judy's efforts to assist the birth, despite the verifiable fact that all injuries except for one (a small mark on the back of Isaac's head) corresponded exactly to the locations of the various injections, sensors, and other bodily indignities that were part of the attempt to save Isaac during his two-day stay in the hospital.  I wish this testimony had been properly contradicted during the trial, but it was apparently not part of the defense attorney's strategy, so it was left to become "truth" forever. (See Jon's comments after this Daley Ponderings post.)
• Knowing that the judge was also a medical doctor, I wondered at the decision of Judy's attorney to go with a non-jury trial.  There is a strong and often acrimonious division between physicians and midwives, especially traditional midwives who work independent of a doctor's control, but even nurse-midwives feel the sting.  My guess is that he knew the integrity of the judge, whereas juries can be swayed by emotional appeals.  The judge clearly wanted to throw the book at Judy, and, had he had the authority, at Heather.  (What he thinks about Jon he apparently kept to himself, but I doubt it's complimentary.)  However, in an exercise of that increasingly rare commodity, judicial restraint, he ruled according to the law, contenting himself with a tongue-lashing from the bench and imposition of the maximum allowed penalty ($100 fine) for the most minor charge of practicing midwifery without a certificate, a grey area in Pennsylvania's law.  (See the ruling in midwife Diane Goslin's case.)
• While I had been hoping for an enthusiastic endorsement of the rights of Pennsylvanians to be attended in childbirth by the assistants of their choice, and of the value of traditional midwives in retaining critical knowledge that is rapidly being lost in an overly-litigious and highly medicalized society, I consider this case a solid victory for midwives, because a judge with an intense desire to convict Judy ruled that Pennsylvania's law would not allow him to do so.

Tribune-Review article, with Heather interviewed

Post-Gazette article, with Jon interviewed

KDKA report, with misinformation including number of subsequent children

Let's not do it again.  Back in 1976, panic over swine flu led to a mass-vaccination program in which nearly a quarter of the U.S. population received immunizations at a cost of $137 million—followed by millions more the government paid out in damages to victims of vaccine-related Guillain-Barre syndrome.  Working in a medical facility at the time, I stood in line and received my free shot and thought no more about it.  However, the whole affair is now considered a debacle, a textbook case of governmental over-response to fears of a pandemic, fears that turned out to be unfounded.  Let's not do it again.

Panic and misinformation are spreading online, aided and abetted by the mainstream news media, which I know from local hurricane reports are adept at the art of crying wolf, deliberately creating fear because fear keeps people glued to the news reports, no matter how little real information is imparted.

Should the government be aware, alert, and prepared to act if this becomes a true emergency?  Certainly.  But let the ordinary citizen take reasonable precautions of the kind we should always be taking (handwashing, keeping sick people home), and avoid spreading panic, which is itself a dangerous disease.

(Standard legal disclaimer:  I am an Ordinary Citizen, not a doctor.  If your doctor tells you to panic, don't let me stop you.)

I couldn't have told you anything about Mary Ann Glenon before turning to Wikipedia, except for this:  the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican has both principles and courage.  The University of Notre Dame, which has apparently forgotten that it is a Catholic University, is planning to bestow an honorary degree upon President Obama, who will be giving the commencement address. Glenon, who had been scheduled to receive the University's Laetare Medal at the same time, demurred.  To deflect speculation, her letter of refusal was released to the press and published in First Things.  (Hat tip to Patrick Deneen.)

[I am] dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

When Notre Dame suggested that her acceptance speech might be good for the President to hear, she correctly reminded the university that graduation is a time for honoring the students, not for political debate.

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Brava!  I am not a Catholic—but courage is courage, and someone needed to remind Notre Dame that being Catholic isn't only about praying for your football team to win.

This Stone Soup cartoon makes me think, not of our children, who have learned from us and built well upon what they've learned, so that we in our turn have learned from them, but about our society in general, as we (re)discover the virtues of thrift and living within one's means; of childbirth as a natural, personal process; of breastfeeding; of small farms and organically-grown food; of respecting, enjoying, and conserving our natural environment.  We knew all this 40 years ago; how did we fail to pass it on?  Probably in the same way our parents' and grandparents' generations failed to pass their virtues on to us....

Not that progress isn't being made:  somehow we've managed to make smoke-free airplanes and restaurants stick, for one thing; and many in the next generation are rediscovering what was lost between our parents' generation and ours:  the blessings of having many children.  :)

I think the U.S. Postal Service is great.  Sure, there are occasional mistakes, like the one that resulted in some of our mail still being delivered to my sister's house five years after a temporary forwarding order expired.  That is an exception, however; for the most part, the USPS does its job exceedingly well, I think.  I'm sure my good feelings are in large measure due to the workers at our local post office, who happen to be an amazingly friendly and helpful crew.  Folks go out of their way to do business at our post office.  It was one of those helpful clerks who told me, after our forwarding debacle, never to forward or even hold mail if at all possible.  The very best vacation plan is still to have a friend check your mailbox for you.

Thus when a friend posted Going Postal, a long and negative article about the USPS, I barely bothered to skim it.  And yet my eye was caught by this information about the Swiss postal system, which I find most intriguing.  (The above-mentioned excellent clerks also told me that the Swiss mail system is the best in Europe, if not the world.)

The Swiss Post is a world leader in postal business-model innovation with operations in 16 countries across three continents. Despite its home-country’s population of only seven million, it generates $9 billion in revenue and earns an impressive 10 percent profit. It has aggressively rolled-up, partnered on or internally launched a variety of Internet-ready businesses that offer services such as document imaging, electronic document signature, electronic postage that costs less than paper stamps, and an international shipping network. Its annual report states that it generates 20 percent of its revenues from outside Switzerland. It is still 100 percent government owned, and its profits go to the general fund, but it acts more like a private corporation responsible to shareholders.

That’s not all. The Swiss know that paper mail volumes will continue to decline and that the Internet isn’t going away. So the forward-looking Swiss Post has been the first in Europe to introduce a service to deliver paper-originating postal mail via the Internet, called Swiss Post Box.

Swiss Post Box is powered by technology from Seattle-based Earth Class Mail. The service emails multi-sided color images of incoming envelopes and parcels to their recipients as soon as the mail reaches the first sorting center nearest where it was collected by the post office. While the mail and parcels are held in an automated temporary cache, recipients decide which mail pieces they want to have opened and scanned to PDF inside an ultra-secure scanning center at the Post Office (where confidential documents for Swiss banks are also scanned), and which are to be delivered physically to the address on the envelope, redirected to another address, shredded, recycled or archived for safekeeping. Three-quarters of the mail ends up leaving that first sorting center bound straight for recycling, either after being scanned to PDF or discarded unopened by customer’s choice. The energy savings implications are obvious.

I have no more information yet than is in this Post-Gazette article, but it looks as if the seven-year ordeal is finally over.  If it's not the vindication and ringing endorsement of birthing rights I was hoping for, it's probably the best we could have hoped for from a judge who is also a doctor.  I'm not sure how he managed to convict Judy for not having a license, since Pennsylvania doesn't license Certiied Professional Midwives, but I can't imagine Judy will not pay the $100 fine and move on.  Other midwives have pled guitly to worse in order to stop the torture and expense.

Perhaps the Amish, who rely on non-nurse midwives like Judy, will—if reluctantly—push harder for better midwifery laws in Pennsylvania.

Judith A. Wilson, 53, of Portersville, was found not guilty by Common Pleas Judge Donald E. Machen of the most serious charges [involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment], but found guilty of practicing midwifery without a certificate. She was fined $100.

Life has not stopped for us, no more than for Judy, in these seven years, but it is very good not to have this sword dangling over our necks anymore.

I hope to learn more—news reports, especially initial ones, being suspect—and will fill in here when I can.  Thanks to so many of you for your earnest prayers for us all.  (Earlier posts on this subject are The Trial, Part II; The Trial; and Options In Childbirth: A Personal Odyssey.)

Water supply is an issue in Florida.  We'd probably be a desert, like most places at our latitude, if we weren't embraced by two large bodies of water.  What's more, the water table is generally high, so it's easy to foul the nest with pollutants.  So what do we do about it?

I'm sure there is much being done at the state level, and I don't minimize its importance, but I'm more concerned at the moment with what can be done at the community, family, and individual level.  Our city pioneered the residential use of treated wastewater for irrigation and car washing; in addition to the usual, potable water system, each home has a source of reclaimed water.  Although the water is considered non-potable, with the exception of nitrate and phosphate levels it meets federal standards normally applied to drinking water, so it's safe—and the plants love the extra nitrates and phosphates.

The water is reclaimed and fixed-fee, but still a limited resource, so we use a drip irrigation system for many of our plants.  Our backyard is mostly landscaped with plants that are meant to survive on their own in Florida (i.e. what grows without help from us) and we allow the lawn out front to go dormant during the winter dry season.  When we do water the lawn, it is as much for the fertilizing properties of the reclaimed water as for the water itself.

We have more incentive to conserve potable water, since we pay per gallon, but that's harder to do.  If I were designing a house, and had no financial limitations, there would be wastewater collection systems in parallel with every drain, with an easy-to-use switch, so that relatively clean wastewater, such as shower drainage, would be reused—perhaps for flushing toilets, or for watering plants—while the nastier stuff would go directly to the city's treatment plant.  As it is, however, we must make do with simpler systems. There are a number of reasons I wish Home Depot sold Japanese toilets, one of which is the excellent system in which wastewater from handwashing helps fill the tank for the next flush.  But Home Depot doesn't, and our bathroom sinks are small enough that we haven't yet found a reasonable way (i.e. one we're willing to use on a regular basis) of recovering washing water.

The kitchen sink is another matter.  Ours is a double sink, and a Rubbermaid dishpan fits neatly into one side.  Water that is run while waiting for it to get warm (or cool) we catch in milk jugs and use for everything from watering our worms to rinsing our feet after a barefoot walk.  Handwashing and vegetable rinsing water—anything that doesn't get the water too gloppy—is collected and re-used, generally for rinsing dishes or watering plants.  If for rinsing dishes, it subsequently gets reused another time, for running the waste disposer.  We find this system easy to use, largely because our gardens are just steps away from the kitchen, and it's astonishing how much water can be saved with such a little effort.  I'm not sure how well it would have worked at other stages in our lives, but for now it is great.

The direct inspiration for this was actually not Florida's water problems, but a visit to relatives whose water supply is their own well with an electric pump—an electric pump that doesn't work during a power failure, of which we experienced several during our visit.  Then I learned how much a little stored water could be stretched!

Here's a perfect funding opportunity for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundatation, or anyone else who is interested in both technology and education:  Sponsor grants—available to both universities and private video game companies—for the production of really good educational games.

Although video game technology has made tremendous progress in recent years, educational software is for the most part stuck in the past.  Entertainment is where the commercial money is, but with proper funding there's no reason why the best and brightest of our video game designers couldn't revolutionize gaming as a learning tool.

The first thing we'd need to ditch is the idea that entertainment and education are separable, that the one is given as a reward for making one's way through the other.  We want neither 90% entertainment and 10% education, nor the other way around, but 100% education and 100% entertainment.

Consider the possibilities in language learning, for example.  A virtual world that is a total immersion experience, in which one's character must survive by interacting with the native speakers.  Speech recognition technology is good enough that this could be both an oral and a written experience.  One could be learning culture, geography, and more in addition to language by having the virtual world be a real country.

Imagine starting the game and finding yourself in Paris.  You could explore the city, learn to use the metro, convert your dollars to euro, explore the Louvre, enjoy crêpes at a café...all the while picking up French vocabulary and grammar in the most natural way.  I WANT THIS GAME!  Don't tell me it's impossible; I know it can be done.  And I know it can be so much fun the next generation of Americans could actually grow up culturally and linguistically literate—how cool is that?

If our friend's four-year-old son can bowl a 198 in Wii Bowling, the possibilities are mind-blowing.  Yes, I know—Wii Bowling is not real bowling, and Virtual Paris would not be real Paris.  There are some true dangers that our computer models might lead us astry if we don't remember always that they are only models.  But this is too powerful a tool not to be used for good ans well as entertainment.

Tangentially related, here's an article for those like me, who think that video games and computers must be bad for the eyes.  They probably are, under the wrong circumstance, but a University of Rochester study showed they can also be used to improve vision.

People who used a video-game training program saw improvements in their contrast sensitivity, or the ability to notice subtle differences in shades of gray....The training could be beneficial to people who have amblyopia—commonly known as lazy eye—and those who have trouble seeing while driving at night.

Researchers studied two groups that played video games for 50 hours during a nine-week course. One group played action games such as "Call of Duty 2" and "Unreal Tournament 2004." Another group played non-action games such as "Sims 2," which doesn't require precise, visually guided aiming actions. People who played the action games showed enhanced contrast sensitivity compared with those in the non-action game group, with improvements ranging from 43 percent to 58 percent, according to the study.

"When people play action games, they're changing the brain's pathway responsible for visual processing. These games push the human visual system to the limits and the brain adapts to it, and we've seen the positive effect remains even two years after the training was over."

Researchers suggested that the video game training's effect could last for years and could be a useful complement to other eye-correction techniques such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, or surgery. The study, which was funded by the National Eye Institute and the Office of Naval Research, noted that not all action games have such a benefit to the visually impaired. 

Others, I'm sure will list more exiting benefits of gaining a husband, and I'm certainly not despising companionship, children, and being able to file a joint tax return.  But it's also really, really nice to have someone around who will

• Do any work that involves heights greater than can be reached with a step stool,
• Open the pickle jar, and
• Remove the dead rat from the backyard.

The Internal Revenue Service has released tax statistics for 2006.  You can view them yourself, at the IRS site.  Having neither the time nor the mental energy to sort it all out, however, I'm glad the tax folks at J.K. Lasser have done the job already, and I'm going to take their word for it.  You are welcome to take my word for their word, if you'd like.

How rich—or poor—do you think you are?  Are you paying your fair share of taxes?  What about the other guy?  Forget, for the moment, comparison with the rest of the world—how do you compare with your fellow Americans?  Statistics are slippery things, so take these as you will.  Bear in mind, also, that the percentages given here are based on the number of income tax filers; anyone who did not file an income tax return for the year 2006 is not counted, and neither is any money made in  underground economy.  AGI = Adjusted Gross Income, Line 37 on Form 1040.

		Share of Total	Share of Total	Average
% of Filers	AGI Threshold	AGI	Income Tax	Tax Rate
Top 1%	$388,806	22.06%	39.89%	22.79%
Top 5%	$153,542	36.66%	60.14%	20.68%
Top 10%	$108,904	47.32%	70.79%	18.86%
Top 25%	$64,702	68.16%	86.27%	15.95%
Top 50%	$31,987	87.49%	97.01%	13.98%
Bottom 50%	under $31,987	12.51%	2.99%	3.01%

A few intereting things to note.  For simplicity, I'm using terms like "income," "taxes," and "population" loosely; remember that the statistics are for AGI, Federal income taxes, and those who file Federal income tax forms.

• Half the tax filers have an AGI of under $32,000.
• The bottom 50% earns less than 13% of the total income, while the top 1% earns 22%.
• Forty percent of all income tax revenues come from the top 1%.
• Half the population (more, when you count non-filers) pays less than 3% of the taxes.

Three diverse takes on China:

Although written nearly a year ago (note the line, "Assuming that the global economy does not decline now, it will at some point"), George Friedman's geopolitical analysis of China (via InvestorsInsight) is perhaps frightening, perhaps reassuring, but certainly fascinating.  The concluding summary provides an introduction to the ideas, though it by no means does justice to the long article.

Geopolitics is based on geography and politics. Politics is built on two foundations: military and economic. The two interact and support each other but are ultimately distinct. For China, securing its buffer regions generally eliminates military problems. What problems are left for China are long-term issues concerning northeastern Manchuria and the balance of power in the Pacific.

China's geopolitical problem is economic. Its first geopolitical imperative, maintain the unity of Han China, and its third, protect the coast, are both more deeply affected by economic considerations than military ones. Its internal and external political problems flow from economics. The dramatic economic development of the last generation has been ruthlessly geographic. This development has benefited the coast and left the interior—the vast majority of Chinese—behind. It has also left China vulnerable to global economic forces that it cannot control and cannot accommodate. This is not new in Chinese history, but its usual resolution is in regionalism and the weakening of the central government. Deng's gamble is being played out by his successors. He dealt the hand. They have to play it.

The question on the table is whether the economic basis of China is a foundation or a balancing act. If the former, it can last a long time. If the latter, everyone falls down eventually. There appears to be little evidence that it is a foundation. It excludes most of the Chinese from the game, people who are making less than $100 a month. That is a balancing act and it threatens the first geopolitical imperative of China: protecting the unity of the Han Chinese.

A recent Slate article by William Saletan highlights another destabilizing factor in China:  the bitter consequences of the government's one-child policy.  Bizarrely, the author manages to find a postive twist, but he can't change the facts.

Sixteen million girls are missing in China. And now we know what happened to them: They were aborted because they weren't boys.

Worldwide, the number of boys born per 100 girls ranges from 103 to 107. (The numbers later equalize due to higher male mortality.) Among Chinese children born from 1985 to 1989, the number of boys per 100 girls was 108, close to normal. But among those born from 2000 to 2004, the number rose to 124.

[T]he boy-girl ratio escalates radically among children who were born second or third in their respective families.....For third births, the sex ratio rose to over 200 in four provinces.

Two hundred boys for every 100 girls. The number is mind-boggling.

[T]he "one-child" policy [limits] family size but allows exceptions, with variations from province to province, for couples who have only daughters. Essentially, the exceptions give you a second or, in some cases, a third chance to have a son. That's why, as couples approach the family size limit or the exception allotment, the boy-girl ratio goes up. You get the ultrasound, and if the fetus is a girl, you abort it and try again for a son.

The government...has openly expressed concerns about the consequences of large numbers of excess men for societal stability and security....The old problem was too many children. The new problem is too few girls. Without enough girls, the boys become unruly.

Finally, for a less depressing look at China, visit the Virtual Forbidden City.  I haven't downloaded it myself yet, but include it here because I hope to get to it, eventually—and because I know there are those of my readers who will immediately pull out their virtual passports.

The Forbidden City: Beyond Space and Time is a partnership between IBM and the Palace Museum in Beijing, China....[It] is the world's first online virtual world dedicated to a country's cultural heritage. This is presented as a three-dimensional replica of the square-kilometer palace grounds called The Virtual Forbidden City. The project partners' goal was to create an experience that is as authentic as possible by being true to important Chinese principles of balance and harmony.

Rather than being an isolating virtual experience, the Virtual Forbidden City allows visitors to see and interact with each other and with a wide range of volunteers, staff, and automated characters. To welcome the broadest range of visitors, a simple, easy to use interface guides interactions with the Virtual Forbidden City. As they explore the Virtual Forbidden City, visitors can choose to simply observe the buzz of activity, participate in activities that provide insights into important aspects of the Qing dynasty, or even take guided tours that uncover new insights into the stories of the Forbidden City.

The Orlando Opera Company has announced that it will be no more as of May 1.  We join with the Orlando arts community in mourning the loss, but I retain hope.  We lived through the demise, many years ago, of the Florida Symphony Orchestra, and now we have the great Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra in its place.  True, it was a long comeback, and we lost several fine musicians when the FSO closed its doors, but good music is too important to stay down for the count.

Banks are changing, newspapers are changing, and so is the nonprofit arts community....There is an audience for opera in Central Florida. We need to figure out how to serve that audience. It’s an art form that has survived for hundreds of years, and we know it will survive now.

—  Margot Knight, president and CEO of United Arts of Central Florida